Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Morning. The Senate on judiciary will come to order. By the way, thank you to my Republican colleagues. 50% of those present are Republicans. Here. We invite other Members to join us here in room 2100 so that we can form a quorum. The Senate continues to welcome the public for in person and via teleconference participation for individuals wishing to provide public comment today by teleconference.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Today's participant number is 877-226-8216 and the access code is 621-7161 we're holding our Committee hearing today in the O Street building. I ask all Members of the Committee to be present. Come on down to room 2100 so we can establish a quorum. With one more Member. We'll have sufficient number to establish a quorum before we hear today's presentations. As soon as Senator Laird comes back, we will establish a quorum. Let me, though, announce the bills that are on the consent calendar today.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
We have seven items on the consent calendar. File M, number 12, SB 630 by Senator Dodd. Filem. Number 13, SB eight, by Senator Dodd with amendments, file M, number 15, SB 793 by Senator Glazer. File M, number 16, SB 88 by the Senate elections and constitutional amendments Committee. File them. Number 22, SB 722 by Senator Ocho Bog. File number 23, SB 87 by Senator O'cho Bogue.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
File number 27, SB 459 by Senator Rubio with amendments, file M, number 36, SB 303 by Senator Allen with amendments, file M, number 37, SB 824 by Senator Ashby. Let's establish a quorum, Madam Secretary, if you would call the role for purposes of establishing a quorum.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
We have a quorum. All right, you know what? Since we have a quorum, let's go ahead and vote on the consent calendar. Is there a motion on the. So moved. Senator Wilk moves the consent calendar, Madam Secretary, if you call the role on the consent calendar.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, we'll place that on call. And I know those of you in the room heard me say all this a few moments ago, but that was not broadcast. And we have a number of people who are participating and watching the proceedings here remotely. So, I'm going to go over the ground rules again for today. We have a special order of business on SB 403 this morning. Typically, this committee meets at 130 in the afternoon.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
We will have another special order of business on SB 567 set by Senator Durazo at 130 this afternoon for the ground rules for all bills today, unless I announce something is different, is that we'll have two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition. Each witness will have two minutes to speak. In other words, there'll be four minutes for support, four minutes for opposition, split between two witnesses, two minutes each.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
After the primary support and primary opposition witnesses have spoken, then we'll hear from all the witnesses, and we're going to call these the me-too witnesses, in other words, witnesses who wish to approach the microphone that's here in the room. And you'll give us your name. If you are affiliated with an organization, your organization, and whether you support or oppose for the first bill, SB 403, let me repeat that. You'll approach the microphone. You'll give us your name, your affiliation, whether you support or oppose SB 403.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
After we've heard all the witnesses who wish to testify in support and in opposition who are present here in the building, then we'll turn to the phone lines. We'll turn to phone testimony. We'll hear from both support and opposition in phone testimony at the same time; there will be a 15-minute limit on phone testimony. That means that if you are not able to provide your comments within 15 minutes, we'll cut it off now.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
So, same thing on the phone: your name, your affiliation, and whether you support or oppose the bill. If you wish to provide further information, and especially on SB 403, we've gotten quite a bit of information in written form. You are welcome to, and we encourage you to further expound upon your position by submitting a letter to the committee using one of the methods described on the Senate Judiciary Committee's website. All right, so thank you, Members, for appearing at our special session here.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
With special order, we're going to go to SB 403. File item number one. Senator Wahab, the floor is yours.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
Thank you. Chair, senators, staff, and members of the public. It is with a commitment to love, respect, and humanity that I have introduced SB 403 to end caste discrimination. Last year in November, in orientation as a state senator, I asked staff: how can I get started working on an antidiscrimination bill regarding caste? Today, this bill is before you in the form of SB 403. Despite dating back over several thousand years, old caste systems are not widely understood. Yet, we don't need another thousand years to decide to end this form of discrimination. We will decide that today. This is not just a tech issue; this is a human rights issue. Caste discrimination endangers California industries from agriculture, manufacturing, finance, restaurant development, domestic work, medical, legal and tech fields. Caste manifests as housing discrimination, unfair hiring practices, human trafficking, workplace bullying and harassment, gender-based violence, rape, and murder. In fact, I've received threats for my efforts on this bill to end caste discrimination, including death threats.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
There simply is no place in California for this type of discrimination. The famous Cisco case referenced by so many, or the Google case, or the CSU case, or the Berkeley case, or the many other cases that have gone under the radar must not be dismissed. In fact, Cisco, the CSU system, Harvard, Seattle, and the California Democratic Party have adopted explicit language to end caste discrimination. All of you have received thousands of messages regarding this bill.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
We hit a nerve, exposed a form of discrimination that many never even knew existed. The thousands of messages clearly show that there is a problem. In fact, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance, Ashwini K.P., wrote to this body in support of SB 403 to end caste discrimination. Dr. Cornell West has written in fervent support, as well as thousands of others.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
This bill has built a coalition of powerful supporters across so many sectors simply because caste is a civil, racial, gender, workers, women's, and human rights issue. This is why organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, California Labor Federation, NAACP, the Me-Too Movement, Bend the Arc, APALA, Alphabet Workers Union, Stop AAPI Hate, V Day, the South Asian Bar of America, and many more have vocalized their support for SB 403, including Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Jain, and more. SB 403 goes beyond partisanship and polarized divides.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
Now that we are beginning to comprehend the nuances of caste, we have an obligation to remedy the severity of its impact here in California. To me, caste is an invisible shackle placed on people at birth. They have no way to escape this type of bondage. No education, marriage, wealth, years, or even generations will allow them to escape. Those of us who are not raised in the bottom overt caste systems can't possibly know or understand what it does to one's psyche, creating intergenerational trauma that spans centuries.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
Those who are raised in the long shadows of caste systems suffer in silence due to stigma and fear of not being understood. Today is the time for healing and agency. Every step forward in civil rights was met with a resistance for change.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
I stand before you as a proud American, one who believes in, defends, and protects the American dream, where no matter where you're from, what religion you practice, who you love, or what background you have, you are guaranteed to be able to live your full potential here in the United States. The state of California has shown a commitment to inclusion time and time again.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
Today, we see a need to strengthen those commitments and ensure that all people are protected under the law and clarify that discrimination based on caste is unacceptable here in California. That is why I stand here now with the world watching as California once again commits to protecting the most vulnerable and balancing power.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
Much like the nation rallied in 2020 to address the systemic inequities that continue to perpetuate discrimination against black community members, there is a similar reckoning to destroy the wheel of power and privilege perpetuated by caste systems. I want to dispel the false rhetoric by opposition. This bill does not target any specific community. It does not target a specific religion, nor does it create more harm. This bill simply protects people from discrimination and allows people to know they are protected under California law.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
At the end of the day, SB 403 is truly a simple bill because it simply aims to affirm that caste discrimination in California will not be tolerated. Clarifying this as it relates to caste discrimination under our Fair Employment and Housing Opportunity Act and the Unrust Civil Rights Act defines the word caste and follows the civil Rights department's authority for enforcement of these violations that are currently in place.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
Caste discrimination is wrong, and the people experiencing it deserve all the support and protections we offer to the already protected characteristics in our anti-discrimination laws. Finally, the addition of caste will create greater accessibility of resources and sensitivity for victims of domestic abuse and intimate partner violence who are also subjected to caste discrimination. This is what the Golden State stands for, and I urge you all not to feel pressured by opposition but instead feel proud of the domino effect.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
You start around the world where other jurisdictions will follow our brave stand against caste discrimination. I have with me two witnesses, one is Thenmozhi Soundararajan of Equality Labs, who is a Dalit woman whose people were formerly known as the "untouchables," so you can hear her lived experience.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
I also have Anne Ravel, one of the brightest legal minds in the country, an adjunct professor at UC Berkeley and former deputy assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice in the Obama Administration, who will explain the legal needs for this bill to pass. Chair, whenever you're ready.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, let's have the first witness in support of SB 403. Ms. Ravel.
- Ann Ravel
Person
Thank you very much for having me here today.
- Ann Ravel
Person
Mr. Chair and the rest of the committee, I also, in addition, over here. Sorry, I feel like I'm in jail. I also, in addition to what the Senator has said, work in human rights and electoral issues throughout the Americas. And for that reason, I see this bill and the movement and caste discrimination as an important civil rights issue. And so I unequivocally support the bill. We know there have been a lot of cases that have been reported that are credible cases of caste discrimination in California.
- Ann Ravel
Person
And in fact, after the Cisco case, a number of women who were engineers in various tech industries, and I live in the South Bay, wrote to the Washington Post about their experiences of caste discrimination. So, section SB 403 uses the same rights and rational approach that we have in California to fight discrimination that California has taken over the years to protect all minorities. As this Committee is aware, there are 18 classes that are protected in California law.
- Ann Ravel
Person
18, indicating the importance and the need for a clear identification of protected classes to be enshrined in antidiscrimination law. And until caste is explicitly added as a protected class, it will be very difficult for those who have been harmed to be able to have a remedy for discrimination. And I know I don't have too much time, but as the Senator has indicated, this bill is not discriminatory against any individuals. In fact, only the perpetrators.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Ann Ravel
Person
Will be held accountable.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, next witness.
- Thenmozhi Soundararajan
Person
Thank you, esteemed members of the Committee, for having me here today. My name is Thenmozhi Soundararajan, and I'm Executive Director of Equality Labs, an Dalit civil rights organization. I also stand here as a Board Member of the Me-Too movement and a proud founder of the Californians for Caste Equity Coalition. I also stand here as a survivor of caste-based violence. On behalf of my community and allies, I have one message today.
- Thenmozhi Soundararajan
Person
Caste-oppressed Californians are here, and we deserve workplaces and educational institutions free from violence. California is ground zero for caste inequality. And this, Sacramento, is our Birmingham. In our quest for freedom, our research has found that one in four caste-oppressed people face physical and verbal assault, one in three educational discrimination, and two out of three workplace discrimination. And our data is backed by numerous testimonies that we have now gathered across the state from workers of every industry.
- Thenmozhi Soundararajan
Person
We have talked to farm workers, truck drivers, caregivers, small business owners, doctors, nurses, lawyers, each with their own story of heartbreak, and each with their determination to be free from caste. And so we are here, Caste-oppressed Californians who came as far away as San Diego to Shasta County to speak for those who could not today.
- Thenmozhi Soundararajan
Person
And so we say, we are here for those employees who have raised their concerns to HR, to companies like Cisco and Google that refused to take our complaints because they said caste was not a protected category. We are also here to speak for our children who want to live free from caste. And we are also here to speak for ourselves because we want a future where we are all free together. And that in order for us to heal from caste, we must remedy its discrimination.
- Thenmozhi Soundararajan
Person
And that's why we ask for you to stand with us, to make history with us, to stand with our ancestors.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. If you could wrap it up. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. All right, now let's hear from the opposition. Two minutes each. Is there a primary witness in opposition to SB 403? Go ahead, sir.
- Sandeep Dedge
Person
Honorable judiciary Members, I'm Sandeep. I represent the Ambedkar-Phule Network of American Dalits and Bahujans. California's 51C3, Dalits and Bahujans, the very underprivileged people that Senator Wahab and her supporters claim to represent, but they don't. We strongly oppose SB 403. For you, honorable senators, it may be just another bill: for my Indian American communities, including Dalits, this bill is a weapon to butcher our cultural existence.
- Sandeep Dedge
Person
Senator Wahab and her supporters just made ugly, unsubstantiated claims about harassment, discrimination, and violations in our communities. Some of these are the same groups that had asked the CDE to remove Dalit contributions from California's textbooks. Thankfully, CDE did not fall prey. You must not either. These same groups have attempted caste bills at several places. The intent is fixed. Deny our cultural existence. But language keeps changing. No wonder Senator Wahab just changed the very definition of the caste just last week.
- Sandeep Dedge
Person
Caste is a moving target and a racist category that you are being asked to institutionalize. They submitted data from the UN on India as evidence but conveniently ignored the data on US that is telling that such discrimination is exceedingly rare. If it happens, current laws protect us. But the bill and yesterday's analysis by the council rather hinges on fraudulent reports and unproven lawsuit. The council's analysis makes insulting assumptions that my community is full of caste oppressors and we are too stupid to understand this bill.
- Sandeep Dedge
Person
What we will do, remember, this is very important: majority of Dalits and Bahujans are Hindus. But Senator Wahab had her love of humanity basically forgotten, and she did not reach out to us. Before framing the bill, we have 500,000 Californian Hindu Americans here. Lastly, the claiming that South Americans, Africans and Asian communities have the caste system makes blacks and brown immigrants targets for the hate and ignores their colonial trauma. We strongly condemn that. The bill claims to save it, but actually it harms us. Please vote no on this bill and any bill that has word caste.
- Sandeep Dedge
Person
Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, next, just a reminder that your comments are directed to the committee, not to the author. All right, thank you.
- Rocky Shrani
Person
Good morning. My name is Rocky Shrani. I'm an attorney, South Asian Californian. I'm here to testify in opposition of SB 403. Our community condemns all forms of discrimination. So the question we've put before this committee is not whether we address allegations of caste, but rather how we do so. SB 403 is an unconstitutional denial of my community's rights, fairness, and equal protection under the law. If this bill is adopted, caste will be the only discrimination law category that is not facially neutral.
- Rocky Shrani
Person
Everyone has a race, everyone has a color, and everyone has an age. Not everyone has a caste. This bill is facially discriminatory. Its enforcement of such a law would necessarily be plagued with suspicion, presumptions of guilt, intrusive questions about the ancestry of our partners, and more, all in violation of our rights to equal protection, due process, and the very laws this bill seeks to amend.
- Rocky Shrani
Person
Contrary to what the legislative analysis released yesterday says, the language of the bill actually attempts to define caste, among other things, as social restrictions on marriage. In other words, how you marry or who you marry is determinative of your caste. That's bigotry. Finally, the legislative analysis also incorrectly states that unreported claims of caste discrimination means that the law needs to be clarified through statute. But this still doesn't just clarify; it creates an entirely new legal category that only applies to people of color.
- Rocky Shrani
Person
Instead, that clarification can be achieved through guidance from the Civil Rights Department and more resources to educate people about their rights. The legislative analysis, as well as the bill, agree that existing law already bars caste discrimination. And we know that the state has already litigated claims of caste discrimination under ancestry in its case against Cisco.
- Rocky Shrani
Person
This law will cause way more problems than it may possibly solve by singling out an entire community, by stigmatizing the children of our community, and by harming our educational and employment opportunities. As South Asians, we have a right to live happily and peacefully, as does every citizen of this state. There are so many much better ways to solve any problems of caste discrimination than this bill. Please vote no on SB 403. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Thank you. All right, next, we're going to hear from those who support and oppose SB 403. I'm going to ask those who wish to provide testimony to approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, and whether you support or oppose SB 403. So, if you care to provide that testimony, now is the time to line up at the microphone. Go ahead. Whoever wishes to go first, please approach the microphone. Go ahead.
- Priya Deep
Person
My name is Priya Deep from Fresno. I support yes. SB 403.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. My name is Millind from San Jose. I'm a Dalit Bahujan, and I oppose SB 403.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right. The first two that provided me to testimony. That's exactly how the exact appropriate approach. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Ujwala. I'm a Dalit from California, Cupertino, California, and oppose the bill. I vote no for SB 403.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thanks. My name is Reyno. I'm from Bakersfield, California. I support yes for SB 403. Thank you.
- Nirmal Singh
Person
Thank you. My name is Nirmal Singh. I'm from Bakersfield. I strongly support SB 403. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Roche Bala
Person
My name is Roche Bala. I present myself. I strongly want you guys to vote no on SB 403. It's discriminatory.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Thank you.
- Ritesh Boleteria
Person
My name is Ritesh Boleteria from Santa Clara, California. I strongly oppose SB 403. Thank you.
- Nachiket Akunger
Person
Hello, everyone. My name is Nachiket Akunger. I'm from Santa Clara, California. I strongly oppose this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Vishwajit. I'm a Dalit myself. I vote no for the bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Prasad Kandar
Person
Hello. This is Prasad Kandar. I'm from Hayward, California. I strongly oppose this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Rino Nyer
Person
Hello. My name is Rino Nyer. I'm from Fremont, California, and I strongly oppose SB 403.
- Abir Amanda
Person
Hello. My name is Abir Amanda. I strongly oppose 403.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Rishi Nair
Person
Hello. My name is Rishi Nair. I'm from Fremont, and I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good morning. My name is Basqebetti. I am from Balsam, California. Oppose this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Vandana Sharma
Person
My name is Vandana Sharma. I am from Sacramento, and I'm opposing this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Anu Mohan
Person
Good morning. I'm Anu Mohan. I'm from Bakersfield, and I oppose SB 403. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Sanjeev Sherma
Person
Hi. Sanjeev Sherma. I'm opposing this bill. I'm from San Jose.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Pranja Lidani
Person
Hello. My name is Pranja Lidani. I'm also a human rights commissioner in Santa Clara County, and I oppose this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Anita Kumari
Person
I'm Anita Kumari from San Jose, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Haren Raman
Person
Hi. I'm Haren Shankar Raman. I represent myself. I strongly oppose SB 403, and urge the representatives also to vote no for this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Lakhdhir, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Joseph Gaikwad
Person
Good morning. Joseph Giakwad. I'm from Dalit Panther, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good morning. I'm Ashwini. I'm a workplace investigator, and I strongly oppose this bill, SB 403.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello. My name is Ankita. I'm from San Jose, and I strongly oppose this SB 403.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Lalita Perron
Person
Good morning. I'm Lalita du Perron. I'm from Sunnyvale. I work at but do not represent the Center for South Asia at Stanford, and I am strongly in favor of SB 403. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm Ramadri. I'm yes for what--number SB 403.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Kulwant Kaur
Person
Hi. I'm Kulwant Kaur from Concord, California. I strongly support this bill, SB 403.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Kamalji Kaur
Person
Hi. My name is Kamalji Kaur, and I support SB 403 strongly.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. My name is Mita, and I'm a concerned Hindu American, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- Vijay Paul
Person
I am Vijay Paul from Fairfield, Solano County. I support this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello. My name is Esrendekork. I support SB 403. Yes.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Rasa Singhbars
Person
Good morning. I am Rasa Singhbars. I support this bill. Vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Rasa Singhbars
Person
Yes.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My number was Balito. I support. Yes.
- Sia Singh
Person
Hello. My name is Sia Singh. I'm a ninth grader at Fremont, California school, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- Rampal Faprijimo
Person
Hi. My name is Rampal Faprijimo. I support this bill. Yes.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Myself. [Foreign language]. I support this bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name Sorrely from Bakersfield. I support this bill, SB. Yes.
- Rahman Momi
Person
Good morning. My name is Rahman Moni from Bakersfield, California, and I strongly support SB 403. Thank you.
- Haren Desai
Person
Haren Desai, Santa Clara. I'm a startup entrepreneur. I oppose this bill. Please vote no.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good morning. I'm Vadiraj from San Ramon. I strongly oppose this bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello. My name is Venkat. I'm from Mountain House, California. I strongly oppose this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, if there's anyone else? Okay.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. My name is in Betia. I support this bill. Thank you.
- Rajendra Gangar
Person
I'm Rajendra Gangar from Selma, California. I support this SB 403.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Santos Sanghi
Person
Mr. Santos Sanghi, Selma, California.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Rajendra Momi
Person
Hi. I'm Rajendra Momi from Bakersfield, Kern County. I strongly support SB 403.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Rajendra Momi
Person
Thank you.
- Amar Daroch
Person
Good morning. Myself, Amar Daroch. President Guru Ravidass Temple, Fresno. I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Vinod Kumar
Person
Good morning. My name is Vinod Kumar. I'm President of Pittsburg Gurukar. I support this bill 403.
- Mandeep Rai
Person
Good morning. My name is Mandeep Rai. I support this bill. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good morning. My name is Haryompal. I support this bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good morning. My name is Satpal, and I'm from Contra Costa County, and I support for this bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good morning. My name is Laipatrai. Yes. Support 403.
- Hardio Singh
Person
My name is Hardio Singh. I support this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Lakhan Singh
Person
Hi. My name is Lakhan Singh from Sikh Guru Ravidass Temple, Selma, California, and I support this bill. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Raj Guru
Person
Good morning, respective Committee. My name is Raj Guru, and you can call me a caste system. I'm at untouchable. I'm just to request you guys.
- Raj Guru
Person
Our coming generation. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much. And you support or oppose? All right.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Gyanchand. I support SB 403.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. My name is Petipal Memory. I support this bill, SB 403.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. My name is Shweta, and I'm here from Pleasanton, and I strongly oppose SB 403. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. My name is Praveen from Santa Clara. I strongly, strongly oppose this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
[Foreign Language].
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. I see you support the bill. Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Sindabegar, and I vote yes. I support. Yes.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Ma'am.
- Sinder Kaur
Person
My name Sinder Kaur. I support. Yes. I support. Yes.
- Sinder Kaur
Person
And my name is Sinder Kaur. I support. Yes.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Thanks.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Kaurbunger. Support. Yes.
- Promila Dhanuka
Person
Hi. I'm Promila Dhanuka, MD, oncologist. I'm representing United Way, Northern California, a long affair, and I support this bill strongly. Please vote for it.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Prajwal Thule
Person
My name is Prajwal Thule. I'm from South San Francisco, and I strongly support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Let me just interrupt for a second. Thank you, Senator. I'm going to ask Senator Laird to chair the Committee. You'll notice that there are Members here who have to be in other Committees, including me. So throughout the day, there'll be folks coming and going. Thank you, Senator Laird, for assuming the responsibility here for a while. All right.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you. And just for the record, we want to get everybody in that is outside to do this. We want to make sure we hear from everybody. And if you even take a second longer, you're pushing somebody else out. So as efficiently as you can say your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose. Welcome to the microphone, sir.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
So I'm Belvitan from New York, and I'm the General Secretary of Dr. Ambedkar Education Society. I strongly support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Steve Badam
Person
Steve Singh Badam from Congress. I support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Rushali Raut
Person
Hello. This is Rushali Raut from Cupertino. I'm a proud American. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. You have to be picked up by the microphone here to be on the record.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Name's Rupal, and Santa Clara County. No to SB 403, but I am seeing these two posters here.
- John Laird
Legislator
It's fine. You were just on camera with your poster. Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Myself is Meenakshi from Fremont, California. I am strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Srinivasa Sundaram
Person
I'm Srinivasa Sundaram from El Dorado Hills, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Jogaraj Gadu. I support this bill, SB 403. Thank you. Yes.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Satnam Singh
Person
I am Satnam Singh from Fresno. I strongly support this bill. Yes, thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. My name is Sukriti. I'm a sixth grader at Harvest Park, Pleasanton. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Sanjeevani Derge
Person
I'm Sanjeevani Derge, a ninth grader at Leigh High School in San Jose, and I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Archana Panda
Person
My name is Archana Panda, and I'm the founder of project manager of Myson Spriti, my heritage. To all the jury, I appeal before it's too late. Please do not.
- John Laird
Legislator
I'm sorry. We get that you oppose it. Thank you very much. Next speaker.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello. My name is Pranita, and I'm a senior at California High School, and I strongly oppose SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Abhi Mahajan
Person
Good morning. My name is Abhi Mahajan, and I'm a sophomore at St. Francis High School, Mountain View, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Lavita Dehr
Person
Good morning. My name is Lavita Dehr. I'm a junior at Wilcox High School, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Rakshit Ashdakar
Person
My name is Rakshit Ashdakar. I am from Livermore, California. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Jignesh Borisa
Person
My name is Jignesh Borisa. I am a Dalit, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good morning. My name is Ajay. I'm from Fremont, California. I strongly oppose SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Shashi Raj
Person
Good morning. My name is Shashi Raj. I'm from Hayward, California, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good morning. My name is Pritam. I'm from San Jose, California, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good morning. My name is Aditya. I'm from Foster City, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Deepan Dab
Person
Good morning. My name is Deepan Dab. I am from underprivileged class in northeastern India, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Satish Mahajan
Person
Good morning, sir. My name is Satish Mahajan. I am from San Jose, California. I'm underprivileged, backward community person. I oppose this bill of Wahab. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Amit. I'm from Fremont. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Anuj Kumar
Person
I am Anuj Kumar from San Jose. I oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Mushka. I oppose this bill. I am from San Jose.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. My name is Anit. I'm from San Jose. I oppose this.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello. My name is Abur, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you for coming to our hearing.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Pragati, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. My name is Mortay. Vote yes.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Namanjit Kaur
Person
Namanjit Kaur, my support. Yes.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Akash Deep
Person
Hi. My name is Akash Deep. I support this bill, 403. Yes.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Respected all Members, my name is Karan. I'm from San Antonio. I strongly support SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good morning. My name is Lambertin coming from Sonora, California. I support SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Ramasa from Fresno. I strongly support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Sutja Singh
Person
My name is Sutja Singh from Fresno. I support the bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Rahul Powar
Person
Hello. My name is Rahul Powar. I'm from Sunnyvale, California, and I support this bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello everyone. My name is Anu. I am from Fremont, California, and I am strongly saying no to this SB 403. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm Siddhan from California. Resident. I strongly support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Ranaji Joshi
Person
Good morning. I'm Dr. Ranaji Joshi. I oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I am Roshangar, President of Caroline News of Northern California. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good morning. My name is Dharampal. I strongly support this bill. Yes for this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. Appreciate you being here.
- Opi Bahli
Person
My name is Opi Bahli. I am from Ambedkar Mission, California. I strongly say in favor of this 401.
- Opi Bahli
Person
Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Nitya. I'm from Palo Alto. I'm with America Against Caste Discrimination, and I support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good morning. My name is Nathan from Dublin, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Ganen Darana
Person
Good morning. Ganen Darana, part of Americans for Equality. I strongly, strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Pawan from San Ramon. I'm representing my family. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Pavi Sahota
Person
My name is Pavi Sahota. I'm a president of Rangreta Civil Association from Bakersfield, California. Strongly. I say yes. Thank you, sir.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Dashvender Paul
Person
My name is Dashvender Paul, and I'm the chairman of International Bhajan Agriculture in California, and been oppressed more than 5,000 years so I want to emulate the caste and strongly support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. My name is Sue. I'm from Pittsburgh, California. I'm part of the Pittsburgh Guru Ravidass Temple and International Pojan organization. I totally agree with this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. My name is Madhu from San Francisco. I'm a part of America Against Caste Discrimination. I strongly support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Nivedita Koche
Person
Hi. My name is Nivedita Koche, and I strongly oppose this bill with my family.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Aruna Paluri
Person
Hi. I'm Aruna Paluri. Tracy, California. I oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello. I'm Snehal from Cupertino. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Dakshata Talekar
Person
Hi. I'm Dakshata Talekar from San Jose, California. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Sri Sudha
Person
Hi. I'm Sri Sudha from San Ramon. I strongly oppose this bill for my family and future. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Geeta Sikand
Person
Hi. I'm Geeta Sikand from Irvine, California, and I strongly oppose this bill for my family of five.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Nila Vajra-Mushti
Person
Hello. I'm Nila Vajra-Mushti to California. Aliso Viejo, Orange County. No to SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm Ono Wilyam from Aliso Viejo, California, Orange County. I say no to SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. We appreciate you being here.
- Vidula Vajramushti
Person
My name is Vidula Vajramushti. I'm from Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California. I strongly oppose SB 403 on behalf of my family of six. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Amir Mirarte
Person
Hello. My name is Amir Mirarte, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Munish Kumar
Person
Good morning. My name is Munish Kumar. I support. Yes. SB 403. Yes.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Ishna Datusoya, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Shreya Deshpande
Person
My name is Shreya Deshpande, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Vanti Sharma
Person
My name is Vanti Sharma. I am from Roseville, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Smriti Deshpande
Person
My name is Smriti Deshpande. I'm from Roseville, California, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Prayna Kumari
Person
Hi. My name is Prayna Kumari. I am from Roseville, and I strongly say no to SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Manyai Yanamandra
Person
Hi. My name is Manyai Yanamandra, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Moran Bether
Person
My name is Moran Bether, and I strongly oppose SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Rohit Misha
Person
Hi. My name is Rohit Misha. I'm from Folsom, California, and I strongly oppose the bill, SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Nihar Gitardiparte
Person
Hi. My name is Nihar Gitardiparte. I'm from Folsom, California, and I strongly oppose the bill, SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Venkata Maramreddy
Person
Hi. My name is Venkata Manish Maramreddy. I'm from Roosevelt. I strongly oppose this bill, SB 403. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Avni Pat
Person
Hello. My name is Avni Pat, and I strongly oppose SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Inshira Chimangalo
Person
Hi. My name is Inshira Chimangalo. I'm from San Jose, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Yagnik Makwana
Person
Hello. My name is Yagnik Makwana. I am from San Jose, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Venkat Nagaram
Person
Hi. My name is Venkat Nagaram. Folsom, California. I oppose SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Ritu Maheshwari
Person
Hi. I'm Ritu Maheshwari. I'm from Fremont. I strongly oppose SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Shilpa from Fremont. I strongly oppose SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Armand Feliciano
Person
Good morning. Armand Feliciano, on behalf of the Asian Law Caucus, in support of SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Shubhangi Domokos
Person
Mr. Chair and Members, Shubhangi Domokos, on behalf of the California Labor Federation, in strong support.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Megan Abell
Person
Hello. Megan Abell with Tech Equity Collaborative, proud to be cosponsors, in strong support.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Venkata Trapezir
Person
Good morning. My name is Venkata Trapezer. I'm from San Ramon Telugu Association. I strongly oppose it.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I am Surya. I'm from California. I strongly oppose this bill. Please vote no.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Sudha Jugannathan
Person
I am Sudha Jagannathan. I'm a Bahujan, Hindu. I am on the board of Coalition of Hindus of North America, and I strongly oppose and ask you to please vote no on 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Maya Kamari
Person
Hello. I'm Maya Kamari. I'm representing Ambedkar Association of North America, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Kiran Sharma
Person
Hi. I'm Kiran Sharma. I strongly oppose this bill. Please. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Purnima. I'm representing my family of six. I'm from Pleasanton, California. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Ashwini from Fremont, California. I strongly oppose the SB 403 bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. My name is Ankur. I'm from El Pueblo, Santa Clara, California. I strongly oppose the discriminatory bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Manoj. I'm from Folsom, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Lakshmi Rao
Person
My name is Lakshmi Rao. Roseville resident for more than 25 years. I strongly say no to SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Narayana Yanamandra
Person
Hi. My name is Narayana Yanamandra. I am resident of Roseville. I strongly oppose this bill. Say no to this.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Praveen Lingam
Person
Namaste. My name is Praveen Lingam. I am a resident of Folsom, California. I say no to this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Mukthika Ananda
Person
Hello. My name is Mukthika Ananda. I am from Kailasa, Los Angeles. Nithyanandeshwara Hindu Temple in Montclair. I strongly oppose and vote no to this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Suhas Surendran
Person
Hello. My name is Suhas Surendran. I'm from Kailasa Los Angeles Hindu Temple, and I oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Gauri Bharatendra
Person
Hello. I'm Gauri Bharatendra. I'm from Kailasa, Los Angeles, Nithyanandeshwara Temple. I'm against this bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Kriti and I am--I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Shreta. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Samanu. I'm a rising freshman from Pleasanton, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Karina Chada
Person
My name is Karina Chada, and I'm from the Billy DeFrank Center in San Jose, and I am strongly in favor of this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Krishna Kanta
Person
My name is Krishna Kanta. I am an entrepreneur. I strongly oppose the bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Rusha Sane
Person
I'm Rucha Sane from Santa Clara County. I'm a scientist. I strongly oppose this insensitive bill. Please take us seriously.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Bhairavi Khandekar
Person
Good morning. My name is Bhairavi Khandekar, and I strongly oppose this bill. I am a health care worker in Santa Clara, California.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Nirupama Chebiyam
Person
Good morning to each one of you. Thank you for giving us this opportunity. My name is Nirupama Chebiyam. I'm a humanitarian. I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you so much.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Manu Khar
Person
Hi. My name is Manu Khar. I'm from the Billy DeFrank LGBTQ Center in San Jose, and I strongly support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Sujata Joshi
Person
Hi. Good morning. My name is Sujata Joshi. I'm from San Jose. I strongly, strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Sandeep Gangaden
Person
Hi. My name is Sandeep Gangaden. I'm from Roseville, California. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Girish. I am a Dalit Hindu, and I strongly oppose this bill, and I request humbly to vote no to this, please.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Jagannatha Venkatesha
Person
Hello. I'm Jagannatha Venkatesha, a Saurashtra speaking Hindu American here, and I strongly oppose this bill and say no to this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello. Good morning. My name is Bhargavi. I'm from San Ramon. I oppose the bill. Please. No.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you for being here.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm a concerned Indian American living in San Ramon. I strongly oppose this bill. Say no.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Satish, underprivileged from Santa Clara, working as the Chief Advisory Committee for Santa Clara Police Department. I strongly oppose unconstitutional bill, SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello. I am Webo Singho, Hindu American from San Jose, California. I strongly oppose this SB 403 bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. My name is Namantiagi. I'm from Fremont, California, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you for being here.
- Manisha Bhartak
Person
Hi. My name is Manisha Bhartak. I'm from Fremont, California. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Gamaldi Srila
Person
Good morning. My name is Gamaldi Srila, and I'm from Pittsburgh, California, member of Sri Guru Ravidass and IBO, and I strongly support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Amit Kumar
Person
Hello. My name is Amit Kumar, and I live in from Fresno. I say yes for this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Kamaljit Singh
Person
Hello. My name is Kamaljit Singh, and I am from Fresno, and I am in favor of this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Kamaljit Singh
Person
Thank you.
- Raji Kumar
Person
My name is Raji Kumar. I am from Fresno. I strongly support the bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Salim. I support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
California. Support. Yes.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Baljinder Singh
Person
I am Baljinder Singh from Bay Area. I am strongly support SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. My name is Indian. I'm a queer law student from Los Angeles, and I support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Kamal Depale
Person
My name is Kamal Depale. I am from Pittsburgh. I support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Andhra Pale
Person
My name Andhra Pale. I come in the Fremont. I can vote yes this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Deep Singh
Person
Deep Singh from Fremont. I strongly support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Kamaldev from Fremont. I strongly support this bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good morning, sir. My name is Harmesh, and I'm from Fremont. I come here to support this bill. I strongly support this bill, SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Rima Naira
Person
Morning. My name is Rima Naira. I'm a financial advisor, and I very strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Paramjit Kaur
Person
Hi. My name is Paramjit Kaur. I'm from Bay Area. I'm strongly, strongly supporting this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Paramjit Kaur
Person
Hello. My name is Paramjit Kaur. I'm from Fremont. I strongly support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello. Very good morning. This is Sriram from Santa Clara. I strongly oppose this bill. This is clear Hindu phobia.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Kamaljit Singh
Person
Good morning all. I'm Kamaljit Singh from San Jose. Vote yes and support this bill very strongly. Thank you very much.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Ashok Kumar
Person
Hi. Good morning. This is Ashok Kumar from San Jose. I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Kaur. Yes.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Bowen Kumar
Person
Hi. My name is Bowen Kumar. I'm from Sacramento. I strongly say yes for this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I am Mehul. I'm Santa Clara County resident. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Rakesh Pathak
Person
Rakesh Pathak from San Jose. I oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Sawan Singh
Person
My name is Sawan Singh from Bay Area. I support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello, everyone. I'm Karthik. I am with America Against Caste Discrimination. I support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Samhita Das
Person
Hello. My name is Samhita Das. I belong to Odia Community, Bay Area, and I strongly oppose the bill. Say no to the SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Susanta Das
Person
Good morning. I am Susanta Das from San Jose, California. I strongly oppose this discriminatory bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello. This is Sachin from Santa Clara. I strongly, strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Bala from Palo Alto. I represent America Against Caste Discrimination. I strongly support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good morning. This is Ajay from Sunnyvale. I strongly oppose this bill because it's not based on facts.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Vani Stinner
Person
Hello. I'm Vani Stinner from Elk Grove, and I strongly say no to SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello. I'm Andrak from Elk Grove. I'm strongly against this discriminatory bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Chandran Ayak
Person
I'm Chandran Ayak from Fremont, California. I oppose this bill because it's discriminatory.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Pradeep Misha
Person
Hello. This is Pradeep Mishra, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Ganapati from Sunnyvale. I represent Americans Against Caste Discrimination. I support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Naresh Kumar
Person
Hello. My name is Naresh Kumar. I strongly support this bill, SB 403. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. My name is Rupatri. I strongly support this bill. God, this is good for everyone. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Rohit Prakash
Person
Hi. This is Rohit Prakash. I'm from Rocklin, California, and I strongly oppose this discriminatory bill from our Hindu American community.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Arya Prakash
Person
Hi. My name is Arya Prakash. I am from Rocklin Elementary, and I do not support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Namashkar Suata
Person
Namashkar Suata from Rocklin. I strongly oppose the bill, SB 403. Dhanavad.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Karthikeyan Shanahan
Person
Good morning. My name is Karthikeyan Shanahan from Pleasanton, California, representing America Against Caste Discrimination. I support SB 403. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you for being here.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm Sigar from Mountain View. I support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good morning. My name is Loliduga. I'm from Sacramento, California. I support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Harbhajan Singh
Person
I am Harbhajan Singh. I am from Fremont. I support this bill strongly.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Sanjay Goyal
Person
I'm Sanjay Goyal from Roseville, California. I oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you for being here.
- Satya Padhan
Person
Hi. I'm Satya Pradhan from Hayward, California. I strongly oppose this bill because of its discriminatory nature.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Mahadesha Swamy
Person
Hello. I'm Mahadesha Swamy from Mountain House, California. I strongly oppose this bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Raghendra from Mountain House. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Vaishnavi, studying in Thornton Junior High. I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Arjuna. I'm from Fremont. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Anjani from Fremont. I strongly, strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Krishna. I'm from Tracy. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Jason Kurt
Person
You Honor, Sir, myself Jason Kurt. I am from Dublin. I dropped Dublin 94568. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Sandeep Desai
Person
My name is Sandeep Desai from Fremont, California. I strongly, strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Purima. I'm from Roosevelt. I'm strongly opposed this SB 403. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Prabhakar Maramreddy
Person
Namaste, everyone. My name is Prabhakar Maramreddy. I am proud Hindu of this universe. I love all of you. I strongly oppose this SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Isha Adamani
Person
Hi. My name is Isha David Adamani. I'm from Roosevelt. I'm a small spec in the universe. I strongly oppose this bill with liberty and justice for all.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Gan Suman
Person
Hi. My name is Gan Suman, and I support SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Ramya Tathacharya
Person
I'm Ramya Tathacharya. I'm from Pleasant Hill, and I'm a proud Hindu millennial survivor of a millennium of oppression, and I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Vivek Walvekar
Person
Hello. My name is Vivek Walvekar. I'm from Morgan Hill, California. I'm representing a Marathi language philosophy group. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Ashwin Arab
Person
Namaste, everyone. My name is Ashwin Arab. I'm from Sacramento, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Noresh Chamath
Person
My name is Noresh Chamath. I'm from Antika, California, and I'm in favor of this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Noresh Chamath
Person
Thank you.
- Jab Sunda
Person
Hello. My name is Jab Singh Sunda. I'm from Manteca, California. I'm in support of this.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Rendra Chandra
Person
My name is Rendra Chandra from California. Sacramento. Vote for yes. SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. Good morning, everyone. My name is Rakesh from Sacramento. I strongly support SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. My name is Simar. I'm strongly vote yes.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Kanta Soni
Person
Hi. My name is Kanta Soni. I'm from Newburg, California. I strongly approach yes on SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Lindus Soni
Person
Lindus Soni. California. Strongly yes for SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Madhura Gorkal
Person
Hi. I'm Madhura Gorkal. I'm from Dublin, California, and I strongly say no.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Vargo Pisolkar
Person
Namaste, everyone. I am Vargo Pisolkar from Sacramento, and I say strongly no to the SB 403. I represent the Hindu community.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Madhukar Puri
Person
Good morning. I am Madhukar Puri. I am from Dublin, and I strongly oppose this SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Ramesh Suman
Person
Good morning. My name is Ramesh Suman. I'm a past president of Sri Gura Das Sabah, also a retired banker. I strongly support this bill. With the crowd today, you can tell why it's needed. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Linda Singh
Person
Good morning, sir. My name is Linda Singh. I support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Hamish Bengal
Person
My name is Hamish Bengal. I'm from Dublin, Alameda County. I strongly support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Rajendra Rajoria
Person
I'm Rajendra Rajoria from Concord, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you for being here.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you.
- Ankit Bansal
Person
Hi. My name is Ankit Bansal. I'm from Brentwood, California. I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Deepak Kumar
Person
Namaste. I'm Deepak Kumar from Brentwood, California. I strongly oppose the bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Prem Chumbar
Person
Hi. My name is Prem Chumbar. I am from Aryan Brotherhood, USA. I'm convener. I strongly support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. This is Narendra. I'm strongly support. Yes.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you for being here.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Respective panel, I'm Dharmendra. Fremont. I work as a social worker in Fremont area. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Baljeet Singh
Person
Hi, my name is Baljeet Singh. I am member of Executive Committee of Shri Guru Ravidas, temporary Olinda, and a federal employee. I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Herbala Singh
Person
I am Herbala Singh. My vote. Yes.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Amarkar. Vote yes.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Ship Sidu
Person
Good morning. My name is Ship Sidu. I'm from Fremont. I'm strongly, fully supporting this bill, SB 403. Yes.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Shashi Paul
Person
I'm Shashi Paul, U.S. citizen, President of Indian Care Association from Fairfield. I strongly say yes on this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Sri Lalita
Person
Hi. My name is Sri Lalita. I am from Mountain House, and I strongly oppose this bill. No to SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Rakesh Dubai
Person
Namaste everybody. My name is Rakesh Dubai. I am from San Bruno. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Rakesh Dubai
Person
Thank you.
- Dilip Amin
Person
Dr. Dilip Amin. President of Hindu Speakers Bureau, President of Interfaith Shaadi. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Namaste everyone. My name is Shaniki. I'm from California by Mountain House. I strongly support no.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Bindu Bhandari
Person
My name is Bindu Bhandari. I am from Livermore. I strongly oppose SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Mayura Kulkarni
Person
Namaste. My name is Mayura Kulkarni. I am from Brentwood, California. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Harsh. I'm from Fremont, California, and I think SB 403 is unconstitutional. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Dr. Pradhumna from Sunnyvale. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Arvind Singh
Person
I'm Arvind Singh from Fremont, California. I say no to racial profiling, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Sakit Kumar
Person
Hi. I'm Sakit Kumar from Fremont, California, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Lavanya, and strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Kati Pari
Person
Hi. I'm Kati Pari from Pleasanton, California, and I strongly oppose SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Disha. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Rupal from Fremont. I strongly oppose this SB 403 bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Sunita from Mountain House. I strongly oppose SB 403 bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Shilpa Veldanda
Person
Hi. I'm Shilpa Veldanda from Mountain House, California. I strongly oppose the bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Basavaraj Swamy
Person
Hi. My name is Basavaraj Swamy from Tracy, California. I strongly oppose. Say no to 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello. I'm Suhasini from Fremont, California. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Anika Pathak
Person
Hi. My name is Anika Pathak, and I'm from Milpitas. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you for being here.
- Kranti Pathak
Person
Hello. My name is Kranti Pathak. I'm from Milpitas. I strongly, strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Vandana Pathak
Person
Namaste. I'm Vandana Pathak from San Jose. I very strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Venkat Nagarajan
Person
My name is Venkat Nagarajan. I'm from Redwood City, California. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Saroj Ram
Person
My name is Saroj Ram. I'm from Fremont. I am strongly opposed to this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello. My name is Alkatripathi. I am from Mountain House, California. Strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you.
- Gaurang Visai
Person
My name is Gaurang Visai. I'm from Fremont. I vehemently oppose this discriminatory and redundant bill, SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Mahantesh from San Jose. I strongly oppose this discriminatory bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Gautam Khandelwal
Person
Hi. My name is Gautam Khandelwal. I'm a proud Californian living in Tracy, and I strongly oppose this haunting bill, SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Rajiv Panayan
Person
Hi. My name is Rajiv Panayan. I'm from Mountain House. On behalf of me and my family, I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Venugopal Acharya
Person
Hi. My name is Venugopal Acharya from Folsom, California. I'm representing Annapoorna USA Foundation. I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Kanchan Wa
Person
Hi. My name is Kanchan Wa. I'm from Fremont and I strongly oppose this bill, even though I am oppressed caste.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Neeraj Kashalker
Person
Hello. Neeraj Kashalkar. I represent United Indian of Orange County. I'm from Irvine, Orange County. I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Padma Peniru
Person
Hi. I'm Padma Peniru. I'm a proud American citizen, proud parent, educator. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Rakesh Desai
Person
Hi. I'm Rakesh Desai from San Jose, and I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Viral Sura
Person
Hi. I'm Viral Sura. I'm a U.S. citizen from San Jose, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Pranav Parikh
Person
Hi. I'm Pranav Parikh from Milpitas. I strongly oppose the bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Aisha from Asian Resource Group, San Jose. Strongly opposed the bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Namaste. I'm Sumeda from San Jose. I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Lakshmi Iyer
Person
I'm Lakshmi Iyer from San Jose, California. I strongly oppose SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Porva from Mountain House. I strongly oppose SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Harshita, and I also strongly oppose SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Dimple Sharma
Person
Namaste. Dimple Sharma from Fremont, California. Strongly oppose SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Ritesh Tanzan
Person
Hello. My name is Ritesh Tanzan. I represent Uttar Pradesh Mandal of America. Is a large group of Indian community. I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. My name is Rohini. I'm from Dublin, California. I'm also a mom, and I strongly oppose SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Srinidhi Shripad
Person
Hi. My name is Srinidhi Shripad from Fremont, California. I strongly oppose this bill, SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Naresh Gupta
Person
Hi. My name is Naresh Gupta from California. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Chittaranjan Kamar
Person
I'm Chittaranjan Kamar from Brentwood, California, and I strongly oppose this discriminatory bill. This is targeting my children.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Chittaranjan Kamar
Person
Thank you so much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Ravala. SB 403. Support.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Harpy Singh
Person
I am Harpy Singh from Sacramento. I strongly support SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Naresh Desai
Person
This is Naresh Desai. I strongly oppose the discriminatory bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Anil Rome
Person
This is Anil Rome. I am from San Ramon, California, and I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Nitin Pokhriyal
Person
Good morning. I'm Nitin Pokhriyal from San Ramon, California. I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Arun Dutt
Person
Good morning. My name is Arun Dutt from Los Angeles. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good morning. My name is Pujasa. I strongly oppose this SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Great. Thank you.
- Vishal Tejura
Person
My name is Vishal Tejura. I am from Santa Clara, California. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Krishna Obrani
Person
Hello. My name is Krishna Obrani. I'm from San Jose, California. I strongly oppose this bill. Please think whether this bill promotes unnecessary profiling of selfish--
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. We appreciate you being here.
- Vinay Tiwari
Person
Hi. My name is Vinay Tiwari. I'm from Sacramento. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Kamal Rupareliya
Person
I'm Kamal Rupareliya. I'm from San Ramon. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Jay Harthikote
Person
I'm Jay Harthikote from Fremont. I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Davinder Singh
Person
Good morning. I'm Davinder Singh from Fresno. I support the bill to end the caste discrimination in California.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Ashwin Kalankar
Person
Namaste. I'm Ashwin Kalankar from Santa Clara. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you for being here.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I'm Pranav from San Jose. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Ambuch from Dublin, a Hindu and a proud father from a family of five. I strongly oppose this bill. Please do not impose caste on us.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Suramya Nayak
Person
Hi. I am Suramya Nayak from Fremont, California, father of two daughters. Strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. My name is from Yemenon. I'm from Antioch, California. I'm just for this.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I am a Gormukh. Patiya from Pittsburg, California. I am against any discrimination of caste, creed, and I vote yes.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I am Kashmir. I vote for yes.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
[Foreign Language]. Yes.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Sitos Sagar
Person
Sitos. Sacramento. Sitos Sagar. 403. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. Yes, thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I am Khalifa from Pittsburg. Support SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Perfect. Thank you.
- Narayan Singh
Person
I am Narayan Singh from Pittsburg. Support the bill 403. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Sinder Singh
Person
My name is Sinder Singh, Pittsburg. Yes.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Karma Singh
Person
My name is Karma Singh, Pittsburg, vote for yes.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Darj Khan. I support this bill. I say yes for the bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Mohan Aswathanarayan
Person
Hello. Good morning. My name is Mohan Aswathanarayan. I'm from Sunnyvale. I strongly oppose this SB 403. I'm really worried about my kids being profiled.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. Appreciate you being here.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. My name is Vinod. I'm from San Jose, California. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello. My name is Deepan, and I'm from Santa Clara, California. I urge the honorable Committee to vote no for the bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Lakshmi Musen
Person
My name is Lakshmi Musen. I'm from California. I support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
California. Principal. Yes.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Singh, San Francisco, California principal. Vote for this.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Dalo Nepal
Person
My name is Dalo Nepal, Pittsburg, California. I vote yes for this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Dr. Omesh. I oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you for being here.
- Anupam Singh
Person
Good morning. My name is Anupam Singh from here, Sacramento, and I vote yes.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Anupam Singh
Person
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Vikranji Singh. Vote for yes. Thank you very much. Hi, my name is Ravikiran Meka. I'm from Sandoman. I strongly oppose the ball.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Hi, my name is Satyajit Rai. I live in Fremont, California as a hindu ma'am. Where. I oppose 403.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. I am a garbage bench. I am from entity of California. I vote for this.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Okay, thank you. My name is Prayam Chaga. This is 403 California, Sacramento.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. My name is Para Kent. I am from Elgrove. Vote for 403 yes. Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Okay. Hi, my name is Gitanjli. I'm from Santa Clara, California. And I'm a mother. I strongly oppose this.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. I'm NiLA Varshne, a resident of Santa Clara, California. And I strongly oppose SB 403.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. My name is Shipra Vashne from Santa Clara. And I strongly oppose SB 403. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Vibha Kappa from San Jose, California. And I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you very much. Hello, my name is Nandini Aratnandani Gunapodi. I strongly oppose this Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Vidya from Fremont strongly opposed this divisive Bill. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Manish Godara from Fremont opposed the Bill. Thank you. I'm Rajat Mahajan from Falsom, California and I oppose this Bill. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I am Ramesh Koteshwar from Pleasanton opposed this Bill. Thank you very much. Hi, my name is Sunny Kor. I'm from Fresno and I am a yes on this Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Ragnikor. I'm a community organizer from Fremont, California. And I vote yes for this Bill. Thank you. Sonia Kor. Yes, thank you. My name is Joshi Singh. I'm from the Central Valley. I vote yes. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Kushbu. I'm from Oakland. And I strongly support this Bill. Thank you. Waihiru Jika Kasa Wahiru Jiki fate. My name is Manmeet Singh. I'm from San Francisco and I strongly support this Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Namaste. My name is Manoj Sharma. I am from Pleasanton. I strongly oppose the Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you for being here. Namaste. My name is Sanjeev Bhatturgar. I strongly oppose from pleasant, California. Thank you. Namaste. I'm Naveen. I'm from Dublin, California. I represent Canada Cultural organization. And I oppose the Bill. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Dachshna Rustagi from Sunnyvale. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you. I am Nutan Manley from San Ramon, California. I strongly oppose this Bill. I say no. Thank you. I'm souvenir from San Ramon. I strongly oppose and say no to SB 403. Thank you. My name is Samuri.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm from Peters, California. And I oppose this Bill. Thank you. My name is Megna Deshpande. I'm from Roseville. And I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you. My name is Prashan from Sunnyvale. And I strongly oppose this Bill because it does not have any data.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. My name is Deepak. I'm from Sunnyvale. I strongly oppose 403. Thank you. Hi, my name is Venibabu Inamuri. I am from Pleasantine, California. I strongly oppose SB 403. Thank you. Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, this is Sridhar from California. I'm strongly opposed this Bill. No, thank you. Hello, I'm Devendra from Santa Clara. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you very much. Hello, I'm renal. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. I'm Sonali Fadke from Morgan Hill, California. I strongly oppose SB four. Thank you. Hello, this is Nikhila. And I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you. I'm Shailendra from Cupertino. I strongly oppose this Bill. I request you to please vote no on it. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Hi, I'm Satya Prakash from Cupertino. I strongly vote no for this Bill. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Aloh Krishna. I'm from Folsom, California. I'm here to oppose the Bill in all forms. Is dividing the community. That should not happen. Is a discrimination.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. We appreciate you being here. Hi, my name is Sri Krishna and I'm a resident of Clara. I strongly oppose this anti hindu Bill. Thank you. Hi, I'm Krishna. I am from San Jose. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, I'm Nikhil. I'm from Fremont. I oppose the Bill. Thank you. Hello, this is Anil Pandey from Sandramone. I oppose this Bill. Thank you. This is Rajan from Tracy. I strongly oppose the Bill. This is hindu, phobic, anti Hindus.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. My name is Rakhi Nagarajan. I am from the Wahhabis district, Fremont. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you. Hi, I'm Srikanth. I'm from Rancha Cordala. And I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Sartha Kalani, representing family of two, opposed the bills. Thank you. I'm PramiLA Bartholomews from Palo Alto, California. And this Bill does not accomplish any kind of discrimination against so the solutions do not. Is that a no?
