Assembly Standing Committee on Higher Education

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, colleagues. Thank you for your patience this busy budget week, right. I'm here to talk to you about SB 11, something That's near and dear to my heart. As a social worker myself, someone who holds an MSW, MSWs, and those who want to become licensed marriage and family therapists as well, have to go through two years of unpaid work. It's an unpaid internship that is required of them to do throughout their schooling. Right? Right now, you're hearing left and right that we need more mental health therapists in our hospitals. We need them in our schools, we need them helping address our homeless crisis. But what is happening is, how are we incentivizing these individuals to get into this field when we're asking them to do this for two years without getting paid? Often you're seeing individuals that go to graduate school full time, have to do an unpaid internship, and then still have to get a paid job because you still have to pay the bills. So what you're seeing in SB 11 is two different things. One is that we're looking to create the first ever of its kind, a CSU Mental Health Professionals Act, where we're incentivizing our students, which we know that CSU creates a majority of our workforce and trains majority of California's workforce to create an incentive where we're providing paid internships for individuals to get into this field. I'm so proud that through this budget, we fought for the prevention of the delays in this workforce because we know how dire the situation is in getting these individuals to work. So, SB 11, one of the provisions is to ensure we create an incentive to get them trained, ready to go, that CSU can then retain. It bring back these workers to work in their backyards because it added layer of comfort, I guess, if you will, if you're having therapists that are working in the communities that were trained in and working in the communities that they are from. Additionally, we also want to support the students that are at CSUs. Currently, our major CSUS across the State of California have a really horrendous ratio of counselors. I myself have experienced a wait for mental health. I explained to you full time school, full time work, internship that can bring a lot of stress to an individual that could potentially deter them from continuing. What we're seeing is that students are waiting upwards of four months for a mental health appointment. For some examples to share with you is that one of the worst numbers we're seeing is at CSULA, there's a one to 3718 student ratio. That's where we're seeing upwards of four months of wait to see a therapist. So, SB 11, the second part it's looking to do is create a ratio, a ratio of 1000 to 1500 students to ensure that they're being seen at the correct time. You probably have all heard that we're seeing the highest rates of anxiety, depression amongst our youth and our young adults. Couple that all together, it's going to be very difficult for them to continue in their profession. With that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to turn to two witnesses that I have here with me that can speak a little bit more on this.

Welcome. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Jason Conwell, and I'm speaking here on behalf of the California Faculty Association in support of SB 11, and to support the 270 mental health counselors we represent at the California State University. In one of my roles, I serve as staff to the CFA Counselors Committee, and in that role, I meet regularly with counselors from across the California State University, and I've done so for most of the past 16 years. I have met hundreds of mental health counselors in the CSU, and these are some of the most impressive people I have ever met. They are empathetic, hardworking, and dedicated professionals who help our college students when those students are at the lowest point of their lives. Our counselors are honorable people who engage in critical and often life saving work, but they need help. During my 16 years with CFA, I've watched as counselors have been pressured to hold more and more one on one sessions with students and exceeding any realistic expectation of the capacity of them to support our students. I've watched as counseling centers across the state have eliminated permanent counselor positions and replaced them with counselors working on temporary appointments. I have watched as the mental health needs of the CSU students have increased exponentially, both before the pandemic and accelerated since the pandemic. I have watched as more and more of our counselors have become tired and burned out, trying to help every student that needs mental health support. Too frequently, I see good counselors leave the CSU for a more reasonable workload, better pay, and more job security elsewhere. While it won't solve everything, SB 11 will help address these problems. Over half the campuses in the CSU do not meet the 1500 to one faculty student ratio required in SB 11, with seven of our counselors campuses having a ratio that is at least 50% worse than the 1500 to one ratio. This Bill will help increase the access to mental health counselors in the CSU for students who are simply not provided the access they need to mental health support. SB 11 will also create new incentives and funding for students who want to develop a career in mental health. And California needs greater access to mental health professionals. Respectfully, I urge an. aye vote on SB 11. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Kimberly Rosenberger with SCIU California. Here is a proud co sponsor of SB 11. We believe in the importance, not just of a public institution, but one that serves a student population that is as unique and diverse as our state. It's a cornerstone of the CSU, but it's also one of the reasons we believe the resources provided in SB 11 are so important. Students today are facing a mental health crisis of unparalleled levels. Many of their formative years in high school and University happened during the Pandemic, and That's, coupled with skyrocketing costs of living, which has left a number of students food and housing insecure. These issues are all the more amplified at CSU campuses. They historically serve a diverse student population, with a CSU student being twice as likely to be homeless as a UC student. The ratio we recommend is based off the International Accreditation of Counseling Services, which continues to recommend a ratio of one to 1000 to one to 1500. So this recommendation is a floor when we are hearing from students of the excess wait times or inability to access a counselor altogether, that deters them from using CSU resources. And we think it's important to establish a floor so we can start to serve the student population that we know needs these services. The clinical load That's been recommended looks at usage, but we know that if the students aren't using CSU counselors, we can't adequately and meaningfully assess that. So first and foremost, we believe we need to just get the numbers to an appropriate level. This Bill looks not only to establish a ratio, but more importantly, looks to help address the workforce pipeline. It's encouraging the future workforce to look at the public sector, including CSU, but it's also ensuring that during their time at the CSU, they're not adding to the number of students that are homeless and food insecure. And for those reasons, we strongly support this Bill, and I'm happy to answer any technical questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room?

Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists and Support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alyssa Yam, on behalf of the California State University Employees Union in strong support.

Hello. Wendy Brill, Weinkoop Faculty Association of California Community Colleges in support.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Yes. I'm sorry. Welcome. You have two minutes.

