Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

File item number three AB 243 by Assembly Member Alanis. File number five AJR 2 by Assembly Member Baines. File number 10 AB 1043 by Assembly Member Dahle. File number 11 AB 867 by Assembly Member Friedman. File item number 13 AB 360 by Assembly Member Gipson. File number 17 AB 522 by Assembly Member Kalra. File item number 20 AB 615 by Assembly Member Maienschein. File number 21 AB 1366 by Assembly Member Maienschein. File item number 24 AB 937 by Assembly Member Mckinnor.

File item number 26 AB 1650 by Assembly Member Jim Patterson with amendments. File item number 27 AB 87 by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. File item number 28 AB 156 by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. File item number 29 AB 876 by Assembly Member Robert Rivas with Amendments. And finally, file number 30 AB 70 by Assembly Member Rodriguez. All right, we have exactly one Member here, so we are going to start as a subcommittee. So there we go. All right Assembly Member Addis. And I understand you're accompanied by Senator Skinner. Senator Skinner beat me here. All right.

Well, thank you so much, Honorable Chair. Very much appreciate your time. I'm here with you today to ask for your aye vote on Assembly Bill 452 which is the Justice for Survivors of Child Sexual Assault Act. This act will do one main thing, which is provide an opportunity for justice for survivors of childhood sexual assault by lifting the statute of limitations on child sexual assault survivors or cases.

Doing so lifts a cruel and arbitrary limit and provides survivors of child sexual assault the critical opportunity to seek justice and healing no matter their age, creating greater accountability for perpetrators of child sexual assault, the majority of whom, I have to say, do go on to commit these acts on multiple children over decades, if not stop. So I want to emphasize three points on this bill. This bill does one very important and simple things.

It simply removes the deadline by which a child sexual assault survivor must come forward, and this bill is prospective, meaning that it is solely for future cases of child sexual assault that occurred January 1st, 2024 or after. And it allows close to a quarter century before the bill will truly affect people's lives as well as perpetrators lives. There is no revival window in this bill and that's an amendment that we took very, very early on.

So it is about prevention, not about a 'gotcha through a lookback window.' The Justice for Survivors Child Sexual Assault Act was created based on first person stories, some of which you're going to hear from witnesses today, and really, witnesses have shared or survivors have shared three key things. One, that the existing statute of limitations has cruel, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to the opportunity to seek justice.

It is in creating this barrier, the State of California is preventing the needed opportunity for healing, and in not allowing survivors to come forward at any age, California is unintentionally disallowing cases that could prevent perpetrators from abusing future children. There's a lot of reasons that it takes so long for people to come forward.

Much of that is wrapped up in the shame of being a survivor of this crime, and I do want to highlight that survivors are disproportionately from BIPOC, Black, indigenous, people of color, LGBTQIA, and women, and that over half, according to Child USA, over half of survivors do not disclose until they are age 50 or older. So we do have three witnesses here today. I would love for you to be able to hear from them, so I'm going to pause my comments. And first, Senator Skinner has some comments, and then we do have two witnesses, Dorothy Small and De'Anna Miller who will share their stories.

Thank you. Senator Skinner.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, for allowing me as the joint author to speak to this bill. So I know that many of the arguments you've heard against it are from institutions that have had huge payouts because of judgments against them due to their either covering or otherwise having child abusers within their institutions. And what I wanted to argue is a couple of things.

One is that the way this bill has now been amended, it originally, when first drafted, was not prospective, and I was very happy to join in as a joint author when it was not prospective and I'll explain that in a minute, but now that it is prospective, it is really much more now an incentive to any entity that may have any--to basically ensure that you are doing everything you can, whether it's a doctor in your employ, a leader of some sort, a clergy member or you name it, that you are addressing any issues that come before you so there is not this kind of long range and continued abuse.

And as we know from so many cases, whether it is the Olympics Committee, the Gymnastics--USA Gymnastics, or Boy Scouts or the Catholic Church, that unfortunately--the abusers were allowed to continue and were not held accountable for years. Now, just very briefly, I am a person that survived childhood sexual abuse for years.

I never forgot it, but I did not talk about it until I was the age that my daughter--rather until my daughter was the age when my abuse started. Now, of course, the shame around being abused, you don't want to talk about it. And generally, people who are subject to this abuse, it is a trusted person in their life.

Whether it is, again, a teacher, a clergyman, or maybe a family member, it is someone that--you can't even accuse them of it, and then you feel guilty even though you're a child. And of course, when I looked at my own daughter and saw what she was like at the age that my abuse started, then it was clear. She was a child. I was a child. There was nothing that I did in any way that would invite or cause that abuse.

Now, once I started dealing with it, I went through a decade of therapy, therapy that was not covered by any health insurance plan, and because of the particular circumstance, I could not go and take any civil suit. Of course, at the point, there was all statute of limitations; I wouldn't have been able to anyway, but even if I had, the point being that there was no recovery for any of those costs or any of the continued burden that I may still have.

Anyway, so this is very important to put a complete end and zero tolerance to any and all child sexual abuse, and if it is not ended, to at least give those survivors the ability to get some compensation when they are able to finally deal with it themselves. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Skinner. Thank you for sharing your lived experience with us. All right, before we start to take witnesses, let me outline some rules for today. We have 35 bills on calendar. All those bills are very, very important, and we want to make sure we give due consideration to each of them, but it's important that everyone is aware of the ground rules. Those who are listening on the telephone, those who are here; we have a nearly full hearing room.

So for each bill, we'll allow two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition. Each witness will be afforded two minutes to speak. After the main support witnesses speak, we'll turn to any #MeToos in support in the hearing room. And by #MeToo, what I mean is you may approach the microphone, give us your name, your affiliation, as well as your position on the bill.

We recognize that many of these bills have multiple supporters, but in terms of your affiliation, whatever group you're representing or whatever group you're part of, that's your affiliation. We're going to do the same thing with opposition. Two primary witnesses in opposition, each two minutes, and then those who are in opposition approach the microphone.

We'll hear from both support and opposition in phone testimony at the same time, not when they're speaking at the same time, but that support and opposition will be heard, irrespective of what position they'll be for 15 minutes and 15 minutes only. We actually can read. So you can submit written testimony if you like. You go to the Committee's website, and that will instruct you as to how to submit written testimony. All right, so now let's turn to support witnesses. Those of you who are in support of AB 452, microphone is yours.

Good afternoon, Honorable Committee Chair and Members. My name is De'Anna Miller, and I'm the advocacy manager of Alliance for Girls, and Alliance for Girls is the nation's largest girl-serving regional alliance representing over 100 organizations across California. And a core element of our work is uplifting the power of collective action and empowering communities closest to the issue to be a part of the solution.

AFG girl-led and informed research has highlighted sexual harassment and gender-based violence as a key issue that girls in gender-expansive youth, especially those of color in California, face daily. Survivors have carried the weight of their abuse in the legal system for far too long. The statute of limitations disproportionately affects those assaulted as children because the intense abuse experienced at such a young age often leads to delayed reporting. It is common for youth who wish to come forward to be filed by the adults around them.

Reports from AFG detail how schools can contribute towards normalizing sexual misconduct by failing to respond to complaints properly, leaving students to feel vulnerable in the education environment. AFG has also demonstrated how common the experiences of unwanted advances is for youth. 100 percent of those surveyed in 2019 reported at least one incident of being stalked or touched by a man when walking to or from school and taking public transportation.

In addition to failure to hold the accused perpetrators accountable, many girls felt overly scrutinized for reporting in the first place. And the bottom line is that survivors face difficulty reporting abuse due to fear, shame, stigma, or manipulation by the abuser in the normalization of sexual violence. Young people are less likely to be aware of their rights and the long term consequences of sexual abuse which can also deter them from reporting on time.

Though the legislation is narrow in its scope, eliminating the statute of limitations will respect survivors' time to come forward and share their stories without the pressure of arbitrary deadlines. Please reflect on the voices of girls and gender-expansive youth that shared their stories of sexual harassment and assault with Alliance for Girls and our members to eliminate this existing barrier for survivors seeking justice in cases of childhood sexual assault. I urge the Committee to pass AB 452. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon. My name is Dorothy Small. I fully endorse AB 452 as a leader for a National Survivor Network supporting adults sexually abused as children, as well as vulnerable adults, mostly in religious institutions. A retired registered nurse with over 40 years in clinical practice, as well as a survivor myself of sexual abuse as a child, I know the difficulty of coming forward to report such abuse.

Fear of not being believed, shame, blame, compound the trauma as many endure the emotional, spiritual, and physical long-term consequences in silence, feeling alone and isolated. It is common to turn to mood-altering substances to ease the emotional pain and anxiety leading to addiction.

Many abused as children end up caught up in the vicious cycle of abusive relationships as adults, unable to leave due to the addictive nature of trauma bonding. Complex, post-traumatic stress from child sexual abuse impairs healthy connections needed to heal. Immune system failure led to a life-threatening cancer diagnosis several years ago for me. I remained cancer-free. The toll, though, of the abuse on my mental health was far worse than the aggressive cancer treatment that I endured.

Although I reported my grandfather, who sexually abused me after my mother died when I was almost six, and a schoolteacher, I was the one blamed and penalized, receiving only a verbal reprimand, both subsequently reoffended with children. Predators do not stop at one victim. While in therapy for the previous years with a psychologist, I was sexually assaulted at the age of 61 by a clergyman at my former parish. I was seeking emotional healing through therapy and spiritual through my church. My life became irreparably unmanageable.

Early retirement was my only option. I couldn't focus. A report of the priests, and after advocating outside the legal system was ineffective. I sought civil litigation. The case mediated at 200,000 dollars rather than a trial so I could focus my energy on myself and on healing. Being heard, believed, and having justice for this abuser through the legal process was extremely therapeutic. Finally, I received justice which flowed all the way--

Ma'am, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap it up.

From my childhood abuse. Thank you for listening to me.

Thank you very much. All right, thanks. Before we take other witnesses in support, I'm going to ask Madam Secretary to call the roll for purposes of establishing a quorum.

Umberg? Here. Umberg, here. Wilk? Present. Wilk, present. Allen? Present. Allen, present. Ashby? Here. Ashby, here. Caballero? Durazo? Here. Durazo, here. Laird? Here. Laird, here. Min? Here. Min, here. Niello? Stern? Wiener? You have a quorum.

All right, we have a quorum. We're now functioning as a Committee. Okay. Those of you who wish to testify in support of AB 452, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, and your position. If you're here in the hearing room, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone in support of AB 452, let's now turn to opposition. If you're opposed to AB 452, please approach the microphone.

Mr. Chair and Members, Faith Borges on behalf of the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities in respectful opposition to AB 452. I'd like to begin by applauding the author's intention to keep children safe, which is a cause that our coalition is also deeply committed to. I'd also like to thank the author and her staff for working with us on clarifying amendments to reiterate the bill's prospective application for instances we stand aligned in fighting to prevent. Our concern with this bill pertains to the financing of these claims.

Schools and public agencies do not have insurance. They have risk pooling JPAS. JPAS are not insurance, but they allow public agency members to effectively self-fund to fill the gaps in liability coverage that insurance will not cover for public entities. They are not-for-profit public entities that pay the cost of these claims through Prop 98 dollars and taxpayer dollars for instances of other local governments. We absolutely support the criminal prosecution of perpetrators and recognize the need for fair victim compensation.

However, we remain opposed to AB 452 because although this bill is prospective, it is being brought forward at a time when today's schools and public agencies are paying billions of dollars to fund historic claims allowed by AB 218, which was chaptered in 2019, for which no monetary reserves were ever set aside by schools or local governments.

Parallel with historic assessments, the significant assessments that are like a premium that are created by AB 452 will need to be collected and retained for decades for the possibility of any future liability exposure. This bill also further limits excess and reinsurance options for today's schools, leaving today's students and local governments without coverage. Heaven forbid they need it.

This bill expands the current strict legal liability for schools, regardless of their knowledge or consideration of substantial efforts to prevent this abuse, and forces billions of dollars of public funds into lawsuits with plaintiff attorneys collecting between 40 and 60 percent of the settlements, which eliminates resources for meaningful prevention efforts. Absent the prevention, resources, and reforms needed, we remain respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Other witnesses in opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Kalyn Dean with the California State Association of Counties, CSAC, representing all 58 counties. We align with sympathies and concerns relayed by our coalition partner CAJPA. Counties are concerned about the enormous impact of social safety nets that this bill will have if enacted at this time, as today's counties are struggling to allocate billions of taxpayer dollars to fund crimes of the past.

The L.A. Times recently reported that one county's lawyers are estimating spending between 1.6 and 3 billion in the upcoming fiscal budget to resolve claims against the county. That's more than that particular county has budgeted for homelessness services, fire and parks and recreation departments combined. One school district in Santa Clara County paid out over 100 million dollars to two victims last year. We recognize that all victims should have access to justice and that resources are a necessary part of justice.

And counties are also facing the fiscal reality that the financing of these claims against public entities paid from taxpayer dollars puts essential public services on the chopping block as there has been no other source of funding identified to pay these claims. We respectfully ask for a no vote on this measure today. Thank you.

All righty, those who are in the hearing room who are opposed to AB 452, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon. Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Is that it? All right. Let's turn to the phone lines. Moderator, if you would queue up those on the phone who are in support or opposition to AB 452.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 452, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero for support or opposition. We will go to line 82. Your line is open.