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm not going to say that. I'm going to say this Bill. No, I'm just asking. This is your chance to say. You either support or suppose. That's all I'm saying.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm opposed to discrimination. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hi. Sashadri from Fremont, California. No to this Bill. Strongly opposed it.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. I am Nambi Sankaran from Sunnyvale, California. Representing a family of six. Strongly oppose it. Say no. Thank you. Yeah, I'm Sandeep Sheth from Sacramento. I'm a Member of Maharashtra Mandal. I strongly oppose this hindu phobic Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. My name is Aditya. I live in San Jose. And I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you for being here. Hello. My name is Lavana and I'm scared of this Bill. And I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I am Purvi. I belong to Dalit Bahujan. And I strongly oppose this Bill. My son just asked me what is a caste. Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Vaishali. I am in San Jose. And I'm a Dalit. And I strongly say no to the Bill. Thank you. I'm Ram Kumar. I'm from Morgan Hill. I represent America against caste discrimination. And I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Ramakrishna from San Jose. I strongly support this Bill. Vote yes. Thank you. Mumta from Sandraman. Strongly say no to this Bill. Thank you. I'm Ramani from Sandraman Madras too. I strongly oppose this Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Hi, this is Raj from the Senator Wahab's district. I strongly oppose the Bill. No to it. She's importing the caste framework to America, which is not necessary. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Shyam Vehmuri, proud American from Wahaps district. I strongly oppose this Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Shiva Chinta from Pleasanton, California. And I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you very much. Baskar Badi from Pleasanton Telangana Development Forum. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you. Srinivas Manikunda from Dublin. I strongly oppose the Bill. Please don't waste your time. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. We've spent a lot of time already. I'm a second generation Indian American and strongly oppose the Bill. Thank you very much. Hi. Shailaja Radhakrishna from Pleasanton. Strongly oppose the Bill. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Rajesh Kumar dunk from Diamond Bar, California. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you. I'm Ekta from San Ramos, California. I oppose this discriminatory Bill. Thank you. I'm Manika from Sandroman. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm Tulasi Manda. I'm from Sandramon. I oppose this. Thank you. I'm Swati Maiskar from Sandemon. And I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you very much. Hi everyone. Pratima from Danville and for a united America I strongly oppose the Bill. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, I'm Pawan from San Jose. I am against any kind of discrimination. I support this Bill. Thank you. Hi, this is Ashwajit from Newark. I strongly support this Bill. Vote yes. Thank you. Hi, I'm Harshad. I strongly support the Bill. Thank you. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, I'm Sonal. I'm from New York, California. And I strongly support and vote yes for this Bill. Thank you. Hi, I'm Srital and I'm strongly vote for yes. Thank you. Hi, I'm Madhuri. I strongly support for yes. For this Bill. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is Arunditi. I'm from Roseville. I strongly support this Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Hi, my name is Shreya. I strongly support this Bill. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, I'm Dr. Swati. I strongly, strongly support this Bill. Thank you. I'm Surendra Singh from Sacramento hindu community representing 10,000 Members. I strongly oppose this Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much for being here. Hi, I'm Shreyas from Dublin, California. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you. Hi, I'm Anil Kumar from Dublin, California. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you very much. Hi, I am Vijay PasapulLA from Tracy. I strongly oppose this Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Hi, I'm Sangeetha Shankar from Raicha Ranchakodova I am a Hindu and a homeschooling parent and I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Harsha Shedbalker and I'm from Folsom as a hindu dad. I oppose this Bill. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Ram Dongre from Sacramento, California as a proud Hindu I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you very much. I'm Nimit Thakar from Santa Clara, California this is an agenda by operators on Indians called British imperials. Thank you very much. Association with this.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. I assume from your son your opposed. I'm Smitha from Santa Clara and I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you very much. I'm Vinod Kumar from University Chairman of Shirgur Dasova Bay Area we strongly support this Bill. We don't want any kind of cast discrimination.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. Hey, good morning. My name is Mami. My daughter, she's a student of Columbia University in New York City. She also faced discrimination. I would like to. I support this Bill. Thank you. Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Vikas and I strongly support this Bill. We are the real Dalits of India. These guys are playing fake rcs. Thank you very much. Hi, my name is Tonya. I'm from Fremont, California. And I support SB 403.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you for being here. Hi, my name is Jolfi Singh. I am from Milpitas, California. And I support SB 403. Thank you. Hi, my name is Jp. I'm a sick from Union City and I support this Bill. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, I'm Anaga from San Francisco, California. I strongly oppose this discriminatory Bill. Thank you very much. Hi, my name is Hans Kadila. I'm from Elgrove. I support this Bill because there is a lot of honor killing in the India.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Thank you very much. We appreciate you being here. My name is Shadiram. I'm from Sacramento. Is 44403. Thank you very much. My name is Rajiv Raja Gopal. I'm from Hindus for human rights. We strongly support this Bill and stand next to our Dalit brothers and sisters. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. I'm Shastri Panchagnava from Woodland, California. I strongly oppose this discriminatory and unnecessary belt. Thank you very much. My name is Cable Christian, Balina, Elgrove, California. I spoke for 403. Thank you. Thank you very much. My name is Baldev Raj and I am from Sacramento. I strongly support this Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Hi, my name is Vijay, I'm from Fremont, California. Thank you for listening to each of us. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you and thank you for the thanks. I'm Jitendra BabaLA from Rancho Cordova. I strongly oppose this unconstitutional Bill, this unjustly target. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm Padmetrandava and I strongly oppose this Bill. I'm from El Cebrande, California. I think the Bill is very discriminatory. Thank you very much. Good morning. Ruth Dawson with ACLU California action. We are in support. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, this is Krishna Yu Jagger from West Sacramento. I say yes to this boat.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Yes. Thank you. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. I'm Firdo Sheikh from Elk Grove. Strongly supported. Thank you. Good morning, I'm Sanjay Parek from Dublin, California. I strongly oppose the Bill. It will unnecessarily harm small businesses.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. I'm Jaldi Walia, San Ramon, Bay Area. Strongly oppose this Bill. We don't want further caste, further labeling. Thank you. Very much. Yeah. My name is Harish Kumar. I'm from Algrove, and I'll strongly judge this Bill because I've been. Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm Verinder Singh from Elgrove, and I avoid yes on the Bill. Thank you. Thank you. And I may shrey Sidu say yes. Sacramento, California. Thank you very much. I am Narendra, and I am from Sacramento, California. And I say yes for this Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. My name is Paul Burke. Say yes for this Bill. Thank you. Dajit Patoya. Sacramento, yes. For the Bill. Thank you. Karnata Chang. Yes, thank you. My name is Shiv Singh. I'm from Fremont, California. I strongly oppose this Bill as I will not be able to celebrate my festivals and I will get bullied at school. Please make sure.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. We really appreciate you being here. My name is Sami Singh. I'm a student in Fremont, California, and I strongly oppose against this. Thank you. Hello. My name is Yelly Singh. I'm a student in Fremont, California, and I strongly oppose against this Bill for many reasons, like it will lead to bullying and hate at schools.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much for being here. Hello. My name is Nitesh Singh. I'm from Fremont. I strongly oppose this Bill, and I hope you will not perpetuate the cycle of hate. Thank you very much for being here.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, I'm Kiran from San Ramos. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you. Hi. Good afternoon, respected Senators. I'm a concerned U. S. Citizen of America. I strongly oppose this Bill. Please. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
And the testimony has been going on a long time, but it's not afternoon. You. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I'm Santosh Kale from San Ramon, California. I strongly oppose this Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Good morning, everyone. My name is Parag Kate. I'm from Natomos, Sacramento. And I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you. Hello. My name is Parag Vaishampain. I am from California, Livermore. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you, respected jury. I don't want caste in us. I strongly oppose this Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Hello. My name is Sammy Chippasuri. I'm a high school senior from San Ramon, and I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you. Respected Senator. My name is Vasan Shetty. I'm a community organizer, and I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Hello, Senators. Good morning. I strongly oppose this Bill. My name is Om Prakas, and I don't want this discriminatory Bill being passed. Thank you. Thank you very much, respected Senators. My name is Amitabh Soyan. I'm from Braintoor Contrakasha county. I strongly oppose this Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Hello. My name is Prashanth Kedial. I'm from Fremont and I oppose the Bill. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Manoj Chaudhary. I'm from Dublin, California. And I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. Namaste. This is Pitavas and I 'm from Sunnyvale. I am strongly opposed this Bill. This is a very indiscretion to the caste system. They are planning to create a caste system here in the US. So please stop this. Thank you very much. We appreciate you being here.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, Senator. Good morning. My name is Kaushik. I'm from Sunnyval. And I strongly oppose this Bill because this brings discrimination and racism into our community.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. Hello. My name is Smitha Sinha. I am from Folsom and I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you. Hello. My name is Parish Sinha. I am from Folsom and it's strongly against this Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. I'm Jolly Gupta. I'm from Sacramento and I oppose this Bill. We are all Americans. We do not even know what's coming. Thank you very much. We really appreciate you being here. Thank you. I'm Vandana from sector mentor. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm Neelima from Fremont. And I believe in equality for all. And I oppose the Bill. Thank you very much. I'm Avinash from Fremont. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Amarjeet Singh. My opinion is now. Thank you. You have a big sign. Hi, I'm Prakash from Fremont. I oppose this Bill. Thank you. Hi, my name is Tekkar Tanya. I'm just to this algorithm. Thank you. Hi, I am Neeraj from California. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Deepak Sri. I'm representing Shirigura Vidas temple, Sacramento. We say yes on a 403 Bill. Thank you very much. My name is Malkiyat Singh. I'm from Guru Ravidas Sabah, Central Valley, Fresno. And I have three children3427. And I'm gathering. You're in support, 26.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm here. You're still in support, right? I'm here strongly to support 403. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Name is Jasmine Maman. Representing Ravdas temple, Selma, California. Voting yes on SB 403. God Bless America.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Hello, this is Anirban Roy. I came from Pittsburgh, California. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you for being here. Hello. This is Rakesh from Brentwood. I strongly oppose this Bill. This is a hindu phobic Bill. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. My name is Manas Ray. I'm an atheist and feel like a part of Baujan community and I strongly oppose this Bill. It will create a new sort of discrimination. Thank you very much. Vaigurjika Khalsa Vaigurjiki. Fate Gurchani Singhman from Fremont, California. India have a billions people victim of this caste system. I strongly urge people to vote on this. I vote yes.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. I appreciate it. This is Pritam Singh from Fremont, California. I'm here to support this Bill. Thank you very much. I request to the Committee to pass this Bill unanimously. God bless America, and God bless the founding fathers who laid the foundation of this nation.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. We have to get to the time that we can actually vote on it. Yes, sir. Welcome, Fremont. I came here in the support of this Bill because founding father set up the no discrimination for any type of system. Thank you very much. We really appreciate you being here.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Thank you. I'm coming from universities. No, thank you. Hello and Jabim. I'm Prasanna from Santa Clara, representing America against caste discrimination. I'm strongly supporting this Bill. Thank you for being here.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Jbem. I am Paul Kanakaraj, Dalit American, representing America against caste discrimination and Ambedkar Kiri study circle. I strongly support yes. On this. Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, I'm Kumar from the Folsom, California. I'm representing America against caste system. So I strongly support this Bill. Thank you very much. Hi, I'm Ajinkya. I am representing America against caste discrimination and amateur King study circle. And I support this Bill. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm Raj Kumar. I strongly support this Bill. Sv four. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Ama Sakri here. I call from juicy, California. I support Jess Sport, SB 403. Thank you. Thank you very much for being here. My name is Kevin Singh. I'm the ex Chairman of Sri Guru Dasawa area. I strongly support this Bill because my two kids have been discriminated based on the cost here. They're born here.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. We really appreciate you being here. Hello. My name is Canal Badhan. I am from Sacramento. I support this 403 Bill. Thank you very much. Sure. Everyone, my name is just Cheet Singh. I'm a school board trustee for Sacramento City Union High School District, and I'm here to offer my strong support for SB 403.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you for being here. Good morning, everybody. I am from Folsom, California. I'm Amit Agarwal, and I strongly oppose this vote. SB 403. Thank you very much. Hi everyone. My name is Vijay Kumar. I work for a startup as an Executive. I am here to strongly oppose this Bill. Because this is harmful to the American society.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. Good morning everyone. My name is Nagesh Mula. I'm from San Jose. And me and my family strongly opposed this Bill. SB 403. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hi, my name is Atul Shah. And I volunteer for five different nonprofit organizations and also self employed. I'm strongly opposed this Bill. I never told my daughter which cost.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. We really appreciate you being here today. Hello. Good morning, Senators. I'm Bridget Chobisa from Elrado Hills. Form family of three. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you. Hi. Good morning. My name is Balbir Chanda from Salinas, California. I'm strongly vote jazz for SBA 403.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. Hello everyone. My name is Abhijay Kumar. I came from Tesla, California. I'm strongly support to Jess. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Hi, my name is Rohit. I come from a family of four. I strongly oppose this Bill which is unconstitutional and for racial profiling. Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm Jay Sriram. I am opposing this Bill. Thank you. Thank you. Namaste. This is Kalpana. So I'm opposing this Bill. Thank you. Hello, I'm Vivek, a student at UC Davis. And I oppose this Bill because I think it's inherently divisive. Thank you very much. Hi, my name is Shriza GondaLA from Tracy. And I strongly oppose this Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Hi, I'm Hindavi Veldanda, associated with yoga Bharati organization. I oppose this Bill. Thank you. Hi, I'm Shreya from San Jose. I oppose this Bill. Thank you. Yeah, I represent the mountain house Mangali Association from Sanokin. So I oppose this Bill. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. Good morning. My name is Sahil Matha. I'm the Director of education and outreach at Hindus for human rights. And I support 403. Thank you very much. My name is Varun Belor. And I'm a Member of socialist alternative which helped win Seattle's historical law banning caste discrimination just two months ago.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm also a Member of Americans against caste discrimination. I strongly support the passage of SB. 403 and to ban cast discrimination in. Thank you, California. Thank you very much for being here. Hi, I'm Sarita. I'm a dalit community organizer. And I fully support SB 403. Thank you. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Shahira Bunger. I'm a Dalit Punjabi with the Rabidasia community. I was born and raised in Fremont, California. I have faced caste discrimination and I strongly support SB 403. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. Good afternoon. My name is Sana Khattabadin and I'm with the Indian American Muslim Council. And I support SB 403. Thank you. Hello and Namaste. Rajiv Singh from the Hindu American foundation. Strong opposition to SB 403.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you for being here. Thank you. Hello. Ambuch from. I'm a trustee of education for all. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you, Vanakam. Namaste. My name is Narayanaswamy, representing tamil community. I'm saying no for this.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Nilesh from Milpitas, California. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you. Thank you. Namaskar. I'm from Pune, Maharashtra. And for marathi community, we oppose this Bill. Thank you, Namaskar. My name is Basavaraj. I represent kannada community. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you. Hello and Namaste. My name is Kaushik Macharla. I am from hindu American foundation. I strongly oppose this Bill. Hello. My name is Das Dawa, Sacramento. I support this Bill. Yes.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. Hello. Good morning, everyone. My name is KamaLA Chand. I'm from to the Sacramento. I bought this on S 403. Thank you. My name is Jaya, San Jose. I vote no. Thank you very much. My name is Jayashree from San Jose. I vote no. Hello, I'm Arun from Fremont, a proud American. I oppose this Bill because this will enable racial profiling and digital segregation.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much for being here. I am Bhargav. I'm from Sacramento. I oppose this Bill strongly. I represent marathi hindu community. Say no to 403. Thank you. I'm Chirant, resident of Folsom. I oppose this Bill. Caste is equal to British. Thank you. Thank you. This is Sanjeev. I'm from Fremont. I oppose bully enabler, discriminatory Bill 403.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. My name is Sodi Singh. I came from San Francisco in America. I came on my bicycle from India. And I see the caste system. Not even Brahmin. All the people, even they are Dalit. I have bad experience about that. They bring caste. Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you for being here. We appreciate you being here. Namaste. This is Venu from Roosevelt. And I oppose this Bill. Thank you. Vijay from Bay Area. I oppose this Bill which is unconstitutional, targeting Indians. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I am Bhagwati Uzagiri. I strongly oppose the Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much and good morning. This is Tara Chan, a Hindu American living in Roswell. I oppose the Bill. Thank you. Good morning. This is BK Sinha. Full name is Bhubaneshar Kumar Sinha. I live in Sacramento county and I oppose this Bill very strongly. Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Hershel Shah from Elgro, California. I oppose this Bill strongly. Thank you. My name is Kiran Shah from Elgro, California. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you. Okay, we have a few more that. Are still coming but we're almost at the end of our oral testimony.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
No, right here. Right here where the mic is. And we just need your name, your organization and whether you support or oppose. My name is Palwinder Mahi. I'm from Yuba City. I belong to Shiriguru Ravidas temple in Yuba City. And I oppose this Bill because I don't want the caste word to come here in the United States.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. We appreciate you being here. Thank you, sir. Have a good one. My name is Satynam Singh from Juba City, California. And I oppose this. I know. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate you being here. Appreciate you stating your everyone be equal to each.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Okay, next person. Good morning. This is Deep Singh. I'm from Jupiter City, California. I'm engaged of SB 403. Thank you very much. My name is Shingara Singh Raul. I'm from Shirhub Zhas temple. President. No. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello, sir. My name is Gurvinda Singh from Yuba City. I just know. Thank you. Hello everyone. My name is Porti Bethur. I'm from Rockland. And I oppose SB 403. And thanks for running to get here. Hi, I'm Dr. Nijaguna Bethur. I strongly oppose SB 403. I am a resident of Rockland.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. Hi, my name is Arvind Singh. I am Yuba City, California. So. No, thank you very much. Hi, I'm Alan. I'm from Sunnyville. I'm voting yes for the Bill. Thank you. Thank you very much.
- John Laird
Legislator
Are we good? Okay, everyone, thank you very much for your patience. And let me just let everybody know, especially Members that might be listening. We're going to take 15 minutes of the same. Me too. We're going to go to the phone lines and it's just name, organization or city. And whether you support or oppose and we can take support or oppose together. I understand we have many people on the line, but we're limiting it to 15 minutes. So being as brief as possible.
- John Laird
Legislator
And then when we are done with the 15 minutes of teleconference, we'll bring it back to the Committee for our discussion of the Bill. So with that, I will go to the moderator and ask you to prompt the individuals waiting to testify. Yes.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Thank you. Please press 10 if you'd like to testify again. It's 10, and we can go right ahead to line number 40.
- John Laird
Legislator
Yes. In moderator just let me say before we go to the first one at line 40 that I want you to work with me. We're just doing name, affiliation, and whether they support or oppose. And if they start to give a.
- John Laird
Legislator
Speech, I'm going to ask to go. To the next speaker. So I'm just giving everybody that fair warning beforehand. So moderator, let's go to the first one.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Perfect. Thanks. And it's line 48. Your line is open.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Yeah, my name is Ashish Hurana from Fremont, California, and I oppose this Bill. Thank you very much. Next, line 571. Hi, my name is Shrita Alan Pali. I am from Fremont, California, and I oppose this Bill. Thank you very much. Next, line 739. Good morning. Rebecca Gonzalez with the National Association of. Social Workers, California chapter, in strong support.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. Line 257. Hi, my name is Monica Budwall. I am calling from Dublin, California. I am a Member of the Sherigura Vidas Bay Area. I'm also a Member of Beam International USA. I'm also a CSU East Bay alum. I am standing in strong support for this Bill. Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
600. This is Mina Badhan from Sacramento. I strongly support the Bill. Thank you. Line 408. Hi, this is Dhanashri Shah. I'm from San Jose, and I strongly oppose the Bill. Thank you. And line 282. 82, go to line eight. Nine. Hi, this is Sriram Brahmanandam, software engineer from San Jose. I believe this Bill will divide the community. I strongly oppose this Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. And line 525. Hi, I'm Neha Washika from San Jose. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you. Line 754. This is Rashmi from Morgan Hill. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you. Line 772. Hi, this is Hari Habar from Union City, California, representing family of four. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you, line 252.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Tricia. I'm from Danville, and I'm in strong support of SB 403. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And next is line 460. Close this Bill. Thank you. Next we got. Pardon me, line three. Hold on just a moment here. 390. Please go ahead. Hi, this is Nagashi Pajaka. I strongly oppose.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you, line 813. Hi, this is Rajesha, City of California hindu community. No to the Bill. Strongly opposed. Thank you. Line 857. This is Lashkar Singh from Sacramento. I support this Bill. Line 867. 867. We can go to line 791. I am the chica. I represent a family of four, and I oppose this Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Kumari. I'm from Fremont, California. I strongly support the Bill. Thank you. And line 872. Padma calling from Milpitas. Representing an organization of 11,000 people. We strongly say no to this. Thank you very much. Next we have line 611. 611, your line is open. It.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And we go to line 917.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, this is Ramani from San Jose. I strongly, strongly oppose this bill. No to SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 933.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, this is Raja from Los Angeles. I strongly oppose SB 403.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 949.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Andrea Amavisca
Person
Andrea Amavisca on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center, in strong support.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 958. Give me just a moment here. The screen's locking up on me here. Line 958. Try that again.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, this is Chaitra here from Tracy. We are a family of four. We strongly oppose this ...
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 905.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello, this is the Sridevi Patil from Fair Oaks. I strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 931.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
... A family of four. We strongly oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And line 998.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I am ... Shah from San Jose. I strongly oppose this discriminatory bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next we have line 904. Give me just a moment. There we go.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, this is Bina from San Jose. I strongly oppose this bill. Say no to SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And give it a moment here. Line 1009.
- Shane Gusman
Person
Shane Gusman on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys in support.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 1001.
- Rajat Khurana
Person
Hi, this is Rajat Khurana from Irvine, Orange County, representing Indian Leadership Alliance, which collectively represents over 11,000 Indians. And we unanimously oppose SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next we have line 1026.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello, can you hear me?
- Committee Moderator
Person
Go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Yes. Hi. Ahmed from Fremont, and I stand with my Dalit brothers in India, and I strongly support this bill from Senator Wahab.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next we have line 986.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, I'm Sneha Vasnik. I'm Dalit, and I very strongly support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. And moderator, let me just let you know we are halfway through our 15 minutes, and I just want everybody here and listening to know: 15 minutes is standard; what we do for every bill. We did not pick that out for this bill. So just so you all know. Moderator, next caller.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Line 412.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Moyna. I'm calling from Fremont, California. I'm in support of this bill. Please stay on the side of justice. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 271.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Asha. I'm from Morgan Hill, and I strongly oppose this SB 403, because it will lead to profiling.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And line 256.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello, this is Rishi Stern, U.S. citizen and father of two from Newark. I strongly support SB 403. God bless everyone.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And line 1040.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, this is Rajesh from San Jose. I vote no for this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 1088.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Priya from Milpitas. I strongly oppose this bill. Say no to SB 403.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 1122.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Suresh ... I'm a family of four based in San Jose, California. I strongly oppose SB 403, which will lead to profiling. Please vote no. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 347.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, this is Vijay ... from San Jose, California. I oppose the bill. SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
A moment here. Line 1050.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Sunil. I'm from Pleasanton, family of four. Me and my family strongly oppose and say no to SB 403. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 1103.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Ashwin, calling from Fremont. I strongly oppose the bill.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And line 1056.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, I'm Raj Dalith ... from Senator Wahab's district in Fremont. And I strongly oppose Senate Bill 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And line 34.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Name is Ritu. I strongly oppose this bill. I'm from Brentwood, California.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 782.
- Kamardip Singh
Person
Hi, this is Kamardip Singh, and I'm on the Berkeley Human Rights--Alameda Human Rights Commission from Berkeley. I support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 1069.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello. Hi, I'm Asmita from Fremont, California. Me and my family of five very strongly oppose this racial and Hindu-phobic bill. Please vote no.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 246.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Oliver Wilson from San Francisco and I support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Give me a moment while the screen catches up. Line 225. Line 225. And we can go to line 244.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is ... I strongly support the bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Let me try this again here. Line 1205. I'm sorry ... by chance. One moment here. Line 686.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, I'm Neha and I'm in LA. I strongly support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And line 1060. 1060, your line is open.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, this is ... I'm from LA County and I strongly support the bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 439.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, I am Anusharma and I am from San Jose. And I am affiliated with Hindus ... Punjab. And I strongly, very strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 1208. 1208, your line is open.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hey, this is ... from City of Simi Valley, California. And I strongly oppose the bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And line 1239.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Kuldi Badhan ... From me, my family of six and our Dalit community, I vote yes on SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And line 239.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, this is Nandita. I'm from Bexley International Mission, and I strongly support the bill. Please vote yes.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And line 924.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
This is ... from Los Angeles. I strongly oppose the bill.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 1229.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Iqbal Ahmed. I'm from Fremont, California. And I strongly support SB 403.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 1267. 1267, you're open. We can move on to line 1280.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, this is ... from Fremont, California. I strongly oppose the bill, SB 403. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And 1291.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, I am Malit ... from Ambedkar International Mission, one of the oldest and largest Dalit organization in America. I strongly support this bill. Say yes to this bill. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. And moderator, this next caller will be the last caller.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. And we'll go to line 292.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Yeah, I'm Sanjay Verba from Dublin, and I oppose this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much, and thank you to everyone that testified today. I know that you might think it was limited, but this has to be one of the largest numbers of people that has testified for a bill thus far in this session. So we are going to bring it back to the committee. And this is the time for questions and comments from committee members. Who would have a--Senator Min.
- Dave Min
Person
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank all of the many witnesses who spoke here today. When I first heard this bill--I should say I have a large and very vibrant South Asian community in my district--and I want to just say at the outset that the cultural and economic contributions that they make to my community, to my Orange County, to the state; really, really important. I've heard from many, many advocates on this bill, and my staff has.
- Dave Min
Person
And I know this is a deeply emotional bill for both sides of this debate. As an Asian American myself, as the son of Korean immigrants who came to this country, like many of you or your parents, in search of the American dream, I just want to say that it is obviously a foundational principle of this country that we don't have castes here, that this is a country that accepts all.
- Dave Min
Person
I recently visited the Statue of Liberty in New York for spring break, and those words still strike me today. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores." In America--again, a basic principle is that everyone should be treated equally under the law--there are no untouchables here. It's a bedrock principle of our country.
- Dave Min
Person
But in talking with the opponents of this bill, I will say they raised three points that I found very, very concerning and potentially compelling. First, they made the argument to me that caste discrimination is not actually a problem in the United States, that castes are largely irrelevant once people come to this country and immigrate here. The second point they made to me is that caste discrimination is already covered by existing federal and state anti-discrimination law.
- Dave Min
Person
And third, they made the point to me that by specifically targeting caste discrimination, this bill would itself be targeting Hindu Americans and creating the conditions for further discrimination. So I want to address these three really briefly because I've thought a lot about this bill and just want to give you my thought process and members of my district who care deeply about this bill.
- Dave Min
Person
On the first question, whether caste discrimination is actually a problem in the United States, I have become convinced it is a problem. Even if you discount the tech equity data, which some of you have done, suggesting that two in three lower caste workers have reported caste-based discrimination in the workplace, I've heard from enough people who have personally experienced caste discrimination that I believe it is a problem. I don't know how big the problem is, but I do believe it's out there.
- Dave Min
Person
The second point that was made: caste discrimination is already covered by existing federal and state law. As the analysis notes, this is still actually a question that has some uncertainty associated with it. I do think there's a lack of clarity around this, and I do think that this bill can help to clarify that caste-based discrimination occurs, and it is covered by federal--by state law, and at least provide clarity to employers and others.
- Dave Min
Person
The third question of whether caste discrimination will further create discrimination against Hindu Americans is something that I do find deeply troubling, and I have to think about the overall pros and cons of this bill. But being convinced that caste-based discrimination is something that happens, that it may not be covered by existing law, I want to make sure that the author will continue to work to try to narrow the possibility and eliminate the possibility that this bill will lead to discrimination against Hindu Americans.
- Dave Min
Person
The analysis does note that any discrimination against Hindu Americans would be illegal under existing laws protecting race and national origin. It also notes that the bill's language refers to a person's perceived caste rather than actual caste, which may mitigate some of the concerns raised by the opposition. So with all that, thinking about the pros and cons of this bill, I have become convinced that the pros do outweigh the cons.
- Dave Min
Person
I will be voting aye on this bill, but I just wanted to lay out my thought process. This is a very hard bill. I know it's a very emotional bill for all of you out there, and I feel like I owe an explanation to the people in my district for why I will be voting aye today.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. Other senators, comments or questions? I'll go to Senator Caballero, and then I'm going to go to Senator Allen.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Well, thank you. I guess we call you sitting chair, right? You're chairing the committee right now. First of all, I want to thank everybody that came here today and really want to show respect and appreciation to the young kids that came, because whatever we do today is going to impact the children in our community and their perception of how democracy works or doesn't work.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
And I hope what they take away from this experience is that we listen, that we're very careful about how we look at things, then that public input is really important and it's an orderly process where you can show up and speak directly to the people that are going to make a decision.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
I represent the Central Valley and have a very, very diverse community. And I want to thank everybody for coming, but in particular the people who came from the Central Valley, because a lot of times it's hard to leave work and it's hard to show up and be present and to express your opinions. Very much like my good friend from Irvine, I looked at this very, very carefully. And let me just say I have a lot of respect for our new senator, and she takes on very, very hard issues to try to do what's in the best interest of the community. And for me, I have spent my entire life working for the civil rights of residents in the State of California.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
I'm an attorney by trade, and my first job was working for California Rural Legal Assistance for farmworkers because I felt very strongly that their voices needed to be heard and their conditions under which they worked were not fair. And so I've spent a lot of time talking to people, working with different groups of people to try to resolve issues we have in our society and our communities.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
And what's important about civil rights protection is that what you say is it doesn't matter who you are or what you think, what your religion, your color, your country of origin, your sexual preference, your gender--all of that are protected classes. And as I was looking at the discussion about the caste system, one of the things I realized is--my family is originally from Mexico, and we've been here in this country about 140 years.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
But some of the prejudices that came with colonization have affected Mexico and the views of people in Mexico and the views of who is more important than someone else. And I have to tell you that we have pretty rigid caste system in other countries as well. It's just not talked about. It's just the way it is. And people are treated disrespectfully, based a lot on the color of their skin or the jobs that they do or the part of the country that they come from.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
I'm very sensitive to the issue. I'm wrapping up to say: what I believe this legislation does is it says that one of the issues that you cannot discriminate on is a caste system and that we have to protect everybody. And that means whether it's employment or it's in education and anything else that is part of people's everyday life, we can't be prejudiced against people that might be a little bit different than us.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
And so I'm going to support the bill today, and I want to assure the children that we're talking about discrimination in their classrooms and in their schools, that this state will do everything because of the laws on the book to make sure that that discrimination does not happen. And if it does, because we know that we can't control for everything, that those children will be protected and that there will be somebody at their side that can defend their legal rights. That's why I went to law school, and I believe very deeply in that. So thank you for bringing this bill forward.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. Senator Allen.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Well, I just associate myself with the comments of my colleagues. I think that it is hard to prove discrimination under our law, but I think there is a sense that we don't want people to be discriminated against on the basis of something that's an immutable characteristic. And I think caste falls into that category.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I do think that it's important along the lines of what our senator from Irvine mentioned, is that the chair really worked closely with the community to ensure that some of the fears that have been expressed in the course of this discussion are really put to rest. I'm not sure that folks fully understand some of the amendments that have been taken, and there's some good refutation of some of the fears and concerns that are in the analysis from the Judiciary Committee. So it's with that understanding that I'm prepared to vote for the bill today. I know this bill's got a long way to go, and there's going to be a lot of work that will continue.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I guess--I would love to ask the author--you brought out a lot of folks today on both sides, including many from your own district. Would you like to speak a little bit to some of the truly felt fear that some folks have expressed today that this will lead to greater discrimination against Hindu Americans and Indian Americans in general? How would you respond from your heart to those folks?
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
Thank you. So SB 403 does not actually contend that any South Asians are more likely to discriminate against another South Asian compared to any other group. And individuals, regardless of what section of the caste they are a part of, is also protected. That's another piece of it. And a person does not need to be a member of a caste to engage in caste-based discrimination. It could be somebody that, again, perceives your standing. And SB 403 explicitly states that caste-based discrimination is not limited to one group or people found, obviously, on multiple different continents. Right?
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
We've kind of illustrated that in a little bit of the analysis as well, that caste--there's different castes, and obviously they belong to multiple different countries. It's not just South Asian or anything like that. And as an Asian American myself, I genuinely stand against Asian hate as a whole. And obviously, we are working to make sure that this bill protects all people. It is an anti-discrimination policy, basically.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Yeah. It's hard to prove discrimination. We have these laws in place because we do want to ensure that people think twice before discriminating. And I think the fears that have been expressed today are very honest and I understand where they're coming from. But I wonder whether some of them are based on fear rather than the reality of what's in the bill.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
That being said, you've certainly brought out a lot of concerns from folks, and I really do hope that the author and the committee, assuming the bill gets out today, will really work in good faith with community leaders, including some of those who've spoken out against the bill to ensure that issues are cleared up, fears are addressed, et cetera.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. Other comments? I'll go to Senator Niello, and then I'll go to Senator Durazo.
- Roger Niello
Legislator
This has been a very difficult bill for me to grapple with, as the author knows. We've talked about it several times. I've talked with a lot of people, personal friends and then others that came to my office, and I fully understand and appreciate the opposition in their feeling that just the proposal of the bill is, in a way discriminating against them. I understand why you feel that way. I think it's important to note, as Senator Wahab just said, that it isn't aimed at just one group.
- Roger Niello
Legislator
And the analyses that we have point out more than once that caste systems exist in a lot of areas in the world historically and still. And so I don't look at it that way. Perhaps easy for me to say, but I don't look at it that way. The one concern I do have is that, as is stated, caste isn't fully understood in this country. And so that lack of understanding for the definition of what it is could create excessive litigation.
- Roger Niello
Legislator
And that does concern me. Whether that can be addressed in the eventual form of the bill, I don't know, but that is concerning. But we do have to do everything we can to keep people from being discriminated against. My last name is Italian. In Italy, it's pronounced Niello, not Niello. And that's because when my grandfather's family emigrated here at the turn of the last century, Italians were not viewed as favored immigrants.
- Roger Niello
Legislator
As we have new generations of immigrants that emigrated to this country, there has been--even though we are a nation of immigrants, every time, there's a resistance to new groups coming in. And the reason it's pronounced Niello instead of Niello was to anglicize, quite frankly, the name. And my grandfather didn't live in Italian areas in San Francisco. Discrimination happens, and we do have to do everything we can to protect against it. So I'm kind of echoing the comments that have been made by my colleagues. And I, by and large, agree with them, and I will be supporting the bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. Senator, please. Senator Durazo.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Thank you very much. Lots of thoughts come to mind. I, too, appreciate everyone who came to express their sentiments on this bill. That is very important for democracy, that's very important in the State of California, for everyone to feel the ability to speak up on whatever your opinion is. And that's really what makes this country strong. But since the founding of our country, we've had to face many issues of racism and freedoms.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Economic opportunity on the one hand, but yet oppressive behavior on the other hand. So I know we strive every day to address forms of discrimination. We do, and we're really proud that California is in the forefront of defending our democracy, of defending our rights, of fighting against all forms and any forms of discrimination. So we're very proud of that. We strive to do that every time an issue comes up.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
And it can be uncomfortable, but yet it's much better to be uncomfortable and not ignore something that exists. So we try to protect all people's rights, whether it's gender-based, gender identity-based, race-based, ethnicity, language. We have in California hundreds of languages. We want to make sure everyone feels the freedom to speak on it. So we are very sensitive to all forms and any forms of bias to make that straight. So on that basis, and also because I myself, being born here, but of parents of Mexico, I know the kinds of subtle and overt discriminations that can take place. All this together leads me to support the bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. Senator Wilk.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to align my comments, I think, with Senator Niello. I have not ever confronted this. So it's been really hard to grapple with. I, too, come from immigrants. My family changed their name at Ellis Island when they came over to avoid discrimination. And talking with the opponents--
- Scott Wilk
Person
One thing I want you to work on moving forward, that really resonates with me, and again, because I'm also concerned about lawsuits as well, is nailing down what is going to be the legal definition of caste, because that's where I think we could have some really adverse effects. But in America, we're supposed to all be created equal; equal opportunity. So I'm going to support your bill today, but I would hope that you work on that and tighten that up for everybody's protection. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. Senator Stern.
- Henry Stern
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank everyone for making such a showing of their democratic voice. I was between committees, but I had every single person in this room's testimony in my ear all morning; seeing the variety not just of views, but the diversity in the room. And we do feel you and hear you.
- Henry Stern
Legislator
I also want to appreciate this author for coming into the senate unabashedly and being herself right out the gates and doing so in a way that takes a bit of bravery, especially when there's such intensity. I've heard your responses to the members' questions, and I was wrestling with some of the technical issues, constitutional questions.
- Henry Stern
Legislator
I want to express that I was moved by your response, but also a key piece of the analysis points out the Atkins legislation from a few years back that brought sexual orientation into protected class status under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. And I thought the fear, the concern in this room and around this bill--that there will somehow be a wave of reverse discrimination, that people will sort of turn on each other.
- Henry Stern
Legislator
This will trigger a suspicion or a division somehow within South Asian community writ large, but even within the Hindu community itself, that that risk, I think, is mitigated by the proof in the pudding of how the Atkins bill has been implemented. That it is an immutable characteristic--your sexual orientation, gender identity--as you wish to express it. Those are not things you can necessarily tell from looking at a person to say, just like, I'm Jewish, you could look at me and say, "You don't look Jewish."
- Henry Stern
Legislator
You could say to somebody, "You don't look gay." But those are immutable characteristics, right? That can't be sort of seen just by the eye. And it is illegal under California law to discriminate against people based on those characteristics and those classes. So, for instance, I observe at an orthodox synagogue, I observe the Sabbath. I adhere to sort of stricter forms of Judaism than others.
- Henry Stern
Legislator
You couldn't, as one Jew, discriminate against another Jew by saying, "If you're not orthodox, you can't come into this bar, you can't come into this room, you can't seek employment if you're not a certain religiosity." That's illegal. That has not triggered sort of intercommunal battles and sort of attacks and a sort of reverse discrimination in any perceptible way. The same within the LGBTQ community. Because the Atkins bill is now law has not then triggered a whole wave of sort of this reverse discrimination.
- Henry Stern
Legislator
We've actually seen no evidence of that that I can tell. So within that precedent that we've set through our own civil rights legislation and the sort of evolving nature of the doctrine, this seems like an idea that time has come and that I hope in the coming years, should this become law, that those fears will sort of be evaded just by the reality. That this is a good protection for those who are targeted now, but this is not an invasion of those rights or sort of triggering of--any animosity is from somewhere else.
- Henry Stern
Legislator
It's not from within this law. There are tensions out there, and we know they go all over the world, and they go to continents that aren't even this one, and they're deep, and they can get very ugly. But this is not that bill, and this is not the reason for that. And to imply that, I think, impugns the spirit of this bill, and I think that's why I'm going to be supporting it today. So I appreciate it.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. Everyone has spoken. Is there a last question or comment before I go to the author for a close? Seeing none. Senator, you may close.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
Thank you. I do want to thank every single supporter of SB 403 who is here today and who testified via teleconference. I also want to thank the opposition for just engaging in the democratic process. Everyone that spoke, they are risking more than you can imagine, being here to stand up for themselves and the countless community members who fear for their own safety. With the passage of SB 403, each of you that vote aye will be expanding the freedoms that this country has promised.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
I think each and every one of you guys spoke to that. Each of you will be voting to enhance our civil rights, guaranteed to all. And each of you will break the invisible chains that have dragged the human spirit and potential of millions of people since birth across the world. The world is watching, and I will say that this will have a positive effect where other places can potentially pursue this and expand the rights of others. So with that said, again, I want to thank this committee. I want to thank everybody who spoke and who worked on this bill. I want to thank the fact that this is a bipartisan effort, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. Is there anyone that wishes to make a motion here? Motion by Caballero. Please read the motion and call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item number 1, SB 403 by Senator Wahab. The motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations. Umberg. Wilk. Aye. Allen. Aye. Ashby. Caballero. Aye. Durazo. Aye. Laird. Aye. Min. Aye. Niello. Aye. Stern. Aye. Wiener.
- John Laird
Legislator
We have eight votes in favor. There are 11 committee members. Three are out of the room. We will put the bill on call and lift the call later when they return. So before I turn the gavel back to Vice Chair Wilk, I'm going to give everybody a minute to leave the room, and then I'm sure we'll move to the next item. Thanks, everybody, for participating in what was an animated discussion.
- Scott Wilk
Person
All righty. Welcome back here. So, where's my. I don't have a script. Well, I know. I know that, but I don't know what the recommendation is. Okay, item number two, SB 399. And the recommendation is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. With that, Senator Wahab, you may proceed.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
Thank you, Chair. Members of the Committee and staff, and members of the public, I'm here to present SB 399, which would prevent employers from coercing workers into listening to their views on political or religious issues. SB 399 simply clarifies that workers have the freedom to refuse to attend mandatory meetings or listen to communications in which their employer is expressing their personal views on religious or political matters, including support or opposition of political parties or unions.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
These meetings are often referred to as captive audience meetings because, although not job related, workers are not permitted to leave or not attend without facing discipline or other adverse action. In many workplaces, employees are at will and can be fired at any time for almost any reason, therefore providing employers with tremendous power to pressure workers to do as they say. Imagine that you are at work and your boss calls you into a mandatory all staff meeting.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
At the meeting, the boss asks you to vote for a proposition that you oppose. You try to leave, but are told you would be written up and possibly fired if you leave. This is what workers are facing on the job today. California has long prided itself as a sanctuary for workers, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or political leaning.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
Therefore, in keeping with that tradition, it is important that workers of all religions and political perspectives are free to go to work without feeling coerced into listening to the political or religious leanings of their employer against their will. This Bill has exemptions to ensure that employers can communicate information they're required by law to provide or any information that is necessary for workers to perform their job duties. Likewise, nothing in SB 399 prevents employers from communicating their personal, political or religious beliefs to their workers.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
It simply clarifies they cannot require workers to attend meetings to discuss religious or political matters that are not germane to the work they do. As SB 399 moves forward, the Bill sponsors and I look forward to working with relevant stakeholders in opposition to address their concerns. With me in person to testify today is Darryl Pierce, a worker at the Starbucks here in Sacramento, and Sarah Flocks on behalf of California Labor Federation.
- Scott Wilk
Person
All right, each speaker gets two minutes apiece.
- Darryl Pierce
Person
Good morning. My name is Darryl Pierce, and I've been a barista at Starbucks for over two years here in Sacramento. I'm at 19th & J now but some of you may recognize me from 10th & L. My coworkers and I started organizing in January to form a union to improve the most basic working conditions in our store.
- Darryl Pierce
Person
When management found out we were organizing, they began to overstep that protected right by holding meetings to push Starbucks corporate message that a no vote to unions is our best option. This same tactic, called captive audience meetings, was also used heavily at the 7th & K Starbucks location. Starbucks often uses this tactic in stores across the country, wherever baristas are organizing, to collectively improve our conditions. This creates a narrative that paints unions as an unequivocally bad decision that could do nothing but hurt us.
- Darryl Pierce
Person
We were told that if we unionized, we could lose our current benefits, managers wouldn't be able to help us on the floor and that we would no longer be able to pick up shifts at other chain locations. They're called captive audience meetings because we don't feel we're free to leave or to not listen.
- Darryl Pierce
Person
The meetings were intimidating and made our complex job even harder because while trying to mentally keep track of the myriad tasks that make up our day, we were simultaneously force fed distracting and disturbing misinformation as a scare tactic. It was especially discouraging that management coerced our shift supervisors, who we have to see and work with every day, into holding these meetings instead of corporate representatives. This quickly led to shift supervisors having free rein to outright bully any prounion employee with no consequences.
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
It is demoralizing knowing your employer is actively trying to cheat you out of having a safe, functional workplace, and there's nothing you can do about it. We aren't asking for the sun and the Moon. We're asking for basic protections like security cameras for safety and enough regular hours to qualify for health care. I'm here today to ask for your support in Senate Bill 399. It would prohibit employers from requiring workers like myself to attend these coercive captive audience meetings. Thank you so much.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you. Next speaker.
- Sara Flocks
Person
Mr. Chair Members. Sarah Flocks California Labor Federation, a sponsor, co-sponsor of the Bill. In 2019, Shell Oil coerced workers to attend a Trump reelection rally in 2020. Uber required drivers, before they could log on to the app to work to watch a yes on Prop 22 video. These are just a few examples of politics permeating the workplace in a coercive manner. SB 399 is a very simple fix to address this.
- Sara Flocks
Person
It simply says employers cannot coerce, intimidate, or bully workers into listening to their views on politics and religion that are not related to their job. Now, the opposition is going to come up and say that this Bill is unconstitutional, that it violates the First Amendment. But this has nothing to do with employers free speech. It does not infringe upon speech. What it does is when speech crosses over into coercive conduct. That is what the Bill regulates is conduct.
- Sara Flocks
Person
And even under the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that no person has the right to press even good ideas onto an unwilling listener, someone who is unable to decline receiving that message. There's clearly the ability for states to regulate in this area and protect workers from coercive conduct while preserving employers free speech to talk about anything they want as long as it's not mandatory. They are also going to raise preemption under the National Labor Relations act. This Bill clearly falls within the two exemptions.
- Sara Flocks
Person
One which is to regulate and for the state to regulate and set minimum standards, which you all do every day, voting on minimum wage, overtime and the many other bills that come before this body and the other is on very deeply rooted and felt local issues. And California has a strong history of doing this in protecting employees ability to be involved in politics outside of work. And that is the evidenced in labor code 111 and 112. So this is a very simple Bill, a fix to the problem of forced communication in the workplace. And we urge your aye vote. Thank you.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you. Any me too's in support of the Bill.
- Matthew Broad
Person
Mr. Chair and Members Matt Broad here on behalf of the Teamsters co sponsors of the Bill, as well as unite here, the Machinists Amalgamated Transit Union Engineers and Scientists and Utility Workers in support. Thank you.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Janice O'Malley
Person
Good morning. Chair Members Janice O'Malley with the American Federation of State County Municipal employees here in support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Amy Heinshiek
Person
Chair and Members Amy Heinshike with Unite Here Local 11 and there are 32,000 members in support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Nicole Trujillo-Rice
Person
Good morning. Chair and Members Nicole Trujillo-Rice, on behalf of the California State Building and Construction Trades Council, in support. Thank you.
- Louie Costa
Person
Mr. Chair and Members Louis Costa with the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers Smart Transportation Division in support. Thank you.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you. Thank you
- Doug Subers
Person
Chair and Members Doug Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, in support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you. Do we have a lead witness? In opposition. May proceed when you're ready.
- Ashley Hoffman
Person
Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition to the Bill as a job killer. My second witness is stuck in another Committee, so I'm going to try and get this in. So our concerns are twofold. The first is we do strongly believe that this law is preempted by the NLRA. That has been the opinion of courts, state attorney generals and legal experts regarding the First Amendment.
- Ashley Hoffman
Person
This is a content-based restriction which is presumed to be unconstitutional. You could require a staff meeting to talk about the weather, the Sacramento Kings or knitting or anything else not covered in this Bill, but nothing related to politics, which in respectful disagreement, the way is defined in this Bill is actually often very relevant to the workplace. The second is really the breadth of the Bill and the chilling impact that we think it will have on employer speech. Covid is a really good example.
- Ashley Hoffman
Person
During COVID a lot of our workers, we found, actually wanted to hear more from their employer about pending regulations, pending legislation, how that could impact the workplace. We would not be able to require employees to attend those meetings, which could also be a safety issue. And it's easy to see perhaps someone who didn't believe in Covid or didn't think it was very serious as not thinking that was necessary to their job duties.
- Ashley Hoffman
Person
Consider a nonprofit organization that wants to support a ballot measure or a piece of legislation. They would be hesitant to disseminate any communication about that to their workers. How would you implement it if you had some workers saying they wanted to hear more about this and some who didn't want to hear anything at all? Oftentimes, too, sometimes these are spontaneous conversations that happen in a hallway where an employee could argue that they felt compelled to stay if a supervisor was present. So for those reasons, we respectfully ask for no votes. Thank you.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you. At this point, we will take too testimony in opposition. So that is name, organization if relevant, and position.
- Matthew Allen
Person
Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Matthew Allen with Western Growers, also opposed. Thank you.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Ryan Allain
Person
Good morning. Ryan Elaine with the California Retailers Association in opposition.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Natalie Boust
Person
Natalie Boust with the California Business Roundtable in opposition. Thank you.
- Robert Wilson
Person
Robert Wilson, California Credit Union League here in opposition.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thanks seeing no other, let's go to the phone lines. Moderator?
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please press 1, 0 at this time. Again, it's 1, 0.
- Scott Wilk
Person
And let me remind any callers that this is just me too testimony. So your name and an organization if relevant, and yes or no on the Bill. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And we can first go to line 492. One moment here's not working for me here. Give me just a moment here. We'll go to line if we can get the. Stop bouncing around here. Line 919. 919, your line is open. We'll go to line 1258.
- Faith Forges
Person
Good morning, Chair and Members. Faith Forges is on behalf of the Family Business Association of California, in opposition. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 1721. 1721, your line is open. I'm line 2017. Please go ahead.
- Lauren Arnes
Person
Hi, my name is Lauren Arnes. On behalf of the North Valley Labor Federation in support of 399.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 2066. Please go ahead.
- Melanie Cuevas
Person
Good morning, Mr. Chair. And Members. Melanie Cuevas with the California Bankers Association, also in opposition. Thank you.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 2096. Please go ahead. 2096. We can go to line 1077. 1077 your line is open. And. We go to line 1139.
- Glen Lovell
Person
Good morning. Glenn Lovell with Napolitano Central Labor Council, AFLCIO, in support of this Bill.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Yes. Next, we'll go to 1880. Your line is open. We can move on to line 2026.
- Ruth Rhodes
Person
Hello, this is Ruth Rhodes from Five County Central Labor Council in favor of 399.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we have line 2055.
- Lawrence Gayden
Person
Lawrence Gayden, on behalf of the California Manufacturing Technology Association, respectfully opposed.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 2071.
- Marissa Wu
Person
Good morning. Marissa Wu, on behalf of UAW local 5810 in support.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 2078. 2078, your line is open. Can go move on to line 2091? 91. Yes, you're good. Please go ahead.
- Erika Cruz
Person
Oh hi, my name is Erika Cruz. I'm a constituent and an active voter calling to in support of SB 5767.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And next we have line 2097. 2097. We can move on to line 2099.
- Erika Cruz
Person
Hi, sorry, no to SB 460.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we can go to line 2106.
- Alicia Lambert
Person
Alicia Lambert, small business owner. I oppose.
- Committee Moderator
Person
2110. Please go ahead. Line 2110. We can move on to 2113.
- Papan Unidentified
Person
Hi, my name is Papan. I oppose SB 399. Can't convey our views to our employees. Infringement of speech.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next is line 638.
- Bernie Seimence-Krieger
Person
Good morning, Chair, Members. Bernice Jimenez Creager, on behalf of the California Trucking Association, in opposition to AB 399.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next is line 915.
- Leticia Garcia
Person
Hi. Leticia Garcia with the California Grocers Association also in opposition.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And currently none further in queue.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you. Thank you, Senator Laird, Senator Wilk, for cheering in my absence. We've been spending time in your Committee, Senator Wahab. All right, so bring it back to Committee. Oh, let me make sure. Have you accepted? The Committee's suggested. All. All right.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Right, great. Bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members. Senator Min moves the Bill. All right. Other comments? Questions? Seeing none, madam. Would you like to close?
- Aisha Wahab
Legislator
Yes, I just respectfully ask for an aye vote. And again, thank you for everyone that spoke today.
- Scott Wilk
Person
All right, thank you. Madam Secretary, if you'd call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass as amended, to Senate Appropriations. [Roll Call]
- Scott Wilk
Person
All right.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call] Seven to two.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Seven to two. We're going to put that on call for just a moment. Again, I'm going to open the roll on SB 403, and then we're going to reopen the roll on SB 99, and then we're going to break until 130. All right, so SB 403, can we open the roll on SB 403?
- Committee Secretary
Person
File item one, SB 403 by Senator Wahab [Roll Call].
- Scott Wilk
Person
Going to put that back on call. All right. I don't know if there's any additional Committee Members that have appeared since we opened the role on SB 399. If not, what we'll do is we're going to break. We have oh on the consent calendar. Why don't we do that? Yeah, we'll open the role once more on the consent calendar. Madam Secretary, if you open the roll on the consent calendar.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call] 9-0.
- Scott Wilk
Person
We'll put that back on call. All right, we're going to recess now until 130 or 1330 for some of you. And we have a special order at that time, SB 567 by Senator Durazo. All right, thank you. Okay, dokey.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Good afternoon. The Senate Judiciary Committee will reconvene here in room 2100. Let me just go over the Committee's rules one more time. For each Bill, we will allow two witnesses, two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition. Each witness will be given 2 minutes. In other words, the support and the opposition will each have 4 minutes total, with two witnesses each having 2 minutes.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
After we've heard from the primary support and opposition witnesses, then others who are here in the building may approach the microphone in room 2100 and give us their name, their affiliation, and whether they support or oppose the Bill. By affiliation, I mean, if they're with a particular organization, they can name that organization. Unfortunately, we can't go beyond that. We have so many bills this afternoon and this evening that I'm going to be limiting that, what we call MeToo testimony.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Then we'll turn to the phone lines for 15 minutes. 15 minutes for support and opposition. Only 15 minutes. If you're waiting to call in, want you to know that everyone who wishes to call in will not likely be able to provide their opinion. The public comment phone line today. The participant number is 877-226-8216 and the access code is 621-7161 also, another note for those of you who are on the phone lines or watching. We've heard two bills by Senator Wahab this morning. Those bills.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
The hearing is complete. The testimony is complete. One other item, item number 21, SB 625, by Senator Wynn, has been pulled. In other words, it will not be heard today. All right. And with my apologize to those of you that are here and to the Committee Members, I am going to have to return to another Committee to finish presentation on bills that I have pending here. So let me ask Senator Durazo if you would like to present SB 5617. Senator Durazo, the floor is yours.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon and colleagues who are here today. First and foremost, I want to thank everyone who is here. Thank you for traveling, thank you for coming today, and thank you for coming other days. You look great, and I'm very proud to be standing by your side. I'd like to thank the Committee for your thoughtful analysis, thank the Chair for negotiating amendments to this Bill, which I will go in a little bit later.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
I just want to establish, remind ourselves what is, in my opinion and the opinion of our community, so much at stake. Homelessness is affecting all of our communities. The number of families becoming unhoused is growing. Encampments are becoming ever larger, and there are more and more people dying on our streets. To effectively address the homelessness crisis, we have to begin by slowing down the number of families and individuals who are falling into homelessness.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Clearly, our current renter protections are not enough or we would not be seeing such a rapid rise in homelessness. This Bill addresses gaps in our current renter protections in order to slow the flow of families into homelessness. Despite all the policy interventions and money that the Legislator has spent on addressing the homeless crisis, the number of Californians experiencing homelessness is 157% of what it was in 2010. This is outrageous.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
In the latest homelessness count, there were more housed, unhoused individuals than reside in entire cities of Oceanside, Salinas, and Garden Grove. These disturbing trends will continue to worsen if we do not effectively and proactively address the root of the problem, and that is housing affordability and protections. The state's eviction protections ended in June of last year. Many local moratoriums are set to expire if they have not already. This Bill provides Californians some housing stability and reduces the number of people on the brink of homelessness.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
We should not let any more families get pushed out onto the streets. It destabilizes their lives. It destabilizes their kids education. It causes trauma and affects our community as a whole. Let's be proactive in ensuring that everyone has a place. Everyone has a place to live. Our home is sacred.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
With me to testify and support and help answer questions are Sasha Harden, Inner City Law Center, and Ginger Hitzke, Hitzke Development Corporation, developer, property owners, and landlords. And then, Mr. Chair, after the witnesses, I'd like to address the amendments that I propose. Does that make sense for the order that we do this?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Senator Durazo, however you'd like to proceed if you want to have your witnesses, just so I understand the two primary witnesses, and then you're going to provide that intervention, or after all the support witnesses?
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Oh, no, just after the two primary.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, why don't we go ahead and have your two primary witnesses testify?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Yes.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Yes, please.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay. Before you go, just in case I've confused things, the support and opposition witnesses who are present in the building will all testify, not at the same time, but that they'll all approach the microphone in support and opposition. They'll just announce their position, but we're not going to segregate support and opposition. That makes sense. All right, go ahead.
- Ginger Hitzke
Person
Good afternoon, Senators. Chair Umberg. My name is Ginger Hitzke with Hitzke Development. I am here today with gratitude and humility and in support of SB 567. My company, Hitzke Development Corporation builds, owns, and operates multifamily properties. My portfolio includes eight apartment complexes that I've built totaling 498 units. I also own commercial real estate and single-family rentals. My portfolio exceeds $150,000,000 in value. I have investors to answer to.
- Ginger Hitzke
Person
I have employees to take care of, and I am here before you today to ask that you support 567. My gratitude comes from watching my state's Legislature pass housing production Bill after housing production Bill. We have needed this for so many years. Things are so different now than they were in the mid-90s. I could have never imagined the kinds of bills that would pass out of the state Legislature.
- Ginger Hitzke
Person
You've given us the tools that we need to build our way out of this crisis, and 567 complements all of the production bills that you've passed. It's going to take us time to build and until then, our most valuable neighbor, excuse me, vulnerable and valuable vulnerable neighbors are in a precarious situation. They need your protection. They have no idea that someone chasing yields can completely uproot their lives and devastate them. Local governments need your help as well.
- Ginger Hitzke
Person
This Bill will help stem homelessness and local governments are in crisis with having to address so many homeless citizens. Most importantly, this Bill does not stop me from doing my job. My job is to operate housing and that cash flow and operate properly. This Bill will not stop me from properly flowing cash. So therefore, I ask for your support today for 567. Thank you. Thank you.
- Sasha Harden
Person
Good afternoon, Chair and Members Sasha Harden I'm a senior public policy advocate at the Inner City Law Center in Los Angeles and I'm proud to support Senate Bill 567. SB 567 makes important improvements to the Tenant Protection act of 2019, which I had the honor of working on in my previous role at the Western center on Law and Poverty.
- Sasha Harden
Person
This Bill makes changes to the TPA to reflect lessons learned from its implementation and the change reality we all face post Covid-19 SB 567 addresses loopholes and unforeseen flaws in the TPA's just cause provisions, which allow for evictions for legitimate reasons. So long as those reasons are stated upfront. SB 567 removes the one year delay for newer tenants with respect to the right to just cause.
- Sasha Harden
Person
This is appropriate because the TPA's allowable reasons for eviction allow a landlord to address any problem that may arise on their property and is necessary given the many households that have been forced to reconfigure during COVID to make ends meet and or care for sick family. This change also helps combat the rampant tenant harassment, discrimination, and informal evictions that we've witnessed on the ground by those frustrated by COVID emergency protections.
- Sasha Harden
Person
This Bill makes key changes to the no fault reasons for eviction to prevent fraud and abuse and dishonesty in evicting tenants who've met their rental obligations. With respect to substantial renovation, we have seen abuses in two ways.
- Sasha Harden
Person
Both claimed renovations that never materialize but yet give the basis for an eviction and force a family out and also deferred maintenance over the course of the pandemic, which should have been performed regularly but is now giving rise to the permanent eviction of families who should have the benefit of that maintenance. Far more detailed requirements have been in place for thousands of units in the community where I work in Los Angeles without preventing needed upgrades and repairs.
- Sasha Harden
Person
We feel this is incredibly important to prevent abuses and ensure families can stay housed with respect to owner move ins and removal of units from the rental market. SB 567 also imports successful provisions that have been in place in some jurisdictions for years to ensure move in evictions and those based on withdrawal aren't used fraudulently to evict tenants when no such move in or withdrawal is intended.
- Sasha Harden
Person
And finally, the Bill importantly allows for enforcement to effectuate the Tenant Protection Act and make its promise real for vulnerable tenants. Tenants have very little recourse once they have been evicted, even if that is an unlawful eviction or an inappropriate eviction. It's important that we create a culture of compliance that ensures that those landlords who are following the law and meeting their obligations have an even playing field by addressing those who may flaunt tenant's rights and legal requirements. So we respectfully urge your aye vote on this very important piece of legislation. And thanks, Senator Durazo.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right. Back to you, Senator Durazo.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Yes, so I want to make amendments or propose changes to my Bill. The most important that remains right now of the language that remains right now and that we need to keep moving forward with are the landlord loopholes, the loopholes that allow a landlord to say that their son is going to move in, but in fact, it's used as a loophole to kick out the family that's currently there and use that as an excuse to raise the rent. A loophole.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
The current law just does not have the teeth that it takes, and the promise of what we're supposed to be protections for those landlords is not being achieved. And so whether it's the landlord using the excuse of moving in, the landlord using the excuse of renovating, the landlord using the excuse of removing the unit as a rental unit, we have to close those loops. We need to keep that moving forward. The other part is enforceability.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
It's one thing to have the evidence that the landlord is violating the law, but on the other hand, we need better enforcement. We need enforcement because everybody doesn't have all the money and the resources it takes to do it on their own. We need help in the enforceability in the private and in the public sector. With that, and with the returning the rental cap to what it is under current law, I propose that we move forward, Mr. Chair.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
So this is a target that is fast moving, and I want to make sure that we don't create false expectations. So just to be clear, that all the provisions of the Bill, except the provisions that focus upon three areas, one, where the landlord renovates and doesn't actually renovate, two, where the landlord says either the landlord or his family's moving in and they don't move in, or three, where the landlord says, you need to move out because I'm going to put it on the market and they don't actually put the unit on the market.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Right. Those three areas are the areas that will be focused upon moving forward. Many details yet to be worked out. I note in the Bill that, for example, when a landlord says they're going to convert the property to something for sale, the current Bill says 10 years. So again, we don't want to raise false expectations, at least as, to me, 10 years off the market is way too long. The same thing with a family member moving in. The current Bill says 36 months.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
To me, 36 months is way too long. That somebody, it need not be 36 months or 10 years. In terms of the enforcement mechanism, that's yet to be determined. But I'm okay with that understanding that everything in the Bill comes out. The rental cap is not moved from the current state law. Everything in the Bill that currently exists in the Bill is no longer moving forward. But we're going to focus on those three areas.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
And if we can't come to some understanding in those three areas, that the Bill will come back to this Committee for further consideration. Is that your understanding?