Mary Moyle with the CSU. We have been in touch with the author's office and would like to thank her for her staff time on this. I would also like to thank the Committee staff for their analysis. Respectfully, we do have a oppose, unless amended, position. We do support the idea of the CSU Mental Health Professionals Act, which would encourage students to pursue career in the mental health field. However, we do remain opposed to the staffing ratio in the Bill. Our students well being is of the utmost importance to us, and we have heavily invested in expanding our mental health services in recent years. We are proud that we have been able to increase our number of counselors by more than 33%. Four years ago, we had a ratio of one camp counselor per 2176 students. Today, it is one camp counselor per 1576 students. Every campus either has a camp counselor who is floating each day or sets aside a number of appointment slots in order to be available for students who come to the center in crisis and need to be seen on that same day. Besides cases where a student identifies as being in crisis, our average wait time across the system to sign up for one on one services is approximately two weeks. We are going to continue to work to improve and expand our mental health service for students, but the ratio mandate is not needed, and especially not helpful without funding attached. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there any additional witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there any tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, Committee Members? Any questions or comments? Do we have a motion? I'm sorry, we're still Subcommitee. That's right. Thank you so much for bringing this forward. I really appreciate the work and efforts here, and I'll provide some comments after you if you'd like to close.

You know, we have worked with the CSU on this. The ratio part is something that this Committee specifically has voted on before with Dr. Pan's Bill, although it did get vetoed. We're trying again. Perhaps the number that was shared from the opposition is an aggregate of the entire schools. But if you break it down per school, like I mentioned, CSU is 50% above. We have a list of there's about eight schools across the state that still have a lot that have a higher ratio that is completely unacceptable. With that, I still think that we still believe that the ratio is really important to ensure that our students are getting mental health at an adequate time. With that, I respectfully, once we have a Committee and appropriate, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Senator. I would like to thank you, the author, for introducing this very important Bill. While very supportive of the overall policy framework providing mental health resources to our students at the CSU system, we've heard different opinions on the baseline ratio, one of 1500 as a floor, and then also looking at additional issues on funding. So I think as this policy moves forward, really to continue to advocate on the funding side as well. And so thank you so much for bringing this important measure forward, and I look forward to supporting this Bill once we have Quorum. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, next up is Senator Portantino with SB 640, item number six. Welcome, Senator Portantino.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I used to chair this Committee. And fondly, this is my favorite Committee room, so I'm happy to be back. I'm proud to present SB 640, which will require business entities that wish to enter into food service or hospitality service contracts with the CSU and its auxiliaries.

First, being a labor peace agreement with the appropriate union, the CSU continues to plan hospitality developments and contracting through private auxiliaries. These auxiliaries participate in private development and private contracting for food services, hotels, and even centers on behalf of the University. Such operations and counter strikes, pickets and boycotts initiated by workers in these professions. As the CSU continues to expand operations such as disruption, such disruptions will continue.

The State of California is obligated to protect the interests of University students and taxpayers by taking measures to limit disruptions to the business of a campus in entering a labor peace agreement. The CSU, its auxiliaries and associated labor organizations will then have mechanisms in place to avoid disruptive actions and ensure that state and interests can continue fulfilling its mission continuously and without interruption.

With me today, I have Ron Rapp from the California Faculty Association, and I believe Leticia Sauseto, a Professor of law from UC Davis, and when appropriate, and when you have a quorum, would respectfully ask for an I vote. Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good afternoon, chair, Fong, and Committee Members. My name is Ron Rapp. I'm the Legislative Director for the California Faculty Association, speaking in support of SB 640. The CFA represents over 29,000 faculty, including tenure track professors, lecturers, faculty librarians, counselors, and coaches from all 23 campuses of the CSU system. CFA believes that SB 640 would be beneficial to the CSU system because it seeks to enhance labor peace through the establishment of labor peace agreements within food service contracts and hotel development projects.

As you know, higher education institutions have not been immune from labor strikes in recent years. Disruptions resulting from such labor conflicts have profound impacts, from canceled classes to delayed grading, all of which inhibit our primary mission of education. SB 640 provides a clear mechanism to minimize these disruptions by mandating labor peace agreements.

Bless you.

Within CSU's expanding hospitality and food service sectors, we acknowledge that a number of CSU campuses currently contract their food service and hospitality programs to service management companies, while others operate these services in house. However, regardless of the operational structure, we believe that fostering labor peace is essential for continuity of services and the overall stability of our campuses. We also recognize that CSU operates two hotels and is planning for additional ones. Ensuring labor peace within these facilities is equally critical.

Students, faculty, staff, and visitors who utilize these establishments should not be inconvenienced by labor conflicts. It is for these reasons the CFA supports SB 640 and respectfully requests your I vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good afternoon. My name is Leticia Salcedon. I'm a Professor of law at UC Davis School of Law. And I'm the co Director of the labor and Community Center at UC Davis. I teach labor law, employment law, and torts at the law school, and I'm familiar with the National Labor Relations Act and its implementation. I have a professional interest in matters that are related to the National Labor Relations Act because it's part of what I teach. I have three points to make today.

First, the state has the ability to require the use of these labor peace policies because it's acting in its proprietary capacity. The Cal State system has a real interest in ensuring that the services that it contracts to be provided on its property are completed with as little disruption as possible to its educational mission. The state is exercising a proprietary interest in the Bill by ensuring that employers and unions operating on CSU property enter into agreements to avoid disruptions from labor actions.

Without these types of agreements, the National Labor Relations Act would allow labor strikes, pickets actions, Boycotts, all of which are part of the accepted methods for negotiation between entities without labor peace agreements. The CLCU also has a financial interest in the revenues that come from these service contracts, and these labor actions could disrupt these financial interests. Second, the Bill doesn't impose any form of negotiation on entities seeking to do business on the CSU properties.

That is, the negotiation between the business and the union for labor peace agreements is outside the scope of the Bill. This Bill simply requires that businesses seek agreements from labor organizations that represent or seek to represent workers in that industry. Third, labor peace agreements are not uncommon nationally or in the state.

