Assembly Standing Committee on Education

Alright, good afternoon, everyone. It is 1:30, so let's get started here. I'm calling the hearing of the Assembly Education Committee to order. We do not have enough Members for a quorum, so we will proceed as a Subcommittee. Like to welcome Mr. Carrillo. Get a shout out for being on time.

We will be hearing bills in sign in order. Today, we have 19 bills on file. There are ten measures on consent. That means that if you're here for the following bills, you will not hear them discussed. They are going to be voted on as a block considered to be noncontroversial and so, if you're sticking around for these following bills, you shouldn't.

These are SB 234, SB 293, SB 321 with amendments, SB 354, SB 369, SB 445, SB 609 with amendments, SB 648 with amendments, SB 868, SB 872. Those are the bills on consent. As a reminder, for each bill that is going to be presented, we're going to have up to two witnesses in support and in opposition each.

So, two in support, two in opposition, each of whom may speak for up to two minutes. For each bill presented, members of the public in the hearing room will have an opportunity to state your position. Please limit your comments to stating your name, affiliation, and position on the bill only.

Members of the public are also welcome to provide comment through the position letter portal on the Assembly Education Committee's website. Finally, I was told that I should read the statement regarding potential disruptive conduct at today's hearing. Conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the hearing is prohibited.

Such conduct may include talking or making loud noises from the audience, uttering loud, threatening, or abusive language, speaking longer than the time allotted, extended discussion of matters not related to the subject of the hearing or bill, and other acts that disrupt the orderly proceeding of the hearing. I think the bottom line is, please, let's all be respectful of each other.

And to address any disruptive conduct, I will take the following steps, and if an individual disrupts the hearing process, I will direct them to stop, warn them that continued disruptions may result in removal from the Capitol Building, also, document on the record the individual involved and the nature of the disruptive conduct.

If the conduct does not stop, I will request the assistance of the sergeants in escorting the individual from the Capitol Building. So with that, seeing no further Members, please come join us in Room 126. We have--Senator Portantino is walking in the room.

So, Senator Portantino has two bills to present. File Number 14: SB 596, and then File Number 17: SB 765. Welcome, Senator.

Mr Chair, if I could take 765 first because we have the Superintendent here, if that's possible.

Very good. Okay, it is on. So we are going to hear File Item Number 17: SB 765. The floor is yours, Senator.

Thank you very much. Have the superintendent come on up. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I'd like to begin by accepting the amendments outlined in the analysis and thank your Committee staff for working with mine. As you know, California is facing a devastating teacher shortage, exacerbated by the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Great Resignation.

According to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, CTC, there are over 10,000 teacher vacancies across California during the 2021-2022 school year, and our Superintendent Thurmond has made making sure we have adequate teachers and increase our pipeline a priority and I'm proud that he is sponsoring this bill and brought it to our office to make sure we can do what we can with this prudent measure.

There's not enough individuals entering the teacher profession to counteract the number of teachers leaving the workforce. SB 765 will draw from previous executive orders that seek to solve this issue by lifting the CalSTERS compensation cap on retirees' earnings, removing the 180 day waiting period for retired educators to return to assist local education agencies, and requires LEAs to provide documentation for their need as well as the eligibility of retired member before they may begin their service.

Teachers are essential to our society because they prepare our youth for the future, and California must continue to invest in teachers and frankly, make it easier for folks to be in the classroom to help our kids. Obviously, with me today is the Honorable Tony Thurmond, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Chris Reefe with CSBA. And for those reasons, I respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate.

Thank you. Welcome, Superintendent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Here in support of SB 765. We thank the Senator for his authorship and leadership here, and also we thank you, Mr. Chair, and your staff for your thoughtful approach to this measure.

As the Senator pointed out, this is simply a way to help retired teachers be able to come back to the class during a time of need where we have a great shortage, and to allow those teachers who are retired to come back without having a penalty to their pension. This bill is completely focused on teachers and the amendments that you all provided it makes that possible. Let's start the new school year with this short term solution to help our schools have adequate numbers of teachers available to teach our kids.

Obviously, the bill also has components that deal with residency stipends and those components that we hope will be taken up in the budget and signed into law shortly, but clearly, this is a critical issue and respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 765.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Chris Reefe on behalf of the California School Boards Association, proud co-sponsors with the State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

I want to first address my comments to the concerns around CalSTERS's resiliency and the resiliency of the fund itself. CSBA has been a consistent leader in ensuring that there are no significant hits to the fund, wanting to make sure that it's always supported, and that there's also additional dollars in the state budget to help support local districts, cover their local obligation costs, which continue to rise within CalSTERS.

So this is not an issue that we take lightly, but on the other side of the coin, we are actually facing a real crisis. We have classrooms that do not have teachers. We have schools that don't have principals. And so this is one of the few tools the Legislature can provide that provides an immediate opportunity for districts to bring teachers back into the classroom.

We thank the Legislature, the Superintendent, and Mr. Portantino and others for their leadership in providing additional investment into teacher recruitment and retention dollars. Five billion dollars in 2021-22 rolled out over a period of five years.

Huge investment, yet that money is now just starting to go out. So we are not seeing the fruits of that labor yet. This is a temporary, if you will, solution that can help at least bridge a small piece of that gap so that our students can have the high quality teacher that they deserve. So with that, appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you very much. Any witnesses? Well, public comments in support?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Jeff Vaca, representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Andrea Ball here on behalf of several organizations. Thank the author, the State Superintendent, the California Association of Suburban School Districts, the Central Valley Education Coalition, the Orange County Department of Education, and the Long Beach Unified School District in strong support.

Good afternoon. Dorothy Johnson on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, pleased to support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Derick Lennox on behalf of the California County Superintendents, pleased to support the bill.

Good afternoon. Lucy Salcido Carter with the Alameda County Office of Ed in support.

Anna Ioakimedes with Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Adam Keigwin on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education and we support the bill.

Tweeners.

Good afternoon. Jennifer Baker, representing the California Retired Teachers Association. We have a watch position on the bill. We appreciate the amendments. We'd like to continue to engage in a conversation about ensuring there are adequate protections to protect CalSTERS fiscally. Thank you.

Any other tweeners in the audience? Okay, witnesses in opposition, please come forward.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Seth Bramble here on behalf of the California Teachers Association, respectfully in opposition to Senate Bill 765, primarily regarding the provisions about bringing back retirees, and I want to thank the Chair and thank Committee staff as well as thank the author and the sponsors for taking an amendment that was really important to our organization in limiting the ability of retirees to come back to high paid management positions.

So we appreciate that. I think it makes the bill much better. Three things I want to lift up. We can right now bring back retirees without this bill. If those retirees want to continue to receive a monthly retirement check, then we have 180 day waiting period, and we have an earnings cap, an annual earnings cap, and our folks honestly like the annual earnings cap because it provides some protection.

It's a good safeguard. But just to be frank, a retiree can come back while receiving this retirement check every month and substitute every day for an entire school year without hitting that cap. Thirdly, there's even a way for an employer to get around the 180 day waiting period right now and it's not really that complicated. It's basically a school board resolution. Now, our folks don't like the 180 day waiting period.

They'd like it to go away, but this proposal would allow a retiree to come back to a full time teaching position while they are receiving a monthly retirement check and what we don't want to do is provide fuel for pension critics.

What we don't want to do is encourage a policy shift toward bringing back retired workers rather than find ways to attract fresh talent, and we don't want to create opportunities for abuse in this law, which is why we've made several additional requests for other safeguards and guardrails to be placed into the bill.

Happy to discuss in detail what some of the anticipated problems we think we'll see and what our proposed solutions are if those questions arise, but as proposed to be amended, CTA opposes the bill and urges your no vote.

Alright, thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing no one coming forward, let's take a quick vote to establish quorum. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Muratsuchi? Here. Muratsuchi, here. Dahle? Here. Dahle, here. Juan Carrillo? Here. Juan Carrillo, here. Hoover? Here. Hoover, here. Lee? Here. Lee, here. McCarty? Quirk-Silva? Here. Quirk-Silva, here.

Okay, we have a quorum. Public comments in opposition to SB 765? Seeing no one coming forward, let me bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from the Committee? Mr. Carrillo?

First, I'd like to make a motion to move the bill, but I also want to thank the author and the witnesses in support. I believe that this is a measure that will address what we currently have: the lack of teachers.

I do appreciate the comments from CTA. I think they're valid comments. However, as a parent with two kids in third grade going to fourth grade, I often hear my kids tell me that they have substitutes in the classroom.

They do a great job. However, we need to also address the lack of new teachers coming in. I've seen also in my districts where new teachers coming into the profession, some of them leave within two years.

I think that we need to find a way to attract that new talent coming in, but retaining them is the challenge I believe that we have to face. So for those two reasons, CTA, again, I understand your concerns, but given the situation that we're in, that's a good measure to keep teachers in our schools teaching our kids. For that reason, I make a motion to move the bill.

Thank you. There's a motion. Is there a second? Second by Vice Chair Dahle. Mr. Hoover.

Thank you. And Senator, I was actually just curious because I do understand the goal you're trying to get at here, but would love to kind of hear your response to some of the concerns raised, I think by the opposition. Obviously, the more new teachers we can recruit, that also needs to be a priority as well.

We obviously have to do something to address our teacher shortage, but I was kind of curious about what some of your thoughts were in response to the--or the Superintendent. Either one.

Yeah, I mean, I'll make a quick comment. I mean, an experienced teacher who wants to come back and teach I think is an asset to the school community and so if we have an opportunity to make it easier for experienced teachers to come back to the classroom, I think it's incumbent upon us in particular, given the crisis in the shortage of teachers.

And so, with any profession, the longer you do it, the better you get at it, and so here the opportunity to get experienced teachers back in the classroom, I think we should take it, and that's why I was pleased when the Superintendent brought the concept to me and that's why we're here.

Through the Chair, thank you for your question, Assembly Member. Why would we punish a teacher who wants to come back and help out short term in this solution? If we establish a penalty on their pension and their ability to earn some money while they are helping, we're just punishing them.

There is a precedent for how we can do this with guardrails. It has been done before through Executive Order, but we're bringing it to the Legislature because we believe that those actions should be taken by the Legislature and there are guardrails to protect against any kind of abuse that might take place, and with all due respect, I appreciate our teachers and CTA's position, but we can't wait any longer.

If you've heard from a single principal or teacher who's in a classroom who's feeling the fatigue, you know, not taking this action might actually contribute to more people leaving the profession because of the imbalance of what the teachers have to take on. Classes get doubled up. Teachers have subs who are not directly engaged in what we're doing in our schools.