Good afternoon. Alyssa Silhi on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts aligning our comments with my colleagues at CAJPA and CSAC. Also in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 98. Your line is open.

Good afternoon. Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Association of School Business Officials; also in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

78, your line is open.

Hi. I'm Raquel from the National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, and we support this bill.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 80.

Hello. Leilani Aguinaldo on behalf of the Schools Excess Liability Fund in opposition.

Thank you.

Line 89, your line is open.

Thank you. Jason Schmelzer here on behalf of Prism; wanting to align my comments with those of CAJPA and CSAC in opposition to the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

92, your line is open.

Good afternoon. Grace Glaser on behalf of VALOR, California sexual assault coalition, in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Line 99, your line is open.

Yes. Paula Treat on behalf of myself, thanking the author in full support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, we have no further opposition or support in queue.

All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members? Comments? Yes. Senator Ashby.

Yes. Thank you so much, Assemblywoman, for bringing this bill forward, and thank you to Senator Skinner for sharing her personal experience. I do have a couple of quick questions for you that I spoke with you about earlier and just wanted--several of them were raised. I want to give you a chance to answer because I know you feel you have addressed it. But before that, I do have one question. Maybe this might be for our staff, actually. I heard one speaker say something that made me think that strict liability might be triggered. Is that true? Do you know if that's true?

The standard, as I understand it, has not changed. It's simply an extension of the statute of limitations. I understand that some earlier objected to whatever the standard is today.

Did you hear that, too? Okay.

I did hear that. Yes, I did.

Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure that that was not true, but I didn't read that into this bill either, but I wanted to make sure I didn't miss something. Been a minute since I was in that law school class.

Okay, I'm a little bit concerned about potentially having to use Prop 98 funds for this cost and also just wanting to make sure that you've spoken with the opposition about how they can cover liability for the life of students and how to address the costs of insurance and long-term liability concerns.

And I know I had this conversation with you earlier today, but I wanted you to have the opportunity to address it because I think that the nature of this bill is really significant and important and I'm sure everyone wants to support it, but I think that's an important concern to address so we're not taking away from students' classroom experience.

Yeah, no, I very much appreciate the question. I appreciate the concern. We did check with the LAO and the per pupil spending is about 27,000 dollars per pupil. A portion of that goes to the insurance fund. So like 27 dollars. So that's about 1000th of a percent right now. So very, very small amount. Not taking away from instructional dollars.

Okay. But I think the point for them is that schools have to self-insure, obviously now because of the changes decades ago, and so I think their concern is that this bill would force them to increase that insurance allocation and dig into Prop 98 funds. Did you address that with them?

I think even if those costs go up, say they even double, it's still an incredibly small amount and when we think about parents and families and children and the importance of protecting children and the importance of this kind of legislation, we have seen rates of sexual assault of children go down over the years as different statute of limitations legislation has come forward, if that makes sense.

And I will say this is very different from a lookback window. So we have a quarter century to get ready through policy, through practices, and through small payments into insurance funds, if that makes sense. So it's been our position, and this is kind of the conversations we've had, that there's a quarter century to sort of attack this issue of the fiscal concerns.

Sure.

Okay. So for me, I'm prepared to support it today because in the balancing, obviously the health and well-being of kids is the most important thing that we're charged with, but I just do want to encourage you to continue talking with the opposition because these are our school administrators and they're still saying that they have that concern on costing. So hopefully you can continue to work with them on it.

And you're right, there is time built into your bill to continue those conversations even after it passes. So I just want to encourage that to continue so that we don't unintentionally create a massive debt here.

Yeah. As a classroom teacher and somebody who's a credentialed school administrator who ran summer school, I absolutely understand these concerns and we are happy to work with the opposition. I have phenomenal relationships with the school administrators and very open to conversations moving forward.

Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Min.

Thank you, Assemblywoman. I'm proud to be a co-author of this bill. I did take a little pause of some of the testimony of opposition and would just echo the comments of my colleague from Sacramento and just urge you to keep working with opposition on just trying to make sure that we don't have severe unintended consequences that might cause detrimental outcomes for our schools and other important public institutions, but thank you for bringing the bill forward, and I look forward to voting aye on it with that assurance.

Thank you so much.

All right, other questions, comments? Yes. Senator Allen.

I wanted to just chase down a comment that was made about instructional dollars. Dorothy, I think, is here from--I know if someone from CASBO is here, Access, someone who's doing school finance. Are you on the same page with the author on this whole question of the size of the liability?

I think we respectfully disagree on the size of the liability. We're not only covering existing claims that have been brought forward based on the existing law, we're preparing now with today's classroom dollars to get ready. As was mentioned, we're not covered by an insurance policy. These are our own dollars going through a JPA process. Again, apologies; Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators. So I think we have a disagreement there and hope we can continue to work with the author.

I don't think it's a couple of cents or dollars per people. My colleague from the CSAC, State Association of Counties, shared these large sums that are being paid out that I think goes far beyond what the author is estimating. The fiscal impact would be to Prop 98.

Thank you.

Okay, well, let me say, first of all, I think that your decision to make this prospective is a really good one, and I think it gets us into a place where it's really focused on prevention, which I think is--really enjoyed meeting with you yesterday.

One of the challenges, of course, from an administrative perspective of the lookbacks is that because of totally negligent behavior on the part of school or leadership twenty, thirty, forty, fifty years ago, the current group of teachers and students are taking a major financial hit, but the school board and the superintendent and the teachers and whoever it might have been that was overseeing the terrible behavior that took place a long time ago are long gone and have no liability.

And that was, I think, a really painful thing for a lot of school districts, as you've heard and the liability, I think, on the last bill that we all supported was in the billions and that really is directly coming out of instructional dollars even though the general funds pay for the school district contributions to these JPAS that then do the payout. So it's not being paid out of any kind of separate fund.

It's literally out of general fund dollars from the school districts which is money that would otherwise be going to student services. So I think that the prospective approach that you're taking is really wise and I think at the heart of what you're seeking to do is to change behavior so as to ensure that all the things that we've heard about and we know have happened will never happen again; that there's really a strong incentive structure in place to ensure really careful work.

You also mentioned that it's, of course, a long way out, and people, of course, can currently sue for a long time under current law. This just would get rid of the statute of limitations on the out-years which is a long way out, but I do want to chase down a few--I want to chase down a couple of the financial issues that have been raised.

So we have a long hearing tonight, and I'm probably very likely to vote for this, but I do I want to--I'm going to follow up on a few financial issues that I want to get a better understanding of and I certainly am happy to hear of your willingness to work with the school administrators and the folks who are trying to make our schools run but also make them run in a way that's really safe for our kids, and that's the challenge here. So, appreciate the thoughtfulness you brought to this bill so far and looking forward to a couple of conversations I'm going to have. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Other questions, comments? Yes. Senator Durazo.

I just want to thank you. I mean it is these kind of bold things that we need to do because we care so much about our children, but we're always after the fact. We're always after the damage has been done, after our kids have been endangered, and that's just not right. And unfortunately, it takes getting this kind of attention in order to get ahead of it and say, 'enough is enough. We're serious about this.' Our children need to have the maximum amount of protection. Period.

And yes, there'll be monetary payout that may be attached to that, but we've got to send the clear message that this is not forgivable and it's not what you land within a certain time period. You may--I mean, it's just--stop. Stop, and let's do the toughest but smartest thing that we can do. So I'd be glad to move here if somebody hasn't already.

All right, thank you. Other comments? Questions? Yes. Senator Allen.

I would be--one thing we did discuss yesterday in our conversations was how to make sure that this is structured in a way that it really is about prevention and that that's the focus, and also how do we make sure that when there are these payouts, that money actually goes to the victims and that there's a real focus on making the victims whole. So, one of many, many complicated issues that are raised here.

All right, other questions, comments? Seeing none, a few comments. First of all, I heard what the opposition had to say. I'm not going to engage in a colloquy today with the opposition, but this is not its last stop on its legislative journey, so if the opposition has anything to support that there's a change in standard, that there's strict liability, I would welcome that information because I've looked and not seen that, but if it exists somewhere, as my wife says, that I'm often wrong but never in doubt, so I'll be happy to take a look at that, number one.

Number two, that this still requires that a plaintiff, a claimant, a victim, prove their case by preponderance of the evidence to a judge or a jury. This doesn't change that at all, nor does it change--I don't think it changes not just the standard, but also the elements of the tort.

And then lastly, and my colleague, Senator Allen pointed this out is that there are several reasons. One is deterrence, and I'm also glad it's prospective because it puts folks on notice that right now, if they are not, and I think they are, but if they're not, now is a good time to make sure that you're employing every means that is reasonably possible to deter any kind of sexual misconduct, but also to compensate the victim.

And so if we could legislate a magic wand that would take away the trauma, that would take away the nightmares, that would take away all the things that are debilitating with respect to sexual assault and sexual trauma, we would do that. I would author that bill, but we don't have a magic wand. We don't have a panacea. We don't have the ability to take that away. All we do is have the ability to compensate someone with money so that they can seek whatever aid they need.

That's all we can do. So with that, I think there's been a motion by Senator Durazo. I'll ask if you'd like to close.

Well, I want to thank the Committee Members. We had a number of robust conversations before coming here today. A lot of questions were asked. I think they're important questions. I might just add something that one of our survivors said was said to me and possibly at the last hearing. What she said was that in bringing her case forward, it was the first time she'd been believed. It was the first time she'd been allowed to seek justice, and while the monetary compensation maybe wasn't that high for her in that case, but just the process itself of being allowed to seek justice was tremendous healing for her.

And so from that perspective--and then I will just reiterate that the bill does one thing. It doesn't change existing law. It doesn't change existing ways that law is enacted. It only changes the timeline and the time within which somebody is allowed to seek justice, and so with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

All righty. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, if you'd call the roll.

This is File Item Number One: AB 452. The motion is 'do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee.' Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Wilk? Aye. Wilk, aye. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Min? Aye. Min, aye. Niello? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Wiener? Seven to zero.

Seven to zero; we'll put that on call. Thank you very much. All right, next. Assembly Member Maienschein? Oh, I'm sorry. As you're approaching, let's go ahead and call the role in the consent calendar.

Is it moved?

It has been moved by Senator Laird.

On the consent calendar. Umberg aye. Wilk aye. Allen. Ashby aye. Caballero. Durazo aye. Laird aye. Min aye. Niello aye. Stern aye. Wiener.

8-0. We'll put that on call. All right. Assembly Member Maienschein.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you this morning how brief you are, and I will try to emulate you. And I know I have a number of my colleagues here, so I want to get through this as quickly as possible so they can present their bills as well. AB 357 would update California's outdated animal testing facility laws to reflect current criteria and practices for validating alternative test methods.

The Bill would also enhance the reporting requirements for a manufacturer or contract testing facilities to submit to the Department of Public Health regarding the use of animals in various tests and provide greater public transparency surrounding the use of animal testing in California. AB 357 is not seeking to ban animal testing altogether. It will ensure that if an appropriate alternative test method is available, it is being utilized.

Here to testify with me is Jenny Berg, the California State Director for the Humane Society, and I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. So just to be clear, we're on 357, right? Correct. Right. Okay. All right, good. I may have misheard. All right, go ahead. Floor is yours.

Thank you. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Jenny Berg and I'm the California State Director for the Humane Society of the United States and I respectfully request your support for AB 357. This legislation updates California's alternative testing laws. AB 357 would ensure alternatives to animal testing for products such as cosmetic, household cleaners, pesticides and industrial chemicals are utilized when they are accepted by the federal regulating agency, provide information of equivalent or better scientific quality and relevance for the intended purpose.

Consistent with current law, this legislation does not prohibit traditional animal tests if no approved alternative test method is available. In addition, the Bill continues to exempt medical research performed on animals to investigate diseases, develop drugs, and expand fundamental scientific knowledge. Current California law requires the use of alternative test methods validated by the Federal Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods. Relying on this process made sense at the time, but the Committee no longer formally validates nonanimal methods.

Current practices are lengthy, inefficient, and resource intensive. This legislation replaces the outdated process. In addition, it adopts a reporting system for the testing of products covered by this legislation. Science is rapidly moving towards faster, less expensive and human relevant alternative methods such as humid, cell based tests and advanced computer models. AB 357 will ensure alternative tests are utilized appropriately, solidifying California's position as a scientific and technological leader in non-animal alternatives. Thank you, and I request your aye vote on this Bill.

All right, thank you very much. Other witnesses in support, please approach.

Mr. Chair, I want to register my support on behalf of my 11 year old daughter, who is in strong support of this measure.

All right, thank you. Other me, too testimony either on their own behalf or on behalf of their children, please approach the microphone. Any children here wishing to testify on behalf of their parents? Seeing none. All right, let's now turn to opposition. Those in opposition, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one. Nice fake Assembly Member Bryan. All right. Seeing no one, approach the microphone. Let's now turn to the phone lines. For those in support and in opposition to AB 357.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 357, you may press one, and then zero. We will go to line 105. Your line is open. Line 105. Do you have us on mute? Yes, you're on.

Apologies. Thank you so much. Good evening, Mr. Chair and Members, Sosan Madanat at W Strategies, on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund, in strong support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

All right, let's bring it back to Committee questions by Committee Members, seeing Senator Laird moves the Bill. All right, Assembly Member at Maienschein, would you like to close?