They've been successfully implemented at various sites, including the Los Angeles and San Francisco airports, the states of New York and Maryland lax, Long Beach, Santa Monica, Malibu School District, Santa Monica College, Los Angeles County, the Port of Oakland, the BART System, cities of Portland, Chicago, Baltimore, DC. And New York City, and counties of Miami Dade and Milwaukee. I welcome questions or comments, and I thank you for your time today.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room? Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Committee Members, colleagues, any questions or comments? I'm sorry. Yes. Welcome.

Hi there. Good afternoon. Chair and Committee Members Mary Washington with the Cal State Student Association. As mentioned in the Committee analysis, we do have some questions about unintended consequences that this Bill may have on students, particularly related to costs and their own employment opportunities. Many of our student body organizations actually oversee contracts with food service providers on campus, and so because of that, we believe additional time is needed to fully analyze those impacts. Appreciate the intent of the Bill and the conversations we've had with the author's office so far. Thanks.

I'd like to move the Bill. Mr. Chair, thank you so much. Once we have a quorum we'll have you as the zero, actually, we know that you're perfect timing here. Actually, I'm going to take this moment. Madam Secretary, please call the role to help us. Quorum.

Fong here. Ta here. Addis Arambula, Here Gabriel Irwin Low, here Ortega, Here Sanchez Santiago, Here. Wallace, Here. Weber All right, we have.

A quorum, and we have a motion on the floor by Mr. Santiago, seconded by Dr. Rambula colleagues. Any questions or comments? Senator, would you like to make a closing statement?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. It's always great to have a former chair of the Committee here presenting legislation thank you for your work and efforts to seek to minimize the impact of a strike on day to day operations on CSU campuses.

While our colleagues in the labor and Employment Committee will assess the Bill as it pertains to that Committee's jurisdiction. I believe that labor peace agreements are a natural extension of protections provided under current law through the Higher Education Employer Employee Relations Act. And I look forward to supporting the Bill here today. And thank you to the speaker from the California State Student Association as well, expressing concerns about food as well. So I'm glad this conversation is happening now with that. Roll call, please.

SB 640. The motion is do pass to labor and Employment Committee. Fong. aye Ta. No. Addis. Arambula, Aye Gabriel Erwin Low Ortega, Aye Sanchez, No Santiago, aye. Wallace, No. Weber.

The Bill currently has four ayes. Three. No's. We'll keep the roll open for additional thank you, Senator. Thank you so much. At this time, since we've established quorum, we have one item on consent. Final item number three, authored by Senator Bill Dodd. SB Six, moved by Dr. Rambla, seconded by Similar Ortega. Any questions or comments? Seeing none. Roll call, please. On the consent calendar.

The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. Fong, aye. Ta, aye. Addis Arambula, aye.Gabriel. Erwin. Low. Ortega, Aye. Sanchez, Aye. Santiago, Aye. Wallace, Aye Weber.

That has seven votes. The consent calendar is out, but we'll also keep the door open for additional Members that like to add on. Now we have item number eight, SB 11. Yes, let's go back to SB. All right, thank you for your Patience Center. We'll do SB 11 once we have so we have a motion on SB 11 to file item number one by Senator Mentivar and a second by Summer Santiago, I believe. Any questions or comments? Seeing none. Roll call, please.

The motion is do pass to the Health Committee. Fong, aye. Ta, Aye. Addis Arambula, Aye. Gabriel. Erwin. Low. Ortega, Aye. Sanchez, Aye. Santiago, Aye Wallace, Aye. Weber.

Thank you so much, colleagues. That has currently seven votes, and we'll keep the roll open for additional Members that like to add. On next up, we have item number eight, authored by Senator Dodd, SB 808. We have a motion a second. Senator, welcome.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chair and Members, I'd like to first thank you and your staff for working with me on this important Bill. SB 808 is about increasing transparency in the Title IX process of the California State University system, requiring annual reporting of investigations and outcomes of sexual harassment reports and formal complaints at each campus and at the Chancellor's office. Investigative journalism and independent reports have shown systematic, inconsistent mishandling of sexual harassment and assault cases across the CSU system, including at colleges in my own district. The Bill shines a light on the process on that process, and gathers data necessary to shape reforms in the Title IX R college campuses. The seriousness of this ongoing problem cannot be understated, and we cannot let those abuses continue to be swept under the rug by senior administrators. I have two witnesses here in support of the Bill today Alissa Yum, legislative advocate on behalf of the California State University Employees Union and Ron Rapp, Legislative Director with the California Faculty Association.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Members. My name is Alissa Yum, and I'm here on behalf of the CSU Employees Union, which represents 16,000 non faculty staff at the CSU. We're a proud co sponsor of SB 808. Want to thank Senator Dodd for bringing it forward. As the Senator mentioned, an increasing number of media reports over the last few years have exposed the failings of the CSU's Title IX system, highlighting a need for systemic reform. Establishing an annual reporting is an important first step towards correcting the existing issues, as it will help the Legislature identify where further investigation might be needed and direct resources accordingly. And as is stated in the Committee analysis, the reporting will also help fill data and information gaps that were noted in the CSU's internal Title IX audit. Everyone on a CSU campus deserves to live, work, and learn in a safe environment. We believe this Bill will help achieve that. For these reasons, we respectfully request your ate vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon again, Ron Rapp from the California Faculty Association. I'm speaking in strong support of SB 808. The California Faculty Association is a proud co sponsor of this important legislation. SB 808 is a Bill that will ensure transparency and accountability for CSU administrators regarding sexual misconduct on their campuses. The CSU campuses are both workplaces and learning spaces. Employees are not able to perform at their best, nor are students able to learn to their full potential when they feel unsafe. Many of our Members report that many of our campuses are not currently safe. Recent media reports have called public attention to the problem that is all too familiar for many faculty, staff, and students across the CSU. Sexual harassment and sexual assault are an epidemic on our campuses. While we have Title IX directors, HR offices, and on some campuses, survivor advocates, our policies and the ways they are enacted fall short of protecting survivors and allow administrators who know and are complicit in abuse to hide behind fallacious arguments and personal justification. It's time to demand better. SB 808 provides legislative oversight over the CSU, as it will require campuses to report the number of sexual harassment claims filed, the duration of the investigation, and the results of those cases. SB 808 would also require the CSU to post these reports on their website. Campuses have been failing survivors. The legislative oversight is an important step in creating transparency around these processes, especially when investigations drag out over months and even years, which results in a kind of secondary institutional trauma from survivors who engage the investigation process in an attempt to tell their stories and seek supportive measures to protect themselves from further abuse. SB 808 is an important step forward in creating personal accountability for administrators who in the past have ignored, and in some cases worked to silence the pleas of faculty, staff, and student survivors who deserve to feel safe and respected. I respectfully request that you support survivors of sexual misconduct on the CSU campuses by helping us create a much needed climate of accountability, transparency, and integrity on our campuses. I do not believe this will be possible without legislative oversight of our CSU Administration. CFA is proud to co sponsor this important legislation and respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room?

