Assembly Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

This number can also be found on the Committee's website and displayed on your screens. For those calling in, please mute yourself, then be in the queue. And to eliminate background noise, I'm going to repeat this over and over. If you are coming up to testify and you're not main witnesses, it's name, organization and position only, and I'll have to enforce that.

To be fair to everybody, for no other reason, each Bill heard today, there'll be an opportunity for two witnesses in support, two main witnesses in opposition. Each will be provided two minutes. That's a total of four minutes on each side. If you exceed four minutes on one person, then I have to not have the second person speak. That's why I will go ahead and try to tap and remind you to get into two minutes, and that is in custom with the Committee's practices.

For additional witnesses calling in, you'll be placed in the queue until your opportunity to provide comments. Support and opposition will be alternated. When it's your opportunity to speak, please provide comment. Sorry. Press one, then zero, then unmute yourself. I went fast, so I'll say that again. When it's your opportunity to provide public comments, press one, then zero, and then unmute yourself. In order to speak again, please be brief, limiting your comments to name, organization and position only. With that sergeant, please call the absent Members again.

We'll be starting in a Subcommittee. I will note that Ms.. Rubio is absent today and there's no replacement. There are a number of items on consent calendar and we'll address them when we begin. We have one author who is here. Mr. Wiener, would you like to begin as a Subcommittee only? And I am sorry, we have a new Member to the Committee. Mr. Valencia. Welcome to committee. Big round of applause.

I mean, is that even the publican applause for him to take the opportunity to cheer him on? And welcome to the hot seat, Mr. Weiner. You may begin, if you'd like. In a Subcommittee. We'll take up the votes. Once we have reached the quorum, you may begin.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, colleagues. First of all, I want to thank the Committee and Committee Chair, and Committee staff for working with us. And we're happy to accept the Committee amendments. So SB 76, which you may recognize because it was part of a Bill that this Committee passed last year. Unfortunately, we had some turbulence in Appropriations Committee. I don't think it was related to the policy. It was one of those things, hopefully.

But we are back, and this is a Bill that has received broad bipartisan support, including a 40-to-nothing vote in the Senate. And it will do two things. First, it will allow cities to create what we call entertainment zones if they choose. This Bill does not require cities to do anything. It simply gives them a new tool. And if you envision a city, for example, in its town square deciding to have a festival or a fair, they could classify it as an entertainment zone.

And why that matters is that currently, if a city has, say, a street fair or festival, there can be alcohol sales in that open what we call an open container zone. That's existing law, but it's only from vendors who come in from the outside, who could be from far away or even out of state. The mom-and-pop restaurants and bars that are inside that zone that are right there are not allowed to sell into the open container zone.

So we're allowing outside vendors in, but the mom and pop restaurants and bars who are right there are not allowed to benefit from that. And that is, first of all, fundamentally unfair. We want these local businesses that are inside the zone to be able to benefit, particularly as they're all recovering. We want to do everything we can to help them.

This is not new in the United States, and the analysis, I think, does a very good job talking about other states that are already doing this and doing this successfully. And it makes a lot of sense to give cities this voluntary tool to use if they choose to do so.

The other item that this Bill does has to do with type 90 music venue licenses, which was a Bill I authored last year to create that new license for music venues so they no longer have to try to shoehorn themselves into a bar license or a restaurant license. They now have their own. It allows a limited number of private events at these venues that do not involve entertainment, so giving these businesses a little bit of flexibility to hold private events as well.

So, colleagues, this is, I think, a solid Bill. I hope to earn your support, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me today is Louis Mirante from the Bay Area Council.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Louis Mirante with the Bay Area Council. We represent about 330 of the Bay Area's larger employers, including the National Independent Venue Association of California, one of the co-sponsors on this Bill. This Bill would allow local governments to create designated outdoor entertainment zones, something that I think is key to activating our downtowns and bringing economic activity back to them, and an era where we're still all trying to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

I think Senator Wiener did a great job describing the technical aspects of the Bill, so I will skip that part. I do want to flag though that the Type 90 license, the existing Type 90 license creates a lot of options for venues that this Bill will build upon. Usually, if venues want to do an all-ages show, they need to be a restaurant. Or for smaller venues or venues that may not have a kitchen, doing a show is a big challenge. Adds a lot of costs.

You often need to add sinks and all that sort of stuff to be able to serve food, just to be able to serve beverages. That doesn't make sense. This Bill is going to make it significantly easier for venues across the state of California to bring people back in to host outdoor events and generally do all the things that we want our downtowns to be doing right now. I urge your support for it. Thanks. Thank you very much.

Now I don't see any additional witnesses that are main support. Any main witnesses in opposition. I don't have anybody registered, but you may, you may sit down here as well, whatever you prefer. Sure. And again, I'm going to tap you out of two minutes just to give time to the other person.

Okay, no worries. I was late running in for support, but on behalf of Mayor Matt Mahan in support.

Well, we were doing main witnesses right now, but that's okay. We'll register that. Thank you. Let's get everybody chimed in.

Thank you, the Chair and the Members of the committee. My name is Carson Benowitz-Fredericks, I'm the Research Director at Alcohol Justice and I'm urging you to vote no on this Bill. So I do want to, first of all, very broadly say that open container laws are time-tested and evidence-based methods to reduce alcohol harm.

Now in the sort of idyllic situation described by the authors, you would find that improbable. The problem with this Bill is it does not actually guardrail you into only this idyllic situation. It does actually absolutely allow locality to operate an entertainment zone 365 days a year till closing time. It authorizes them to allow restaurants to simply shutter inside and open a booth serving a drink of whatever capacity, a 32-ounce, 20% ABV Slushy, something like a hurricane that you see on Bourbon Street.