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Yes, except I didn't understand that last part because I hadn't. That it comes back to this Committee.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Correct.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
What are the options? I just want to, well, the options.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Are to take the Bill as is.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
No, I mean in terms of moving forward.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
So those areas, those three areas that I just mentioned that we have to focus on the language because it's not defined. We're not taking the language that currently exists in the Bill. There's going to be other language in terms of addressing those three areas. At least that's my view. And if we can't come to some agreement that you agree that the Bill will come back to Committee for further consideration.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Does that mean like right now?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
No, not right now.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Before the end of this session.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
I'm not sure if this Bill goes to appropriations, but certainly before it goes to the floor. Okay. So before it goes to appropriations. 1 second sure. Before it's voted on appropriations, that the details, and there are many, that those details are agreed upon. If they're not agreed upon, then the Bill comes back to this Committee for you to advocate in any way you'd like, but that we retain jurisdiction at least until it gets to appropriations. You're agreeable that.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Hold on 1 second. Sorry. I think in terms of the last. Sorry. Sure. 1 second Senator Durazo.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. For avoidance of doubt, and this is, I think Disraeli said it with respect to viewing, making sausage and law, that they're similar. That for right now, we'll remove the rent cap in the Bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
The Bill then will move to, assuming that pass out a Committee, will move to Appropriations that you agree not to move the Bill out of Appropriations, or if, for whatever reason, it doesn't go to Appropriations, not to take it to the floor until the details in the three areas that we discussed are worked out and agreed upon. And if they're not agreed upon that you'll bring this back to Committee. You're not moving. You won't move it if they're not agreed upon.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Okay. Again, just in terms of the three areas, plus enforceability.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Enforceability is yet to be determined. Correct.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Right. But I'm saying that's an issue that we're going to keep working on.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
That's an issue. There's been no agreement as to how this may be enforced. So it that?
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Yes.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Before we turn to the opposition, because this is such a dramatic modification of the Bill and there's some Committee Members that, because this is done relatively recently. I'm going to ask if Committee Members have a question before we move you into opposition. No questions. Okay. Any questions by Committee Members?
- Dave Min
Person
I'm sorry. Could you just explain what this Bill does now?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Fortunately, I have an expert sitting next to me here, so if I make a mistake, we will correct it. No, I think it's useful for the whole Committee to hear this. So the Bill that's before us right now, before it moves out of Committee and the vote we will take will be on a Bill that currently exists in its form, in its printed form, except for the rent cap. So the rent cap will be removed. So it remains, as state law exists right now, 10%.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
And then the Bill moves to Appropriations. And what Senator Doraso has agreed to do is before it moves out of Appropriations or before it moves to the floor, that all those other areas, except for the three items that we talked about are then removed from the Bill and the three items that we talked about being landlord, making a representation, they're going to move in either they or their family.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
They don't do it, that they're going to take it off the market and they don't do it, or that they're going to rehab and they don't do it. But how that's going to be enforced is yet to be determined. And what the details are, I've already expressed that my view is 10 years is too long with respect, taking it off the market and 36 months is too long with respect to having a relative or somebody move in. So I don't know.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Does that answer your question, Senator Min.
- Dave Min
Person
Somewhat. This is such a big change. I just want to think about it.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Yeah. Okay. Understandably. All right. Okay. Other questions? No other questions by Committee Members. Now we'll turn to the opposition. And I understand the opposition hasn't had time to digest these details. Do them all together. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Go ahead.
- Debra Carlton
Person
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members. Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association. I want to first state to make clear that Senate Bill 567 amends a law that was created by AB 1482. 1482 was a big deal. I cannot overstate that for our organization to have come to the table to set rent caps and just cause eviction was unprecedented. And as you know, 1482 was signed into law and went into effect in 2020 just as COVID-19 took hold.
- Debra Carlton
Person
We came to the table again in good faith and we worked on Covid-19 protections that protected tenants from eviction. And we did that twice. Two additional laws. In some cities and counties today, those protections are still in place. Tenants have been able to certify with little proof or evidence that they've been negatively affected by COVID. In some counties, like Alameda County, tenants have been living. Some tenants have been living rent-free for three years.
- Debra Carlton
Person
Owners have lost millions of dollars and some owners are losing their homes. The state and federal government gave billions of dollars to pay for rent, and yet some tenants never applied and still lived without fear of being moved out. The irony of AB 1482 is that in our minds, it left a huge hole that we would have preferred to fix.
- Debra Carlton
Person
And that hole is that local governments can still pass their own laws on rent caps and they can still pass their own laws and more stringent laws on just cause eviction. To come here now and claim that 1482 needs amendments, more extreme eviction protections, is not backed by data, and it breaches the legislative agreement that we reached in good faith on a historic law. Now you're telling us. Why did you even come to the table?
- Debra Carlton
Person
You're saying to us that we're going to always change the rules on you even though you came in good faith. We're respectfully asking for your No vote. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, others in opposition. Primary witnesses.
- Karim Drissi
Person
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Kareem Drissi, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. Here today in opposition to SB 567, primarily for two reasons. One, we believe that the Bill does upend the legislative accord that was reached on AB 1482. And two, we believe that the Bill substantially harms small housing providers. CAR was the first business interest group to come to the table on AB 1482.
- Karim Drissi
Person
It was us, it was the author staff, and it was representatives of the sponsors in a room on an almost daily basis for six months, every comma, disjunctive, conjunctive, should this subdivision be four paragraphs or just one subdivision, et cetera. So I definitely dreamed about the proposed language in my sleep during that time, believe me. Having said that, though, now we're hearing from the sponsors themselves.
- Karim Drissi
Person
And also, as noted in the analysis that the sponsors assert that the agreement reached on AB 1482, they were not aware that it prohibited revisions. These are not revisions. These are substantial changes, quote-unquote, revisions, and small cleanup was done in AB 3088 authored by Assembly Member Chu in 2020. All the major stakeholders agreed, and the author signed off, and that language was advanced and folded into AB 3088 which is the first of three temporary eviction moratoriums that were put into place.
- Karim Drissi
Person
Now this Bill comes along and it's going to destroy small housing providers. And so one thing that we're now hearing in real-time, as you said, Mr. Chair, we're still digesting the amendments. It sounds as though the Bill is being substantially amended to look like AB 2713 from last year, which the sponsors also advanced, authored by Assembly Member Wicks.
- Karim Drissi
Person
The Legislature rejected that Bill, and we're hopeful that you will reject this Bill here today because it does upend the accord that was reached, and it will destroy small housing providers. And so we respectfully ask for your No vote. Thank you so much.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, we're now going to turn to what's known as me too testimony. Both the support and opposition, we ask that you approach the microphone, give us your name, your affiliation, in other words, if you belong to a group or who you're representing, and whether you support or oppose SB 567.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
So we'll begin that then, if you're listening on the phone lines, then after we do that, the in person me too testimony, we're going to turn to the phone line, but only for 15 minutes. All right, ma'am, go ahead.
- Meg Gunderson
Person
Meg Gunderson, Sacramento Area Congregations Together, in support.
- Fernando Cibrian
Person
Fernando Cibrian, PICO California, in support.
- Daniel Sanchez-Alba
Person
Daniel Sanchez-Alba, Antioch with ACCE, in support.
- Mynor Godoy
Person
Mynor Godoy, Million Voters Project Action Fund, in support.
- Karla Zombro
Person
Karla Zombro, Million Voters Project Action Fund and mom-and-pop landlord. I support SB 567.
- Anya Svanoe
Person
Anya Savano, ACCE, based out of Oakland. I support.
- Irma Beltran
Person
Irma Beltran, ACCE, in support.
- Ethan Silverstein
Person
Ethan Silverstein, ACCE, strongly support.
- Zairia Ox
Person
Asalam Alikum Holito. Greetings. My name is Zairia Ox. I am with Sacramento Act. I am in District Eight, and I support this Bill. Thank you.
- Elizabeth Stewart
Person
Elizabeth Stewart. I'm here with ACCE, and I support this Bill.
- Lupe Ariola
Person
Lupe Ariola, Executive Director for Tenants Together, we strongly support.
- Rae Huang
Person
Pastor Rae Huang with Housing Now, a housing justice coalition of over 150 member partners. We strongly support.
- Kelly Lloyd
Person
Kelly Lloyd, campaign coordinator with ACCE, strongly support.
- Archie Brunford
Person
Blessings and peace be in this office. This is Archie Brunford, retired Navy disabled vet. I support the ACCE in this Bill because everybody don't ever get $100. You're welcome, Mr. Scott.
- Monica Madrid
Person
Monica Madrid. I live in Elk Grove, Senator Ashby's district. I am an organizer with Sacramento ACCE and. I'm not done with my organizations. California Democratic Party Renters Council in support.
- Monica O.
Person
Monica O. with San Leandro, California, and I'm here in support of ACCE.
- Robin Unidentified
Person
My name is Robin, and I'm here to support ACCE.
- Curtis Anyo
Person
Curtis Anyo in support.
- Yolanda Flores
Person
Yolanda Flores from ACCE. I support.
- Sulmana Berrete
Person
Sulmana Barrette, ACCE. I support
- Blanca Rotano
Person
Blanca Rotano y apoyo
- Estella Martinez
Person
Mi nobre es Estella Martinez, support.
- Lucero Soto
Person
Lucero Soto, community organizer, single mom from Sacramento Act, support.
- Patricia Aguilar
Person
Patricia Aguilar from ACCE, strongly support SB 7.
- Jackie Zenara
Person
Jackie Zenara with ACCE out of Oakland and support SB 567.
- Estella Carrillo
Person
Hi, my name is Estella Carrillo. I strong support.
- Delfina Unidentified
Person
Hi. Mi nombre Delfina, con Sacramento Act, support.
- Alvia Vasquez
Person
My name is Alvia Vasquez with Sacramento Act in support.
- Eddie Gums
Person
Name is Eddie Gums. I'm with ACE. I support this, and I'm also with the Black-Owned Beauty Supply Association.
- Rashida Abdul-Dafi
Person
Hello. My name is Rashida Abdul-Dafi. I'm with Sacramento Act, and I support the act.
- Tashina Garret
Person
My name is Tashina Garret of Antioch California with ACCE, and I support SB 567.
- Raul Oscars
Person
My name is Raul Oscars with ACCE. I'm support.
- Peyton Silkette
Person
Minister Peyton Silkette, Faith in Action, East Bay, small landlord, in support.
- Sasan Barrajas
Person
Sasan Barrajas with Faith in Action, East Bay, strongly in support.
- Valeria Ochoa
Person
Valeria Ochoa from Faith in Action, East Bay, and PICO California, in support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Ava Hernandez
Person
Ava Hernandez, Faith in Action, East Bay, and PICO California, strongly support.
- Olga Romero
Person
Olga Romero, Faith in Action, in support.
- Chris Moreno
Person
Chris Moreno, Faith in Action, East Bay, and I support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you. Is there more coming? No? Okay, good.
- Zara Nyat
Person
Zara Nyat with Sac Act, and I support SB 567.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Patty Shaw
Person
Patty Shaw from Sac Act, and I support 567.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Megan Shumway
Person
Megan Shumway, on behalf of Sac Act. I support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Phillip Castaneda
Person
My name is Phillip Castaneda from Sacramento Act and PICO California. I support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Devin Williams
Person
My name is Devin Williams. I strongly support and I'm with ACCE.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Andrea Green
Person
My name is Andrea Green. I strongly support and I am with ACCE.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Doug Hopper
Person
Doug Hopper, also with ACCE in support. Thank you.
- Tina Rosales Torres
Person
Good afternoon. Tina Rosales with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, proud co-sponsors in support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Anira Mendoza
Person
My name is Anira Mendoza. I member the Ace and I support SB 567.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Giovanna Fajardo
Person
My name is Giovanna Fajardo. I'm with ACCE, and I'm also strongly in support of.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Kristen Lopez
Person
My name is Kristen Lopez. I'm with ACCEand I support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Tatiana Turner
Person
My name is Tatiana Turner. I'm with Caravan for Justice. I'm asking you guys to support this Bill today. Bills 567, please support it.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Darryl Alder
Person
Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. My name is Darryl Alder from Sacramento Act, and I am in support of SB 567.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Sheila Sells
Person
My name is Sheila Sells of Sacramento Act and I'm in support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Tk Ruther
Person
My name is TK Mary Ruther from Orange County, California, and I am in support of SB 55. Let's get that doing. I'm sorry. 567. They're all work hand in hand. You all get the vote.
- Christina Livingston
Person
Hi, my name is Christina Livingston. I'm the Executive Director of the community group ACCE, and on behalf of our 17,000 member families, we strongly urge a vote on this Bill.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
[Testimony in Spanish].
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Jasmine Alberti
Person
Hello, my name is Jasmine Alberti. I am with PICO California, and I strongly support SB 567.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Edward Little
Person
Ed Little, on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice in strong support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Dave Howe
Person
Supporter of the Bill. Alameda County. Dave Howe.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Jeronimo Aguilar
Person
Jeronimo Aguilar, here on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. Also here on behalf of All of Us or None. In strong support. Thank you.
- Miller Saltzman
Person
Miller Saltzman with Power CA action in strong support. Thank you.
- Chris Wysocki
Person
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Chris Wysocki with WMA Western Manufactured Housing Community Association and we are in strong opposition and align ourselves with the authors or the opponents. Thank you.
- Dana Unidentified
Person
Hi, my name is Dana, and I support SB 567.
- Debra Roth
Person
That's a hard one to follow. I'm Deb Roth with Disability Rights California, in strong support.
- Luis Lehman
Person
Good afternoon, Members. Luis Lehman, on behalf of the Orange County Labor Federation, in strong support.
- Janice O'Malley
Person
Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California. We support the Bill in print and need to review the Bill once it's amended, but thank you.
- Melanie Morales
Person
Melanie Morales with the Greenlining Institute, in support.
- Nicole Trujillo-Rice
Person
Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Nicole Trujillo Rice, on behalf of the California State Building Construction Trades Council, we also support the Bill in print and we'll have to review the amendments. Thank you.
- Ruth Silver-Taube
Person
Ruth Silver-Taube, Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition, in support.
- Jyotswaroop Bawa
Person
Good afternoon. I'm Jyotswaroop Bawa with the California Reinvestment Coalition in strong support.
- Giovanna Morales
Person
Good afternoon. Giovanna Morales with Leadership Council on behalf of California Central Valley Journey for Justice and Catholic Charities of Stockton, in strong support.
- Matt Lege
Person
Matt Lege, on behalf of SEIU California, in support.
- Cassandra Mancini
Person
Cassie Mancini, on behalf of the California School Employees Association, in support.
- Brian Augusta
Person
Brian Augusta, on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, proud co-sponsor. Also the Public Interest Law Project and the National Housing Law Project, in support.
- Rand Martin
Person
Rand Martin, on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its Housing is a Human Right Division, in strong support. Thank you.
- Patrick Moran
Person
Mr. Chair and Members Pat Moran with Aaron Read and Associates, representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association, in opposition. Thank you.
- Eddie Carmona
Person
Eddie Carmona with PICO California, on behalf of our nine federations across the state of California, in strong support of SB 567.
- Amy Hines-Shaikh
Person
Amy Hines-Shaikh with Unite Here Local 11 and our 32,000 Members and also Abundant Housing Los Angeles in strong support. Thank you.
- Steven Stenzler
Person
Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of Housing California, in support.
- Indira Mc Donald
Person
Indira McDonald on behalf of the California Mortgage Bankers Association, respectfully opposed.
- Michelle Pariset
Person
Michelle Pariset with Public Advocates, proud co-sponsors in support.
- Sara Flocks
Person
Mr. Chair and Members, Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation, in strong support of the Bill in print. Just need to review the amendments which we couldn't hear. Thank you.
- Shanti Singh
Person
Shanti Singh, Legislative Director, Tenants Together. On behalf of our 60-member coalition, strong support.
- Robert Cole
Person
Robert Cole a member of ACE and the Sacramento Homeless Organized Committee. Strong support.
- Kalima Motaki
Person
My name is Kalima Motaki. I'm with Sacramento Act and I strongly support.
- Zara Rodriguez
Person
My name is Zara Rodriguez, I'm with Sac Act and I strongly support.
- Natalie Boust
Person
Natalie Boust, the California Business Roundtable, in opposition.
- Cynthia Gomez
Person
Hi. Cynthia Gomez, on behalf of Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA, here in strong support.
- Hazel Watson
Person
Hazel Watson from Sac Act here in strong support of SB 567. Thank you.
- Paul Briley
Person
Paul Briley, regional coordinator for All of Us or None, in strong support.
- Jesse Burleson
Person
Jesse Clyde Burleson, in custody program coordinator for LSPC, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and All of Us or None. Strong support.
- John Cannon
Person
Hello, I'm John Cannon, outreach coordinator for Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong support of SB 567.
- Raquel Mason
Person
Hi. Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance. Strong support. Thank you.
- Scott Wilk
Person
That's it for in-person testimony. So let's go to the phones. Moderator, are you there?
- Committee Moderator
Person
Yes.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Did not hear you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Yes.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Okay, good. So here's a drill. It's me too testimony so your name, your organization, if you have one, and your position on the Bill. ABC. And with that, let's queue up the phones.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to comment in the support or opposition then press one and zero at this time. First, we'll go to line 2172. Please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I accept your proposal as long as they have the changes in there.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you. One final thing. We're going to go on the clock because we have 49 bills today. The Chair, not me, but the Chair has limited to 15 minutes of testimony. So we're on the clock.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Okie doke.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Okay. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2234. Please go ahead. 2234 your line is open. We'll move on to line 2289. Please go ahead.
- Mary Creasy
Person
Hi, Mary Creasy on behalf of The Children's Partnership in support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you. Well done.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2389. Please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
What? That's my number, 2389.
- Committee Moderator
Person
2389 yes, go ahead. Line 2389 your line's open.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm up.
- Committee Moderator
Person
We'll move on to line 2410. Please go ahead.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Yeah.
- Committee Moderator
Person
23. Sorry, one moment. Let's go to 2345. Please go ahead.
- Noah Garcia
Person
Good afternoon. Noah Garcia, calling on behalf of Dolores Huerta Foundation in strong support of SB 567.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2483. Please go ahead.
- Catherine Forest
Person
Catherine Forest, Encompass Community Services, landlord, in strong support of SB 567.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2420. Please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. Living. In strong support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2508. Please go ahead.
- Boomer Vincente
Person
Hello, my name is Boomer Vicente from Chispa and I'm calling strong support of SB 567.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2522. Please go ahead.
- Margaret Zamadio
Person
Good afternoon. Margaret Zamadio, calling on behalf of myself as a renter and on behalf of legal aid of Sonoma county in strong support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2515. Please go ahead.
- Brian Miner
Person
Good afternoon. My name is Brian Miner. I'm representing Scope Los Angeles in strong support of SB 567. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2527. Please go ahead. 2527 your line is open. Move on to line 2531. Go ahead.
- Maribel Nunez
Person
Hello. Maribel Nunez, Inland Equity Partnership here in the Inland Empire in support of SB 567. Thank you.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2535. Please go ahead.
- Christina Williams
Person
Hello, my name is Christina Williams. I was the Orange County Agent. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 232. Please go ahead.
- Danielle Unidentified
Person
Hello?
- Committee Moderator
Person
Yes, go ahead.
- Danielle Unidentified
Person
My name is Danielle and I'm calling in strong support of SB 567 on behalf of California For All.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2456. Please go ahead.
- Randy Hicks
Person
Randy Hicks, California disability rights, in strong support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2551. Please go ahead.
- Sandra Musberger
Person
Hello?
- Committee Moderator
Person
Yes, go ahead.
- Sandra Musberger
Person
Hi, my name is Sandra Musberger. I'm here with. On behalf of One Mom's Battle in support of Bill SB 331.
- Scott Wilk
Person
That is not the Bill we're on currently. That Bill we anticipate coming up about 11:30 tonight, if everybody's behaved. No, I'm sorry, miss, I shouldn't say that. I don't know when the Bill is coming up, but that's not the current Bill.
- Sandra Musberger
Person
So do I get to call back then?
- Scott Wilk
Person
Absolutely, you can call back. You can call back on every Bill if you like.
- Sandra Musberger
Person
Okay, thank you.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2529. Please go ahead. Line 2529, your line is open. All right, we'll move on to line 2514. Please go ahead.
- Joshua Gauger
Person
Good afternoon. Josh Gogger on behalf of the California Community Living Network in support. Thank you.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you, sir.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And next, we'll go to line 2568. Please go ahead.
- Sana Sethi
Person
Hi, this is Sana Sethi with San Francisco Rising in strong support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2518. Please go ahead.
- Blandy Morales
Person
Hello? Blandy Morales with Orange County Congregations Community Organization, also known as OCCCO, in support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2428. Please go ahead.
- Anastasia Bonapolis
Person
Hello, this is Anastasia Bonapolis with San Francisco Anti-displacement Coalition in support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And next, we'll go to line 2470. Please go ahead.
- Dulce Unidentified
Person
Hi.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Hi.
- Dulce Unidentified
Person
This is Dulce with the Lange, Orange County, and I'm in support of SB 567.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2285. Please go ahead.
- David Nguyen
Person
Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is David Nguyen, representing Community Coalition and we strongly support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2547. Please go ahead.
- Victor Vivares
Person
Hello, this is.
- Committee Moderator
Person
2547 your line is open.
- Victor Vivares
Person
Okay. Yeah, this is Victor Vivaris from Somatolo De Salud De Orange County in support of SB 567.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you, sir.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2569. Please go ahead.
- Yuri Mitik
Person
My name is Yuri Mitik, I'm representing myself, and regarding SB 331, I oppose.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you. That's not the Bill.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Even I forgot.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2542. Please go ahead.
- Catherine Tattersfield
Person
Catherine Tattersfield, Valley Justice Coalition, strong support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2540. Please go ahead.
- Betty Toto
Person
Yes, hi, Betty Toto from Housing is a Human Right, a division of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. We are in support of the Bill in print.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2398. Please go ahead.
- Nicole Young
Person
Yes, Nicole Young in opposition.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2610. Please go ahead.
- Megan Nguyen
Person
Good afternoon. Megan Nguyen on behalf of East Bay Housing Organizations in strong support. Thank you.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2322. Please go ahead.
- Chloe Garcia
Person
Good afternoon. My name is Chloe Garcia and I'm calling on behalf of inner city struggle in strong support of SB 567. Thank you.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2250. Please go ahead.
- Michael Soloff
Person
Yes, this is Michael Soloff on behalf of Santa Monicans for Renters Rights. We support the Bill in print and would need further process to see if there's anything left to support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2593. Please go ahead.
- Melinda Dodge
Person
Hello, this is Reverend Melinda Dodge. I'm calling on behalf of LA Voice and all of the United Methodist churches in Long Beach, California, in strong support of this Bill. Thank you very much.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2486. Please go ahead.
- Dilene Pinkitoni
Person
I'm Dilene Pinkitoni with ACCE, and I'm in strong support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2528. Please go ahead.
- Kath Rogers
Person
Good afternoon. Kath Rogers, on behalf of ACLU, California action in support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2397. Please go ahead.
- Tammy Alvarado
Person
Hi, my name is Tammy Alvarado. I'm a member of ACCE in San Diego, and I'm in strong support of SC 567.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you. Well, maybe we can get through it.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go on to line 2586. Please go ahead.
- Terry Holtzman
Person
Hi, my name is Terry Holtzman. I'm AF and I strongly.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2552. Please go ahead.
- Liz Tara
Person
Liz Tara, small business owner and I oppose.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2498. Go ahead.
- Robin Samuels
Person
I'm Robin Samuels from Leo Beck Temple and LA Voice, and I urge support of SB 567.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2304. Please go ahead.
- Madison Linh
Person
Hello, Madison Do Linh on behalf of Prevention Institute, calling in support of SB 567.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2609. Please go ahead.
- Jojo Oliver
Person
Yeah, this is Jojo Oliver with the Sonoma County Tenants Union in support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And next, we'll go to line 2448. Please go ahead.
- Sylvia Hernandez
Person
Sylvia Hernandez with the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter, and we are in support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go on to line 2466. Please go ahead.
- Maria Galvan
Person
Hello, my name is Maria Galvan. I'm with Inland Empire Vote in support of SB 567.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go now to line 2288. Go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is, and I'm calling on behalf of Alliance San Diego, and I'm calling in strong support of SB 567.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2480. Please go ahead.
- Amy Sure
Person
Amy Sure with the community group ACCE in strong support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2464. Please go ahead.
- Rebecca Mendarez
Person
Hi, Rebecca Mendarez with Working Partnerships USA in strong support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2421. Please go ahead.
- Susan Unknown
Person
Hello?
- Scott Wilk
Person
Hi.
- Susan Unknown
Person
Hi, my name is Susan. I'm with Advocates for justice, and I'm calling in strong support of SB 567.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2424. Please go ahead.
- Leslie Kraut
Person
Hi, this is Leslie Kraut with Congregation Or Ami in Calabasas and LA Voice, and I am in support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2502. Please go ahead.
- Josie Hudson
Person
Hello, this is Rabbi Josie Hudson with LA Voice and PICO California, and I strongly support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2628. Please go ahead.
- Jason Wank
Person
Jason Wank in strong support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2622. Please go ahead.
- Aliah Shaike
Person
Hi, this is Aliah Shaike with LA Voice and PICO California in support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2406. Please go ahead.
- Amanda Amador
Person
Hello, this is Amanda Amador. I'm a retired landlady from Santa Clarita, California, and I am the strongest opposition to SB 567.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2634. Please go ahead.
- Lisa Garcia
Person
Good afternoon. Lisa Garcia, Panorama City, a mom-and-pop landlord in strong opposition, please, to 567.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you. Moderator, I've got a question for you because we're beyond time, but I think there's six more in the queue. Can we do this six more and not allow anybody else in because I'm already violating Chairman Umberg's rules?
- Committee Moderator
Person
Sure.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Okay, great. Then we're going to do the final six, and then we'll bring it back to the Committee.
- Committee Moderator
Person
All right. We'll go to line 2503. Please go ahead.
- Brendan Bussey
Person
Good afternoon. My name is Father Brendan Bussey, the pastor, Dolores Mission Catholic Church in Boyle Heights, member of LA Voice, and I'm strongly in support of SB 567. Thank you.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2637. Please go ahead.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Do we have an interpreter in the room?
- Committee Moderator
Person
2637, please go ahead. Line 2637 your line is open.
- Alejandra Ramírez-Zárate
Person
Alejandra Ramirez-Zarate with OC Action in strong support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2171. Please go ahead. And line 2171 your line is open. All right, we'll move on to line 2644. Please go ahead.
- Diana Kingsbury
Person
I'm Diana Kingsbury, and on behalf of North Bay Organizing Project and the Sonoma County Tenants Union. I'm calling in support of it as written.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Diana Kingsbury
Person
Thanks.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And next, we'll go to line 2659. Please go ahead.
- Linda Wanner
Person
Linda Wanner with the California Catholic Conference in strong support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Would you like to take the last one or would you like to cut it off there?
- Scott Wilk
Person
We'll take the last one.
- Committee Moderator
Person
All right, we'll go to line 2662. Please go ahead.
- Brian Augusta
Person
Brian Augusta, on behalf of the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board in support.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you, sir. All right. Moderator, fine job. Appreciate the effort. Okay, we're going to bring it back to the Committee for any questions, comments, concerns, and then when we go to rearticulate what was agreed on, I don't really feel like I'm well positioned to do that. So we'll figure that out, you and I, together. But questions, comments? Senator Ashby.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
I'll open us up and just thank Senator Durazo for her tenacity and bravery here and her hard work and Chairman Umberg for working with her on this package. And you know, I think this is a great opportunity, and I know that you're going to work really hard on this, and it probably feels a little ambiguous to people. That's because she's still working hard and this is just the first Committee, so you'll have a chance to flush this out.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
And then I'm sure I'll see it again in appropriations and then probably on the floor. So I just want to thank you for your tenacity, and I am willing to make the motion for the modified proposal, I'll call it, laid out between you and Chairman Umberg before he had to leave the room. And he's just presenting. I know people probably know that he's just presenting in another space, but he'll be back. Okay.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank everybody that testified and came to the hearing today, because there were many people, there were strong feelings and just appreciate you expressing them. And it is a good reminder of what's going on at the grassroots level and what people's needs are. And I think this is a very difficult issue on the process level. And I think Senator Durazo has made the best of a situation that was very difficult for her.
- John Laird
Legislator
And the Bill that was referred to many times was negotiated. And it was interesting because at the time, I wasn't in the Senate, and I watched it, and I was surprised that some people gave what they gave. I never thought we would have a Bill that had rent caps in it in any way. And a lot of people moved. And I know there's someone that's a realtor in my home county that convinced her realtors to come on on it.
- John Laird
Legislator
And so I think that was some of the difficulty, because there's this deal that was made, and to appear to come into it when everybody stretched and compromised is a difficult thing. And I think the major things that the Chair worked out with Senator Durazo are places that that deal wasn't working and places where there were loopholes that people might be taken advantage of.
- John Laird
Legislator
And the important thing is that now there is a forum to discuss those among the parties that isn't a complete recapitulation of a deal in it. It is a chance to see if in those places, people were being disadvantaged in a major way. And I think the reason those three are there is because it was actually happening in places, and there was that difficulty. And I have to say to people that are organizers, and there's a clear lot of organizers here.
- John Laird
Legislator
And this has been an issue since I was elected, before many of you were born, to local government. And it's really disappointing because I have 21 cities in my district, and my home city, where I was once the mayor, Santa Cruz, is probably the most progressive of the 21. And two cycles ago, it voted down rent control with just cause eviction with 62% no in the most progressive city in my district. So it means that there's a lot of work to be done for this.
- John Laird
Legislator
And it is important to be able to tell stories, because those stories led to the three things that Senator Durazo has in her Bill to try to fix. And I hope that people that were involved in the 2018 arrangement and Chew Bill, that all moved well now, since some of the things they were most concerned about in this Bill aren't there, in the same way that they might engage to have a discussion about those three things and see if they fit the overall formulation.
- John Laird
Legislator
So I just want to thank everybody for testifying for Senator Durazo, for working on this, and I will look forward to supporting the motion when it's made.
- Scott Wilk
Person
We do have a motion. So, Senator Durazo, you may close.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Thank you very much. Renters in California are not protected as AB 1482 promised or intended. And that's what we're going to continue to work on is that there are loopholes. We have people here. We have people who came here from all over the state who have encountered it. Either they themselves personally, or a family member or a neighbor have gone through and felt what it means to end up losing their place, losing their home because of these loopholes. And we're going to fix it.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
We're going to fix it with your help. We're going to fix this because it's wrong for landlords to promise to renovate or remove a unit or promise that say that they're going to move in and then end up using that as an excuse to evict people and raise the rents. Too much of that is happening. So we're all committed to continue work that.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
I appreciate with the Chair, the Chair's commitment to continue to work on the fact that these loopholes and enforceability just is not happening for the benefit of the tenants and the renters. So with that, I appreciate everyone's work. The Committee, thank you so much and hope we can move forward on this. And I don't know. Do I have to repeat?
- Scott Wilk
Person
No. I think we'll have the secretary read the motion, which will include everything that's been discussed here today. And if you're uncomfortable with any of that, speak up and then we'll go to a vote.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Great. Thank you very much.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item number three, SB 567 by Senator Durazo. The motion is do pass, as amended, to Senate Appropriations. The amendment changes Civil Code Section 1947.12 A in the Bill back to existing law.
- Scott Wilk
Person
And then everything else will be negotiated at a later date when it's in a probe. So that's the only thing we're doing today. Call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll call]. Four to one.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Okay, four Ayes, one No. We'll leave it open for Members to add on.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you. And we're going to go ahead and take a moment to clear the room for those who are all here for this Bill, because we have other people want to come in for future bills. So, again, as Senator Laird said, thank you for coming in and participating in the democratic process.
- Scott Wilk
Person
48, bill number four. So, Senator Eggman, welcome.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
Thank you very much.
- Scott Wilk
Person
And so, before we begin, do you accept the amendments that are proposed in analysis?
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
I do.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Okay, then please proceed with your presentation on SB 43.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
Thank you very much. And thank you for. Hello, Senator. Today I'm here to present SB 43, which is the latest in a long line of bills to try to update what we mean when we say gravely disabled. I'm talking about, of course, our behavioral health system and the crisis that many have known for a long time. That has been before us.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
And many of you on the dais have been working at it from your different levels of position and authority, trying to address, I think, one of the issues of our generation, of my generation, anyway. And sometimes when we talk about something so big, you don't know where to start.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
So just like, just with a little history, so as folks know, and then just precursor it with, we did our first nationwide look at how many folks were living in the United States with mental health issues in the 1880s. And at that time, they found about 100,000 people. And where were they living, was the question. And about 50% of those were in asylum-type places, bad. But the other 50% were basically at home and in the community. 0.07% of those folks were incarcerated.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
And we transpose that with what we know today. And we know that the largest mental health facilities we have in California are our prisons and our jails and our streets is where people are spending their time, which, of course, we know is terribly inappropriate. Of course, during that time, we started, really, since the 1880s and 1967, we institutionalize a lot of people for a lot of reasons. And that was wrong. That was wrong.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
And we came to a place where we said people should be and are best treated in the community. And so in 1967, we passed an LPS law, which, in part, was to bring folks out of our institutions. Part of that LPS was also about getting people treatment as fast and quickly as we could in the community setting. And another part of that was also about moving them to the lowest level of care.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
And another part of that was also about public safety and was the public being protected through all this process. So, in 1967, when we passed LPS, things, of course, looked very different than they look now. So we said we were going to provide all these community supports. And as people may have realized, we never follow through with that. Through one reason after another, through recessions and different things, we never actually follow through with the promise of the deep community support that we are going to provide.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
We let people out with very little support, oftentimes without any family support left to their own, and basically said, good luck. So in 1967, when we passed the LPS act, we said, we're going to stop doing that and treat the people where they're living in the community. And of course, since that time, things have drastically changed. We have better medications. We have a huge different understanding then than we do now of the brain and how it works.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
We in California have the most strict LPS laws. We wanted to be the leaders in the nation when that went into effect. Other states have fallen away from us and have modified what it means to be gravely disabled. Currently in the State of California means to be gravely disabled if you are unable to provide food, clothing, shelter, or you're harm to yourself or somebody else. That is translated very loosely.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
Anyone can drive down any street in Santa Cruz and San Francisco, in Sacramento, and see examples of people when you think, this can't be right. This person is clearly, drastically, is in the middle of a psychosis. Oftentimes could be in the middle of the street with open wounds that we can see talking to people who aren't there. As I was driving in this morning, I commute back and forth from Stockton every day, and I don't know why this struck me so much, but it did.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
I saw in the delta area just a beautiful field of wildflowers. And as I've been traveling back and forth every day, I see the changes in the scenery based on the weather and the sun and everything. And I felt joy that I could see that, and I could appreciate that.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
And as I pull into town, I see people who clearly cannot experience that basic human joy that we have of seeing and appreciating nature, of smelling spring, because we see people caught in the throes of a mental health crisis, locked in the prison of their brain. And through our laws and through what we thought was compassion, we've let it go on way too long and way too far.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
So what I have before you today is a simple bill to redefine what it means in California to be able to be gravely disabled and to be able to hold somebody against their will. We always think volunteering is best. I agree with that wholeheartedly. I'm a social worker. I have done a lot of bills. Some of you haven't voted for it because they were too much on the side of self-determination.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
Safe injection sites, End of Life Option Act right very much self determination type of bills. But we know we're not talking about. We're talking about folks who in the throes of addiction, to the degree that your mind is fried and or you're in psychiatric crisis, you cannot make those kinds of decisions. They suffer from something called agnosia oftentimes, which says you don't even have awareness that something is wrong with you.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
We wouldn't let somebody lay out in the street with their head chopped off and say, my plan is to hold it back on. We would pick them up in an ambulance. We're saying the same thing should account with our mental health crisis. So we'd like to change the definition to be able to say A, that you can base something on history.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
If somebody has been, as most folks are going into the 5150 system and going in and out and in and out, and sometimes 50 times they are found to be unstable, and then before that, the 72 hours is up, they are released again. So this says that you can use, if you've had that same plan multiple times and it hasn't worked out, it's probably not going to work out this time.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
And the state of your mental health has devolved to a state where you cannot no longer protect yourself based on that mental health issue or that substance abuse issue. You cannot provide self-care for a physical or mental condition that is continuing to worsen. And people might say, oh, you're just saying you don't like the way somebody looks. No, we're talking about when people's fingers fall off, people are losing limbs.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
If you see folks laying on the street through our drastic summers, our drastic winters, we're having people die every single time that happens because their mental health issues has them not understanding the weather is bad and laying out. And in my district, cooking in the summer, to the places of bloating that nobody should have to see.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
And family members certainly shouldn't have to worry about their loved one dying on the street from bloating because they are so dehydrated, it's so hot, they don't know to come in. As we know, in 2004, we passed the Mental Health Services Act, thinking that we would really then reinvest in that community mental health that we thought for so long was so important.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
But one of the things we realized was we had let it go on so long and so far that so many of our most ill were sort of past the point of being able to help in some respects. And we know again that they are. Right now, our state hospitals are full of people who have been found incapable of standing trial. So we're trying to get them back into their right mind.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
So they can stand trial for a crime they committed while not in their right mind. That's wrong. We know our prison and our jail populations have gone down, but the mental health folks that we're treating in those have gone up. So people will say we don't have the capacity perhaps to help people. Well, if we don't have the capacity to help people, then I ask you, what are we doing?
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
Because what we're saying is people without the education to help them in our jails and in our prisons and on the streets are the ones who are providing the care. And I think LA County is on the hook for about $3 billion because of abuses in the jails, where we're asking people without skills to help a very difficult demographic without the equipment to be able to do that.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
So the Bill before us again here today, again, just says, let's actually make sense of what we're talking about. Make it actually to be able to help folks that at that time cannot help themselves is always to move people down to a lower level of care. The idea is not to conserve people, but to be able to help people earlier in the process. This body has voted in the last few years over $12 billion of resources that we put into our system.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
We're currently in our fifth round of the behavioral health infrastructure, money that is going out to visit counties and tribes to build out the infrastructure. As people know, I'm also carrying, working with the governor, the MHSA, which will have a bond component to be able to do more construction. And we also know that last year with the governor, we passed the Care Act, which will hopefully bring a lot of those folks into the system in a voluntary manner before.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
We have really tried to fill out our entire continuum of care from start to finish with young kids, with early intervention, with all of those things that are so important. But if we don't fix this end piece, it just becomes the same revolving loop that it's been over and over and over again, where people fall off the system at the end and end up in our streets, in our jails, in our prisons, or deceased. It's time to do something. It's within our power to do something. And the time is now. With me here today to testify, I have Dr. Emily Wood, a psychiatrist, as well as Mayor Todd Gloria from the City of San Diego.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Floor is yours.
- Emily Wood
Person
Hi, I'm Emily Wood. I'm a psychiatrist and neuroscientist representing the California State Association of Psychiatrists or CSAP. CSAP is co-sponsoring this bill because we have seen too many of our patients fall through the cracks of our broken system. Most of our patients have to make unreasonable choices about their care. They have to weigh the distress and dysfunction related to their mental illness against how the limited available treatment fits with their needs, preferences, and values.
- Emily Wood
Person
A man deciding whether to participate in a residential substance use program may see that it might help him with his addiction, but it will certainly cause him to lose his shelter. No one should have to make decisions like this, and people who can are not gravely disabled. Individuals who meet criteria for grave disability are unable to make necessary decisions about their personal safety and health because of the symptoms of their mental health disorder.
- Emily Wood
Person
Take a young man with borderline intellectual functioning and chronic math use who is regularly brought to the hospital. When his family finds him on the street where he is psychotic, starving, and being abused. With a few days of nutrition and antipsychotic meds, the intoxication lifts and he wants to return home. Previously, his family took him back with open arms.
- Emily Wood
Person
But despite his genuine desire to be part of the family, within days, the cravings return him to the street and the meth deprives him of his capacity to choose. This time, the family asked to keep him at the hospital longer to fully stabilize and really consider substance use programs. I must tell him that his judgment remains poor because his brain is completely focused on obtaining meth and he would benefit from more time to fully detox and participate in therapy.
- Emily Wood
Person
But we have no legal basis to continue the treatment he deserves because he can obtain food, clothing, and shelter. His primary mental health disorder is nonalcohol substance use, and his history of returning to shelterless starvation within a week of discharge has no bearing. CSAP supports updating the definition of gravely disabled because we are tired of watching our patients die on the street and rot in jail when we could have helped them. Heidi, we must accept that there are vulnerable individuals among us who need extra support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Unfortunately, we're going to have to limit testimony to two minutes. Yes. And you support the bill?
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
Yes.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor.
- Todd Gloria
Person
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try and make it brief. I appreciate the nature of the Committee's long hearing already. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here. My name is Todd Gloria. I'm the mayor of the City of San Diego, also the chair of the California Big 13 Mayors Coalition bipartisan group representing many of the communities that you work in. Many of you know that we have been focused and passionate about the issue of homelessness.
- Todd Gloria
Person
But in recent years, we've been working more on behavioral health reform. You have entrusted us with billions of your dollars to address the issue of the unsheltered. But there is a small segment of the population, and small in number, but is high in acuity in terms of people's observations of them that we are trying to focus on with this particular piece of legislation. We appreciate Senator Eggman leading on this issue.
- Todd Gloria
Person
We worked with this committee, with Senator Eggman, and with you, Mr. Chairman, last year to pass care court, and we are excited to implement it. But even with the implementation of that piece of landmark legislation, there's still going to be a segment of acutely mentally ill folks who are not going to be able to be served and for whom I worry the two-year process that is care court may be a death sentence.
- Todd Gloria
Person
We need to get these folks who are very, very sick into care as quickly as possible, and that's what Senate Bill 43 is intended to do. I want you to know that this is an issue that is all over the State of California, certainly in all of our cities and certainly in all of your districts. These folks are the ones that are cycling through our streets, our jails, our emergency rooms, costing taxpayers, I would argue, millions if not billions of dollars.
- Todd Gloria
Person
Importantly, in my city, on a daily basis, we experience 400 service hours of our firefighters, our police officers, and our paramedics being focused on behavioral health emergency calls. 400 hours. That's dozens of first responders not available to respond to the needs of your heart attack, your crime in progress. Instead, they're working on behalf of people who should be in a better and more rich care setting than our jails and our emergency rooms.
- Todd Gloria
Person
This is the kind of stuff that we believe will be addressed through this bill, recognizing there's no silver bullet, but the comprehensive approach that Senator Eggman is taking will certainly help to get us much further along. This action is long overdue. Again, you are giving us billions of your dollars to put to work, but there is that difficult group of population that we need your help with. Please give us the tools to be able to address this acute population before it gets worse.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. All right. Thank you so much. All right, next, primary opposition.
- Samuel Jain
Person
Chair and members, thank you for allowing me to speak in opposition of SB 43. My name is Samuel Jain. I'm a senior policy attorney at Disability Rights California. SB 43 won't expand access to care. It won't divert people with mental illness from our criminal justice system. It will only perpetuate the revolving door of homelessness and institutionalization. Involuntary criteria does not need to be expanded.
- Samuel Jain
Person
The part of our system that's broken is that once an individual is stabilized and discharged, they end up back on the streets without housing and their condition again deteriorates. SB 43 will make this problem worse by significantly expanding involuntary criteria. We will force resources into expensive locked facilities, taking away from the downstream and upstream facility community supports and housing that people need to remain stable in the community.
- Samuel Jain
Person
The World Health Organization recently released a report saying we need to move away from involuntary mental health treatment and towards community-based treatment. SB 43 will move our state backwards on this issue. SB 43 will subject many more Californians to the terror of involuntary confinement. I was a mental health patients rights advocate for five and a half years where I investigated allegations of abuse and neglect in locked psychiatric facilities. These are not places of healing. They're often traumatizing, and people feel their rights are frequently violated.
- Samuel Jain
Person
Black and Latinx Californians are disproportionately subject to this trauma being over 50% more likely to be placed on a 5150 than white Californians. SB 43 will make these already existing disparities worse. Organizations representing individuals with lived experience oppose SB 43. These are people who have mental health disabilities, people who've been subject to forced treatment themselves and are telling us that this has not worked for them.
- Samuel Jain
Person
Having their rights and dignity stripped from them through involuntary confinement has inflicted more harm and has made wellness more elusive. Those who would be most impacted by SB 43 are telling us that this isn't the right thing to do. For these reasons, we ask this committee's no vote on SB 43. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Other primary witnesses in opposition.
- Clare Cortright
Person
Good afternoon. My name is Clare Cortright. I am the policy director for Cal Voices. We're a peer-run organization. I'm a person with lived experience of a psychotic illness. Longtime mental health advocate and attorney. We have many objections to the bill. They're in the record. But what we wanted to highlight today, because this is judiciary, is our opposition to the hearsay exception. We also wrote a letter to this committee really unpacking what that looks like and our concerns around it.
- Clare Cortright
Person
And I'll highlight briefly this exception privileges speakers for the prosecution only. Their statements are wholesale, considered non-hearsay, and that exception benefits the prosecution only whose liberty is not at stake. The provision allows an expert witness to repeat the diagnostic opinions of another provider despite having no personal knowledge or basis as to their truth.
- Clare Cortright
Person
He cannot be cross-examined on these statements. Because the exception covers quote statements it could also potentially encompass and allow an expert witness to repeat and endorse what's called multiple hearsay. That's where, for instance, a provider might write in the record that another unidentified mental patient saw the proposed conservative doing X, Y, or Z. The expert witness would then, if this covers multiple hearsay be able to offer that for the truth of the matter asserted.
- Clare Cortright
Person
The exception really like wholesale imports evidence that is considered unreliable in basically every other proceeding and it actually selects for that unreliable evidence and it has the function of shifting the burden to the proposed conservative to identify, locate, and call any hearsay speaker in the record. It could be a 1000-page medical record. To throw that at a proposed conservative defendant is profoundly unfair. It really stacks the deck and may result in proceedings in which the person does not have much of a chance of prevailing.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much. All right. Now let's turn to other support and opposition. Me too. Witnesses here in the hearing room. If you approach the microphone, give us your name, your position and you either support or oppose your affiliation.
- Michelle Cabrera
Person
Thank you so much. Chair and Members, Michelle Cabrera with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California. We have an in-between position of concerns on the bill primarily driven by our.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Michelle Cabrera
Person
Thank you.
- Laurie Hallmark
Person
Laurie Hallmark, attorney and consumer. I oppose.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Priscilla Quiroz
Person
Priscilla Quiroz. Also on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the City of Santa Monica, and the City of West Hollywood in support. Thank you.
- Paul Yoder
Person
Mr. Chair, members, Paul Yoder, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco and Mayor London Breed in support. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Caroline Cirrincione
Person
Good afternoon. Caroline Cirrincione, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
Good afternoon.
- Susan Gallagher
Person
Susan Gallagher, Executive Director of Cal Voices. We strongly oppose this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Susan Gallagher
Person
And would like to see the MHSA be held accountable.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Susan Gallagher
Person
County sat on that money.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you, ma'am.
- Susan Gallagher
Person
That's why this problem exists.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
I am a doctoral student at the University of California at Berkeley and a member of the Sustainability and Health Equity Laboratory with a background in public health and a Member of the University of California Wide Disability Justice Collective. And I strongly oppose this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Teresa Pasquini
Person
Good afternoon. I'm Teresa Pasquini. I am the proud mom of Danny Pasquini and I am a NAMI Member and I am also representing Treatment Advocacy Center, California advocates as their ambassador. I am in strong support and. Please.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much, ma'am.
- Duke Cooney
Person
Duke Cooney on behalf of ACLU California Action, in respectful opposition.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
George, California advocates for the Treatment Advocacy Center. Please, yes.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Lauren Rettagliata
Person
Lauren Retagliata, former chair of Contra Costa Mental Health Commission. I strongly support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Elizabeth Hopper
Person
Elizabeth Kaino Hopper, resident of Carmichael, California, and Sacramento county, volunteer for NAMI Sacramento and a member of the family advocates for individuals of serious mental illness in Sacramento area, in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Marianne Bernard
Person
Marianne Bernard, former lawyer for mental hospitals in another state that gets an A plus from treatment advocacy.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you, ma'am. Are you in support or opposition?
- Marianne Bernard
Person
I am very much in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm Wade, co-chair of the family advocates for individuals with serious mental illness in Sacramento County. I'm in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Davis. I live with a mood disorder, a psychotic mood disorder, and I'm very much in support of this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
SC Mojades, resident of Folsom, California, Sacramento County, strongly in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Brandon Marchy
Person
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Brandon Marchy with the California Medical Association, in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Amy Brown
Person
Amy Brown on behalf of the City of Riverside, in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Scott Wetch
Person
Mr. Chair and members, Scott Wetch, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Kern County, in opposition.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Linda Nguy
Person
Good afternoon. Linda Nguy with Western Center on Law and Poverty, in opposition.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Danny Thirakul
Person
Danny Thirakul, behalf of Mental Health America of California and the California Youth Empowerment Network, in opposition.
- David Campos
Person
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. David Campos, on behalf of the County of Santa Clara, in support with amendments. Which we look forward to discussing with Senator Eggman.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Danielle Kando-Kaiser
Person
Good afternoon. Danielle Kando-Kaiser, on behalf of the Drug Policy Alliance, in opposition.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- John McKenzie
Person
John McKenzie, doctorate of nursing, psychiatric nurse, in strong support of SB 43.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Tiffany, public defender in opposition with California Public Defenders Association.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. That concludes the in-person testimony here. Moderator, let's turn to the phone lines now for those who are in support and in opposition to SB 43. Just a reminder, 15 minutes of support and opposition that may not accommodate all those who wish to call in.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to come in and support our opposition of SB 43, you may press one and zero at this time. We'll go to line 2432. Please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello, my name is Sylvia. I'm a volunteer for NAMI, Los Angeles, and I am in great support of SB 43.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And next, we'll go to line 2702. Please go ahead.
- Danny Offer
Person
Danny Offer with the National Alliance on Mental Illness, also known as NAMI California. We're another co-sponsor, in strong support. Thanks.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next we go to line 2559. Please go ahead.
- Katie Wilson
Person
Hi, my name is Dr. Katie Wilson. I'm a psychiatrist in far Northern California. I've spent 25 years treating patients in jails, prisons, and county mental health clinics. Strongly in favor. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And next, we'll go to line 2713. Please go ahead.
- Rebecca Basson
Person
Hi, this is Rebecca Basson on behalf of the Law Foundation in Silicon Valley, Santa Clara County Patients Rights program, strongly opposed.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2567. Please go ahead. Line 2567, your line is open.
- Randall Hagar
Person
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Randall Hagar, Psychiatric Physicians Alliance of California, co-sponsors. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next we go to line 2738. Please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Melanie, senior attorney on behalf of the California Association of Mental Health Patients Rights Advocates, who will be conducting all of these hearings.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much. Thank you. Next caller, please.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next we'll go to line 2460. Please go ahead.
- Anita Fisher
Person
Anita Fisher, mother of an adult son with serious mental illness and member of NAMI California, in strong support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next we go to line 2733. Please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. On behalf of Sacramento Mayor Darryl Steinberg.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next we'll go to line 2963. Please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Kelsey. NAMI. Supporter of SB 43.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2721. Please go ahead.
- Kathleen Armstrong
Person
Hi, I'm Kathleen Armstrong. I'm a Member of NAmi California and treatment Advocacy group, and I'm in support of SB 43.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we go to line 2693. Please go ahead.
- Stacie Hiramoto
Person
Hi, Stacey Haramoto with REMHDCO, the Racial and Ethnic Mental Health Disparities Coalition. We are in opposition.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 278. Please go ahead.
- Linda Mimms
Person
Linda Mimms from San Diego County, vice chair of the Schizophrenia and Psychosis Action Alliance, in the strongest support ever.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2707. Please go ahead.
- David Harrison
Person
David Harrison with San Diego County participant, strong support.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2747. Please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Christine of Seal Beach, California, NAMI Orange County volunteer, strong support.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we go to line 2688. Please go ahead. It.
- Committee Moderator
Person
You. Line 2688 your line is open. I will move on to line 2741 please go ahead.
- Jennifer Wilson
Person
This is Jennifer Wilson, Huntington Beach, California. I have a dear friend's son who has mental illness, and I support SB 43.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go on to line 2492 please go ahead. You.
- Meg Arator
Person
Yes, my name is Meg Arator. I'm a Sacramento resident, and I'm calling in support. I'm also a NAMI member. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 2533 please go ahead. Line 2533 lines open.
- Leslie Napper
Person
Hello, my name is Leslie Napper. I'm with Disability Rights California and a mental health consumer, and I am strongly opposed to SB 43.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next, go on to line 2752 please go ahead.
- Susan McNary
Person
This is Susan McNary, PhD, psychologist, PSY 5364, clinical psychologist, strongly in support of AB.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next, we go to line 2234 please go ahead.
- Leah Austin
Person
Leah Austin with NAMI California and in support of SB 43.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 20715 please go ahead.
- Suzanne Levec
Person
Suzanne Levec, parent, member of NAMI San Joaquin. I strongly support.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 2726 please go ahead.
- Christy Lunardelli
Person
Christy Lunardelli, Sacramento County patient's rights advocate, opposed.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next, we go to line 2723 please go ahead.
- Deborah Smith
Person
My name is Deborah Smith. I'm the mom of a serious son with serious mental illness. I strongly support SB 43.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 2724 please go ahead.
- Sherry Sussman
Person
Hi, my name is Sherry Sussman. I'm a member of NAMI Los Angeles, and I have a family member with a severe mental illness. I am supportive of SB 43.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 2694 please go ahead.
- Jerry Hall
Person
Good afternoon. Jerry Hall of San Diego based Cal Voices excess ambassador, respectfully and strongly opposed SB 43 as it stands. Thank you. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2171 please go ahead. Line 2171 your line is open. All right, we'll go on to line 2700. Please go ahead.
- Susan Partovi
Person
Hi, my name is Dr. Susan Partovi. I am the Medical Director of Homeless Healthcare Los Angeles, and I started the first street medicine programs in all of LA County, including Santa Monica, Hollywood, and Skid Wow, for the last 18 years. Been working with.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Do you support or oppose?
- Susan Partovi
Person
I wholeheartedly support.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next, we go to line 276 please go ahead.
- Jared Callaway
Person
Jared Callaway, peer specialist and behavioral health advocate for 12 years in Los Angeles County. I am staunchly opposed.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next, we go to line 2756 please go ahead.
- Pam Trout
Person
My name is Pam Trout. I reside in Camarillo, California. I am a survivor of domestic violence, and I strongly support SB 331.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next we go to line 2769 please go ahead. Line 2769 your line is open.
- Leslie Napper
Person
Hello, my name is Leslie Napper. I'm with Disability Rights California and mental health consumer, and I am strongly opposed to SB 43.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next we'll go to line 20718 please go ahead. Line 20718 your line is open. All right, we'll move on to line 2772 please go ahead.
- Kimberley Novakovic
Person
Hi, Kimberly Novakovic, single parent of a young adult with severe mental illness, member of NAMI and GLac. This Bill saved my son's life. Strongly support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you. Let's bring it back to Committee. Committee Members. Yes, Senator Laird.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. At this time, there's no others in queue. Back to you, Mr. Chair.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate everybody's testimony, and I thought I would just explore two things with the author. The first one is, and you addressed it so strongly in your open. But now that we had all the testimony, it seems the heart of the issue is the line between what people think is appropriate commitment and potential loss of rights. After hearing that testimony, how would you address that in sort of advocacy for your Bill?
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
Well, first, I would say that this Bill does nothing to affect due process that is already in place through the LPS act, that you have an initial potential hold of 51, 53 days and then a 52, 52 weeks, potentially going to a month, potentially. And we extended that last year through some legislation I did to give people another extension period all the way potentially to a conservatorship.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
So there are many points along the way in which is designed to keep people's rights intact as much as possible. And I would say that the people we're talking about is a small population, but as we all know, a very visible, because it doesn't come up as much with the opposition, but a very victimized population. These are the folks who money is taken from them, they're beat, they're raped, not to mention just staying in the element.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
So there is clinical ways to be able to determine the criteria that we're talking about. It is in our dsms. It is in the Samsung regulations that came out in 2019, talked about this very thing, this inability to provide for your own self protection and your own self care. So we're not talking about somebody who just might be a little eccentric. Nobody is talking about that. We're talking about people who are actively being harmed, have been harmed, and will continue to be harmed.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
And my other thing is, why not try to help people? Because we know where they're ending up right now, which is a total loss of their entire liberty, is to be institutionalized and imprisoned.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you. I really appreciate that. My other question is, last year, when we were doing the care courts, one of the major issues all the way along that wasn't on the conservative side was really the financing, and it passed through and it was always going to get addressed in future things. And now the Governor is addressing it after signing it.