And choosing to make Ms. Bauer-Kahan's daughter happy over Mr. Bryan's daughter. I would respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. Yes. I don't see either of them listed. All right. There we go. All right, Madam Secretary, if you would call the roll.

This is file item number 19, AB 357. The motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg aye, Wilk aye. Allen. Ashby aye. Caballero. Durazo aye. Laird aye. Min aye. Niello aye. Stern aye. Wiener. Eight to zero.

Put that on call. All right. We have two more bills that I believe Chair Maienschein is going to present. Items 22 and 23, AB 1755 and AB 1758.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 1755 makes several changes to the statewide Uniform Child Support Guidelines in order to bring California's formula and procedures into conformity with recently issued federal guidelines. This will also ensure that California will continue to be eligible for federal funds.

This Bill will bring California to compliance with the final rule by addressing a number of shortcomings identified in a review conducted by the Judicial Council of California. The changes recommended by the Judicial Council and codified in this Bill will increase the ability of no-custodial parents to pay their child support. Most notably, the Bill updates the child support formula to better reflect current economic realities, and it requires local child support agencies and courts to conduct more thorough investigations into the parents actual economic situation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, and I respectfully request your aye vote.

All right. Any witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Let's turn to the phone lines for AB 1755. Moderator, if you would queue those who are in support or opposition to AB 1755.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 1755, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is 1 and 0 for support or opposition. Mr. Chair, we have no one in queue.

All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members? No questions. Senator Wilk moves the Bill. Get a close.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, respectfully request an aye vote.

All right, Madam Secretary, if you'd call the roll.

This is file item number 22, AB 1755. The motion is do pass to the Senate Human Services Committee. Umberg? Umberg aye. Wilk? Wilk aye. Allen? Ashby? Ashby aye. Caballero? Durazo? Durazo aye. Laird? Laird aye. Min? Min aye. Niello? Niello aye. Stern? Stern aye. Wiener?

Eight to zero, 8 to 0. Put that back on call. All right. Assembly member Maenschien. Last Bill AB 1758. You are in contention for the most efficient presenter so far today. So go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your support. And thanks also to Committee staff for their excellent analyst, analysis and hard work on this Bill. Under the California Public Records Act, public agencies are prohibited from charging the public a fee to copy a public record in an electronic format.

That is more than the direct cost of producing a copy of a record in an electronic format. AB 178 clarifies the law regarding public access to electric court records in a number of ways. My staff has been working diligently with your staff and the Judicial Council to resolve the court's remaining concerns with the Bill. I pledge to continue these discussions and coordinate with your staff as well, should the Bill move forward today.

Thank you. And I respectfully request an I vote all right

Thank you. Let's turn to witnesses in support of AB 1758, please approach the microphone. I see one witness approaching. Apparently not. All right, anyone else who is in support of AB 1758, please approach. Anyone opposes 1758, please approach. Seeing no one approaching, either in support or opposition, let's turn to the phone lines. Moderate. Please queue up those who are in support or opposition to AB 1758.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 1758, you may press one and then zero again. That is one and then zero for supporter opposition of AB 1758? Mr. Chair, no one's in queue at this time.

All right, thank you very much. Questions by Committee Members. Seeing none, Senator Laird moves the Bill. Would you care to close? Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members, and I respectfully request an aye vote. All right, thank you very much. All right, Madam Secretary, if you would call the roll.

This is file item number 23, AB 1758. The motion is do passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg, aye. Umberg aye Wilk. Aye Wilk. Aye Alan Ashby. Ashby. Aye Caballero. Aye Laird. Aye.

Laird. Aye Min min. Aye Niello Niello. Aye Stern. Stern. Aye Wiener.

8 to 0. All right, we'll put that on call. Thank you very much. All right, next we're going to turn to item number four, AB 1472, Assembly Member Alvarez. And then we will take up AB 352 by Assembly Member Bauer Cahan. And then I do not see the next person in order, so we'll see if they show. All right, Assembly Member Alvarez, floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity come before you to present AB 1472, and I want to thank the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. Colleagues, this Bill idea originated because RV residents in my district, particularly in the City of Imperial Beach and you'll hear some testimony from them in a second, are being evicted every six months in an unfair and unethical business practice known as the RV Shuffle.

The RV Shuffle involves evicting and relocating tenants and their RVs from an authorized RV Park, usually for 48 hours every six months, solely to prevent them from becoming tenants and gaining certain tenancy status and protections. This practice is impacting my constituents, and many whom are elderly adults on fixed income and families, through no fault of their own, have resorted to RV living, in part due to California's housing shortage and affordable housing crisis, which you're all aware of.

The evictions are repeated again and again, resulting in persistent dislocation of vulnerable population and causing them ongoing mental and financial hardship. This is an expensive endeavor for them. In 2004, the Legislature enacted AB 2867, as your analysis mentions, to discourage a similar practice that was occurring in residential hotels at that time. The Legislature recognized that people who were being taken advantage of and enacted a law to clarify the state's position.

It is already the state's position that any person that resides in an RV park for nine months or more qualify as residents. AB 1472 clarifies this position by prohibiting park owners from shuffling tenants, forcing them to leave in order to take advantage of the existing law. I want to be very clear. This Bill only kicks in if the purpose is to prevent tenancy status change for contract workers, traveling nurses and fair vendors who do not intend for those individuals to become residents.

This Bill does not apply. If the intention of a park owner is to move someone out every six months to abide by the short term nature of their park, this Bill also does not apply.

The Bill is nearly identical to AB 2867 that was enacted 20 years ago, and we did not see an increase in frivolous lawsuits, nor did it severely impact the hotel industry since the first moment that the opposition reached out on this after being heard in Committee and being introduced in the Assembly. I've worked with the opposition to try to find a solution. I've met with them myself, and so has my staff.

We've amended the Bill to exempt parks that have restrictions enacted through a local permit. And my office is committed. I'm committed to continue meeting with the opposition if the Bill moves forward in order to address that again, the intention is here to provide reasonable protections for people who now have to live in RV parks as their main domicile, while also recognizing that recreational RV industry that we have in California.

With that said, I'd like to invite our mayor from the City of Imperial Beach, who is here to testify. Mayor Paloma Aguire is going to provide some testimony on what's happening in Imperial Beach. Hi. Here Mayor.

Good evening, honorable Members of this Committee. My name is Paloma Guerrero. I'm the mayor of the City of Imperial Beach. We are a working class community of about 27,000 residents with a median income of $30,000 70% renters in our city. And we have two RV mobile parks in the city. Many of them, many of them came to our chambers, dozens and dozens of them, to share with us some of the really egregious practices and impacts that their quality of life were suffering.

We heard cases of people who were so extremely stressed that they were developing heart conditions. I heard from a father of two who had to vacate every six months. And it's not just coming in and out. It entails having to raise money to pay for a hotel, having to raise money to refill their fridges because their food goes back bad. And sometimes, if it fell on a Friday, they wouldn't be able to come back until a week later.

And that adds $1,000, $2,000 to the already limited budget we have in these parks. People who are living on fixed income, veterans, seniors that can't afford to be making these expenses all the time. And this issue is not unique to Imperial Beach. We hear this all across the state. Working class communities that are living in these naturally occurring, Low cost accommodations or units. And we're experiencing a housing crisis. We're experiencing the worst homelessness crisis in our state. This is how we prevent it.

We allow these folks to not have this impact to their quality of life by having them come in and out the RV six month shuffle. We let them stay there so that they can continue to live with a quality of life. And we save billions of dollars in addressing homelessness once they end up on the street. So I urge your support for this Bill, and thank you for listening.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Others in support of AB 1472.

Hi, everybody. My name is Rachel Roscoe. I am part of the tenant Association for the Miramar Mobile Park, formerly known as Siesta RV. There are 104 spaces there. I move into the park. Two and a half years going on three years. As of right now, I am a single mom of a wonderful special 10 year old. Soon after moving, I started knowing that we had to be moving in and out every six months.

And I started to learn that if we didn't move or if we decided to not to comply with that, there was going to be harassment. And it was even harassment even before that. I am here to talk technically of my cost by me with my son moving by myself. If I had to get a Campo to place my RV, it will depend on what other charging per day. Right now, the cheapest one will be $85 a day.

If you get a hotel and you have to leave your own home on the street, That's another thing. A hotel runs you from $60 to $100, depending on how many people you have in your family. An average for if you go on the weekend or if you go throughout the week. It can go from $450 to up to $1,000, depending on how many people are in your family. And we have families that are two parents and four kids.

They're older families that actually are having conditions because of the stress of moving. Everything that you own every six months at this point, we're really hoping that you guys can support us with this. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone. All right, let's turn to the opposition. Those in opposition, please approach the microphone.

Thank you. Chair, Umberg and Committee Members. My name is Diana Kelly, and I represent the California Outdoor Hospitality Association. For more than 50 years, our organization has represented RV Parks and campgrounds throughout the state. And in fact, it was our organization that wrote the Special Occupancy Parks Act that this Bill actually sets to amend.

But as written, this Bill is actually going to have the opposite effect of what the Assemblyman is trying to achieve, because park owners will have no choice but to decline a guest request when they want to come back into the park. That's going to put a hardship on our transient parks, and it's going to put more people out on the street, because they will be fearful that they will suffer legal ramifications because of this.

Nearly every park in California has some sort of length of stay restriction. It's either self imposed, it's imposed by their conditional use permit, it's established by a land lease, or it's imposed by a local jurisdiction. And this Bill actually sets to conflict with those length of stay restrictions. The suggested amendments only set to punish those parks that currently do not have a restriction in their conditional use permit. But we aren't building new parks anymore.

And so a lot of these parks prior to the early 70s, they don't even have a conditional use permit. They don't have length of stay restrictions. So we're setting up to punish some of those transient parks rather than really addressing some of the issues. And while targeting residential type parks, we're also throwing out the tourism industry in the process.

Furthermore, the amendment set to codify the practice for over 80% of the state, when I mapped it out, nearly 80% of the state has length of stay restrictions which they are setting to exempt. So if that's the case, then what is the actual goal of the Bill? If we're exempting 80% Members have asked, why not simply have the parks self select their status?

Thank you. If you could wrap it up.

Yes, absolutely. What I would like to do the regulation of RV parks and campgrounds is a complicated cross jurisdictional issue, and it's certainly worth discussing. And I think it would benefit the industry to either hold the Bill or at the very least, make it a two year so we could properly identify the issues and solutions.

All right, thank you. Others in opposition.

Chair and Members, Nate Solo. On behalf of Denza Corporation, whose affiliates own RV Parks in San Diego and Orange counties, we respectfully oppose the Bill. We're sensitive to the fact that the author's Bill was changed from a district Bill to a statewide Bill in the Assembly. We think it would be more appropriate for the Bill to be narrowed back to the district Bill that would only apply to the City of Imperial Beach where the issue was occurring.

Unfortunately, the Bill in print applies statewide and threatens to change California's successful RV Travel and tourism industry. The Bill takes rules governing residential hotels and applies them to RV Parks. The Bill, as currently written, will have the effect of turning California's RV Parks into permanent housing. This will change the nature of the RV industry in the state. Visitors will no longer be able to find spots, since the spaces will be occupied by permanent residents.

The Bill will also reduce the transient occupancy taxes and sales tax revenue each of your districts receive from RV travelers. Our three RV parks alone generate $2 million a year in transient occupancy taxes for local governments. There are over 1000 RV parks in the state, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in local government revenue that are at risk from this Bill. People travel in RVs for a variety of reasons, and California is fortunate to draw visitors from within the state, across the country, and internationally.

People choose the RV park location and length of stay that works for them, some short term and some long term. We accommodate all of these travelers while abiding by the length of stay requirements imposed on us by local governments and the Coastal Commission through ordinances, lease agreements, conditional use permits, and other mandates. The amendments being proposed by the Committee do not take into account all of the various length of stay requirements we need to comply with.

We're asking that the Bill be narrowed to only apply to imperial beach in the Assembly Members district or turned into a tier Bill so amendments can be worked out to address the opposition concerns. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Others opposed to AB 1472, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approached, let's turn to the phone lines. For those who are in support and in opposition to AB 1472, thank you.

For in support of opposition of AB 1472, you may press one and then zero again. That is one and then zero for in support of opposition of AB 1472. And Mr. Chair, we have no one in queue.

All right, let's bring it back to Committee questions. Yes, Senator Min.

Yeah, so I really sympathize with the point of this Bill, and I represent Huntington Beach in orange, and we have mobile home parks that are engaged in the same types of abuses of really trying to evict mobile homeowners. But I'm also torn because I think the opposition raises some serious concerns. During COVID I rented an RV for the first time, and I camped, and we had a great time.

And this Bill doesn't seem to distinguish between what I view as, like recreational camping, where you take an RV and you're just traveling, and when you're actually using your mobile home as your home. And that does strike me as a big difference. And I note in the analysis that opposition was trying to get parks exempted that per their own rules or policies, limit the lengths of stays of their guests. And I get the point of this Bill.

You're trying to solve a real problem that happens in imperial. I see it happen in my districts, and there's really gnarly bad people out there that are abusing the rules. And clearly here they're engaged in arbitrage to avoid having these mobile homeowners become residents and qualify for those protections.