Priscilla Kiros here on behalf of Solano County in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hannah Bragstad. With the Cal State Student Association in strong support.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SCIU California in support.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Assembly Ortega.

More of a comment than a question. I want to thank the Senator and the witnesses for such an important Bill. I think. I also want to thank the staff. I know they've been working really hard to make sure that everyone understands the title Nine Implementations on Campuses. I think this could be a guide for other institutions to make sure that we're tracking and accurately reporting complaints on campuses. I would actually take it a step further and maybe even suggest it's a point that we add the California community colleges and the UCs to also participate in something like this. So I just want to thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Assembly Member points well taken, and definitely look forward to future legislative briefings on additional segments of the higher education system with our community colleges and our UC system. And I look forward to working with the Assembly Member and our Legislative Caucus on future legislation to provide additional transparency and oversight on all public higher education segments. Senator Dodd, would you like to close.

Respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you so much, Senator Dodd, for bringing this important measure forward. And really, with all three segments being in the news for their handling of sexual harassment cases, we know that this only applies to the CSU, but we know that we need to continue to look forward, in addition to transparency, with all segments of higher education. We look forward to working with my colleagues on that as well. With that, I look forward to supporting this important measure today. Madam Secretary, a roll call, please. We had a motion by I think Mr. Santiago had a motion, and Mr. Wallace seconded it, so thank you.

The motion is, do you pass to the Appropriations Committee? Fong aye. Fong aye Ta aye Addis Arambula. Arambula. Aye Gabriel. Aye Irwin. Lowe. Ortega. Ortega. Aye Sanchez. Sanchez. Aye Santiago. Santiago. Aye Wallace. Wallace. Aye Weber.

Thank you so much. That measure currently has seven votes. We'll keep the roll open for name Members that I'd like to add on. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Appreciate it. Appreciate you. Thank you. Next up is Senator Cortesi with SB 433 item number four. Welcome, Senator. Bill, we have a motion. A second.

Senator, welcome. Thank you. Mr. Chair, Members, I appreciate you allowing me to present SB 433 to you today. And I want to start by accepting the Committee amendments and thank the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. SB 433 provides parity to classified employees in schools by guaranteeing that their disciplinary appeals are heard by an unbiased third party hearing officer. Under current law, teachers already have this right.

If a K 12 teacher chooses to appeal a disciplinary decision made by their district, it's overseen by the Commission on Professional Competence. Community college faculty are also guaranteed a third party arbitrator paid for by the district. Classified employees, however, are not guaranteed the same right under current law, this system is not equitable, and it denies many employees a fair hearing. While classified employees represented by a union can collectively bargain for a third party hearing officer, the vast majority have not been able to do so.

SB 433 provides classified employees with the same right as K 12 teachers, community college faculty, and many other public employees. The Committee amendments clarify the definition of disciplinary action for classified employees in K 12 districts. This includes dismissals, suspensions, and demotions. The amendments also define an independent hearing officer as an arbitrator and specify how arbitrators are selected. Additionally, the amendments adjust the appeals process for community college classified employees so that it more closely matches the process for community college faculty.

This Bill is co sponsored by CSEA, California School Employees Association and ASME. It's also supported by the California Labor Federation, the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers. With us to testify today, we have Janice O'Malley with ASME, and Gladys Ramirez, a former CSEA Member. And at the appropriate time, I would like to request an I vote. Thank you. Thank you so. Much welcome.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. Janice O'Malley with ASME, California, representing our Members who work as classified staff in K 12 school districts and in community colleges. We are proud co sponsors of SB 433. Just also wanted to thank the Committee staff who provided a thorough analysis and thank you for your work. I wanted to take a moment to talk about due process. Due process provides protection against arbitrary dismissal, unfair discipline and other forms of discrimination.

It also helps ensure employees are given an opportunity to respond to and defend themselves against accusations or allegations that may arise in the workplace. This is especially important to ensure that all employers provide equitable and respectful treatment to their employees. Currently, disciplinary appeal hearings for teachers and faculty are conducted by a neutral panel provided through the Commission on Professional Competence, whereas classified staff appeals are decided by school district or community college governing boards.

For classified staff, the option for an impartial third party officer is only available if collectively bargained between the governing board of the district and the union. For many of our Members who don't have this option in their CBA, they tend to forego the appeal process because they feel that they would not receive a fair appeal since the first decision was made by the same board that they would have to appeal to.

Contrary to what the opposition is stating, we are not trying to prevent elected school boards and governing boards from exercising their local control. Senate Bill 433 still enables local control by providing flexibility for school districts to work with the union to develop an alternative appeals process. We've also worked closely with the Committee to ensure that arbitration only applies to disciplinary appeals and does not include verbal or written reprimands or verbal or written warnings and ensures that, to the extent possible, the process for community college.