- John Laird
Legislator
There are some options here, some of which came up in the testimony, such as the proposed mental health services revision that could be coming to the voters, a possible other bond with regard to locked facilities and dealing with it, and a waiver, like a section 115 waiver on additional Medicaid reimbursement. How do you see pairing some of that with this Bill as it moves?
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
Along again with the financing? We've put down over $12 billion in the last few years to be able to address this. Facilities don't just pop overnight. As we know. There are people who have pulled down that money, who are currently rehabbing old facilities, constructing new facilities. We know the workforce is also an issue that we have to talk about. And so through the budget process, we're continuing to push for more behavioral health workers and providing money for that in the budget.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
The Governor provided money, in specific in the budget for the care court. And so I also see this as a companion to care court in that we talked about that when people would say this is involuntary, no, that is voluntary. But if people fall out at the other end, then we have spent all of that money for nothing.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
So I also just see this as being able to use our resources the most effective level possible, which will also help with workforce, because people get burned out watching the same people suffer over and over and over again. So I see a total parallel between these and the funding.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
Again, as we talked about the money that we've already proposed, we're working very hard to the budget process to be able to increase our medical rates at the same time, the 1115 waiver that is going forward, the care court we did last year, Laura's law that we did two years before that, being able to gather more data on the entire 5150 process.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
And then again, the redo of the MHSA money, I think, will go a long way towards being able to address some of the funding gaps that we see now. And the 6th round of the infrastructure money is going to go towards a gap assessment to see what still needs to be done and how we fill that.
- John Laird
Legislator
I appreciate that totally and think you're on the right path. I just hear from the various county supervisors in my district that are concerned that we do the policy first and hope the money follows. And we have palpitations in a whole nother thing. So just, I appreciate the fact that you're on that and look forward to supporting.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
I understand the palpitations, but I guess my response to that is always, these aren't people that we're making up, that we're bringing in from outer space. These are people on our streets right in front of us today, in our communities. So if we're not willing to help them, then we're saying that we're totally okay with where they're staying right now.
- John Laird
Legislator
I totally agree. I'm carrying a Bill that people are opposing because I don't have the money that is about conservatorship. And yet at the same time, they have to make sure they provide the resources to do it. So I appreciate the passion. Look forward to supporting the Bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you, Senator Niello. Then Senator Allen.
- Roger Niello
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for pronouncing my name the way it's pronounced in Italy. Appreciate that. The primary reason that I decided to run for office again when I recognized there was a district all of a sudden that I lived in that I thought I could win was our local communities, Sacramento's and our states struggle with homelessness without great success. And I've followed and admired the work of Senator Eggman in this area.
- Roger Niello
Legislator
And I approached her early on and told her it was a high priority issue for me and I wanted to work with her on that. And she has generously allowed me to be a co author on this Bill, which I am proudly. I think this is extremely important legislation. I understand the concerns of the opposition. I respectfully disagree with it. Senator Eggman has a great quote that I use.
- Roger Niello
Legislator
She says, people are dying in our streets with their rights on and they are, and they need help. And there is article after article, frankly, recently about people who were compelled to treatment and are so eternally grateful now that they were. I haven't seen any person pop up that said I was compelled to treatment and I didn't like it.
- Roger Niello
Legislator
And one thing in closing that I'd like to point out is that Assemblyman Frank Lanterman, who was the mover of the Lanternman Petra Short act, it was originally an Assembly Bill that a Senate Bill was. It didn't prevail and a Senate Bill was gutted and amended, and that's how the two Senators got on the Bill, and it was finally passed, unfortunately, without funding.
- Roger Niello
Legislator
The intent was for counties to pick up this responsibility with funding from the state, and it was taken out of the Bill very unfortunately. But Assemblyman Lanterman, prior to passing away, said that he thought that that Bill, and specifically the definition of gravely disabled had a narrow definition, had the unintended consequence of what we're seeing today. And he told an aide that he thought that the Bill should be revisited, which she expressed in an interview with a newspaper some years ago. So I just want to say this is extremely important legislation. We need this in order to try to get some success with this very difficult problem that we have with homelessness.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you, Senator Allen.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I just want to thank the author for her courage in dealing with this immensely difficult issue. My mother had a very good friend who lost her son to mental illness, and one of the great challenges that they just had, once he turned 18, there was so little control they had, and he ended up stepping in front of a bus. So, anyway, I want to move the Bill when appropriate. Thank you so much for your leadership on this issue.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you, Senator Allen. Senator Min.
- Dave Min
Person
I'm sorry for missing the earlier part of the debate, but I think this is an important Bill. I guess I just had one question. It seems that there's a very broad definition of health something. Is there a reason for that? I guess the concern I might have is that when we add unlicensed marriage or family therapists, like assistants and other categories of professionals, that that might start to be seen as a little bit overbroad.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
You're talking in the hearsay.
- Dave Min
Person
Yeah. The hearsay exception.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
Yeah. What we're talking about is a medical record. Right. The WIC code clearly says you should use information relevant for the judge to be able to make a case. So we're not talking about talking to a CNA. We're talking about somebody, a medical chart that has been documented that the judge would have available to be able to see.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
A lot of times they're volumes and volumes because people have, and the idea is that people have come time and time and time and time and time again with the same kind of look and the same, like, zero, here's my plan to go out and stay safe, only to be right back in again. So that's the documentation that's found.
- Dave Min
Person
It's part of a larger document. I got it. Thank you.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
It's not just someone coming in. It's the documentation contained in a medical record.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Other comments or questions? Senator Eggman, you and I discussed this particular. I'm going to support the Bill, the issues raised by the Disability Rights Coalition concerning hearsay testimony. Since this is Judiciary Committee and we get paid to focus on issues like that, that is a bit concerning. We've asked the disability rights folks to propose language. Clearly, we want the decision maker, at least, I want the decision maker to have as much information that is relevant as is possible.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
But when we're talking about somebody's liberty interests, particularly as to their current state, it would seem that there should be an opportunity for some cross examination, or at least some opportunity for direct examination. And I know you'll continue to work on that issue as it moves forward. Is my assumption correct? Yes.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
I will continue to work on this issue going forward.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
Yeah.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay.
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
We just need to be able to use the medical record, and again, they have to be found by the judge, then go to a jury of their peers. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Yes, but in terms of any part of the evaluation that is current and where someone is available and accessible, that's an area where I'm hopeful that we'll continue to work a bit. We've asked for language. We've not received any language. Hearsay testimony, in my view, should come in, but query whether or not there should be some element of examination or cross examination. So I think. Did Senator Allen move the Bill? Senator Allen move the Bill. All right. Madam Secretary. Oh, would you like to close?
- Susan Talamantes Eggman
Person
Thank you all very much for the conversation and for your willingness to be open minded about this. Again, we're not just talking about the LPS act. At the very end, we have all been looking at expanding and strengthening our entire continuum of care. The goal is never to have to be able to use this, but when we do, to be able to have the tools, actually to be able to address it. I'm tired of explaining to my 14-year-old why we can't help people, and I'm sure you are, too. Let's do our best. As we've made the promise. I ask for your aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you, Madam Secretary, if you'd call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item 14, SB 43, by Senator Eggman. The motion is to pass, as amended, to the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Seven to-. 7-0. We'll put that Bill on call. Senator Archuleta, in his graciousness, as I understand it, has allowed Senator Dodd to go before him. We now have a Doda palooza. We have five bills by Senator Dodd, two of which are on consent. So, Senator Dodd, would you like to start with SB 271?
- Bill Dodd
Person
How about four? Would it be okay with the Chair if we did? 478.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
It's up to you, Senator Dodd, if you'd like to start with.
- Bill Dodd
Person
Yeah, we'd like to start that. And I'd like to thank Senator Archuleta. He didn't get the full story before I went up here, but I appreciate him nonetheless. So, Mr. Chair and Members, I please present SB 478, a Bill sponsored by the Attorney General and the California Low Income Consumer Coalition that seeks to combat the deceptive advertising practice in which a seller uses an artificially low price to attract a customer before springing additional required charges later in the buying process.
- Bill Dodd
Person
Simply put, SB 478 makes it unlawful under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act CLRA to advertise a price for a good or service that does not include all required charges other than the taxes imposed by a government. While existing laws against unfair competition, false advertising already prohibit deceptive pricing practices, SB 478 makes it clear that hiding mandatory required fees is also a deceptive and illegal practice across the board.
- Bill Dodd
Person
The issue of hidden fees or junk fees has garnered national attention, with President Biden calling on Congress to pass the Junk Fee Prevention Act legislation targeting deceptive advertising members, we've all experienced these fees. I don't have to cite the numerous consumer surveys or ample research of each of you to know that the hidden fees are popping up everywhere, from the unavoidable resort fee at your hotel to the outrageous fees that are added to concert tickets just before you check out.
- Bill Dodd
Person
These fees are nothing more than a way to hide the true price of a good or service and manipulate consumers into overspending. Hidden fees cost consumers billions of dollars each year, hurting vulnerable families at a time when they could least afford it. Families cannot accurately compare prices, plan or budget when costs are inflated by hidden required fees.
- Bill Dodd
Person
As I previously stated, hidden fees cost consumers billions of dollars each year, and this Bill utilizes existing enforcement mechanisms, allowable under the CLRA to ensure that consumers have protections they desperately need. There is no new private right of action created by this Bill. Lastly, as the Bill moves forward, I'll continue to engage stakeholders in good faith. And if there are any needs for clarifications to the Bill or consideration, or consider existing transparency laws, I'm hoping to have those conversations.
- Bill Dodd
Person
While not weakening the important consumer protections the principle behind this Bill is simple. The final purchase price for a good or service shouldn't be a mystery. For California consumers, the price they see should be a price they pay. I have two witnesses here with me today on behalf of the Bill. Sponsors Eleanor Blume, Special Assistant Attorney General, and Danielle Kando-Kaiser from the California Low Income Consumer Coalition.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you. You have the floor.
- Eleanor Blume
Person
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. My name is Eleanor Blume and I am the Special Assistant Attorney General for Economic Justice. Attorney General Bonta is proud to sponsor SB 478. On behalf of the Attorney General, I want to thank Senators Dodd and Skinner for authoring this important legislation to protect California consumers. Businesses use hidden fees or junk fees to pitch an artificially Low headline price to attract a customer before revealing additional charges. Hidden fees are bad for consumers and bad for competition.
- Eleanor Blume
Person
Whether traveling, purchasing concert tickets or paying a cell phone Bill, we all know how frustrating it is to get to checkout and find out that something advertised as one price actually costs much more. This is more than just frustrating. Obscuring the true price of a product or service makes it hard for consumers to choose to sort by price and make the decision that is best for them and their families at the outset of a transaction to plan and to budget.
- Eleanor Blume
Person
This lack of transparency also makes it hard for honest businesses to compete on price. We're seeing this bait and switch pricing adopted in many industries. Rather than moving toward transparency, more businesses in more industries are choosing to hide the true costs to a consumer. There's no reason to tolerate hidden fees. These junk fees cost consumers billions of dollars each year and hurt working families at a time when every dollar matters that much more.
- Eleanor Blume
Person
This deceptive practice also hurts businesses that are trying to do business the right way by being transparent about their prices. This necessitates legislative action. We can and should stop this. We can and should stop the flacing of consumers. We can and should stop the imbalance in the marketplace. That makes it even harder for businesses that want to play by the rules and do right by their customers to succeed. In California, the price listed should be the price you pay. It's pretty simple.
- Eleanor Blume
Person
SB 478 would prohibit advertising a price for a good or service that does not include all required charges other than taxes and fees imposed by a government. SB 478 is a simple solution. With this legislation, California would make clear that the price you see should be the price you pay. Attorney General Bonta urges your aye vote on this consumer protection legislation. I am here along with my colleague Nick Acre to answer any questions you may have already.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Other witnesses in support seeing no one else? Yes, I do see someone approach the microphone. Thank you, Kim. I appreciate your alacrity.
- Kimberly Stone
Person
Kim Stone. Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Robert Herrell
Person
Robert Harrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay, before we turn to the Metoos, let's go to the opposition. Then we'll call up all the toos. So I do appreciate your spontaneous and rapid movement to the microphone. Yes, thank you.
- Robert Moutrie
Person
I was defeated by Kim's alacrity, so I'm sorry about that. Robert Moutrie of the California Chamber of Commerce. We are respectfully opposed to SB 478. Thanks, staff, for the analysis on the Bill, and we have spoken to the author's office and the sponsor to some degree on this. I want to be clear. We are not here in support of hidden fees. That is not where our opposition comes from. Our opposition here is about how the Bill approaches its goal, not the goal.
- Robert Moutrie
Person
For context, SB 478 adds a line prohibiting deceptive advertising to the CLRA or Consumer Legal Remedies act. Our concerns are with that and come in two broad flavors. First, the AG, as I personally was aware, not as a defendant, but as an attorney, already can enforce on false advertising and their false advertising law. Paul Blanco's good car company was a case that many of us heard about that happened very nearby who went down on false advertising.
- Robert Moutrie
Person
And the AG was very successful there, as they should have been. Those ads were not accurate. So we have, looking at the difference between the false advertising law and the CLRA. The big difference we see is a much improved and much stronger consumer private right of action. And so if this were just to Bill out the attorney general's enforcement, we would be in a different position. But when we see an increased private right of action, we have concern there.
- Robert Moutrie
Person
Turning to the second piece, a number of industries and industry-specific manners have federal or other state obligations that they must exactly comply with in their posting of prices. And we have some concerns that this Bill does not have carve-outs to say, if you are complying with the precise federal obligations for your industry, then you are not immune here. So we have some industry-specific concerns there as well. Again, these are not about the core.
- Robert Moutrie
Person
Goal of the Bill. We are not here talking about junk fees, resort fees, those issues, but trying to address those particular broad aspects of how, and appreciate the engagement. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much. Anyone else? Primary opposition seeing no one. Now it's time for me to testimony. Folks are not as alacritous as they were a moment ago. But good afternoon.
- Nancy Peverini
Person
Nancy Peverini, on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California, in support.
- Sandra Cushion
Person
Sandra Cushion on behalf of CalPERS, in support.
- Kenton Stanhope
Person
Kenton Stanhope of the California New Car Dealers Association. Just want to thank the author and the sponsor for working with us so closely. And look forward to removing our opposition at the next time the Bill is amended.
- Jamie Huff
Person
Jamie Huff with the Civil Justice Association of California, respectfully in opposition. Thanks.
- Amanda Gualdarama
Person
Amanda Gualdarama, with Cal Broadband and we are opposed unless amended. Thank you.
- Yolanda Benson
Person
Yolanda Benson, US Telecom the Broadband Association, also opposed unless amended. We look forward to working with the author.
- Vienne Tuckus
Person
Vienne Tuckus, with Technet. Respectfully opposed.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
I see no one else in the room. Time to go to the telephones. So. Moderator. Are you there? Yes, I'm here. Okay. We're going to set the time for 30 minutes. And looking just for me, too is name. 15 minutes at 30 minutes. Name organization, if you have one. And then, yes, support or oppose? I appreciate Senator Wilk here expanding the time. I'm going to overrule Senator Wilk. And we're going to go to the phone for support and opposition. Moderator. Ladies and gentlemen.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to comment in support of opposition. You may press 1 and 0 at this time. We'll go to line 28. 21, please go ahead.
- Karim Drissi
Person
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. And Members. Kareem Driesy. On behalf of the California Association of Realtors. With an opposed unless amended position. Respectfully request a no vote.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 28. 31, please go ahead.
- Mirna Kosan
Person
Hello. My name is Mirna Kosan. I live in San Dimas, California. I'm a victim of domestic violence and I strongly support.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 28. 27, please go ahead.
- Sabrina Lockhart
Person
Good afternoon. Sabrina Lockhart. On behalf of the California Attractions and Parks Association oppose unless amended. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next, we go to line 28. 24, please go ahead. Thank you. Chair Members.
- Jonathan Aronbell
Person
This is Jonathan Aronbell. On behalf of CPIA, the Trade Association for the Wireless Industry we are also opposed unless amended.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 27. 20, please go ahead.
- Robert Wilson
Person
Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Robert Wilson, California Credit Union League, here in respectful opposition.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 24. 87, please go ahead.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Hello. Thank you. We hear you.
- Maria Rutnick
Person
I'm Maria Isabel Rutnick, California. And I'm a victim of much of that hidden fees.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next caller, please. At this time, there's no one else in queue back to you, Mr. Chair.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, let's bring it back to Committee questions by Committee Members. Mr. Senator Laird moves the Bill. All right. Senator Dodd, cure close? No. Don't we get to ask questions? You do get to ask questions. You don't get to extend the timing from 15 to 30, but you may ask questions. Yes. Just because I love democracy, don't hold that against me.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
So you're a great guy and you're a great author, and I understand what you want to accomplish because, believe me, I've been stung by that, too. What can you say about the concerns of the opposition on this particular Bill?
- Bill Dodd
Person
We had conversations as recently as yesterday in our office. There just wasn't enough time to bring any type of amendments forward. But our plan is to continue those conversations.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Right. Thank you. All right, Senator Laird has moved the Bill. Senator Dodd, you care to close?
- Bill Dodd
Person
Respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Thank you, Madam Secretary is about here. Madam Secretary, if you would call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Yes, this is file item number 11, SB 478, by Senator Dodd. The motion is do passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Five to zero we're going to put that Bill on call. Just a housekeeping announcement for the authors and their staffs that are listening in. I think we've done six bills so far, and we have. I see other hands. We have 31 bills left to go, and we have to continue until we finish all 31 bills. So to the extent that authors and staff, if they are aware that they have basically a support, support position if they would consider abbreviating statements, that would be useful.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
So, Senator Dodd, you go ahead with your abbreviated statement.
- Bill Dodd
Person
SB 271 will allow powered wheelchair users to have a viable alternative to costly and time consuming repairs by allowing consumers and independent repair providers to access parts, documentation and software necessary to repair their own devices, while also protecting manufacturers trade secrets, respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Witnesses in support. Primary witnesses in support. Seeing no one approach the microphone. Primary witnesses. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Right. Yes, this is SB 271, file item number nine. My apologies.
- Justin Brookman
Person
Justin Brookman, Director of Technology Policy at Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports is proud to co-sponsor Senate Bill 271, which will ensure that Californians who rely on wheelchairs have the right to have those wheelchairs fixed by themselves or by a repair shop of their choosing. The Bill will secure important ownership rights for consumers and also put independent repair shops on a level playing field with the manufacturers. Millions of Americans rely upon wheelchairs today.
- Justin Brookman
Person
This Bill would save Californians time and money and ensure safety by giving them more options to repair their essential products. Today, consumers are often forced to deal with the manufacturer directly and as a result, can pay hundreds of dollars for products that they otherwise could get much more cheaply from an independent repair shop. For these reasons, I urge you to support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Thank you. Next witness in support. Go ahead. Floor is yours. We got you. All right.
- Dan Okenfuss
Person
Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Dan Okenfuss. I'm with the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers. We are also a co sponsor of SB 271, and we are a statewide disability rights organization that serves as a membership for California's 25 ILCs covering 56 counties and state. Many of our consumers have mobility issues, and power wheelchairs enable them to enjoy more freedom and Independence in their daily lives.
- Dan Okenfuss
Person
SB 271 will require manufacturers of power wheelchairs to provide access to items necessary to facilitate repairs on these power wheelchairs, and I request your support. Thank you so much.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much. All right, others in opposition. Primary witnesses in opposition. Please approach the microphone.
- John Winger
Person
Mr. Chain, Members, John Winger here. On behalf of the National Coalition for Assistive and Rehab Technology, we have an opposed, unless amended position right now. Certainly, share the goals of the author on ensuring that our patients are getting timely access to repairs. There's quite a few reasons for that, and we're working through it, and we've gotten to a really good place on the Bill.
- John Winger
Person
We just have one more remaining issue on the penalties provision, the $500,000 threshold, and then having it be based on the reasonably should have known standard, which is a pretty low threshold. So our folks are a little bit concerned about that. We certainly agree that there should be some sort of penalties to ensure compliance, but just want to make sure it's not overly punitive. Our complex rehab technology industry is a shrinking one.
- John Winger
Person
In the last five years that I've represented them, we've gone from 15 companies to eight. So it's not the most lucrative of industries. It's a very difficult business model, very difficult delivery model. And so I just don't want to overly burden our members. And so we're having follow up conversations with the Senator and look forward to getting to a support position.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thanks. Thank you. All right, others seeing no one else. zero, here we go. Others who are in support or opposition, provide us your name, your affiliation, your position.
- Sandra Cushion
Person
Sandra Cushion CalPERS, support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Christina Mohabir
Person
Christina Mohabir, Californians Against Waste in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Patrick Smith
Person
Patrick Smith, California Commission on Aging in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Kayla Robinson
Person
Kayla Robinson, on behalf of Rethink Waste in support. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, we're going to turn to the phone lines now. Notwithstanding what Senator Wilk had to say, 15 minutes of support and opposition on the phone line moderator. If you would queue up those who are on the phone waiting to testify to give us their name, their affiliation, and their support or opposed position.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to comment and support our position of SB 271, you may press 1 and 0 at this time. We'll go to line 28. 44, please go ahead.
- Beck Levin
Person
Hello, my name is Beck Levin. I am systems change advocate for the Dale McIntosh Center for Disabled in Orange County, California, and I am calling to support SB 271.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next we go to line 28. 42, please go ahead.
- Jody Unidentified
Person
Hi, my name is Jody. I'm in Arroyo Grande, California, and I strongly support SB 331 pg's law to keep children safe from family violence. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. At this time, there's no others in queue. Back to you, Mr. Chair.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members. Comments? All right, I see no comments or questions. Senator. Bill? All right.
- Bill Dodd
Person
Respectfully ask for your vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
That's how you do it. Thank you very much, Senator Dodd Madam Secretary, if you would call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item number nine, SB 271, by Senator Dodd. The motion is to pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] 7-0.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Seven to zero. Bill's on call. All right. Senator Dodd, next.
- Bill Dodd
Person
Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Members, I am presenting SB 310 pertaining to cultural burning. SB 310 would recognize tribal sovereignty with respect to cultural burning practices. SB 310 is another in a series of Bill I've authored to advance the use of prescribed fire for wildfire prevention and forest management. This Bill would vest the authority in the secretary of natural resources to decide if, in recognition of tribal sovereignty, certain state approvals for cultural burning may be waived.
- Bill Dodd
Person
And pursuant to an agreement with the state resources secretary, Native American tribes would not only be able to continue their cultural burning practices, but also benefit from liability protections granted to certified burn bosses. And they'd also have access to the prescribed fire liability pilot program, which was established by MYSB 926 last session.
- Bill Dodd
Person
The Bill is supported by a number of organizations, including the Pacific Forest Trust, Defenders of Wildlife, and the California Farm Bureau, and the Humboldt Ranville Timber Company with me today is Sara Clark, representing the Karuk tribe.
- Sara Clark
Person
Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Sara Clark. I'm a partner at Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger where I work on natural resource and tribal issues, and I've worked with the Karuk Tribe on cultural burning issues for the past number of years. We ask for your I vote on SB 310 of interest to this Committee. SB 310 includes a small but important expansion to the legislation mentioned by Senator Dodd related to prescribed fire and cultural burning.
- Sara Clark
Person
Liability concerns over liability are frequently cited as barriers to the use of prescribed fire and cultural burning, both of which are critically important to address the wildfire crisis facing this state. SB 332 made it less likely that private landowners and tribes would receive a suppression cost Bill if they needed help with an escaped prescribed fire, so long as they were following certain best practices. SB 926 provides access to a state backed claims fund for any third party claims.
- Sara Clark
Person
SB 310 this year would allow federally qualified burn bosses and cultural fire practitioners to rely on these relaxed liability standards and to have access to the claims fund. In addition, tribes and Native American people have practiced cultural burning since time immemorial for many benefits. Tribes are the most knowledgeable about these practices and have never ceded or relinquished control over them. SB 310 would take the important step of formally recognizing tribal sovereignty with respect to cultural burning and state law.
- Sara Clark
Person
In furtherance of this sovereignty, SB 310 would enable the Secretary of Natural Resources to enter into agreements with federally recognized tribes to coordinate cultural burning activities on their ancestral lands. Specifically, the secretary is authorized to find that state permits issued by a CAL FIRE and air districts are not required for cultural burning programs.
- Sara Clark
Person
Instead, these potential health and safety issues would be handled by tribal law in coordination with the state. These changes would have benefits for both tribal communities and non-tribal communities alike. Again, we request your aye vote. Thank you for your time.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, others in support? Seeing no one those in opposition? Primary opposition.
- Brendan Twohig
Person
Mr, Chair, Members. Brendan Twohig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, representing the Executive officers from all 35 local air districts, respectfully, we have an opposing, less amended position on the Bill. We agree that cultural burns and prescribed fire in General are highly effective at reducing wildfire risk, and we've been implementing programs and engaging in discussion to expand prescribed fire from 2019 to 2021. We've approved 99% of all burn permits.
- Brendan Twohig
Person
We're also advocating at the federal level with USCPA to make sure when they update the federal health based standards for PM 2.5 that they consider prescribed fire. Otherwise, we won't be able to implement that in California like we are now.
- Brendan Twohig
Person
Also air districts in partnership with the California Air Resources Board, CAL FIRE federal land managers, tribes and others work closely to ensure that emissions from prescribed fires do not significantly impact downwind communities and the current permitting process considers factors provided by tribal, federal and state land managers, which include meteorological conditions, also type of vegetation to be treated, estimated emissions topography. The permits also include public notification, importantly and smoke modeling requirements to help inform potentially affected areas.
- Brendan Twohig
Person
Consistent with the US Constitution, air districts do not require Native American tribes to obtain permits for cultural burns on federally recognized trust lands. However, because of the definition of ancestral territory in this Bill, with the sign off of the secretaries of natural resources in Calipa, cultural burns would be allowed anywhere in the state without the safety measures I described, as long as permission is given by the landowner.
- Brendan Twohig
Person
And I'll just finish with SB 310 would override local government's ability to protect public health and safety from making burn decisions to the state. Burn decisions are made using highly localized data, often in real time, and it's our concern that without this data, prescribed burn decisions will be based on incomplete knowledge and risk jeopardizing public health.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Brendan Twohig
Person
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Brendan Twohig
Person
Appreciate it.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, others in opposition. Primary opposition seeing none. All right, for those who wish to testify in a metoo form, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, and your support or opposition to the Bill.
- Chris Micheli
Person
Mr. Chair Chris McKayley, on behalf of the Humboldt and Mendocino Redwood Companies in support. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Kayla Robinson
Person
Kayla Robinson, on behalf of the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District in support. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Others in support of opposition seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's now turn to the phone lines. Moderator, please queue up those on the phone who are both in support and opposition to SB 310.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to comment, support opposition of SB 310. You may press 1 and 0 at the time.
- Committee Moderator
Person
At this time, there's no one in queue. Back to you, Mr. Chair.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Questions by Committee Members. Senator Laird.
- John Laird
Legislator
No, just. I appreciated he's willing to delegate authority to some unelected bureaucrat, but I would move the Bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Sounds like a personal experience. All right, Bill has been moved, Madam Secretary. There you go. Thank you. Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item number 10, SB 310 by Senator Dodd. The motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
7-0. That bill's on call. I see. Senator Portantino is. Thank you. Senator Portantino is the only author who's present. So, Senator Portantino, you have two bills. Item number 24 and item number 25, SB 357 and SB 696. Would you like to take up SB 357?
- Anthony Portantino
Person
I would, Mr. Chair, because that was the one where one of my witnesses had a travel conflict. So I really appreciate the opportunity to be here.
- Anthony Portantino
Person
So I'd like to begin by accepting the committee amendments outlined in the analysis and thank your committee staff for working with my staff to get this to where it is today, and appreciate the chair and all the work that everybody's done. SB 357 would provide doctors with more discretion to report any conditions they believe will impair a patient's inability to drive, including epilepsy. Epilepsy is the fourth most common neurological disorder, affecting more than 425,000 Californians and 3.4 million Americans.
- Anthony Portantino
Person
Many of us have family members, including my own family, with somebody who has epilepsy. And so we're updating a law that goes back to 1957. And, frankly, what this will do is allow more care to get to the right people and allow more people to drive safely, and would respectfully ask for an aye vote when we have an opportunity to do that. And I do have a primary witness. We have Rebekkah Halliwell from the Epilepsy Foundation, and David Parker, who's also with us to testify.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, if you'd approach the microphone.
- Rebekkah Halliwell
Person
Good afternoon. Rebekkah Halliwell. I'm the Ddrector of the Epilepsy Foundation, Los Angeles. Thank you, Chair Umberg, and all the members, for being able to speak with you today. So, California is the last of one of six states in the nation that has mandatory reporting. As I know you guys are aware, physician is required to report that lapse of consciousness.
- Rebekkah Halliwell
Person
That information goes to the local health agency, then goes to the DMV, and then they decide different outcomes, some of which would be revoking somebody's license, denying a renewal, refusing to issue the license. The timeline kind of varies, but it can be up to two months for a resolution, and that can mean, potentially, somebody not being able to get to work, to drive to work. That can be two months loss of income.
- Rebekkah Halliwell
Person
Mandatory reporting can really be an unnecessary burden, especially for the 70% of people with epilepsy who may be able to find seizure control through medication or the person who only has seizures at night. Law as it exists today compromises the patient-doctor relationship and jeopardizes the patient from being able to access that care. This law is just burdensome.
- Rebekkah Halliwell
Person
And when people don't know what the outcome could be and they have a change in their seizure control, they're reluctant to speak with their doctors, they're reluctant to try to find better care and try a new medication. And sometimes they lose that seizure control because it's out of their hands. Maybe the pharmacy sourced medication from a different supplier. That month, there was a lapse in treatment because the insurance company denied coverage of the medication.
- Rebekkah Halliwell
Person
There's a host of reasons why they could have had that, lost that seizure control. But really what it comes down to is doctors can't properly care for people in our community if there isn't that honest and open communication, and uncontrolled seizures are pretty bad. I mean, people pass away. SB 357 doesn't change the existing process. Doctors can and will continue to report for the purposes of public safety. This bill just simply allows doctors the same discretion to not report when the situation isn't warranted.
- Rebekkah Halliwell
Person
We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, others in support, go ahead.
- David Parker
Person
Good afternoon. My name is David Parker. I'm a member of the board of the Epilepsy Foundation in Los Angeles and the chair of our public policy committee. I want to thank Senator Portantino for authoring this important bill and Chair Umberg for co authoring this bill, and the Judiciary Committee for working with us on the language. Every person in this room likely knows someone who's had a seizure.
- David Parker
Person
That may come as a surprise, because people often don't like to talk about their seizures. With good reason, outdated laws, like the one we're trying to change right now, make people with epilepsy afraid to talk about their seizures with their own doctors for fear of losing their licenses, which could mean losing their jobs, their livelihoods, their Independence. Despite its prevalence, epilepsy has been throughout history. One of the most misunderstood and stigmatized medical conditions.
- David Parker
Person
Mandatory reporting not only perpetuates that stigma, its very existence is rooted in prejudice and discrimination. The 1957 law requiring physicians to, quote, report immediately every person diagnosed as a case of epilepsy or similar disorders characterized by lapses of consciousness has remained substantively intact for almost seven decades. That means that the current mandatory reporting law dates from a time when the California vehicle code prohibited licenses from being issued to anyone, and I quote, who is insane or feeble minded, or an idiot, imbecile or epileptic.
- David Parker
Person
The language is shameful, as is the attitude it represented, but this is the context in which mandatory reporting was introduced. To be very clear, we support physicians continuing to be able to report patients who may not be safe to drive. What we are standing up against is singling out drivers with specific conditions, including epilepsy, based not on data or evidence of an individual driver's abilities, but on outdated assumptions about certain diagnoses. I will share one stat. One study estimated that 0.1% of accidents are caused by a driver with epilepsy.
- David Parker
Person
That's one in a million. This bill will not take any authority away from the DMV to make determinations on individual driver fitness. That's it. Okay. All right.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Opposition? Those opposed? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing no one approach the microphone, let's go to me to testimony here in the room. If you are in support or in opposition to SB 357, please approach. Thank you
- Brandon Marchy
Person
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, Brandon Marchy with the California Medical Association, in support.
- Timothy Madden
Person
Mr. Chair and members. Tim Madden represent the California Chapter of American College of Emergency Physicians, in support.
- David Parker
Person
Thank you. Anyone else? Support or opposition? Here present in the hearing room, seeing no one approach the microphone, let's turn to the phone line. Moderate. If you queue up those who are in support and opposition to SB 357, we'd be grateful.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to comment and support opposition of SB 357, you may press 1 and 0 at this time.
- Committee Moderator
Person
We'll go to line 2234. Please go ahead. We'll go to line 2834, please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. My name is Cassandra, and I support.
- David Parker
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
At this time. There's no others in queue.
- David Parker
Person
All right, thank you very much. Let's turn to the committee. Questions by committee members. Seeing Senator Min moves the bill. Senator Portantio, you care to close?
- Anthony Portantino
Person
I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Thank you very much. Other authors? That's the way to do it. Just like Senator Dodd. Senator Portantino. All right, Madam Secretary, if you'd call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item number 24, SB 357 by Senator Portantino. Motion is do pass as amended, to the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] 7-0
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
7-0 bills on call.
- Anthony Portantino
Person
Next file number 25, SB. 696. Senator Portantino, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee. Committee Members, I would like to again begin by accepting the Committee amendments and thanking the Committee consultant and staff for their assistance in making this Bill where it is today. In the wake of Covid-19 the world came to a standstill as businesses shut down. A social distancing was necessary. It highlighted the importance of giving people options for safe notarial, whatever that word is.
- Anthony Portantino
Person
Notary transactions beyond traditional means. Remote online notarization revolutionizes the notary process, moving beyond the wet ink past and into the present. It is actually 2023, and we should modernize these conventions. And this is an attempt to modernize. There are 42 states that have this type of remote online notarization. And respectfully asked for an aye vote when appropriate. And in the chair. I'm cutting my speech way down.
- Anthony Portantino
Person
We have Mike Belote speaking on behalf of the National Notary Association, and Dale Hardy is also present for any technical questions. All right, thank you, Mr. Belote. Go ahead.
- Mike Belote
Person
I'll be very brief. Mr. Chair, Mike Belote for the National Notary Association. As Senator Porntino indicated, over 40 states, I actually think it's closer to 45 now. Permit what we call Ron. This has been an issue that has been before the Legislature for five years now.
- Mike Belote
Person
There's a Bill pending in the Assembly and one in this Bill here in the Senate. You have a seriously quality analysis here done by Ms. Meredith. She sets the historical context for notarial acts and talks about both the big policy issues and the more operational ones. The big policy questions deal with interstate recognition of notarial acts done in other states and the question about who you sue when something goes wrong in a notarial act.
- Mike Belote
Person
We actually think, Ron, notarizations can improve the reliability of the notarial act using technology, but the analysis properly frames both the big issues and the more operational ones. And we are getting closer and closer to a product that can be enacted here in California. We think it's very worthy of moving forward. We thank the Committee and the staff for their work. Senator Porntino for his leadership on this. And there's a broad coalition of business groups, real estate groups, consumer groups, and others in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
And we would ask for an aye vote Alrighty. Thank you very much. Others in support. Good afternoon. We'll stipulate that Senator Portantino has done a good job on this. So you skip. Right. You know, I'm just going to raise your rent. Good afternoon. My name is Dale Hardy. Here on behalf of Notarize. Here for any technical questions. All right, thank you very much. Others in support or opposition are present here in the. zero, I'm sorry. Key opposition. Those who are in opposition, seeing no one approaches.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
zero, wait a minute. We got someone in opposition. Go ahead. Good afternoon, Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Matt Miller, President of the California League of Independent Notaries. And we are not here today to stand in the way of progress, but we want to speak about the big issue that was spoken about by Mr. Belote.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
While the spirit of the Bill may be good, we believe that this Bill is a Trojan horse, because while the proponents say that it will expand access to notarial services in the State of California for residents, we believe this Bill will have an opposite effect. It will create a permissive environment that will allow out of state technology companies that facilitate these transactions to consolidate the business and then channel them through their notary farms in states with lesser standards, therefore putting California residents at risk.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Also, if something should go awry with an online notarization performed by an out of state notary, there's little that California can do for this person because we don't have jurisdiction over out of state notaries. Also, this will drive local notaries out of business, creating an undue burden for California residents and businesses who are seeking in person notarization also could lead to the loss of control of notarization in the State of California.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Alright. Thank you very much. Other primary witnesses in opposition, seeing no one approach.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
We think the Assembly Bill, authored by assemblymember Petrie Norris, is the proper Bill for California, rendering this Bill obsolete. And we kindly ask for a no vote on this Bill today. Thank you very much,
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good afternoon. Danielle Candel Kaiser, on behalf of the electronic Frontier foundation, respectfully opposed.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Okay, now we're going to turn to too testimony. If you'd give us your name, your position on the Bill, and your affiliation.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Jim, lights. On behalf of an in state technology company, docusign in strong support. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Vienne talk out with Technet in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Seeing no one else in the hearing room approaching the microphone, let's now turn to the phone line moderator, please queue up those in support and opposition of SB 696.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to comment and support our opposition of SB 696 may, press 105. Maybe just a momentum. Thank you. First, we'll go to line 2864 please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Anthony Hilton with the California Land Title Association support. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 2895 please go ahead. Hello. This is Joe Siegel, Henry Stern. I'm in strong support of this and more protections from. All right, thank you very much. Evictions and others. Thank you, sir. Okay. Moderator anyone else support our opposition? Yes, we got one more line 2898 please go ahead. Good afternoon, chair and Members. Robert Wilson with the California Credit Union League here in support. Thank you. Thank you. There are no others in queue. Back to you, Mr. Chair.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
All right, thank you very much. Back to the Committee. Questions, comments by Committee Members. All right, thank you. Senator Allen, just move the Bill in appropriate. Senator Allen moves the Bill. zero, I'm sorry. Senator Durazo?
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Yes. I know this is about technology, and I'm not the expert in technology, but can you describe in some way how the guidelines regarding technology and the privacy and the data retention, how that would work just a little bit more than what I saw?
- Dale Hardy
Person
Yes, I can do my best to briefly run through that. So existing privacy schemes like CCPA and CPRA will still apply. There are additional privacy restrictions on what a platform that gathers information during a notarization can do with that, including making sure the notarization happens, complying with a lawful subpoena, detecting fraud, et cetera, but that there's no broad exception for using data. And your other question, I believe, was about how the notarization actually occurs, is that correct?
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Technology guidelines is really what I'm trying.
- Dale Hardy
Person
To get at the technology guidelines right. Existing law, the bill's provisions around what platforms can and can't do, and then the private right of action as to what a person may sue if they're injured by the platform's conduct.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
I'm sorry, one more was the data retention requirements for the online notarization.
- Dale Hardy
Person
Right. The information has to be retained for a number of years, and the notary is going to either contract with an improved system to store the information, and eventually that will go to, under the Bill, a repository created with the Secretary of State to hold that information.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you.
- Henry Stern
Legislator
All right, thank you. Other questions come. Senator Stern. Yeah. Just briefly, appreciate the effort. Impressive coalition. Looks like a lot of diligence has been done. Just want to give the author an opportunity, maybe in his close to respond to this issue of raised by the opposition around enforcement and the sort of notion of the camel's noes and will we end up outsourcing our notary work? I have a lot of notaries who live in my district do this work every day. I don't see that as the author's intent or read that from the Bill, but I just wanted to give author a chance to.
- Henry Stern
Legislator
I think it's more of a philosophical question. I think we're in the year 2023. We've seen with the pandemic, we've seen how people have become more accustomed to remote services. We have the technology, we have the consumer protection. We have the privacy protection. We should try to make this convenient for folks.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
And I don't think it's going to have the dramatic effect that the opposition is stating. But I do think it's important as a body, we embrace technology that enhances the quality of life of our folks and respects what we just went through through the pandemic. So I think it's more of a philosophical question and the safeguards are in place and I think that's sort of what we need to do. Other questions or comments? Seeing none. Is there a motion? Senator Caballero moves the Bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
I'm sorry, Senator Allen, go ahead. No. If you got a question or comment. zero, I'm sorry. Senator Allen moves the Bill. For the record. Senator Allen moved the Bill. Senator Allen moves the Bill. Senator Caballero will give you the opportunity later on. All right, Senator Portantino, you care to close?
- Anthony Portantino
Person
I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item number 25, SB 696 by Senator Portantino. Motion is do passed as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] You have 9 to 0.
- Anthony Portantino
Person
All right, thank you, Madam Secretary. If you call the role.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Put that Bill on call. Senator Archuleta and Senator Becker, I see us here too. Senator Archuleta was here quite a long time ago. Thank you for your patience and your consideration of Senator Dodd. But while we typically go in file order, Senator Becker, you'll be next. Senator Archuleta. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this will be quick. I don't have any other witnesses, so I know your time is extremely valuable and tied up today. So thank you, Mr. Chair.
- Bob Archuleta
Legislator
Thank you Mr. Chair and members, I would like to start by thanking the chair and his xommittee and staff for working with me and my staff, and I agree to accept all the committee suggested amendments. Senate Bill 806 makes minor changes to last year's Bill. Senate Bill 1111. Senate Bill 1111, the Rick Best Safety Act, as it was named, addressed safety issues with unmarked trash receptacles by requiring large trash receptacles placed on roads or curbs to have reflective markings on each side for safety.
- Bob Archuleta
Legislator
Reflective markings serve as an important safety measure to prevent accidents and collisions, especially at night and during low visibility conditions. Senate Bill 806 adds provisions to ensure public prosecutors have the authority to enforce the Rick Best Safety Act and creates funds for any such collected fines. Studies have shown that the effectiveness of retro-reflective markings to enhance visibility, which is why California utilizes reflective markings on our roads, traffic signs and license plates. And with this, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
In support of SB 806. If you'd approach the microphone. Support and concept. Got it. SB 806, support and concept. Go ahead. Your name and your affiliation?
- Priscilla Quiroz
Person
Priscilla Quiroz. On behalf of Solid Waste Association of North America Legislative Task Force, we're supporting concept. We appreciate the author and his staff's work on this. We really want to comply with the bill that passed last year, but are finding issues and trying to put the tape on the bin. So we will continue working with the author on that, but appreciate the work on that.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, others in support saying no one approaches the microphone. Those in opposition. Anyone in opposition to SB 806? No one approaches the microphone. All right, me too testimony. For those who wish to provide their name, their affiliation, their position, support or oppose on SB 806, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone, let's now turn to the phone lines. Moderator, please queue up those on the phone who are in support or opposition to SB 806.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to come in support or opposition to SB 86, you may press 1 and 0 at this time. At this time, there is no one in queue. Back to you, Mr. Chair.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Alrighty. Thank you very much. Members, questions, comments? Seeing no questions or comments, Senator Caballero?
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
The only comment I have is that this is going to require a public education campaign because to allow cities to start slapping residents because they don't have the markings on their trash can.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
It's pretty draconian if you just don't even know that you're supposed to have it. I think it's a good bill, but I think there's a public education campaign or the companies, the disposal companies are going to need to make those little kits available. So you can put identifying factors on your trash can and reflective lights or whatever it is that's required.
- Bob Archuleta
Legislator
Senator, if I may comment. We're talking about the large Dempsey dumpsters, and what caused this whole bill was an accident, and someone was killed because the Dempsey dumpster was in the alleyway and a car came around, it was hit. Someone was killed. Bicycle rider, same accident and severely damaged. That's what the bill is about, not our trash receptacles. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. There's a motion by Senator Caballero. Motion by Senator Caballero. All right, thank you. Anybody else?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Nobody else? All right. Bill has been moved by Senator Caballero. Senator Archuleta is closed. Madam Secretary, please call the role.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item number four, SB 806, by Senator Archuleta. Motion is do pass is amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Aye.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Umberg aye. Wilk?
- Committee Secretary
Person
Wilk. Aye. Allen? Allen aye. Ashby? Ashby aye. Caballero? Caballero, aye. Durazo? Durazo, aye. Laird. Laird, aye. Min? Min, aye. Niello? Stern? Stern, aye. Wiener? Wiener, aye.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Aye.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Put that on call. Thank you. I see Senator Becker. Senator Becker is here. If we were going in normal order, after Senator Becker would be. Senator Cortese. Senator Cortese is not present, but if there's other authors that wish to present their bill, we would welcome their attendance. All right. Senator Becker. SB 362, file item number five.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
Thank you for letting me support SB 362. The California Delete Act.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
This gives all Californians the ability to hit the delete button on the thousands of pieces of information collected by data brokers. You've seen this profile on John Oliver, no less. Luminary Tim Cook talked about in his Stanford commencement address, saying, if we accept as normal, unavoidable, everything in our lives can be aggregated and sold, we lose much more than our data. We lose the freedom to be human.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
And he later called on all data brokers to register, enabling consumers to track transactions and giving users the power to delete their data on demand, freely, easily and online once and for all.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
So even if the CEO of the biggest of all tech companies tells us we need the ability for consumers to hit have a global delete button, when it comes to third parties who collect our most sensitive data, this data includes precise geolocation, what Apps we have on our phone, our medical history, reproductive health information.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
We know if you went to a reproductive health clinic, and they can build a very robust profile of you, a health profile of you, and what purchases we make and anyone with a credit card can buy this information. This leads to things like doxing of public officials, domestic users, tracking down victims, and lots of other things that we've seen. This was bipartisan at the federal level.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
It did not pass, but it was bipartisan from Senator Ossoff and Senator Cassidy under our bill, Californians just go to one online portal. Spend just 30 seconds requesting the data brokers delete any data they have on them and no longer track them. That's it. By the way. And I've talked to some of these folks who say, yeah, we don't want unhappy customers. We want to make it easy. Great. This is the way to make it easy.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
We've engaged with the opposition and are still working on language to address their fraud and protection concerns. But under this bill, consumers can actually exercise their privacy rights and finally take control of their data. With me here today are Justin Brookman from Consumer Reports and Danny Kondo-Kaiser on behalf of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you very much. A return appearance. Go ahead.
- Danielle Kando-Kaiser
Person
Good afternoon, Danny Kando-Kaiser on behalf of the sponsors of the bill, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. This bill creates an online portal for consumers to request that data brokers delete a consumer's data and no longer track them. This one and done web page will save Californians from the impossible task of requesting the deletion of data from approximately 500 currently registered data brokers. SB 362 Marks a major step in ensuring Californians constitutional right to privacy. But it is not simply another privacy bill.
- Danielle Kando-Kaiser
Person
With the overturning of Roe v. Wade and draconian laws aimed at the LGBTQ plus community, America has entered an era of increased concerns around the impact of data brokers. Past concerns over targeted advertising have turned into the very real threat that data collected can be weaponized against us if left unchecked. Let me give you some examples. For just $160, a reporter can purchase a week's worth of data on where people who visited Planned Parenthood came from and where they went afterwards.
- Danielle Kando-Kaiser
Person
ICE has used brokers to bypass the need for warrants and track immigrants geolocation. And last month, FBI Director Christopher Wray admitted that the FBI has purchased geolocation data information from brokers. Some dating apps have used users location data and sold that to brokers. And multiple brokers have sold the personal data of users of Muslim prayer apps to us military contractors. In 2020, a broker was found to have identified the residences of Black Lives Matter protesters using location data.
- Danielle Kando-Kaiser
Person
And finally, in 2021, Senators Klobuchar and Murkowski wrote, and I quote, "1we believe additional measures to protect personal data should be taken to ensure the privacy of victims of domestic violence, sexual violence, and stalking, and to make it easier for them to remove their information from data broker sites." I could go on, but the point is that current law requires Californians to visit hundreds of data broker sites to better protect themselves.
- Danielle Kando-Kaiser
Person
With SB 362, we can visit a single web page to tell these third party brokers, whom we have no relationship with, to delete our data. I thank you, and I urge your aye vote today.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Others in support.
- Justin Brookman
Person
Hi, Justin Brookman, director of Technology Policy for Consumer Reports, here to urge support for Senate Bill to 362 to give consumers some practical control over all the data brokers data the data brokers have about them. As Senator Becker said today, we live in a world where any data broker can collect incredibly buy, merge, sell incredibly sensitive data about us, our browsing histories, our app usage, what we buy, precise geolocation over time.
- Justin Brookman
Person
California has a data broker registry, but it's not practically usable by consumers, with 500 different companies on there. A couple of years ago, Consumer Reports actually commissioned a study on the usability of CCPA opt out rights. We had consumers go to one company on the data broker registry and try to exercise their rights. Predictably, it was a mess. People were confused by the process. They couldn't find the opt out link. They were confusing and laborious processes.
- Justin Brookman
Person
They had to accept cookies or fax in their driver's license. Most of our participants reported they were somewhat or seriously dissatisfied with the process. And that's just one company, and that's just for opting out of sale. California consumers today actually don't have the right to delete data from these data brokers. CCPA's deletion rights only apply to data that companies get directly from consumers. But these aren't consumer facing companies. They buy data about us, and therefore they're exempted from CCPA's deletion rights.
- Justin Brookman
Person
The Delete Act think would fix that. That's actually an outlier from other comprehensive privacy bills to give consumers the right to delete all data about them. The Delete Act would give consumers an easy button to delete from all these companies all at once. And we urge your support. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much. All right, anyone else? Opposition. Those in opposition, if you please, approach the microphone.
- Ronak Daylami
Person
Thank you, Chair and Members. Ronak Daylami with the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition to SB 362. We understand the premise of the Bill to be a loophole in the CCPA that effectively exempts data brokers from consumer deletion requests. But while the CCPA rights are not limitless, the existing limits or exceptions are not loopholes.
- Ronak Daylami
Person
They are intentional and necessary to balance against competing interests, operational issues, unintended consequences. First, a consumer's deletion request flows down from the business it has a direct relationship with to those with whom it does not. It includes service providers, contractors, and third parties with whom the business shared or sold the consumer's PI. Second, the reason why the CCPA's right of deletion was drafted to apply to data collected from the consumer and not about the consumer was intentional to avoid infringing on the rights of others.
- Ronak Daylami
Person
For example, I can ask a business to delete a photo I uploaded onto their site, but if my friend uploads the same photo, I cannot force them to delete that photo. It's also why certain data that's publicly available, such as those in public records, is not deemed personal information under the CCPA. In fact, voters expanded the category of what's considered publicly available in Prop. 24.
- Ronak Daylami
Person
We appreciate and believe that the First Amendment exception in two processing deletion requests under this Bill is necessary, but its inclusion questions how exactly the Bill improves upon the CCPA's right of deletion. What the Bill does do, however, is omit other important protections, such as those that ensure data security to prevent deletion of data that is used for fraud prevention, authentication, or identification. A right to delete that ignores such considerations is better characterized as an ability to hide, which doesn't serve consumers.
- Ronak Daylami
Person
Lastly, the practical challenges of exercising CCPA rights in the absence of a direct relationship with the business is precisely why the author of the CCPA ran the Bill that created this registry in the first place, to close that gap. So for these and other reasons, we respectfully oppose.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you, other primary witnesses in opposition.
- Dylan Hoffman
Person
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of TechNet. In the interest of time, I'll line my comments with my colleague from the Chamber. Just a couple of notes on the Delete Act to drill down on the point about important exemptions. I think that security and fraud one is really important to highlight. That is included in the Delete Act, but not included here.
- Dylan Hoffman
Person
So we'll continue to work with the author to try to address some of our concerns and look forward to the conversation, but respectfully opposed at this time. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, let's now turn to the so called "me testimony" here in the hearing room. If you'd approach the microphone, give us your name, your affiliation, and your position. Support or oppose SB 362.
- Randy Pollack
Person
Mr. Chairman, Randy Pollack, on behalf of the Consumer Data Industry Association. We're in opposition, but we appreciate having discussions with the Senator's office. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Others in support or opposition? Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, let's now turn to the phone lines. Moderator, please queue up those on the phone in support or opposition. SB 362.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to come in support or opposition of SB 362, you may press 1 then 0 at this time. We'll go to line 2487. Please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello, my name is Mr. Thruttler. I would like to support. Thank you very much. I'm a senior.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. All right. Next?
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
At this time, there's no one else in queue. Back to you, Mr. Chair.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, bring it back to Committee. Questions by Senator Min.
- Dave Min
Person
I think this is an important Bill and long overdue, and I'd like to be a co author at the appropriate time. Move the Bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Senator Min has moved the Bill. Other questions or comments? Senator Caballero?
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
So, Senator, can you address some of the comments that were made in opposition? I'm concerned about some of them.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
Well, as I mentioned in my opening, we are working on language to address the fraud and protection concerns, and happy to continue conversations with the opposition on that. But under this Bill, consumers can, again, exercise their privacy rights, but we're still working with them on the fraud and protection concerns.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
I guess the comments that concerned me was the data mining that can happen, where public safety can get a hold of information and then use that. Immigration, FBI, that kind of stuff. It just seems to me that we take for granted sometimes that when we use certain apps, particular religious apps, or we, for example, go to locations on a regular basis, my phone tells me where home is. I've never put it in, but at the end of the day it says, you want to go home.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
I wouldn't want that information to get in the wrong hands, specifically if I go to that location every day at a certain time. So I worry about the ability for the tracking mechanisms and the app mechanisms to be used in a way that violates the personal rights of citizens.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
I agree with you. That's exactly why we're doing this Bill. All those examples you heard from eyewitnesses were talking about cases like you mentioned. And where we've seen those kinds of leaks. It's not even just leaks, and the information is out there. So that's really why we have this Bill. And that's the issue we're trying to work on. That if you want to go and say, hey, I want to delete that information, then you can do so.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
So you have to delete it in order for it not to be used against you? Well, I just assume it'd just be a phone and not all this other stuff.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
Yeah. Well, right now, again, right now you have to go to 500 different websites, and Justin talked about even going to one and how difficult it was. So, yes, right now, we do have a do not call list. That's 215 million Americans have opted into that. We're trying to make it just as easy. But it'll be online, not on the phone. But, yeah, right now you'd have to go to 500 plus different websites and try to figure it out.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
And the point of this Bill is one place, fill it out, and remove your info.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Thank you. Appreciate that.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you. Other questions or comments? Senator Min has moved the Bill. Senator Becker, you care to close?
- Josh Becker
Legislator
Continue to work on it with opposition and respectfully ask for an aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you, Madam Secretary. if you could call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item number five, SB 362, by Senator Becker. Motion is do passes amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll call] You have six to one.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Six to one. Put it on call. All right, Senator Becker, before you go, I see Senator Jones is here.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
So we're going to finish your next Bill, item number six, SB 582 and then we're going to turn to Senator Jones. All right, go ahead, Senator Becker.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
I'm always honored to be a warm up act for Senator Jones. So, this Bill, 582, is designed to protect healthcare providers, including small doctors practices and community clinics, from price gouging by their technology vendors. Unfortunately, in short, we're just seeing examples where electronic health record vendors appear to be creating barriers to achieving the real time exchange of patient data by charging unreasonable fees. What is unreasonable? I have a lot of tech companies in my district. I'm not against them making a reasonable profit.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
Unfortunately, unreasonable fees is defined in federal law. So we have that to fall back on the point of this is really to protect doctors. We're forcing them to use this. Let's make sure there's some protection for them as well. With that, I have George Soares from the California Medical Association here today as a witness.
- George Soares
Person
All right, thank you. Hey, good evening. Afternoon. Somewhere in between there. Thank you. Chair and Members George Soares with the California Medical Association as proud sponsors of SB 582. I'll align most of my comments with the Senator just in the interest of time, but this Bill would simply allow for the eventual governing board of the data exchange framework to consider bringing electronic health record vendors underneath the framework, which facilities and physicians are required to sign and comply with.
- George Soares
Person
And so we just kind of want to even out the playing field to ensure that there is a place to go for reasonable pricing. And we will be looking at federal standards as well, which already exists to make that at the state level. At the appropriate time, I ask for your. I vote. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. This is the appropriate time. All right, go ahead. I don't want to jump ahead of the. Me, too. zero, no, we don't want to get the Metoos too early.
- George Soares
Person
All right, so anyone else in support or opposition? Primary opposition. Mr. Yoder, are you in primary? No. Okay, we're looking for primary opposition. Okay, now we're looking for me, too. Go ahead, Ms. Stone, you were first. Kim. Stone. Stone. Advocacy on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association. In support. Great. Well done. All right, next. Mr. Yoder. Mr. Chairman and Members, Paul Yoder, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists and strong support. All righty. Anybody else in support? Please approach the microphone.
- George Soares
Person
Supporter opposition, seeing no one approach the microphone. Let's turn to the phone lines for those who are in support or opposition of SB 582. Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to comment in support or opposition of SB 582, you may press 10 at this time. At this time. There's no one in queue. Back to you, Mr. Chair. All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members. Are there questions by Committee Members? Seeing none. Is there a motion?