It in no way requires safety infrastructure around these entertainment zones. There's no traffic can keep driving through while people wander around on the sidewalk drinking hurricanes. And last of all, it essentially cuts off at the knees California's own Responsible Beverage Service training program, which is reliant on training staff within these restaurants to be able to interact with patrons, evaluate them, be sort of responsibly what's the word?

Sort of diffuse conflict and ideally talk them into safer decisions, prevent them from driving drunk, prevent fights, or eject people if they are problems or if they are, for example, providing alcohol to minors. If all of this is happening outside of the doors of these restaurants and bars, all of this training is wasted, all this opportunity is wasted, and all this protection is wasted. So with that in mind, a Bill that would allow a town square to have a nice festival would be great.

This Bill allows much more, including arguably the most destructive, least well regulated outdoor consumption patterns that you can find already in other places in the United States. And it's something that will hurt Californians, is something that I don't think we can support at this time. So I please ask that you vote no. Thank you for your time. Thank you. And you have about a minute and 30 seconds left. He took it from me. No problem. Chair I'll be quick.

Fred Jones on behalf of the California Council on Alcohol Problems. It's a faith-based organization of pastors and ecclesiastical leaders. We are also a founding Member of the California Alcohol Policy Alliance. Both organizations opposed this Bill. An entertainment zone. How's it defined in this Bill, quote, authorizes consumption of one or more types of alcohol beverages on public streets, sidewalks, or public's right-aways, period. That's the full definition.

So let's drop the word entertainment and accept the reality this will allow for alcohol consumption on public right of ways outside of buildings, on our streets, where children can be and minors will be. That's what this Bill is all about. And as Carson has described, the lack of regulatory guardrails are shocking. There may be good examples of this. Some of our street fairs, our farmers markets, these are one time events. That's why outsiders are invited into those events. Those are entertaining venues.

This is a 365 day a year, possibly outside consumption of alcohol in some of these local communities. We think it goes way beyond responsible oversight of alcohol consumption. And we would urge this committee to hold the Bill. With all due respect to the author, thank you.

Thank you very much for the time. I appreciate that. Now we go to public comments from the room if there are any. I'm going to go ahead and say remind you, name, organization, and position only, and we're going to start with support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Sutton of the California Restaurant Association. I intended to go in the other slot, but I'll stay here. We support this local control measure. Thank you. Thank you.

Stephanie Estrada. On behalf of San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan in support thank you.

Not seeing any additional witnesses in support. How about we do public comments in opposition? Seeing none, we're going to go to the phones. Moderator?

Ladies and gentlemen, to voice your support or opposition, please press one, then zero, if you have not already done so. And first we will go to line number 13. Go ahead, please.

Yeah. Hi. My name is Gabriel Docto. I'm representing the San Francisco Venue Coalition. As well as August Hall in San Francisco Union Square. And I'm calling in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Next is line ten. Go ahead please.

Mr. Chair and Members, Alex Torres on behalf of the National Independent Venue Association of California and strong support.

Next we go to line eleven. Go ahead.

Hello. This is Eric Anderson. I'm the owner of Cafe Colonial in Sacramento and I support this Bill.

And next up is line twelve.

Go ahead, please. My name is James Cornette, I'm from Harlow's in Sacramento and I support this Bill.

One last reminder. To comment, please press 10. Currently have one more in queue. Line 17, go ahead.

Izzy Swindler. On behalf of the City and County of San Francisco in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, we did have one more, just join. We'll be just a second while we get that line number. Line 15. Thanks for your patience. Go ahead, please.

Hi, my name is Robert Verdugo, lead organizer for the California Alcohol Policy Alliance and we are in opposition.

Mr. Chair, we have no additional remote attendees in the queue.

Thank you. Now, we take any questions from committee Members if there are any. I'm not seeing any. You may close.

Thank you very much. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a first by Ms. McKinnor Oh, I'm sorry, we don't have a quorum, and I'm reminded that, so I apologize. We'll take the appropriate action when we have a quorum. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, colleagues.

Mr. Wilk. Are you available? Just reminding you this Bill maintains a support-support position.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Vice chair. I got a quick question for the Vice Chair. Is that a 32-ounce hurricane in that container? Water only. Okay, very good. Well, just very quickly. So this is SB 247. This is cleanup legislation from probably the most seminal Bill I've done in my career. I did this with Assemblyman Tom Daly back in 2016.

And what it did is it protected barbershops and beauty salons from enforcement from the ABC if they offered a single six-ounce glass of wine or a twelve-ounce beer. And I call it Vanessa's Law, after my wife, because I had no idea she was breaking the law for all these years. Anyway, what has happened is it's very clear in the code what a barbershop is, but unfortunately it's more vague as it applies to beauty salons.

So some of the regional field offices of ABC are shutting down beauty shops from doing this. So now it's an equity Bill. If you can do it at barbershop, you should be able to do it at a beauty salon. So anyway, this Bill is just simple cleanup technical language from 2016, and I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I don't see any main witnesses in support registered. If there are any main witnesses in opposition, this would be the time. Not seeing any I'm going to skip very quickly over to public comments from the room in support. Not seeing any public comments in opposition. Mr. Moderator, the phones, please.

To voice your support of opposition, please press one, then zero. At this time, Mr. Chair, we have no respondents in queue. Thank you. Any questions for committee Members? I have a comment. Yes, Mr. Lackey?

I'm a big supporter of Vanessa, and I don't want her breaking the law, so I'll be supporting this. Thank you. Thank you. See?