And so this is a measure that is thoughtful, has guardrails, and with all due respect to my Colleague from CTA, all those provisions about being able to do this without legislative action, all those things sound complicated and take a lot of time. And our schools can't wait. And we can do this. There's a precedent for it. We are recruiting.

Every agency that does recruitment is out there recruiting, but the nation is experiencing a shortage. And this bill, by the way, would increase the residency stipend to 40,000 dollars. That is now in the budget that is being voted on, so recruitment efforts are taking place, but we need a short term measure to support those who are in our classrooms, to support our teachers and our students. Again, I respectfully urge your aye vote. SB 765.

Thank you. Ms. Quirk-Silva.

Good afternoon. I too support this bill as someone who has been involved in education for my entire profession before I came here, and my husband, who currently teaches in junior high. One of the things, of course, that we're seeing are many, many subs on campuses and what's happening is when they can't get substitutes, then people are in other positions at the school site are then asked to sub.

So my husband, in essence, was in a position of a coaching, mentoring, and many times he would be asked to sub because somebody else didn't show up in the position he had would be changed. But secondly, during the Pandemic, I'm aging myself here, but I just turned 60.

Many of my closest friends who've taught for 30 years really made the decision to retire early. They retired even before the age of 60 because of all of the scenario that involved the Pandemic with not only teaching online, but teaching students in the class, physically in the class, and teaching online at the same time. I'd ask some of you guys to try that.

It's a very unusual trick to teach kids in the classroom and online at the same time, especially when they're really little. But the point is that I had many, many, fellow teachers that I know who retired early and certainly coming back short term would be, I think, not only good for the staff, but they bring a lot of wisdom to a team.

And some of them left early because of those scenarios, but would be happy to come back short term as we increase our workforce and I agree we need to look at that as seriously as we look at bringing these teachers back, but I think this is a great short term term solution and I support it.

Alright. Mr. Lee.

I just want to thank the Senator for bringing this bill forward. I understand the premise, and I appreciate the premise of trying to get more classrooms staffed. That's a real big urgency and crisis we have right now.

I do think there are some valid concerns being brought up, of course, right now and while today I'm not going to be able to support it, I do hope that you'll be able to work out some language and amendments as it goes to the other Committees, and hopefully I'll be able to support on the floor. Thank you.

Any further--Vice Chair Dahle.

Thank you. I will be supporting this bill today. Thank you for bringing it forward. I think this also helps clarify for school board members, as they're trying to hire, that this is available. Yes, there are ways to get around it, as you mentioned, but I think this offers clarification for them as they're trying to fill these empty positions.

I think it will also bring experienced teachers back to the campuses as we have new teachers coming through the credentialing process, and hopefully they'll have mentors on their campuses to be able to as they're going through that process and help them get quicker through and just have some more support.

I know in my rural schools, if you have a teacher currently on a waiver, emergency waiver going through the credentialing process, they might not have an extra teacher on that campus who's veteran who can come alongside them and help them. So I think this is just another tool in the toolbox, and I just appreciate it. Thank you.

Alright. Seeing no other requests to speak from the Committee--well, first of all, Senator Portantino, thank you very much for bringing this bill forward that is addressing an issue that I'm also share your concern, the urgency of the teacher shortage crisis. I have a couple of bills trying to address the same crisis. I do want to respect CTA's concerns.

Normally, I would be supportive of the request for an amendment that these provisions be collectively bargained, but I believe that given the teacher shortage crisis, that this measure needs to move forward. And so, Senator Portantino, would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File Item 17: SB 765. The motion is 'do pass as amended to the Public Employment and Retirement Committee.' Muratsuchi? Aye. Muratsuchi, aye. Dahle? Aye. Dahle, aye. Juan Carrillo? Aye. Juan Carrillo, aye. Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Lee? Not voting. Lee, not voting. McCarty? Quirk-Silva? Aye. Quirk-Silva, aye.

Five votes; the bill is out. Thank you, Mr. Superintendent, for joining us.

We have next file item 14, SB 596.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm presenting SB 596, which would expand current teacher protections. Frankly, I wish I wasn't presenting SB 596. I wish we didn't have a situation where teachers were being threatened, harassed, intimidated, frankly, for following state law and teaching an inclusive curriculum. Kind of makes me sad. Like many of us, we grew up in a time where we treated each other with respect and compassion and dignity and grace. And even when we disagreed, those disagreements rise to the level of threats where people felt that their lives and their families were at stake. And so what this bill seeks to do is very simple.

If you're performing your duty under the law, when you're in your private time, you can't be threatened, harassed, and intimidated simply for following state law. And we have a situation where educators in our state were following state law, have been harassed and intimidated and threatened. And that's all it does. It does not infringe upon anybody's right to go to a school board meeting and advocate for their children. It doesn't infringe upon anybody's right to go to a PTA meeting and advocate for their child. Doesn't infringe upon anybody's right to go to an IEP meeting and advocate for their child. It takes absolutely no constitutionally protected rights away.

It simply says that when that teacher is on their own time in the coffee shop, don't threaten their life, don't harass them. And frankly, most people aren't going to harass anybody, aren't going to threaten, and if you're not going to do it, this bill poses no threat to you. But if you want a fundamental right, you think it is your fundamental right to threaten and harass and intimidate somebody from following state law, then this bill affects you.

But most people don't feel that way. Most people want the plumber to be able to pipe your house according to state law and not be harassed when they're in the Starbucks. Most people want the nurse who follows state law to be at the movie theater and not be harassed with their family. Most people want their son or daughter who has another profession to be able to do their profession under state law and in their private life, not face harassment or intimidation or frankly, death threats. That's what we expect in a civil, just, kind, caring and loving society. And that's simply what this bill does. It says if you're teaching something or you're an educator and you're following state law, your private time is not the time for somebody to come up and harass and intimidate you. So with that, I have with me representatives from both CTA and CFT, Ton Trigueiro and Tiffany Mok to speak to the bill. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Toni Trigueiro, on behalf of the California Teachers Association. In 2022, the RAND Corporation released the results of a survey of almost 4000 teachers and principals nationwide, showing, among other things, that 61% of principals and 37% of teachers surveyed reported experiencing harassment about politicized, topics which contributed to burnout, frequent job related stress, and symptoms of depression. Additionally, schools, and particularly teachers, have increasingly become targets of parents and other individuals and groups seeking to limit specific types of instruction like critical race theory and topics related to gender and sexuality.

Our CTA Members believe school employees should be safe from aggressive and violent behaviors, as well as physical, verbal, and psychological abuse, particularly given the documented increases in the number of confrontational activities faced by school employees. We believe all efforts to establish practices and protocols guaranteeing the safety of teachers must be immediate and far-reaching. Such efforts benefit the school community by impacting teacher retention and recruitment and ensuring appropriate conduct within the community at large.

Acknowledging the education workforce shortages and the ongoing issues around teacher recruitment and retention, SB 596 offers an additional layer of safety and security that our teachers deserve. And CTA respectfully requests an aye vote on SB 596.

Tiffany Mok, Chair and members, thank you so much to the staff as well for their great analysis of this bill. I think the statistics and the background for the bill really hit the topic perfectly. People deserve, as the author noted, to be free from harassment when they're not at work. But I will also say that I grew up around teachers. I grew up on a block with three of my own teachers, and they walked the streets. They ran into me in the grocery store. It was wonderful. I now live in a new community, which is very much like the one I grew up in, and I lived by two teachers. But these teachers don't go out of their house now. They tell me as a neighbor, they're scared.

They're scared to go just walk down the street. And they're not even teaching the controversial topics that we've seen. They're experienced teachers who we value, as noted in the last bill, with the staffing crisis, and they have children of their own. They don't recommend the profession because they say, it's not what it used to be. This bill will not fix all of that, as we know. But it is a small measure that goes to the heart of where we are in this day and age, with the statistics and analysis and the great testimony. We really just seek a simple step to making a more civil society so that we can go see our neighbors at the grocery store down the street without having them fear that they might run into someone who will threaten their life or harass them. And so, for those reasons, CFT is proud to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Public comments in support of the bill, please come forward.

Jessica Hay with the California School Employees Association in support.

Good afternoon. Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators, pleased to support.

Pamela Gibbs with the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support of the bill.

Any further comments in support of the bill? Witnesses in opposition to the bill, please come forward.

Hello. My name is Edwin Voskanian. I am a father of two daughters at Glendale Unified School District. I'm here in opposition of Bill 596 that is the wrong bill at the wrong time. Criminalizing parents for participating or questioning the teachers who are teaching their children.

I would like to point out that SB 596 forces law enforcement to give misdemeanor charges, 1,000 dollar fines, or six months imprisonment to parents who are deemed to be harassing or annoying an individual for laws which already exist. Harassment laws exist, and they are on the books.

I don't believe it's necessary to put the teachers into a protective class and attach such punitive damages to the individual who's questioning them, many times. The idea that a parent can be charged for a crime, for exercising their free speech, specifically by posting information about their child's teacher on social media, is not the America I know.

It is the authoritarian Tehran my family fled 40 years ago. We are blessed to have an overwhelming majority of teachers in our district be phenomenal teachers. Many have played a significant role in my daughters' lives.

I know that many will continue to do so. This bill protects the activist teacher who insists on pushing inappropriate curriculum in their classrooms, and I urge you to vote no on SB 596. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further witnesses in opposition to the bill, please come forward.

Ani Torosyan and mother of two in Glendale Unified School District. I represent GUSD Parents' Voices, a parent advocacy group with over 16,000 followers. We oppose SB 596, authored by my district's elected Senator Portantino. This parent silencing bill was introduced because a USC teacher thought it was a good idea to teach eight year olds about nudity and sexuality.

Parents voiced their displeasure. This bill is placing teachers above parents, which will result in the continued decline in public school enrollment. In 2017, there were 6.2 million K-12 students in California public schools.

This year, there are 5.8 million. Ignoring parents will result in even lower enrollment next year. The bill is designed to shut parents up about indoctrinating teachers who are sexualizing our kids.

Laws are already in place that address harassment against any person per Civil Code 527.6. SB 596 will grant teachers special status beyond the Civil Code so that parents can face up to 1,000 dollars in fines or one year in jail. Under the Civil Code, a harasser faces a restraining order. Theft is legal up to 950 dollars a day in the State of California, but you want to jail parents who are protecting our kids? SB 596 does affect First Amendment rights.

It reaches social media posts and off campus interactions such as school board meetings per the bill analysis. The intent of the bill is to chill speech. We know it and you know it. We sent the Senator proposed amendments which are yet to be accepted. Vote no. Parents are not the enemy. Thank you.