- George Soares
Person
[Roll Call]
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Seven to 7-0. Going to put that on call. Thank you, Senator Becker, for warming up the Committee for Senator Jones. Senator Jones, the floor is yours. We'll turn to you, Senator Cortese, next. I have to go to transportation Committee, so I'm going to turn the gavel over to a much more lenient chair. Senator Wilk, can I just make a motion to substitute the roll from the last vote and we'll be done? That'd be okay? That's not how this works. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
- Brian Jones
Legislator
California is facing a massive teacher shortage. Two thirds of California school districts have reported challenges filling vacant teaching positions. As of October 2020218 percent of public schools and had one teaching vacancy and 27% had multiple teaching vacancies. The state has an immediate need to expedite the teacher credentialing process while maintaining the integrity of the workforce.
- Brian Jones
Legislator
I believe an easy part of this solution is for qualified teachers who were educated and credentialed in other states to be able to move swiftly into a teaching role here in California. Currently, the process for teachers moving to California from out of state takes over 10 weeks to complete. From the time of the application is turned in, that's almost an entire semester. This can become particularly onerous for military spouses, who are frequently called upon to relocate on short notice and without planning.
- Brian Jones
Legislator
While California has worked to improve educator recruitment and retention rates, backlogs and delays in the credentialing process have continued to create undue burdens for teachers looking to move here. SB 811 gives California another option to simply simplify teachers moving into the state by joining the intrastate teacher Mobility Compact. The compact will allow teachers moving from one Member state to another to be granted the closest equivalent license to their current credential.
- Brian Jones
Legislator
Joining the compact will make California a founding Member, giving us a leading voice on the Commission and encourage other states to follow our lead in creating a more streamlined and equitable credentialed process for all teachers seeking to move throughout the United States. With me today, I have Ned Mckinley from the Marine Corps. And to provide technical support, I have Dan Logsden from the Council of State governments.\
- Ned McKinley
Person
Ned Mckinley with U. S. Marine Corps also here on behalf of the rest of the Department of Defense. Just real quick comments. We've been trying for a long time to address challenges of unemployment and underemployment for our military spouses. One of the things to work on is professional license reportability compacts are the best way to do it. This compact in particular would have the biggest impact. We have about 1500 military spouse teachers moving into the state each year. A streamlined pathway like this compact would provide would be outstanding benefit for those families. Thank you.
- Brian Jones
Legislator
Thank you. Any other primary witness in support?
- Dan Logsdon
Person
Yes, good afternoon. My name is Dan Logsdon. I'm the Director of the National Center for Interstate Compacts at the Council of State governments, and I'm available to answer any technical questions that the Committee may have. Thank you.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Great. Thank you so much. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Proceed.
- Patricia Rucker
Person
Good afternoon. My name is Patricia Rucker with the California Teachers Association. According to a March 2023 Learning Policy Institute report, in the two years following 2018-2019 when many new state investments were beginning to be implemented here in California, the number of fully prepared new entrants in teacher preparation programs increased by about 3300, while the number of emergency style permits decreased by 2500. This increase represents a break from prior trends in which the number of newly credentialed teachers had been dropping for over 10 years.
- Patricia Rucker
Person
Nationally, the number of individuals completing teacher preparation programs decreased by 22% between the years of 2012-13 and 2018-19. California was one of only eight states with increases during that same period. Let's be clear. We do have a teacher shortage, and there is a need to look at ways and pathways for teacher recruitment. But out of state recruitment through the compact is simply not the answer.
- Patricia Rucker
Person
California has agreements for reciprocity with 46 states, and there's a reason why we probably don't have reciprocity agreements with the four states that do not meet our standards. The work that our Commission, teacher credentialing already does meets or exceeds the work that's being proposed in this Bill. It's duplicative and unnecessary, and we ask you not to support it. Thank you.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you for your testimony. At this point, we will take to testimony both in support and opposition. So your name, organization? If you have one, and your position seeing none, we are going to go to the phones. Moderator, are you there?
- Committee Secretary
Person
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Those who wish to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero.
- Scott Wilk
Person
And again, we are discussing SB eight. 11 by Senator Jones. And so again, me, two testimonies. Your name, organization, if you have one, and your position on the Bill,
- Committee Secretary
Person
We're going to go first to line 2935 your line is open. 2935 your line is now open. Yeah, pardon me. We're going to move on to line 2915.
- Jimmy Adams
Person
My name is Jimmy Adams. I'm the Executive Director of the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification, based in Washington, DC. And I'm in support of Senate Bill 811.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Thank you. Now go to 2487. Your line is open. Hello, your line is open. 2487 your line is open. It moderator. Don't have attitude. Retired teacher. zero, was it? Go ahead, ma'am. I'm sorry, I oppose. And I'm a retired teacher. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you. Line 2492 your line is now open. Thank.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Pardon me. Once again, line 2492, your line is open. We're going to move on to line 2941. Your line is open.
- Kelli Douglas
Person
Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. Kelly May Douglas with the Office of the Secretary of Defense in support. Thank you.
- Brian Jones
Legislator
Secretary of Defense.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Scott Wilk
Person
That's pretty good.
- Brian Jones
Legislator
That's a big deal.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 2950, your line is open.
- Serette Kaminski
Person
Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. Serette Kaminski with the Association of California School Administrators in support of Senate Bill 811. Thank you.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you.
- Brian Jones
Legislator
School Administrators. That's good, too.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Mr. Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Thank you so much, Mr. Moderator. We'll get back to you shortly. Yes, Senator Laird?
- John Laird
Legislator
Is it time for questions?
- Scott Wilk
Person
It is time for questions or motions.
- John Laird
Legislator
Don't rush it here. The analysis says that if we adopted this compact, we'd be the fourth state. What are the other three states?
- Brian Jones
Legislator
Actually, sir, we'd be the fifth state. The other four states currently are Utah, Colorado, Kansas and Kentucky.
- John Laird
Legislator
And you see, that makes my point. I really want to do what this does for the teachers and spouses of military people. But it says that you have to agree to the exact same compact within all these states, and that sort of cedes our decision making to Utah, Kentucky, Kansas and other states. To me, that's a problem. And I was just going to ask, is there another way to do this without doing a compact?
- Brian Jones
Legislator
Well, there's certainly other ways. The CTC does have the ability to pursue reciprocity agreements, as has been mentioned, individually, independently with each state. The passage of the ITMC would further expedite the out-of-state--would make it faster within the states of that compact. By joining the compact now, as a founding member, the compact doesn't go into effect until there's 10 member states. California would be at the lead of defining those parameters and defining those credentialing requirements.
- John Laird
Legislator
Well, we'd be in the first five defining those parameters.
- Brian Jones
Legislator
Yeah, that is correct. But the compact wouldn't go into effect until the 10th member joins it.
- John Laird
Legislator
I know, but four other states that don't have our interests might pressure us in what we should do. That's my point. It is like, I had enough trouble in a prior job dealing with one other state in a compact, and it was really involved in a surrender of California's authority. And so the point is, I want to know that there's some protection here.
- John Laird
Legislator
And I was just wondering, is there truly another way to do this? That is, like California unilaterally can decide to prioritize this and implement it without having to negotiate with Kentucky and Utah and people that don't necessarily have--when I represented the governor at Western Governors and we kept meeting in Las Vegas, we could never meet in a hotel that had gambling because the governor of Utah was in the organization. I don't want to get into those kind of negotiations.
- Brian Jones
Legislator
Maybe better if Mr. Logston speak to the specifics of how this is going to be negotiated so that California's interests can be protected.
- Dan Logsdon
Person
Yes. What the other member states will be working out with California is the commission rules. So California will retain the sovereignty and the ability to set standards within California. The commission rules, the Interstate Commission, really just administers and implements the compact. They can't dictate policy to states.
- John Laird
Legislator
So it expedites teachers to California that California can hire under its own rules? Is that what you're saying?
- Dan Logsdon
Person
It expedites teachers-
- John Laird
Legislator
Trying to help you here. If that was a yes or no question, you say yes.
- Dan Logsdon
Person
It expedites teachers in California that meets the terms of the compact. The compact sets out terms that if you come to California, you come to any member state, they give you an equivalent license if they offer that license.
- John Laird
Legislator
I'm just not sure you didn't talk yourself back into a hole.
- Brian Jones
Legislator
I think the key there is equivalent, and we're going to set the standards of what that equivalency is as a part of being in the compact.
- John Laird
Legislator
I'm still skeptical here. And I think the thing about it is we don't have time to get anywhere else where we're getting right now. But I think I would reserve the right if I understand really clearly that California is giving up a prerogative here not to want this to move in a future stage. And I think that is still not totally clear.
- Brian Jones
Legislator
Senator Laird, the motion will be for it to go to Approps. I sit on Approps. I think you sit on Approps still.
- John Laird
Legislator
I used to.
- Brian Jones
Legislator
Okay.
- John Laird
Legislator
I wanted Mondays back.
- Brian Jones
Legislator
We will be sure to communicate with you very quickly and efficiently on these issues to make sure that your concerns are addressed.
- John Laird
Legislator
Okay. Thank you very much.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Okay. Senator Ashby.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
Yeah. I'm sort of waffling back and forth in my mind on this one, too. So I guess I'm turning on my mic to say that, well, I'm not even sure right now exactly how I'm going to vote. I'm thinking about it, and whatever I do today might not be the same as what I would do a little bit farther down the road, because I'm kind of inclined to give you a chance to keep working on it and also give myself a chance to better understand it.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
This is the kind of hard part about having 50 bills on one thing. We do the best we can to get through them all. But I think I understand it, and I think it sounds like it would be okay. But reserve the right to change my mind if in the future it doesn't make as much sense to me.
- Brian Jones
Legislator
Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. That's fair.
- Scott Wilk
Person
Well, I saw this bill in Education. I think we have our Education Committee chair here, Senator Newman, who supported it as well. And the whole point of this is if you have an equivalent license, that it expedites the process. I think if we talk to any of our school districts, we are hurting for qualified teachers. That's why the School Administrators are in support of this. So I think it's a great bill. I can understand by some of the testimony where people might have some qualms. You will assuage those as we go further, and I move the bill.
- Brian Jones
Legislator
Thank you, sir.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Thank you. Other questions, comments? Seeing none. Madam Secretary, if you would call the roll. Do you want to close?
- Brian Jones
Legislator
I will accept Senator Wilk's comments as my close.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay. Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item number 18, SB 811 by Senator Jones. Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations. Umberg. Aye. Wilk. Aye. Allen. Ashby. Aye. Caballero. Durazo. Laird. Aye. Min. Niello. Aye. Stern. Wiener. 5-0.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
5-0. We'll put that bill on call. Thank you, Senator Jones. Senator Cortese was, I think, next. Senator Cortese.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Senator Limon.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Oh, I'm sorry. We won't permit that. So--yeah, I'm kidding. Senator Limon.
- Monique Limón
Legislator
I'm going to go very, very quick. Thanks.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Oh, especially if Senator Limon is going to go quickly.
- Monique Limón
Legislator
Thank you. Good morning, chair and Senators, I present to you SB 390, a Bill that would enact protections for purchasers of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets are tradable financial instruments that claim to represent a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. However, due to lack of regulations and enforceable standards, the carbon offsets markets are broken, and we are seeing businesses lose confidence in this product. This Bill will bring much needed clarity and accountability to the voluntary offsets space by establishing truth and advertising rules for offsets.
- Monique Limón
Legislator
If you participate in these markets, any claims made to California customers must be founded and in a reasonable basis and project underpinning's offsets produce real, quantifiable and additional carbon benefits. As stated by the academic researchers who support this Bill. We have based our Bill on standard industry terminology and common industry best practices. And I expect that good faith actors will be able to comply.
- Monique Limón
Legislator
We have allowed these markets to develop with no government oversight for more than three decades now, and evidence is piling up that enforceable standards must be in place to restore the confidence of these products, to protect Californians and to protect our climate goals. I ask for support of this measure.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you. Those in support, please approach the microphone.
- Alfredo Redondo
Person
Good evening, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Alfredo Redondo, and I'm here representing Hcycle today. Hcycle is a company dedicated to renewable hydrogen development in California that will actually deliver real renewable fuels, that will displace fossil fuels like diesel and other applications of hard to defosilize components of our economy. And the reason why we're very much in support of Senator Lemon's Bill today is because junk offsets really hurt the overall climate market.
- Alfredo Redondo
Person
From the perspective of if folks are investing in these junk offsets, as they've been told, as a way to defosilize or decarbonize themselves and their activities economically, it ultimately just undercuts the ability for additional investments and capital to flow towards actual projects that will reduce emissions. And that's really what we're focused on. We agree that there is a role for offsets to play as a measure of last resort.
- Alfredo Redondo
Person
But as what we're seeing now, there is a big rush in the global market to really push these junk offsets with a lack of environmental integrity. And so really, if folks want to come to the table, show their work, prove that they're actually doing what they're saying they're going to do, then welcome to the table. Otherwise, we need to make sure that we hold people accountable to move us forward and actually achieve our own climate policy. So with that, respectfully request an aye vote.
- Alfredo Redondo
Person
Thank you. Others in support seeing okay. Others in support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone. Those in opposition, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's go to me too testimony. If you're in the room and you wish to provide me too testimony, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's now turn to the phone lines for those who are in support or in opposition to SB 390.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Moderator if you would queue up those in support in opposition to SB 390, we'd be grateful. If you wish to speak in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one, then zero. And we have line 2972 your line is open. Line 2972, your line is open. 3029. 72, your line is open. All right, let's turn to the next chair. There was no response. I apologize. Anyone else? Moderator. We're going to go to line 29. Eight, your line is open. Seven.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, 2908. Your line is open, Mr. Chair. There is no one else. All right, thank you very much. All right, starting up their dinner. Okay, so back to the Committee. Questions by Committee Members.
- John Laird
Legislator
Senator Laird, I would move to.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Senator Laird moves the Bill. Other questions?
- Monique Limón
Legislator
Seeing no questions, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much. All right, Madam Secretary, please call the role. We're still at dinner with them. All right, go ahead.
- Committee Secretary
Person
We'll put that on call. Moderator. I think we're still connected to someone's dinner. Okay. Pardon me, Mr. Chair. We'll find that line. All right, thank you very much. Senator Cortese, thank you for your patience. I know you've been here for some time.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item number 19, SB 390 by Senator Limon. The motion is do passed to Senate appropriations. [Roll Call] 5 - 0.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
I think we're all feeling for the Committee and the chair at this point. Kudos to you for your diligence today, and thank you for allowing me to present two of my bills, starting with SB 553. I think that's where we're at. Good. Yes. File number 7. For those of you following in your playbook, file number seven, SB 553.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
Okay, thank you again. So I'm pleased to present this Bill. It's a bipartisan Bill sponsored by the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council and AFSME. The Bill would strengthen existing laws related to workplace violence by expanding the ability of employers to ensure workplace safety and creating additional enforceable protections for employees. OSHA has identified workplace violence as the second leading cause of fatal occupational injury at the workplace and estimates that nearly 2 million workers are affected by workplace violence each year.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
You'll remember the VTA shooting at the Guadalupe yard, May 26 of 2021. In my district, that was a coworker violence situation, and we did a lot here as a Legislature in response to that situation. But workplace shootings alone are not uncommon, and we've experienced that right here in Sacramento just recently. In addition, very recently, June of 2022, a Safeway employee was killed during a robbery. Again, in San Jose and my district.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
We just lost Blake Moes, a Home Depot employee, this month in Pleasanton, trying to stop a shoplifter. So we've made a lot of good strides. It goes back to state Senator now, US Senator Alex Padilla with his Bill, SB 1299. Back in 2017, that Bill was focused on the healthcare industry only, and really what we're trying to do is now expand to all workplaces with this Bill. I don't want to go on in the interest of time, but I'm very happy to answer questions.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
I just want to simply say that we acknowledge SB 553 will not eliminate workplace violence, but it will certainly better equip and prepare workers on how to respond when workplace violence situations arise. Thank you. And at the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you, Senator Cortese.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
I should announce my witnesses. I apologize. We have trying to move quickly here. We have Ed Howard with UFCW Western States Council to answer any technical questions, and we have Natalie Uchi and Joanne Martinez from UFCW here to testify in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you. Please approach the microphone.
- Natalie Uchi
Person
Hi, my name is Natalie Uchi and I am a produce Clerk at Safeway 1483 and a Member of the UFCW. I'm here to testify in support of Senate Bill 553. I've worked in the grocery industry for 18 years and have personally been victimized by workplace violence and have heard numerous stories from workers who have experienced workplace violence.
- Natalie Uchi
Person
Today, I want to share with you a tragedy that happened in 2022 at my Safeway in San Jose, where my fellow coworker, friend, and UFCW Member paid the ultimate price and was murdered at work due to workplace violence. The weekend of June 4, my son was playing in a local baseball tournament and his team pulled a late game on Saturday. I texted my Department group chat to let them know I would be a little late Sunday morning.
- Natalie Uchi
Person
My normal start time is 04:00 a.m. As I was getting ready Sunday, my friend from another Department text to find out if I was working. I told her I was going to be leaving in about 10 minutes and she said she had just gotten to the store and the parking lot was roped off by the police and they told her to go home. She had no idea what was going on.
- Natalie Uchi
Person
I went to my phone and checked our Department group chat and there was a message from my friend Mike, who went in at three that said, don't come in. Manny has been shot. The door is closed. I called the Department assistant and met him down near the store. We walked to the front of the store where several other people that were supposed to be working that day were standing. There were police cars everywhere, and the entire parking lot was roped off with police tape.
- Natalie Uchi
Person
As we were standing there, one of the officers walked over. I asked him if Manny had made it, and he shook his head no. At that time, we all went to the donut shop around the corner in complete and utter shock. Manny was a wonderful kid. He had so much potential and so much life ahead of him. He was a staff favorite, and in the blink of an eye because of a coward, he was gone.
- Natalie Uchi
Person
The next day, Safeway wanted us to come down to the store for grief counseling. They brought in one counselor for the entire store. We had about 160 employees at the time. While a group of us were standing out in the parking lot, one of the men from corporate came and offered his condolences. A week after Manny was murdered, a man walked in the store announcing loudly that somebody was going to die today.
- Natalie Uchi
Person
While brandishing a knife, he walked through the store, knocking things off the shelves, and began following our deli manager, who was a female. Luckily, one of the coworkers saw the man and distracted him. The man held a knife to his chest, but eventually walked away. The man walked outside, and some of the men followed to see where he was walking so they could tell the police. The workers that followed him outside had their jobs threatened because they went outside.
- Natalie Uchi
Person
Us workers are not prepared on how to handle shoplifter and active shooter situations. In the grocery store. When we're first hired, we receive a vague 15 minutes long video training. We can't ask questions, and we never receive the training again. It's not effective. After Manny's death, we had an active shooter video that we were supposed to watch. I told the office that I haven't seen it yet, and I was told their records showed that I have. To this day, I have not seen the video.
- Natalie Uchi
Person
Almost a year later, I still feel the impacts of the incident. Today. I've watched several of my coworkers that were in the building that night that Mandy died struggle with what I can only call PTSD. How many of us have to die before laws are changed to protect us? We kept everyone fed through Covid. We didn't have the option to work from home.
- Natalie Uchi
Person
We showed up every single day not knowing if that was the day we were going to bring an unknown virus home to our families. Senate Bill 553 is not the silver bullet that will solve all of our workplace violence problems, but is a step in the right direction to adopt protections for workers on the job. Please vote yes on Senate Bill 553 to ensure that workers are better prepared to respond to incidents like what happened in San Jose.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you, and I'm sorry. That's a terrible tragedy, and I appreciate you taking that tragedy and trying to help others. All right, thank you. All right, we've given the support position four minutes now, so let's turn to opposition. Those opposed? If there's primary witnesses in opposition, please approach the microphone. Sorry for the delay.
- Robert Moutrie
Person
Robert Mutrie for the California Chamber of Commerce. Good evening, Mr. Chair and Members and author. Before I get to the substance, I want to be clear what we are not here in opposition to. We are certainly not in defense of workplace violence. That story was a tragedy, and we're glad that Kalosha is working on this topic to address it bolter the already existing health care violence standard and for the ongoing work towards a General industry standard. Second, I want to be clear.
- Robert Moutrie
Person
We are not opposed to section one of the Bill. It was not mentioned, but it eases the ability of a union to seek a tro and defense of an employee. Not our concern. I think that's a good improvement. I want to touch on some background. Calocia already has a healthcare workplace violence standard that was referenced in passing. They are presently working on a General industry standard.
- Robert Moutrie
Person
Calocia and I've spoken to their staff on this, acknowledge that what a hospital can do and what every other business in the state down to one employee can do are just different. A two person food truck cannot do what a hospital can do, and that's why they're working on a different standard. Our primary concern with this Bill, though, there's one or two others.
- Robert Moutrie
Person
But the core concern is this Bill copies the hospital applicable standard into statute instead of looking to what Kalosha is looking at and working on for General industries. So we would say that this should copy the appropriate standard per Kalosha's expertise, though, again, we are not opposed to the core objectives, but let's use the right standard.
- Robert Moutrie
Person
The second point I'd like to flag here, is this Bill redefines what workplace violence is away from what Calochia has done, so that workplace violence now includes workplace harassment and oral comments of that sort that are not threats but are just harassment. We believe that is something the labor Commissioner covers and should be addressed there through the existing laws. It's not Kalosha's expertise to handle. So it should not be here.
- Robert Moutrie
Person
Again, I want to be clear that this is not a support for workplace violence in any way, but more a focus on how we do this and following Kalosh's actual lead, which is their General industry standard they're working on presently, and we are engaged in working with them on. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Others in opposition seeing no one approaching the microphone. All right, let's turn to so called Metoo testimony in support and opposition to SB 553.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good evening. Janice O'Malley with ASME California proud co sponsors of the Bill. Thank you. Hello, I'm John Martinez, proud local Member of 19 years, and I am proud support of this Bill. Thank you. Hector Moreno, UFCW, in support of this Bill. Thank you. Emily Rosenberger with SCIU in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, let's turn to the phone lines now on SB 553. Moderator, please queue up those in support and opposition to SB 553.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Louise Tuna, UFCW, local five, in support. Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support. Ryan O'Land with the California Retailers Association and respectful opposition. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one, then zero. At this time. Press one, then zero. And Mr. Chair, we have at least one person who signaled that they wish to speak. Just a moment.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Okay, we're going to go to line 29. 72. That's 2972. Your line is open.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Can you hear me?
- Committee Moderator
Person
Yes.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Great. Hi, chair and chair Members. My name is Shrina Ladge. I'm calling from Classer county. I'm in strong support of SB 553 as a worker.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you very much. Next caller, please. We'll now go to line 29. 69. That's 2969. Your line is open. Lawrence Gaten, on behalf of the California Manufacturing Technology Association, in opposition. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
There is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak. All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions? Senator Wilk?
- Scott Wilk
Person
Yeah, I just have one. I supported this in labor and I plan to support it today. But that was an interesting point that the chamber brought up in terms of, I'm sure hospitals with hundreds of employees have to have the highest standards versus, like, a two persons business. Is that something you're going to take a look at as it goes through the process?
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
Happy to keep looking at that. And I'm sure they'll hold our feet to the fire to make sure that we do. But as you know, the seven primary things we're trying to do here show up in middle schools, high schools. In the 1990s, when I was a school board Member, we did active shooter training, probably much more extensive than this Bill would ever require. So I think the Bill is in good shape in terms of doability.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
But those finer points about size of workplace and so forth. We'll keep working on those.
- John Laird
Legislator
Okay, great. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you, Senator.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. I'll move the Bill. All right. Senator Wilkins Bill. Let me just echo Senator Wilkes'concerns. I'm not sure one size fits all. Clearly, there are some workplaces that are more susceptible than others. I just had my shoes repaired. Guy had one employee. I'm not sure. I think it was his son. I'm not sure that he needs to do a workplace violence plan.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
But I trust that you will continue to work so that one size does not fit all and look at the environment and the employers?
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
Yes. The answer is yes. And we appreciate this Committee's diligence in analyzing the Bill and your efforts to work with us as well. We expect that process to continue, hopefully all the way through to the governor's desk until we have something that's as near to perfection as we can get. For now, we're trying to save lives here, so I think that's the main thing. If there's one out of these seven things that prevents somebody from being victimized, like we've heard about, then that's a win. But we'll keep working on details and. Appreciate that, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Is that your close?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Is that your close?
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
That's my close. We request your aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
That's your close. All right. Thank you. Madam Secretary. If you'd call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item number seven, SB 553, by Senator Cortese. The motion is do pass, asset and appropriations. [Roll Call] 4 - 1.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, we'll put that on call. Next, item number 8, SB 646.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I may proceed? Yes. I am here to present Senate Bill 646, a bill that seeks to hold social media companies liable for distributing child sex abuse material, also known as CSAM. Victim advocates use a federal statute, Marsha's Law, to seek restitution to hold platforms accountable for their culpability. Through this bill, a statute to be, of course, victims are able to sue their abusers and their enablers in federal court.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
This bill that I'm presenting today seeks to provide victims the same standing in state court. Any person or entity who transmits CSAM is liable to be sued for damages under SB 646. SB 646 also requires that platforms list an agent who are responsible for fielding questions and to remove content. If the platform does not act within two business days to remove, take down, then they'd be liable for civil remedies. Crucially, CSAM is excluded from the immunity provided by Section 230 of the Federal Communications Indecency Act since the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act and the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act were enacted by Congress.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
And I know that's something that this committee has spent a great deal of time on over the past few years. It's something I appreciate. Any chilling effect of free speech is vastly outweighed by the irreparable harm caused. It's the most vulnerable amongst us. I don't think this is protected speech in the first place, and I am pretty sure that's how the committee is looking at this bill, based on all the work that you've done with us. Sexually exploited children are re-victimized every time a predator watches CSAM content. And that's really what we're trying to get to here first and foremost.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
Victims have testified that the worst part of the re-victimization process is knowing that the content is up and it's being used to normalize abuse, and they can't get it down. Tragically, this abuse leads to horrible mental health problems such as anxiety, depression, substance abuse and suicidal ideation.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
The victim also may experience negative physical health outcomes such as high blood pressure and chronic illness. Joining us today are witnesses Micha Star Liberty of The Soaring Center and Margaret E. Mabie of the Marsh Law Firm. Thank you again, Mr. Chair, and I'll respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you very much. Ms. Star Liberty, the floor is yours.
- Micha Liberty
Person
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is Micah Star Liberty, and I've been representing victims of sexual abuse, assault, harassment and trafficking for 22 years. This legislation is long overdue, and it will actually have an impact on what CSAM victims go through every day.
- Micha Liberty
Person
To be sure, CSAM creates a permanent record of sexual abuse, and these victims suffer daily knowing that images of their rapes are out there, and they can't do anything to take them down without the cooperation of social media. It creates lasting psychological impacts on every aspect of their life. Not a day goes by that they don't think about the sheer volume of images of them being abused and assaulted and raped that's depicted on the social media. And this material is available on every single internet platform.
- Micha Liberty
Person
It's available through social media websites. It's available through search engines. It's available through chats. Any single application that has a DM or direct messaging capability, we see people trading, selling and further disseminating CSAM material. And the continuous production of CSAM leads to a higher demand. CSAM begets CSAM. And so we are seeing more and more people creating the material and disseminating the material unchecked. For the most part, a CSAM image is not the first time this child is being raped or abused.
- Micha Liberty
Person
It usually is the result of years of sexual assault and the grooming process, where they are desensitized to sexual content and sexual abuse. And so what we're watching is the culmination of a horrific period of sadistic, ritualistic grooming and abuse. And we're seeing very disturbing trends now, since the pandemic and with the proliferation of access to this material. What we are seeing is-
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much. I'm sorry that today I have to be a bit abrupt, because we've got 20 more bills to go.
- Micha Liberty
Person
I understand. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Right. Thank you. All right.
- Margaret Mabie
Person
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I'm Margaret Mabie. I work at Marsh Law Firm. We represent victims of CSAM across the country. There are two survivors in this room who, for safety reasons, were unable to testify. But they are victims of CSAM, and they're here in support. Section 230 was originally passed as a child protection statute in 1996, but by 1997, the ACLU made sure it wouldn't be. That same year, a little company called Google registered its domain name.
- Margaret Mabie
Person
So just to be clear, we're not suing your grandmother's tech company. The tech industry is not a fragile industry. It is a conglomerate of power and impunity. Masha's Law, named after our firm's client, was amended in 2005 in honor of a victim of CSAM. What most don't understand is that, like Masha, many of our clients were abused in the 90s or early 2000s, long before the internet we know today ever existed.
- Margaret Mabie
Person
The material still gets trafficked, and like baseball cards for pedophiles, is collected by creeps around the globe. There are survivors in this room whose images and videos have been circulating online for decades, and tech companies could care less. We know this because over 10,824 images or CSAM files are detected every 12 hours. Take the Doe v. Twitter case, which was heard by the 9th circuit last week. Twitter refused a survivor's request to remove their image.
- Margaret Mabie
Person
In nine days, before law enforcement was able to force Twitter to act, over 167,000 views and 2,223 retweets of this material occurred. These victims are suing under Masha's Law, but these remedies are not enough. These remedies are not going to stop and remove this material. Companies have threatened to pull out of the UK market in response to the online child safety bill. So that's why I'm here today.
- Margaret Mabie
Person
We need the people of the State of California to stand up for kids around the globe, because Silicon Valley is the one place we know the tech companies won't threaten to leave. We need California to keep kids safe because we know big tech refuses to do so. For these reasons, we ask for your support on SB 646.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much. All right. Opposition.
- Dylan Hoffman
Person
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of TechNet, and we are respectfully opposed to SB 646. First, we unequivocally support the author's efforts to eradicate online sex trafficking, the distribution of CSAM and NCII. We agree with the senator: this material is not protected by the First Amendment; our companies take aggressive action to not only identify but remove this content. We also have innovative new technologies to aid in that effort.
- Dylan Hoffman
Person
We've donated that to civil society partners to help expand the reach of those systems. And we've actively partnered with and cooperated with nonprofits like NCMEC and law enforcement agencies across the country and the world to try to address this problem. We take this very seriously, and we have worked for decades to be a part of the solution. However, we do believe that SB 646 has several flaws that will impede this work and that run afoul of constitutional principles.
- Dylan Hoffman
Person
First, we believe the two-day window to remove or destroy actionable material, though intended to inspire quick action, will actually have unintended consequences. Currently, by requiring us to act within two days or face significant penalties, there is a strong incentive to remove first and ask questions later, which I think will result in an over-removal of lawful content. The other point that I want to address is brought up by the proponents. This bill is still preempted by Section 230.
- Dylan Hoffman
Person
Despite the narrow exemption created by SESTA/FOSTA, this bill far exceeds the intent standards under that bill. That bill and those exceptions require a knowing standard, and for platforms to knowingly benefit, have actual knowledge of the trafficking and must assist, support, or facilitate the trafficking, none of which are in this bill. So therefore, it exceeds the scope of that limited exception under Section 230, and therefore this bill is still preempted.
- Dylan Hoffman
Person
Finally, I do want to say we've discussed our concerns with the author, the author's office. We've also committed to work on language that increases user safety that try to achieve the goals of this bill without impeding on First Amendment principles. However-
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
You're opposed. Yes, got it. All right, thank you. Others opposed? Seeing no one else approaching. Let's turn now to those who are in support or opposition in the hearing room. Please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation and your position.
- Ed Howard
Person
Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members. Ed Howard, on behalf of the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law in strong support. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Nancy Peverini
Person
Hi. Nancy Peverini on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California, in support.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm Jane Doe. I'm a victim of this crime and I'm in support of this bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm Jane Doe and I am in support of this bill.
- Ronak Daylami
Person
Ronak Daylami, California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition. Thank you.
- Jaime Huff
Person
Jaime Huff, CJAC. Respectful opposition. Thank you.
- Dylan Hoffman
Person
James Marsh from the Marsh Law Firm. Thank you for support of this bill. It's very important.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, let's turn to the phone lines. Seeing no one else approach the microphone. Turn to the phone lines for those who are in support and in opposition. SB 646.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to comment in support or opposition of SB 646, you may press 1, then 0 at this time. We'll go to line 2893. Please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello, my name is Danielle Pollock and I support this. Please.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2989. Please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Yes, my name is Michelle Carpentunis and I am in support of this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2877. Please go ahead. Line 2877, your line is open.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Yes. Hello, my name is Nancy Fingerhood and I strongly support this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2972. Please go ahead.
- John Laird
Legislator
Can you hear me?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
We got you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Great. Hi, Chair. Chair and Members, my name is ... I'm calling from Placer County. I'm a member of Parents Against Groomers and I'm in strong support of this bill, SB 646. Keep your hands off our kids.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2908. Please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Cecily Rodney of the National Faith Parents Coalition. I'm a child survivor and I am in strong agreeance with this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2883. Please go ahead.
- Catherine Campbell
Person
Catherine Campbell with National Safe Parent Organization in strong support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we go to line 2890. Please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, I'm Tricia Romar, a protective parent and strongly support this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2398. Please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Nicole Young. Placer County. Strong support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
I got one more, just a moment. We'll go to line 2997. Please go ahead. Line 2997, your line is open. All right, we'll move on to line 2835. Please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Danette Udaborg. I'm a resident of Temecula, California, and I am strong support of SB 646.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
SB 646. Alrighty. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next we'll go to line 2963. Please go ahead.
- Committee Secretary
Person
You. Line 2963 your lines open? I'm sorry, what Bill is this? This is SB 646. Are you in support or opposition? I'm sorry, I'm leader. I haven't checked that one. Sorry about that. All right, thank you. All right, next caller, please. Next over to line 1159, please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Elizabeth Dotson from San Diego, California, and I am a protective parent and survivor, and I am in strong support.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 2732 please. Go ahead. Yes, you're on. We got you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Cindy Martinez. I'm from Santa Clarita, and I am a protective parent. I support SB 331.
- Committee Secretary
Person
All right, next caller, please. Next we go to line 28. Please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Pam Trout and I strongly support.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 282 please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Yes, my name is Stephanie Swela, and I'm in strong support as a parent, grandparent and great grandmother.
- Committee Secretary
Person
All right, thank you. Next we go to line 2997 please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, this is Shweta Shivarama and I'm a resident of Santa Clara County. I'm a protective parent and I'm in strong support.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Thank you. Next we go to line 2999 please go ahead. Line 2999 your line is open. All right, next caller. All right, move on to line 2891 please go ahead. Excuse. Line 2891 your line is open.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, yes, is this for SB 331?
- Committee Secretary
Person
It's not the Bill. All right, next caller.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Okay, sorry.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3003. Please go ahead. Line 3003, please. Go ahead. Who? All right, next caller. Go on to line 2976 please. Go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Leslie Davis, I'm in support. Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 2859 please. Go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Naomi Astra, San Francisco.
- Committee Secretary
Person
All right, next caller. At this time, there's no others in queue. Back to you, Mr. Chair.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members seeing no questions or comments. Senator Cordesa, you've worked on this for quite some time. Thank you very much. I do have a question either for you or perhaps one of the opponents. I don't know whether 48 hours is enough time. We've asked what is the appropriate time? Is it 72 hours? Is it a month?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
If it's a month, that sounds too long. I don't know. And perhaps I could ask the opponents, if you don't mind, if there is a time that does work for them to be able to take it down. That's not particularly long. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair, 48 hours is too short. I think what our platforms try to do is not only verify the information that is being reported to us, but to locate, identify and remove that content.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Not only to do that, but to identify whether other content. I understand the position, and we don't need to belabor it right now, but we've asked what is the appropriate time? I don't know what the appropriate time is. I don't know if there is an appropriate time. There's always going to be that pressure for platforms to remove the Bill is going to move out of Committee. I think I'm going to support the Bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
And if you come up with an appropriate time, then I would ask Senator Cortesi to consider it. I understand your position. 48 hours is not enough. I don't know. But let's continue to work on that. And also, I know, Senator Cortese, I know that you want to get at the images that have been described here. You're not focused on the proverbial baby on the bare skin rug that somebody, one parent's sending to another.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
I know that we need to do some more work, I think, on some of the definitions so that we don't catch the baby on the bare skin rug, but we do catch all the other vile images that have been reported. And I assume you're perfectly prepared to work on it just as you have for the last couple of years.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
Yes, I am. Okay. And the interesting thing about this is in California, for a number of years, you've had not only the right, but the functionality online to get your credit report corrected as quickly as we're asking for in this Bill. And the standard is you take the material down if it's inappropriate, if it's challenged as inappropriate, and then you put it back up again.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
If you can verify that it isn't, you can delete something out of your Amazon shopping cart with pressing a button in a split second, less than a second. But those same platforms, the same technology, is trying to tell us that 48 hours is too much. Nevertheless, you saw that we can't get an answer to that question. You asked a very direct question, as I've been asking over and over again, all we want is the answer. How much time do you need?
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
This is an ongoing harm, as you and I know as attorneys, it's an ongoing harm that ordinarily a court of law would probably issue an instant restraining order. We're just asking, just take it down while you're investigating. If the investigation turns up that this was completely appropriate content, put it back up again. But to say that we're going to allow. To me it's shameful, and I come from Silicon Valley to say that.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
To come into this Committee room and say that it's okay to allow that ongoing harm to continue because you can't get it down fast enough, because you can't give an answer on whether 48 hours is enough, because you're willing to allow the ongoing harm of what is defined here as not just run of the mill anything. It's CSAM. It's exploitation of minors in obscenity. It's absolutely not protected by 230 or the First Amendment. We know that.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
So honestly, we want to work with a predominant industry in my own district. We just need real answers. And by all means, if there's any reasonable approach to this that we can justify, if it's 36 hours, if it's 27 hours, demonstrate to us why that's the case. I think we're technologically literate enough in my office to understand if there's some bona fide reasons why we need to make a little adjustment on the two days. But we don't want to leave those images out there.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
11 years ago, Audrey Pott, a 15 year old, hung herself, hanged herself in my district. I've talked to her mother. I've talked to her family. They could not figure out how to get the online platform to take down the nude pictures of her that were posted after the sexual assault by a couple of males who were convicted. They couldn't get that down. All she wanted was take it down, take it down. She couldn't get it done. We're losing kids like this, I think.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
I don't know the statistics. We'll get them. For the rest of the committees, we'll get those statistics. But it's shameful to let people get into this position of suicidal ideation because we're unwilling to act. And I just want to thank this Committee so much for the hearings, the informational hearings a couple of years ago to get at this 230 problem. I just think California needs to lead on that. I don't want to see litigation, but I think we're on really solid ground here. And I, again, really appreciate this Committee's help with this.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you, Senator Cortese. Senator Ashby.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
Yeah. I just feel like it needs to be said. I want to be as reasonable as possible. There are a lot of people listed on the opponent list that I think have a high regard for and would want you to work with. But I just would like to ask this question. If it was your daughter. How long would be okay with you? About 1 second would be my guess for everybody in this room.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
So I want us to be reasonable and I want to encourage you to be reasonable. But we're not talking about pictures or images that might have offended somebody. We're talking about mostly women who are out there who something has happened egregiously and that has landed on the Internet. And now they have to try to figure out how to live with that. And we need to do everything we can to protect them. And I just don't think it's too much to take it down.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
Figure out if it was okay, then put it back up. But if the industry has some guidelines for you where they can be helpful, that's great, but I just don't want to lose sight of what we're really trying to do here.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you. Other questions and just a quick comment on Section 230. Yes, we've been pushing the envelope on Section 230 and I'm pleased to be part of that effort. All right, thank you. So is there a motion, Senator Ashby? All right. Senator Ashby moves the Bill, ma'am. Secretary, if you call the role. You've closed, haven't you? I've closed. All right, thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call] Thank you very much. And Senator Newman's been here for quite some time. Senator Gonzalez, Senator Newman is going to allow you to go before him. What a gentleman he is. Yeah, well, I know, and I know that there are a number of different Senators that just dropped by that listen in. That's what I was thinking. All right, Senator Gonzalez, the floor is yours.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Well, you're anticipating Wednesday morning.
- Lena Gonzalez
Legislator
I was. So I'll change that to good evening, Mr. Chair and Members. I'd like to start by accepting the Committee amendments as described in pages nine and 13 of the analysis. And I want to thank the Committee and you for providing these amendments.
- Lena Gonzalez
Legislator
I'm here today to present SB 556, the Oil and Gas Pollution Accountability Act, which creates a liability presumption to hold the oil and gas industry accountable for the harm they have caused to Californians that reside within 3200ft of their wellheads and production facilities. In California, as we know, there are more than 28,000 operational oil and gas wells located within 3200 ft of a home, hospital, school, or other sensitive receptors.
- Lena Gonzalez
Legislator
Numerous studies have shown that proximity to these oil and gas wells brings disastrous health implications, including increased risk of asthma and other respiratory illnesses, preterm births, high risk pregnancies, and cancer. This is certainly a public health crisis and a long standing and glaring example of environmental racism.
- Lena Gonzalez
Legislator
Of the approximately 7.4 million Californians who live within a mile of one or more oil and gas wells, one-third live in areas that are most burdened by environmental pollution, and 92% of Californians living in these overburdened neighborhoods are people of color.
- Lena Gonzalez
Legislator
SB 556 provides that after January 1 of 2024, an owner or operator of these wells and facilities will be jointly and severally liable for a respiratory ailment diagnosed after January 1, 2024 in a senior or child, a preterm birth, or high risk pregnancy suffered by a pregnant person and a person's cancer diagnoses.
- Lena Gonzalez
Legislator
The presumption will only apply if the facility or well is located in the same health protection zone where these vulnerable populations reside for more than 24 cumulative months and if the oil and gas facility or well located in such a zone has failed to operationalize the best available control and remediation technology to protect its most vulnerable neighbors.
- Lena Gonzalez
Legislator
If oil and gas companies decide to drill and extract oil near our children and seniors, it is only fair and imperative that the industry implement the best available technology to prevent future harm to California's most vulnerable populations. Testifying in support today very patient, I have Monic Uriarte, co-founder of People Not Pozos, People not Wells, and Daniel Ress, Staff Attorney for Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Thank you. Primary witnesses in support, please approach the microphone. Thank you.
- Monic Uriarte
Person
Good evening, everybody. My name is Monic Uriarte. I came from Mexico like millions of people around the world coming to this country looking for democracy, justice, and better opportunities. For the last 26 years, I've been working on a nonprofit organization in South Los Angeles who serve low income families. I live in one of the affordable units in South LA. In my neighborhood, we have nine school, churches, senior housing, a little park under the freeway, and an oil well. My neighbors and I, we are starting conversation.
- Monic Uriarte
Person
We start conversations complaining about our health symptoms and our loved ones' health symptoms. Some of them were asthma, nosebleed, headaches, even cancer. And the past of two youths, 14 and 15 years old. Both die from leukemia. Both of them live on the same building block away from the oil well. One of my daughters suffered these multiple symptoms, then was proved scientifically. Then toxic emissions for the oil industry can be the cause.
- Monic Uriarte
Person
On 2020, my daughter was diagnosed with stage two reproductive cancer at the age of 19. She needs to choose for her life or her reproductive system. And I'm sure she's not the only one. Oil industry is poisoning our land, our water, our air, and it's killing people. When will be enough? Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Next witness in support.
- Daniel Ress
Person
Good evening. My name is Dan Ress, here representing the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment. CRPE is committed to environmental justice and uplifting underrepresented communities in San Joaquin Valley. SB 556 is a crucial bill for holding oil companies accountable for the devastating harms that they are causing in communities. At CRPE, we work closely with communities to advocate for their needs and public health.
- Daniel Ress
Person
We have seen our community members who live near oil and gas wells develop asthma, cancer, adverse pregnancy outcomes, and more. An incredible body of scientific research shows that living near oil and gas extraction causes this harm. It is past time for these owners and operators to be held accountable. Nothing can ever make those who have suffered a miscarriage or cancer whole again.
- Daniel Ress
Person
However, SB 556 allows harmed people to obtain justice by creating a presumption of liability in favor of people who suffer certain related health harms and reside within 3200 ft of a well. Yet oil companies may overcome the presumption by employing the best available technologies to minimize potential harm. This affirmative defense is key because it incentivizes oil companies to do as much as possible to protect our communities and stop harms before they happen. Last summer, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 1137 Gonzalez.
- Daniel Ress
Person
Which created a buffer zone of 3200 ft around homes, hospitals and schools where new permits to drill would be prohibited. Our communities fought for over a decade to secure that victory, and we thank those of you who voted for it. SB 1137 was the law of the land and would be still but for a cynical referendum effort by big oil paused it for two years, pending the people of indicating this important protection in November 2024. But our community members are suffering now.
- Daniel Ress
Person
They have cancer now. They're losing pregnancies now. What is their recourse? Our communities deserve to live in an environment that does not give them cancer, pregnancy complications, or respiratory issues. Our communities are not sacrifice zones. For these reasons, we urge the Committee to vote yes on SB 556. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, those in opposition.
- Paul Deiro
Person
Mr. Chairman and Members, Paul Deiro, representing the Western States Petroleum Association. I'd like to thank staff of the Committee with the wholesome analysis. The bill would establish an unprecedented presumptive liability on oil operators in the state without requiring any proof that a well caused any harm. The bill would make the Legislature be the finder of fact when it comes to critical issues of causation and certain damages. Guilt is not decided by the courts or the preponderance of evidence. It is decided by the Legislature and the Committee. Today, there is no safe harbor in this bill.
- Paul Deiro
Person
It provides two methods of overcoming its presumption. Operators using best available technology, as was mentioned before, that eliminates, reduces, prevents air pollution, soil and water contamination, and waste to the maximum degree of protection possible. This definition is vague and broad. We don't know what it means. The technology must be operated without interruption at a capacity for two year period. What does without interruption mean? We don't know what that means either. It's an impossible standard to meet.
- Paul Deiro
Person
The second option is the operator must demonstrate that an oil facility was not in whole or in part, the cause of the illness. This burden on the defendant is impossible. SB 556 would create a legal catastrophe, as oil operators would be solely liable for health conditions that could be caused by multiple factors, including wells located near freeways and other industrial sectors.
- Paul Deiro
Person
Given the evidentiary burden established by this bill and the extreme liability created for oil companies, SB 556 would ultimately almost eliminate oil production in the State of California. We also believe that this bill would impact the State of California as it owns oil wells in the tidelands in Long Beach.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you very much.
- Paul Deiro
Person
Thank you. We oppose the bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Others in opposition?
- Jamie Huff
Person
Good evening, Mr. Chair, Members. Jamie Huff, on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. I must rise to respectfully oppose the bill. While we understand and appreciate the Senator and her earnest desire to protect the public from cancer, respiratory diseases, and prenatal risks, the bill creates unreasonable precedent that these operator owners of oil facilities are presumed liable for diseases without the plaintiff actually having to initially show causation.
- Jamie Huff
Person
Making this presumption in law essentially flips the burden of proof in our courts, making an accused defendant responsible for proving a negative and relieving the accusing party of the duty to show causation between the injury and these wellheads. Application of joint and several liability under the circumstances described in the bill would mean a defendant would bear the burden of mapping out a plaintiff's entire life to show all potential exposure that could have contributed to the diagnosis. This would lead to very intrusive, lengthy, and costly discovery.
- Jamie Huff
Person
That function only makes every lawsuit of this type regardless of fault, a losing proposition for the defendant. Lastly, the penalties under this bill are excessive, up to $1.0 million per person. And the ability of a court to double or triple the penalties would be crippling to these businesses that play a very valuable role in our state's economy. So for the foregoing reasons, we must respectfully oppose. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, now for me too testimony. Those in support and in opposition, if you'd approach, give us your name, your affiliation, and your either support or oppose.
- Kimberly Stone
Person
Thank you. Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy on behalf of Consumer Watchdog in support. And then there are a number of groups who left due to the time who I'm going to just briefly represent their support as well. Sierra Club, Greenlining Institute, Physicians for Social Responsibility of Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento Chapters, the Oil and Gas Action Network, 350 Sacramento, and the Center for Biological Diversity. Thank you.
- Nicole Rivera
Person
Good evening. Nicole Rivera with the Climate Center in strong support.
- Daniel Jacobson
Person
Good evening, Mr. Chair. My name is Dan Jacobson with Environment California. Also strong support from CALPIRG, Elected Officials Protecting America, and SEHA. Thank you very much.
- Mike Monaghan
Person
Mr. Chair, Members. Mike Monaghan for the State Building Trades, in opposition.
- Robert Spiegel
Person
Good evening, Members. Rob Spiegel, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also in opposition. Thank you.
- Brady Van Engelen
Person
Mr. Chair and Members, Brady Van Engelen, California Chamber of Commerce, opposition.
- Nancy Peverini
Person
Good evening. Nancy Peverini on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California, in support.
- Cesar Aguire
Person
Hello. Cesar Aguire, resident of Kern County and organizer with the Central California Environmental Justice Network, in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, let's turn to the phone lines. Moderator, please open the phone lines on SB 556.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to comment and support our position of SB 556, you may press 1 and 0 at this time. First, we're going to go to line 3004. 3004, please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Sorry, I was placed in two, but it was for the previous.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you. Next caller, please.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next we'll go to line 2909, please go ahead.
- Julie Kennedy
Person
Julie Kennedy, California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in opposition.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3028. Please go ahead. Line 3028, your line is open.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm here in strong support of SB 331.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3029. Please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Deb from Lytle Creek, California, in strong support.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3030, please go ahead.
- Woody Hastings
Person
Good evening. Woody Hastings with the Climate Center in strong support. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2938, please go ahead. Line 2938, your line is open. Go on to line 2692. Please go ahead.
- Theo Pahos
Person
Mr. Chairman, Members. Theo Perros representing the California Independent Petroleum Association, in opposition. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2839, please go ahead.
- Ruben Guerra
Person
Mr. Chairman and Committee, this is Dr. Ruben Guerra, Chairman of the Latin Business Association in strong opposition.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3019. Please go ahead.
- Maria Redlich
Person
Maria Isabel Redlich, an affected resident and I am in support. Yes.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 585. Please go ahead.
- Diana Curielle
Person
My name is Diana Curielle. I'm a member of Crossable Street California, and we strongly support SB 556.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2972, please go ahead.
- Sharina Lodge
Person
Yes. Hi, can you hear me?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Yes.
- Sharina Lodge
Person
Oh, great. This is Sharina Lodge from Placer County in strong opposition of this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2993, please go ahead.
- Carol Lane
Person
Carol Lane, Niecy Farmersley, strongly opposed.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2995, please go ahead.
- Jeff Gonzalez
Person
Jeff Gonzalez out of Central Valley. We oppose.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3038, please go ahead. Line is open.
- Doug Kepler
Person
Doug Kepler, Fresno County. We are opposed.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3048, please go ahead.
- Lauren Coff
Person
Lauren Coff, on behalf of Orange County Business Council, in opposition.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3047, please go ahead.
- Jennifer Coney
Person
Hi, this is Jennifer Coney. I'm with Group Bay Area, 27,000 people. We are in strong support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3033, please go ahead.
- Fabi Mongo
Person
Hello. My name is Fabi Mongo and I'm in strong support of Bill SB 331. I reside in West Covina, California, and my background is in education and I strongly, strongly support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3049, please go ahead. Your line is open. All right, we'll go on to line 3062, please go ahead.
- Kathy Schaefer
Person
Hello, this is Kathy Schaefer for the San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles chapters of the Climate Reality Project, as well as Climate Action California, in support. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3002. Please go ahead. 3002, your line's open. All right, we'll go on to line 2963, please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi. I am a mental health professional and an educator, and I strongly oppose SB 31.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2757, please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Which bill is this?
- Committee Moderator
Person
SB 556.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm in a different queue.
- Committee Moderator
Person
All right. Next, we'll go to line 2855, please go ahead. And line 2855, your lines open. All right, we'll go to line 3020, please go ahead. Line 3020, your line is open. All right. We'll move on to line 3065. Please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello? I'm waiting for SB 331.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm strongly supporting that. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. We note it. Okay.
- Committee Moderator
Person
All right. No others in queue. Back to you, Mr. Chair.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, just a programming note. So we have Senator Newman here, who will be next, then Senator Rubio on SB 331. And then at some point, we're going to take a 15 minutes break. Staff has been here since 9:00 this morning, at least so that they can grab something. All right, now that we've concluded the phone testimony here, we'll bring it back to Committee.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Questions by Committee Members? Seeing no questions or comments. Is there a motion? All right, Senator Caballero moves the bill. Senator Durazo, I'm sorry about that. All right, so bring it back now to Committee. A couple of comments. First off, and I know you share this, both commitment and this interest in making sure that we actually engage in prevention more than any sort of restitution. And so we have tried to work on the definition of best available technology.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Apparently, we have not hit the sweet spot, so to speak, but we want to hit a definition that is both accessible and attainable and practical. And so I'm going to ask Senator Gonzalez, we've tried to work on it again, if you're prepared to continue to work on that definition so that we do encourage industry to provide the appropriate technology to prevent any sort of illness.
- Lena Gonzalez
Legislator
Absolutely. I'm always open to working, and I really do thank you, Mr. Chair, and your Committee staff for working with us on that as well.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
I have a question for the opponents in terms of the presumption, and I want to just make sure that I understand it correctly, the presumption, perhaps if one of the opponents wants to respond, as I understand, the presumption can be overcome by a preponderance of evidence. Is that right?
- Paul Deiro
Person
I'm sorry, what was the question?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
You had mentioned that there was a presumption, and it's my understanding that any presumptions created by this legislation can be overcome by a preponderance of evidence. Is that your understanding?
- Paul Deiro
Person
Yes.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay. And that in terms of preponderance of evidence or other evidence, there are other intervening causes that may be introduced. Is that right?
- Paul Deiro
Person
Yes.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay. All right, thanks. Okay. Senator Gonzalez, anything else you'd like to add?
- Lena Gonzalez
Legislator
I just want to say thank you again, and I thank Monic, who's here, and Daniel and the rest of our coalition for all their great work. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay. Thank you. All right. It's been moved by Senator Durazo. Madam Secretary, if you'd call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item 17, SB 556 by Senator Gonzalez. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
5-2. We'll put that on call. All right. Senator Newman.
- Josh Newman
Person
Good evening, Members. This is like one of those movie theaters. You could buy a ticket, see old movies, stay the whole day.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Nice. Well, thank you. I appreciate that compliment. Better than we've been described often before. Right.
- Josh Newman
Person
Mr. Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 707, which would establish an extended producer responsibility program, also known as an EPR program, to incentivize the reuse and recycling of textiles in California under the regulatory auspices of CalRecycle. Textiles, as you may be aware, are currently the fastest growing component of California's waste stream, accounting for approximately 3-5% of total waste in California.
- Josh Newman
Person
And although fully 95% of materials commonly found in apparel and textiles are actually highly recyclable, only around 15% of these materials are currently being effectively recycled. California, which has a long history as a leader in recycling models and technology, has implemented a number of groundbreaking and effective EPR programs whose design allows for the systematic reduction of waste and environmental harms by assigning a shared responsibility for end of life product management to the producers and other entities participating across a product's value chain.
- Josh Newman
Person
Over the years, as California has extended the EPR model to various recycling sectors and CalRecycle has gained deeper experience in overseeing them, the structure and governance of EPR models has improved significantly. The enforcement and penalty provisions contained in SB 707 are essentially the same as provisions in recently implemented EPR programs covering batteries, drugs and medical sharps, with compliance being overseen by CalRecycle and penalties assessed in the case of intentional knowing or reckless violations.
- Josh Newman
Person
SB 707, like other EPR programs, contains a provision for a limited antitrust immunity standard, which allows producers to comply and coordinate as a collective unit, and in so doing, to train information about market share and other details of their operations for the purposes of administering the program and determining proportional costs. This is a standard framework that has passed through this Committee numerous times. I am respectfully asking for an aye vote this evening. With me to testify today is Dr. Joanne Brasch, Special Projects Manager for the California Product Stewardship Council.
- Joanne Brasch
Person
Thank you, Senator Newman. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the rest of the Committee Members, my name is Dr. Joanne Brasch. I'm here with the California Product Stewardship Council. I've also been asked to register support on behalf of the Sierra Club. CPSC is the sponsor of SB 707.
- Joanne Brasch
Person
We've also been the sponsors of several other EPR bills that have come through this Committee, including meds, sharps, batteries. Textiles have been identified as a top material in our waste stream and also a problematic product for our local governments to try and set up a source separated program. 707 replicates the same sections in previous EPR programs, such as antitrust, access to records, and enforcement. I'm here to answer any questions and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Others in support.
- Jason Schmelzer
Person
Thank you, Mr. Chair Members. Jason Schmelzer, on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, in strong support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Opposition. Let's turn to opposition.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Opposition.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Opposition. Those who are opposed, please approach the microphone. If you're primary witness in opposition, please approach the microphone.
- Robert Spiegel
Person
Thank you, Senators. Rob Spiegel, again, Senior Policy Director for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, definitely appreciate the perspective of the Senator. And we continue to have ongoing dialogue surrounding some of the concerns that we have raised in our letter. Specifically, to have a successful EPR program, we have to first have a definition of scope of the products that are going to be contained.
- Robert Spiegel
Person
With that, as you may know or you may not know, the definitions of textile, textile articles and apparels that are utilized in this Bill came from AB 1817, which is a Bill that CMTA largely helped craft last year with Assemblymember Phil Ting to address PFAS, not EPR. So if we talk about the products and scope of this Bill, what we really need in order for it, as I said, to have a successful program, we need to identify what those are.
- Robert Spiegel
Person
From our membership, it's been clear that when we start talking about textiles broadly, think nylon, think polyester. Those elements not only are enclosed, but they're across the sector for tires, rubbers, any industrial material, from filtration to water filters to everything that you want. And from the understanding that we've had with the Senator and the sponsors, the Bill is specifically intended to be focused on clothing, apparel and accessories there.