No other comments. You may with that. Again, this is just a very small technical change to a great law back from 2016 and really would appreciate your vote when the time is appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Dodd. Are you available? Ready would be the right words. I apologize.

Ready, Mr. Chair and Members, good morning. Or good afternoon, I should say. SB 650 eliminates the January 1, 2024 Sunset on the 50-50 raffle program. Since its inception eight years ago, the 50-50 raffle program has raised millions of dollars for a diverse group of local charities throughout our state. For instance, the Cecico Giants Community Fund now has been able to serve 30,000 youth annually, a new record for the fund's 31-year history. The 50-50 raffle is directly responsible for the expansion of the Giants Community Fund, which has allowed the Fund to renovate three youth baseball fields for the junior Giants to play on.

We can also not forget about the second, 3rd, or maybe the fourth best team in baseball in California, the Los Angeles Dodgers. Just last year best team? I would correct you. Just last year, the Dodgers were able to raise more than $2.5 billion through their 50-50 raffle plan, which they're giving back to their communities. All jokes aside, Members, this program has proven to be a tremendous success. It is self sustaining.

And as the analysis points out, the audits by the DOJ have found no major issues with the program. As Chair of Senate GEO, I think it's time to make this program permanent. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Here with me to testify in support is Amy Tovar with the San Francisco Giants and Andrew Govenar.

Sure. And you have two main witnesses at two minutes each. I should just remind you when it's two minutes to make sure we have enough time for everybody. Perfect.

You're welcome to sit here as well, too. That's okay. I'm right here now. Hope I won't take up too much time. Andrew Govenar, governmental advocates, on behalf of California's five Major League Baseball teams and the San Francisco 49ers in support of the measure. After eight years, we believe the Sunset should be lifted. There are actually four levels of transparency and auditing that's done on this program. To ensure that the program can operate, they have to file their 990 form.

As a nonprofit, they have to file their 50-50 form. Each charity that receives a donation has to file it, and then each team files it as well. So we believe over the years, the program has been successful and Sunset should be eliminated. With that. I have. Amy Tovar, Senior vice President, San Francisco Giants.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the committee, Senator Dodd, thank you so much for allowing me to testify on behalf of this Bill. The 50-50 raffle has been a game changer for the Giants Community Fund and our flagship program, the Junior Giants, which is now serving over 30,000 kids throughout Northern California. Thanks to the 50-50 raffle, we've raised over $10,000,000.05, half of that going to charity.

Since we implemented the 50-50 raffle, it's allowed us to have all of our Junior Giants have full uniforms, gloves, and really have the opportunity to not only learn about baseball, but we also have a program that focuses on health, anti-bullying confidence. And the funds that we get from the 50-50 raffle really allow us to do all the good work and partner with other charities and support their work as well.

So I urge you to vote in support of removing the Sunset for this Bill and allowing us to plan into the future to continue delivering these opportunities to kids throughout California. Thank you.

Thank you. And I'm looking for main witnesses in opposition. You're welcome to sit if you are there. And you also get the two minute allocation. Not seeing any public comments and support in the room. Again, name, organization and position only.

Good afternoon. Sylvio Ferrar on behalf of the National Football League, in support. Thank you.

McKay Carney on behalf of the San Jose Sharks. In support.

Chris Grogan on behalf of AEG, in support.

Any public comments in opposition in the room. We're going to the phones if there's any comments. Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Once again, ladies and gentlemen, press one, then zero now to comment. And we've had no respondents queued up, sir. Thank you. Any questions from committee Members? I'm not seeing anyone. In that case, we'll go to the author. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

We're in a Subcommittee right now, so when we have a quorum, we will take it up. One more. It certainly does help. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair, Members, we're just waiting for an author, so appreciate your patience. I believe we established the quorum. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Santiago. Here. Lackey. Here. Aguiar-Curry, Berman, Bryan, Cervantes, Dahle, Davies, Garcia, Gipson, Jones-Sawyer, Low, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Patterson, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rubio, Ta, Valencia, Villapudua.

We have a quorum. I was just going to ask if the committee still feels we have a first on the consent calendar and a second by Mr. Lackey, a third by Mr. Gipson. Sorry, just to read what's on the consent calendar is item five, SB 44. Jones. We have eight, four, four, I apologize. We have a first and a second. Ma'am secretary, please call the roll on the consent calendar.

File item number five, SB 844. Jones. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Recommended consent. Santiago aye. Santiago aye. Lackey aye. Aguiar-Curry aye. Berman aye. Bryan. Cervantes. Dahle aye. Davies aye. Garcia aye. Gipson aye. McKinnor aye. Patterson. Quirk-Silva. Ramos. Quirk-Silva aye. Low aye. Mathis aye. McCarty. McKinnor aye. Patterson. Quirk-Silva aye. Ramos. Rubio. Ta aye. Valencia aye. Villapudua.

Consent calendars that we'll leave for absent Members to add on. Are we allowed to take a motion? Apologize, Members, we need a motion on item two. That's SB 247. We have Mr. Mathis is moved. Ms. Davies is seconded. Madam Secretary, could you please call the Roll? Oh, I just did. Wilk I know.

Bundle deal. File item two, SB 247 by Senator Wilk. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Santiago aye. Lackey. Aguiar-Curry aye. Berman aye. Bryan. Cervantes. Dahle aye. Davies aye. Garcia aye. Gipson aye. Jones-Sawyer. Low aye. Mathis aye. McCarty. McKinnor aye. Patterson. Quirk-Silva aye. Ramos. Rubio. Ta aye. Valencia aye. Villapudua.

We'll leave it open for Members to add on. And yes, I did skip one by accident, so let's just go back to that one. File item one, SB 76. Madam Secretary, we have a second. Sorry.