Thank you. Any public comments in opposition to the bill, please come forward and please limit your comments to name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Hi. Rachel Bhagwat with ACLU California Action. We are respectfully working with the author's office on moving towards neutral. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing no one coming forward, bring it back to the Committee. Questions from the Committee?

I would also like the author to kind of address some of those statements that were just made, particularly about--because I know you made in your comments that this did not address school board members. I mean, not school board members, school board meetings, and yet the commenter just said that it did.

So, the bill does not affect a school board meeting. It does not affect free speech. In the bill, it says rights and privileges that are protected under free speech are still protected in the bill.

Just again, some comments on this bill.

If I have to further clarify the school board piece, I will, because that is not the intent at all. The point is that's still part of the classroom, it's still part of the campus, it's still considered school activity and so somebody might have a meeting off campus, might consider that off campus, but that's no what the bill--

The intent of the bill is when they're on their own time, in their own private lives, to be protected, not during the campus because there's already laws in place to protect school employees while on campus but there's no laws in place when they're in their private time, and so that's the distinction that the bill makes.

I appreciate that clarification, and it probably would be helpful in the future to even clarify it more, and that speaks to what I'm going to speak about, which is the narrative, and we have just very, very polarized statements that continue to escalate in every sphere, whether it's at a market, whether it's at a hospital, where you could look at this microphone right here and one group will say, 'that microphone is black,' and somebody else will say, 'no, it's not black, it's red,' and there is absolutely no tolerance for any civil discord.

So as a teacher myself, again, sadly, not only have I seen teachers leave the profession for multiple reasons, but it certainly is not true that parents do not have the opportunity to engage with their teachers. At any time, a parent can request a teacher conference with their teacher.

They can call the principal and then ask for a conference with the principal. They can ask for a conference with the superintendent. They can go to back to school nights. They can go to activities on the campus. There are many, many opportunities for parents to engage with students, not students with teachers, and to have a conversation. What is different than a conversation is an escalation of yelling, screaming, name calling, inappropriate posts, all of these things.

So if we take the teacher out of it and we think of a police officer, is it appropriate to show up at a police officer's house and have a bullhorn and call them names, shout them down, do all of these things? Is it appropriate to do that to a nurse? And yet these are the things that are happening in many, many places across the United States, that we are taking First Amendment rights and saying, 'we can and will do this.' Many of us, as elected leaders have seen this at our own conversations or town halls where people show up. They're not interested in hearing two sides or two points of view.

It's just, we're going to shout you down, and this is happening and it is intimidation. We here in our own building all have to go through trainings, trainings on how we behave as not only elected leaders, but as employees in this building and many of them refer to harassment, to threatening environments.

So I not only support this bill, but we need to, as a society, start to look at what are we teaching our children when we want to engage in this yelling and screaming, name calling? I mean, we see it all the time with videos of people. It's not acceptable. We need to deescalate and we need to get back to civility and this starts with parents, too.

I have four adult kids, and to the parents who aren't there who are saying, 'no, this is shutting down my voice,' it's simply not true. If you want to engage with the teacher on your campus or any other administrator, you simply call, you email, and you say, can we have a conference? Can we meet? If you say, 'can I show up with signs and scream,' yeah, you have that right too, but when it crosses the line of intimidation, that is a different story.

And by the way, we saw some really, really ugly examples of some of this play out recently at a Glendale School Board. It's just devastating to see this, and in no way do I not understand parents' support of their children. That is your role. You should fully be engaged. But this is about saying, when do we deescalate? So with that, I move forward a motion on your bill.

Thank you. Mr. Hoover.

Thank you. Just a couple of questions. First, would this apply to social media postings, for example? Is that something that is clear?

So under the law, there's already free speech components. The bill makes it very clear that if somebody's exercising constitutionally protected speech--for example, people have free speech, but you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, movie theater.

I mean, those common sense understandings of what free speech is aren't being changed by this, but if you're on social media threatening somebody's life, saying, 'I'm going to come to your house and I'm going to kill you,' that should be investigated. That's different than saying, 'I don't like the grade my teacher got.'

I mean, it's hard to answer the question without knowing the actual context or the frequency and all of the other implications the proper law enforcement folks evaluate when they assess these things.

But in theory, a threat or harassment could happen online if it's outside the school day or if it's outside, right? I mean, in theory, it could apply to...

In theory, there could be somebody threatening somebody's life online and that person, they're threatening somebody's life. I mean, would you threaten somebody's life online? I would not. You would not. Right. So in your case, it wouldn't be germane because you're not going to go online and threaten somebody's life, but you might, on social media, express your disappointment with somebody. That's a different issue.

Okay, that's helpful. And then this does not apply to the protection of school board members, correct? It's just teachers or would it also extend to--

All school employees in their private life. Again, we're making a distinction between when you're on campus having normal, regular interactions with you--again, this does not take away any parents' rights during the normal course of school business, but if you're on your own time, if you're in the Starbucks with your family, somebody shouldn't come up to you and threaten your life.

Thank you. Through the Chair, I was actually curious if ACLU wouldn't mind just going a little deeper into your concerns with the bill because I'm trying to-- is it First Amendment concerns? I'm really curious what the concern is from the ACLU.

If I may, before they come up, they have submitted a list of amendments, and I believe we're going to take almost all of their amendments. We're still trying to figure out--but I think we're on a good path. So anyway, let them speak for themselves.

Is the representative for the ACLU still in the room? Yes. Okay.

Hi there. Thank you, and I want to reiterate that we have met with Senator Portantino's office and his staff, and have submitted some thoughts, and he's been very generous in discussing and taking those seriously.

I'm sorry, I'm just looking quickly at our letter. We share Senator Portantino's concern and support of teachers, and I think generally we felt that existing law around criminal stalking and harassment covered a lot of what was sort of in this bill and wanted to also make sure that we were protecting students and not criminalizing students. That said, all of this is being discussed with the author's office and know want to be respectful of that conversation and that relationship.

Thank you.

And if I could add too, we have gotten, as the parents who are critical of the bill, we have their amendments too, and we're looking at those as well.

Okay, perfect. I appreciate that. Thank you for continuing to work with those groups. I'm going to just say I'm going to be supporting this bill today because as passionate as many of these issues are, and I think there's a lot of passionate issues that get discussed at our school board meetings in our school districts, I think there is a way to go about this in a civil way.

We can have these dialogues in a civil way, and I actually believe that the vast majority of parents are doing that. I think that in most cases, as someone that served on a school board throughout the Pandemic, we got into some really passionate debates and arguments when it came to reopening schools and fighting for our kids. And as a parent myself, I think it's really important that we're able to have those discussions.

So I do not support threats or harassment, and I do support civil dialogue, so that's why I'm going to support your bill today. I would, though, add a comment, and this isn't necessarily directed to you, Senator, but I think another thing that would vastly help the situation in California is to stop injecting politics into our classrooms, to start having greater respect for parental rights, to have a greater respect for the differences of opinion that exist at the local level, and to actually focus on teaching our kids how to read and write and getting away from politics in the classroom.

We are 50th in literacy in our state. We are failing our low income students. We are failing so many of our kids in this state and our schools and that's what I think we need to be focused on: improving and not injecting politics into the classroom. But with that said, I will be supportive of your bill today. Thank you.

Thank you. Vice Chair Dahle.

Thank you. So I'm going to be laying off the bill today to look towards those amendments that you're going to be taking at the next steps to look at those as well, and I agree it's an alarming rate of students that are not returning back to our schools and we really need to look at--parents are important in those conversations and to make sure that our kids are back on our campuses.

So I look forward to the amendments, particularly for the parent groups that you're looking at those and to see if I can get to enough support in the future. Thank you.

Seeing no further comments from the Committee, Senator Portantino, thank you very much again for addressing a very timely issue. I think we all recognize how not only divisive, but the coarseness of discourse has become too often crossing the line to threatening or harassing. One of my first reactions is, well, we should extend this to state legislators. I think we can all-

For the record, I'm not authoring that, though.

Okay. But I think that raises important questions in terms of what conduct crosses the line and where to draw the line and I concur with my Colleague from Folsom that we want to make sure that we are protecting our teachers, drawing the line, but not in a way that would infringe on First Amendment rights.

I know that you have the language in your bill that constitutionally protected activity is not included, but like, for example, the language of the definition of a harassment that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person.

I can see how that might invite some lawyers to challenge that language, but again, I disappointed that this bill doesn't look like it's going to Judiciary where I think they would be able to more fully explore the First Amendment issues, but I fully support the goal and intent of the bill, so with that, Senator Portantino, would you like to close?

Well first of all, I appreciate all of the input. I always like to say if you have concerns from the left and the right, you must be hitting the right sweet spot, and so clearly, we have concerns from multiple perspectives which I think is a good thing and I think the conversation today was healthy and productive. I am going to take all of your comments back. We all want the best public policy here.

As I said in the beginning, it makes me sad that I'm even presenting this bill. I think back to the Beatitudes: 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be the children of God.' And I think it was chosen specifically of all of the Beatitudes that when you try to make peace, it's the most difficult task, which is why that's the line.

And so we're trying to make sure that those who we trust our kids with aren't maligned and intimidated and threatened because they're following state law and if people have a problem with state law, that's a different issue.

Take those complaints to your lawmakers. This also assumes that a teacher might be teaching something that they don't even agree with, but they're teaching under the law. They should not be faced with threats in their private life, and so I really appreciate the depth of the conversation. We're going to continue to work on this.

It's a serious issue from all the perspectives that have been raised today, and rest assured that we're going to give it that care that it needs and hopefully get something on the Governor's desk that addresses concerns but also protects those folks who are on school campuses. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Please call the roll.

File Item 14: SB 596. The motion is 'do pass to Public Safety Committee.' Muratsuchi? Aye. Muratsuchi, aye. Dahle? Not voting. Dahle, not voting. Juan Carrillo? Aye. Juan Carrillo, aye. Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. McCarty? Quirk-Silva? Aye. Quirk-Silva, aye.

Five votes; the bill is out. Alright, I see Senator Menjivar has stepped in.

She has the next two bills in signing order file item number twelve, SB 515. And file item 13 that is being Senator Menjivar is presenting on behalf of Senator Stern. And then file item 13, SB five, four, one. Senator Menjivar's own Bill. So I'll leave it up to you which one you want to present first.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll present Senator Henry Stern's. Bill First, SB 515.

Good afternoon, Assembly Members. On behalf of Senator Stern, I'm pleased to present SB 515, an important Bill that would help protect children from the impacts of extreme heat by making it easier for schools across the state to build shade structures on their campuses. The Senator and I actually share areas in our district, and I know firsthand what he's looking to do because it's going to also impact my district as we overlap in the San Fernando Valley in the city of LA.