- Robert Spiegel
Person
So as we work to define what the appropriate scope of the Bill, I think we can have a better time to work on the mechanics of what's required. With that, we do have some concerns associated to how are authorized collectors, authorized sorters, authorized repair businesses going to fit into this mold? What are potential exposures of liability for manufacturers, for example. With that as well, when we talk about the potential for liability, SB 707 authorizes a remanufacturing, repair, alteration, or improvement to products that we originally produced.
- Robert Spiegel
Person
With that, the concern is, well, are these improvements actually improvements in the sense of, like, the fabric or the material or in the structure or the design of how that product operates? If it's a structural design, an integrity design, that's no longer an original manufactured product that we put on the shelf and we put out to commerce, there's concerns about liability with that. There's concerns about what happens if a failure goes or if a failure occurs.
- Robert Spiegel
Person
With that as well, we have some concerns over some of the federal regulations on consumer product safety. Thank you. But with that, we made an opposition. Look forward to working with the author. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you. All right, others in opposition.
- Ryan Allain
Person
Hi, Ryan Allain here with the California Retailers Association. We are not in opposition, no position, as we had a great meeting today with the Member and the sponsor. We continue to work and we appreciate the commitment. So thank you very much.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Thank you. We're in favor of great meetings. Okay. Other primary opposition. All right, let's do me too testimony. If you're in support or in opposition of SB 707, please approach the microphone and give us your name, your affiliation, and whether you support or oppose the Bill.
- Roman Vogelsang
Person
Good evening Chair and Members, Roman Vogelsang with the Aprea & Micheli on behalf of Republic Services in support.
- Larisa Cespedes
Person
Good afternoon Members, Larisa Cespedes here on behalf of The Toy Association. We are opposed to the Bill in print, but we are heartened by the discussions with regards to narrowing the scope of the Bill, primarily for the reasons that were stated by the gentleman from CMTA.
- Priscilla Quiroz
Person
Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of Stop Waste, Solid Waste Association of North America Legislative Task Force and Western Placer Waste Management Authority all in strong support. Thank you.
- Liv Butler
Person
Liv Butler, Californians Against Waste, in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, let's turn to the phone lines. Moderator if you'd open the phone lines for SB 707. For those both in support and in opposition, SB 707.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Moderate, anyone online for SB 707? All right, if there's no one on the phone line. Moderator, anyone on the phone line?
- Committee Moderator
Person
Yes. For support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. We'll go. Go to line 2891, please. Go ahead. 2891 your line is open. We will move on to 3075. Your line is open.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, I am in favor.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much. Next caller.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next, we'll go line 2832 your light is open.
- Joshua Gauger
Person
Good evening. Josh Gogger on behalf of the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next will go to line 3062 your line is open.
- Kathy Schaefer
Person
Hi, Kathy Schaefer for San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles chapters of the Climate Reality Project in support. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next we'll go to line 3096. Your line is open. 3096
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm waiting for the other bill, please.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next we'll go down 3089 your line is open.
- Sarah Pedro
Person
This is Sarah Pedro with the City of Roseville in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next we'll go on to 3101.
- Brody Joanna
Person
Hello. Hi. My name is Brody Joanna, and I'm in support of SB 331.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next we'll go to 3019. Your line is open.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Yes, you're on.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I support. In Los Angeles, California. Thank you very much.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. And we have no further in queue.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, back to committee questions by Committee Members. Senator Durazo.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Not so much a question, as a comment. A couple of years ago, when I did the Garment Workers Protection act, part of the coalition that came to be were a number of growing small businesses that were both very concerned and supportive of the workers in the industry, but also sustainability. And they were primarily women and people of color, younger, and it was really a great experience.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
So I'm just putting that out because I think there's ways to connect organizations and efforts that are going on out there. And this was a sustainability from beginning to end of the garment. So maybe we can hook them into this effort as well.
- Josh Newman
Person
Glad to do that. And Dr. Brass is working with a fairly broad coalition from small businesses to actually quite large HM the gaps and others. And so that is part of the intent of this bill, to enroll everyone who has a role in the product's cycle in that extended producer responsibility system to ensure proper disposal reuse.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Other comments? Senator Ashby?
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
Yeah, I wanted to try to get to a place where I could support this one today, but I wanted to ask you about the toys.
- Josh Newman
Person
I think, as Ms. Sessions has mentioned. So I think we're clear. We're going to exempt toys. That's a very recent conversation.
- Josh Newman
Person
We've know to the broader questions about product and scope, this is a difficult thing. And to CMTA's point about materials as an example, we had a call today with broad coalition, and we made an exception also for furniture with furniture might have textiles on it. It's very difficult to recycle. So we're going to make those exemptions as we go. Glad to do it. As far as toys go, they're going to be exempt in the next edits.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
All right, thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Hardy. Thank you. Other questions? Comments? Is there a motion? Senator Durazo moves the bill. All right, Senator Newman? Care to close.
- Josh Newman
Person
I admire your stamina, and I ask for an aye vote today.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you, sir. All right, madam chief council, do you call a roll?
- Committee Secretary
Person
Yeah. This is Senate Bill 707 by Senator Newman. The motion is do passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]
- Committee Secretary
Person
So far, you have four to zero with members missing.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, we'll put that on call. Thank you. All right, so here's what we're going to do next. We're going to take SB 331. After SB 331, we're going to take a 15-minute break, and when we come back from the 15-minute break, we're going to ask Senator Rubio to return for her SB 848. So that's for folks who are within my earshot. So you're not coming down to wait. All right, Senator Rubio? Senator Rubio, the floor is yours.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of this committee, I'm proudly here to present Piqui’s Law, SB 331. This is a critical bill that will.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
I don't mean to interrupt, but I am interrupting. Do you accept amendments as proposed?
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
Yes, I have.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay. Thank you.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
Thank you. So once again, this bill is a critical bill that would strengthen protections for children, victims and families during family law proceedings. I want to thank the chair and the committee members and the staff who worked so hard with my office to get this to a good place.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
I will be accepting the committee amendments listed on pages 13 to 19 on the analysis that will continue to prohibit courts from ordering reunification treatments, which are known as camps that are nonregulated, for-profit businesses where they abruptly cut off the relationship between the children and their primary parents. These children also are cut off from their preferred family members, friends, schools, personal belongings and their communities.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
As you all know, I've been a teacher for 17 years, and I know that a circumstance like this can be very disruptive and very traumatic to any child. This bill also establishes more detailed training on domestic violence and child abuse for courts, as well as judicial reporting requirements to measure progress effectiveness. Members, this bill, known as Piqui’s Law, is named after a five-year-old boy who was killed by his father in my district back in 2017.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
I believe Piqui’s Law law not only meets the needs of the moment, but also gives voice to 920 children that are calling out to us from their graves. They're begging us to do something because the judicial system failed them. Like Samia, Samantha, and Samara, all under 13 years old, who were murdered last year by their father and Piqui, whose name this bill honors. This bill tells children who have the potential to be murdered by an abusive parent that help is on its way.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
We need to change a system that claims to put the safety of children first. But yet, children are still dying. Piqui's mother is here to share her story. She fought hard in family court to protect her child from an abusive ex-husband and father of Piqui. Despite her efforts, the court refused to stop visitations leading to Piqui's tragic murder. Here with me today to testify is an advocate, a victim, and Piqui's mother from my district, Ana Estevez.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
And my second witness is a brave little girl named Zoe who went through one of these reunification camps and will share her experience in hopes that it doesn't happen to any other child. Zoe came forward because she wants to become an advocate for children after what she experienced. Thank you, Chair.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you, Senator Rubio. We have been dividing time between supporters and opponents with 4 minutes on each side. 2 minutes and 2 minutes. But I'll give you the opportunity for your 4 minutes. How would you like to divide the time?
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
2 and 2, I guess.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
2 and 2? Okay. All right. Thank you. All right, the floor is yours. Thank you.
- Ana Estevez
Person
Good evening, Chairman Umberg and Members of the Committee. I'd like to begin by thanking you and Senator Rubio for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my son, Piqui. I stand before you as a constituent, as a veteran of the United States Army, a former elementary school principal but most importantly a mother and advocate for children who suffer at the hands of an abusive parent and who become victims of our family court system.
- Ana Estevez
Person
My purpose today is to share my personal testimony, to recognize the critical role that you all play as California leaders, and to provide an opportunity for you to reflect on how the vicious murder of a five-year-old child can influence the decisions you make and how you choose to serve your constituents. Four days ago, I awoke to a pillow that was soaked with tears. Even in my sleep, I knew that when I opened my eyes, it would be the sixth anniversary of my son's death.
- Ana Estevez
Person
Piqui was five years, two months and two days old when he was murdered. And for years, I prayed for a child. And finally, after five miscarriages, God answered my prayers. In 2016, when Piqui was four, I told my ex-husband I wanted a divorce. Within 15 days, my son and I moved out of the family residence due to fear, threats and harassment. Being told "we can do this my way or I can go for the jugular" left me with no choice.
- Ana Estevez
Person
A few days later, the family court judge awarded exclusive rights to our home to my ex husband and ordered me to pay the mortgage while he resided there. Five months into my divorce, my ex husband filed false allegations with child protective services and coerced my son into telling a story about abuse. In a written report to CPS, the forensic interviewer informed the social worker it was her belief that my son was being coached and there were inconsistencies with his story.
- Ana Estevez
Person
The mental health consultant interviewed my son and asked my son if he was afraid of his father. My son responded, I don't want to talk about that. All evidence submitted to the judge was ignored and my ex husband was allowed to maintain joint custody. Over and over, I requested restraining orders and my requests were denied. At the end of one of the hearings, the judge stated that my ex husband, a now convicted murderer, gave a testimony that was more credible than mine.
- Ana Estevez
Person
He denied my request for a restraining order and supervised visits. During our separation, my ex-husband terrorized our son. Piqui would return home with bruises on his body, refused to talk about his time with his father, and obsessed over the number of days left before he had to see his father again. In January of 2017, prior to a custody exchange, my son repeatedly asked to stay with me as I prepared a shower to bathe him.
- Ana Estevez
Person
I asked my son to take off his clothes, which he did. It took every ounce of strength I had not to cry in front of him when I saw the fading bruises on his body. I reached into the shower to check the temperature of the water and when I turned around, my son was gone. I searched throughout the house, only to find him sitting in a fetal position behind the bed.
- Ana Estevez
Person
And when I said, "papa, come on, you need to take a shower. We're going to be late." My son replied with tears in his eyes, "please don't make me go, mama." In April of 2017, when I brought evidence to an evaluator, she stated she didn't have time to review what I brought, and accused me of coaching my son. Again, the evidence was ignored. My request for sole custody and supervised visits were denied.
- Ana Estevez
Person
And eight days later, when my ex-husband failed to show up for a child exchange, I called the police to file a missing child report. No matter what happened, I never gave hope that my son would return to me. In May of 2017, approximately one month into my son's disappearance, I returned to court to request sole custody for when my Piqui came home.
- Ana Estevez
Person
Even though the judge acknowledged that my son disappeared while in his father's custody, he denied my request and ordered an evidentiary hearing to be set to explore custody. It turns out that on April 21, 8 days after the custody evaluation, my ex-husband suffocated our son in the backseat of his vehicle while my son slept after spending the day at Disneyland with his father. According to homicide detectives, my son awoke during this violent act. His first attempt at suffocating my son failed.
- Ana Estevez
Person
And as my son sat helplessly in his car seat, his body twitching, my ex husband proceeded to suffocate him a second time. He then drove for 2 hours and proceeded to dump my son's body in a heavily wooded area in Santa Barbara county. And during the homicide investigation, the detectives discovered that my ex husband began planning my son's murder Shortly after the December restraining order hearing.
- Ana Estevez
Person
It took the judge three months from the date of my son's disappearance to terminate the child support payments I was previously ordered to pay. It also took the same amount of time for the judge to temporarily suspend spousal support payments I was required to make. By this time, my son's funeral had passed, and my ex-husband was incarcerated. The decision to award my ex-husband part of my pension in 403(b) came at a later date.
- Ana Estevez
Person
Piqui's law is critical because it allows much-needed training to be established for judicial officers. For the record, targeted training is absolutely necessary. The judges involved. I'm almost done. The judges involved in my divorce case made uninformed and reckless decisions that led to the death of my child. The first judge on my case was appointed to the bench in 20-
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Mrs. Estevez, you've gone for six and a half minutes now, so I'm sorry, we have.
- Ana Estevez
Person
Can I just finish the last one, Senator?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
I'll give you one more sentence. Thank you.
- Ana Estevez
Person
At no time did my son ever ask his father to physically or emotionally abuse him. Nor did my son ever say daddy, please suffocate me and take me away from my mommy. Children have the right to live without fear, abuse and violence, and it is our responsibility to ensure this right is safeguarded. I thank you and ask for an aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
We can't express our sympathy deeply enough. It's every parent's worst nightmare. And I appreciate you taking this tragedy and turning into something for others. All right, we'll turn to the opposition now. You know what? Go ahead. Go ahead and testify.
- Zoe Winenger
Person
My name is Zoe. I'm 10, and I live in Carlsbad, California. When I was eight, my six year old sister and I were taken from my mom while she was at what was supposed to be a quick court hearing. On that day, we lost all rights to contact with our mom, our many siblings on that entire side of our family. Our attorney said that our dad gained full custody of us.
- Zoe Winenger
Person
He then kept us away from our attorney and our therapist and began taking us to a reunification therapist. That was weird because we never refused to see him, so why did we need to reunify? We told her about the abuse, but she kept telling us to look on the bright side and that he's getting better, but he wasn't. We trusted her to help us, but we later learned that she never reported the abuse.
- Zoe Winenger
Person
Two months later, my dad told us we were going to a reunification camp that would help us come together as a family. My 13-year-old brother was brought in by professional transport agents. He told us he was threatened with tasers and injections of sedatives so that he would obey them. I couldn't believe how strong he was and how hard he fought to stay safe. At the camp, they read the court orders to us that said it would be 90 days away from my mom.
- Zoe Winenger
Person
Every time we misbehaved, cried, tried to run away, or even just say no, the 90 days would reset to zero. Randy Rand and Chris Turner ran the camp and showed us videos to trick us into believing that we didn't remember things right. They taught us about parental alienation and told us that our mom was our abuser. I would mention the ways our dad abused us, and they would say our mom must be telling us lies and manipulating us.
- Zoe Winenger
Person
Reunification camp made my relationship with my dad worse. I knew he had purposefully taken us from our mom. We were kidnapped and then told that all the horrible things that happened to us was just a lie. Four months after being taken, we were rescued and made it home to our mom. We are all diagnosed with complex PTSD, anxiety and depression, and my brother overdosed on antidepressants and nearly died. We had nightmares about the reunification camp for weeks.
- Zoe Winenger
Person
I would like to thank everyone here for letting me use my voice, because in the family court, I was silenced. Please ban these reunification camps and pass Senate Bill 331 to protect kids like me.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you for your courage. All right, now opposition will have 9 minutes and 52 seconds. So turning now to the opposition, primary witness in opposition. All right, go ahead.
- Daniel Barrozo
Person
Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. My name is Daniel Barrozo, and I come to you as a parent. I have had the unfortunate experience of going through a tremendous divorce and child custody hearing. While Piqui's mother, and for this young lady who came, my sincere condolences, and abuse at any level is a tragedy. But I come before you as a father who was a victim of domestic violence.
- Daniel Barrozo
Person
I come to you as a father who spent four hours in a period of four years of seeing my children. So in other words, I got to see my children hour hour per year, in six years of going through child and divorce custody. There was no allegations of abuse against me. There was a false allegation against one of my family members which kept the court process moving forward.
- Daniel Barrozo
Person
Those allegations turned out to be unequivocally false, to which my daughter, my youngest daughter, who's now in my custody, went to my parents, went to my family members and said, "I'm sorry, that was a lie." If I had not had the opportunity, if a judge, after two judges, of going through six years of custody hearings, did not order a reunification therapy, I would not be standing here today reunified with my youngest daughter.
- Daniel Barrozo
Person
I have three children total, two of them aged out of the court system. But my youngest daughter, who is now 17, if I had known that we could bring minor children into this hearing, I would have brought her so she could testify to you that her and I have a thriving relationship now. She's a wonderful young woman. Unfortunately, she had to go through the process of manipulation.
- Daniel Barrozo
Person
She had to go through the process of telling court mediators, FCS mediators, psychologists, counselors, that she was molested when in fact, she was not. She now knows, and she now says unequivocally. I told her today, where are you going, dad? I'm going to Sacramento. Well, why? I try not to share too many things with her, but I told her about Piqui's law, and I found out that Piqui was never a part of a reunification therapy process to begin with.
- Daniel Barrozo
Person
So how can we come here and say again, with all due respect, Piqui was not part of a reunification therapy process, so how can we even go forward with speaking about nullifying reunification therapy? If we take that out of the hands of the judge, then you directly would be telling me that it did not work. And you would be speaking to my daughter, who said that reunification therapy did not work, when in fact, it does and she's a thriving young woman.
- Daniel Barrozo
Person
She also has been able to bring my other two children back into my life. So the reunification therapy does, in fact, work. There were four psychologists prior to the one who did the reunification therapy with my family, and they all came to the same conclusions, that the children were being coached, that they were lying, they were being manipulated. And so I come to you today in opposition, respectfully, that reunification does, in fact, work.
- Daniel Barrozo
Person
And I would not be standing here reunified with my child if it wasn't for those such as Dr. Steinberg, Dr. Beeta Tibiani, Dr. Werner, licensed marriage and family therapist, Richard Mayat, who did incredible work in order to reunify me along with my children. Thank you very much.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Next primary witness in opposition.
- Shannon Seeley
Person
Good evening, chair and members. My name is Shannon Seeley. I'm a licensed clinical social worker in Santa Cruz, and I respectfully oppose Senate Bill 331. I'd like to outline three reasons this bill would cause harm to children in California. First, reconnection therapy and intervention to treat fractured families has been conflated with the unique case of Piqui. In Piqui's case, the court ordered joint custody, and in retrospect, this was a tragic error, and my heart goes out to the mother and the family.
- Shannon Seeley
Person
However, an error in one extreme case should not lead to sweeping public policy change impacting the larger population of high conflict family court litigants. Second, the Bill fundamentally misunderstands the principles and challenges of reconnection therapy, which is clear in the most recent amendment. It does not appreciate that children sometimes bond to the abusive parent as a survival strategy. The preferred parent claims to be the safe parent, but the attachment or bond between this parent and the child may be anything but healthy.
- Shannon Seeley
Person
This is the parent the court must order to meaningfully participate, not the rejected parent, who is highly motivated to improve their relationships. The aligned parent holds all the power in these imbalanced families. Changing the aligned parent's behavior is the most important part of the intervention, as opposed to addressing the rejected parent's behavior, as the amendment language suggests. This bill would enable parents inclined to weaponize their children against the other parent, which is a coercive control tactic.
- Shannon Seeley
Person
In other words, it would allow emotional abuse of children and limit the judge's toolbox of effective remedies. Third, and finally, there's a fundamental problem with this bill. It would create a subclass of families involved with the family law system who cannot access the same services to restore healthy family functioning as is available in the dependency system. Family law judges need the same discretion as dependency judges to order evidence-based interventions.
- Shannon Seeley
Person
In closing, I'd like to underline the fact that opponents of this bill stand on common ground with supporters in that we are deeply concerned about intimate partner violence and want to protect children from abuse. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, we've had support and opposition. Go ahead.
- Tracy Kenny
Person
Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Tracy Kenny, on behalf of the Judicial Council. We do not have a position on the bill, but we did submit a letter with our concerns because we did oppose similar legislation last year, Senate Bill 616. We want to express our appreciation to the author. Our concerns are primarily focused on the judicial training requirements. We appreciate that the amendment significantly diminished the operational harms that would have occurred from the original proposal as introduced. We appreciate the openness to dialogue.
- Tracy Kenny
Person
We're still reviewing the other provisions. We would suggest that some of the reporting requirements that are still in the legislation will take staff time that would otherwise be providing and developing the kind of training that there's a feeling that we need more of, away from that actual training provision and spend it creating reports that we think are not likely to be valuable to the legislature. And, we also believe that fundamentally determining training and overseeing compliance with judicial training is an independent function of the branch.
- Tracy Kenny
Person
And we should leave that within the judicial branch. Appreciate and look forward to continuing to work with the author.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you. Time has expired now for the opponents, those who are in the room who wish to express their position, their affiliation and their name, please approach the microphone.
- Connie Valentine
Person
Hi, I'm Connie Valentine. I'm here on behalf of Marivic Mabanag, who is the president of Advocates for Child Empowerment and Safety, in full support of the bill. Thank you.
- Kim Robinson
Person
Good afternoon. Kim Robinson from Robinson and Hilton, attorneys at law, in strong support of the bill. Thank you.
- Sandy Ross
Person
Hello. My name is Sandy Ross. I'm the president of the California Protective Parents Association, and we strongly support the bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you. Anyone else wish to testify in support or opposition? All right, let's turn to the phone lines now for those who are in support or opposition to SB 331.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to testify in support and opposition of SB 331. You press 1 and 0 at this time. We'll go to line 3081 please go ahead.
- Craig Dunwoody
Person
Yes, my name is Craig Dunwoody. I'm a protective parent and survivor. I strongly oppose this egregiously harmful bill.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3044 please go ahead.
- Veronica Lopez
Person
Hello, my name is Veronica Lopez. Strongly support SB 331, Piqui's Bill. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2883 please go ahead.
- Catherine Campbell
Person
Catherine Campbell, Santa Clara County, with the National Safe Parent Organization, strongly support.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3061 please go ahead.
- Angela Ferdig
Person
Angela Ferdig from Woodland Hills, California, strongly support the bill.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3068 please go ahead.
- Nyla Watson
Person
My name is Nyla Watson. I'm a screenwriter for film and television. I learned about SB 331 from deeply researching plot points for TV with an open mind. I believe that real life should not.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Alright, are you in support or opposition?
- Nyla Watson
Person
I support.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next caller, please.
- Nyla Watson
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2894 please go ahead.
- Ahmed Pierstorff
Person
Hi, this is Ahmed Pierstorff, Placerville, California, with Dust and Tribe. Strongly opposed 331. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2987 please go ahead.
- Laura Arnie
Person
My name is Laura Arnie. I strongly oppose Bill 331.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3126 please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Mirna, San Dimas, California. I strongly support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2378 please go ahead.
- Brent Rupnow
Person
Brent Rupno, very loving and respected parent opposing the bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Do support or reject? All right, thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2949 please go ahead.
- Justin Lang
Person
This is Justin Lang from Santa Cruz, California, and I strongly support the Bill 331.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3015, please go ahead.
- Kevin Galloway
Person
Kevin Galloway, Pasadena, California. Father separated from my son. False allegations, strongly oppose.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3136 please go ahead.
- Michelle Malcolmson
Person
This is Michelle Malcolmson, a survivor of domestic violence. I support the bill, strongly support the bill because of the events that we've been harmed by.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3141 please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Brianna Kelly. I'm from Corona, California. I'm an executive over mental health facilities and a domestic violence survivor, and I strongly support the bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you very much. So let me pause for just a second. At the outset of the hearing today, I know that was a long time ago, I announced that for the me too testimony on the phone, we are only going to permit 15 minutes of me too testimony on the phone. I note that there are more callers who are queued up than we can possibly take in 15 minutes. So just a heads up to them. Next caller, please.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Line 3060 please go ahead.
- Lila Rhee
Person
Hi, Lila Rhee from Sacramento, California. I urge support as a domestic violence survivor.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3008, please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Sue, I reside in California, Alameda County. I strongly support SB331.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3149 please go ahead.
- Gigi Graciette
Person
Gigi Graciette from Los Angeles, and I strongly support SB 331. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3002, please go ahead.
- Sarah Hunt
Person
My name is Sarah Hunt from Contra Costa county. I'm the mother of a child who was kidnapped during a custody evaluation and I'm in strong support.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3160 please go ahead.
- Cassandra Musburger
Person
Cassandra Musburger here with One Mom's Battle, and I strongly support.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3127 please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello, it's Rachel Sterward. Strongly opposed.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3134 please go ahead.
- Lottie Rock
Person
My name is Lottie Ives Rock, from Nevada County, California, and I'm a survivor and a protective parent, and I strongly support.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2925 please go ahead.
- Martha Contreras
Person
Martha Contreras, Long Beach, strongly support SB 331 in honor of Piqui and all of the other children that have been murdered due to family violence.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3033 please go ahead.
- John Laird
Legislator
Hello, we can hear you. What's your position on this Bill?
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Yes, I strongly support Piqui's law. My name is Abby from the Covina, California, and I'm in strong support of the SB331, Piqui's law for all the children who have passed away in this.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2963 please go ahead. 2963 your line is open. I'll move on to line 2835 please go ahead.
- Danette Borg
Person
Hi, my name is Danette Borg. I reside in California. I'm in strong support of SB 331. I'm a survivor and protective parent.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Danette Borg
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2972 please go ahead.
- Sharina Latch
Person
Hello, can you hear me?
- John Laird
Legislator
We can hear you. What's your position on the Bill?
- Sharina Latch
Person
Great. Thank you so much, chair and chair members, my name is Sharina Latch. I'm calling from Placer County. I'm with Parents Against Groomers, and I'm also a parent that had the state.
- John Laird
Legislator
Are you for or against the Bill?
- Sharina Latch
Person
I'm in support of this Bill. Please vote aye.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. Moderator, next caller.
- Sharina Latch
Person
Please vote aye.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3099 please go ahead.
- Carolyn Farrell
Person
My name is Carolyn Farrell, and I'm a marriage and family therapist in Santa Cruz, California, working with kids for 18 years. I strongly support this Bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much for your testimony.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2877 please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Nancy. I'm with the National State Parents organization. I strongly support this Bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. And let me just let all the callers know we're halfway through our 15 minutes. And so as brief as you can be, you allow other people to able to testify. Moderator next caller.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3092 please go ahead.
- Kathryn Engle
Person
Hello.
- John Laird
Legislator
Yes, we can hear you. What's your position on the Bill?
- Kathryn Engle
Person
Okay, my name is Kathryn Engle. I'm from San Marino, California, and I strongly oppose this Bill as a stepparent in seeing that we need reunification.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you. Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Go ahead. Line 3020 your line is open. We'll move on to line 3154 please go ahead.
- Tim Probasco
Person
This is Tim Probasco from San Marcos, California. I'm a loving father who strongly supports this bill.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2538 please go ahead.
- Mindy Cruz
Person
Hi, my name is Mindy Cruz from Alta Loma, and I strongly support SB 331.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3007, please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Elaine Farrell.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2807 please go ahead.
- Erika Tominna
Person
Hi, my name is Erika Tominna. I'm from Santee, California. I'm a friend of survivors, and I strongly support this bill.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, I go to line 2711, please go ahead.
- Tracey Mueller-Gibbs
Person
Hi, my name is Tracey Mueller-Gibbs. I'm a teacher from San Diego, and I strongly support SB331.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, I go to line 3142 please go ahead.
- Milad Ershaghi
Person
Hi, my name is Milad Ershaghi, survivor of domestic violence and father of three alienated children. And I strongly oppose SB 331.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3114 please go ahead.
- Jennifer Weber
Person
Hi, my name is Jennifer Weber, and I reside in San Diego, California, and I am supporter of SB 331.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we go to line 2954 please go ahead.
- Linnea Larson
Person
Hi, my name is Linnea Larson. I am a strong supporter of SB331. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next we'll go to line 2868. Please go ahead.
- Committee Moderator
Person
You line 2868 your lines open? We'll move on to line 2889 please go ahead.
- Ramona Probasco
Person
Hello, my name is Dr. Ramona Probasco. I reside in San Diego, California, and I am the co-founder and president of the Healing Well Living Free Foundation, where we support domestic violence survivors and their children. And I strongly support SB 331, thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2865 please go ahead.
- Jessica Patula
Person
Hello.
- John Laird
Legislator
We can hear you. What's your position on the bill?
- Jessica Patula
Person
My name is Jessica Patula. I reside in California. My eight year old son attempted suicide after reunification camp, so I strongly support SB 331.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And next, we'll go to line 2712 please go ahead.
- Wendy Pellegrini
Person
Wendy Pellegrini and I oppose.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And next, we'll go to line 2838 please go ahead. Line 2838 your line is open.
- Donna Estevez
Person
Hello.
- John Laird
Legislator
We can hear you. What's your position on the bill? We can hear you. What's your position on the bill?
- Donna Estevez
Person
My name is Donna Estevez. My name is Donna Estevez and I'm the mother of Anna Estevez, and I'm a survivor and I'm the maternal grandmother of Piqui. And I strongly suggest that you support SB 331.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2863 please go ahead.
- Mike Robbins
Person
Hi, my name is Mike Robbins. San Marcos, California, and I'm a protective parent. I strongly support SB 331, Piqui's Law.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2981 please go ahead.
- Caitlin February
Person
This is Caitlin February. I strongly support.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 283. Please go ahead.
- Danielle Rimboy
Person
Hi, my name is Danielle Rimboy of Thousand Oaks, California, a protective parent, and we strongly, strongly support.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3027 please go ahead. Line 3027 your line is open. We'll move on to line 3086 please go ahead.
- Elena Johnson
Person
My name is Elena Johnson, and I strongly support SB 331.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Elena Johnson
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2556 please go ahead.
- Sonny Robbins
Person
Hi, my name is Sonny Robbins and I reside in San Marcos, California, and I'm a parent, and I strongly and firmly support SB 331, Piqui's Law. Thank you so much.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 2594 please go ahead.
- Valerie Brewington
Person
Hello, my name is Valerie Brewington from Altadena California, and I strongly support Piqui's Law, 331.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3135. Please, go ahead.
- Melissa Herceg
Person
Hello. My name is Melissa Herceg, and I'm a social worker for more than 25 years in Santa Cruz, California. And I strongly oppose SB 331. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. We've reached 15 minutes, so moderator will take one more call, and then that'll be our last call in the teleconference system.
- Committee Moderator
Person
All right, our last one comes from line 3042. Please go ahead.
- Sherry Kiomura
Person
Hello. My name is Sherry Kiomura from Whittier, California, and I strongly support SB 331, in honor of my granddaughter, Marley.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. And we thank everybody that just testified, and we apologize to those that we couldn't get to. We understand there are many more on the line. The matter will come back before the committee. Who has questions or comments. Senator Ashby.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
First of all, it just says really hard to sit through, and I can only imagine how much harder it was to live through and speak to it. So thank you both for being brave and being here and sharing your stories and for the people who called in. And I know that was really hard.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
Senator Rubio knows the three other little girls that she mentioned in her opening statement lived in my district, and I played a pretty big role in helping their mom at the end of their life as well.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
And they were involved in a reunification program, and their father, unfortunately, did take their lives, as well as his own, as well as a social worker who was overseeing the visit. It was a very traumatic incident for everyone in my community.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
And it's a big, big challenge how to address these family court issues. I'll just say that I commend Senator Rubio for taking it on and for you all for standing up with her. I know you'll work on the bill and work out all the things we just get it out of judiciary and give you a chance to continue working on it.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
I think it partners well with Senator Caballero's bill, which she has also, that is more about visitation and where that can happen and trying to make that happen in courtrooms so that it is less easy to get a gun in, which is helpful for the scenario that the three little girls in my district suffered. So, Senator Rubio, thanks for taking it on. These are hard, and I move the item.
- John Laird
Legislator
Okay, we have a motion, but let me ask if there are any other comments or questions from Committee Members. Senator Durazo.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Thank you, Senator, for continuing to raise this issue and for watching out for our kids and families. My question is about if has been testified that the unification treatments would prohibit a court from ordering family reunification treatments, if that's to be prohibited, what's the healthy substitute? What is the substitute for that that would address the issue has been raised by other, the opposition, which is that it has worked.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
I don't know if there's a percentage and when it does or doesn't or if there's just an outright no, not use it, but not make that available for the courts. But there's other things in this place that should be used.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
Thank you for that. I just want to highlight one thing and the issue that the parent, Daniel Barbosa, who is the opposition, his issue, what he shared, his story that he shared, as well as what happened to Zoe, as well as what happened to Piqui and his murder, they all have one thing in common, and that is that their circumstances all arise from a ruling that a judge made.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
And so I think this only highlights the importance of this bill because it's focused on the education of the courts and the judges. Now, if this goes away, and I want to highlight what this does.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
The order is for a child to be just ripped away from their known household. They're taken away, sometimes nine months. I know a parent who hasn't that. I heard she hasn't seen her child in two years. There is substitution. There's family therapy.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
There's counseling in school. As a teacher, I can tell you we have a lot of options, but I don't want anyone to think if this disappears, we don't have options. We have a lot of qualified institutions that provide services to family.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
And what this bill does, I don't believe, fixes the problem. As you heard from Zoe. Zoe was gone for about nine months. She couldn't even call her mom. She was traumatized over this, and that's not fixing the problem.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
So I think this only highlights the importance that Mr. Barbosa, who know there was issues with his wife, Anna, Zoe, again, I want to clarify that this bill is to highlight the deficiencies sometimes in the ruling of the court.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
So number one is that we need education for the courts and the judges. But number two, I want to also focus on some of the comments made that we shouldn't talk about Piqui and that Piqui shouldn't be brought up. The reason it's named Piqui is that I know the mother personally. She's a friend. I know the grandma, and Piqui is from my district. So I wanted to honor him by naming it Piqui.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
But if you look at the title of the bill, the title of the bill says Piqui's law keeping children safe from family violence. So Piqui's law is just to highlight his name. But her ruling led, in some way to the murder of the child. The other ruling led to Zoe being taken away for nine months and tormented.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
And I would argue in many ways that there was a ruling that Mr. Barbosa had that could be favorable and unfavorable because he said that the child was taken away and he was struggling. Someone had to make that ruling. But to say that if this goes away, we don't have anything else here.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
We have therapists, we have family counselors, we have service providers that help families navigate these issues. And I'm so sorry for Mr. Barbosa, and I'm sorry for Zoe and Piqui.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
But once again, you have two sites discussing outcomes and decisions. Clearly, there's a problem. We're dealing with children. We're dealing with vulnerable circumstances. And whether one is right or the other, one thing is clear. We need to look into this issue. We need to educate, which is what this bill intends to do. And we want to make sure that these children are not put through such horrific circumstances.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
So this not only happens here, but I want to highlight also that children are removed from California and taken to other states. That is not what a child is comfortable with. I'm a teacher. I can tell you, plucking a child out of school with their friends and their families, not necessarily their home life, that's also traumatic.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
So we're just trying to figure out, how do we keep these children safe? That is why it's called keeping children safe from family violence. So we have plenty of good institutions that provide services for families.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you. Further questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none. Just before giving you a chance to close, I was out of the room, believe it or not. There's still another committee going on, and I missed some of the testimony.
- John Laird
Legislator
And I know that I heard people from Santa Cruz testifying, and there was a particular incident there that happened last year that has galvanized a lot of students and people in that community. I heard some testify they are strongly in support of the bill. And so on their behalf. Thank you. Would you like to close?
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
Well, I think you've all been here long enough. I just want to thank you for your time. And again, when it comes to children, ladies and gentlemen, we have to look into some of these issues that are very serious, and we can't turn the other way. So I please ask you for an aye vote. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. Would you please call the roll?
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
We need a motion.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
Thank you, Senator Ashby.
- John Laird
Legislator
Senator Ashby made the motion.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Thank you very much. This is Senate Bill 331 by Senator Rubio with a motion by Senator Ashby. The motion is do pass, as amended, to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]
- Committee Secretary
Person
So far, you have eight to zero with members missing.
- John Laird
Legislator
Okay, we'll put that bill on call. It has enough to pass, but we still are missing three members. As was announced, the committee is going to take a 15 minutes recess and we will come back at roughly 7:47.
- John Laird
Legislator
And we have a number of bills still to do, and we will power through them. So if you're listening, we will come back to the file order and we will. Let's just go take our break and we can do that.
- John Laird
Legislator
Okay? Because we're missing people. Okay, let's do it real quick. What? Will not recess will recess from 15 minutes from after the calls are listed. So could you please lift the calls and. Actually, I think nobody else is leaving. Right.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
We're not going to take a break.
- John Laird
Legislator
I tried to take a break, but we're trying to lift the calls because a Senator has to leave.
- Committee Secretary
Person
We'll start with file item number one. Senate Bill 403 by Senator Wahab. The Chair voting aye. Ashby. Ashby aye. Wiener. Wiener aye. That's ... 11 to zero. All Members voting.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
That Bill is out. 11 to zero. Bill's out. Yeah. 37 more to go. Okay.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The next Bill is Senate, file item number two, Senate Bill 399 by Senator Wahab, with the Chair voting aye. Ashby. Ashby aye. Wiener. Wiener aye. That's ... That's nine to two.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
That Bill is out. Nine to two.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Okay, next is file item number three, SB 567 by Senator Durazo.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
This is as amended, and it goes to Appropriations.
- Committee Secretary
Person
That's correct.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]. You have a Member missing, but.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
We'll put that back on call.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
It's what, nine?
- Committee Secretary
Person
Seven to two so far.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Seven to two. Back on call.
- Committee Secretary
Person
File item number four by Senator Archuleta, SB 806 with the Chair voting aye. Niello. Niello aye. Wiener. Wiener aye. That's 11 to zero, everybody voting.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
11 to zero. Bill is out.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Okay, next, file item number five by Senator Becker. SB 362 with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. You have a Member missing, but so far, eight to two so far, with a Member missing.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Eight to two. All right, back on call.
- Committee Secretary
Person
File item number seven, SB five. I'm sorry. File item number six, SB 582, by Senator Becker, with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. One Member missing. It's 10 to zero so far.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
10 to zero. Back on call.
- Committee Secretary
Person
File item number seven by Senator Cortese, with the Chair voting aye. SB 553. [Roll Call]. Eight to one, with a Member missing.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Eight to one. Bill is back on call.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Okay, next is file item number eight, SB 646 by Senator Cortese, Chair voting aye. Allen? No, I don't see an amendment here. Oh, yes, it is. Do pass, as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Do pass, as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Number eight, SB 646 with the chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. Nine to zero so far. A Member is missing
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Nine to zero. Bill's back on call.
- Committee Secretary
Person
SB 271. File item number nine. Chair voting aye, Senator Dodd's Bill. [Roll Call]. That is, that's 10 to zero so far, with a Member missing.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
10 to zero. Back on call.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Number 10, SB 310, by Senator Dodd. Chair voting aye. File item 10. [Roll Call]. That's 10 to zero so far.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
10 to zero. Back on call.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Number 11. File item number 11, SB 478 by Senator Dodd, with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. That's eight to one so far, with a Member missing.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Eight to one. Bill's back on call.
- Committee Secretary
Person
File item. Sorry, consent, consent. File item number 14, SB 43, by Senator Eggman, with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. That's 11 to zero.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
11 to zero. Bill's out.
- Committee Secretary
Person
File item number 15. Oh, sorry. That's consent, consent. File item 17, by Senator Gonzalez, SB 556 with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. So far, six to two.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Six to two. Bill's back on call.
- Committee Secretary
Person
File item number 18 by Senator Jones, SB 811. Chair voting aye. Allen. Caballero. This is file item number 18, SB 811, by Senator Jones, with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. That's six to zero with Members missing.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, bill's back on call.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item 19 by Senator Limón. SB 390, with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. This is file item 19. [Roll Call] Nine to zero. Members missing.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Nine to zero. Back on call.
- Committee Secretary
Person
File item number 20 by Senator Newman, SB 707, with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. Seven to zero. Members missing. File item. Oh you've got to say back on call.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Back on call. Yes, back on call. Thank you, Senator Wiener. I appreciate it.
- Committee Secretary
Person
File item 24 by Senator Portantino, SB 357 with the Chair voting aye, [Roll Call]. That's 10 to zero with a Member missing.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
10 to zero. Back on call. 21 was removed.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Yes. File item 25. Senator Portantino, SB 696 with the chair voting aye. Niello. Niello aye. Wiener. Wiener aye. That's 11 to zero.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
11 to zero. Bill is out.
- Committee Secretary
Person
File item 26, SB 331 by Senator Rubio. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Allen. Min. Members are missing. You have nine to zero so far.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Nine to zero. Back on call.
- Committee Secretary
Person
That was 26.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
331. Last Bill.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Yes. Let me find the sheet for that. I don't know where it is. The very first one. Okay. Sorry about that. Consent calendar. All right. On consent, Chair voting aye. Ashby. Ashby aye. Wiener. Wiener aye. That's 11 to zero.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
11 to zero. Consent calendar is adopted. We will break now for 15 minutes, so we'll be back here at 7:56.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
At the request of Senator Stern and permission of the chair, is going to present Senator Stern's Bill, which is item 44, SB 795. Senator Ashby, the floor is yours. Senator 79. Excuse me, SB 795 by Senator Stern.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
Thank you very much. All right. This is on behalf of Senator Stern, and he is accepting the amendments on pages six through nine of the analysis referenced on bullet 4 and 5. Those amendments include adopting the Senate Energy Committee's HVAC tracking system issues, as well as the judiciary's technical and substantive amendments.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
Good? All right. SB 795 promotes California's energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction goals by ensuring that we take the necessary steps to develop electronic registries that would, one, track HVAC equipment sales to ensure installers comply with permit and code requirements, and two, would provide a title 24 energy code compliance documentation repository accessible to building officials to simplify and improve enforcement.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
The CEC and CPUC have found that contractors pulling HVAC replacement permits occur as little as 10% of the time and that contractors comply with title 24 quality installation requirements as little as 15% of the time. This lack of compliance directly results in increased energy demand. Improperly installed HVAC systems, for example, have been found to increase energy use by up to 20% to 30%. The proposals for an electronic title 24 documentation registry and an HVAC sales tracking registry are not new.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
California agencies have issued numerous reports over the past 15 years calling for both of these solutions, but we still remain without even a plan for implementing these solutions. In the meantime, the global warming crisis is continuing to accelerate. This Bill does not impose any new requirements on builders or building officials. Contractors are already required by law to demonstrate that they have complied with the energy code by filling out compliance documents and submitting those to the building officials.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
And building officials are already required to verify that these documents have been submitted. The Bill does provide that databases needed to catch contractors who fail to pull the permits and provides an electronic document verification process to ease the energy code enforcement burden on building officials. That has resulted in a lack of enforcement even when permits are pulled, while also ensuring that confidential information added to the sales tracking registry and the compliance database are kept confidential.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
I'm not sure if he actually does have people here to speak to this issue. All right, great. Then with the chair's permission.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Yes. All right. Primary witnesses in support.
- Tom Enslow
Person
Thank you, chair Tom Enslow, on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, Scott West is going to be here tonight as well. But he had to go to his son's birthday party, which was understandable. This Bill addresses two issues. First is that 80% to 90% of HVAC retrofits are installed without a permit, meaning there's no oversight as to whether they are installing code compliant energy efficient equipment and whether that installation has been done correctly.
- Tom Enslow
Person
And second, even when the permits are pulled, building officials are not enforcing energy code compliance and acceptance test documentation requirements due to resource constraints. Studies are shown that up to 85% of HVAC units, for example, are installed incorrectly, and this results in 20% to 30% losses in energy efficiency. By correcting this issue, we're going to save a lot of energy, and there's going to be less power plants that need to be built.
- Tom Enslow
Person
I like to thank Committee staff for working with us to revise the language we have in this Bill to address privacy issues. This Bill doesn't create any new personal public data collection requirements because all the compliance documentation data and acceptance test data are already required by law to be collected and provided to the building Department.
- Tom Enslow
Person
But this ensures that if we have a repository, that we're going to follow existing state law, that an electronic database will protect personal information and it will exempt disclosure of trade secrets, such as aggregate sales data from public disclosure. This Bill references both those exemptions in the public's record act, and we worked with staff in order to make sure they followed the public record. Thank you so much. Thank you for your time. Support of the Bill? Yes, support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Got it. All right. Other primary witnesses in support seeing no one approaching the microphone. Let's take opposition to SB 795. File item number 44. SB 795. Saying no one approaches the microphone. Me, too. Testimony. No one approaching the microphone on SB 795. Moderate. If you would queue up those who are waiting to testify on the phone as to SB 795, we'd be grateful.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Sure. If you are in opposition or support, please press one, then zero. Once again, that's support or opposition. One, then zero. And we have about 10 people in queue here. And we will start with line number 2584. Please go ahead. It line number 2584. Go ahead. Okay, we will move on to the next one. We will go with line number 2863. Line number 2863. All right, well, we'll move on to the next one, and we will go to line number 3122.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Please go ahead, Mr. Chair. You can hear me, right?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
We can hear you quite clearly.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Okay, so line number 3122. The line is open.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I think I was put on for the wrong.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay, next caller.
- Committee Secretary
Person
All right, we'll go to the next line and that is line number 300:33. Please go ahead. Yes, I just wanted to make sure that I'm here to support the Bill for.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, next caller, please.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Okay, next, we will go to line number.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
For those listening, we're currently on SB 795, so if you're in queue to testify in support or opposition to 795, you're in the right place. All right, moderator.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Okay, sure. Next, we'll go to line number 3200. Please go ahead. Giving 3200.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Yes, we can.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Sorry. I'm here to oppose 331.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, that Bill has already been heard. Okay, next.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Okay, so we are on SB 795 for opposition or support, and we have line number 3218.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, I'm here for the next Bill. Please pass me over.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Okay, we will go to the next line of 3227.
- Merrian Borgeson
Person
Hi, yes, this is Merrian Borgeson with Natural Resources Defense Council in strong support of SB 795. I'm also here to offer a me too in support for the Sierra Club. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Okay, we got one. Good. All right, next.
- Committee Secretary
Person
And we do not have any more. You may continue.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, bring it back to Committee. Comments, questions from the Committee. All right, Senator Caballero moves the Bill. Would you like to close?
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
It's a good Bill. On behalf of Senator Stern, I would just say it is good for consumers and good for our environment. Urge an aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you. It's been moved by. Was it Senator Caballero? Senator Caballero moved the Bill. All right, thank you. Please call the roll. Yes. You accepted the amendment? Yes.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item number 44, SB 795, by Senator Stern. The motion is do pass as, amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
6-2 back on call. All right, if you're listening to me, we're open for business. We're back. So, Senator Durazo. Senator Rubio is here, actually, I know I said that since Senator Durazo, you're going to have to be around here for a while. Right. Your witnesses. All right, we'll take Senator Durazo. Senator, go ahead. Right. Okay.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, this is SB 594. I'm going to thank you, Mr. Chair, and your committee for working with my office on this bill and for your analysis. I will start by saying that I will be accepting the committee amendment to revert to existing law and not require the disclosure of Members of manager managed LLCs who are not beneficial owners. SB 594 aims to establish transparency in the ownership of limited liability companies and similar corporate entities.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
This bill requires that LLCs and corporations disclose the name of owners with substantial control over the entity when they are created and when they submit their filings with the Secretary of State's office. Existing law allows for the creation of LLCs and similar entities in order to provide legal protection for assets not owned by the LLC. However, some owners often can abuse LLCs to shield not only their assets, but also their identities.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Right now, there is no required public disclosure of who the real owners of an LLC or corporation are. Many LLCs are owned in the name of another LLC, which creates an additional layer of anonymity. None of this is necessary to achieve the legal and the financial protection afforded by forming an LLC. The ability for LLCs to abuse the structure to remain anonymous ends up presenting numerous issues. For instance, anonymous LLCs are pervasive among employers that skirt laws meant to protect workers.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Deceitful employers can use LLCs to avoid responsibility for underpaying workers. By the time a business is found responsible for violations, the owners have dissolved the LLC and created a new one, leaving nobody to pay back wages or additional safety issues. It takes years sometimes to connect the dots to show that a single person is responsible.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
For instance, contractors can split construction projects across LLCs to present the appearance that the contract is under the local cost threshold, when in fact the total cost can be above a project labor agreement trigger. The lack of owner transparency also provides an avenue to skirt responsibility for substandard housing. And when local enforcement agencies finally close in, the bad actors simply switch LLCs, create substantial delays and create substantial delays. SB 594 is a good governance bill.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
It does not change in any way the legal protections afforded to the entities. We are not creating any new reporters, just asking for one additional point of information on a form that entities already currently fill out. Today, we have two witnesses, Ruth Silver Taube, supervising attorney at the Santa Clara University School of Law, and Jyotswaroop Bawa, chief of organizing and campaigns at the California Reinvestment Coalition.
- Ruth Silver Taube
Person
Thank you. Good evening, Senators. The ability to use and abuse LLCs to create anonymity allows dishonest employers to play shell games and avoid complying with laws that protect workers. This happens across a variety of industries, including in hospitality, construction, nursing home supports and other low wage industries. In my work, I see this happen all the time.
- Ruth Silver Taube
Person
I recently worked with a labor commission attorney on a wage theft and retaliation case where we had to name 11 hotel and restaurant entities because we did not know the owners. We would not have had to name so many entities or experience a long delay if we knew who was on the hook in litigation. We won't subject innocent entities to discovery.
- Ruth Silver Taube
Person
In low wage industries, LLCs are often used to hide assets and make it hard for workers to ever recover wages even after there is a judgment. In a restaurant case, the restaurant changed hands 21 times or every time there was a judgment, those owners can simply dissolve their business, then quickly set up shop under a new name while still maintaining ownership and register with the Secretary of State's office, all without having to disclose who the real owner is.
- Ruth Silver Taube
Person
If workers don't know who the owners of a business are, they would be unable to file claims at the Labor Commission because the owner could not be served. We've heard that one of the most time consuming activities for the Labor Commissioner's office is trying to determine who the employer is. Prosecutors could also better identify law breaking individuals in criminal cases. Requiring LLCs and companies to include their beneficial owners in their business filings will provide additional transparency and accountability.
- Ruth Silver Taube
Person
That's why we need SB 594, a good governance bill, and I respectfully ask that you support this effort and vote aye. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Next Witness.
- Jyotswaroop Bawa
Person
Good evening Chair Umberg and members of the committee. I'm Jyotswaroop Bawa with the California Reinvestment Coalition. As stewards of responsible use of tax per dollars and good governance, we hope you'll support SB 594. As you know, families obtain financial stability and build intergenerational wealth via home ownership. However, our research is pointing to alarming trends in housing and land ownership in California, becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of a few large entities.
- Jyotswaroop Bawa
Person
Redfin data from Q-4 of 2021, when interest rates for a historic low show that 75% of all purchases made by limited liability corporations were in all cash. These buyers are not small investors. These are large operations growing as monopolies.
- Jyotswaroop Bawa
Person
A report called "Cashing in Our Homes," released earlier in the year, showed that just 10 of the largest landlords in America are operating businesses in California, and just these 10 entities had amassed $191,000,000,000 cash on hand and were readying for a buying frenzy. In a state that is already stressed by housing unaffordability,
- Jyotswaroop Bawa
Person
further consolidation under these large corporate landlords, who are motivated first and foremost by their need to show quarterly gains in their investment, are undoubtedly making things worse for tenants and stealing opportunities from small investors and first time home buyers, in particular, families, as you can imagine, cannot compete with 191 billion cash on hand. What's worse is that the quarterly gains orientation means that these owners invest the least possible in their buildings. Living conditions are worse in buildings owned by large corporations than small investors.
- Jyotswaroop Bawa
Person
As we look to support new development of housing that is affordable to the average Californian, we need owner transparency to make sure that the current housing stock does not fall into decay in the meantime. Currently, the tenants or attorneys of tenants are informing law enforcement, are informing code enforcement departments that several of their cases are connected.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
For those in opposition, please approach the microphone. Two primary witnesses in opposition. Witnesses in opposition. All right. Not seeing anyone here who's testifying in opposition. Go ahead.
- Jyotswaroop Bawa
Person
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Did I miss my chance for support?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Well, we've done the two support witnesses.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Me, too.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
We're going to do me, too in just a second. Right. All right. But if there's no one here in opposition, then we will turn to both support and opposition. You don't need to sit down. We'll call you up right away. For those who are in support and opposition which wish to provideoo testimony, please run to the microphone and give us your name, your position and your affiliation.
- Amy Hines-Shaikh
Person
Amy Hines-Shaikh with Wildcat Consulting respectfully requesting an aye vote on behalf of Unite Here Local 11 with the 32,000 members and the California Community Land Trust Network with their 36 affiliate members. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Brian Augusta
Person
Brian Augusta on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, the California Coalition for Rural Housing National Housing Law Project and the Public Interest Law Project, in support. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Danielle Kando-Kaiser
Person
Good evening. Danielle Kando-Kaiser, on behalf of the California Low Income Consumer Coalition, in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Sara Flocks
Person
Mr. Chair and members. Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation, in strong support. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Mariko Yoshihara
Person
Mr. Chair and members Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, seeing no one else approaches the microphone, let's turn to the phone lines. Moderator, if you would queue up those who are in support and opposition to SB 594, we'd be grateful.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Yes. First we'll go to line number 3216, please go ahead.
- Janice O'Malley
Person
Good evening Chair and members. Janice O'Malley with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees, in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to the line of 30. 214, please go ahead.
- Kimberly Rosenberger
Person
Kimberly Rosenberger with SD, for.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next we'll go to line number 32. 33, please go ahead.
- Kareem Greasy
Person
Yes. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Kareem Greasy, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors and Opposition. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And at this time, there are no further in queue.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, let's bring it back to committee. Questions by Committee Members. No questions by Committee Members. Scott Wiener. Senator Wiener, that one moves the bill. So a couple questions of the author. Senator Durazo, you and I have had conversation about this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
I think I understand the intent, and you correct me if I'm wrong, that the bill in some ways mirrors the corporate transparent, the federal corporate Transparency act, and thus doesn't require the reporters really to gather new information. It just requires them to report certain information on, for example, the statement of information. Am I correct in that regard?
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
I don't know about the statement of information, but they do list exemptions. So just with regards to that, I'd be glad to look at it. But we want to make sure that we're really going to accomplish what we set out to do, which is going to give the information that's needed so that there aren't these bad actors functioning out there. And just one example, that's an exemption under the federal law if they exempt anybody with 20 employees or more. Right.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
I mean, that would totally defeat what we're trying to do here. So I'll be glad to look at that. But I don't see too many of these exemptions that would still allow us to go after the bad actors.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Well, I want to make sure that we're not disconnected here.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
So the 22 exemptions and the one you point out is the one that is of concern, and I agree with you, by the way, that if, for example, that kind of an entity owns real estate, which is part of the transparency challenge here, that they should be a reporter, in other words, they should not be one of the exempted categories.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Okay.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
But the other categories, I know you and I discussed this, and today has been a fast moving day, and last week has been a fast moving week. But as I understand it. Well, let me rephrase that. Let me ask that you not move this to the floor. We're going to pass it out today, not move this to the floor until we've reached an understanding as to who's going to be exempt.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
My concern is that if the bill mirrors the Corporate Transparency Act except for that one exclusion, then it doesn't really create an additional burden upon any businesses to collect information. And I think that was the intent. If there's going to be a whole bunch of new businesses that are required to collect that wouldn't have to collect under the federal act.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
That is an additional burden, and it is additional burden upon businesses that may have no relationship to the purpose of the bill, which is to basically illustrate and provide transparency as to who owns, for example, apartment buildings.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Okay. But just so I can get it clear. So it's not just limited to real estate owners or anything like that.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Right.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
It's to make sure we have enough information. And also the information is one question. Right. It's who is the the owner. Right. The special owner. We want to make sure.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Sorry, the beneficial owner. So that's what we really want. It's one question, and I don't think that's as burdensome as a whole new form. So if there's some special one of these exemptions that you think would really deserve to be exempt, we can talk about it. But so far, the list that we've seen, there aren't any. But I'd be willing to listen to that.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Beneficial owner.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
I just want to make sure that we don't start from scratch about the whole list because we've really done a lot of research into this.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Right. So the Federal Government has enacted a law that I think becomes effective on January 1, 2024 that requires basically all businesses to report certain information, who the beneficial owner is. And I think that the federal legislation is designed to deal with money laundering, and that information is required to be reported to FinCEN. But it's confidential. FinCEN holds it in confidentiality.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
But this bill, I thought, basically made those same businesses report, not collect new information, but just instead of keeping it in confidence that it gets publicly reported and it gets publicly reported because they file additional information on forms that are already required by the state. And the issue is that the federal law exempts out, as you point out, 22 different categories. One of them, I agree with you, is contraindicated for the purpose for which this bill is intended.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
But the others, for example, securities firms, Indian tribes, accounting firms, those kinds of things, those are not the entities that, at least as I understand, are the focus of this bill's purpose. So what I'm asking is, I suppose, is you will commit to continuing to work with us.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Otherwise, if we can't come to agreement, I certainly don't want to commit to supporting this on the floor because I think that if we don't exempt out some of these entities, it's going to require reporting requirements that have no purpose in terms of transparency and what you're about.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Okay, can I have my.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Okay, go ahead.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Sure.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good evening, Senator Umberg. As California Reinvestment Coalition, we're part of the coalition that pushed for the Corporate Transparency Act. And just to reiterate, you're correct that the goal of the CTA is, in fact, for money laundering to be captured.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Some of the entities that are exempt are done because Treasury and FinCEN already have access to the information of the exempted entities. So the banking industry, credit unions, securities insurance, FinCEN has access to who owns what there.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
And the 26 employees or less was a focus for FinCEN because what they're concerned about is that smaller entities are the ones that have maybe a broker in the states who's buying land with all cash, or horses with all cash, or yachts with all cash.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
And those are the folks that FinCEN wants to capture and really ask questions around. But the larger businesses are paying taxes and doing other activities which allow the Federal Government to feel assured that they are not money laundering operations.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
The purpose of the California bill is to implement the laws that we have on the books. And some of the entities that are exempted could be bad players in terms of their employment practices. So we actually do want information related to financial services providers. We do want information related to businesses that are big and small. All the same. In fact, we don't want to be burdensome to smaller businesses.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
But perhaps more meaningfully, the Secretary of State, where this work would live, it would be burdensome for them to actually have to weed out certain LLCs because currently the bill as it is, would apply to all the people submitting the statement of information, as you point out. So the bill, as it is, is the simplest version that the secretary's office could undertake.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay. Well, we do not have a meeting of the minds, clearly, because, for example, one of the entities that would be exempt, the reporting requirement is you report actually individuals. So an insurance company, an insurance company as defined in your bill, has a whole bunch of folks that would be required to be reported plus their address, am I correct?