SB 76 by Senator Weiner. The motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Santiago aye. Lackey. Aguiar-Curry aye. Berman aye. Bryan. Cervantes. Dahle aye. Davies aye. Garcia aye. Gipson aye. Jones-Sawyer. Low aye. Mathis aye. McCarty. Mckinnor aye. Paterson. Quirk-Silva aye. Ramos. Rubio. Ta aye. Valencia aye. Villapudua.

The Bill passes. We'll leave it open for Members to add on. And now we have item four, SP 650. We have a first from Mathis, second from Mr. Gipson. Madam Secretary.

SB 650. Senator Dodd, the motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Santiago aye. Aguiar-Curry aye. Berman aye. Bryan. Cervantes. Dahle aye. Davies aye. Garcia aye. Gipson aye. Jones-Sawyer. Low aye. Mathis aye. McCarty. McKinnor aye. Patterson. Quirk-Silva aye. Ramos. Rubio. Ta aye. Valencia aye. Villapudua. Jones-Sawyer aye.

We're going to open the roll for any members who might've just arrived. Just to help you out.

On the Consent Calendar. Bryan? Cervantes? Jones-Sawyer? Cervantes, aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. McCarty? Patterson? Ramos? Villapudua?

File item one, SB 76. Wiener? Bryan? Cervantes? Cervantes, aye. Jones-Sawyer? Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Jones-Sawyer? SB 76, Wiener. Jones-Sawyer? Jones-Sawyer, aye. McCarty? Patterson? Ramos? Villapudua?

File item two, SB 247. Wilk? Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Bryan? Cervantes? Cervantes, aye. Jones-Sawyer? Jones-Sawyer, aye. McCarty? Patterson? Ramos? Villapudua?

File item four, SB 650. Dodd? Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Bryan? Cervantes? Cervantes, aye. McCarty? Patterson? Ramos? Villapudua?

I got him. Yeah, he walked in. That one.

Yeah, you did. And you should that's fine.

I'll open the roll and call you.

I just wouldn't be able to answer what he would want to answer. You know what I mean?

File item one, SB 76. Wiener? Gipson? Not voting. Gipson not voting.

Mr. Laird, if you're available, I want to make sure you catch your breath because I know how long it takes to run back and forth, and I apologize for you having to run over here.

When I got the word that you needed me, I was sitting in a chair presenting a bill and said, 'no, I will not get out of the chair.'

And I appreciate that.

Anyways, I appreciate you waiting, and I'm here to present Senate Bill 544 on the Bagley-Keene Act. Let's see where we are. And overall, the bill requires a method for the public to remotely participate and observe the meeting, a public meeting via teleconference or on an online platform, and a physical address for at least one site.

The Committee worked with us, and I'm very grateful on amendments that would require a state board to hold 50 percent of meetings with a physical quorum and sunsets the bill's provisions in 2026. Additionally, we made amendments in the Senate to add guardrails to the current bill to ensure continued transparency and access to the public. Those amendments require that boards and commissions allow public comment at any time, recess a meeting if there's a technological disruption that prevents the public from participating, and requires Members to announce if another person is in the room with them during an open meeting.

Originally, the Governor had an executive order that expired on June 30th that did this for the last few years and started originally with the pandemic, and costs of meetings went down 90 percent, attendance went up substantially, and the real goal was to continue that option going forward. What this process has done is really allowed us to fine-tune this and bring balance because some of the benefits that really exist from doing the remote meetings is that people with physical disabilities can participate in a way they hadn't. Seniors have been able to participate in a way that they hadn't.

And people in very remote locations can then participate in a state board meeting without having to come from El Centro or Crescent City to every meeting. And there are specific issues also about security because every single location having to list an address was a security issue for those people participating remotely. Allowing there to be a central meeting with an address for the meeting and then not requiring it for those remote locations allows for the participation and protects the security.

So I believe with the amendments that have been taken, this is now balanced. It requires a 50 percent in person quorum 50 percent of the time, it sunsets so that we can look at this after two years, and it protects all the things that were good that came out of the executive order and the good things that needed to be addressed about personal security and remote participation.

And additionally, the one thing that we may still need to work on is making sure that if this is extended to 2026, we have adequate information of how it has worked so that that information is developed so if there's a future hearing just like this, we can talk very specifically in a way that we know what the pros and cons were, and we do know from the last two years, because everything was done in public, and everybody saw what it was, and you could see who was participating remotely. You could see that people with disabilities were participating. So we just want to do that balance and continue this going forward.

The bill had bipartisan support in the Senate, and with me to testify are Ethan Rarick from the Little Hoover Commission, Eric Harris from the Disability Rights Coalition, and turn it over to them.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. I will be brief to allow more time for my fellow co-witness. I'm Ethan Rarick. I'm the Executive Director of the Little Hoover Commission. Having met successfully, remotely during the pandemic, we surveyed other Bagley-Keene agencies to find their experiences with remote meetings. As Senator Laird says, they reported more public attendance, more attendance by members of the Commission. In about half the cases, none reported less attendance.

They reported cost savings. Accordingly, we issued a report recommending the kinds of changes embodied in this bill. We are obviously aware of some of the opposition that has occurred to this bill. I want to say that our commission is committed to public access. We live stream all of our meetings, even when we do not have a legal requirement to do so.

I'm committed to public access. For the first 15 plus years of my career, I was a newspaper reporter. I've been the person insisting on access. But we believe this bill protects and preserves and expands public access. Members of the public can watch every meeting, can hear every word that's said, record every vote, and as Senator Laird said, more people are able to serve on boards and commissions.

