Senate Standing Committee on Rules

Afternoon, everyone. The Senate Committee on Rules will come to order. We continue to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service. We're holding our Committee hearing in the O Street Building in Room 2200. And for individuals wishing to provide public comment via the teleconference service, the participant toll-free number and access code are posted on our committee website and will be displayed also on the screen right now and a couple of times throughout the hearing.

Today's participant number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 1618051. And also, on behalf of our incredible court reporter, I would ask all speakers, my colleagues and witnesses alike, to speak slowly and clearly, particularly when we get to the teleconference line. If I have to stop you and have you start again, it's only so we can get your comments for the official record. Before we begin today's agenda, we need to establish a quorum.

So, a reminder, colleagues, you'll need to turn on your microphones for the roll call and every time that we vote. And with that, Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll?

[Roll call]

Thank you. We do have a quorum, and just for the public's benefit, we have Members on this Committee that serve on multiple committees at the same time. So as you see people leaving and coming back, it really has everything to do with the fact that they're serving on the Health Committee, for one thing, and also presenting bills. So people may come and go and just bear with us. It tends to work, I promise you.

We're going to go ahead and dispense with some items that we can. And I have been alerted to do some vote splits. So I just want to tell you the motion I would ask for, based on understanding those vote splits, if something doesn't seem to be exactly right, just flag me on that. But we're going to start with Governor's appointees not required to appear. And I would entertain a motion for item two, F and G, together.

These are Members of the Commission on Peace Officer Standards, F and G.

I would so move and say I'm proud to because one of them is the sheriff of Monterey County and is outstanding.

Absolutely. You had to say that, Senator. So seeing that that is acceptable to my colleagues, we will call for the vote on item two, F and G. Governor's appointees not required to appear.

[Roll call] On call.

And we will leave that on call so that the Vice Chair can add on when she arrives. I would entertain a motion on item two, H and K. And these are Members of the Arts Council.

So move.

Thank you, Senator. Item two, H and K. Call the roll.

[Roll call] On call.

We will leave that on call. I would ask for a motion on item two, I, J and L. These are also Members of the Arts Council, not required to appear,

So move.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll?

[Roll call] On call.

We will leave that on call. I would take a motion on item three, Bill referrals.

So move.

[Roll call] On call.

Okay, I would entertain a motion on Subcommitee ratifications. Item number four.

I would move item number four.

And this is appointing Senator Allen as Member of the Transportation subcommitee on LOSSAN Rail Corridor Resiliency. Madam Secretary, will you call the roll?

[Roll call] On call.

We will leave that on call. I am going to do a vote, a split on the next items, floor acknowledgments. I would take a motion on item number five, and that is- you'll appreciate this, Mr. McCrory - this is a request by myself for floor introductions during the session on Monday the twelfth to recognize the San Diego State University Aztecs for reaching the National Collegiate Athletic Association Men's Basketball championship game. I usually don't say all that, but I know there's someone who truly agrees we should do that.

I would move all that.

Thank you. All right. Okay. Well, I'm going to hope that this passes. Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll.

[Roll call] On call.

We will leave that on call. And then the final is a request by Senator Skinner related to the women's caucus recognition of some sister Senators from South Carolina. A motion, please.

I would so move.

Thank you, Senator. Please call the roll.

[Roll call] On call.

And we will leave that on call. And now we will go to item number one, Governor's appointees required to appear. And we're going to start with items one, A and B. And these are appointments of Members to the Air Resources Board. So let me welcome up and invite John Eisenhut and Diane Takvorian up. You have name tags right there. And what we will do is invite each of you to introduce yourself, recognize or thank anyone that you would like to, and then make some opening comments.

And then we'll go right into comments and questions from the Members of the Committee. And Mr. Eisenhut, we will start with you, and then we'll move to Ms. Takvorian. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to visit with you today. I first wish to introduce my spouse of more than 50 decades. Oh, 50 years.

You look very good.