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Their business address.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
If they're structured as a corporation, then actually they don't have any new requirements because as a corporation, they're already reporting on their officers. And so they would actually have no new information.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
So if they're a corporation that already has their officers, a publicly held corporation already has their officers that are displayed, you can look it up, you can use the Google machine and find them. Right?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Right.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Yes.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Well, actually, currently the statement of information requires them to provide that information, and we're just underlining that part. But really, this bill is targeting limited liability corporations, which may be under a corporation.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
So an insurance company or a securities company. If they have a web of LLCs under them, we would want them to actually name their parent corporation, if you will, and then a state that they are part of that pyramid, if you will.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, I'm going to support the bill with the caveat that there's significant work that still needs to be done on this bill before it goes to the floor. Some of the reporting requirements seem to be unnecessary for the intended purpose of the bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
I think you've already illustrated if somebody's already had all that information that's reported publicly, there's no need for them to basically redo that to submit it to the state.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
So with your commitment, Senator Durazo, that you will continue to work with us, and we'd be happy to work with the stakeholders. I'll support the bill, but you've heard my concerns about adding a burden that has no so. And I don't think you want to add a burden that has no so.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Okay. Thank you. We'll work with you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay. All right, other questions? I think there's been a motion. Who moved the bill? Senator Wiener moved the bill. All right. Would you care to close?
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
No, just ask for an aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item 40 SB 594 by Senator Durazo. The motion is do pass, as amended to senate appropriations.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Seven, two. We'll put that back on call. All right, and I know Senator Skinner is here, but Senator Rubio actually was here long time ago, so. Yes, Senator. Senator Rubio, being as gracious as she always is, just for one of your bills. All right, which one? Senator Skinner? 29 29 SB 54. All right, great. Thank you. All right, ahead, Senator.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Senator Rubio, so much. My witness who's been here and all of you have, so I completely recognize. But she has a flight to catch, so appreciate this opportunity. First, I will be accepting the Committee's amendments that clarify that a founding team Member must be more than a passive investor when a business is primarily founded by diverse team Members and adds the reporting requirements for founding team Members who are veterans or disabled veterans.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
California, as I think we're well aware, has been very proactive in promoting diversity and inclusion in our corporate and financial sector. We've led the nation in addressing pay equity, which we know still remains unequal for women and people of color. But we've making strides to address that and pay equity deals, of course, with those who are on salary.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
But for those who take the path to be entrepreneurial and to use their skills to launch a startup or open a new enterprise, capital investment, particularly from venture capital investment firms, is their lifeline. Unfortunately, if you are a woman or black led startup, the data shows that investments just don't come your way, regardless of your expertise, your track record, or the viability of your business plan. Pitchbook, which tracks venture investments, found that female founded startups received only 2.3% of all venture capital invested in 2020.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
Unfortunately, that number took a dive and dropped to 1.7% in 2022. The same report found that only 8% of the decision makers at venture capital firms were women and only 3% were black. Now, whether that has an influence or not, we don't know. And my Bill does not try to change the composition of the venture firm. What it does instead is ask venture firms. Pure disclosure and transparency.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
Ask venture firms to report annually on the diversity of their investments to the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, who will then make that information publicly available. And with that, I'd like my witness in support. Who is Marquesa Finch? From the F5 collective to present.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
The floor is yours.
- Marquesa Finch
Person
Thank you. Good evening, Members of the Committee. My name is Marquesa Finch. I am a startup founder, and I am a venture capitalist. I am a founding partner at the F5 collective, which is a Fund focused on funding female founders. Now, female founders are one of the most underrepresented founder groups in venture capital in the ecosystem. Yet they outperform male teams by 63%.
- Marquesa Finch
Person
So not only do we think funding women is just good for society, good for markets, but it's also a good return on investment. I'm also the CEO of a company and co founder of a company called Perium. We are a fintech financial technology company that helps diverse entrepreneurs connect with capital that is amongst their community, within their community. We do this by turning their community and their network into investors through a process called equity crowdfunding. And this was a direct result.
- Marquesa Finch
Person
It's a product that's a direct result from the problem that Senator Skinner is presenting today. So aside from being a venture capitalist, I'm also a Bay Area native. I'm a technologist. I hold a graduate degree and a postgraduate degree. I've built technology for 11 years. I've been an investor for seven years. Despite this experience, I still have problems, a lot of problems, raising capital compared to my male counterparts or my caucasian counterparts. Furthermore, I face doubt in the credibility around being a builder of financial products.
- Marquesa Finch
Person
The assumption is that as a female, I should create products in beauty or fashion or food. And being an entrepreneur is already especially taxing financially, psychologically. So then to have to battle what seems like 1.0 million and 1 misconceptions about my ability to succeed and to build just adds to the equity gap. There's no doubt that the success of Silicon Valley has benefited California and benefited Californians, but I wonder if we're leaving so many.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Senator Skinner, other witnesses in support.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
That's my primary witness in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Okay. Witnesses in opposition. Seeing no one approaches the microphone in opposition. Are there any witnesses here in the Committee hearing room wish to testify in a me too form? In other words, coming to the microphone, giving us their name, their affiliation and their position on the Bill. All right, seeing none, let's turn to the phone lines. Moderator, if you would queue up those who are in support and opposition of SB 54.
- Committee Secretary
Person
If you are in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. First, we'll go to the line of 3218 please. Go ahead.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Hi. Yes, you're on.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Michelle Johnson. From a map to you, creative advocacy. We are in support of Senator Skinner's SB 54, and I'm also a black founder, so I support diversity.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you very much. Thank you. All right, next caller, please.
- Committee Secretary
Person
And at this time, there are no further.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members. Senator Ashby moves the Bill. All right, Senator Skinner, we've had this conversation before, and I've expressed.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
I'm going to support the Bill, but I've expressed my concern that what this will do is simply cause investment bankers to not invest in California, to invest other place in the country because of the added burden of investing in California. Want to get your response to that? And what's the penalty? What's the consequence to an investment bank that does not comply?
- Nancy Skinner
Person
Well, I think given that my expert witness has the direct experience both as a funder and a founder, do you have any comment as to whether we will have venture capital firms leave? Make the distinction that it's not an investment bank like Morgan Chase these are venture capital funds, which are very different. And to answer your question directly, the answer is that there are so many companies that are domiciled here in California.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
To not invest in a California company would be to virtually wipe out all of venture capital. I can't see that happening.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
You don't think they would move to another state?
- Marquesa Finch
Person
No, absolutely not. Because the ecosystem, the network is here. We actually have a problem with everyone trying to move to California to build their startup. So, I mean, I would love for other parts of the country to experience what we experience, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay. And then the consequence, the sanction for not complying.
- Marquesa Finch
Person
For not complying with. For not submitting the report.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Right.
- Marquesa Finch
Person
It's completely voluntary to the founder. So I know there are privacy concerns around disclosing that information, but the venture capital process has no less than three or four face to face diligence interviews with venture capitalists, so they know who they're investing in right away. The fact that these founders would then report self report as an option, it's optional after the term sheet is completed, meaning that there is no bearing on whether they get the money or not. I can't see that being too much of a burden to the founder.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
So as a covered person, I think as defined in the Bill, doesn't report, as I understood, there's no sanction right now.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
There is not a sanction. We are hoping that this sunshine that there will be. Look, are they going to jump up and down with great excitement? Not necessarily, but we're hoping that that kind of peer pressure will help to have them be responsive. And it's funny, because when you talk to the firms, oftentimes they'll say, well, we'd like to invest more in women owned startup. We would like to invest more, but we just don't know of any.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
And of course, what this helps to do is make those connections and make it clear that there are lots of women's startups there, and we're just trying to encourage you to go out of your way a little more to find them.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, so as I understand, this is basically a voluntary program.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
Yes.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay. All right. No other questions. Senator Ashby's moved the Bill. Would you like to close?
- Nancy Skinner
Person
Yes. Again, the intent is that we can increase that investment because we think it's beneficial. And just to your other point, I have not been tracking the amount of venture capital investment that happens in California recently. But I used to do reports on this subject, and 10 years ago, 54% of all north American venture capital was invested in California firms, and most of it was that venture capital was based in California, so that was throughout North America.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay, Madam Secretary, if you call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, we'll put that on call. Thank you, Senator Skinner. Okay. All right, Senator Rubio, back to you. SB 848.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Committee Members, thank you for allowing me to present SB 848, a Bill that will bring comfort to many families. Every year in the United States, nearly a million families experience the heartbreak of losing a pregnancy because of miscarriage and other issues. And many other families experience a trauma from an adoption agreement falling apart or an unsuccessful IVF treatment, all in the hopes of becoming a family and having children.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
SB 848 will ensure that families experiencing reproductive loss have the time they need to process their grief and heal by providing them up to five days of job protected leave. This Bill allows an employee to either use existing paid leave policies to take time off or take this time off unpaid. The most important thing is that employees will know that they can take time off to heal without worrying about losing their job.
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
And I am fully committed to continue to work with Cal Chamber to address some other concerns. Joining me here today to speak in support of the Bill are members of the Junior Leagues of California who will share their testimony. And I believe our authors had to leave. I'm sorry, our witnesses had to leave. So someone will be presenting on behalf of Erin Bartolome and Julie Octon. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Floor is yours, of course.
- Janelle Greenlee
Person
Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Janelle Greenlee, representing CalSPAC, co-sponsor of the Bill, and will be magnifying the voice of an everyday Californian who couldn't be here this lovely long evening. Erin Bartolome is a behavioral services professional in a public school setting who resides in Long Beach, California, and she writes, distinguished Chairman Umberg and Members of the Committee, thank you for allowing me to voice my support of Senate Bill 848.
- Janelle Greenlee
Person
Over the course of several months in 2018, my partner and I experienced multiple unsuccessful attempts with fertility treatments. Our fertility treatment team was amazing. Our Doctor was ethical and fair. They did everything right. They walked us through the steps and what to expect. They required an initial assessment through a licensed therapist to ensure we were doing this for the right reasons and that we understood the percentages of success. Based on my own personal factors for these procedures.
- Janelle Greenlee
Person
He stated upfront that he would not recommend having any more than four to five treatments before having to make a decision on more invasive and costly options, or to decide that conception was just not going to be in the cards for us. Even with that support, I was taken completely by surprise with how devastating each and every one of these attempts felt.
- Janelle Greenlee
Person
The aftereffects of one failed attempt bled into the next when rounds of hormone shots and follow-up assessments happened in short succession to track progress and viability of the monthly IUI procedure, distress and grief of loss was cumulative. With each failed attempt. It was surreal to feel like you are mourning something or someone who never was. It's even weirder when you work in an industry populated mostly by women and seeing friends and coworkers having their own fertility successes.
- Janelle Greenlee
Person
I struggled to not feel resentful of those around me. Once I decided to give up on my fertility journey, it took over two full years to feel like myself again. Had leave been available to me, perhaps the time spent healing from these reproductive losses would have been less. Only now, in hindsight, do I realize the time I needed to process and give each loss the respect it deserved. I ask that the Committee please consider passing SB 848, and I respectfully ask your aye vote thank you and thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Other witnesses in support seeing no one approaching the microphone. Witnesses in opposition.
- Mariko Yoshihara
Person
Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, sorry for being late. We're in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Thank you.
- Ashley Hoffman
Person
Good evening, Mr-. Opposition? Okay.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Yes. Opposition. Yes.
- Ashley Hoffman
Person
Good evening, Mr. Chair Members. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in an opposed, unless amended position, we just wanted to thank the author for working with us on our proposed amendments and also for raising this issue. I know this is an important issue to a lot of workers who have suffered pregnancy loss and failed fertility treatment options, myself included in that group. So we really appreciate her work with us on narrowing the scope of the Bill, and we'll continue those conversations. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Shall we go to too? Testimony? If you are testifying in support or opposition in a metoo fashion, name, affiliation, and either support or opposition of the Bill, please approach the microphone.
- Crystal Acidos
Person
Crystal Kudos on behalf of the California Faculty Association in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the phone lines. Moderator, please queue up those in support of opposition SB 848.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Once again, if you are in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. First, we'll go to the line of 3238 please go ahead.
- Erin Evans
Person
Chair and Members, this is Erin Evans. On behalf of NARAL Pro Choice California, as well as the California Nurse and Advice Association in support.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. And at this time, there are no further.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All righty. Bring it back to the Committee. Questions by the Committee Members. Seeing no questions or comments. Is there a motion? Senator Caballero moves the Bill. All right. Would you care to close?
- Susan Rubio
Legislator
Just thank you for your time. I asked for an aye vote. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Thank you. Madam Secretary, if you'd call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item number 28, SB 848 by Senator Rubio. Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations. [Roll Call] Seven to one.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Seven to one. Bill's back on call. SB 345 by Senator Skinner. Senator Skinner, would you like to present.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members, and your patience for today. I know all of you have been like me, in Committee since 830 this morning. I accept. The Committee's amendments that define an aggrieved person who can sue has to have a nexus to California and cleaning up the language and the privacy protection to track definitions elsewhere in the Bill.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
What SB 345 does is build upon the very excellent legal and other protections that we enacted last year with this assault on our reproductive rights, and specifically what 345 does. And all of this is important given the recent rulings by Texas judge and other actions by other states. It protects providers who prescribe or dispense medication and care that is legal in California and is safe and effective for patients regardless of where the patient is located. This concept is important because it protects California's right to travel.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
It acknowledges the fact that we are a very mobile population, that a California student can be out of state but needs healthcare, their primary Doctor may be here, a person travels for job assignments, can be off in a new place for six months, two years, or staying with a family member to deal with their care, or just have their primary physician in this state. So it allows patients and providers to. I'll get to that in a minute.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
Let me just go back to that point, which is that it provides those protections for healthcare and medications that are legal in California and specifically what we are aimed at protecting is medication, abortion and gender affirming care, which are two legal and essential health cares that are being criminalized in other states. Now, additionally, SB 345 allows patients and providers to bring suit against anyone who interferes with their right to receive or provide that essential health care.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
It protects patients and providers in California against extradition and prohibits any government employee or contractor from cooperating with out of state entities who may be seeking information about healthcare that is legal here in California. So with that, I'd like my witnesses, Dr. Michelle Gomez, who is a family physician and faculty member at UCSF, and Dr. Kelly Pfeifer, who is a family doctor and abortion care provider.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All righty. Thank you. The floor is yours.
- Michelle Gomez
Person
Good evening, Chair Umberg and Members. My name is Dr. Michelle Gomez, and I'm a family doctor and volunteer clinical faculty with the UCSF School of Medicine. I've been providing and teaching both primary care and abortion care for 20 years. Abortion is a safe and common procedure, safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. When a state denies an abortion to a person who seeks one, they deny the fundamental right to determine what happens to one's own body, and they increase that person's risk of death.
- Michelle Gomez
Person
I am grateful for all that California has done to protect patients who come to California and the providers who care for them, but we can do more. Not everyone who lives in a state that bans or severely restricts abortion will be able to travel to California to get one. Some people can't get time off work, can't arrange childcare, may be undocumented and unable to travel, or simply don't have and can't access the financial resources to travel.
- Michelle Gomez
Person
Some of these patients will seek medication abortion via telehealth, which has been proven safe and effective. California clinicians are ready to stand up and provide this care because they view access to abortion as a human right. Let me give you an example. If a patient in Texas can't leave her home state, she may seek a telehealth abortion from a California provider. The provider may not know the patient is still in Texas.
- Michelle Gomez
Person
Under Texas law, the provider could be punished with life in prison and or a $100,000 fine. SB 345 would build on the protections that were passed by this Legislature last year and provide additional protections for providers. Shield laws like SB 345 provide as much reassurance as possible in a challenging legal environment. And I want to assure you that abortion providers, as well as my colleagues who provide gender affirming care across state lines, are well aware of the limits of these laws.
- Michelle Gomez
Person
Many legal advocates are stepping forward to help providers assess their risks. Few providers will choose to do this work, and they will be well prepared. Providers from Massachusetts have already started prescribing under a similar shield law. Colorado and Washington have passed similar bills, and New York is close. California needs to be a brave leader in this true public health crisis, and I strongly urge a favorable vote on 345. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Next witness, please.
- Kelly Pfeifer
Person
Hello, I'm Kelly Pfeifer a family doc, also an abortion provider. For 25 years, I traveled to rural California, Arizona, and also to Kansas. You'll remember Kansas was the place the beloved Dr. Tiller was murdered in his church. So you can imagine there's not a lot of local doctors living in Kansas willing to do abortions in Kansas. So clinics rely on fly in doctors like me.
- Kelly Pfeifer
Person
If you look at the map of the US, most of the Midwest and the South has abortion bans in response to the flood of people coming to Kansas, I started a medication abortion in Wichita in January, and I've recruited 10 California doctors to join me. We fly out there and we see patients for medication abortion in our clinic. We give them mifristone, the abortion pill, and then they take misoprostol home with them the following day.
- Kelly Pfeifer
Person
According to Kansas law in California, that abortion is done legally in Kansas, and we're entirely within the law. But I'm aware that a patient's angry ex-husband or nosy neighbor may see it differently. I was born in California. I live in California. I'm licensed in California. Most of my days are spent here. I travel to Kansas and Arizona because I don't believe my responsibility ends at taking care of Californians.
- Kelly Pfeifer
Person
This is a national crisis, and many Clinicians like myself, are stepping up to answer the call to help outside our state borders. We know the shortage of abortion providers is going to get worse. So the doctors I recruited, the Californians, we know we're taking a risk, and we need all the protections this law can give. California prides itself on being an access state. We can't honestly claim that title if we only help people with the means to get to California.
- Kelly Pfeifer
Person
And if we are not doing everything in our power to protect California's abortion providers, SB 345 would add additional protections that are not currently in law. I know that no California law can protect me from hostile actions from other states. I know that California law can't protect me when I'm not physically in California. But I need my home state to not cooperate with hostile actions if they happen in Texas. When I'm in California, I need California protections. The threats to access are going to get worse and not better. And we're ready we clinicians.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you very much. All right, those in opposition.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
No, there are other supporters.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Well, here's how we're going. We're doing support, then we do opposition, then we do all the together.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
Great.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
So, all right, anyone testifying in opposition? Seeing no opposition witnesses. Now we'll go to to both support and opposition. If you'd approach the microphone and state your name, your affiliation, your position.
- Craig Pulsipher
Person
Craig Pulsipher, on behalf of Equality California in strong support. Thank you.
- Greg Burr
Person
Greg Burr with the California Family Council in opposition.
- Erin Friday
Person
Thank you, Erin Friday with Our Duty opposed.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Okay, seeing no one else approaches the microphone. And here in the hearing room, let's turn to the phone lines for those who are in support and in opposition to SB 345.
- Committee Moderator
Person
First we'll go to line 3258.
- Ana Casino
Person
My name is Dr. Ana Casino with Aria Medical and Full Women's Health, and I'm in strong support of SB 345.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next, we'll go to line number 3259. Please go ahead.
- Jen Hastings
Person
Thank you. This is Dr. Jen Hastings. I am with the ARIA Medical Clinic, and I'm on clinical faculty with UCSF Department of Family and Community Medicine. I am in strong support of SB 345. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next we'll go to line number 3257 please go ahead.
- Dalbir Coulter
Person
My name is Dalbir Coulter. I've been an abortion provider for over 10 years. I'm a physician assistant and have worked in a community clinic, and I am also a volunteer on the miscarriage and abortion hotline. And I am in strong support of the Bill SB 345.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next, we'll go to line number 3238 please go ahead.
- Erin Evans
Person
This is Erin Evans. On behalf of NARAL Pro Choice California and the California Nurse Midwife Association, both proud co sponsors of this Bill. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next we'll go to line number 3254 please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Yes, hi, can you hear me?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Yes, we can.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Great. Hi, Chair and Chair Members. Long night, right? Anyways, I'm calling in strong opposition of Skinner's Bill, SB 345.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Abortion bills we don't need.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 3940 please go ahead.
- Ali Snyder
Person
My name is Ali Snyder, concerned parent I oppose Bill 345.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next, we'll go to line number 3190 please go ahead. 3190 please go ahead.
- Meg Mark
Person
Hello, this is Meg Mark. I am calling in opposition.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next, we'll go to line number 3263 please go ahead.
- Panna Lossy
Person
Hi, this is Dr. Panna Lossy, and I am a UCSF physician working in Santa Rosa. I'm also an area medicine provider in Kansas, and I'm in strong support of this Bill. Thank you very much.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next we'll go to line number 3264 please. Go ahead.
- Catherine Forest
Person
Hi, this is Dr. Catherine Sonquist Forest. I'm a Professor of family and community medicine at UCSF Natividad Community Medicine Program. I've been abortion provider and also providing gender impairment. Strong support of this Bill.
- Committee Moderator
Person
All right, next we'll go to line number 3265 please. Go ahead.
- Bethany Golden
Person
Hi, this is Bethany Golden. I'm a nurse, midwife and registered nurse, and I'm calling in support of this Bill for the reproductive access justice.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. And at this time, there are no further. All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members seeing no questions. All right. Is there a motion? Oh, question, Senator. Right. Senator Caballero.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
My notes say there are amendments. Yes, I did take those amendments. I announced that opening.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Senator Durazo moved the Bill. All right. Senator Wiener.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
Yeah, thank you. I want to thank the author, as I have before, for this Bill. We've done a lot of great work last year, a lot of groundbreaking work both around reproductive health and gender-affirming care to make clear that California is not going to enforce these disgusting laws that are sweeping so many states that are literally criminalizing women, criminalizing doctors, criminalizing the families of trans kids, trying to just erase trans people from existing. And this is like real, this is not theoretical.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
I mean, you look, just what happened recently, the just extreme reaction against Anheuser-Busch for simply having a trans person in one sponsored Instagram ad, and it caused this massive disgusting backlash. And of course, Anheuser-Busch, unfortunately, now just put on leave. The person who created that minor marketing campaign simply for putting a trans person in one sponsored Instagram ad. What's happening in this country is terrifying. California should have no part of it. And so I'm happy to support this Bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right. Thank you. It's been moved by Senator. By Senator Durazo. All right, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item 30, SB 345, by Senator Skinner. The motion is to pass, as amended, to Senate Appropriations. [Roll Call]
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Six to two, Bill's back on call.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Six to two. All right, Senator Skinner, you're going to present SB 680. Next up will be Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
Thank you.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
Yeah, I'm here.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
She's got. No, I mean after Senator.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
Yeah, right. Thank you. Members, I'm accepting the Committee Amendments, and this Bill has been stripped a great deal, so I won't go into huge detail, especially since one of my key witnesses had to leave. It's basically trying to make it more transparent when you go to buy an ev, that the dealer literally shows you the actual manufacturer suggested retail price.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
What we've noticed is that with the very generous tax rebates, both offered by the State of California and the Federal Government, that there are some dealers that are, in effect, raising the prices well above. I mean, it's always the right for a dealer to raise a price above the manufactured, the MSRP. But to do so in a way that seems really to capture the rebates and then to say, well, yes, but then you get this discount by these rebates.
- Nancy Skinner
Person
So the bill's first intention was to do more, but that's okay. It's a transparency measure now, and I will accept those amendments and let me have my witness in support. Robert Herrell, who's the Executive Director of the Consumer Federation.
- Robert Herrell
Person
Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Members. Robert Herrell, Executive Director, Consumer Federation of California, co-sponsor of the measure. The problem here is that decisions that you all have collectively made, good decisions to incentivize, to create rebates and tax incentives to put money in the pockets of consumers to get them to buy electric vehicles, is instead money going directly into the pockets of dealers. We have examples. 10, 20, 30, 40, $50,000 above MSRP being charged.
- Robert Herrell
Person
Wall Street Journal just had a story a few days ago, a couple from Mariposa who had to go two and a half hours to find a dealer that would honor the original agreement, agreement with the local dealer in Mariposa on a Ford F-150 electric truck. That is the original idea behind the Bill, as you could gather by my comments, not a huge fan of the amendments. Feel like they're largely duplicative of current law. Having said that, we want to continue the conversation.
- Robert Herrell
Person
We think what's happening right now, it's the classic, because we can. Junk fee. No consumer gets anything additional in the vehicle. There's no add on, there's no extra. It's just because we can. We're going to charge you 10, 20, 30 $40,000 above MSRP. It's unacceptable. That's what we're trying to get at with the Bill. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, other witnesses in support, other witnesses here in opposition.
- Kenton Stanhope
Person
Kenton Stanhope with California New Car Dealers Association. Just want to thank the Committee and the author for the amendments, and we're still reviewing them, and we look forward to engaging with the author and continue working with you on the notice requirement. Thank you so much, hardy.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Let's now go to me too testimony. Anybody wishing to testify in support or opposition, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone. Let's turn to the phone lines. Moderator if you would queue up those who are in support or opposition to SB 680, we, the tired souls, would be grateful.
- Committee Moderator
Person
If you are in support or opposition, please press one, then zero, and no one is queuing up.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you. All right, back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members. Comments. Seeing no questions or comments, Senator Skinner, would you like to close?
- Nancy Skinner
Person
Yes. Appreciate your aye vote on the amended Bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
On the amended Bill. All right. It was moved by Senator Ashby.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This file, item number 31, SB 680 by Senator Skinner. The motion is do passes. Amended to Senate Appropriations. [Roll Call]
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Six to one. Bill's back on call. All right. Thank you very much. Senator Skinner, you are dismissed. So let's see. Right. Yeah, there's Senator. Right on queue. There you go. All right. Senator Smallwood Quavis. We have four bills by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. All right, here we go. Do you want to do them all together, or would you like to separate them out?
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
If I could, I would, Mr. Chair, but I'm going to do them all together. And if we could do 89 second.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
89, which is item number 35. You prefer to do item number 35? SB 89 first. That's fine.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
Oh, no. I'll do 47 first and then 89 second, if that's okay.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay. Wait a minute. File item number 32. SB 49. Seven will be heard first. All right, the floor is yours.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Senators, and thank you for your brilliant work at this hour. I'm so grateful for everyone who's here in the audience with us this evening. It has been a long day, but we're saving the best. First, I want to start by letting you know, Mr. Chair, that I want to thank the Committee for working with our team. We are accepting the amendments offered in the analysis. And, yes, thank your team so much for their support.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
I'm pleased to present SB 497, which would help ensure workers brave enough to report violations of labor code or equal pay act are protected from retaliation by their employer. California has some of the strongest workplace and equal pay protections in the country. However, our strong workplace protections are meaningless if workers are too afraid to speak up, too afraid to call their rights to protect them. California's laws do prohibit employers from retaliating against a worker exercising their rights.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
However, the labor Commissioner is unable to prosecute many retaliation complaints and claims because it is difficult for workers to show that the employer took action against the employee, specifically in response to their reporting of a labor violation. A recent poll by the National Employment Law Project found that 38% of California workers have experienced a violation of their workplace rights, but only 10% of those workers reported the violations to a government agency.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
That means there's a huge gap and workers are not being able to take full advantage of their protections. SB 497 would provide real protections for these workers by creating a rebuttable presumption that an action taken against an employee was retaliatory and if it occurred within 90 days of the employee reporting a violation.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
This kind of rebuttable presumption already exists in other parts of the labor code and is working well to protect workers from immigration related retaliation, such as threats of deportation and retaliation for the use of sick leave. Adding this protection to the labor code violations will allow the labor Commissioner to identify retaliation more quickly and prevent law breaking employers from avoiding accountability.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
I have with me today to testify in support Ruth with the California Coalition for Worker Protection and Luzai Rivas, a Subway worker and a Member of Travadores United in San Francisco. And I'll ask them to go right ahead.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much. All right, two minutes each. Go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good evening, Senators. At the clinics I supervise, I hear from workers all the time who experience retaliation after speaking up about workplace violations. Yet retaliation cases are notoriously difficult to prove. This fact is borne out by Labor Commission statistics. From 2020 to 2022, about 90% of retaliation complaints were dismissed, largely because it's often impossible for a worker to show the employer's retaliatory intent. For example, in one case I had the worker was fired several weeks after making a complaint about not receiving overtime pay.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
The employer gave him no explanation, they just stopped putting him on the schedule. In this case, it would be nearly impossible for the worker to produce evidence to show he was terminated because he complained about his paycheck. This evidence to show the employer's true State of mind most likely does not exist. However, if the employer had a legitimate, non retaliatory reason for terminating this worker, the employer would be able to produce this evidence.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
That is why it is more appropriate in these cases for the burden to be on the employer because they have access to all of the documents and information regarding their decision to take an adverse action. And if the employer produces evidence to show a legitimate non retaliatory reason for the adverse action, the burden shifts back to the worker, and it is still ultimately the worker's burden to prove that it was retaliation that caused the adverse action. 90 day rebuttable presumptions are not outliers.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
They exist in several other labor code provisions. As you've heard, SB 497 is important because it'll deter retaliation, make it more realistic for workers to prove retaliation, and ensure consistency in the labor code. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you, Ari. Next.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Buenos Aires in umbrellas Durante store in San Francisco, Dias oras todo Los Dias extras Pagadas Inopodia, toman ningundes cancel Ladonia yo Ramos buenos Amigas, Medicia Keras, Superwoman, peroeso, Cambio Guandola mispropinas and completo De Travaco anque Savia Travah, Salario, Salario, minimo, Podria Pagarmi, Renta, nimantanera mi familia in Guatemala, Aldia De o receivo mistips and Totalida De Travahadores worker United Commensuras De otro sabu Ms Madonna Paraver experimentando Las Mina De La ciones De Sultrecho Aldia Cigiente Mike Mesodes, perida mi Caso Palesalias isiker mosquente, ablas biologist, California espore avancing Congo Quatrono enticion in California and I will translate.
- Ilci Vivas
Person
So, my name is Ilci Vivas. For the past three and a half years, I've worked at a Subway restaurant in San Francisco. I was the only worker but didn't receive all my tips. I also worked 10 hours each day without overtime and couldn't take any breaks. The owner and I were really good friends, so much that she'd call me her superwoman until a few months ago, when I asked her why I wasn't receiving my full tips.
- Ilci Vivas
Person
Soon after, she started to change my work hours, even though she knew I couldn't work at night because I had another job. Then she told me she was going to reduce my pay to minimum wage. I became worried because it's really expensive where I live, and I would no longer be able to afford my rent or support my family.
- Ilci Vivas
Person
Back in Guatemala, with the help of Travajalores Unidos Workers United, I began to talk to my coworkers from other subways owned by the same owner to see if they were experiencing the same labor violations. The next day, my Boss fired me, saying I had no right to speak to her employees. My situation was unique because I had workers united fighting with me to get my job back. Most workers face retaliation alone.
- Ilci Vivas
Person
If we want people to speak up about labor violations, they have to know that the State of California has their back. That's why I'm asking you to advance SB 497 for stronger protections against retaliation. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Those in opposition, anyone in opposition, please come forward.
- Ashley Hoffman
Person
Good evening, Mr. Chair Members. Ashley Hoffman. On behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and respectful opposition, I want to be very, very clear. We do not condone events like the ones you just heard today and absolutely find that behavior unacceptable. What we are really here about today is temporal proximity is already something that courts take into account.
- Ashley Hoffman
Person
If you had a situation where a complaint was made and the person was terminated the next day, I think you'd be very hard pressed to find any California State court that would deny that the plaintiffs had settled their burden. What our concern is, is when you start getting out to 60-90 days, that's when judges tend to also look at other circumstances. Totality of the circumstances. Was there an intervening event? What was the pattern of conduct?
- Ashley Hoffman
Person
Was this something that happened to other workers who did not file a complaint? So really, courts are already taking this into account. And our concern is that this precedent is that these presumptions are starting to be inserted into every Bill. There was a Bill last year, for example, that inserted a presumption that if any disciplinary action took place within an entire union campaign, which could be months on end up to a year or more, potentially, that would be presumed as retaliation. So we have a large concern about the precedent that this Bill would set. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Others in opposition. Seeing no one approach the microphone, I will now turn to what we call too testimony. Those who support or oppose the Bill approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, and whether you support or oppose the Bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm Kay from Chinese Progressive Association. We are here to support SB 497.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Dallas Fowler
Person
Greetings. Dallas Fowler, California Coalition for Worker Power in support. Also, Los Angeles County Democratic Party in support. Helping empowered individuals reach success PAC in support. Los Angeles African American Women's political action pack in support.
- Mariko Yoshihara
Person
Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association and Equal Rights advocates in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Ryan Allain
Person
Ryan Allain. On behalf of the California Retailers Association, in opposition.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Yakunz with the UCLA Labor center in support.
- Ernesto Hidalgo
Person
Thank you very much. Ernesto Hidalgo with the Los Angeles Workers Center Network in support. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
On behalf of the Public Risk Innovation solutions in management and respectful opposition.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Thank you very much.
- Sara Flocks
Person
Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Maria Moreno, Jobs of Justice, San Francisco, in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Eris Barrera with Raja Sunidos, Workers United, in support.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you. Ed Little, concerned citizen, in support. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Aguilar here. On behalf of all of us are none. In strong support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Henry Ortiz
Person
Henry Ortiz. On behalf of all of us are none. And community healers and also formerly incarcerated worker that was retaliated. I'm in strong support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, we'll now turn to the phone lines. Is there one more person? Go ahead. Okay.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm lighting. A Member of Chinese Progressive Association in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, let's turn to the phone lines. zero, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm so gun. A Member from Chinese Progressive Association also in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right. Now seeing no one else approaching the microphone, let's turn to the phone lines. Moderator, please queue up those in support and in opposition. SB 497.
- Committee Secretary
Person
If you are in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. First, we'll go to line number 3216. Please go ahead.
- Janice O'Malley
Person
Thank you. Chair and Members, Janice O'Malley with AFSME, California, in support.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 3249 please go ahead.
- Kimberly Rosenberger
Person
Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU in strong support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Next, please.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next, we'll go to line 3137 please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good evening, chair and Members. Faith Gorgeous. On behalf of the Family Business Association of, California, respectfully opposed for the reasons stated by the chamber.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 3268.
- Lawrence Gayden
Person
Lawrence Gayden. On behalf of California Manufacturing Technology Association, respectfully opposed. Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 29. Five, please go ahead. 295 please go ahead.
- Sabrina Lockhart
Person
Good evening, this is Sabrina Lockhart from the California Attractions and Parks Association and respectful opposition. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next we'll go to line number 3224, please go ahead. 3224 please go ahead. Okay, we'll move on. Next we'll go to line number 3271, please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello? Is that me?
- Committee Secretary
Person
Yes, it's you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I was never given a number. And nobody wants labor violations.
- Committee Secretary
Person
All right, next caller.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
People should just do less of this legislation because it's 09:30 p.m. And you don't need to be taking our rights away at night.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next we'll go to line number 32. 67, please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I guess that's me. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, sorry, there was a confusion here with lines. This is Trina Lodge calling for possibly county, and I respectfully oppose this Bill.
- Committee Secretary
Person
And at this time, there are no further.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay, now we've concluded the testimony. Bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members. All right, Senator, the Durazo moves the Bill. Would you like to close Senator Smallwood Cuevas.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
Committee and the workers for sharing that moving testimony? And we have to make these worker protections realized in the lives and communities of the communities that we serve. So I respectfully call and ask for your. I vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, there's a motion by Senator Durazo.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Six to. Bill's back on call. All right, I'm pleased to announce that we're in single digits. Only nine more bills left till closing. All right, Senator Smallwood Cuevas, what would you like to do next?
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
We are going, thank you very much. On 497. We're going to move to 89.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay, file item number 35, SB 809. Floor is yours.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
So thank you again, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. And again, I want to appreciate the committee staff for working with our team on this, and I am accepting the amendments. I'm pleased to present SB 809, which builds on the Fair Chance Act of 2017 to further the opportunities and protections for people with conviction history to attain and maintain employment.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
The Fair Chance Act prohibited a number of employers from using criminal background check and assessing whether or not the candidate was qualified for employment. It also exempted several employers and job classifications from the prohibition in cases where it was relevant to keep background checks for employees.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
Unfortunately, there are still many jobs that do require background checks and employers who were not exempted from the Fair Chance Act that continue the unnecessarily difficult process of background checks and using them as an excuse to not hire otherwise qualified individuals. There are over 7 million Californians with conviction histories.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
On top of that, roughly 60% of California's formerly incarcerated population is currently jobless, and many of them are either homeless or facing housing insecurity. A recent study by the Justice Policy center showed that employment after incarceration is key to preventing recidivism and rebuilding social networks that provide stability and deter criminal activity.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
And I just want to say, Senator Laird and I are on the Rules Committee, and we had the parole board come before us, and they remarked that when an incarcerated person has the opportunity to find a job and that that is part of their release plan, they have a 93% anti recidivism rate of that parole board when there is a job, 93% anti recitivism rate.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
So more specifically, this bill expands the types and the number of employers who are subject to the Fair Chance Act, ensuring more applicants are protected when applying to more jobs.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
It creates new procedural protections for applicants with convictions to ensure that employers do not circumvent existing rules in attempts to deny them the opportunity to apply an interview without discrimination. This bill additionally introduces protections for existing employees from discrimination based on their conviction history.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
And lastly, this bill creates new civil enforcement, vigorous enforcement mechanisms to empower the Civil Rights Division to enforce the Fair Chance Act and deter employers from violating the law.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
With me today to testify is Zach Gautier-Klos from Root and Rebound, who will provide a short testimony and be able to answer any technical questions you might have. And also joining is Eric Gentry from Underground Scholars who has benefited from the original Fair Chance Act and can speak to the benefits of expanding it.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you very much. Go ahead.
- Zach Gautier-Klos
Person
Good afternoon, chair and Committee Members. My name is Zach Gautier-Klos. I'm a staff attorney at Root and Rebound. I'm one of the co-sponsors of SB 809.
- Zach Gautier-Klos
Person
The Fairchild Intact Coalition is a group of organizations supporting thousands of people across California facing legal barriers and rebuilding their lives after a conviction. Among the most common issues our clients face is finding reliable and sustainable work.
- Zach Gautier-Klos
Person
This bill recognizes the positive start that the legislature took in the Fair Chance Act of 2017, but also reacts to the continued reality that every day, employers use conviction history to discriminate against qualified job applicants with no justification.
- Zach Gautier-Klos
Person
We must begin to fundamentally rethink the way we limit people after conviction if we want to ensure California's future is one of safety and dignity for all Californians. This bill is a step in that direction.
- Zach Gautier-Klos
Person
I want to recognize that we worked with opposition on this since it's been listed, and that we've done so successfully. And I'm happy to answer any other questions you have, technical questions, and I'd like to yield the remainder of my time to Eric Gentry.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you, Mr. Gentry.
- Eric Gentry
Person
Thank you. Good evening. Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Eric Gentry with the Underground Scholars Initiative at UC Berkeley. In October 2017, I applied for the community health worker one position with the Contra Costa County's health services department.
- Eric Gentry
Person
This was an entry level position requiring that applicants have a high school diploma or equivalent and six months outreach experience. I was applying with a bachelor's degree in sociology and nearly two years experience as an outreach case manager.
- Eric Gentry
Person
I scored a 98 on the supplemental screening evaluation and was placed at the top of the list for an interview, which was scheduled in November 2017. Although I have two felony convictions on my record, I felt that I finally had a chance at a career with upward mobility.
- Eric Gentry
Person
I was on the speech and debate team while in community college and won state gold for my persuasion speech on band the box. I was now living my research.
- Eric Gentry
Person
I excitedly went to the interview and hit a home run with every question. I felt like I had the job when I left the building, and they agreed because on November 22, 2017 I received my continued job offer with next steps. This included completing a live scan at the county sheriff's office. Although I was just over five years post conviction, I felt that this new law was giving me hope.
- Eric Gentry
Person
So much so that I did not mention that I was formally incarcerated at any time during the interview. I knew that the fingerprinting process was going to take about two months. I had failed other background checks prior to this law, but this timeline would now take me into the new year with new opportunities.
- Eric Gentry
Person
I was devastated when I received the denial letter in the mail. Crushed at my conviction histories were barring me from this dream opportunity.
- Eric Gentry
Person
I must have read that letter 20 times and never did it specify what in my record prevented me from being employed. It did provide me with five business days to respond, but I questioned the point of it. Why subject myself through humiliation only to be let down again for a job that paid less than I currently did at the nonprofit?
- Eric Gentry
Person
I questioned why I would fight for a job that did not want me there in the first place, which really made me question my self worth. Don't get me wrong. Ban the box is an important first step for people like me with conviction, to be able to get their foot in the door with a job.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Gentry.
- Eric Gentry
Person
Well, I support SB 809. I had a few more paragraphs, but I try to rush through them. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
I think we got it. Okay. All right. Opposed? Those who are opposed, please approach the microphone. You've obviously drawn the short straw from the chamber.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I think this is what I get for taking the labor portfolio.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Right. Go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
All right. So I want to thank the author and the committee for working on the amendments on the bill. We really appreciate. I think the bill has addressed a lot of our concerns. We do have some outstanding concerns. I know. I think the committee ran out of time a little bit, too, but want to just address a few kind of technical things in the bill.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
First is there's a portion of the bill that says we would not be able to consider any information learned from social media, the Internet, or any other source. And it's not only limited to before a conditional offer.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
The way I read it would also be after a conditional offer. So we think it should fall, if we learn it from another source, we should fall under the same individualized assessment process. Second, documentation for inaccuracies in a background check report.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
According to the bill, if an applicant disagreed with the results of the report but failed to present any sort of evidence or anything to confirm that inaccuracy, we would not be able to consider the fact that they failed to do so.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
So all they would have to do is say it's inaccurate, and then there's nothing we could do. We would have to basically throw out the report. Is my understanding. On enforcement, absolutely no issue with giving CRD some enforcement power.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Our concern is really some of the penalties, just given the density of the bill and a lot of the technical requirements in here, that any violation could trigger quite a high penalty. And then fourth, there's a presumption that we should hire an applicant if they've completed a sentence for their crime or received a license or credential.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
We believe these should be considerations in the individualized assessment, not the subject of a presumption. Look forward to continued discussions with the author. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Others in opposition, primary witnesses. All right, let's now turn to me too testimony. Those in the audience that wish to approach the microphone and give us their name, their affiliation, and whether they support or oppose the bill.
- Winnie Unknown
Person
Hi, my name is Winnie. I'm with the Chinese Progressive Association in San Francisco, and I support this bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Dave Howe
Person
Dave Howe, San Francisco County. I support the bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Michael Madonia
Person
I'm Michael Madonia, El Grove California. I support the bill.
- Ryan Allain
Person
Ryan Allain, on behalf of the California Retailers Association and as well as the California Restaurant Association in opposition, thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Tia Koonse
Person
Tia Koonse with the UCLA Labor center and the California Coalition for Worker Power in support.
- Michael Robson
Person
Mike Robeson. On behalf of the California Staffing Professionals of the American Staffing Association, we'd align our comments with the chambers.
- Randy Pollack
Person
Randy Pollock. On behalf of the Consumer Data Industry Association, we align our comments with the chamber. Thank you.
- Hedoni Morgilad
Person
Hedoni Morgilad, policy analyst with legal services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None, proud co-sponsors in support of this bill. Thank you.
- Ruth Silver Taube
Person
Ruth Silver Taube, Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition in support.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm here on behalf of the following organizations in support. Courage Surge, Bay Area, California families against Solitary Confinement, United Core Alliance, Indivisible California, Smart Justice, California Indivisible Yolo, Initiate Justice, New Ways to Work Incorporated and Inland Empire Fair Chance Coalition. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Marika Yoshihar
Person
Marika Yoshihar, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association in support. Thanks.
- Rachel Deutsch
Person
Rachel Deutsch, California Coalition for Worker Power in support.
- Ed Little
Person
Ed Little, on behalf of California's Safety and Justice proud co-sponsor in support.
- Eric Gentry
Person
Eric Gentry, the Underground scholar initiative at UC Berkeley. And I came to finish my speech. Now I'm like, I came to support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
I appreciate your initiative.
- Dallas Fowler
Person
Greetings. Dallas Fowler, California Coalition for Worker Power, helping empowered individuals reach success pack and Los Angeles African American Women Political Action Committee in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Henry Ortiz
Person
Henry Ortiz with Community Healers and also the Sacramento Chapter for All of Us. Strong support. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
[Foreign Speaking]
- Idris Rivas
Person
Name is Idris Rivas. I'm with Travah Sunidos workers United in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Edis Barrera
Person
Hi, my name is Edis Barrera with Travah Sunidos workers united in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Paola Unknown
Person
Hi. Paola with Travahalore Sonidos workers United and in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Christina Robinson
Person
Hello. Christina Robinson with Community Healers. And All of Us or None and in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- India McDonald
Person
India Mcdonald, on behalf of the California Mortgage Bankers Association, respectfully opposed.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, seeing no one else in the hearing room approaching the microphone, let's turn to the phone lines. Moderator if you could queue up those in support in opposition to SB 809, that'd be great.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Once again, please press one, then zero. First. We'll go to the line of 3272 please go ahead.
- Nicole Young
Person
Yes, Nicole Young, Clapper County. I oppose this bill.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 3275 please go ahead.
- Shannon Hill
Person
Yes, my name is Shannon Hill and I oppose this bill. Background check.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 3279 please go ahead.
- Lawrence Cox
Person
My name is Lawrence Cox, and I'm with legal services for Prisoners with Children. All of Us or None in strong support.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 3271 please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, I'm calling to represent the 300 million lucky people who don't live in the over regulated state.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you very much. Thank you. Next caller.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 3239 please go ahead. 3239 please go ahead. Next, we'll go to line number 3240 please go ahead.
- Sabina Unknown
Person
Hello, can you hear me? Hello?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead.
- Sabina Unknown
Person
Thank you. This is Sabina with Legal Aid at Work, proud co sponsors of the bill in strong support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 2476 please go ahead.
- Dan Heron
Person
Good evening, this is Dan Heron from Cameron Park in support of SB 809.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 3224 please go ahead.
- James Igdor
Person
This is James Igdor with the Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce aligning with the Cal Chamber opposition.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 3284 please go ahead.
- Alissa Moore
Person
This is Alyssa Moore with legal services for Prisoners With Children in full support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 3274 please go ahead. 3274 please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I guess that's on my line.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, next call.
- Committee Moderator
Person
3267 please go ahead.
- Committee Secretary
Person
It. 3267 please. Go ahead. Can you hear me? We got you. You can hear me? Yes. Go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Zero, good. Sorry about that. This is Sharona watch from Placer County, and I'm in opposition of 89. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 3271, please go ahead. Okay, next, we'll go to number 320, please go ahead.4
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. This is on SB 809. This is legal aid at work. All right. Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
And there are no further in queue at this time.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay, coming back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members, comments seeing no. Yes. Senator Wiener moves the Bill. All right. Just one quick question. There was a comment by the chamber with respect to. If the applicant simply denies that the information is correct. That they have to accept that, I think, is what they said, I assume you'll continue to work with them. So that if somebody simply says that information is not correct, they at least have the burden of going forward to show why it's not correct.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
That's right. There are a number of things that we're just hearing and discussing. Some of it the first time.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay. I know this Bill.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
Work on it.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
This Bill has come a long way. The journey is not complete. And if you'll keep us posted, we appreciate it. All right. Thank you very much. Would you like to close?
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Motion by Senator Wiener.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Senators, I'm pleased to present SB 521. Which requires a good cause exemption for Cal Work, sanctions imposed on pregnant parenting. And lactating students. Who are not being adequately accommodated under title nine. The Bill also makes revisions to the Cal learn program to help parenting teens.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Do I understand it correctly? There's no opposition to this Bill?
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
There is none.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
All right.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Okay.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Somebody moved the Bill over there. Senator Allen moved the Bill. Would you care to talk us out of it?
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Absolutely not.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Would you like to close? zero, I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you. I got it. All right. Let's take testimony in support and opposition those who would wish to testify in support of SB 521 okay.
- Sylvia Romo
Person
Hello. Good evening, chair and Committee Members. My name is Sylvia Romo and I am here on behalf of the Women's Foundation of California ... Policy Institute, a proud sponsor of SB 521. The Bill addresses the need to strengthen protections for student parents in the CalWORKS and ... programs when facing penalties that put them at risk of losing funds to pursue their education.
- Sylvia Romo
Person
CalWORKS and calorien, as you know, are key programs in California safety net, and both currently impose sanctions that penalize student parents for not meeting program requirements, which reduces their monthly grants. 521 will protect pregnant parenting and lactating students from sanctions under CalWORKS by providing good cause in the instance when their title ix rights are violated at their academic institutions.
- Sylvia Romo
Person
We've heard from Cal Works student parents across the state that they are often not adequately accommodated under title ix, and this can prevent them from meeting their work hours under Cal Works, leading to sanctions. For example, a nursing student on CalWORKS reported that she was only allowed five minute breaks to pump breast milk. If she did not return within this time, she'd risk being kicked out of her program.
- Sylvia Romo
Person
When her grades suffered because of increased parental duties and the inability to make up work, she ultimately dropped out of the program. Recognizing this, SB 521 acts to provide good cause for Cal Work students that excuse them for program requirements when they face a denial of these accommodations. It also eliminates sanctions for parenting teens in the Cal learn program and extends the circumstances that could exempt them from the program requirements.
- Sylvia Romo
Person
When facing a destabilizing event like homelessness, domestic violence, or unmet behavioral mental health needs, the state must not overlook the student parent population. Data shows that across all Cal Works families, 60,000 children every month are pushed deeper into poverty due to sanctions. At least one in five college students is parenting a child, and 62% of Calwork's parents have a child under six. Two thirds of CalWORKS students in community colleges in the 1819 academic year were single mothers and 70% were Latino or African American.
- Sylvia Romo
Person
So the concerns addressed by SB 521 are an urgent matter of equity and will strengthen the safety net for student parents. I respectfully urge your aye vote in support of SB 521. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much. Others in support primary witnesses in support seeing no one else approaching the microphone. Primary witnesses in opposition seeing no one approaching the microphone. Anyone in the hearing room wish to testify in MeToo form to SB 521 in support or opposition seeing no one approaching the microphone. Let's turn to the phone lines moderator, if you would queue up those on the phone lines who wish to provide their position, their name and their affiliation as to SB 521.
- Committee Secretary
Person
1St, we'll go to line number 3159 please go ahead.
- Nicole Wordelman
Person
Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of the Children's Partnership in support, thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next we'll go to line number 3271 please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
But I'm opposed to this Bill, and I would like to be extended the courtesy to be.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much. Next caller, please.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next we'll go to line number 30. 216, please go ahead.
- Tanna O'Malley
Person
Tanna O'Malley, AFSCME, California in strong support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next we'll go to line number 3297 please go ahead.
- Ayla Saiger
Person
Ayla Saiger, on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next we'll go to line number 29. 31, please go ahead. 2931 please go ahead. Very fast. Next, we'll go to line number 3267 please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Yes, I can hear me.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
We can hear you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Wonderful. Yeah. Please don't disrespect the callers when they call in.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, we are allowed to have. Next caller, please. Next caller.
- Committee Secretary
Person
And there are no further right now.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay, thank you. Just for avoidance of doubt, if anyone's listening in, we no longer accept either proponent, primary proponent, or primary opponent. Testimony via phone. You have to be in, so. All right, bring it back to Committee. Now. Questions? Comments? Senator Wiener moves the Bill Jikit or close?
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, Madam Secretary, if you'd call the roll, please.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Next, SB 627.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee Members, for your patience. I'd like to start by thanking the Committee for all of your work in drafting the clarifying amendments, which I have accepted and quite a bit of back and forth. Appreciate your working with the team. I'm pleased to present SB 627, the displaced worker Transfer Rights Act, which would require large chain employers with 100 stores or more to give 60 days advance notice to workers of the store that is closing.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
It would additionally grant workers displaced by these closures a right to transfer to an available chain store within 25 miles of the closed location. Store closures can have a devastating effect on workers financial security and destabilizing effect on communities they call home. And I just want to say we had this experience with a Walmart in the heart of our community that closed. And for pregnant, older, and black workers, it took us almost nine years to find full time employment for those workers.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
This Bill would help to resolve that. It would additionally grant workers displaced by these closures a right to transfer to an available chain store within 25 miles of the closed location.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
Store closures. I'm sorry. I already said that. I'm sorry about that. These store closures occur disproportionately in low-income communities and communities of color, compounding the economic and social challenges these residents already face. And furthermore, the workers who are faced with job loss and need to collect unemployment or utilize other services to help with financial insecurity, the cost of the store's closure is effectively passed on to the California taxpayer.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
SB 627 will help ensure workers lives aren't completely upended when they lose their job due to store closures, because there will be a safety net and they will safely be able to afford the opportunity to continue working and provide for themselves and their communities. With me to testify is Sara Flocks with the California Labor Federation, the sponsor of this Bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Floor is yours.
- Sara Flocks
Person
Mr. Chair, Members. Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation. This Bill has a proven track record. There are very similar laws like it. One of them is even the federal Paycheck Protection Act, which was designed by the Federal Government to keep workers connected to work to prevent long-term unemployment and ensure that there's a fast economic recovery when there's an economic downturn. This takes the same idea. It takes the same idea as the existing hospitality worker.
- Sara Flocks
Person
Recall rights by saying if there is a closure and a closure for any reason, a nondisciplinary closure, that workers at that store have the right to transfer to a store of the same chain within 25 miles. I think the analysis did a great job of laying out the question.
- Sara Flocks
Person
If a worker is trained in making, I think it was oat milk lattes at a Starbucks and that store closes, it only makes sense for the employer to take that trained worker, hire them at an existing store, save on training costs, save on recruitment, and have someone who's ready to hit the ground running. So we think this is a Bill that makes a lot of sense for workers as well as business and the local economies. Urge your support. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Other primary witnesses in support. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's turn to opposition.
- Ryan Allain
Person
Good evening, Chair and Members. My name is Ryan Allain, and I'm the Director of Government Affairs for the California Retailers Association here to speak in respectful opposition to SB 627 retailers, along with many other industries, have been dealing with the limited workforce in recent years, and trying to hire new workers has been difficult. This Bill, unfortunately, makes that hiring process even more cumbersome by requiring the employer to maintain for a year a preferential list of covered workers based solely on seniority and not skill.
- Ryan Allain
Person
If an employer wants to fill a position at a store within 25 miles of a closed store, they would then have to send a written notice to whoever is the most senior employee for that position within five days, and then wait up to an additional five days for the covered worker to either accept or decline the offer, creating a potential 10 day slowdown for the hiring process and continuing this throughout the entire year of that preferential transfer list.
- Ryan Allain
Person
This Bill does allow for an employer to make simultaneous offers to covered workers, but those are conditional and would need to be rescinded if the initial covered worker accepted it within five days. And our members are not going to want to make offers that have a high chance of being rescinded, and it would waste their time along with the applicant's time.
- Ryan Allain
Person
Additionally, employers would be prohibited from offering employment to applicants that did not have the privilege of employment at the time of the store closure until the preferential list is exhausted. This places those applicants new to the workforce at a significant competitive disadvantage as they try to enter the workforce. Lastly, the 25 miles is fairly arbitrary given in the state that could range on a commute from hour, half hour. It just depends on traffic. It's as the crow flies.
- Ryan Allain
Person
So making some sort of offer to a covered worker that would have to drive over an hour to employment just seems fairly unrealistic. And for all these reasons, CRA respectfully opposes. 627.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Thank you. Oh my goodness. You have drawn the short straw.
- Ashley Hoffman
Person
This is my last one.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
There are some labor reps here that you may want to talk to. All right.
- Ashley Hoffman
Person
I voluntarily took this job. This is my last one. Good evening, Ms. Hoffman. On behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. Respectful opposition. I think it's important to talk about SB 93, which is the hospitality worker Bill that was passed during COVID That was a very, very narrowly tailored Bill that was written to specifically address the closures, the force closures that were happening during COVID-19 and it had a sunset on it. It was brokered deal between the administration and the different parties involved and stakeholders.
- Ashley Hoffman
Person
A prior Bill, AB 30216 that actually was much broader than that, with no sunset, was actually vetoed by the Governor, what we are seeing now is a trend of basically trying to take what was supposed to be a very narrow, circumstantial Bill and trying to greatly expand it, as we are seeing here.
- Ashley Hoffman
Person
Our concern is that, as Mr. Allain said, this is turning into a very overly prescriptive hiring process that is being forced on employers, as well as really eliminating our discretion in who we hire. Under the Bill, we would have to hire the most senior person, regardless of their skill, regardless of if they have some sort of disciplinary record. We would not be allowed to consider that.
- Ashley Hoffman
Person
The way I read the Bill, as well, say a supervisor position opened, we would be forced to take someone from the other store over promoting one of our own, the other store's employees. We also think it's chipping away at at will employment. Indeed, one of the local ordinances regarding the hospitality workers in the COVID-19 era was only upheld under the contracts clause because of how narrowly tailored it was, and we're not sure that this would survive that same scrutiny. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, those in the hearing room that wish to provide me, too, testimony, please approach the microphone.