Boards and commissions will look more like the state. They will be more diverse. We think that's a good thing and therefore respectfully request your aye vote.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Eric Harris and I'm the Director of Public Policy at Disability Rights California. Many disability advocates throughout the country have urged schools, employers, and government bodies to allow teleconference or virtual participation.

These advocates, including myself, from both professional and a personal capacity, have made these arguments for years. We were always told that it wasn't practical, possible, efficient, or the best way to go about the work. In March of 2020, everyone around the world shifted to virtual platforms due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Contrary to what people thought would go wrong, systems and places of government were able to work successfully, and people were able to participate virtually for the last several years. Disabled people can have a variety of health concerns that they might not want to be made public, might not want to disclose, and it is their right to not have to disclose their health diagnoses.

It might also not be safe or reasonable to disclose private information or to get to a public location. SB 544 would help keep attendance and participation in meetings high. It is also a bill that can help keep people safe. When disabled people and older adults are able to fully participate, even with disabilities that can make it difficult to leave their beds, homes, get on public transportation, or get into some of these buildings that are not fully accessible, it's truly better for everyone when there is able to be full participation. Thank you, and I urge your aye vote on SB 544.

Thank you. Now we move to main witnesses in opposition. Again, I'll remind you when it's two minutes by quick tap in a smile, and beyond that, you start eating up in the next person's time.

Good afternoon, Chairs and Members. My name is Cynthia Valencia. I am a legislative advocate at the ACLU California Action. With our coalition partners, we respectfully oppose SB 544. The drastic changes to the Bagley-Keene Act this bill proposes will significantly reduce transparency, accountability, and the democratic nature of California State bodies. By permitting government officials who are choosing to serve on state boards and commissions to conduct public business just on the phone with no video requirement or any other accountability measures, does not hold up to the intention of California's Open Meetings laws. We strongly support increased options for remote participation and access for members of the public.

Current law allows that we can allow all of these measures with current law. We oppose this bill because it would remove the long standing requirement that public meetings be held in public places where the public can petition their leaders and other government officials face to face. The bill's intention is to increase convenience for people who are choosing to serve the public, not just the intended access for people with disabilities, or to expand the makeup of these bodies.

This is going to apply to everyone. It's not narrowly focusing to expand access to those who we want to include in these bodies. Even with the Committee Amendments that were recently made, we are still concerned about how this will be practically implemented and the real harm that would cause even within just a few years.

This year, the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training [POST], will begin the decertification process for law enforcement officers. There are no protections for the public from the Commission holding these decertification proceedings during their remote meetings that they are allowed. So, as currently written, the commissioners that are on post could host the decertification proceedings completely remotely on a phone with no video requirement, and the only place that's available is a staff member with a speaker phone for the public, for family members and survivors of police violence, to give their voice.

You, as legislators, know how impactful it is to directly hear and see how they are when people need to testify on what's happened to them. So if we remove these guardrails and these opportunities for the public to directly face for all commissions in the whole State of California, we are significantly limiting the public's ability to organize, and the people who are choosing to represent them.

So being able to see your representatives in person is fundamental to our Democratic values and representatives who are choosing to serve on--

You're about two minutes and a half, so you're not--

So we urge you to please vote to not move forward with SB 544, as written.

Thank you. Got about a minute and 20 seconds, but I'll give you about a minute and a half.

Okay, I'll try and talk fast. Good afternoon, Members of the Committee and Chair Santiago. My name is Brittany Barsotti. I'm the General Counsel at the California News Publishers Association, also opposed, unless amended, to this bill as it stands. Over the last three years, we've learned a lot about remote participation for the public, right? There was the executive order. There's been a long history of work on the Bagley-Keene Act Bill.

In the final days of Session back in 2020, there was an extension of the executive order, dropped into AB 361. Then there was a budget trailer bill which extended that for another year, and that is what is currently expiring. Our coalition worked very closely with the Governor's Office over the fall of a year and a half ago, I'd say, to come up with what was in AB 1733 last year by Assembly Member Quirk, which would have been before this Committee, and that contained all of the guardrails we wanted.

The one thing we were asking for from that bill was a physical quorum in person and that bill did not move forward for the reasons. We've pointed the author and the sponsors to the work that was done, yet they've declined to take the additional guardrails that were presented in that and build on where we went from there. We've met with them multiple times for the quorum issue.

We are pro-people with disability, pro-inclusion, right, in terms of allowing folks to serves on different boards and commissions. And we've proposed trying to allow folks with disabilities to count towards a quorum, a senior citizen, somebody with a health condition. There are ways that we can do this, and I respectfully urge a no vote.

Thank you, and it pains me to do that, but then if I'm not fair to everybody, then I'm not fair to everybody, so I apologize terribly about that. Now we're going to move to public comments from the room in support. Again, name, organization, and position only.

Good afternoon. Karol Swartzlander with the California Commission on Aging. As the proud sponsor of this bill, we are in strong support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Nina Weiler-Harwell, ARP California, in support.

Good afternoon. Dan Okenfuss, representing the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers, in support.

Now, we'll entertain any public comments and opposition. Name, organization, and position only. I got to be fair, so I'll remind you about that. Thank you.

Thank you. Ginny LaRoe, with the First Amendment Coalition, opposed, and by proxy, a short list I'll go through very fast for you. Thank you.