On one day, it can get up to asphalts and so forth, can get up to upwards of 120 degrees. So this legislation is really important. I would like to say that the author is accepting the amendments on page seven of the analysis.

And the Senator does share, wants to send his thanks for the committee staff working with his staff on this. The Bill seeks to streamline the construction and approve a process for installing schoolyard shade structures to address specific regulatory barriers that have made constructing Low cost shade structures expensive. The state is seeing a record high number of days with extreme heat, and this is only projected to increase in the coming years.

Extreme heat has substantial measurable impacts on the physical health and mental well being of our youth. Children who attend schools in urban areas are at especially heightened risk of suffering from heat related illnesses, poor health outcomes, and their reduced ability to learn. Schoolyard shade structures can reduce the heat island effect and bring down ambient heat by 15 degrees altogether.

Safeguarding children's physical and mental health and promoting educational progress. SB 515 will accelerate the installation timeline and reduce costs for building these structures so that schools can quickly improve outdoor play and learning environments for children. With that, I'd like to Mr. Chair, with your permission, turn to a witness here to testify on behalf, Sasha Horowitz from LAUSD and the sponsor of this Bill.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and Members. Sasha Horwitz with Los Angeles Unified School District. We are proud sponsors of SB 515 and very grateful to Senator Stern for bringing this Bill forward, and Senator Menjivar for being here to present. I'm also from the San Fernando Valley. So happy to hear that.

As the Senator already noted, schoolyard shading mitigates the urban heat island effect and reduces ambient temperature by at least 15 degrees. Safeguarding children's physical and mental health and promoting educational progress as school districts invest in greening projects, particularly in areas where students have the least access to parks and green space. Regulatory barriers have made the installation of shade structures cost prohibitive.

SB 515 will reduce costs and accelerate construction by carving a narrow exemption from the accessible route and path of travel requirements in California building code. Based on the approach adopted for installing electric vehicle charging stations. These structures will still meet all federal and state Ada requirements, but they will not trigger the secondary improvements to the other areas of the campus that have made campus shading too expensive to build.

For instance, a shade structure that costs $80,000 to purchase and install could have a final price tag that is hundreds of thousands of dollars above the amount once all accessibility upgrades are accounted for. As a result, schools and community colleges are disincentivized from constructing much needed shade structures. This Bill would hold costs to the federal limit of only 20% above, or in this case, $16,000 above the cost of the unit.

To make sure that this exemption is as narrowly tailored as possible, SB 515 only applies to you off the shelf structures, meaning the designs are already preapproved by the Division of State Architect and are permitted to go through an expedited review and approval process for safety and accessibility. Currently, there are 28 designs on this list. The list is updated regularly, and equipment manufacturers must recertify them after every building code cycle update.

The shade structures covered in this Bill are simple, inexpensive projects, usually consisting of four poles and a fabric sail raised 12ft off the ground. They are generally situated above lunch tables, rove in open or over open areas of the schoolyard. This exemption does not stop any other campus upgrades or repairs from triggering accessibility route path of travel improvements, meaning a separate project that includes a shade structure is still held to the same requirements as current law.

Finally, no General funds will be used for these projects. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your help.

Thank you. Any further witnesses in support? Witness or a public comment?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education, in support of the Bill.

Afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. Chris Reefe, on behalf of California School Boards Association, in support.

Tony Trigueiro, California Teachers Association, in support.

Good afternoon, Members. Kasha Williams, volunteer for California Parents Union. I personally support this Bill. We also support a similar Bill as a CPU that Ms. Menjivar wrote. SB four nine nine. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward seeing none. Any public comments in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back to the committee. Entertain a motion or second motion has been moved and seconded, seeing no other request for comments. Senator Menjivar, thank you for presenting this on behalf of Sandra Stern.

I know that, you know also deeply committed to addressing the issue of addressing the impacts of climate change on our school campuses, especially addressing the issues of extreme heat as a representative of the San Fernando Valley. Sounds like a very common sense proposal. I mean, when you made that comment about an $80,000 structure, could be hundreds of thousands of dollars more after going through all the compliance, I think just sounds like a common sense solution. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

File item twelve, SB 515. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Muratsuchi aye. Dahle aye. Juan-Carrillo aye. Hoover aye. Lee aye. McCarty. Quirk-Silva aye.

Six votes. Bell is out. Next, we have file item number 13, SB 541.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This Bill is quite different than what I presented for my colleague. Members I'm here to talk to you about SB Five for one, that's looking to address the high rates of STIs we're seeing in our youth right now.

We're seeing that over 50% of STIs are held by our young individuals, our youth. And my Bill is looking to address that is also looking to address and provide greater access to individuals who wish to obtain the HPV vaccine. We're looking to address the epidemic in California's youth, improve our public health outcomes, and by expanding, like I mentioned, access to condoms in all our high schools and public high schools.

I will be taking the committee amendments. Thank you so much for working with my team on that. Specifically, this Bill is looking to do four different things.

It's requiring high schools to provide access to both internal and external condoms free for our high school students. Two, it's barring high schools from prohibiting condoms to be distributed when a sex education course is being offered any classes that are being offered by community that go onto their schools. Three, it prohibits pharmacies and retailers from asking for an ID when purchasing a condom.

Right now, there is no state law that requires an individual to produce an ID to show that they're 18 years old to purchase a condom. There is no law in the state of California that says you have to be X amount of ages to purchase a condom. Yet people are asking individuals to produce an ID.

And fourth, it's ensuring that there's no wrong door for the HPV vaccine. It's asking for every single family packed to provide the HPV vaccines for individuals twelve years and older. Current law in the state of California allows a twelve year old to make their own reproductive decision.

This just goes in line with that. It's not changing the age. It's just saying that should they wish to go to a family pack, every single family pack should have that available.

We're experiencing a crisis and this is our way to ensure that they have access to these entities. I recognize I am not a parent, but I recognize I was a daughter.

My mom was not always with me 24/7 parents here, you can't always be with your children. 24/7 I'm not saying that I'm not taking away the conversation of a parent and a child to have should they wish to be sexually active. However, because we adults are not with children, 24/7 it is safe to assume that there are some individuals who are youth that practice sex.

And when they're being turned away from having condoms, it's not deterring them from practicing sex, it's actually having them practice unsafe sex. The CDC actually, just about a month ago, a month and a half, maybe two months ago, came out with their most recent report on the risk with our children. And we're seeing a higher rate of individuals not utilizing condoms.

One in five women right now girls, have an STI. We're seeing a decrease in condom usage. We want to make sure that these are accessible in our schools.

This isn't a new phenomenon. The condom availability programs in schools began in the early 90s. We're seeing LAUSD and LA Los Angeles Unified District having them.

San Francisco Unified district having them. We want to make sure there is equity across the entire state of California. We all know in our rural areas there's not a lot of access to health equity.

Should you not have access to protective to condoms and you have an STI, you might not have access to a community clinic, you might not have access to a hospital. Because when you need treatment for an STI so we want to be preventative in that manner. Here with me to talk about this and provide testimony as this Bill is being led by youth I'm very proud of that is Sierra Lau, an Mph project Director of California School Based Health Alliance, but also Esperanza Bohor who just graduated from high school and is a Sacramento resident.

Hi, my name is Sierra Lau, and I'm a school health project Director with the California School based Health Alliance. I've spent over seven years working in school based health centers at public schools and helping increase students'access to high quality health care. The California School Based Health Alliance helps support around 400 school based health and wellness centers in K through twelve schools across California.

School based health centers provide free medical and behavioral health care, and many also provide dental care, optometry services, and a variety of ancillary services, all of which are youth centered. Research shows that school based health centers have a positive impact on absences, dropout rates, disciplinary problems, and other academic outcomes. Overall, school based health centers enhance access to health care by bringing medically accurate and age appropriate care directly to where students spend most of their time at school.

California youth ages 15 to 24 make up over half of all sexually transmitted infection or STI cases. They make up about 60% of Chlamydia cases. One of the most common STIs, which can lead to serious health consequences if left untreated.

Condoms are the only form of birth control that protect against STIs. Studies show that in high schools where condoms are readily available, young people who are sexually active are twice as likely as other students to have used a condom during their last sexual encounter. Making condoms more widely available does not encourage young people to become sexually active.

By having free condoms at school, young people who are sexually active will be able to make safer and healthier choices. In addition, access to condoms reduces the stigma surrounding sexual health and encourages conversations between young people and adults, a conversation they may not have been able to have otherwise, thus empowering young people to make educated decisions about their health. The California School based Health Alliance strongly supports SB 541 to make condoms free and accessible in public high schools, ultimately increasing their availability and helping reduce the disproportionate burden of STIs and unplanned pregnancies on young people.

Assemblymen and Members of the committee. Hello, my name is Esperanza Bure and I'm a Director of organizing for Generation Up and a recent graduate from Rosemont High School. I'm honored to testify in favor of SB 541, a proposed Bill that would require free condoms to be made available to students within schools.

As I navigated the challenging journey of adolescents, I witnessed firsthand the pressures that young people face daily in their lives. We're constantly being sent mixed signals about our relationships, sexuality, and are expected to make responsible decisions. It's within this context that I firmly advocate for your support on this Bill.

Condoms are more than just rubber. They represent safety and empowerment and are the key to promoting responsible behavior. As we explore and discover our own identities, they safeguard our physical and emotional well being.

Ensuring condom accessibility in schools, acknowledges the reality of teenage relationships, and protects those who are engaged in sexual relationships. Although it is a common argument, I can assure you that making condoms available in schools does not promote promiscuity. Instead, it sends the powerful message that our state prioritizes the health and safety of its youth.

I've had friends who have made the decision to have sex, although I find that the ones who have been taught to be shameful about it and were not provided with necessary support ended up being more secretive and putting themselves in danger because they would rather take the risks than face trouble and shame for attempting to access condoms. My friends who did that were provided support were the ones that practiced safe sex, and when something did end up wrong, they were the first to speak up about it and got the attention they needed. The difference here is not their decision, it is how safe they were doing so.

By supporting this Bill, we acknowledge our responsibility to protect the vulnerable, educate one another, and foster a future where growth is nurtured and our youth are empowered. That is why we urge you to support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Public comments in support of the Bill. Please come forward. And before the first speaker, I need to vote in another committee. And so I'm going to turn the gavel over to the Vice chair. Ms. Jolly.