Classified staff aligns with the process for faculty arbitration is rare, but we do believe that classified staff deserve the same ability to have a fair appeal hearing conducted by a neutral arbitrator, as teachers and faculty currently do. And we respectfully request your I vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My name is Gladys Ramirez and I'm a proud former Member of CSEA. I worked as an administrative assistant at Visalia Unified School District for 24 years. I love my job.

I was able to grow, learn and obtain the skills I needed to do my job for our kids in the City of Visaia, classified employees are essential in the backbone of our Tk through 12th grade, in our schools and also our community colleges. We ensure schools are clean, children are fed, and get to school safely. We do the work that most take for granted.

However, even though we do this essential work, we are often denied basic disciplinary appeal rights that are granted to teachers today, I'd like to share my story. I was active in my union as chapter President in January 2018. I spoke at a board meeting and raised concerns and issues regarding a climate survey we had conducted in our chapter. Shortly after, I was placed on paid administrative leave pending an investigation and eventually served with termination charges.

I then requested a hearing where the hearing officer and attorney hired by the school board not surprisingly sided with the district management. I was officially terminated by the school board on April 7 of 2019. On October 7 of 2019, my union, CSA, filed an unfair practice charge with the Public Employee Relations Board against Bisa Unified for terminating me in retaliation. On January 20 and February 3 of 2021, there was a virtual formal hearing in which PERB issued a proposed decision.

On June 28 of 2021, PERB found that Visa Unified School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act by terminating me in retaliation for my protected activities. This process has taken five and a half years, and my case is currently pending in the Fifth Appellate Court. All of this could have been prevented if I had been allowed to appeal my termination to a neutral arbitrator instead of the school board. It would have saved the district time and money.

SB 433 would require disciplinary hearings for classified school employees to be conducted by a neutral arbitrator instead of the school board. This Bill will also provide classified employees with the same disciplinary appeal rights that teachers and other public employees receive. I respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Other witnesses in support in the hearing room.

Alyssa Yam on behalf of the California State University Employees Union in support.

Navneet perry on behalf of the California School Employees Association. We're proud co sponsors of this Bill, and we just want to thank the Committee for the Thoughtful analysis and working with us on amendments. Thank you.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SCIU California in support.

Nick Cruz with the California Labor Federation in support.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room?

Good afternoon, Chair and Members, Chris Reefe on behalf of the California School Boards Association, regretfully and respectfully in opposition, just want to first say thank you to the staff of the Committee and the Committee itself again for the analysis and the amendments. The amendments do help narrow the scope in terms of the application of the Bill for CSBA. My membership are school board Members, right?

This isn't an issue of local control and authority to be able to determine what are the personal outcomes for its staff and by placing it in the hands of an outside party that is an unelected entity. It basically usurps. Another aspect of our ability to govern the current process arguably works. In the particular case that you heard, it went to an arbitrator that was actually decided by the district. Typically when we have these types of appeals, they're negotiated in our collective bargaining agreements.

And so both labor and the district sit down and they actually agree and they share the costs of those third party hearing officers. This Bill places full cost of that process now into the hands of the district with no funding, additional funding. Some of these cases can run upwards of, and I understand this is not the jurisdiction of the Committee, but the fiscal costs are significant.

Some of these cases can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on the nature of the case, the nature of the appeals, and the time it takes to actually hear them. And arbitrators are unfortunately not cheap. This will also present a challenge for some of our smaller school districts where these arbitrators or these third party hearing officers are difficult to come by. Right. Think about our mountainous areas, our much more rural areas, where the number and the list of those available is extraordinarily difficult.

So, again, I appreciate the work of the Committee and thank you very much. Unfortunately, we are opposed and I also have authorization to state the opposition of the Association of California School Administrators and the California School Business Officials. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there tweeners in a hearing room, Committee Members, any questions or comments? And we don't have a motion and second, right. Yes, Senator, would you like to close.

just to say I again want to thank the Committee staff because I know there was some good and deep work and work that corrected the Bill in certain ways, particularly with regard to higher education, of course. So thank you for that. Thank you for the hearing today, and I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you so much, Senator Cortese, for authoring this legislation. Looking at providing parity between our classified staff and our faculty and ensuring appeals are being heard by a neutral third party will help increase due process and continuity across our community college District 73 in California. Thank you for working with our Committee staff and accepting the amendments here today. And I look forward to supporting this measure here today. With that Madam Secretary, roll call, please.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Fong aye. Ta, no. Addis. Arambula, Aye. Gabriel. Erwin. Lowe. Ortega, Aye. Sanchez, No. Santiago. Wallace, No. Weber.

Thank you so much. That measure has three ayes and three no's. We'll keep the roll open for Members to add on. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we'll do item number five, authored by Senator Newman, SB 414. Welcome.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second afternoon. Mr.

Good afternoon Chair and Members, I'd like to start by accepting the Committee amendments and thank the Committee consultant for all her work on the Bill. I'm pleased to present SB 444, which will codify the mathematics, engineering and science achievement, also known as the Mesa Model, into California's education code, thereby encouraging the expansion of MESA programs directed at identifying and elevating students affected by social, economic and educational disadvantages. MESA is actually a successful program which has been in place since 1970. This Bill would codify it.

Despite recent significant investments and advances in teaching approaches, there continues to be uneven progress in increasing racial and ethnic diversity in science, technology, engineering and math jobs, also known as STEM jobs. Black and Hispanic workers remain underrepresented in the STEM workforce, with Black people accounting for only 9% and Hispanic people accounting for a mere 8% of the workforce. The current deficit in representation by Black and Hispanic adults in math, physical science, and engineering degree fields correlates closely with historical data on participation in STEM education.