Californians Aware, California Broadcasters Association, California Common Cause, California Latino Journalists of California, The Greater Los Angeles Pro Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, CalTax, Media Alliance, The National Press Photographers Association, The Association of LGBTQ Plus Journalists Los Angeles Chapter, The Orange County Press Club, The Pacific Media Workers Guild, The Radio Television Digital News Association, San Franciscans for Sunshine, The San Diego Pro chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, and the Society of Professional Journalists Northern California Chapter. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mike Robson here on behalf of The Glass Packaging Institute. Our client, GPI, has joined a handful of other business trade associations in opposition to the bill.

Good afternoon. Silvio Ferrari on behalf of the Institute of Governmental Advocates, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, we're going to go to the phones. Mr. Moderator.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ladies and gentlemen with phones, press one zero. If you'd like to comment in support or opposition, that's one zero. We have one in queue. We'll go to line number 19. Line 19, go ahead please.

Good afternoon. Kendra Muller, member of the DMHC, Transgender, Gender Diverse, or Intersex Health Care Working Group, in support. Thank you.

And we have had a few more queue up here. Give me one moment to get the line numbers. And we're going now to line number nine. Go ahead. Number nine, you're open, go ahead, please.

Hi, this is Claudia Center. I'm Legal Director with Disability Rights, Education and Defense Fund, in support of SB 544.

Next is line number eight. Go ahead.

Good afternoon. Ken Cutler representing the Health Officers Association of California, in support. Thank you.

And line 18, go ahead, please.

Hi, this is Maria on behalf of the Speech-Language Pathology Audiology and Hearing Aid Dispensers Board, in support of SB 544.

Mr. Chair, we have no additional callers in queue at this time.

Thank you. Now, if there's any questions from Committee Members. Yes?

Good afternoon, Senator. I'm not going to ask you a bunch of questions. I just want to provide you my position. As you know, I was the past Chair of the local government. I was a stickler on people participating in government and it was really important to me because I believe that those conversations that we have face to face are so powerful.

Conversations are generally more robust, and the debate is more meaningful when we're in-person, and I think the in-person meeting should be the rule, with exceptions, obviously. And I think the exceptions, we can make accommodations available when needed.

I really appreciate you taking the amendments. I hope that you will continue to work on this. I am going to support your bill today, but I would like more than 50 percent of that participation in the meetings.

I think it's really important. I made some of my most powerful decisions when I was face to face with constituents and the public was aware of it, and I do appreciate that when we have people that are elderly or are disabled, that they have the opportunity to participate as well.

And there's some other bills that are running along in the background that we may see as well and they've made some accommodations for people with disabilities that they could be added as a part of the quorum. So anyway, I would hope you'll continue to work on this so that I can support it on the floor.

Yes, Mr. Berman followed by Mr. Bryant, I think. Did I miss--Bryan--I'm sorry. Did I miss you, Mr. Mathis? Sorry.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward. I think there's a lot of good in the bill. I think there are some parts of the bill that I really wholeheartedly support. There are other parts that I think can be more narrowly tailored to accomplish the goals that you're trying to accomplish. In particular, I share the concerns of my Colleague in regards to the 50 percent quorum 50 percent of the time, as opposed to 50 percent quorum 100 percent of the time or finding a more kind of strategic way to address that where we make sure that if there's serious business being conducted in a meeting, that that meeting have a 50 percent in-person quorum.

I'm going to support the bill today because I know that there's good stuff in it and that you're moving in the right direction. If it were to be this bill on the floor, I would not support it. I encourage you to continue working with folks to try to keep the real goal that you're trying to accomplish while also addressing some of what I think are the legitimate concerns that exist. Thanks.

Mr. Bryan. Pardon. Majority Leader Bryan. I failed to recognize that.

Thank you. I know exactly what you're trying to do here and I see friends on both sides of this bill holding very righteous positions and I think that there's room to work here and we need to work here. You know, I come out of Los Angeles where we have made it a habit of going to our city council chambers and being heard in-person. In fact, prior to being in office, I was noteworthy for bringing hundreds of people to the county building to make our voices heard. And there was a difference being heard.

And obviously, coming out of the pandemic, we've learned some lessons, though, about accessibility and making sure everybody who can be heard, who couldn't be there in-person, who can't be there in-person for a number of various reasons, there's an ableist component to only being in-person. And so I think those are things we definitely have to address. Similar to my colleagues, though, kind of the 50 percent seems kind of arbitrary that it means, like, 'let's do the big business on the days we can be remote and let's be in-person for the quick meetings,' things like that, that I think you can address, I have no doubt you will address.

I'm happy to give the courtesy vote to continue to move it today, but I think some of those things give me little bit of pause with this bill. But I think between you and all of the people on the table that there can be a landing spot found and if there's an author in the Senate who can find that spot, it's definitely you, Senator Laird, and so I will be supporting today, but just wanted you to hear that.

Mr. Mathis and then I whom neglected to mention Mr. Ta. I think he's back there, right? And then after that, Villapudua, and then after that Ms. Davies.

Alright, thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, I think all of us agree that the accessibility points are spot on. And I think that many of the concerns that I've already brought up as far as quorum, as far as people being there in-person are vital. I think some of our best debates have been face to face.

But for me, I'm going to offer a few of the suggestions that I can think of and things that would gain my support is I could see exemptions for as far as quorum showing up in-person and having those members Zoom in would be if they're sick, if they're injured, if there's acclimate weather and they can't physically drive there. That would make sense to me to say, okay, this person that's on the board can Zoom in, but they'd need to be there other than that, in my opinion.

As far as accessibility and having this open, it's the same reason why we have the cameras on us here. It's the same reason why we have the phone in. 100 percent agree with that. But it's the making sure that people actually show up and making that I think, again, if they're sick, if they're injured, if there's weather, I think those types of things would make sense.