At the same time, it doesn't seem to me like this Bill really addresses some of the concerns that are legitimate concerns that are raised because there are mobile home or RV campgrounds out there that may have no interest in being mobile home parks, if that distinction makes sense. So I guess I was wondering if you could address that and why not just limit this to imperial for this year and come back with maybe a more thoughtful, comprehensive approach statewide?

Because I think there's a problem here you're trying to address that is statewide. But at the same time, I worry that you're sweeping in too much here, and I do worry about the concerns that are raised by opposition.

Sure. Thank you for raising those issues. I will, first of all, state that we're talking about RV Parks and not mobile home parks. And an RV park is a recreational vehicle. It's a place where people go and travel to and spend some of their vacations often. And our intent and the language that we've taken over the course of amendments, and amendments that are before you today, is to keep it that way, and it's only for recreational use.

Where I have a disagreement with the opposition and maybe some of you might as well, is that some of these have gone from being RV parks to now being actual places where people are residing in their residence and they're using the RV shuffle the move in and move out of every six months in order to avoid rights for the tenants. We have added language, and we'll continue to identify language.

We've asked the opposition for language suggestions on how do we exempt parks that are legitimately doing RV Business and making sure that this only applies to those who are now treating these as residential lots where people are moving in with these RVs and they're being shuffled in and out in order to avoid these tenancy protections. So if there's more language to make that more clear, I will take it. That is absolutely the intent here.

I appreciate that. I'm looking at the Bill right now, and the way I read it, the language as written would apply to all of the parks, right. Whether or not they're masquerading as were the legitimate RV Parks, or whether they're encroaching in the mobile home territory. Because this seems to apply to anybody. It provides a rebuttable presumption for anybody that is required to re register.

Right.

So if I come into the park, I leave, I come back later that year to camp again. That creates a rebuttable presumption that the purpose of that requirement was to prevent me from maintaining statuses.

You had to have been there for over nine months. In order for that to have occurred.

You have to have been there for over nine months. Okay.

Only in that circumstance would this apply. And so my argument is, have you been there nine months or more? They're probably not just hanging out for the weekend.

Okay.

So this only applies to residents who've been there for nine months.

I just want to pick up the thread from the author. You're seeking that input from opposition. They're here through the chair. Do you mind? Can I direct that question to them and say, is that an important distinction the author is raising?

Correct. Okay. Within the last year. Other questions? Yes. Senator Stern.

It's absolutely an important distinction. We have three levels of occupancy within an RV park and an RV park and a mobile home park. There's very different distinctions there. So you have an occupant, a tenant, and a resident. This Bill is not addressing those residents. In fact, it's actually naming tenants as the persons involved. So a tenant is anyone That's in the park between 30 days and nine months. So that is the problem.

The residents are not once you become a resident, you're in the park, and there's no issue there. What the problem is right now is he's saying anybody That's there prior to nine months, is asked to leave, and then is able to come back. So it has nothing to do with residents. It has to do with the tenancy of an RV park.

And we have people all over the country that come into our RV parks and stay for six months at a time and then want the option to come back. And that is how a lot of these RV parks function. We have line workers. We have traveling nurses, we have snowbirds that come from Canada, and they will stay for six to nine months, and they leave, and they want to come back before the year is up, and they won't be able to do that under this.

I would disagree that there's 1 second. 1 second before I lose control. Okay. All right. Senator Stern and I'll let Assembly Maravrez respond as well, and I want to tee him up for a response too,

But just to drill down for a quick second further on the language. So you're defining resident as a tenant who's occupied for at least nine months, right? Correct. But then the Bill applies to occupants, tenants, or residents who are being required to re register. So the concern from the opposition is about the occupants and the tenants, not the residents. Although now the tenants have become residents under this Bill. No.

No.

All right, 1 second. That's directed to Assembly Member Alvarez. Sorry for my confusion now bleeding into you. And if you wish to defer to your witness, you may or not to your witness, but to other witnesses. Do we have we don't. The attorney all right. It's not here. Okay. Some of them are over. So what I would say is that the attempt and if we need to clarify this again, we sat down at a table and talked about something.

I said, help me figure out how to do this. Right. The intent is, if someone is living there and they're living there for nine months out of the year, they should have protections as a resident, whether it's call the resident tenant, help me figure it out, and we'll make sure we label them correctly so that That's the case. That's the intent. And I will take the amendments, make sure that That's addressed Senator Ashby, then Senator Derasso, then back to Senator Mint, right? Senator Ashby?

Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. Let me just start by saying and associate myself with the comments of Senator Min. I think he is probably about where I'm at on this. For me, this Bill is overly broad. Had it just been imperial, I would have supported it for you to go try it, and we could learn lessons from that and figure out if it worked or not.

But one of the reasons I think it's overly broad is because I think these RV parks play out differently in different parts of the state. I think about Santa Cruz or Monterey or Mendocino and Palm Springs and people who go places for warm weather stay there for a while. Tahoe and I just think it plays out very differently across the State of California, like a lot of these things where we're trying to address one fit solution.

Look, in the City of Sacramento, we have used RVs for part of our homeless strategy at various times. We purchased many of the RVs that you all probably the Legislature paid for during COVID After they were done with their COVID purpose, they stayed in the City of Sacramento and were used for housing.

But the way you provide support services to people who are experiencing homelessness is very different than what exists in an RV location, which sometimes is very remote on purpose because it's about camping or about vacationing. And I think this Bill for me lacks intentionality in two ways. One, the intentionality to help people who are actually experiencing homelessness and are looking for a solution. And two, the intentionality around who's a resident and who's actually vacationing. And there are RV parks that allow for residential.

And it would have been, I think, better to expand and broaden that definition rather than to try to say that people who are operating under the terms of what the owners of the site believe to be vacationing now somehow become residents. So for those two reasons, I'm going to vote no on this Bill today.

Thank you. You're welcome to respond or respond on your close, whichever you'd like, because now it's been brought up twice and I neglected to respond to it earlier. We actually started as a Bill that was focused on Imperial Beach. As we've gone through the process, as Committee requests changes to continue in the process that we were asked to remove that. And so we are with you with a different Bill that now applies statewide.

But our intent was always to obviously address the issue happening in our district, and so that is still our goal. We have learned that there are other places where there's an issue. If other Members would like to include their regions in this, be happy to do that as well. I think you can sense from my responses that and from my testimony, we've been trying to figure out a way to make this work. This is not intended in order to create any kind of havoc for anybody.

So whatever the Committee thinks moving forward will make this work. That's what we want to do. We just want to have a solution for our community.

Chair, if I could I just say I really applaud that and I wish it was Imperial so I could support it today. Sorry.

All right. I think I said Senator Durazo.

Yeah. What convinced me to support your Bill is the part where you say if the purpose of the re registration requirement is to prevent document tenor resident from gaining or maintaining status as a resident. And that made it pretty clear for me, so I'll be supporting.

And that was added again, to add clarity as to the intent. As we've been going, we've been trying to make it really clear who would it would apply to and who it wouldn't apply to. 1 second. Let me finish. Senator Durazo, is that your question? Yes. OK. All right. Senator Min and Senator Allen. All right, Senator Allen, just trying to.

Better understand, so you'd originally come forward with a very limited pilot program. What was the logic behind expanding it out? I understand that wasn't your choice, but what was the reason why what's your best understanding as to why it was expanded out? Maybe we can ask the chair.

I can't give you a direct response on that. It was definitely conversations with Committee staff who believed that it would be better to be applied this way. And those were the amendments that were required in order to move us forward.

All right. Other questions? Senator Min

Sorry, I have a basic. Definitional question, which is revisiting the occupant, tenant or resident? I now know what the resident means.

Okay.

I'm still unclear, and I think I heard from the opposition witness. Tenant is someone who's there more than one month, up to six months. Is that right? But what is a tenant or occupant? What are those?

Occupant is anyone in the park less than 30 days, and a tenant is someone That's in a park from 30 days up to nine months.

This Bill, as I read the text, it says in an action brought pursuant to this section, if it is established by preponderance of the evidence that an occupant, tenant or resident was required to re register, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the purpose was to prevent the occupant from becoming a resident. So this applies to everybody, not just the nine month residents? That's a fair reading of this, right? And the analysis notes the same thing. No, this actually says under 30 days.

This applies the language I just read, it applies to occupants, tenants or residents, all of the above. And so that's my question. And the analysis also notes that this Bill, the concerns raised by opposition are that it applies to all time lengths. And that your response was that you have concerns that allowing the exemption for parks with Shorter terms would essentially provide every park the ability to exempt themselves from the requirement of the Bill.

And I hear what you're saying, but I guess I am still concerned about the I'm going to get my terms wrong here, but the RV park that has no interest in having long term residents, but really just is a campground, essentially, for mobile homes or RVs or whatever we call them. To me, this Bill, as I read it as written, clearly covers occupants, tenants and residents, and says that if you make them re register when they come back for another visit.

So, in other words, if I come visit for a short period of time and then I come back to the same park later and have to re register. That then creates a presumption that the park is trying to prevent me from becoming a resident.

If you have done that for a total of nine months out of the year.

That's not how I read the language. It says that any time an occupant tenant or resident is required to re register, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the purpose of the requirement was to prevent the occupant from becoming a maintaining status as a resident. I think my concern is just around the language of the Bill. The analysis that we have here in front of us also states that this is a concern.

And so I'm hearing one thing from you, but I'm reading something else in the analysis and in the text of the Bill. And so I have concerns with where this Bill is. I believe it's over broad. I'm not sure what to do because I understand the intent of your Bill. I agree with it. But as written right now, it applies to a lot of parks around the state. And there's a lot of people that come to the state to RV Camp.

And this Bill, as written as I read it, would basically upend these RV parks around the state. And again, it's for a noble cause. If it was for parks that like this one, I would be all in favor of it, but I'm not sure. I know you want to work with opposition. I'm inclined to maybe give you an I vote today just to help give you time to work on it. But I'm debating, so I don't know if you have a response to that.

And I apologize for being kind of wishy washy.

Before you respond, let me take Senator Laird, then I'm going to respond to Senator Min here. Okay. Senator Laird.

Thank you. I saw that former Senator Wykowski walked in and he used to unravel these for us.

I'm pleased that he's going to spend the night with us to demonstrate his sympathy and support for his former colleagues. So thank you, Senator White House, for staying.

In a certain way, I'm struggling the way Senator Min is, and it's because of the circumstance of my district. I have between 20 and 25% of California's coast. We have a number of RV parks as distinguished from Mobile home. There has been a big argument since Santa Cruz City has the highest per capita homeless population of any city in the State of California of what the overlap is.

And people have adopted rules to try to make sure that it is transitory tourism people and doesn't open up. And I was concerned about one thing that the opposition said, because there was a good amendment taken that narrowed this based on a permit.

And yet the opposition said, there are some people, and I know this has got to be true in parts of my district that have had these long before they had to have a permit and they would still not be exempted under that particular language that has been taken in the amendment. And yet, despite the attempt to not have long term residents because they're recreational, when 925 people lost their houses locally, people stepped up from some of these places and let them stay there.

And then all of a sudden that'll start tripping all these requirements when they are really recreational over long term. And somehow it gets messed up of that circumstance. So I'm distinctly uncomfortable with the Bill the way it is. I get what you're trying to do. I thought the two witnesses in favor of it were compelling on the specific issues for Imperial Beach.

And if there was a way, I'm suspecting that you were asked to narrow it in the Judiciary Committee, in the Assembly, wherever you were asked to narrow it because there was some equal protection thing and you had to have everybody you couldn't single out Imperial Beach. And I suspect that's what the reason was, because it makes no sense if we're really trying to solve Imperial Beach to do anything else. And so I'm genuinely torn. I don't like this Bill. I don't think it's in good shape.

I'm going to help you out, okay?

And yet the question is, if I thought for an ounce you could fix it, I'd give you that chance, but I'm not hearing it.

No. 1 second, I'm going to help things along. I'm not going to cut off debate. If others wish to participate, I'm going to ask some of Alvarez I'm going to give you a choice here. You can go ahead and we can take a vote today, or we can put this Bill over for a vote for you to work out some of the challenges that have been presented in terms of the issue of whether it can be simply applied to Imperial Beach.

I realize that there are some procedural hurdles you would need to overcome because it came out of that house in a different form, number one. Number two, in terms of figuring out whether this should apply to all RV parks and what that definition should be. So we can go ahead and take a vote, or we can put it over for vote for next week to give you another week to sort of work on it.

I always feel lucky. All right. But I'm also practical.

No, what I'd ask is certainly want to make people comfortable. I think, again, my testimony you heard that I hope that the opposition can help provide some guidance on how to move forward with the right language so that there isn't this uncertainty of who gets covered or not. I've asked for that in our meeting, personal meeting. If we can get assistance from the Committee as well on figuring that out, I'd really appreciate that because that's the intent. So I think we have we can get that help. All right.

And to quote a famous resident of Senator Laird's district, do you feel so

You can decide whether if you wish to call for a vote, I think there'll be a motion, or you can put it over till next week for vote.

All right. Okay, so I don't want to cut off other conversation, but does anybody else have any welcome? All right. Okay. Thank you, Assembly Member. Thank you very much. All right, thank you very much. We will take this up for vote at a future date. Okay, who else do we have here? Assembly Member Bauer Cahan, the floor will soon be yours. That's for item number six. AB 352.