MESA programs offer a free, rigorous academic environment that allows students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to accelerate their academic preparation, build on what they bring from their communities, and access opportunities that would not otherwise be available to them. SB 444 will improve student success and eventual educational outcomes by expanding transfers into and the completion of baccalaureate degree programs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors at four year higher education institutions. I have with me today to testify. Adrina Rashidi, the Message Director of Mission College. I'm respectfully asking for an aye vote today.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Fong and Members. I'm Edrina Rashidi, the MESA Director at Mission College. And I am here on behalf of the Community College Association of Mesa Directors. MESA stands for Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement. MESA is a community college program that supports first gen low income students within the STEM transfer pipeline. 66% of MESA students are either Latinx or African American.

SB 444, which would codify MESA into education code, is an important step towards ensuring that our programs are supported locally, so that California community colleges can better mend the opportunity gap for first generation Low income STEM transfer pathway students. The Mesa program has a proven track record of success in supporting California community college students towards STEM transfer and attainment of bachelor's degrees in STEM. MESA helps students overcome the barriers that would have otherwise prevented them from pursuing careers in California's highest earning STEM fields. Highest earning careers.

Since 1989, the MESA Community College program. Specifically, even though MESA was established in 70, the community college program has made it its mission to reduce the economic, educational, and racial disparities that exist within STEM. The program has achieved this goal by providing students with the social and academic resources needed for success, such as mentoring, academic communities, calculus tutoring, professional development, STEM counseling, internships, research, and networking opportunities, while fostering an inclusive environment among staff and students.

Between the years 2015 and 2020, MESA transferred over 6700 students into four year universities from 34 community colleges, with 50% of those students transferring into the UC system. Despite the program's high success rate and benefits for students, a lack of statutory protection for MESA has resulted in years of inadequate and delayed funding, insufficient evaluation, and limited reach.

The Bill would boost students' ability to thrive and explore new opportunities within Stem while significantly contributing to the expansion of California's STEM workforce and aid the state in eliminating equity and achievement disparities. We thank Senator Newman for carrying this legislation and urge you to support the important work of our MESA programs across California and support our Mesa students by voting yes on SB 44.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room?

Hello, Wendy Brill-Wynkoop, Faculty Association of California Community Colleges. Proud co-sponsor. Thank you.

Ron Rapp, on behalf of the California Faculty Association in support.

Thank you. Are there witnesses in opposition in a hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? See none. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you to Mr. Shooty for your testimony, for all your work on behalf of the program, I am respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Senator Newman, for bringing this important measure forward and for working with our staff on amendments. We know the MESA programs continue to be nationally awarded programs to help underrepresented students in the STEM fields. This measure will help ensure MESA programs are operating to the highest standard possible and to help our students succeed. I look forward to supporting this measure today. With that, Madam Secretary, roll call, please.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much colleagues, that measure has six votes. We'll keep the roll open for Members.

Thank you senator.

Thank you Mr. Chair; thank you Members.

Thank you, Senator.

Next up, we have Senator McGuire presenting item number seven, SB 791. Welcome.

Well, hi. Dan.

We have a motion in the second.

That is what I'm saying.

Welcome.

Hey. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Members. I'll be brief and really grateful for the motion in the second. Long story short, SB 791 is the California College Sexual Harassment Disclosure Act. This common sense approach will ensure that public institutions and hiring committees at California Community College and Cal State Universities have the administrative or academic records of sexual harassment that have been completed on campus. Would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room?

Alissa Yum, on behalf of the California State University Employees Union in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Senator, we'd like to close.

Thank you so much. We are grateful to be here with you in our witness because of the late hour had to roll out. But, Mr. Chair, I just want to say thank you so much for your due diligence and your incredible staff would respectfully ask for an aye vote. And thank you, Assembly Members.

Thank you so much, Senator McGuire, for your leadership and efforts on this measure and for working with us on Title IX legislative briefings. This measure represents a step in providing a layer of transparency when the institutions hire for academic and administrative positions. And we know the campuses should be fully aware of whether a potential applicant has been found to have committed sexual harassment.

And as the Legislature continues to address Title IX issues, I continue to strive to be an ally and partner to ensure that survivors are protected and due process to provide for all complainants. Look forward to supporting this measure today. Thank you, Madam Secretary. And with that, we'll please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye Ta? Aye. Ta, aye Addis? Arambula? Aye. Arambula, aye. Gabriel? Irwin? Low? Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Santiago? Wallace? Aye. Wallace, aye. Weber?

Thank you so much. Colleagues. That measure has six ayes. We'll keep the roll open for additional Members add on.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you so much, colleagues. At this time, we'll take the opportunity to add on.

Yeah.

We'll do. Item number four add ons.

File item four, SB 433. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Santiago? Aye. Santiago, aye.

Thank you so much. That measure has four ayes; three nos. We'll keep the roll open for additional Members add on. Next up, we'll do item five for add ons. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item number five, SB 444. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Santiago? Aye. Santiago, aye.

Thank you so much. That measure has seven ayes. And we'll keep the roll open for any additional Members. Item number seven. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item number seven, SB 791. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Santiago? Aye. Santiago, aye.

Thank you so much. That measure has seven ayes. We'll keep the roll open for additional Members add on. I think we're caught up on the add ons. Next up, we like to welcome Senator Glazer with item number two. Presenting SB 28. Welcome, Senator Glazer.

Thank you. Thank you, Members. I know it's been a busy day and I know our session went long and you guys have to stay longer. So I apologize for that. So we're first starting with SB 28, Chair? Yes. For those who have been around, you're familiar with the facility challenges on both all of our institutions.

We obviously had a setback on a ballot measure for K through 14 and the higher education segments a few years back, right at the beginning of the pandemic, hasn't changed the demand and the need to deal with our facilities. As many of you know, these bonds are usually a negotiation between the Assembly, your chairs, your leadership, and the Senate, same group as well as the Governor.