As far as amendments going forward, obviously this is in a natural resources hearing, so we won't do amendments now. But going forward, I would like to see things like that and I'd be willing to work with you on that, but until then, I'm going to stay off.

Mr. Ta, you said you didn't want to speak, right? Okay. I misunderstood that. I think we had Mr. Villapudua and then Ms. Davies, right.

Thank you, Senator. I'm torn about this just because I had a whole room of interns that I was sitting with just about an hour ago, and I kept asking, what do you guys think? And they were kind of giving me their opinion, right. First thing they kept saying, 'well, what about the emotional part of it when people come up and they have to be emotional.' And I echo what my colleagues have said up here, is like, I'm a stickler when folks don't show up; they have to be there.

And I think that if you're appointed to a Committee, you make sure that you make the time. I'm one that if you hey, listen, you missed three. You're out. Listening to my interns, they were talking about accountability, transparent. One was torn, like, yeah, we're kind of moving into kind of a remote way of things in life, everything.

But I'm also one that, even though I'm doing my work here, I do tune in to my county board of supervisors meetings, my city council meetings. Even though I'm listening, I'm watching because I need to learn what they're doing.

I try to make sure that we're all communicating and being on the same page. I think that we're kind of doing that right now. I think that we make it accessible for folks, accessible for folks that cannot be there that they can get on and they can write in, they can speak.

I know where you're heading. I think the 50 percent is not enough for me right now, but I just wanted to kind of share that. Thanks, Senator.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, thank you so much and I do appreciate the amendments. I have some concerns that I would love to have you address. I think number one is the reporting, enforcing the reporting. Is it something that I would like to see and would you put that into the bill so that it's easy enough to do, say, a city council meeting, whatever, a commission where they've got a calendar, because you usually have a calendar knowing when your dates are and your meetings.

And they have to record it so it can be up on their website or someplace so they can see 'meeting so and so,' what the count was, and so that they keep track of: was it in-person, was it not in-person? Second, my concern is just being by phone.

Again, there's no transparency there. And I think we all know what it was like even when we did video during COVID and we didn't have anyone coming up front, it was very easy for people just to vote. Some people just to vote no. They didn't have to have that one on one.

They didn't have to look the person in the aye, actually listen to their story. Sometimes the phone didn't work. And so I think that if you are going to do this and I understand the accessibility, and I think that's a great point, but it definitely has to be video.

And not only does it have to be like a Zoom video, it has to be on. I can't tell you how many times there were meetings, some commissions, such as Redistricting, others where there was nobody on there. It was just their picture and we all know a lot can be done behind the scenes.

And so I think that any of these that you would have should be Zoom video. They have to be on at all times, just like we have to when we're on, we're taking the different seminars and that that are required of us.

I think that's really important. And I think the other one too, is when you're saying 50 percent meetings, who picks and chooses that? Because I can tell you what, I'm sure there'd be a lot of city councils and board of education when there's a controversial agenda going, well, this is when we're going to stay at home on the phone. We won't have to sit there and listen to the callers.

We won't have to look at them. Again, the transparency, and right now in our society, I think that the lack of trust, especially for those in government, is just at a very low rate right now. So whatever we can do to be able to give them the trust there, that their face can be in there and that they know that they're listening to us and the enforcement that we're going to require is really important.

And I do agree that 50 percent just isn't enough. I just believe that the public deserve better and I would love to see you implement these. So at this point, I can't support this, but I have a feeling that you're taking note and I would love to see what you come up with. So thank you.

I thought I saw somebody else's hand up. Nope. Yeah, and listen, I want to thank you for bringing this forward. It's a conversation that needs to happen. I mean, we struggled with it last year, conflicting points of view and what resulted in a budget trailer bill that just extended what was there. So the lens that we were looking at when we saw this bill was to try to take a look at that the world had changed.

So to do a lot of the amendments that people want would be to bring us back to 2019 before there was any ability to do anything online, for the most part, generally speaking. So the lens that we took when we were looking at this in the conversation was to take a look at the way the world was. And the way the world was was everything is virtual.

Today, everything is virtual. So the way we looked at it was to take a look at opposition concerns, which are absolutely legitimate. I share some of them, which is why we struggled last year with anything and to take a look at and say, 'okay, we'll divide it by 50.'

50 percent of the meetings will be in-person by quorum. I know there's been conversation brought up about sick or injured and somebody can already be absent when that happens. Does it impact the quorum? Not in the way that people would want it to today if it was sick, absent and virtual to impact a quorum. The way the world was, no, it didn't work out that way, but somebody can still be absent today nonetheless if they are sick or injured.

So I think the amendments try to take a look at what the opposition did because I struggled with it too. And I have to be honest with you, I struggled with it. But over the last--ever since COVID beginning of 2020-- and I use general terms--to about June 30th, it did say basically everything is virtual. So this actually takes away from what we had to now create in person meetings, 50 percent of them that are in quorum. Now, is there more work to be done? Yeah, absolutely.

We've discussed this. We've discussed this. But it's a conversation we need to have. To do nothing brings everything back the way it was. Now, if that's okay with people, then that's fine. But this at least gets a conversation going.

And it's sunset in 2026, so it gives ample opportunity to continue to work on this. There are fixes that could be done through budget trailer rules. There are fixes that could be done, which I'm sure you're committed to doing if there are other issues that arise.

I just want to give everybody kind of a thought process of when we landed the amendments and why we couldn't land them last year. We just couldn't last year because I also had the same concerns, which is everybody should be in-person, et cetera. We even struggled with the idea of having a central person at different sites so there would be some sort of face for public access, that all public comments should be received in a specific place.