We can defer the vote.

You can choose as to whether you wish to have a motion and take the Bill up for vote or whether you want to consider this hearing simply for testimony with a vote to be deferred. What would you like?

Thank you, Members. You've now learned this is not my daughter's favorite Bill, Mr. Maienschein's is, but I'm proud to present AB 352, a Bill to further protect reproductive rights by preventing information on abortion from crossing state lines. As I'm sure you're all aware, with Roe fully overturned, abortion access for 25 million women is either limited or criminalized. And many of them are coming here to California to seek access to care.

What we have learned from our physicians that practice both here and out of state is that medical records have now been made available across state lines, which is a good thing if you have cardiology issues or the like and you want physicians out of state to see your medical records. However, if you're coming to California to access abortion care, you do not want folks back home who believe this to be a crime to be able to see that you've received that care here in California.

So this Bill is simple. It will allow for that information to not be shared across state lines, to ensure that it only does so when consent is given and to protect those women who are coming here to access care. With me today in support is Sarah Gilbert, a nurse practitioner with Planned Parenthood NorCal, and Sophia Pedrezo, council with Planned Parenthood affiliates, who will be available to answer questions if you have any.

All right, thank you. Floor is yours.

Good evening, chair and mergen Members. My name is Sarah Gilbert and I'm a nurse practitioner and the senior Director of clinical practice at Planned Parenthood Northern California. I'm here today in support of AB 352, which will improve patient and provider privacy by preventing information about abortion related services from automatically being shared across state lines and add protections for other sensitive services. At PP NorCal, we serve 20 Northern California counties across 17 health centers since Roe was overturned.

My colleagues and I continue to watch the growing number of states across the country that are enacting restrictions and bans on essential health care services like abortion and gender affirming care. On average, we see at least 20 out of state patients per month at our affiliate. Patients come to Planned Parenthood. Because we are a trusted and compassionate provider of sexual and reproductive health care, our patients assume that the care they receive will be kept confidential.

Up to this point, electronic health records and health information exchanges have focused primarily on information sharing between healthcare organizations. Now that many states are seeking to ban or restrict abortion and gender affirming care, patients and providers are increasingly concerned about the visibility of sensitive health information between providers and across state lines. A patient told us that her other Doctor was able to see in the electronic health record that she had recently been pregnant and had an abortion at PP. NorCal.

This patient happened to be from California, but the ramifications, if that patient had been from Texas or another restrictive state, could be severe. AB 352 is critical because it will allow providers to protect information related to sexual health care, abortion, and other sensitive services from being automatically shared, especially outside of California, through health information exchanges, except as required by federal law.

And it will require businesses that store medical information related to sensitive services to implement technology to restrict such information to be viewed only by authorized individuals. Patients want to access the health care they need without fear of legal or criminal consequences from data sharing. Doctors and nurses want to be able to provide this care and assure patients that we can protect their private health information. I'm proud to be here today representing my colleagues, and I respectfully urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Others in support.

Justin Rouse Office of Attorney General Bonta in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good good afternoon. Dani Kando-Kaiser. On behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in support.

Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. We're the co sponsor in strong support. Thank you.

Dr. Panalassi from Sonoma County and also representing the Maya Network Board. Thank you. In strong support.

Thank you. Others in support? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to opposition. Those in opposition, 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 AB 352. Moderator, please queue those folks up.

Thank you. For in support or opposition of AB 352, you may press one and then zero. And we will go to line 100. Oh, 100, you took yourself off. Please press one and then zero. We'll go to line 113. Your line is open.

Good evening, Chair and Senators. Michelle Teran-Woolfork with the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 100, your line is open.

Good evening. Ruth Dawson with ACLU California Action in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 70, your line is open.

Hi. Yadi with Oakland Privacy in support of AB 352.

Thank you.

And Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

All righty, thank you. Did you want to--

Jessica Stender on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates in support.

Thank you. Okay. Bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members? Seeing--yes. Senator Min.

Great bill. Would like to be a co-author at the appropriate time. I will move the bill.

All right. Senator Min has moved the bill. Other questions or comments? Seeing none. Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan, would you care to close?

Thank you, Senator. Happy to have you as a co-author, Mr. Min, and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All righty, thank you. Madam Secretary or Madam Chief Counsel, please call the roll.

This is AB 352. The motion is 'do pass to the Senate Health Committee.' Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Wilk? Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Min? Aye. Min, aye. Niello? Stern? Wiener? Six to zero with a Member missing.

All right, six/zero. We'll put that on call.

Thank you, Senators.

We'll put that on call. All right. Assembly Member Berman, just under the line. Just right. Number Seven: AB 537.

Thank you, Chair. I hope to go as quickly as my predecessor just did or my colleague who just presented just did. Mr. Chair and Senators, I would like to begin by thanking Committee staff for their work on this bill. I will be accepting the Committee amendment included in the analysis to ensure that this consumer protection does not interfere with other existing rights. AB 537 is a common sense consumer protection bill that cracks down on short-term lodging hidden fees. We've all experienced it.

You go to a website, enter the dates of your stay, pick a room for a certain price, and then at the last minute, fees such as resort fees or cleaning fees are tacked on once most consumers have committed to the property. I've even seen hotels that tacked on a destination fee at the very end of the booking process. It's a hotel. Being a destination isn't a special add on. It's literally the essence of a hotel.

If you want to charge that, put it in the advertised price of the room. Unfortunately, the reality is that consumers are being manipulated into thinking they're getting a better deal than they really are. In his most recent State of the Union, President Biden called out these fees for harming consumers by preventing them from seeing the true price when they pick out a hotel and by limiting their ability to comparison shop. This isn't a partisan issue. Nebraska's Attorney General, a Republican, filed suit over resort fees.

Pennsylvania's Attorney General at the time, another governor who's a Democrat, did the same thing. It's time to take action on behalf of California consumers and to put an end to this deceptive practice. AB 537 would prohibit hidden fees by ensuring that the advertised or offered cost of the stay be disclosed in the upfront price, including all taxes and fees required to stay at a short-term lodging located in California. Californians are sick and tired of being misled.

The advertised or offered price of your stay should be the real price that you pay. This bill is supported by numerous consumer organizations, and my office has been in communication with stakeholders as we received feedback, as well as coordinating with Senator Glazer, who is authoring a sister bill to this effort. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I'm joined by Robert Herrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California.

All right. Mr. Herrell.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members. Robert Herrell, Executive Director of Consumer Federation of California. We're the sponsor of the bill. You've heard similar bill earlier this year by Senator Glazer. Assembly Member Berman spoke to that. I just want to highlight one issue that's probably going to be highlighted in some of the future testimony. There are a couple of industries where it's really important that what we call all-in pricing, upfront pricing, include taxes and fees. One of them is the lodging industry.

You don't pay sales tax on a hotel room, but there are a lot of add ons, many of them driven by the local level in your local communities, tourism assessments and things like that. It gets to the point where for a number of consumers, it can be a substantial amount.

That's why in the Dodd/Skinner Bill that you heard earlier this year that excludes sort of government imposed taxes and fees, we think that in this industry, it's important that they be included because it can be a substantial amount to the bottom line for consumers. I'm happy to answer more questions if they come up, but we would urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

All righty, thank you. Others in support.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and Members. Karen Lange on behalf of the Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors. Very thankful for the inclusion of the TOT in the bill. It really would help out with knowing who is supposed to collect what. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and Members. Jenny Trice on behalf of County of Santa Clara in support.

Thank you.

Good evening. Kalyn Dean, California State Association of Counties, in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Members, Shane Gusman on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California in support and Robert who also wanted me to mention CALPIRG.

All right, thank you. Others in support? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to opposition. Those in opposition, please approach the microphone.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Emellia Zamani with the California Travel Association. We respectfully oppose this bill unless amended. We are not opposed to fee transparency. We just want a balance between the unnecessary resort fees, destination fees, cleaning fees, and the government imposed taxes, fees, and assessments. We believe that it will put California at a competitive disadvantage, putting all of these fees and taxes in the front of the advertised rate and not having it back at the end of the transaction, as we're doing currently.

Yes, the cost of visiting California is already very expensive, but we don't want to put a glaring light on that, especially as we're hearing from our partners at Visit California that traveler sentiment says that 37 percent of domestic travelers, including Californians, and 40 percent of international consumers, say the price of travel is a barrier to them traveling. Please don't artificially inflate our lodging rates by lumping in these required levies.

We urge you to exclude government taxes, fees, and assessments from the provisions of this bill as other transparency bills this season are doing--session are doing. Sorry, it's late. Lastly, the federal government is considering legislation that would ensure consistent pricing policies, and this approach is preferred to guarantee there is a level playing field nationwide when it comes to advertised rates. For these reasons, we remain respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Julee Malinowski-Ball on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association; echoes the comments made by CalTravel. We have an opposed unless amended position to remove taxes and other government imposed and approved fees.

All righty. Thank you. Others who are in opposition, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the phone lines. Moderate, please queue up those who are in support and in opposition to AB 537.

Thank you. For in support or opposition of AB 537, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero for in support or opposition. We will go to line 114.

Good evening, Chair and Members. Crystal Acidos on behalf of the City of Santa Monica in support. Thank you.

Thank you, and Mr. Chair, we have no further comments in queue.

All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members? Seeing no questions or comments, is there a motion? Senator Durazo moves the bill. Assembly Member Berman?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. All right. Madam Chief Counsel, if you'd call the roll.

Yes, this is AB 537. The motion is 'do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee.' Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Wilk? Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Min? Niello? Stern?Wiener? You have four to zero so far with Members missing.

All right, we'll put that on call. Thank you very much. Assembly Member Bonta, you've been waiting very patiently. Thank you.

Deferred gratitude.

The floor is yours. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members, or early evening. First, I want to thank the Committee for their time spent on this bill. I accept the Committee amendments. AB 1148, the Stable Parents, Stable Children Act, brings crucial reform to the child support system and alleviates financial strains for formerly incarcerated parents and their families. Current California law mandates formerly incarcerated parents begin paying back child support 30 days after returning home from prison or jail.

If parents are unable to pay, they face punitive consequences such as suspension of their driver's license, inability to obtain a passport, and increased interest on the amount of child support owed. 30 days sets people up for failure. It fails to recognize the main barriers people reentering into society face, particularly the difficulty in finding stable employment. Rates of employment and earnings among formerly incarcerated people are low.

Research shows that unemployment rates for formerly incarcerated people is nearly five times higher than the unemployment rate for the general United States population. Formerly incarcerated Black women, in particular, experience severe levels of unemployment. Studies show it takes formerly incarcerated people at least six months to find employment. In a survey conducted by Root & Rebound, they found it takes people, on average, 12 months to find stable employment.

People in rural communities, particularly women, have difficulties finding employment and research and reaching economic security as they face a multitude of systems when returning home. It can take them longer to find stable employment given these additional barriers. Providing a parent enough time to secure stable employment and to be able to get back on their feet ensures they can adequately support themselves and their family. AB 1148 will help support families by expanding the time to resume child support payments from 30 days after reentry to 10 months.

This bill is a mechanism for formerly incarcerated parents to obtain some financial stability and provide for their families while supporting family reunification. With me to speak on this bill, I have Claudia Gonzalez of Root & Rebound, the sponsor of this legislation.

Thank you. Ms. Gonzalez, the floor is yours.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, Committee Members. Claudia Gonzalez, Root & Rebound. We are a legal service provider, and we help formerly incarcerated people with reentry barriers. I am here as a formerly incarcerated woman and in representation of our clients who are formerly incarcerated women in California's Central Valley, and so we know that reentry is not monolithic.

And when we account for regional disparities and then things like child support and financial barriers for people coming home to places like the Central Valley, they have an even more difficult time readjusting to society, and that elongates the reentry journey and makes their families suffer. And so I'll share some stories. For example, our client, Louise A, she came home June 2021. Within seven months, she couldn't find employment, and so from June 2021 all the way to January, her debt went from 4,000 dollars all the way to 11,000 dollars.

Our client Felicia had a 23,000 dollar debt, and so she had payments of 650 dollars. When she had to choose between paying her rent or paying child support, she chose to pay her rent, and that led to her license being suspended and her losing her job.

AB 1148 is not an all-encompassing solution to the child support issue, but what it does, it gives people like Felicia and Louise the opportunity to, one, find employment, two, become somewhat financially stable, and three, provide for their children. In the State of California, we have a history of disliking and villainizing poor people with records, and so 1148 is an opportunity to rectify those harms and stop those harmful practices so that people can be successful.

The reality is that people cannot pick up themselves up by the bootstrap if they cannot afford the boots. They need all the support they get. They need an extension, and for these reasons and these stories, I request aye votes from the Committee. Thank you. And I'm also available to answer any technical questions.

All righty. Thank you, Ms. Gonzalez. Others who are in support of AB 1148, please approach. Seeing no one approach, let's now turn to opposition. If you're in opposition to AB 1148, please approach the microphone.

Thank you, Committee Chair and Members. My name is Gretchen Lichtenberger. I am the Legislative Chairperson for the California Association of Judgement Professionals. Our opposition has been documented in the analysis. Thank you for that. We oppose AB 1148 for several important reasons. Primarily, it puts the burden on everyone but the person who owes the child support. DCSS and the local child support agencies have new found requirements in here. The person who is owed the child support has to set the hearing to modify the Child Support Order.