And because the idea here is to have something in the '24 ballot, we know that we had to just keep a vehicle moving. And Assembly Member Muratsuchi has a similar vehicle on the Assembly side That's doing the same. We moved it out of education last week because we know that this is, at the end of the day, going to be a negotiation. So what's in this bond is exactly the same as what was in the measure that went on the ballot.

And even though we know that there needs to be some changes, there some tweaks and there's certainly negotiations with all the stakeholders, it's meant to have a vehicle on both sides to have those discussions. And that's what's before you today. So you may see things in the area you like, you don't like. Nothing is settled. Even the amounts aren't settled. But it responds to a need that my witnesses, I know, are going to speak to and that it would be my opening presentation.

So I have Jason Murphy from the University of California. I have Centender, but you're not no, Mary is in place of Centender. So from the CSU, with that, I respectfully ask your consideration today.

Thank you. We have a motion do we have a second? Second by Assemblymember Ortega? With that, thank you so much and welcome.

Mr. Chair and Members, Jason Murphy on behalf of the University of California here in strong support. I first want to thank the author for bringing the support measure forward and for his continued champion of this important matter. I also want to thank the Committee analysis, the Committee staff for the great and robust analysis. Nine pages, as noted on page five, it was back in 2006 that higher ed last was able to get funding from a statewide bond.

And so the University of California is very eager to get back on track, so to speak. The needs within the University are significant. We know that state geo bond funds are never going to solve the problem or the scenario for us, but a piece of the puzzle. The University of California is certainly going to contribute to those funds as well. However, our most recent 2022-2028 Capital financial Plan identifies $51 billion, excuse me, in unfunded need for projects within the UC system. And this would help us get back on track. So we're again here in strong support and respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you. Mary Moyle with the CSU would also like to thank the author for the Bill and the Committee staff for their analysis. As the Senator noted, there is a great need to update and maintain our campus facilities at CSU. Over half of our buildings are more than 40 years old, and nearly one third of our buildings are over 50 years old. Our five year capital outlay plan reflects nearly $27 billion in academic and self support projects and 7.8 billion in facility renewal needs.

This means that our camp campuses are struggling with issues regarding aging, electrical and gas lines, fire safety, seismic safety, and heating and cooling systems, which may not work. This can have a huge impact on our students. Students who have classes canceled because of a power outage, or who have to sit in an unheated classroom in January, or who have trouble with Internet service on campus are going to have trouble doing well in their classes. Having a campus where you can count on reliable services is crucial to their learning. For these reasons, we urge an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room?

Good evening, Chair and Members. Sasha Horwitz, Los Angeles Unified School District, in support.

Hi, my name is Ellen Madill. I'm here on behalf of the International Interior Design Association, both Northern and Southern chapters, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chris Reefe, on behalf of the California School Boards Association in support.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Seeing none, Senator would you like to close?

Thank you for your consideration. Appreciate your support today.

We have a motion a second already, but thank you. Mr. Santiago. Mr. Santiago is a big champion of facilities as well. And when we served on the community college, where we did a lot of work to really look at higher education and really on our facilities, and as a proud joint author of Assembly Bill 247, I fully support places school facilities bond on a 2024 ballot.

And while we continue to support our higher education segments, we know that voters didn't pass the last measure in Proposition 13 in 2020. And we know that the last Bill that was bond that was passed was in 2016. And there's tremendous need in our higher education facilities and throughout our system and K-12 facilities as well. And we want to make sure that we continue to ensure that efforts around bonds continue to pass. And I look forward to supporting this measure here today and look forward to future conversations. And with that, thank you so much for bringing us forward. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is, do pass to the Education Committee. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. Ta? No. Ta, no. Addis? Aye. Addis, aye. Arambula? Aye. Arambula, aye. Gabriel? Aye. Gabriel, aye. Irwin? Lowe? Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Sanchez? Not voting. Sanchez, not voting. Santiago? Aye. Santiago, aye. Wallace? Wallace, aye. Weber?

Thank you so much, colleagues, that measure currently has six ayes, one no, one not voting. We'll keep the roll open for additional Members to add on. With that, we're up to our final Bill. Item number nine, SB 856, authored by Senator Glazer. Senator, welcome.

Yeah, thank you.

We have a motion by Mr. Santiago. Seconded by Dr. Arambula. With that, Senator, welcome.

Well, thank you. And I had the chance to talk with the chair last week about this. My history of this issue goes back to when I was a trustee of the state universities for four years before being elected to the Senate, and I learned of a very unfortunate gap in the great successes of our state university system, and that is that we focus on affordability and access and quality. But the big gap was on student completion.

And as this chart shows, if you look in 2014 column, the four year graduation rate at the state universities was 19%. 19%. That meant that tens of thousands of students every year would drop out with debt and no degree. And again, this is a system that we love, a mission that we embrace so enthusiastically, and yet we're really breaking down our ability to get the students to completion.

And so I worked within the trustee arena and subsequently here in the Senate to push our wonderful faculty and presidents and system leadership to focus on this problem. And not just on the problem of the graduation rate, but the problem of making sure that everybody gets taken along. The underrepresented students get taken along, not just those who come from privileged backgrounds. So the system, the faculty, the presidents, they've really embraced this problem. And we've made incredible progress.

Look at 2022 now, the system wide four year graduation rate is up to 35%, basically with almost no new money. But a focus on student success, we've almost doubled already. We because it's obviously everybody else but me, but they've done the hard work to get students to degree faster, and they have a goal of getting to 40% by 2025. And I'm certainly hoping that we're going to go much further than that. Okay. Within that great success story, though, there are still some significant problems.