Madam Chair and Members. Rand Martin, on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which is the largest provider of care and treatment to people with HIV in the world, but is also a substantial provider of STD prevention and control and treatment services, in very strong support of this very critically important Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lizzie Kutzona here on behalf of the California Faculty Association. In support. Thank you. Rachel Bogwood on behalf of ACLU California action in support. Erin Taylor, on behalf of the county of Alameda, in support. Leilani Aginaldo, Fresno Unified School District, in support.

afternoon. Lizzie Kutzona here on behalf of the California Faculty Association. In support. Thank you. Rachel Aginaldo, Fresno Unified School District, in support. Kim Lewis, California Coalition for Youth in Support. Seth Bramble with the California Teachers Association, in support. Good afternoon. Ryan Suzan on behalf of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation and APLA Health, in support. Tiffany Mock, representing CFT, in support.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Two minutes. Thank you.

Mock, representing CFT, in support. Thank

Thank you. Good afternoon, Members. Kasha Williams. I'm a volunteer for California Parents Union, a group representing thousands of Members across California. Parents, teachers, guardians, grandparents. And today, given this opportunity, I would like to just inform you of some of the concerns that we've heard from our Members.

We're not necessarily in opposition, but there are some concerns, and hear what it is. Many of our Members express that it should be up to each school district to decide whether a school should provide free condoms on campus or not. SB Five four One makes it a statewide mandate which tramples on local control.

Each school district serves a very unique population, and our Members strongly believe school board Members that are locally elected should be making local decisions that affect the families they serve, including the decision on distributing condoms to students. Many of our Members appreciate reproductive health lessons being part of education at high school. However, having condoms available all the time is not something they believe is needed or appropriate, as school's main focus should be academics.

Moreover, SB 541 would extend distribution of condoms to grade seven and eight, which is something our Members were also concerned about because of the age of the student. Some of our Members expressed that SB Five for One is a Bill that represents an attempt to diminish the role of parents who are trying to roll back policies that sexualize their children. And we're talking especially about parents of the children in middle school rather than leave this matter in the home.

This Bill uses the power of the state to impose the policy on every school, regardless of what parents want in the local community. So here are the concerns we have. And in conclusion, on behalf of our Members, I would like you to consider that many parents and guardians in California believe that the state often tries to take more of a parental role when parents should be the ones always in charge.

This is one of the reasons many of our Members already exited the public school system, and many are still considering our goal as our CP union is to restore parental trust in public education and to provide alternatives for parents that already lost this trust. Thank you for your attention. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any other public comment in opposition? Okay, thank you. We'll bring it back to the committee.

Have a motion. Mr. Hoover, do you have a comment?

Thank you. I just want to know I appreciate I'm actually sympathetic to the goals of the Bill. I won't be able to support it today.

I think that if it were just the retail establishment provision, I would happily support it. But I do agree with some of the concerns that a lot of these decisions, particularly when it comes to the classroom, need to be decided by our local school districts. But thanks for bringing the Bill forward.

Thank you. Senator. Any other comments or questions? We have a motion. Motion to go on. Okay. All right. I have a motion and a second. Please call the oh, sorry. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you. Madam Vice Chair, in my close, I do want to know that this does not require middle schools. Middle schools will not be required to provide condoms. I know that was one of the comments that were said in the opposition. It will remain optional should they wish to in bringing this back to just schools having a choice in doing this or not.

They have a choice right now, and we're seeing that the rural areas, areas that don't have access to, don't have equity in health care, are not providing this. This is where we're seeing the highest rates of STIs. We want to make sure we make it an equal playing field where everyone has access to protection.

And at the end of the day, we're looking to address this STI crisis that we're having across the nation, honestly, not just in the state of California. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Please call the Roll

Item 13, SB 541. The motion is due pass as amended to Health Committee. Mersuchi. Dally no. Dally no. Juan Carrio. Juan Carrio. aye Hoover. Hoover not voting. Lee. Lee. aye McCarty. Cork. Silva. Corksilva. Aye. We.

call the Roll file, item 13, SB 541. The motion is due pass as amended to Health Committee. Mersuchi. Dally no. Dally no. Juan Carrio. Juan Carrio. aye Hoover. Hoover not voting. Lee. Lee. aye McCarty. Cork. Silva. Corksilva. Aye. We.

You have three votes. It's on call. Thank you

Thank you, Vice Chair. Your permission. Great. Thanks so much. I'm presenting SB 348. I'm accepting the committee's amendment that are outlined in the analysis. All of them. California, very proudly, is the first state in our nation to provide our K through 12 public school students universal meals. So, in other words, a free, free, two meals a day for all of our students.

And with this great achievement, many, many of our students no longer go to school hungry. They may arrive hungry, but they are no longer at school hungry. But this is a great thing.

But it's also now we're in the position of providing for many of these kids over half the calories that they get in a day. So we want to ensure that the meals we provide meet all the good nutrition standards. And with the rise in diabetes and various other health problems that can become chronic for our children, what this Bill does, SB 348, is strengthen our nutrition guidelines and ensures that our meals meet the Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for the amount of added sugar and salt.

So, yes, added sugar and salt can still be there. It's just levels that the Academy of Pediatrics recommend. Additionally, the Bill makes sure that schools give our children adequate time to eat and increases California's participation in the new federal summer school program.

And our budget that we just passed includes our ability to apply to the Feds for that which would enable us to achieve at least $400 million. That's what this Bill does, and I'd like my witnesses in support. I have Erin Primer, who's a dietary manager and Director of food nutrition at San Luis Coastal Unified School District, and Dr. Al-Sarraf, an internal medicine physician in Los Angeles.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair Muratsuchi, and honorable Members of the committee. My name is Erin Primer, and I am the Director of Food and Nutrition Services at San Luis Coastal, a K12 district on the beautiful central coast of California, with 15 school sites, 7600 students, and just under 40% free and reduced.

Since the pandemic and launch of universal Free Meals in California, we've seen a 52% increase in our daily meal participation. Together, my team serves over 12,000 meals each day across breakfast, lunch and supper programs. This increased revenue from universal free meals has not only resulted in additional funding for high quality, locally sourced foods, but also new equipment and the opportunity to hire and train more staff.

The formula is simple. Good food plus free food equals an increased meal participation and a better school meal program plus happy kids. This important legislation before you today aims to align the nutritional standards of school meals with what is medically proven to be the best for children's learning, wellness, and long term quality of life.

One thing we know for sure is that hungry kids can't learn. But equally important is the quality of those meals. Access to daily, consistent, nutritious food is critical to support cognitive development and mental acuity, especially when we know that for many kids, school is where they get their primary source of food every day.

Why wouldn't we do everything within our power to ensure those meals are delicious, healthy and desired by our students? The proposed changes in this Bill may seem overwhelming at first. In fact, we all felt the same trepidation and uncertainty with the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010. But all rose to the challenge.

Not only was it the right thing to do back then, it is the right thing to do now. SB 348 is the opportunity to support schools in advancing our shared goal of truly nourishing all California kids. Intentionally shifting our procurement and building relationships with local growers to source fresh ingredients to create delicious meals takes time, but is possible.

We work with a local bakery to create a delicious low sugar chocolate muffin that kids love and meet our nutritional standards, which removes 15 pounds of added sugar from our students diet annually.

If you can try to wrap it.

I respectfully urge the Assembly Education Committee to support SB 348. This not only builds upon what we started with school meals for all, but also takes us to where we are going to ensure the best chance for our children's future success and well being. Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on this critical matter.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Muratsuchi and honorable Members of the committee. I'm Dr. Lena Al-Sarraf and I work at a school based health clinic near downtown Los Angeles behind a high school and property shared by LAUSD.

I've been in practice for more than 30 years and have seen an alarming increase in obesity and type two diabetes among children and youth. I also work with the Student Advisory Board at Belmont High School giving presentations on diabetes and obesity, and they in turn use social media to promote health education among their peers. I am pleased to be here today as I have seen firsthand impact a poor nutrition and food insecurity has on our children and community.

Currently, one third of children are not only at an unhealthy weight, but are also at increased risk of developing heart disease and type two diabetes. Youth now have health conditions previously only associated with adults, like high blood pressure and high cholesterol. A contributing factor is poor nutrition and diet.

I've witnessed cases of type two diabetes and prediabetes in youth, which was unheard of while practicing in my earlier years. I've seen cases of type two diabetes in children as young as twelve years old, which really was aye opening. The child was not emotionally equipped to handle or comprehend the scope of the health condition, and besides the normal pre adolescent issues she had to deal with, this was one more thing.

It was a struggle for the family to ensure compliance with medication and diet and took an emotional toll on both. I also witnessed this when I had a three year old patient with high blood pressure. Children consume far too much sodium and added sugars and too few fruits and vegetables.

For example, only 35% of children meet the dietary guidelines for Americans added sugar recommendation. Given that many kids get most of their meals at school, we need to ensure they are nutritious. I flew up from Los Angeles to support this Bill because establishing school meal standards would promote a positive food environment and establish a foundation for a lifetime of healthy behaviors.

I urge you to support SB 348, a critical Bill to address this health crisis, invest in the health of our future, and promote nutrition at a young age. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you. Public comments in support of the Bill. Please come forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members MJDS, on behalf of Kaiser Permanente in support.

Thank you, chair Members, Tim Madden, representing the California chapter of the American College of Cardiology, in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, Erin Taylor, on behalf of the California Dental Association and the county of San Mateo, in strong support.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of the Children's Partnership, in support.

Kimberly Rosenberger, with SEIU, in support.

Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now in support.

Abigail Alvarez with the California Food and Farming Network and the Pesticide Action Network. Thank you.

Mr. Chair Members, Andrew Antwih with Shaw, Yoder, Antwih, Schmelzer and Lang here today on behalf of the office of Kat Taylor, proud to support and co sponsor.

Rebecca Gonzales, National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, in support.

Alexis Rodriguez of the California Medical Association, in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, committee members. Blake Johnson on behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurman, a proud cosponsor here in strong support. Thank you.

Rachel Mueller, on behalf of NextGen California and on behalf of myself who used free school meals throughout my entire high school and elementary school schooling. In support. Thank you.

Leilani Aguinaldo, on behalf of Fresno Unified School District, in support.

Hi Itzúl Gutierrez, on behalf of the California Association of Food Bank, a proud cosponsor, and in support.

Good afternoon. Jamie Morgan on behalf of the American Heart Association, proud co sponsor in support.

Ryan [inaudible], on behalf of the Public Health Institute, in support.

Adam Keigwin, on behalf of No Kid Hungry, in support.

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

Dominic Di Mare, here on behalf of CCSA tweening. We are happy that the Senator has taken the amendments that she's taken, that we are going to review them. And when we do, we suspect that we will go neutral at least. So thank you. And thank you for your amendment.

Good afternoon. Martha Alvarez with LA Unified School District in support.

Alright, witnesses in opposition to the Bill, please come forward. Seeing none. Public comments in opposition to the Bill, seeing none. Bring it back to the committee. Any comments? Questions from the committee? Ms. Quirk-Silva.