We have existing laws already where the person who owes child support, they can come into court and modify their child support. So if somebody like what the prior person was talking about, if somebody is coming out of being incarcerated and they need time to find a job and they have a 650 dollar a month Child Support Order, they can go into court right away and say, 'listen, I just got out of being incarcerated. I need a lower rate while I'm finding new employment.'

So because we have existing laws, I think this bill paints with a broad brush ten months for everybody, regardless of their circumstance. So if somebody was incarcerated for just 90 days, they get an automatic ten month suspension. And when does it start up again? Who notifies the court when they are incarcerated? Who notifies the court when they're no longer incarcerated? What is their address for any kind of reporting requirements so that we can give them notice?

So I think there are a lot of drafting flaws here that could be corrected and I look forward to hopefully working with the author and maybe try to make this so it doesn't paint with a broad brush and it doesn't give the same requirements to everybody, regardless of their financial situation, and it doesn't put the burden on the fiscal impacts of anybody that's going to have--sorry.

If they're going--the person that's receiving child support, if they have ten more months where they're not getting child support, that means they're going to need state support.

Thank you, if you could wrap it up. All righty, thank you very much.

I respectfully ask for a no vote.

All righty, thank you very much. Others in opposition, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, let's turn to the phone lines for those in support and in opposition to AB 1148.

Thank you. For in support or opposition of AB 1148, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line 100. Your line is open.

Good evening, again. Ruth Dawson with ACLU California Action in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. And we have no further support or opposition in queue.

All righty. Thank you. All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members? Senator Ashby.

Yep. Want to thank the author and just want to ask you one question. I read the bill carefully. I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply to people who can pay, correct?

That's correct. It actually doesn't change the Family Code 4007.5, which already establishes that if there's a money judgment or order for support, that shall not be suspended.

Right. And actually, what this bill by my reading does is achieves what a person would have received had they gone to court afterwards, if they had done the opposition exactly as the opposition is suggesting, that when a person leaves an institution had they had the time and wherewithal to set a hearing with the family court and go in and ask for a waiver, it would be granted.

But this is going to give it to them without having to do that, which is critically important because one of the biggest reasons for recidivism in the State of California is the crippling amount of restrictions put on people when they come out. They immediately have to figure out how to find housing for themselves if they have to do anger management, if they have to do substance abuse control. All of these things are put on them as conditions of their parole.

That child welfare becomes just another thing in the stack and that they can't pay it, then pretty soon, they find themselves in violation of their own parole, and that becomes a VOP and they go right back to custody, so I think this is a brilliant bill. It just takes one thing, one more thing off of the list that a person could cripple and fail because of when they come out and gives them that opportunity to succeed.

And what I also like about this bill is it doesn't change that portion of the family code so once they do become gainfully employed, they can go back to paying their child support, but without the arrears that would not allow them to then have housing and all the other things. So I'm happy to move the bill at the appropriate time, Chair, and grateful to the author.

All righty, thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing no other questions or comments, Senator Ashby moves the bill. You care to close, Assembly Member Bonta?

Thank you. Currently, over 75 percent of outstanding child support debt in California is owed by parents who could not afford to pay their original Child Support Order. This is a problem. We have an opportunity to fix this broken system, and I respectfully request your aye vote.

All righty, thank you. Madam Secretary, would you call the roll?

This is File Item Number Eight: AB 1148. The motion is 'do pass as amended to the Senate Human Services Committee.' Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Wilk? Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Min? Aye. Min, aye. Niello? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Wiener? Five to zero.

We'll put that on call. All right, next we have Assembly Member Bryan. I note that Item Number Nine: AB 1324, has no opposition. So go ahead. That's a lot of pressure.

That's how we like to do it. Thank you, Senator, thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you, Colleagues, for allowing me to present AB 1324. I'll give a brief history: since the 80s, the federal government has been requiring parents who have lost custody of their children to help subsidize the cost of the child welfare system, essentially forcing them to pay child support payments to the counties who have now taken custody of their children.

It's an archaic practice that exacerbates poverty, and a study of Orange County showed that for every dollar spent in enforcement, we only got $0.27 back, so last year, here in California, we passed a bill that created a rebuttable presumption that going after these funds unnecessarily extended a child's time in foster care. That bill that was signed by the governor changed the landscape for the country.

The federal government has now changed the guidelines. Counties across the United States are no longer required to collect this debt. Unfortunately, here in California, that's only prospectively. We still have outstanding debt that is crippling families and struggling.

And for parents who can't pay that child support payment to the county to offset the cost of foster care, they are hit with a ten percent interest fee. It impacts their credit score. It exacerbates the ability to find housing and to maintain stability in their lives. A fiscal analysis of discharging that debt has shown that by year two, it's cost positive. In fact, it saves us money because the enforcement is so ineffective. That's what this bill does. It discharges that outstanding debt.

With me, I have two witnesses: Erica Hickey, a fellow at the Alliance for Children's Rights, and Kevin Thurber, a dependency attorney who represents impacted parents.

Good evening, Chairman Umberg and Members. I'm Erica Hickey. I'm a subject matter expert with lived experience in the foster care system and I'm here with the Alliance for Children's Rights here as a co-sponsor for AB 1324 which would make complete California's commitment to ending the damaging and inefficient practice of charging parents for their child's time in foster care. The Alliance for Children's Rights cosponsored Assembly Member Bryan's AB 1686 last year, which narrowed the circumstances in which counties recoup foster care costs from parents.

Around the same time, the federal government issued clear guidance encouraging states to reform their policies to ensure that family reunification and stability, not debt collection, remain the focus of our child welfare system. While these federal and state reforms are exciting, they're only prospective. Thousands of parents still have debt referred by the child welfare system from before AB 1686 went into effect. Like any other type of debt, this can result in driver's license suspensions, wage garnishment, withholding of disability and veterans benefits, and more.

Families whose children have returned home continue to be saddled with debt that could increase the risk of future system involvement, and even for those families whose children, like many of our own clients, now have a permanent home with another caregiver, those children and their caregivers never see a dime of the debt that gets collected. AB 1324 wipes the slate clean, requires state and local agencies by 2025 to rescind and cease enforcement of prior orders and cancel all arrears owed to the state and any accrued interest.

This would apply only to debt accrued as a result of the child welfare agency referral, not any other child support debt. Thank you, and we respectfully request the Committee's aye vote.

All righty, thank you. Next witness.

Good evening, Members. Kevin Thurber. I am the attorney for Catherine Ahern whose statements are in the report you received. I'm not going to read her statement. I'll submit just on that. I was just going to add the additional point that you just heard. Going after this debt is more likely going to result in the parent getting involved in the same problems they had that created the case to begin with, and so you don't get any money from them because you can't get blood from a stone and you recreate the problem, which isn't good for the child. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you very much. All right, others in support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, opposition, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's turn now to the phone lines. Moderator, if you would queue up those on the phone who are in opposition to AB 11--excuse me--1324.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 1324, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line 100. Your line is open. One moment here. Hold on, line 100.

Okay, you'll have to re-queue up. Alright. Hold on one moment. Line 100. Your line is open.

Wonderful. Thank you. Ruth Dawson with ACLU California Action and Support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 111.

Good evening. Amanda Miller Mckinney. On behalf of Children Now in support of AB 1324.

Thank you. And we have no further in queue.

Bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members? Yes. Senator Stern moves the Bill seeing no questions. Comments? Senate Member Bryant, you may close.

Thank you, colleagues. Mr. Chair, charging parents for their children's time in foster care exacerbates poverty. It hurts families. It hurts children. It's why we ended that practice. It's also cost ineffective. It's time we go back and discharge that outstanding debt. We were never going to collect this money. It only further pushes people down into poverty. It's an easy thing to do. It's the right thing we can do. And it's something that the nation is watching for us to do. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Alright, thank you. Madam Secretary, if you call the role.

This is file item number nine, AB 1324. The motion is due pass to the Senate Human Services Committee. [Roll Call] Six to zero.

We'll put that on call. All right. Assemblymember Gabriel. Right under the wire. There we go. The floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members. I am pleased today to present AB 875, a bill that will enable collection of essential data to develop stronger data informed responses to our homelessness crisis. Currently, California's superior courts report some data regarding eviction cases. Unfortunately, however, the reporting is often inconsistent, generic, and in some instances, not made public. Without precise data to know the number of evictions occurring during a time period, where the evictions are happening, and how those numbers are changing, policymakers and service providers are hampered in their efforts to develop and implement the best solutions to address our homelessness crisis.

This bill will require county courts to report more uniform eviction case data, including specific information on the total number of cases filed, how many involve fee waivers, how many defendants were represented by counsel, and case outcomes categorized by zip code. And so doing AB 875 will show the full scope of the eviction landscape and enhance the budgeting, planning, and implementation of eviction prevention and homelessness prevention programs across the state. This measure will help policymakers, service providers, and local jurisdictions better understand eviction and displacement in their communities and allow them to craft more targeted and informed policies to address those challenges.

This bill is supported by legal aid organizations, local governments, and the California Apartment Association, and received strong bipartisan support in the Assembly. With me here today to testify are Joel Ayala, Chief of Staff at the Los Angeles County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs, and Kyle Nelson, postdoctoral fellow with the UCLA and US Department of Veterans Affairs Center on Veteran Resilience and Recovery. Thank you and respectfully request an aye vote.

All righty, thank you. Mr. Ayala, floor is yours.

Chair Umberg, honorable committee members. Joel Ayala, Chief of Staff, LA County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs. I am here on behalf of the County of Los Angeles to testify on AB 875. Currently, there are no standardized eviction data reporting requirements for county Superior Court systems across the state. So we would like to thank Assemblymember Gabriel and his office for their leadership in addressing this important gap. The county is proud to co-sponsor this bill along with the City of Los Angeles.

Of 58 county court systems, there are about a dozen, including Los Angeles, San Diego, and Sacramento, that only report data on the aggregate number of cases that were filed and closed in a given fiscal year. Worse yet, this data does not report on case outcomes, which is critical to understanding why tenants are being evicted and how many tenants are being represented during the eviction proceedings. As such, AB 875 seeks to establish a reporting standard for zip code level court eviction data and outcomes and to make the data accessible to the public at large. On behalf of the County of Los Angeles, I want to thank you for your time and consideration and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All righty, thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon, Chair Umberg and committee members. My name is Kyle Nelson. I'm a senior policy researcher at Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, and I'm speaking in support of Assembly Bill 875. We all know that California is in the midst of an unprecedented homelessness crisis. As a recent study by researchers at UC San Francisco shows, high housing costs and low incomes are primary drivers of homelessness statewide. These factors cause homelessness, however, through residential eviction, which is processed in California superior courts as unlawful detainer lawsuits.

Eviction doesn't impact all communities equally. Some communities experience greater levels of eviction, specific types of eviction, or a lack of resources to push back against illegal or predatory evictions. Therefore, eviction prevention policy, either before or during the legal process, is a powerful mechanism that can be used to prevent and reduce homelessness across the state. And yet, advocates and decision-makers know remarkably little about eviction's bigger picture.

While there are important reasons eviction cases are masked, even anonymized aggregate data on eviction has long been inaccessible at the level of geographic specificity needed to help craft data-driven homelessness prevention policies and effectively allocate resources. AB 875 will help change that reality. By compelling the Judicial Council to collect and publicly report data on eviction filings and outcomes by zip code, this bill will empower cities and counties throughout California to direct resources from targeted public awareness campaigns to funding for right-to-council programs for tenants facing eviction to the areas that most need them.

Knowing where evictions are concentrated will allow elected officials at both state and local levels to craft thoughtful, data-driven policies that address both the causes and consequences of evictions and the neighborhoods where tenants are most at risk of becoming homeless. The opposition to this bill primarily concerns costs related to staffing. We fully support Judicial Council's efforts to acquire more funding.

Thank you very much, sir. If you could wrap it up.

And I thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of Assembly Bill 875.

All right, thank you very much. Others in support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaches the microphone, opposition?

Good evening, Mr. Chair. Tracy Kenny on behalf of the Judicial Council. We are currently opposed to 875 unless it is amended and funded. The council appreciates and recognizes the challenges that many Californians face in obtaining and maintaining housing. In October 2020, the former Chief Justice, Cantil-Sakauye, established a work group on homelessness to evaluate how court programs, processes, technology, and communications might be improved to better serve people experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness, and to consider how the judicial branch might appropriately work with the executive and legislative branches to reduce homelessness.

The final report of that work group was presented to the council in November of 2021, and it included a series of recommendations, many of which concerned improving unlawful detainer proceedings to promote housing stability and reduce homelessness. Those recommendations included a recommendation that the Legislature fund representation for tenants who cannot afford representation based on the successes of the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel program, which was reflected in the analysis, as well as increasing the availability of alternative dispute resolution processes before and after a UD complaint is filed, and improving self-help services for tenants who are representing themselves.

We highlight these activities to note that the council is acutely aware of issues that arise in these important cases and interested in working with the Legislature on productive solutions to promote housing stability. Yet, despite our shared interests, we must oppose this legislation unless it is amended and funded, because it requires the collection and aggregation of data from the courts, which cannot be provided using existing case management and data reporting systems.

And thus implementation would result in millions of dollars of additional costs to manually collect data from court files until significant and costly modifications can be made to collect this information on an ongoing basis consistent with the requirements of AB 875. We are also seeking amendments to clarify the reporting requirements and to make them more workable for the courts in the branch.