And the biggest problem is underrepresented students. And if you see in the bottom chart, it's kind of Low there that there was a gap between underrepresented back in 2014 of 12%, and it's still there today. So while we're making progress we're not making progress for everybody. And so there's a dissatisfaction by everybody, including the leadership of the CSU. We know we have to do better, and they're focused on that, but we need to get them to work even harder.

And so this Bill that you see today builds on legislation that I passed in 2016 that gave a pathway for students to complete in four years. It was called then, The California Promise Program. This Bill suggests we changed the name to Finish In Four, so a slight name change to it because it's kind of overlapping with that California Promise at some other campuses, community colleges, et cetera. But it also does two things that we think go to the heart of the problem.

The first one is that a lot of students don't know about these four year pass. They don't know. And we had my staff go to all the Systems--University websites to try to find the Finish In Four or the California Promise Program. It can take you four clicks, six clicks, to even find the program. And when you look at the amount of students that are in the program, it varies by campus dramatically. In some campuses, you have thousands, and in some campuses, you have 10.

So the ability to create awareness of this program, we think is the heart of trying to do better. And so this Bill tries to do it in two ways. One, we ask all the campuses to at least get 5% of their incoming in the program. That's one avenue. And a second avenue that is a little different and a little bit more aggressive, requires a student to actually opt out of the program, saying, I don't want to get through in four years.

It's a different way to look at the problem, okay? And that creates a lot of stress in a system. But this Bill is trying to advance those paths with the idea that this is a collaboration with the state universities. My friends, we are going to continue to work on this issue in terms of what is the path that they're going to find acceptable. I know they're neutral on this Bill, but I know they're uncomfortable. Let's be honest about it.

This is pushing the system to do better, do more for our kids. And That's the conversation that will continue if this Bill is allowed out of your Committee. So thank you for taking a longer explanation, but I appreciate your consideration of it.

Thank you so much. Senator, I appreciate you. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room? Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? I see none. Colleagues, any questions or comments? All right, we love the passion and love the energy. Senator, would like to close, please.

Just thank you for your consideration. Honestly, it is a work in progress by everybody. We're going to have a change in system leadership here this summer. It's kind of why we haven't really landed this plane prior to this hearing. And I'm hoping that as that leadership gets settled, that we can continue to work together on it collaboratively. That's the whole goal here. We love the mission. We got to make sure everybody rises with our success in the graduation rate. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Senator. And we know that by the CSU system it continues to make big gains in closing achievement gaps. And thank you for your leadership and service as a former trustee for the CSU system to continue to advocate for student success and persistence. And we know that, as you mentioned, it's a work in progress. And there's a number of issues that are outlined in pages five to seven of the analysis.

But thank you for working with our Committee staff and the CSU on this on the concerns raised, and I look forward to supporting the Bill here today. With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much, colleagues. That has eight votes, eight ayes, and we'll keep the roll open for additional members to add on. Thank you so much, Senator. At this time, we'll have add-ons for now, item number six--or Madam secretary, please call the roll for add-ons, please. Thank you.

Item number six, SB 640. The motion is do pass to the Labor and Employment Committee. [Roll Call] File item number one, SB 11. The motion is do pass to the Health Committee. [Roll Call] File item number eight, SB 808. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] File item number four, SB 433, the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] File item number five, SB 444, the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] File item number seven, SB 791, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] File item number two, SB 28, the motion is do pass to the Education Committee. [Roll Call] File item number nine, SB 856, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call] File item consent SB 61. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] File item number six, SB 640. The motion is do pass to the Labor and Employement Committee. [Roll Call] File item number one, SB 11, the motion is do pass to the Health Committee. [Roll Call] File item number eight, SB 808, the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

File item number four, SB 433, the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] File item number five, SB 444, the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] File item number seven, SB 791. The motion is do passed to the Appropriation Committee. [Roll Call] File item number two, SB 28, The motion is do passed to the Education Committee.

I'm so sorry. Which number is that?

File item number two, SB 28. [Roll Call] File item number nine, SB 856, the motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] File item number six, SB 640. The motion is do passed to the Labor and Employment Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you, Mr. Gabriel. No, you're good. Thank you so much. We'll keep the roll open for five more minutes for any Member that would like to add on. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. For anybody who may be watching. We'll keep the roll open for three more minutes and then we'll do the final vote tally. Thank you so much. And thank you so much, colleagues. And thank you so much, Committee staff, for all your hard work and efforts. It's been a robust meeting, and we'll keep the roll open for any Members I'd like to add on in the next few minutes. Thank you so much.

At this time, we'll have Madam Secretary call the roll for Members add on. Thank you so much.

Item number one, SB 11. The motion is do pass to the Health Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much, colleagues. That measure's out with 11 ayes and one no. Thank you.

File item number two, SB 20.

I'm sorry, there's no no's on that. Okay, it has 11 ayes. Thank you so much.

File item number two, SB 28, the motion is due pass to the Education Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much, colleagues. Item number two is out. Nine ayes, one no, and one not voting. Thank you so much.

File item number four, SB 433, the motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much, colleagues. That measure has eight ayes, three no's; that measure's out.

File item number five, SB 444, the motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much. That measure has 11 ayes, and it's out. Thank you.

File item number six, SB 640, the motion is do pass to the Labor and Employment Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much, colleagues. That measure has eight ayes, three no's; that measure's out.

File item number seven, SB 791, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much. That measure has 11 ayes and is out, thank you.

File item number eight, SB 808, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much colleagues. That measure has 11 ayes and is out.

File item number nine, SB 856, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much, colleagues. That measure has 11 ayes and is out.

Item on consent, file item number three, SB 61. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much, colleagues. That measures 11 ayes and consent calendar is passed. And with that, thank you so much, colleagues for a robust meeting. Thank you to our Higher Education Committee staff for your hard work and efforts and to everyone involved with today's meeting and for everyone's involvement with the Assembly Higher Education Committee here today. I greatly appreciate your indulgence and your hard work and efforts. With that, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you so much.