I'm being a little talky today, but it brings back my teaching profession. As most teachers in the school I taught in, which was Title I in Fullerton, many, many of our students did have free and reduced lunch. And one day I seriously walked by the breakfast table on my way to class and I saw that the student was eating Fruit Loops with the chocolate milk poured in to the Fruit Loops and a churro.

And this is like ten years ago or longer, maybe even longer. And it really compelled me to start an initiative within our school which was all about, and we had worked with local hospital on white milk and taking away the chocolate milk. And that was very controversial at that time.

And then, of course, the local doctors put a clinic into our school neighborhood, right behind the school. And the first thing that the doctor did was come to the staff and show us the signs of early, not only diabetes, but obesity, as it was mainly Latino school and exactly the conditions that we should be looking for. And of course, many of us did not know that.

So the signs on their arm, behind their neck, and a lot of it had to do with the juices, those type of things that they were actually getting from school. So when I look at this analysis on page four, just noting that, yes, there will be choices of milk, but not necessarily chocolate milk, and I heard many times, well, the kids won't drink it. Well, the kids won't eat the vegetables.

And that is true. And any of us who've worked on campus know that, but they won't if there's other choices. So if you put a brownie or a churro and then a pack of carrots or apples, then of course many of them won't.

But if you only put the water or the milk and the apple and the carrots and then some type of main meal, it's amazing how quickly they will adapt. But it's the choices. The other thing is that California is rich in agriculture and rich in fruits and vegetables and nuts.

And I know we can't have certain nuts on campuses, but so many great choices and so many great meals and giving them choices, whether it's salad bars. I did a Bill a handful of years ago to encourage school districts to go back to actually cooking, because if you remember, we took out all our cooking equipment because we bought so much processed food. And now there is some trends, not enough to go back to that, and there's federal grants.

So I, of course, fully support this. But I do know that kids and young adults will move towards healthier foods if we take some of the other unhealthy choices away. Thank you. For bringing this Bill forward, and I move the Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Hoover.

My colleague from Fullerton is still not talking as much as me. I probably am taking the cake on this hearing. But I just want to thank you, Senator, for your work on this important issue. It's an issue that's really close to my heart. I particularly appreciate the provisions on allowing for more time. I think that is probably the complaint I get most from my kids, that they just don't have enough time to eat their lunch.

So that is, I think, a very meaningful change. And I also appreciate you taking the amendments to address some of the charter school's concerns. And if you would have me, would love to be a coauthor. Thanks

Great.

Thank you, Vice Chair Dahle.

Thank you. Thank you for bringing this forward. Actually, our oldest son, when he was in kindergarten, I started getting a breakfast bill, and he was eating breakfast before he left, but he went by the cafeteria with the cinnamon rolls, and I really thought they were the size of his head.

And I was discovering that Chase Dahle was having a cinnamon roll in the morning as he just picked one up every day after he'd already had breakfast. And I was horrified as a parent. And then I went to school and found out that we were serving these giant cinnamon rolls to wiggly little boys at five years old and then expecting them to sit through and sit crisscross applesauce in a circle.

So this is very important because a lot of what is nutrition, it's from the very beginning, what they need, the good food that they need for their I just I really appreciate this, and I'm anxious to see how it moves forward and what we can do. And I agree. Agriculture is have everything we can imagine here in California and to be able to partner locally with our food co ops or whatever we need to do on the federal level as well.

So thank you so much for bringing this forward, and I'll second the motion.

Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded seeing no further comments. Senator, thank you for bringing this important measure forward.

I want to share with you, my wife is from Japan, and they have some of the most amazing healthy meals served in schools in, you know, as we have been raising our daughter here in California, in a public school in California, she was very disappointed, always complaining about all the unhealthy food being served in schools. I'm just curious, does this mean I know that my daughter was always talking about how all the kids would go for the pizza and not eat the apples, but does this mean that pizzas will not be served and apples will only be the choice?

No. Number one, there's, most pizza, not all some pizza does have added sugar, believe it or not, but there are many pizzas that do not have added sugar and salt levels on pizza can obviously, we have a lot of control over that. So it doesn't eliminate pizza at all, and it doesn't force any child to eat the apple.

But I also want to clarify, it does not eliminate chocolate milk. There are chocolate milks out there with 7 grams of sugar, and that more than meets the guidelines. You could have a chocolate milk and a muffin, like Luis Coastal provides, and still meet the guidelines.

There are some chocolate milks. Unfortunately, there are up to 20 grams of sugar. And school districts would have to be very careful about those. Or if they decide on day X day to have that at the lunch, then they might not have another real high sugar item. So it doesn't eliminate sugar. It doesn't eliminate chocolate milk. It just makes sure that the meals on any given day meet the Academy of Pediatric guidelines.

Okay, wonderful. I wanted to give special thanks to our staff, Chelsea Kelly, who worked hard on this Bill, and specifically, she made sure to address the charter school's concerns, and so want to give Chelsea Kelly that shout out with that. Senator Skinner, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. I ask for your vote, and I appreciate everyone's comments.

Thank you, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call vote]

Six votes. The Bill is out. Thank you. Chair Newman. Thank you for your patience. This is file item number eleven, SB 494.

Afternoon Members. I know this is a bad idea to start with this, but I really want to visit Assembly Member Dahle's cinnamon roll School. I've been waiting. This Bill is not about food, though.

Chair and Members, I'm pleased to present SB 494, which requires a school district governing boards use the regular meeting process rather than holding a special or emergency meeting when taking an action to terminate a district superintendent and or an assistant superintendent without cause. Before I start, I'd like to make clear that I'm accepting the committee amendments, and I thank the committee consultant, Marguerite Ries, for her work on the Bill. SB 494 would prohibit school district governing boards from terminating a district superintendent or assistant superintendent without cause until at least 30 days after a general election.

This cooling off period following election is important to allow new board Members to become acclimated and well informed, and thereby better equipping a governing board to responsibly, deliberate and act upon significant personnel actions. Under existing California law, school district governing boards are required to provide a 72 hours notice prior to convening any regular meeting of the board, but only a 24 hours notice before convening a special meeting of the board with even less time required for the noticing of an emergency meeting. Current law does not prescribe the actions which may or may not be taken at special or emergency meetings of school district governing boards.

Absent extenuating circumstances, changes in senior school leadership are always best made following full consideration and thorough discussion by all affected parties. The current lack of required advance notice runs directly counter to that principle, as has been illustrated recently by multiple events and districts across the state. For those of us who have served in public office, it's fairly clear that newly elected Members of a governing body generally need some time to become fully conversant in the often complex inner workings of governance.

Given the complexities of California education, this is especially true for newly elected Members of school boards who, no matter their backgrounds, face a substantial learning curve upon assuming their new responsibilities. Under its common sense provisions, SB 494 will assure greater transparency and accountability in school district governing board proceedings while promoting stability and transparency in school district governance. Here with me to testify today is Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators and Annie Chou with the California Teachers Association. I am respectfully asking for your aye vote.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators. Pleased to be sponsors of this measure.

And we appreciate Senator Newman's leadership on the issue, also appreciate the work of the committee staff to address any possible concerns, and glad we found a good solution to keep this important issue moving forward. And for us, this is really for students, it's for parents, it's for teachers, it's for other administrative staff. School leadership plays a key role in attracting and retaining high quality educators and providing our students with tools they need to become career or college ready.

So this issue came to our attention last year. ACSA was alerted to incidents of abrupt dismissals with only 24 hours notice, sometimes over a holiday weekend, sometimes during a holiday break, or immediately after a new board was seated. This came through reports from our own membership and concerns about stability, and also, of course, the media.

This emerging trend or tactic is showing up in many different parts of our state, not just in the Senator's district. And we're concerned because we feel this severely limits opportunities for public engagement for the larger school community. And these are decisions that have real, lasting consequences.

It can also increase fear, further destabilize a district at a time when schools, as we've heard, are at the front line of many highly politicized issues. And we think this is a reasonable measure, a small change that will likely not have to be put into effect broadly, but will be critically important to create a little more stability in those rare situations. And for those reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, Annie Chou at the California Teachers Association, speaking in support of SB 494 school boards must conduct their businesses openly, and not doing so is a threat to democracy, public education, and public employees as alluded to by the author and by Ms. Johnson. The decision to terminate various superintendents across the state and in his district has created a chilling effect for our teachers.

Superintendents set the tone in overseeing day to day business of the school. Firing a superintendent is extremely disruptive to the school and directly impacts the educator and students. The firing in the senator's district created a situation in which there was no accountability, and instability and uncertainty was brought into the district legacy educators.

Educators that grew up and graduated from the schools they're currently teaching at, educators that have children in the school district, educators that want to stay and give back to their community are leaving in droves to find more stable employment opportunities. With an educator shortage, they know that there are safer school districts to teach in and that will gladly receive them. One educator told me, I just need someone in charge to hold down the fort.

That person switched school districts for the ease of mind, to know that their work won't be impacted and that what they say and teach won't cause retaliation to them and their children. Educators in neighboring districts in Orange County and surrounding counties are watching hands around, wondering if the same will happen in their district and wondering if their jobs will also be impacted. And this all, of course, impacts the students who lose quality educators from their community and cause disruption in their education.

SB 494 is a critical bill that ensures stability for educators and students. And for those reasons, CTA urges your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any public comments in support of the Bill? Seeing no one coming forward. Any witnesses in opposition to the Bill, please come forward.

Good afternoon. Carlos Machado with California School Board Association. We appreciate the author indulging us and hearing our concerns regarding the provisions in the bill. We appreciate him accepting the amendments and also the consultant's work on drafting those amendments. With those amendments, we think it addresses some unintended consequences with a longer acclimating period, and it gives boards an opportunity to have a meeting when one isn't regularly scheduled. I'm going to be taking these amendments to our legislative committee this week and hoping to move us from our current position of opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to the committee. Any questions, comments? Mr. Hoover?

You always look at me first. Senator, thanks for bringing this bill. I think this is a pretty reasonable change. I just wanted to say thank you for working with CSBA on this. I did share their concerns with the know. As mentioned by one of the proponents, it is incredibly disruptive to fire superintendents. Sometimes that disruption is necessary. Sometimes it's necessary to move on. And boards need to be able to do that and have the flexibility to do that. But I also think, given the narrow focus of your bill, I think it's important that boards also have the opportunity to have that discussion and get to know their superintendent before making that decision. And so I'll be supporting the bill today. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Carrillo. Motions made, second by Mr. Lee. Any further comments, questions? Seeing none. Chair Newman, thank you very much for this bill. I know as a former school board member, I always learned that one of the most important decisions that a school board makes is the hiring and the firing of a superintendent as the chief executive officer of a school district. And so I appreciate you working with the committee to not only advance what you seek to address, but also to address some of the concerns raised by the California School Boards Association. I think we can all use a cooling off period. And I very much appreciate your bill. Would you like to close?