One challenge is that the legislation does not specify a start date for the reporting, does not specify the frequency with which it would be updated, and does not indicate if it is prospective only or if data from prior years is to be included. We do collect information on unlawful detainer filings and dispositions and report that in our annual court statistics report. But we cannot connect that data to the zip code of the address of the rental unit subject to the unlawful detainer action. To obtain the data required here and reported on an ongoing monthly basis would require additional staffing.

All righty, thank you. If you could wrap it up.

Our conclusion here is that additional funding for Sargent Shriver would be helpful for other programs to actually address housing, but this will require a cost of close to $5 million.

Thank you very much. I assume you're opposed, right? Okay. Thank you. All right. Others who are opposed? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the phone lines for those who are in support and those who are opposed to AB 875.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 875, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and zero if you're in support or opposition. And we have no one in queue.

All right, let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members. Seeing none, Senator Stern moves the bill. All right, get her closed. Assemblymember Gabriel.

Respectfully request and aye vote. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, if you'd call the role.

This is file item number 12, AB 875. The motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Wilk. Allen. Allen, aye. Ashby. Caballero. Durazo. Durazo, aye. Laird. Min. Aye. Min, aye. Niello. Stern. Stern, aye. Wiener. Five to zero.

Five, zero.

Six zero. Put that on call. Thank you very much. All right. Next, Assembly Member Hart. Two bills, AB 557, number 14 and AB 1340. I think there's one other person, one other Member of the Assembly who's.

Holden stepped out to run to the bathroom. Sorry to announce that.

All right, so. Sometimes it's hard being a traffic cop.

Okay, thank you Chair. Senators, I'm pleased to present AB 557, a measure to continue giving local governments the flexibility to teleconference during state of emergencies.

The COVID-19 pandemic and recent storms have underscored the ongoing need to provide local agencies with the ability to meet remotely. The Bill will simply remove the sunset on existing law to give local governments the option to teleconference during governor-declared emergencies. AB 557 will ensure our locally elected bodies can do the essential work they're elected to do without jeopardizing their health and safety. Testifying in support are Eric Harris, representing Disability Rights California, and Marcus Detweiler representing the California Special Districts Association.

All right. Thank you, sir. Floor is yours.

Good evening, Chair and Senators. Good to be here. My name is Eric Harris. I'm with Disability Rights California. AB 557 is a Bill that would allow local governments to continue to be accessible to the public during governor-declared State of emergencies and continue to provide essential services to residents impacted. During the COVID-19 State of emergency, we learned a lot. One thing that we learned, is that we can engage in important discussions virtually during emergencies.

Many of us have disabilities. Such many folks with disabilities, people in wheelchairs using scooters, other mobility devices, those who struggle using public transportation or have other access-related needs. Other people who wish to participate might be immunocompromised or have other significant reasons why attending in-person meetings, especially during emergencies, is difficult or impossible. In addition to the COVID-19 Pandemic, California endures fires, earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters which can make attending events in person difficult.

AB 557 is a Bill that would allow for more flexibility for all people who want to engage in these types of meetings during emergency situations. It is crucial that California does not go backwards after what we have all experienced over the last several years. Thank you and I urge your Aye vote on AB 557.

All right, thank you. Next witness.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and Members. Marcus Detweiler with the California Special Districts Association, proud sponsor of this Bill. Joined by the California School Boards Association, the League of California Cities, and the California State Association of Counties. Members, this, Bill AB 557 is a modest Brown Act, Bill. It is modest because it only does two things. One, it eliminates the sunset on the emergency remote meeting procedures that were added to the government code as a result of the passage of AB 361, authored by Assemblymember Robert Rivas.

And, it changes from 30 days to 45 days, the duration for resolutions passed pursuant to the emergency remote meeting process, a change that was made to accommodate those localities that meet regularly on a fixed day of the month that may fall beyond the originally prescribed 30-day time period. Amendments that were taken as a result of the conversations, robust conversations, held at the dais of the Senate Governance and Finance Committee eliminate any reference at all to social distancing found within the Bill, which we had discovered that introduced some confusion that was never intended under the original process.

By striking this language, we have made ultimately clear what it is that we have said from the outset. That this Bill is limited to only those times during which there is a state-declared, governor-declared, state of emergency, and that there is an articulatable, identifiable imminent risk to the health and safety of Board Members and attendees.

I would also like to point out that the Bill contains robust public protections, including the provisions that ensure parity between comment that is rendered during the AB 361 process, the required halting of a meeting should there be an interruption in the broadcast of the meeting, and others. With that, I would like to respectfully urge your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Others in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson with Schneider, Antoine, Schmelzer and Lang. Bear with me, I have a small list to read, but in support, the cities of Goleta, of Santa Monica and West Hollywood, San Mateo County Transit District, Caltrain and the San Mateo City County Association of Governments. All in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Kira Ross on behalf of the Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members, in support.

Good evening. Ross Buckley, on behalf of South Coast Air Quality Management District, in support.

Good evening Mr. Chair. Chris McKayley, on behalf of the Pioneer Community Energy, a multi-jurisdictional CCA, in support.

Thank you.

Good evening. Kaylin Dean, California State Association of Counties, proud co-sponsoring support, reading a consolidated list of support. Association of California Healthcare Districts.

Are these organizations that you represent or you're part of?

Yes, all part of the coalition.

Okay, great, thank you.

Also in support, Association of California Healthcare Districts, California School Boards Association, cities of Belmont, Rancho Cucamonga, Santa Rosa, Carlsbad, Redwood City, Mountain View, the City Clerks Association of California, and the California Association of Parks and Recreation. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair. Victoria Rodriguez with Nielsen Merksamer on behalf of San Diego County and the American Council of Engineering Companies in California, in support.

Thank you. All right, let's turn to opposition. Those in opposition, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone, let's turn to the phone lines. For those who are in support or opposition as to AB 557.

And, ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to show support or opposition, press one, then zero now, of AB 557. First, we'll go to line 122. Please go ahead.

Amelia Zamani, California Travel Association, in support.

Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 123. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, Jean Hurst calling in today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California and the Boards of Supervisors of the Counties of Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz, in support.

Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 127. Please go ahead.

Calling on behalf of Stop Waste in support. Thank you.

Next, we'll to go to line 128, please go ahead.

Hi, Mr. Chair and Members. Michael Pimentel here on behalf of two organizations, the California Transit Association and Monterey Salinas Transit, both in support.

Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 88. Please go ahead.

Good evening. Johnny Pena with the League of California Cities, proud to sponsor and in support of this Bill. Thanks very much.

And last we'll go to line 109. Please go ahead.

Hi, good evening. Dorothy Johnson, in support. Association of California School Administrators. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members? Seeing none. Is there a motion? Senator Stern moves the Bill. Senator Hart.

I just respectfully request an Aye vote. Thank you.

All right, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll?

This is file item number 14, AB, 557. The motion is due pass. [Roll Call] Four to zero.

Four to zero. We're going to put that on call. Thank you. Got one more. All right. AB 1345.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In a recent disturbing trend across the country, unsuspecting homeowners are offered cash upfront to enter into decades long exclusive real estate listing agreements. While owners are under no obligation to sell their home in these schemes, consumers are unaware that the agreements are binding, result in a lien placed on the home, and ultimately cost homeowners thousands of dollars more than they receive.

AB 1345 will prevent this abusive sales practice by prohibiting lengthening listing agreements and make it unlawful to present them for recordation. The measure ensures the state takes urgent preventative action to protect vulnerable consumers. Testifying in support today are Lori Mazzella, representing the County of Solano, and Justin Rouse and Daniel Nadal, representing Attorney General Rob Bonta's office.

Good evening, Chair Committee. Lori Mazzella, Deputy County Counsel, County of Solano. We were first made aware of these agreements when our recorder refused to record them due to insufficient statutory authority. We agreed with that determination, and yet we decided to do further investigation due to the vigorous pushback from the realty attorneys involved. What we found, not surprisingly, was that the recording of these documents turned a private contract into a much broader and nefarious document.

And to the extent over the past year that we've been able to track the parcels subject to this agreement, we found overwhelmingly that a majority of the parcels were subject to a bank foreclosure sale. So, even though we don't have three years of data such that the East Coast jurisdictions do, the data still overwhelmingly shows that the business model is the same. They target economically disadvantaged homeowners.

We also found out that over 17 counties have recorded these, some inadvertently electronically, some under threat of litigation, and others were just reluctant not to record because the agreements themselves were not unlawful. And there was no specific prohibition for recording the agreements, which underscores the need for this legislative fix. So we respectfully request your aye vote tonight. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good evening, Members of the Committee. Justin Rouse. I'm the Deputy LD for AG Bonta. I'm just here to answer any questions. And we'll see the rest of my time to my colleague, Mr. Nadal.

Good evening. My name is Daniel Nadel, and I'm a Deputy Attorney General in the Consumer Protection Section of the DOJ. Here on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta. The Attorney General is a proud sponsor of AB 1345, and thanks Assemblymembers Hart and Wilson for their leadership on this issue. As you heard the Assembly Member describe, a predatory real estate practice is emerging. Some real estate companies are locking homeowners into long-term exclusive listing agreements, which are then recorded essentially as liens that cloud title.

Financially vulnerable homeowners are lured by being given a few hundred to a few $1000. But it ultimately can cost them over 10 times that amount. If they sell the home in the years or decades ahead, they must use the company regardless of how diligent it is, or are forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars for the company to release the lien. Even if they don't sell the home, Clouding title can cause problems such as with refinancing.

This practice is also anticompetitive because it blocks other real estate agents from competing for these potential clients. AB 1345 is a common sense, pro-consumer and pro-business Bill that addresses this predatory practice by limiting residential exclusive listing agreements, or agreements, to enter into one to 12 months, and making it unlawful to record exclusive listing agreements of any duration.

The Attorney General would again like to thank the authors for working with our author, with our office, to introduce this Bill and their efforts to make California one of the first states in the nation to enact a legislative solution to this problem. AB 1345 is needed to combat this practice before it gets a stronger foothold in California and becomes harder to mitigate. For these reasons, and as a proud co-sponsor, the Attorney General respectfully urges you to vote aye on AB 1345. Thank you.

Thank you so much. All right, other folks who want to voice support for the Bill.

Shane Gusman, on behalf of the consumer attorneys in support.

Thank you. Anyone else? All right, let's go to opposition folks who want to raise concerns about the Bill. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, my name is Jack Kelly. I'm peering here on behalf of the Future Listing Purchases Association. I'm here to oppose AB 1345. This Bill purports to be a consumer protection legislation. However, the practical effect of it is to eliminate the consumer options by picking winners and losers among current real estate broker business models. As written, AB 1345 would eliminate the option of a homeowner to be compensated for the right to list their house for sale by a licensed California Realtor.

The product is simply the option for a homeowner to be compensated for the future right to list their home if and when and for the amount that they wish to sell their house. If they never wish to sell their house, they keep the funds that were paid for them for the right to list it. The homeowner receives exactly the same service for exactly the same amount of fee as a traditional Realtor would charge.

The difference is that future listing purchasers pay a homeowner for the right to list their house. Today, a homeowner gives that right away for free. They give the right away to another licensed realtor for them to make the fees and commissions on it, where here the homeowner is compensated for that right. It has been said that this places a lien on a piece of property.

You'll hear the notes by the statements by the Attorney General staff and the statement made by the recorder from the county that, well, it essentially does it in effect, what is done here is placed as a notice that such an agreement exists no more and no less. We have approached the sponsor and said what we have done in other states is to create a scheme and to create a regimen whereby this product is licensed, regulated, delineated, prohibitive practices on behalf of the marketplace and contracts.

That are written in the person's language of choice, that are clear, with clear, bold type information outlining what their rights and benefits?

Thank you very much. If you could wrap it up, that'd be great. In excellence.

Mr. Chairman, we would love to work with the Committee instead of taking away this right for consumers to be paid for the right to list their house. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee and ready to answer any questions.

All righty, thank you. Others in opposition, seeing no one approaching the microphone. All right, let's now turn to the phone lines. Moderator, if you would open the phone lines. Also Assemblymember Hart. I wasn't here. Did you accept the amendments as proposed? Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. Previous Committee, I think, actually.

And ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to show support or opposition of AB 1345, press one, then zero. Now again, one, then zero before we.

Queue them up, just to make sure. Assemblymember Hart, have you accepted the amendments as proposed in the Senate Judiciary Committee's analysis? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. All right. Moderator, go ahead. Queue up those who are in support of opposition.

Hi. Good evening, Mr. Chair and Members. Anna Buck. On behalf of the California Association of Realtors with an opposed and less amended position. While we're 100% supportive of the Bill in concept, we'd like to thank the author.

Just a moment. We do have two. First, we'll go to the line of 83. Line 83, your line is now open.

All right, thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony. All right, next. This is me, too, testimony for those who are in support and opposition. Give us your name, your affiliation, and your position.

And we have one more in the queue. We'll go to line 118. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good evening, chair and Members. David Azevedo with AARP, California. On behalf of our 3.2 million members here in the state, we strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. All right.

And at this time, there's no one else in the queue.

All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members. Senator Min moves the Bill. All right, would you like to close?

I respectfully request an aye vote.