So there's a lot of still questions that are going to be out there and things that have to be addressed. But I just wanted to share with the Committee the lens that we had, which was prior to June 30th, which is just a few days ago, everything was virtual. So this seeks to bring back 50 percent of the meetings in quorum, and I hope that helps to clarify why we went back and forth on amendments to try to ease, to try to ease opposition and very legitimate concerns and I recognize that.

That's why we struggled last year and that's why we struggled this year. And it's a new conversation. The world's changed a little bit, a lot. And so I want to thank you for bringing it forward and striking that conversation. We know that there are other steps where you're going to continue to work on this, and we know that you're committed from our conversations to continuing to address issues if they should arise in the summer, if they should arise next year, and if anybody could do it, I'll quote what my Colleague said, 'I believe that you can.'

So with that, we are recommending do pass to Appropriations. Oh, I apologize, I got ahead of myself, you see? And would you like to close?

I'm grateful for that and I think that for all the criticism the Legislature gets at times, this debate was what it's all about in a very good way and I take it to heart and want to work with it, and I was reminded by Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry's comments, it's longer, a year or two longer than 40 years ago this November I was elected to the city council.

I spent nine years as Mayor and City Council Member and you cut your teeth in those meetings. And one of the interesting things I realized over time is there's an iterative process with the public. And there would be times when I would be dissecting an issue and people would wrinkle their eyebrow, and I would say, 'well, I bet you're wondering why.'

And you'd sit there and go back and forth with them, because you were there with them. And so I really appreciate that and what the balance is here--and this is all about balance and I hope I get a chance to go forward and incorporate these comments and balance it--but the balance is that if anybody came to my city council meeting, the farthest they came was a mile and a half and I suspect it wasn't that long in your city and it's 800 miles here and for some people it's an issue.

If this applied to county government, one of the interesting things is my family is a property owner in Alpine County and there's a ridge and it is closed for six months of the year and you can't get over and the County Supervisor from Bear Valley has to drive 5 hours around to get to the county seat because they can't go over the ridge.

And if there was ever an argument for remote participation, that is it. And so in the balance here, I hear people about a quorum all the time. And to be factual, there's no physical quorum requirement now.

This is the first time we would have a physical requirement in a bill. By adding these amendments, we're doing that for the first time. And I, in the typical snarky legislator way, at the beginning said, 'you want a physical quorum, get your own bill.'

But now it is like that is really a key to the solution. And so I hear the 50 percent, I hear about the camera being on, we still have to balance it with the ability of people at remote distances or in weird weather patterns or people with disabilities to be able to participate.

What this bill morphed to today with the amendments is a balance. And what I hear is that balance isn't exactly right. So if I get a chance, I will continue to work on that and try to take into account the different comments that I heard today because I think they're sincere and they give us a lot to work with and let me honor the opposition.

There are many things there. I sit on rolls whenever I'm not presenting a bill and I'm away from the Committee Hearing, which I'm doing right now. And we interviewed and confirmed the people from the Board of Parole Hearings.

And I asked them, what's your remote participation? These are life and death decisions. And interestingly, the people that were defending people said, my clients relax when they can participate remotely. When they're staring everybody in the eye, they freeze up. And it was counterintuitive to me. And yet it was the people that wanted justice felt that way. So that is why this isn't as clean as you would think.

And so I take everything to heart, and I would request an aye vote to be able to continue to work with what I've heard today. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Senator. Do we have a first and a second? 1st, Mr. Ramos. Do you have a second? And I missed who? Mr. Vantez. Thank you. Madam Secretary?

SB 544 Laird. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Santiago? Aye. Santiago, aye. Lackey? Aguiar-Curry? Aye. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Berman? Aye. Berman, aye. Bryan? Aye. Bryan, aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Dahle? Dahle, not voting. Davies? No. Davies, no. Garcia? Gipson? Aye. Gipson, aye. Jones-Sawyer? Low? Mathis? Mathis, not voting.

McCarty? McKinnor? McKinnor, aye. Patterson? Quirk-Silva? Quirk-Silva, not voting. Ramos? Ramos, aye. Ta? No. Ta, no. Valencia? Aye. Valencia, aye. Villapudua? Villapudua, not voting.

Measures on call. If you haven't added, we should make sure that you add. Let me just make sure. We have you on everything, Miss.

On the consent calendar Brian?

On the consent calendar, Ramos? Ramos aye file item number 1, SB 76 Wiener, Ramos? Ramos aye. SB 247 Wilk, Ramos? Ramos aye. SB 650 Dodd, Ramos? Ramos aye.

Brian aye. File item number 1, SB 76 Weiner, Brian?

Aye.

Brian aye McCarty?

Aye.

McCarty aye. SB. 247. Wilk, Brian?

Brian aye, McCarty?

Aye.

Aye.

McCarty aye SB 650 Dodd, Brian?

Brian aye, McCarty? McCarty aye. On the consent calendar McCarty? McCarty aye.

Opening the role for assemblymember Patterson on the consent calendar. Patterson aye. SB 544 Laird, Patterson? Patterson not voting. McCarty? McCarty aye. I know SB 76 Weiner, Patterson? aye. Patterson aye. SB 247 Wilk, Patterson? Patterson aye. SB 650 Dodd, Patterson? Patterson aye. SB 544 Laird, Garcia? Garcia aye.

Madam secretary, please open the roll.

File item three, SB 544 Laird Lackey not voting. Lackey not voting. Jones- Sawyer. Aye. Jones-Sawyer. Aye. That measure is out with twelve votes. File item one is out with 19 votes. File item two is out with 20 votes. File item four is out with 20 votes. And the consent calendar is out.

The Geo meeting is now adjourned.