- Randy Powell
Person
Thank you, sir. Randy Powell on behalf of the International Franchise Association and the California Restaurant Association in opposition.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Anyone else?
- Crystal Acidos
Person
Crystal Kudos on behalf of the California Faculty Association in strong support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, anyone else seeing no one else, let's queue up. Those on the phone wishing to testify in support or in opposition to SB. 627.
- Committee Moderator
Person
First we'll go to line number 3216, please go ahead.
- Janice O'Malley
Person
Hi, Janice O'Malley with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees and strong support.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next we'll go to line number 336, please go ahead.
- Kimberly Rosenberger
Person
Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU and strong support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next we'll go to line number 3940, please go ahead.
- Allie Snyder
Person
Allie Snyder, I opposed.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next we'll go to line number 32. 68, please go ahead.
- Lawrence Gayden
Person
Lawrence Gayden, California Manufacturers and Technology Association in opposition.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next we'll go to line number 3224, please go ahead.
- Jim Vigdor
Person
Jim Vigdor with the Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce in opposition.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next we'll go to line number 3300, please go ahead.
- Lisa Mullins
Person
Lisa Mullins. I oppose.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
And at this time there are no further.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions? Comments? Concerns? Seeing none, Senator Min moves the Bill. So thank you, first of all, thank you. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. We've worked quite a bit on this Bill, both personally and through staff. It does sound like there's still more work to be done. The intent of the Bill is to protect workers. When a store shuts down, there does seem to me to be some process issues that may not necessarily benefit the worker, may just be an additional burden.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
And I'm hopeful that you will continue to work on those as the Bill moves forward and you'll keep us posted along with the other bills that we had mentioned. So, having said that, would you like to close?
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
Sure. Yes. Thank you for all of your help with this in particular, Mr. Chair. And we will continue to work on the Bill. This is a job protector. This is a job continuator. This is about retaining workers and employment, and particularly low wage workers and store closures have a chilling effect on our communities, and it can last for years, particularly when we talk about those hard to employ populations.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
So let's protect those workers, let's keep our communities employed, and let's do all that we can, particularly for those low wage workers, to ensure that they can sustain themselves and their families when a store decides to close its stores. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Thank you very much. Senator Min moves the Bill. Madam Secretary, if you call the roll, this?
- Committee Secretary
Person
Is file item number 34, SB 627, by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. The motion is do pass is amended to Senate Appropriations. [Roll Call]
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
What? Seven to two bills out, 1 second. Are we missing anybody? Okay, I think that's right. Okay. Yeah. Bills out, 7-2.
- Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, next we turn to Committee Members. Senator Caballero, SB 581.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present SB 581. I want to thank the chair and the Committee staff for the work on this issue. I will be accepting the Committee's amendments, and should the Bill move forward, I will continue to work with opposition to address concerns that they have raised. Consumer litigation financing is the practice in which a third party unrelated to a lawsuit provides funds to a plaintiff in return for a portion of any financial recovery resulting from the case.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Litigation financing has become a multibillion dollar global industry and has opened the doors for hedge funds and other financiers to not only profit off the lawsuit of others, but also become hidden parties to court cases in ways that often impact the consumer's rights, potential settlements and the length of the case. Lenders make an average, on average, a 68% profit on loans, while some victims make next to nothing or at times end up with debt.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Lawsuit lending disproportionately hurts vulnerable individuals who are unbanked, underbanked and without a financial safety net. While litigation financing can help consumers acquire immediate financial resources without regulation or transparency, people who are victims of injustice or mistreatment get victimized again.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
If this practice is to be part of our legal system, its use should be transparent. SB 581 would protect Californians from predatory lawsuit lenders while safeguarding borrowers access to an important funding stream. With me today to testify in support is Eric Schuller with the Alliance for Reasonable Consumer Lending.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, sir, the floor is yours. Thank you for being patient.
- Eric Schuller
Person
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Eric Schuller. I'm with the Alliance Responsible Consumer Legal Funding, and we'd like to thank the Senator for bringing this Bill forward. We are very much in support of having regulation put on the industry. We'd like to continue to work with her to perfect this Bill to make sure it's alignment with other states that we have going forward with this.
- Eric Schuller
Person
This is a very important piece of legislation, an important product, because it helped consumers out when they are at short ends in meeting their financial needs. So we just like to thank the Senator for this and continuing working with her and making this a perfect Bill for the rest of the citizens of California.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you. Thank you. Others wish to testify and support primary witnesses. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's now turn to the opposition. Opposition go ahead.
- Jack Kelly
Person
Mr. Chairman. Thank you. My name is Jack Kelly. I'm with the American Legal Finance Association. First of all, I want to commend Senator Caballero. This is a good piece of legislation. We have worked actively in about 10 states around the United States to support this legislation.
- Jack Kelly
Person
Her staff and herself have worked with us to adopt several amendments that have addressed some concerns. We unfortunately, at this point, have to rise in opposition and Reserve our opposition. There are two technical amendments that are being resolved that our staff and the Senator are working on to be done. We will, immediately upon the adoption of those technicals, become in support of the legislation and agree with the Committee that we will work actively to adopt this legislation, transparent transparency is critical in this.
- Jack Kelly
Person
Licensure and registration of these products are critical. We need to get rid of bad apples in this business, and we support that. And with that, I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since you wear that set of wings and it puts your feet and knees in the breeze, I appreciate. It's always nice to see a fellow member. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you, ma'am. The floor is yours. Okay.
- Shannon Dylan
Person
Is there a oh, I just talked into it. Okay.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Yes there you go.
- Shannon Dylan
Person
Hi. My name is Shannon Dylan. I'm here on behalf of the National Federation of the Blind and National Federation of the Blind of California. We would like to ask for a carve out for profits that. Not for profits like ours that help fund. That help to fund legal aid for enforcing civil rights claims. We fund legal services for blind people who have a hard time finding an attorney for a couple of reasons.
- Shannon Dylan
Person
One is it's hard to find attorneys that understand the circumstances that a lot of blind people deal with. For example, a blind person facing employment discrimination because their employer is afraid of them being near sharp knives or hot stoves, or working in a warehouse with robots, or in a medical situation. We understand these situations. We can provide experts, expert, as well as funding to help them with this process. We also provide legal services and funding for people, for plaintiffs in cases where there's unsettled law.
- Shannon Dylan
Person
So it's not easy to find an attorney because it's not very clear cut law. For example, blind people being discriminated against by Uber because Uber doesn't want to take guide dogs. So it's not an easy discrimination case where someone's just saying, get out. We don't like you because you're blind. It's a little more complicated than that. The business is refusing them because they don't like the mobility device the blind person is using. Finally, we're providing legal services for cases that often don't have large financial compensation.
- Shannon Dylan
Person
We may only get a couple of thousand or a few $1000 for the case if it's successful. Splitting up a few $1000 doesn't make sense because attorneys aren't compensated for the value of their services, even if the costs aren't being divided between the attorney and the plaintiff. We take cases based on the principles, not based on the amount. We're going to be compensated if we're successful. Sorry.
- Shannon Dylan
Person
Limiting third-party fundraisers from accepting more than 36%, ma'am, if you could wrap it up, would be problematic in injunctive relief cases because the fees are often overshadowed by any nominal fees, statutory fees. So we would just thank you respectfully.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
And you've been very patient. I know you've been here quite a while. I'm grateful for your patience and your participation. So thank you.
- Shannon Dylan
Person
Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, let's now go to me too testimony on SB 581. So those of you wish to testify in support or opposition, if you would approach the microphone and give us your position, your name and your affiliation.
- Mark Segman
Person
Mark Segman with American Property Cash Flow Insurance Association, in support of the Bill. Thank you.
- Priscilla Quiroz
Person
Priscilla Quiroz on behalf of Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management in support.
- Ryan Land
Person
Thank you. Ryan Land on behalf of the retailers in support. Thank you. Thank you.
- Jamie Huff
Person
Jamie Huff, on behalf of CJAC in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Allison Adey
Person
Allison Adey, on behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation of California in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Thank you so much. All right. Anyone else seeing? No one else approaching the microphone. Oh, I'm sorry. One more. Go ahead.
- Christina Robinson
Person
Sorry. Try to get around. I'm Christina Robinson with Community Healers and in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, let's turn to the phone lines. SB 581. Moderator, please.
- Committee Moderator
Person
First, we'll go to line number 3267 please go ahead. 3267 please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, Chair. Chair Members.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
We can hear you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Oh, good. I'm in support of this Bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much. Got a great point.
- Committee Moderator
Person
All right, thank you. Thank you. Next we'll go to line number 3288 please go ahead.
- Tim Unknown
Person
Hi, this is Tim. I'm a blind plaintiff and someone who has benefited from third party funding of my civil rights claim, and I'm opposed to the Bill unless it carves out nonprofit civil rights organizations.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you. And at this time, there are no further. All right, bring it back to Committee. Questions by Senator Ashby.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
Actually, I don't have a question. I think it's a good Bill and wanted to make the motion at the appropriate time.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
It's appropriate time. All right, thank you. All right, Senator Allen.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Well, I appreciate which turned to the Bill. I do appreciate some of the comments made by the National Federation of the Blind and some others. And you and I were having a little bit of a sidebar about exempting nonprofit charity organizations, and it seems like you're pretty amenable to doing that because they don't seem to be the folks that you're going after with this Bill. Correct. Love you to clarify.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Yes. What we've tried to do is to narrow the Bill down. You learn a lot when you do one of these. You walk into this kind of a legislation. And so we've narrowed it to the situations where the plaintiff needs some kind of support, financial support, in order to get them through the litigation process, and have exempted the business to business kinds of transactions that help attorneys pay for the litigation costs of doing these kinds of cases. Experts, as you will.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
And I'm happy to consider the request from the Association that was present here, that's nonprofit, and there may be others, but I look forward to having a sit down conversation. This is what's come up recently, and I'm more than happy to discuss it with them.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Yeah.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
It seems to me the whole idea is we're trying to avoid predatory lending.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Right, totally and it seems to me, from just reading the analysis, very substantial analysis, that those kinds of organizations are not what you're correct trying to go after. And so it would be good to give them some space. Good. Okay. Thank you so much. With that, I'm happy to support the Bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Other questions, comments?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
And, Senator Caballero, this Bill has come a long way from how it was introduced, and I know that you're a person of honor, and I see some of the other folks who are supportive of the nonprofits, and I know you'll continue to work with them to make sure that this achieves equitable result. So having said that, Madam Secretary, it's been moved by Senator Ashby, if. Go ahead and call the roll. Oh, you want to close?
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
I'll adopt your statement as my closing.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, well, that's a good lesson for everybody here. If they'll just adopt my statement as their close. All right, thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item number 38, SB 581, by Senator Caballero. The motion is do pass as amended, to Senate Appropriations. [Roll Call].
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
SB 785.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Chair and Members, I would like to thank the chair and the Committee staff for the work on this Bill SB 785, and I will be accepting the Committee's amendment to fairly set requirements across platforms on both original and resell marketplace. SB 8785 is a consumer protection Bill which empowers athletic sports teams and artists, which empowers them and addresses real issues affecting live event ticketing.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
The Bill expressly protects the ability of artists and sports teams to set terms and conditions on the sale of their tickets, including the ability to use technology to control scalping and price gouging. Speculative ticking is the practice of a seller listing tickets for sale for tickets that they do not yet possess, or listing tickets that have not yet been offered for sale by the artists, teams or venues themselves. I have an example of a situation, but I'm going to make it briefer than that.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Consumers are brazenly misled by speculative ticketing and hidden fees too often, consumers go on platforms and find tickets they think are within their budgets, only to find out at the checkout page that fees must still be added to the order. SB 785 will end the bidding game and force all platforms to list prices upfront. In other words, the first price a consumer sees will be the final price they pay. This Bill would also end speculative ticketing and require sellers to specify the seat being offered.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Furthermore, in an effort to effectively ban the practice of scalping and the use of bots, this Bill establishes serious penalties for the use of deceptive URLs that lure customers into buying tickets at inflated prices and for employing bots that allow professional scalpers to hoard tickets and engage in large scale scalping, depriving consumers of access to face value tickets.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
The real issue here is that these practices have taken away the right of artists and sports teams to control who can come to their events by raising the prices so high that it's very difficult to get tickets. And this would eliminate that opportunity and provide an opportunity for people to get tickets at a much more reasonable price and to be able to get them without having to pay high fees.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
And so with me to testify in support is David Marcus from the Global Music, and I had another great witness, but he had to get back.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
We'll stipulate that the witness was great.
- David Marcus
Person
I hope to be as great. Right, Chairman Umberg, Members of the Committee, thank you for allowing me to testify today. My name is David Marcus and I serve as the Executive Vice President of Global Music for Ticketmaster, a live nation entertainment company. I'm here today to testify in support of Senate Bill 785, a common sense ticketing reform Bill that will clean up much of the nefarious activity we see in the live entertainment ecosystem.
- David Marcus
Person
This Bill is critical to protect fans from predatory resale pricing and to protect the rights of artists, teams, and other entertainers who devote their lives to providing fans with memorable experiences. I'll focus my testimony on three main components of the Bill today. First, Live Nation Entertainment supports the basic principle that the first price a consumer sees should be the final price they pay, the all in price. That includes all fees.
- David Marcus
Person
For many years, we've advocated for the industry to turn to an all in pricing model, and we are pleased to see Senator Caballero include transparent pricing language in the Bill. Live Nation also fully supports a ban on the practice of speculative ticketing as outlined in SB 785. Speculative ticketing is a plainly deceptive practice where resellers post for sale tickets they neither possess nor have a right to obtain.
- David Marcus
Person
The phantom tickets are often posted before a single ticket has ever been made available by the artist to the public. It's a particularly egregious form of ticket scalping, and there's no good reason to allow the practice in the ticketing marketplace. We believe resellers should operate under the simple premise that 1 may only post tickets for sale that they possess or that they have a contractual right to obtain, period.
- David Marcus
Person
Finally, we support the language in this Bill that protects the rights of artists to manage how their tickets are sold, resold, or transferred. We have a serious problem in this country with industrial scale ticket scalping, frustrating efforts by artists and sports teams to keep ticket prices reasonable and to have the proceeds from their ticket sales benefit the artists and the teams instead of profit seeking middlemen. There are technologies that artists can use to address these problems.
- David Marcus
Person
For example, fan to fan resale exchanges face value resale exchanges where tickets can only be resold for the original purchase price. But ticket scalpers and their favorite resale sites are making a concerted effort throughout the United States to prevent artists from managing resale. SB 785 correctly recognizes that fans pay lower prices when entertainers manage the distribution and pricing of their tickets, not resellers or resale sites. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer questions.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Alrighty, thank you very much. All right, others in support seeing no one else approach the microphone. Opposition primary in opposition. Sir, are you in opposition? All right, there you go.
- Brian Hess
Person
My name is Brian Hess. I'm the Executive Director of Sports Fans Coalition, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. SFC is a national nonprofit advocacy group devoted to representing fans wherever public policy impacts the games we love. We've worked in the states and at the federal level to pass equal pay for women, Olympians, youth athlete health safety reforms, sports betting, consumer protections, and many more.
- Brian Hess
Person
SB 785 will negatively impact the fan experience, and while some of the amendments move the Bill in the right direction, we still must oppose. While SB 785 is well intentioned, the Bill will codify the ability of event presenters to unilaterally set terms and conditions that exert total control over the consumer's rights once the ticket is obtained, included after purchase. Unfortunately, consumers have no bargaining power or ability to influence those terms, which are often unfair and used to limit consumer choice and stifle competition.
- Brian Hess
Person
Sadly, we've seen many examples of consumers being used as pawns by event presenters and original ticket sellers in their effort to ingrain existing monopolies and exercise control of tickets that have already been purchased. In 2019, media reported that hundreds of customers that purchased legitimate tickets for the event at the Wiltern Theater in LA were denied admission to the event solely because they had purchased tickets on the secondary market. Imagine that happening on the scale of a king's game.
- Brian Hess
Person
Unfortunately, this provision will fortify the ability of event presenters to act in this manner. We have not seen anything addressing this concern in the proposed amendments and continues to be a significant issue. Perhaps what's most telling with respect to SB 785 is what's missing from it, and that includes many of the provisions from our ticket buyer. Bill of Rights. We are pleased to hear the author express support for key provisions in the Bill of Rights in last week's hearing, including her support for ticket transferability.
- Brian Hess
Person
However, the proposed amendments do not yet reflect this. We look forward to continuing to work with the author on this key provision. The Bill of Rights were developed by Sports Fans Coalition, National Consumers League, the Consumer Federation of America, Fan Freedom, Public Knowledge, consumer action, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates in the wake of numerous consumer complaints about the industry.
- Brian Hess
Person
These rights include the right to transferability, the right to transparency, the right to set the price, the right to a fair marketplace, and the right to recourse. We may hear from sponsors of the Bill that this Bill and resale markets only increase.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you, sir. If you wrap up. Thanks. All right, others who are opposed
- Ignacio Hernandez
Person
Good evening, Mr. Chair Members Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California, we are opposed to the Bill. Not been able to take a look at the amendments.
- Ignacio Hernandez
Person
I haven't seen a draft yet, but my comments are directed at the Bill as is, and we will look at the amendments to see if it addresses our concerns for the Consumer Federation of California in particular, we're concerned that as the Bill is drafted, there are certain requirements that are placed on resellers, which is fine, and think there's some merit to some of the things in the Bill does not go far enough, as was mentioned by the prior witness.
- Ignacio Hernandez
Person
But we're really concerned because of the gap and the lack of protections when consumers purchase from the original sellers. And as you know, most people don't resell their tickets. So it is vitally important, especially when we have a virtual monopoly in place, to have those protections in place. One example which was mentioned in the analysis is that the requirement that when you purchase a ticket, you are told exactly where that seat is.
- Ignacio Hernandez
Person
Not an area, not a territory, not a zone, but the exact section, aisle, row, seat, you need to know exactly which ticket you're purchasing. The way the Bill is drafted, the way it's in print, it would only impose that requirement on reseller and not on the original seller. So that is one example where there is a gap.
- Ignacio Hernandez
Person
So we will look at those amendments very closely to ensure that in all situations, the original seller will have to provide that information, as well as a number of other requirements that are in the Bill on resellers but not on the original sellers. So those are the things that we will look at. If those are not addressed, we will maintain our opposition. We will continue to have communications with the author and proponents to the extent necessary, but those are things that we would like addressed. That's just one of many examples of the Bill. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, let's do me, too testimony. Those who are in support or in opposition to SB 785, please approach the microphone. Good evening. Chair and Members Roman Vogelsang with Aprea and McKaylee, on behalf of AEG and their ticketing division, access tickets, in support. Thank you. Thank you.
- John Latimer
Person
Mr. Chairman and Members John Latimer, on behalf of the Anaheim Ducks Hockey Club and Honda Center, in support.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I've been asked by the National Consumers League, the Consumer Federation of America, to oppose the Bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Sean Auyash
Person
Hello, my name is Sean Auyash. On behalf of Stubhub. I appreciate the author's amendments, and we are still opposed unless further amended.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you. All right, seeing no one else approaches the microphone, let's turn to the phone lines. Moderator, please queue up those who are still awake opposed to 785 or supportive of 785? And, oh, by the way, for those of you who have called in on most every Bill, there's no points awarded for frequent callers. First, we'll go to the line of 3252 please go ahead.
- Alex Torres
Person
Mr. Chair and Members Alex Torres, on behalf of. The Bay Area Council, in support. Thank you.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Next, we'll go to the line of 3253, please go ahead.
- Margrete Snyder
Person
Hi, this is Meg Snyder, Axiom Advisors on behalf of the National Football League, in support.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Your next comes from line number 3001. Please go ahead.
- Courtney Jensen
Person
Mr. Chair and Members, Courtney Jensen, on behalf of Seat Geek and Tickets. Opposed unless amended.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Next, we'll go to line number 33. Nine, please go ahead.
- Timothy Lynch
Person
Good evening. Tim Lynch from Platinum Advisors and at the risk of the Sacramento vote, the Golden State Warriors support.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
There you go again.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you. Disregard. We'll go to line number 3267, please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I just want to say that I feel very flattered.
- Committee Moderator
Person
Thank you, Chair. All right, next caller, please. Next we'll go to line number 30. 311, please go ahead.
- Kiss Rylander
Person
Kiss Rylander. On behalf of Vivid Seats. We are opposed unless amende and thank the author for her continued work.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Thank you. And at this time, there are no further. All right, bring it back to Committee. Yes. Senator Allen? Senator Min. Who else? Senator Ashby.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay. I wanted to just follow up on some of the concerns made by the folks from the consumer federation. Specific this whole question of the specificity of seats. I saw you nod your head, but I want to know what that meant and get a sense of where your conversations are with them right now.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
So let me just say that I've had an opportunity to review the ticket Bill of rights, and almost every single statement in that Bill of rights is included in the Bill, or we agreed to work on it. I believe the last issue remaining is the transferability, which means if you, as a fan, buy a ticket and in the end you can't go, can you give it to someone else or sell it to someone else?
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
It's a matter of language, because we've been trying to prohibit the resell of tickets over and over again. So it discourages bots and other technology that can buy up a whole bank of tickets and then put them on a website to resell. In regards to the requirement to include the original sellers, not just the ticket resellers, as part of the transparency measures in the Bill. That's already been amended into the Bill. We took that already. It's part of the amendments in terms.
- Roger Niello
Legislator
Of the specific location of a seat.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
No, the seats are another issue.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Quite frankly, what we've tried to do, what has happened in the past, is that the singer or the act would announce that they were giving a show and immediately tickets would go on sale.The tickets hadn't even been released by the promoters or whoever it is that's going to be putting on the show, the performance. You would go onto a URL site thinking you were buying a ticket from the person or the company that had the ability to sell it to you, but you weren't.
- Roger Niello
Legislator
Okay.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
And you weren't told where you were going to sit or your seat number. And that was a clear indication that they were selling something they had no control over.
- Roger Niello
Legislator
Right.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
And so what we put in the Bill is that you had to have enough information about the seat and where people were buying the ticket so that people were sure that they were actually getting a ticket from a valid ticket, rather than being either scammed.
- Roger Niello
Legislator
But the gentleman from the Consumer Federation was suggesting that you've now made it so that the original seller doesn't have to tell the purchaser.
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
The consumer don't believe that. So, but if that's the situation, we'll change it, because our intent is that when you purchase a ticket, I think.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
That amendment has been included, Senator Caballero.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
I believe it has.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Right. Okay. Senator Allen, didn't mean to cut you off, but I just. No, it's great. I'm happy to hear it. Okay. Senator Min. I'm sorry. Further questions. Senator Allen? Senator Min?
- Dave Min
Person
I just want to thank you for taking the amendments. When I first read the Bill and the analysis, I was concerned. The analysis pointed out that this was very skewed towards the original ticket sellers. But I think we're all frustrated. I think many of my constituents, people I know personally frustrated by all the hidden fees, the lack of transparency, so applaud the goals of this Bill. And I think with the amendments, it seems much fairer to me. So I'll be boating eye on this.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Thank you very much. And know that I'm going to continue to work with the opposition to try to work it out.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, Senator Ashby, did you have a question? Are you moving the Bill? Senator Ashby moves the Bill. All right, Senator, Caballero, you care to close?
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Respectfully ask for an aye vote and thank you for the conversation.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay, thank you. All right. Senator Ashby is moved. SB 785.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item number 33, SB 785, by Senator Caballero. The motion is do pass, is amended to Senate appropriations. [Roll Call] 8-0. Everyone's here? Yes, everyone's here.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, 8-0. The Bill is out. All right. It's Laird. Laird. Laird.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My first Bill is SB 544 on the Bagley Keen act. And I'm sorry it is not as brief as Senator Ashby would like the presentation to be right now. But let me just say first, I will accept the Committee amendments, thank the chair and Committee staff for working with my office.
- John Laird
Legislator
The Committee amendments I'm taking address several of the concerns raised by the opposition, specifically announcing if another individual is in the room, ensuring public comment can be submitted at any time during a hearing, and ensuring that a meeting adjourns if there's a disruption to the remote proceeding that prevents the public from observing or participating. There are still several issues outstanding. I look forward to working with the opposition and stakeholders as this moves forward. The Bill would not decrease transparency.
- John Laird
Legislator
Just to clarify, also, there's no physical quorum requirement in the Bangley Keen act. We're not adding or changing that. Nothing in this Bill requires a board or Commission to go fully. Remote boards still retain the discretion to hold meetings in person or hybrid if they choose to.
- John Laird
Legislator
This Bill codifies the governor's Executive order to provide state boards and committees with flexibility to participate remotely without jeopardizing their personal safety, removes the requirement to list private addresses of each remote Member, and provides access in ways that allow people with disabilities and others to participate. I'm going to just shorten the statement there. It's clear one witness had to leave. Ethan Rorich from the Little Hoover Commission is here for technical assistance. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, others in support? Anyone else in support? We assume you're in support. Absolutely. All right, anyone who wish to approach? Microphone in support? All right, let's take opposition. Now. Those opposed? The.
- Brittney Barsotti
Person
Good evening, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Brittney Barsotti with the California News Publishers Association, I serve as our general counsel. To keep it brief at this point, we really appreciate the author's willingness to take the amendments that the Committee suggested. Our one outstanding issue is that we would like to have a physical quorum that the public can address. But we look forward to continuing to work with the author's office and have a great night.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Thank you.
- Scott Kaufman
Person
Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association. Opposed unless amended for the reasons stated, you know transparency is a taxpayer issue. I mean, these boards have power over budgets, recommendation powers; taxpayer money is being spent. We think it's important that there's a quorum requirement.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Thank you. Thank you.
- Scott Kaufman
Person
And I guess I should say, to save you some trouble, and we have the me too's from CMPA, the California Broadcasters Association, the first Amendment Coalition, Californians aware, and the ACLU California Action.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Thank you. All right. Those wishing to testify in me too fashion. Good example. Please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's now turn to the phone lines. SB 544. Moderator, please queue up those in support and in opposition.
- Committee Secretary
Person
First, we'll go to line number 2869. Please go ahead.
- Isabella Argueta
Person
Good evening. Isabella Argueta with the Health Officers Association of California in support.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 3270. Please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Speak to me on behalf of ACLU California action in opposition. Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 3315. Please go ahead.
- Leza Coleman
Person
Good evening. This is Leza Coleman with the California Commission on Aging. We're proud to be the sponsor of this bill and ask for your support.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 3267. Please go ahead.
- Sharina Latch
Person
Hi, it's me again. Sharina Latch from Foster County.
- Committee Secretary
Person
All right, thank you.
- Sharina Latch
Person
I would be in support of this bill if it
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Next caller.
- John Laird
Legislator
Did she say she was in support?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Yes. Okay.
- Committee Secretary
Person
At this time, there are no further.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, next caller.
- Committee Secretary
Person
One moment, please. Next, we'll go to line number 3316, please go ahead.
- Ruth Johnson
Person
Hi there. This is Ruth Johnson with ACLU California Action. I hear my colleague already called in our respectful opposition unless amended. I also want to align that position with the California Broadcasters Association, the First Amendment Coalition California is aware. Thank you very much.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
And at this time, there are no further.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay, bring it back to Committee questions by Committee Members. Senator Caballero.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Senator Laird, I appreciate what you're trying to do with this bill. I'm going to lay off today. I have been seeing bills in governance and finance having to do with the Brown act, which is different than Bagley King, but kind of similar. It involves how we conduct hearings in a democracy.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
I feel really strongly about the Brown Act because I served in local government, as did you, and there's something about showing up when people are angry and they really want to be heard, and something about the dynamics about being present to craft a solution that people can at least understand and be happy with.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
And I've resisted any attempts to try to eliminate meetings, the physical location meetings, and limiting the ability of elected officials to dodge showing up and facing people in their community and doing everything by Zoom. And so I want to be able to talk through some of the things that I've done in terms of setting up an opportunity for people who really do have an emergency and just can't make the meetings.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
I don't want the meetings to be used as an opportunity to avoid participating actively in what I think is a really important democratic process. So I'm not saying you're doing that here, but I just want to make sure that we can have a conversation and align some of this. Didn't have a chance to do that.
- John Laird
Legislator
If it's okay, Mr. Chair, I'm happy to continue the conversation. The focus here is on state boards and commissions. It's dropped the cost by 90%. It's increased participation, and the reason the stakeholders from the senior community are endorsing this is because it's particularly hard for people sometimes in that age group to travel long distances to state meetings. And the idea, whether we have to clarify it or not, but I think it's clear that there is a physical place for the meeting.
- John Laird
Legislator
There will be people present, but it allows remote participation. And the one remaining issue, we removed all the issues I believe that the opposition was concerned about, except for the physical quorum, and the physical quorum does not exist in state law now. And that's sort of like get your own bill territory. We are trying to clarify the governor's executive order for state boards and commissions.
- John Laird
Legislator
And in general, it has worked, provides safety, too, for the personal addresses of people, not have to be listed all over the universe.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Got it.
- John Laird
Legislator
But having said that, we'll continue to work on anything you have as an outstanding issue.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Sounds good.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, other questions? Comments? I have a couple comments, and I know this was late breaking, Senator Laird, that I didn't bring this to your attention until a little later in the process. I have concerns about, for example, parole boards meeting remotely, California Coastal Commission meeting completely remotely. I wouldn't want to deprive individuals of the fun of being at the California Coastal Commission, where the commissioners are actually present.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
And so I know you're going to continue to work on this to make sure that we do hit the sweet spot. Whether all the commissioners need to be present, maybe not. Once upon a time, there was a Small Pet Bird Advisory Commission in California. Not sure that jeopardized the public of some essential transparency if they meet remotely. But I do think that, for example, the PUC, that there needs to be at least some critical mass.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
So I know that you've committed to me to continue to work on this, but any commission where there's a significant impact, and good luck defining this on someone's liberty or on a significant property interest, there needs to at least be some board member or members present. Right now, it provides for one staff member to basically kick off the meeting at a physical location versus a board member. Anyway, those are some of my thoughts, and I know you've agreed to appreciate it.
- John Laird
Legislator
We'll continue to work.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay.
- John Laird
Legislator
I'll also say that as secretary of resources, I was a member of the California Mexico Border Commission and was so happy not to take a day and a half out to travel down there to meet every single time because of the remote access. I might not have participated otherwise. But having said that, we'll work with everybody to try to make this workable to the extent it's not.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. And I see. Senator Wiener.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
Yeah. I just want to also express, and I said this in governance and finance, and we had a bill the other day. I have deeply serious concerns about remote public meetings and public officials not being physically present. I think it's good to have some flexibility. And to me, it's very case by case, depending on the body and so forth. And there are things that come up.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
But I am very concerned with any kind of push to normalize remote meetings by public bodies that are making incredibly important decisions. It is not the same quality of decision making, in my view. And so I'm going to vote for this today, but I'm going to definitely watch to see how it proceeds.
- John Laird
Legislator
And I think it's one of the reasons there's a distinction between elected bodies and appointed bodies.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
Yeah. Appointed bodies have a lot of power.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Yes. All right, there's been a motion by Senator Min. Would you like to close?
- John Laird
Legislator
Thanks for the robust discussion. Thanks for the witness for staying to the end of the night. I respectfully ask for an iPhone.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Alrighty. Thank you, ma'am. Secretary, if you call the room.
- Committee Secretary
Person
This is file item 41, SB 544 by Senator Laird. The motion is do passes amended to Senate appropriations. Umberg?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Aye.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Not voting.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Durazo, aye. Laird?
- María Elena Durazo
Legislator
Aye.
- John Laird
Legislator
Aye.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Umberg, aye. Wilk?
- Scott Wilk
Person
Aye.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Aye.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Ashby, aye. Caballero?
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
Aye.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Durazo?
- Committee Secretary
Person
Allen, aye. Ashby?
- Committee Secretary
Person
Wilk, aye. Allen?
- Committee Secretary
Person
Laird, aye. Min?
- Dave Min
Person
Aye.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Min, aye. Niello? Stern? Wiener?
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
Aye.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Wiener, aye.
- Roger Niello
Legislator
Niello, aye.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Niello, aye. 9-0.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
9-0, bill's out.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, SB 560 is that next highlight on 42.
- John Laird
Legislator
And last year, Senator Waikowski authored a Bill that absolutely banned the sale of small, single use propane cylinders starting in 2028. The Governor vetoed it. In his veto message, he said he would support extended producer responsibility. That's what this Bill is. If any of you have a district that has a beach, lots of these left on the beach.
- John Laird
Legislator
I did a public service announcement as resources secretary asking people to safely dispose of them and recycle them, and there was an animated discussion in Senator Allen's Committee on this. And the real desire is that there be a stakeholder process. We are in those discussions. We are starting with industry and sort of the environmental side and expanding wider, and we hope to have a solution that the different parties buy off on. And I think the nature of the discussion is this Bill forces that solution.
- John Laird
Legislator
And even though somebody wanted to delay it, I think that delays the solution. So that's the goal. I would respectfully ask for an aye vote. I have no major witness here.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Witnesses in support. If you'd approach the microphone.
- Priscilla Quiroz
Person
Priscilla Quiroz here. On behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council, Solid Waste Association of North America, Legislative Task Force, Stop Waste and Western Placer Waste Management Authority. We're in support of concept of the Bill and appreciate Senator Laird and his office's work on this. We hope to continue the discussions and have a California model EPR program that this Bill and this body has passed before. So appreciate those discussions.
- Priscilla Quiroz
Person
And what we're really trying to do is get the costs that are currently buried by the local governments and ensuring that they no longer have to deal with that cost that is currently having to dealing with these cylinders. So thank you so much, and we'll continue working.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. All right. Others in opposition.
- Josh Simpson
Person
In support. I'm Josh Simpson with Little Kamper propane, a Member of the Western Propane Gas Association and the National Propane Gas Association. Appreciate the opportunity to see this Committee this evening. We are absolutely in support of this solution. It is long overdue to find a way to make it possible for people to use the fuel that they use for outdoor recreation without leaving the consequence in our parks and campgrounds. This is not a difficult thing to do. It's complicated. But we're sure that Senator Laird will get us across the finish line. We are strongly supporting this Bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Anyone else in support? Opposition.
- Michael Robson
Person
So I'm not in opposition, either. I'm not in support. I'm Mike Robson. I'm here on behalf of Worthington Industries. And I think Senator Umberg and Senator Durazo and whoever else was on this Committee last year could remember that. I was here opposing the Bill that Senator Laird referenced from last year. Opposing it, saying it ought to be an EPR Bill. And so we have an EPR Bill. We have an EPR author.
- Michael Robson
Person
We support an EPR solution for gas cylinders and the end of life of gas cylinders. The question really is what goes into the we want this product, this solution at the end, how we get there, the details, that all matters. And so I can't support the Bill. I can't oppose the Bill. We've had a stakeholder meeting. Thank you. And we're going to continue. So we'll report back and look forward to working with Senator Laird, his staff, and everybody else, and keep you in the loop.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you very much. All right, anyone else who wish to testify in support, opposition or neither? Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's turn to the phone lines. Okay. Moderator, SB 560. If you'd open the phone lines first.
- Committee Secretary
Person
We'Ll go to line number 32. 37, please. Go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Members McBrell, on behalf of the League of California Cities, supportive in concept. Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 32. 22, please go ahead.
- Gracyna Mohabir
Person
Good Evening. Gracyna Mohabir with Californians Against Waste. We support in concept. Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Thank you. And at this time, there are no further.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, bring it back to Committee. Questions. Seeing no questions, just bills removed by Senator Minnigan. Thank you. Just a question. And because I'm chair of the Judiciary Committee, I have to say, and I trust at least once every session. So the concerns are that we make sure that this Bill provides for the connectivity in order to facilitate the EPR process, but not such connectivity is that we actually create a situation where there can be collusion in other areas.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
And I know you're going to work hard to make sure that we hit that sweet spot.
- John Laird
Legislator
I'm intrinsically anti collusion.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right. Okay, good. I think we are collectively anti collusive, so. All right. Thank you, Senator Laird, for that commitment. We'll continue to follow this to make sure that it is in a place where we want it to be productive, but not collusive. Okay.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thanks for the discussion, and everybody wanted to work on it. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay, great. Thank you. Move by Senator Min. Madam Secretary, if you'd call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, Senator Laird, SB 7610. Yeah, I got to say 10 to zero. The bill's out. Thank you.
- John Laird
Legislator
Thank you very much. On 761. I wish I could be as brief, but I'm going to try to get through it. I want to thank the Committee staff for working for my office on this. This Bill would provide the California Department of Justice with the tools to efficiently and transparently investigate civil rights violations. My staff has worked with the chair and the Committee to address concerns. I'm actually very grateful for that work.
- John Laird
Legislator
And I have proposed amendments I'll be submitting, pending the Committee's approval of this Bill, that narrow and clarify the attorney general's role while conducting civil rights investigations, including removing the notwithstanding privileges, clarifying that the AG can only take possession of documents with consent or via subpoena, and clarifying that the AG cannot publish personally identifying information. I just want to go through this quickly. They do civil rights investigations on violations. They encounter frequent delays. Those delays don't help get justice.
- John Laird
Legislator
Confidentiality laws limit the attorney general's ability to communicate with the public regarding this, and this law would streamline it. My office has been informed with these amendments, the California District Attorneys Association will be dropping their opposition, and I don't know who's still here. You're both here. Okay. Tiffany Matthews from the Attorney General's Office and Michael Newman, senior assistant Attorney General. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. Witnesses in support.
- Tiffany Matthews
Person
Hi, Tiffany Matthews here on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is proud to support SB 761, and thanks the Senator for carrying this important piece of legislation. The Attorney General enforces the civil rights on behalf of the people of California, and SB 761 advances this civil rights work by setting up a more efficient process to pursue these investigations and reach resolutions in a more timely manner.
- Tiffany Matthews
Person
I have here with me today Michael Newman, who is head of our civil rights enforcement section and who has been handling these investigations for 17 years. He's here to answer any technical questions that you may have. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, anybody else who wish to testify in opposition, support or opposition? Any me too folks that want to approach the microphone, testify as a me too witness seeing none on the phone lines. Those who wish to testify in support or opposition to SB seven? 61. Moderator, please queue them up.
- Committee Secretary
Person
If you are in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. And at this time, no one is queuing up.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by the Committee. Seeing no questions, no comments. Is there a motion? Senator Caballero moves the Bill. Thank you, Senator Laird. This Bill has come a very long way. That whole fourth amendment thing was very sticky. Initially, it was the most amazing Bill that the DA's Association actually opposed, the greatest expansion I'd ever seen of prosecutorial powers. But we have now limited it dramatically so that it's in line with things like the Fourth Amendment. Any event. So with that, there's been a motion by Senator Caballero.
- John Laird
Legislator
In closing, I would say my thanks to the chair were sincere. I respectfully ask for an aye vote .
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, great. Thank you very much. Okay. Madam Secretary, this is file item 43, SB 761, by Senator Laird. The motion is do pass, is amended to Senate appropriations. .
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Senator Wilk, SB 761 by. Senator Laird, do you care to vote? Sure.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
I know I'm. Senator. Yeah. Senator Laird is now weeping in the corner. All right, eight to two. That Bill is out. All right, next. Senator Wiener, SB 407. Where'd Senator Wiener go? There. Senator Wiener.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
Okay. Finally got to the w's. Yeah. The Mormons. Story of our life, right, Mr. ...? It's true. Mr. Chair, colleagues, thank you for allowing me to present Senate Bill 407. I want to thank the chair and Committee for working with us, and we're happy to accept the amendments outlined in the Committee analysis. SB 407 will strengthen protections for some of our most vulnerable youth by ensuring specifically LGBTQ foster youth, by ensuring that they are not placed in hostile homes.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
SB 407 strengthens the resource family approval process for LGBTQ foster youth by requiring explicit consideration of LGBTQ youth and environmental assessments, creating standard documentation by the Department of Social Services for these assessments to include LGBTQ youth needs. Reviewing county approved resource families to evaluate if they are meeting the needs of LGBTQ youth and ensuring that resource families have the necessary skills, knowledge and abilities to support these youth. According to the California Child Welfare Indicators Project, there are about 53,000 youth in foster care in California.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
About 30% of those youth foster youth identify as LGBTQ youth, nearly one in three. According to the Trevor project, teens who perceived parental support regarding gender identity were 93% less likely to attempt suicide than youth who did not perceive parents as supportive.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
In 2019, we passed a foster Youth Bill of rights that included certain protections for LGBTQ youth, but in practice, it's not translated into enough support in these families, and we need to make sure, affirmatively, that these families are going to be supportive and not hostile to these children. So this is a long overdue reform, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
With me today to testify are Craig Pulsipher, the Legislative Director of Equality California, and Tyler Rinda, the Deputy Director of Child Welfare Policy at the Alliance of Child and Family Services.
- Craig Pulsipher
Person
Good evening, Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California, proud co sponsor of SB 407 chair Members I think we can all agree that no child should ever be placed in a home where they might reasonably be expected to experience discrimination or harassment, but it continues to happen to some of the most vulnerable youth in the foster care system.
- Craig Pulsipher
Person
Over the past decade, Equality California has sponsored numerous bills to make sure that resource families have the training and support they need to support LGBTQ youth, and all resource families are currently required to receive training on sexual orientation and gender identity. But we continue to hear stories of LGBTQ foster youth being traumatized again after being placed in a home that is not accepting or affirming of their identity.
- Craig Pulsipher
Person
As the analysis highlights, this Bill is not directed at the beliefs of potential resource families, religious or otherwise, and everyone is free to hold any beliefs they choose about sexual orientation or gender identity as long as they don't discriminate, harass or threaten foster youth in their care. The Foster Youth Bill of Rights already protects foster children from harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
- Craig Pulsipher
Person
California must do everything it can to follow through on that commitment to ensure that the resource family process is as strong as possible. SB 407 will strengthen the approval process by making it clear that all resource families must have the ability to care for a child of any sexual orientation or gender identity and that they are willing to seek out any and all available resources to help meet those needs should any issues arise.
- Craig Pulsipher
Person
It will also require counties to ensure that resource families are upholding the rights of not only LGBTQ youth. But all youth, regardless of their background, claims that this Bill would shut out a class of families from the foster care system based on their religious beliefs are patently untrue. The Bill simply ensures that all resource families are willing and able to uphold the rights of foster youth in their care. And I respectfully urge your. I vote.
- Tyler Rinde
Person
All right, thank you very much. Good evening. Chair and Members Tyler Rinde, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, representing 160 nonprofit, community based organization that provides services to children, youth and families in foster care. In one of the co sponsors, studies show that Lgbt youth are disproportionately represented within the foster care system, comprising over 30% of youth. And Lgbt youth suffer abuse in foster care at a rate twice that of non Lgbt youth.
- Tyler Rinde
Person
Lgbt youth often end up in foster care because they came out, were found out, or were kicked out of their family. 45% of Lgbt youth seriously considered suicide. In the past year, including more than half of transgender and nonbinary youth. California has enacted legislation to prevent discrimination, including the foster care Bill of Rights. However, this protection is not translated when approving resource families, and SB 407 will strengthen and clarify the existing resource family approval process to prevent discrimination that is still occurring today.
- Tyler Rinde
Person
That caregivers can meet the needs of all youth, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity, to become a resource parent, there's a set of criteria that one must meet, and if the prospective caregiver cannot meet these, they should not be approved. We often don't know which youth are gay or non binary or which children will come out. And I want to share a quick story of know was shared by one of our Members. The story of an individual named Tony.
- Tyler Rinde
Person
Tony came into foster care when he was four years old. He was placed with a lovely couple in the Central Valley. Tony had no memory of his earlier life. The only family he ever knew was his foster family. He called his parents mom and dad, and he had siblings. That was his family. When Tony was 14, he came out to his family telling them he was gay. The day after, he told them he was removed from his family. This was beyond devastating. This was his family.
- Tyler Rinde
Person
He was placed into a group home. And the rest of his adolescence, he moved from group home to group home until he aged out of foster care. We must ensure that all caregivers are able to meet the needs. All right, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Respectfully, oscars. All right, thank you. All right, let's now turn to opposition. Those in opposition to SB 407. If you'd approach the microphone.
- Greg Burch
Person
Chair Members, my name is Greg Burch. I am here testifying on behalf of the California Family Council and the Pacific Justice Institute. This Bill is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's recently articulated tests under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. It forces resource families to choose between providing care for the weaker Members of the community and maintaining fidelity to their faith. In Fulton versus Philadelphia, the Supreme Court said that the government can't put its citizens to that choice.
- Greg Burch
Person
Further, this is not a law neutral to religion. The high court said that government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of the religious nature. The view that this Bill only addresses behavior and not beliefs is the same argument found bankrupt by the Supreme Court in masterpiece cake shop versus Colorado, finding that the government cannot impose regulations that passes judgment or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices.
- Greg Burch
Person
California has a grave shortage of homes available for foster kids. There was an 8% decrease announced in 2020. The primary demographic that is most likely to step in and fill this need to both their religious convictions and the presence of stable homes is found in the religious community. Great majority of these people of faith hold traditional views on gender identity and human sexuality. How many families of faith are you going to lose if this Bill passes? And then there's the implications of the Bill.
- Greg Burch
Person
One never knows what a teenager will announce as an identity to a parent. If people of faith community are not qualified to parent a foster child because a child might come out at some point and declare himself to be LGBTQ, are such parents also not qualified to adopt children? Is that where we're going?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All righty, sir. Thank you very much. All right. I assume you oppose. Yes. All right. Next witness.
- Erin Friday
Person
I am Erin Friday of our duty, a nonpartisan group of thousands of parents protecting kids against transgender ideology. I am a Democrat who voted for same sex marriage. There are 60,000 children in foster care in California, 30,000 alone in Los Angeles. Every day, 1200 kids need to be placed. The kids in need outnumber the foster family. This Bill hurts girls. Many girls in foster care have been sexually abused.
- Erin Friday
Person
Many of these girls identify as transgender, rejecting their female body, falsely thinking that they won't be raped again if they identify as a boy or remove their breasts. This Bill will force foster parents to support social transition, which has been rejected by England, Finland, and Sweden. Worse, it forces foster parents to support a medical pathway that involves irreversible puberty blockers, sterilizing cross sex hormones, and mutilating surgeries again. Europe has stopped these Mengoly like experiments that don't prevent suicide. This Bill will harm our most vulnerable children.
- Erin Friday
Person
71% of foster care kids are of color. This Bill promotes eugenics of minorities by promoting sterilizing gender interventions. How many potential foster families will be lost if this Bill passes? Vote no on this racist Bill.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, those who wish to testify in me too fashion, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your position, and whether you support or oppose the Bill.
- Craig Pulsipher
Person
Also here tonight, on behalf of the California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network, National Association of Social Workers, California chapter, the Source, LGBT Center, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Southern California Trans Family Support Services, Trans Youth Liberation, Family equality, Sacramento LGBT Community center, and DAP Health.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, others who wish to testify.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
In me too fashion opposing is partners for ethical care, parents protecting children and parents of RoGd kids.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Lisa Dispro, opposing informed parents of Contra Costa, various other Contra Costa grassroots parent groups, San Ramon Valley parents for academic only education, and Calvary Chapel, Chino Hills.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you. All right, anyone else wishes to testify in the hearing room? Seeing no one. Moderator, if you would queue up those who are in support and opposition of SB 40. Seven.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Okay, first we'll go to line number 32. 72, please go ahead.
- Nicole Young
Person
Yes, I oppose this Bill on behalf of Moms for Liberty, Placer county. My name is Nicole Young. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 33. 22, please go ahead.
- Tiffany Phan
Person
Good evening. Tiffany Phan, on behalf of California Court Appointed Special Advocate Association, or CalCASA, in support of SB 407. Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Thank you. Next, we'll go to line number 33. 24, please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Shannon Heil from Placer county calling in regards to Moms for Liberty, and I absolutely oppose this Bill. It's disgusting.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next caller. Next, we'll go to line number 39. 40, please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
My name is Ali Snyder. Concerned parent strongly oppose SB 407.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Next caller.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 33. 21, please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good evening. Casha Williams calling on behalf of California Parents Union, asking for a no or abstain vote on SB 407. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, next.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 32. 67, please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Oh, good. Hi, guys. It's Trina latch again. I'm with parents against groomers, and it's a proud support of all family units. And I firmly and strongly oppose as 409. Keep your hands off our kids.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Thank you. Next caller, please. Next, we'll go to line number, please. Go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Yes, hello, my name is Meg Arader. I'm a concerned parent and I oppose this Bill. Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next we'll go to line number 32. 66, please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Penny Harrington from San Diego County strongly opposed. Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next we'll go to line number 33. Five, please. Go ahead. And 335 please. Go ahead. Next, we'll go to line number 3294, please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Ellie Swimmer. I'm a lifelong liberal and now politically homeless former Democrat from the Bay Area. I strongly Oppose. Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 3314, please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Yes, good evening. My name is Stephanie Swela. I'm a mother, grandmother and great grandmother, and I strongly oppose this Bill.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next caller, please. Next, we'll go to line number 33, please go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, this is Chris Carrier, and I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you. Could you hear me?
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
We heard you. Yes. Next caller, please.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Okay, next, we'll go to line number 33. Two, please. Go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, my name is Eileen O'Neill, concerned citizen and grandmother from Costa Costa county, and I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 3285, please. Go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hello, Joe Kakuyu. I'm a Los Angeles adoption attorney and adoptive mom in strong opposition.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Next, we'll go to line number 3320, please. Go ahead.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Yes, Claire Boset, strongly opposed concerned parent and concerned grandparent, Contra Costa County. Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
And at this time, there are no further.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Senator Ashby.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
I've spent most of my life working in foster care, both in group homes and as an advocate for foster youth. Some of you have learned this about me even though I'm new here. My dad was the former head of foster care for the State of California and a child welfare Director in San Diego County and my business partner later in his life. Before he died, my grandma ran a foster home.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
That was where my dad learned to love foster youth because his sisters were all former foster youth, my aunts. Now, if my dad were standing in this room today, and by the way, foremost expert on foster care across the whole nation during his life, he would tell all of you that there is only one thing that matters in the life of a foster child, and that is that one adult, just one, loves them unconditionally.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
And that is all that this Bill says that if you're going to adopt a child, no matter how old they are, that you accept the fact that they may or may not become something other than what you thought they were the day that you brought them into your home. You know what? That is what every child needs.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
They just need to know that you love them unconditionally, no matter what college they choose, no matter what happens with their sexual identity, no matter what happens with their gender, that you love them. And I believe that Senator Wiener is trying very hard to protect a vulnerable group of young people who we see in alarming numbers living on our streets, former foster youth and amongst them, highest amongst them, Lgbt youth. So I'm going to support this Bill, and I'll make the motion to move it today as well.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you, Senator Ashby. Other questions or comments? Seeing no questions or comments, I want to just clarify a few things. Senator Wiener, this issue has been raised about your religious freedom and your religious beliefs and how they relate to foster youth. So, for example, if a grandmother was a person of fundamentalist, could they be the foster mother, so to speak, of their grandchild?
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
Yes, absolutely. People can have whatever view they want, whatever religious perspective they want. People have a right to have whatever view they want. They don't have a right to harm the children that they're raising. They don't have a right to try to convert a kid and engage in psychological torture. They don't have a right to harm the child that they're taking in as a foster child.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
And I don't think it's in the interest of the State of California to have people be foster parents who are not simply willing to say, I'm going to comply with the law because the law already exists. But people who say, I can't comply with the law and I'm going to be effectively abusive toward my foster kid if they come out as gay or lesbian or Trans. That's not something that we should be allowing in California. It's harmful to these kids. And Senator Ashby is absolutely right.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
It's not a coincidence that nearly half of homeless youth are LGBTQ. Almost half. That is not a coincidence. And it's not a coincidence that so many of those kids come out of foster care. So that's what this Bill is about.
- Henry Stern
Legislator
All right. Senator Ashby's moved the Bill.
- Angelique Ashby
Legislator
Senator Umberg, if I could. A grandparent who wanted to take in their child isn't a foster parent. It's a kinship placement, something different.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Okay. Thank you for that clarification. All right, so Senator Ashby's moved the Bill. Senator Wiener, was that your close?
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
Yes.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, Madam Secretary, if you would call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
8282. That Bill is out. All right, so I don't think we have time for any more bills. So I think we're going to conclude at this point, without objection, you move SBA 29. Senator Wilk? Yeah. We'd like to present. Thank you. Just trying to get through.
- Scott Wilk
Person
News for you, and I have bad news. Good news is the swifties are already in bed, so you're not going to get those calls. The bad news is their moms are still up, and if I give the sign, you're going to get lit up. So just take that into account as we proceed. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, Members, I want to thank you for this opportunity.
- Scott Wilk
Person
SB 829, which will take a small step in protecting consumers from the monopoly that Congress mistakenly allowed when approving the Ticketmaster live nation merger of 2010. Over a decade after the merger, Ticketmaster Live Nation now holds close to 90% of the live entertainment market. According to the Billboard top, 186% of the country's biggest tours were ticketed by Ticketmaster. Out of all the shows done in the US last year, which was 24982142 of those shows was ticketed with Ticketmaster.
- Scott Wilk
Person
So Ticketmaster pushes these venues because of the market leverage that Live Nation has controlling all the acts to sign exclusive contracts. And in return, they get residuals, I. E. Kickbacks. Those costs are obviously absorbed by consumers, whether it's in the primary or the secondary market. So this blatant market manipulation that Ticketmaster Live Nation is able to get away with is unfair to our consumers, which is obviously our constituents.
- Scott Wilk
Person
SB 829 will prohibit exclusivity clauses and contracts between a primary ticket seller and an entertainment venue in the State of California. This piece of legislation is based upon two things. A proposal that's going through the New York Legislature right now and a stipulated agreement that Ticketmaster signed with the government of Ireland back in 2020. Although these are private businesses, and I don't think it's ideal to be involved in their contracts.
- Scott Wilk
Person
I think it's our job as legislatures to ensure that our constituents are protected from blatant market manipulation. I am absolutely pro business, but I'm also intrinsically opposed to collusion. And as Teddy Roosevelt said, where a trust becomes a monopoly, the state has an immediate right to interfere with that. This is a really minor reform that hopefully will lead to lower ticket prices.
- Scott Wilk
Person
I do have one witness, and he's been here all day, so if you would allow two minutes to Mr. Brian Hess with the Sports Fan Coalition.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Sure. Thank you.
- Brian Hess
Person
Good to see everyone again. Again. Brian Hess, Sports Fans Coalition I will skip over my usual Intro Spiel and just get into it. Exclusive contracts for ticket distribution are incredibly harmful to consumers. These types of contracts, which limit the sale of tickets to a particular vendor, can have a significant impact on fans and their ability to access ticket at fair prices. These exclusive contracts not only hurt consumers, but stifle competition within the industry.
- Brian Hess
Person
By limiting the number of vendors that can sell tickets, teams create a monopoly that allows vendors to charge whatever prices they want without fear for competition. This can have a ripple effect across the industry. California sports teams are no strangers to this issue. For example, crypto.com arena in LA is home to two NBA teams, which are ticketed by two different vendors. The Lakers are a Ticketmaster client, while the Clippers are an AXS.
- Brian Hess
Person
According to a survey we did earlier this year, Ticketmaster charges roughly 23% in fees on Laker tickets. And while this may seem high, it is less than half of their average fee across all NBA tickets that they ticket for. I believe that is because Clippers tickets sold through AXs are subject to about a 14% fee, which seemingly serves as a competitive bulwark against Ticketmaster, ratcheting up its fees. Competition within venues is good for fans.
- Brian Hess
Person
Teams and venues should work with multiple vendors to sell tickets, allowing fans to choose the platform that works best for them. And this Bill would help create that competition that will ultimately lead to lower prices. I urge an aye vote. Thank you.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Thank you very much. Others in support seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. Those in opposition, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, we'll now turn to those who wish to offer me, too testimony. I don't see anyone approaching the microphone for me, too testimony, let's turn on the phone lines. Senator Wilk has assured us he's not turned on the batvray, so SB 829 Moderator please queue up those in support and opposition.
- Committee Secretary
Person
SB 829 1st we'll go to line. Number 3267 please go ahead3267. Your line is open.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Hi, Senators from Plaster County again. And, yes, Senator Wilk, I'm awake and I'm paying attention.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
Support or opposition? All right, let's go to the next caller. Thank you very much.
- Committee Secretary
Person
And there are no further.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
No further callers. It's so appropriate. All right, let's now bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members. Senator Min moves the Bill. All right, questions by Committee Members. I don't see any questions. Senator Wilk, thank you for your close. Madam Secretary. Senator Min is moved. Senator Wilk, would you like to say anything further?
- Scott Wilk
Person
All right, I'll take the chair's comments as my close.
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All right, thank you very much.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
All Members present, 90 that Bill is out. So now we're going to go back over the role. Before we do that, let me thank staff. We've had an incredible number of bills heard today. They've done an excellent job on analysis on working the bills, and I want to thank them personally on behalf of the entire Committee. Thank you, Madam Chief consultant, and all of you, Erica, everyone else, and the sergeants, thank you for hanging with us as long as late as you have. All right, let's do this one time. We're going to go through the roll one time. So here we go.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]
- Thomas Umberg
Legislator
That's all of the business. All right, we will reconvene on May 2 at 1330. Thank you all. Thank you, guys. We're adjourned.
Committee Action:Passed
Next bill discussion: May 26, 2023
Previous bill discussion: March 29, 2023