All right, thank you. Madam Secretary, if you'd call the roll.

This is file item number 15, AB 1345. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg, aye. Umberg, aye Wilk. Allen. Allen. Aye Ashby. Caballero Durazo. Durazo. Aye Laird Min. Aye. Niello. Stern. Wiener. Wiener aye five to zero.

Five-zero We'll put that on call. All right, next, we have Assemblymember Holden.

Assembly Member Holden. Item number 16, AB 299.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be here with you this evening. I'd like to thank the Committee for their work on this Bill. Members today, I present to you AB 9299, the Hazing Accountability Act. I would like to begin by saying I accept the Committee's amendments to add, reasonably, in front of Should Have Known to provide further clarification of the definition.

Despite codifying laws in 2006 that make engaging in hazing unlawful, California continues to see hazing incidents occur around educational institutions, oftentimes proving to be fatal. It is clear that we are falling short in addressing a key player, and that is the educational institution itself. AB 299 addresses this by allowing a civil action to be brought against an institution of higher education that knew or should have known of the hazing practices of an affiliate organization.

Additionally, AB 299 requires the Department of Finance to make available on their website a model antihazing policy and resources on hazing prevention. I would like to take a moment to address concerns brought to my attention regarding using the language Should Have Known in this Bill. Should Have Known is standard liability language with precedents in California codes relating to evidence of due care, unsafe conditions, and school district liability for sex abuse.

I took amendments at the request of the opposition to clarify that. Should Have Known refers to the exercise of ordinary care. With that said, I'm committed to continuing conversations with opposition to create language that holds all parties involved responsible in the hope that we can prevent these tragedies in the future. Here with me to testify in support of AB 299 is attorney Dina Weiss, on behalf of the California Attorneys of California, I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Alright, thank you. The floor is yours.

Very much. And thank you for the opportunity of voicing my support on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California. AB 299 will save lives. I heard earlier this afternoon, or tonight, enough is enough. Children at learning institutions must be kept safe. This law will keep them safer. I am talking to you as a litigator. I represent children who have been hurt in schools. But I'm also here as a mother.

A mother who had three young adults go off to school, off to college when they were 18 and 19. That was the scariest time of their lives and my life, because they went out of the nest. They went into a whole new world. Where were the protections? They wanted to be in a fraternity. They wanted to be part of their peers lives. But in entering that life, there are so many dangers that must be monitored. This law will save lives.

Now, one life that wasn't saved was in November 2019. A 19 year old boy, Dylan Hernandez, went off to school, said goodbye to his mum and dad, went to San Diego State, and wanted to be in a fraternity. Now, that fraternity, it was Phi Gamma Delta. The institution knew it was trouble. It had been suspended; it knew of the hazing practices. But Dylan joined it, the school allowed it. And Dylan died in a hazing activity. So drunk he fell on his head--traumatic brain injury. And he is dead, but he is not alone. This is becoming an epidemic that needs to be addressed. So penal code, currently, penal code 245.6, the institution cannot help--

Thank you, if you could wrap it up.

Will do. Unless it participated in it. But this law with the reasonably, should have known of the hazing practice of the organization, which the college is affiliated with--

Alrighty, thank you very much. Alright, thank you.

Thank you.

Others in support, please approach. All right, seeing no one else, approach the microphone. Those who are opposed, please approach the microphone. Those opposed to AB 299.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and Members. Satinder Malhi with the CSU Chancellor's office. With me today is Robin Webb with our Office of General Counsel. And before I turn the microphone over to her, I'd like to take this opportunity to express our deepest sympathies to any student who falls victim to an incident of hazing.

We share the concerns of the families and the Assembly Member in wanting to lessen these types of incidents from occurring, and have been working in good faith with the Assembly Member and his staff in crafting a measure which we hope will do just that.

Unfortunately, while the recent amendments move us in the right direction, we must respectfully oppose the measure unless amended for the simple fact that it continues to make the CSU liable for incidents the campus should have known about, including activities which take place outside of the direct purview of a University and of which the University has no knowledge. The CSU makes clear to our students that hazing is illegal and that there will be consequences for engaging in such activity, including, but not limited to, suspension and expulsion.

To help further illustrate some of the ongoing challenges of AB 299 and its unintended consequences, I'd now like to turn the microphone over to Robin Webb with our General Counsel's office. Thank you.

Thank you, Committee Members. The CSU agrees with the goal of preventing hazing, but we fear that this legislation may create the opposite effect. This Bill creates liability. Where an institution knew or should have known of hazing practices of an affiliated organization. It deems that an institution should have known if it fails to proactively, prevent, discover, or stop hazing practices. This effectively results in strict liability for the institution. Hazing does not happen in the campus quad in the middle of the day.

It happens behind closed doors and on property that the University does not control and doesn't even have the right to enter. The Supreme Court's opinion in the Rosen case is instructive the court noted that unlike curricular activities, and I quote, many aspects of a modern college, student's life are, quite properly, beyond the institution's control. Colleges generally have little say in how students behave off campus or in their social activities unrelated to school.

It would be unrealistic for students to rely on their college for protection in these settings, and the college would often be unable to provide it. This applies precisely to the relationship between institutions and its recognized student organizations whose endeavors go beyond the campus borders. A University has no authority to actually control the noncurricular off campus activities of student organizations. The strict liability created by this Bill is something the institution simply cannot afford.

The CSU will likely have no choice but to disaffiliate student organizations because of the potential economic impact of this legislation. As the CSU's Risk Management Council, this will be my recommendation, unless this Bill is amended, these organizations will continue to exist, but without the oversight and support of the University, these rogue organizations will draw from our student population. They will look and feel like student clubs and organizations. They will continue to operate, but now without any supervision or training, the CSU currently requires--

If you could please begin to wrap up; you've reached your limit.

Thank you. The CSU currently requires and provides training. This will vanish, and so we oppose this Bill unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. That is the two primary witnesses in opposition. So this would be the opportunities for people in the room to do a me too oppose on this Bill.

[inaudible] on behalf of the Community College League of California in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Alex Graves with the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities. Opposed unless amended.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Tyler Aguilar on behalf of the University of California, we do not have an official opposed unless amended, but we'll keep working with the author through our concerns. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you very much. Seeing no one else in the room. Moderator, this would be the opportunity for anyone to testify for, or against the film on the system against the Bill, and we would essentially be me-toos in the oral testimony. So moderator could you queue up?

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to support or oppose of AB 299, press one, then zero. Now again one, then zero. We'll go to the line of 125. Please go ahead.

Good evening. Kyle Highland, on behalf of the Associate of California Community College Administrators, in respectful opposition to the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next caller.

Moderator, are there other callers?

Line 130, your line is open.

Good evening, Chair and Members. Priscilla Quiroz calling on behalf of the Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next caller.

And at this time, there's no one else in the queue.

Thank you very much. Then that completes our public testimony. The matter would be back before the Committee for discussion. Senator Ashby.

Yes. I know that Senator Allen has some questions about this bill too, but he got called to another Committee, so hopefully he gets back in time to ask his questions of you, but if I could through the Chair, would it be okay if I ask the CSU Risk Management person a question?

If they're willing to take it through the Chair, that's great.

Would that be okay? Can you remind me of your name? I'm so sorry.

My name is Robin Webb.

Robin Webb. Okay, and tell me again your title?

I have multiple titles. I am Campus Counsel. I'm also the Risk Management Attorney for the CSU.

Okay. The Risk Management Attorney for the CSU system. And did I hear you write that you said your recommendation to the CSU system would be to disaffiliate with some of the organizations if this were to pass as is?

That's correct.

So that would mean that sororities and fraternities and things would still exist, but they would just be disaffiliated with the campus because of the liability component that this brings?

I believe it's likely that these organizations would continue to exist. They would pull from our student population. They would look and feel like student organizations, but they wouldn't have the oversight that we currently are able to provide and that we're able to bolster, if that's appropriate, and we would like to work with the Senator to try to meet all of our goals because of course, the universities don't want hazing, don't want these incidents to occur.

Okay, so my other question, and I don't know if this is best suited for the author or for you or maybe Senator Allen who I'm trying to stand in for a little bit here, is there some language that we could add to the bill? What I thought was a good starter for the bill was that there is some language that potentially could hold harmless to universities if it was worded slightly differently. What do you think about that? Do you have a thought or opinion on that?

Yes, I do. There are ways that I believe that this can be amended. It takes quite a bit of working and it might be a little bit difficult to address here in the abstract, but as it's worded now, it literally says that an action can be brought if the institution knew or should have known. Doesn't even require that the institution didn't take responsive actions. So that's one thing that needs to be added is that it knew or should have known and did not take appropriate response to the known hazing.

The other thing that I believe ought to be done is it ought to set forth parameters which identify the reasonable conduct of the institution in addressing hazing and so although there are measures listed here, those measures don't protect the institution. If instead this were worded to adopt all of those measures, but to state that an institution will be deemed to have acted reasonably if it adopted these measures, then I think that would go a long way in alleviating a lot of our concerns.

Okay. I know we don't offer amendments from the dais, so I don't want to do that, but I did hear a little bit about some of this by, again, of Senator Allen on most of it, and I thought those would be helpful to the bill. I appreciate very much what the author is trying to do here and would love to see the bill take a couple of amendments like that that would bring some of these CSUs off.

What I think would be a tragedy would be for the bill to pass, but then the CSUs to disaffiliate or UCs or whatever, others, to disaffiliate with all these campus organizations because I think that would make the problem much worse, and I know that's not your intent, so I'll listen to what Senator Allen and others have to say.

I have a sneaking suspicion Senator Allen would like to be recognized. And you're recognized.

I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I mean, I think ultimately that's my concern here, that if I'm General Counsel for one of these institutions, obviously there are certain groups like the athletics teams, for whom--obviously--they can't disaffiliate, right? But for all these other groups, including student clubs and other organizations, certainly the fraternities and sororities, that the prudent thing for the universities to do would be to disaffiliate, and then all of a sudden, those organizations will actually have less protection, and those institutions will be less safe and probably more susceptible to the type of hazing challenges that I think you're trying to address, and I think that's my core concern here. So I'd love to hear your thoughts on how we might--I'd love to hear your thoughts on that concern.

Sure. Well, first, let me just say that we're trying to put in place standards and procedures that would allow the institution, the universities, to be in a stronger position, to be protected. Part of the problem is that if you have an organization which the universities work closely with and they determine who they're affiliated with, and if you think about past, there have been a number of incidents that have happened that have led to great bodily harm and in some cases, sometimes death by a student.

It's their responsibility to create a safe environment for these students and so if someone goes to that university and participates in an activity that we all have determined is illegal and law says that, but they have not done anything to prevent it by establishing procedures, establishing policies, engaging with those organizations on an ongoing basis, having--we have to go through a procedure every year where we have to sit and watch videos and understand what workplace conduct is right, is legal, and what's illegal.

So is there not a reason why these institutions, these universities cannot have a more robust procedures and policies in place of educating and informing and oversight?

But I think that's what they're asking for. They're saying if you guys can agree--

That's what the bill is calling for.

Right, but if you guys can agree to a set of specific procedures--

Which is in the bill--

And if they follow those procedures, then that will be considered a safe harbor. They're proactively acting so as to address the issues that you have. The flip side concern, I think, is--I agree with everything you just said, Assembly Member.

The fear is that if we're not careful so as to protect themselves, they're just going to decide to disaffiliate with all these organizations that you just mentioned. Some they can't, of course. Presumably, there will be a discernible improvement associated with the athletics teams and a couple of other organizations, but for those that--let's say the Greeks, right--where we have the biggest problem, and the issue that was raised just now was with a fraternity student; if they make the decision to disaffiliate, that actually will lead to a less safe environment and there's nothing they can do.

I mean, at that point they're off campus. The students are engaged with those organizations and the university doesn't have a role to play.

Well, let me just--

I'm trying to keep a colloquy from happening here and trying to get you to frame it in a question that then he might answer rather than just back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. So are you asking him to respond to that?

I'm hopeful that he would be willing to take the amendments that were just mentioned by the universities because I think it reaches--

And is that a question?

Yeah, sure.

Well, let me just say this. Universities can disaffiliate today, and if you have young people who are participating in these organizations and there's hazing that takes place and someone dies, is that the real focus? I think that really in that moment you have to ask yourself, 'well, why are they not disaffiliating?'

We just had an example of a university where it had been repeated behavior. They knew it. They knew these particular sororities and other organizations that were engaging in hazing. So there's a lot of conversation about what we're going to do, as we already know, over any legal activity, and now what I hear more is a threat that says, 'well, if this bill passes the way that it is, then we're going to disassociate.' And that means they're there and there's a mutual benefit, right?

When the university decides that they want to have an affiliation with the fraternity--if I could--with a fraternity or a sorority is because there's a recognition that there's some benefit both ways. So if you happen to be a fraternity and you have scholarships that plays with the university and they play with that. There's a connection there. There's a mutual benefit. And so disassociating or disassociating with the organization because we're talking about putting in law clear procedures and policies that the bill articulates--I can read them--that makes it clear that they're on notice, that they've done everything they possibly can.

That's a shield. If I'm with a university and I can say, 'look, we hold procedural meetings. We sit down. We work through with these organizations. We have a stated series of policies. There is a program that we put everyone through.' It is clear.

Okay, so you are willing to accept safe harbor?

It's in the bill.