I do appreciate it, and I do appreciate Mr. Hoover's comments. And to be clear, this isn't just about providing stability for school boards. It's for the whole of the community that are affected by these big decisions. And at no time would we presume to interfere with the prerogatives of a board. Majority rule matters, local control matters. But whether you terminate senior leadership is important, but so is how. And what we've seen recently is those changes being done in such a way that, irrespective of the reasons, you wind up with really substantial instability that has adverse effects on everybody who is part of that education community. I do appreciate CSB's concerns. Glad to work with them. It looks like we're getting to a place that works and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item 11, SB 494. The motion is due, pass as amended to the Assembly Floor. Muratsuchi. Aye. Muratsuchi, aye. Dalhe. Not voting. Dalhe, not voting. Juan Carrillo. Juan Carrillo, aye. Hoover. Hoover, aye. Lee. Lee, aye. McCarty. Quirk-Silva. Quirk-Silva, aye.

Five votes. The bill is out.

Thank you, members.

Thank you. Senator Cortese. Thank you for your patience. This is file item number one, SB 10.

Mr. Chair, Members, I want to start by thanking the committee for their work. And I will be accepting the committee amendments.

It's been a good, thorough process working with the committee, and we have enjoyed the improvement in the Bill. Today, I'm here to present SB 10, also known as Melanie's Law, a Bill that will expand statewide prevention and education efforts to combat the skyrocketing overdoses and fentanyl related decade of plague youth statewide. At 02:59 P.M., I got an alert from the San Jose Mercury News on my phone while I was sitting here waiting to present, indicating that they just commenced a prosecution of fentanyl death in the San Jose area.

As we know, this news keeps coming and coming. The San Jose Mercury News recently did an investigative report that showed, as most of you know, that 20% of the deaths of young people, 25 and under, are coming from this cause. Fentanyl, one out of five.

The Bill is known as Melanie's Law, a Bill that will expand statewide prevention education efforts, as I said. But the Bill is named specifically in honor of Melanie Ramos, a teenager that died of fentanyl poisoning in her school bathroom, the Los Angeles Unified School District. And I'm honored to be joined here today with Melanie's family and very much appreciate the courage to come here today and be part of this hearing.

Fentanyl was responsible for one out of five youth deaths, as I said, during 2019 to 2020. Those facts are undisputed. As far as I know, fentanyl overdoses among youth nearly doubled during that time, and we've seen that trend continue to increase.

Fentanyl, in particular, is responsible for more deaths, not only statistically, as I said, one in five overall deaths, but as you might now imagine, it's responsible for more deaths than all other drugs combined. When it comes to youth, this drug can be found in fake and counterfeit pills that are sold through social media or ecommerce platforms, making them available to youth. SB 10 seeks to provide necessary intervention, increase accessibility to resources, and provide valuable education and training services to protect our youth from fentanyl poisoning and overdoses.

It requires local education agencies to embed opioid overdose prevention and treatment in their school safety plans, including synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. And that's key because the statute that this Legislature, or pass Legislature passed to require school safety plans also requires, among other things, training of all classified and certificated employees as to anything that's included in that plan. It requires the California Department of Education to work with California Health and Human Services Agency to develop, distribute opioid antagonist training and school resource guide to all local education agencies regarding the emergency use of opioid antagonists such as Naloxone on school campuses.

It requires local education agencies to distribute safety advice to families and establishes a state working group on fentanyl overdose abuse prevention focused on public education, awareness, prevention, and minimizing overdoses and encourages the establishment of county working groups on fentanyl overdose abuse prevention through a new state program. And that last point is modeled after what I think is a groundbreaking establishment of a working group that involved the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, County Office of Education, the local DA's office, stakeholders, parents, school district personnel, and so forth. I would like to thank the Chair and Committee for working with me on the Bill.

Again, the Bill has no registered opposition. Support for this Bill includes the County of Santa Clara, the Santa Clara County Office of Education, the Santa Clara County School Boards Association, the Los Angeles Office of Education, the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals, the California Association of Student Councils, and the California School Nurses Organization.

Here to testify we have Gladys Manriques, aunt of Melanie Ramos. Additionally, we have Ryland Adzich, student and incoming delegate for the California Girls State, and Jia Chen from the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals. Finally, Gia from the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals is here primarily to answer technical questions.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair, and at the appropriate time, I'd respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. On September 13, 2022, sorry, a 15 year old girl was found dead from an apparent fentanyl overdose at Bernstein High School in Hollywood. The girl's name was Melanie Ramos. She was smart, kind and beautiful. She had such more life to live. I know this because she was my niece. My name is Gladys Manriques.

Melanie's aunt and I stand before you asking you to support SB 10 Melanie's Law. On the day Melanie passed away, her mom was informed at 12:30 p.m. by school administers that she was missing.

Mom pleaded with the school, asking them to look for her, but the school did nothing. Melanie was found 8 hours later in a school bathroom, lifeless. When something like this happens, you can't help but ask questions. Why Melanie? Why her family? Why did the school have no safety protocols in place, despite being aware of a drug problem on campus? Melanie was a 7th student in one calendar year to suffer an overdose at Bernstein High School.

The 7th. They should have never been a first. There should have never been a second. Then maybe Melanie would not have been the 7th. Schools are meant to be safe, a place where parents can send their children rested assured that there are protocols school safety plans to prevent strategies like this one we experience. SB 10 would require that school safety's plans include concrete strategies to prevent and treatment of an opioid overdose. For example, they may include new campus safety rules and regulations concerning fentanyl naloxone and more. Schools are not immune to fentanyl problem.

We need to prepare and educate school staff, parents and students on fentanyl like any other emergency. So today, in Melanie's honor, I urge for an aye vote for SB 10 so that there is not an 8th, 9th or 10th family that must suffer the tragedy that we have. Thank you.

Good afternoon, committee. My name is Ryland Adzich and it is my honor to testify in support of Melanie's Law. I would like to preface this with my sincere condolences for you. We will not let Melanie's death and countless others be in vain. Melanie Ramos, Clark Jackson Salveron, Trinity Cornejo. Children, students, athletes.

Each one of these teens had a unique identity they will never have the opportunity to share with the world. Committee, I stand before you as a child, student and athlete in support of Melanie's Law as a bridge between legislation and the youth of California most in need of change, progress and fentanyl death prevention.

The alluring bright colors of the pills and the unknowingness that a pill is laced with fentanyl kills kids like me. The commitment of Melanie's Law to establish fentanyl education in schools provides resources for children to understand just how easily drugs can be laced with this silent killer in a fentanyl overdose, every second counts. The Bill proposed to you requires providing training to school officials on administering nalaxone hydrochloride to an overdose victim, increasing their chances of survival as action can be taken even before paramedics arrive.

Melanie's Law also has the opportunity to impact the lives of students outside of the classroom. As the founder of the Creative Destination, I implement comfortable and safe literacy spaces, primarily in the Tenderloin District of San Francisco, where I see firsthand the vulnerability of children to negative influences like fentanyl, causing educational backsliding in this area and areas like it. Education on the drug is even more imperative to save lives.

We should be reading about the accomplishments of youth, not their obituaries. You are given this pivotal chance to combat this crisis. Think what if it was your child, student and athlete that made headlines? These unnecessary deaths must be stopped. And it starts with your support for the California youth of today and tomorrow. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any public comments? Oh, yes.

Pro favor, el nombre de mi hija es Melanie Ramos aprueben de ley.

Would you like us she said please. In honor of her daughter, pass this Bill.

Thank you very much.

Leilani Aguinaldo on behalf of Santa Clara County Office of Education and Fresno Unified School District in support.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT in support.

Good afternoon. My condolences to the family and [inaudible], on behalf of County Santa Clara, in support.

Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education, thanking the witnesses for their testimony, in support.

Nick Romley on behalf of the California School Nurses Organization, in support.

Melissa Cosio with Californians for Safety and Justice. In support. Gracias por su vocación para su hija.

Derby Pattengill with the California State PTA We're, in support.

Jia Chen on behalf of the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals, proud co sponsors of SB 10. In support. Thank you.

Toni Triguero, California Teachers Association. In support.

Rachel Bhagwat on behalf of ACLU California Action in support.

Lucy Salcido Carter with the Alameda County Office of Ed, in support.

Corey Hashida on behalf of the Steinberg Institute, in support.

Lizzie Cootsona on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no further witnesses. In support. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Bring him back to the committee Bill moved by Vice Chair Dahle, seconded by Mr. Hoover.

Questions? Comments? First of all, my condolences to the family of Melanie. I believe, thanks to Senator Cortese's Bill, that Melanie will help save lives, countless lives going forward with this bill. As a parent of a teenager, this is, I can't imagine your loss.

It's every parent's worst nightmare. And the very least we can do is to try to learn from past mistakes, to be better prepared going forward for all of our California public school students. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's so much in my mind, in my heart that I could say, but I think I'm going to stand on the testimony of the witnesses today. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item one SB. Ten. The motion is due pass as amended to Health Committee. [Roll call vote]

Six votes. The Bill is out. Thank you. Next, we have file item number six, SB 350 by Senator Ashby.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm here today to present SB 350, which seeks to allow for additional time for students to grieve after a traumatic event. I want to start by thanking your committee staff for working so closely with my team and to you, Chair, personally, for sitting down with me and talking about this bill. I will be accepting two of the committee's amendments, which are as follows to help address chronic absenteeism concerns, we are amending the bill to limit the amount of time a student can seek additional grief services to a maximum of three days, unless the school administrator grants additional time at their discretion. And we are also removing some unclear language regarding the conditions for students to access grief support around the type of death that the person unfortunately experiences. Along with these two provisions, SB 350 increases the amount of days that a student can be excused from school following the death of a loved one that lives in their home for the purposes of a funeral and to grieve. Some of you may remember that Assemblymember Lowe carried a similar bill to this in the last couple of years for people at work, that they would be able to take five days off of work for funerals and things for close relatives and extended family. This is actually just for close family members that live in your home and this addresses the needs of students. In California, students who experience the death of a loved one right now are excused for one day from school for a funeral if the funeral is in the state, and three days if they have to travel out of state. I wrote this bill partially on personal experience from my neighbors who are twin eighth graders whose mom died in the middle of the night unexpectedly from an asthma attack, and they got one day off of school to go to her funeral. But the rest of the week they had to deal with relatives coming and going and figuring out what life would look like without a mom. And so it seems to me that at a minimum, we could give them five days to sort through a funeral and probably the worst week of their lives. One out of five children in the United States are grieving the death of someone close to them and it's just simply not enough to heal. And look, no amount of time is going to heal the wounds or fill the hole created by the loss of a close family member. But what we would like to do is give students the appropriate amount of mental health time to at least seek some services and help and speak to counselors. The additions that your team has made to this bill also, I think, make it better, and I am very grateful. Our goal here is to go back in time with young people at the moment that they experience the worst trauma that may later turn into something like drug use or suicidal thoughts or mental health problems and instead give them the time and support they need to work through these very difficult problems and not, on top of that have to deal with truancy issues. With me today is one of this bill's co-sponsors. There are two co-sponsors for this bill, the Californians for Safety and Justice and Generation Up. Melissa is the California Government Affairs Manager for Californians for Safety and Justice. Melissa would like to read the testimony of a young person who couldn't be here with us today. If that is okay with the chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Melissa Cosio, I do government affairs with Californians for Safety and Justice and Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice. For all the co-sponsors of this bill, I'll be reading a testimony on behalf of one of our youth leaders. Koran Reed. "My name is Koran Reed. I'm a student at Stephenson Middle School in Long Beach, California, where I strive to maintain a 3.5 GPA. I'm here to ask for your support with passing SB 350, the Student Support for Mental Health and Bereavement Act. When my dad passed away, I did not want to go to school. Had so many feelings going on, and I just needed the time to be with my family. I know that it's important to not miss school. I have been getting perfect attendance awards since I was in elementary school. But this time it was different. Had to fly to Ohio to attend my father's funeral, which would make me miss more than three days of school. When my mother told me my father passed away, I felt really emotional and sad. I had a lot of new feelings and I just needed some space to think and deal with my emotions. I had already missed three days of school. For students like me, whose grades and attendance are super important, it was hard knowing that more absences would be excused, would not be excused, and I could be labeled truant. Even though it was not my fault that I had to miss school and I was in Ohio. SB 350 would allow students to have up to five days of excused absences to attend funerals and to deal with our mental health. I ask that you please support SB 350 on my behalf and for my family and all the students in California." We want to thank the author for championing this issues. After the COVID pandemic, it became even more important for us to support the mental health of our students and offer adequate resources. The state law already ensures that parents, teachers and school staff Members are able to take the time off without being impacted, negatively impacted on their employment. It is only right that the state recognize the impact of grief on students. We do not want healing to become truancy. Students should not be penalized for attending a funeral or seeking mental health. We respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses in support of this bill, please come forward.

Good afternoon. Samara Palko with the California Catholic Conference in strong support.

Rebecca Gonzales, National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter. In support.

Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, as well as the California State Association of Psychiatrists, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to the committee. Any questions? Motion is made, seconded, seeing no requests for comments or questions. Thank you very much. Senator Ashby, I also appreciated our conversation. You reminded me that especially in this day and age, we need to think about the whole child, not just about issues like attendance, chronic absenteeism and so, happy to support your bill. Would you like to close?

I appreciate that, there's certainly a time for perfect attendance, but I love that there's an acknowledgment that there's also a time to grieve. I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item six, SB 350. The motion is due, pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. Muratsuchi. Aye. Muratsuchi, aye. Dalhe. Dalhe, aye. Juan Carillo. Juan Carillo. Hoover. Hoover, aye. Lee. Lee, aye. McCarty. Quirk-Silva. Quirk-Silva, aye.

Six votes. The bill is out.

Appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Alright, we have file item number nine, Senator Gonzalez SB 394. Do

I need to even present? I don't know. We're waiting. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and members, and thank you for the motions and second, I'd like to begin by accepting the committee's recommended amendments. And I thank the committee for them outlined on page nine of the analysis. As we know, SB 394 will require the California Energy Commission to collaborate with various state agencies and education stakeholders to develop a master plan for healthy, sustainable and climate-resilient schools. As we know, students are served by over 1,000 school districts that utilize over 10,000 school facilities in California, comprising of 125,000 acres of grounds. But we know that they produce substantial GHG emissions and contribute to other environmental impacts. This master plan will better position California school districts to tackle the generational challenges of transitioning to climate-resilient facilities, help meet our climate goals and ultimately protect our students from the effects of climate change. Testifying in support today, I have Dr. Lisa Patel, clinical associate professor at Pediatrics at Stanford and Tiffany Mok, legislative advocate with the California Federation of Teachers, as well as Jonathan Klein with Undaunted K-Twelve for technical assistance, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. My name is Dr. Lisa Patel. I'm an environmental scientist, mother to a child in San Francisco Unified School District as well. And I'm here in support of SB 394 to safeguard our children's health in a changing climate. As a hospital based pediatrician who cares for premature infants, sick children and well newborns, I have been on the front lines of how climate change is affecting our children's health. And doctors understand that climate change will likely be the greatest determinant of health for a child born today. Our schools were built for a different century, and if we don't act now to prepare our school systems, it will threaten our children's lifetime of health and learning. For example, worsening heat waves make classrooms without air conditioning too dangerous for kids. Last September, many schools in the Bay Area had to close early because they didn't have HVAC systems to handle the heat in the hospital, I'm seeing more athletes with heat stroke, that can result in kidney damage and severe dehydration. And on the hot days at the hospital, we see more kids turning up with asthma flares and more expectant mothers in preterm labor. We also know that hot days result in poorer learning outcomes, with Black and Hispanic children experiencing a five percent gap in standardized test scores compared to their white counterparts due to heat. The EPA estimates that heat driven by climate change will result in a seven percent decrease in annual academic achievement per child, and this loss translates to billions of dollars lost annually from poorer rates of graduation, poorer paying jobs and inability to procure health insurance. Wildfire smoke also threatens kids' health and learning. Wildfire smoke is ten times as toxic as the regular air pollution we breathe from burning fossil fuels, and many of our schools are not equipped or updated with updated or efficient HVAC systems to keep kids safe. The EPA estimates an increase of 11% of asthma cases for air pollution driven by climate change. Children in California already miss 1.2 million days of school from asthma, and we predict an increase in both hospitalizations and wildfire smoke by 50% by 2050. It should be mission-critical that every school offers safe air for a child to breathe, but they cannot get there without help. This bill helps align federal and state dollars to ensure we use our resources wisely to create safe, healthy spaces for children to thrive. Thank you again for the opportunity.

I'm Tiffany Mok with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals. CFT is proud to co-sponsor SB 394. This bill is a culmination of conversations with fellow unions, environmental groups, state agencies and is through a huge process, including a report from the Aspen Institute and a more recent report written by Dr. Patel. These conversations have culminated to this legislation and could not be more timely. Earlier this month, federal guidance was provided for the Inflation Reduction Act that will expand tax credits for clean energy technologies, with reimbursements up to 60% for the cost of installing technologies such as solar energy storage and ground source heat pumps. This master plan could be a game changer not just for California schools, but all schools around the country as a blueprint for how to best meet our students' needs and create the best environment for their learning. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Public comments in support of the bill?

Nicole Moroles on behalf of Children Now, in support.

Leilani Aguinaldo on behalf of Santa Clara County Office of Education, in support.

Norlyn Asprec with Axiom Advisors on behalf of Rewiring America, in support.

Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association, in support.

Jonathan Klein, California parent and a co-sponsor of the bill from Undaunted K-Twelve, in support, in carrying a message from our partners RIA Barbaria and Bella Santos at Generation Up, also co-sponsors of the bill. Thank you very much for your consideration today.

Maya Klein. I'll be a junior in high school next year, in support.

Sasha Horwitz, Los Angeles Unified School District, in support.

Derby Pattengill, the California State PTA is in support.

Thank you very much. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Any public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to the committee. Any comments? Questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Senator Gonzalez, for your very forward-thinking and timely bill. I would be honored if you would add me, as a co-author, to this important measure so that we're planning for the increasingly real effects of climate change. Would you like to close?

Thank you for that. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item nine, SB 394, the motion is due, pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. Muratsuchi. Aye. Muratsuchi, aye. Dalhe. Dalhe, aye. Juan Carrillo. Juan Carrillo, aye. Hoover. Hoover, aye. Lee. Lee, aye. McCarty. Quirk-Silva. Quirk-Silva, aye. Six votes.

The Bill is out. Thank you. Alright. Entertain a motion for the consent calendar? Okay. Motion made and seconded. All right, let's give Mr. Carrillo a chance to walk back in the room. I guess you can add on.

Why don't we call the roll? Yes. This is the consent calendar that the Secretary will read out. Consent

calendar. File item three, SB 234, the motion is due. Pass to health committee. File item 4, SB 293, the motion is due. Pass to appropriations. File item 5, SB 321, the motion is due. Passes. Amended to appropriations. File item 8, SB 354, the motion is due. Pass to appropriations. File item nine, SB 369, the motion is due. Pass to appropriations.

File item eleven, SB 445, the motion is due. Pass to appropriations. File item 16, SB 609, the motion is due. Passes amended to appropriations. File item 17, SB 648, the motion is due. Passes. Amended to appropriations. File item 19, SB 868, the motion is due. Pass to Judiciary Committee. File item 20, SB 872, the motion is due. Pass to appropriations.

Muratsuchi, Aye. Dahle, Aye. Carrillo. Hoover, Aye. Lee, Aye. McCarthy. Quirk-Silva, Aye,

All right, five votes. We need one more vote. We'll wait a few minutes. We also have a Bill on call. Okay. All right. Okay. Consent is out, and we have a Bill on call. Lift the call. On call. Yes.

So, item 13, SB 541, the motion is due passes amended to Health Committee. Muratsuchi, Aye. McCarty

we have the consent calendar. The Bill is out for 541. Okay. SB five, four, one. Senator Menjivar is the Bill is out, and we have the consent calendar.

Consent with the chair voting. Aye. Carrillo, Aye. McCarty.

All right, thank you. We will keep the roll open okay. We will adjourn the hearing and keep the roll open for add ons. You just have. To stay in the room. Okay. I have to say oh. Thank you. I was that it was worthy. To

We will have add ons. Start

with consent. McCarty, aye. File item one SB. 10. The chair voting aye. McCarty McCarty aye. File item five, SB 348. The chair voting. Aye McCarty McCarty. aye file item six, SB 350. The chair voting, aye, McCarty, aye .File item nine, SB 394, the chair voting. aye McCarty, aye. file item eleven, SB 494. The chair voting. aye McCarty, aye file item twelve, SB 515, the chair voting, aye McCarty, aye. file item 13, SB 541, the Chair voting. aye McCarthy aye file item 14 SB 596. The chair voting, aye McCarty aye file item 17, SB 765. The chair voting. aye McCarthy, aye thank you.