Well, I was trying to convert years to decades, but anyway, 50 years. And she is my advocate and cheerleader. So thank you, dear. I was first appointed to this board by then Governor Jerry Brown and have been reappointed by Governor Newsom, appointed to occupy a seat on the board that is designated as a seat with background and expertise in either agriculture law or science. And both Governor Brown and Governor Newsom have desired to have an appointee who has a background in agriculture.

And I've been that designated appointee. My adult life has been- I've been involved in agriculture and in farming in a variety of ways and enterprises. And I think it's been helpful to the discussion of the board as we have worked on some valley issues and some farming issues. There's one I guess I'll use as an example. About a year and a half ago, we were engaged in a discussion about AG burning. And we reached the right conclusion, I believe. But it was a process.

And I think the fact that I was a Board Member, probably the only board Member who has operated under a burn permit, added to the texture of that conversation. So that's my background and my involvement on the board, I need to be very clear that I embrace the mission of the board. Our challenge to bring healthy air to all communities and all residents of California and to advance the goals of legislative AB 32 and Governor Newsom's call for net neutrality by '45.

I am congruent with those goals and also congruent and as a Member of the agricultural community with the goals of doing so in a manner that brings economic prosperity- continues to bring economic prosperity to the state. So those are my comments. I look forward to our conversation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Ms. Takvorian.

Thank you. Thank you. Madam President, Senators, it's a real opportunity, a pleasure to speak with you today. I have served on CARB since I was first appointed in 2016 as the first environmental justice Member by then Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins and now, of course, Senate President. And so, Senator Atkins, I want to start by expressing my heartfelt appreciation to you for giving me that opportunity and for having the confidence that you had in me that I would be an effective Member.

I'm also grateful to Governor Newsom for reappointing me to CARB, and I look forward to continuing to serve. My family is not with me today, but I want to acknowledge their support and their inspiration, including my husband, not of 400 years, but of 40 years, whose name is Bob Bray and who has always supported me.

I want to also acknowledge my grandmother Nazeli, who survived the Armenian genocide and when the rest of her family did not, who migrated to the United States and who enabled me to be the first in our family to graduate from college and whose memory serves as a constant reminder of our need to fight bigotry wherever it is. And I also want to thank the community members who I've had the privilege of working with for these past 40 years.

They've taught me more than I could ever imagine about resilience and policy and organizing, but most of all about patience, because things take a long time to change. And I also want to thank the 40 organizations and individuals who have submitted their support for me for this appointment.

As I said, I came to CARB in 2016 as the Executive Director of the Environmental Health Coalition, one of the oldest environmental justice organizations in the country, where I have worked for over 40 years in the San Diego Tijuana region to improve the quality of life for all residents. And our low income communities of color are adjacent to ports, to freeways, to industrial centers, the US.-Mexico border and the US. Navy, and we rank in the 95th percentile of the most polluted in the state.

Children have five times more asthma hospitalizations and life expectancy is 10 years shorter. So I also served as the co-chair of the Cal EPA Environmental Justice Advisory Committee in 2002, the first environmental justice effort in the state, which issued wide ranging recommendations for all Cal EPA agencies, including the number one priority, which was to address cumulative impacts. That actually turned into CalEnviroScreen as it represented the reality that our communities face, the multiple stressors that impact our communities of racism, poverty and pollution.

A major part of my background is also as the executive director of a nonprofit organization, which is quite similar to a small business. So I've had the opportunity and responsibility to make payroll and comply with many regulations, which has given me a strong understanding of the challenges experienced by the businesses that are subjected to CARB regulations. So I feel like I understand that. When I started at CARB, the focus on addressing the most impacted communities was just beginning to take shape.

But I've been proud to be part of developing advancing environmental justice representation, including the transition of the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee to a permanent Committee, which we just did this year. The creation of the first Deputy Executive Officer for environmental justice, promoting the community-led AB 617 Community Air Protection Program, which has now expanded to 19 communities throughout the state and working to encourage ambitious and feasible measures to transition vehicles from buses to trucks and cars to zero emission.

Going forward, my focus is to work with my colleagues to achieve California's plans to shift away from fossil fuel use to reduce climate change and air pollution. And I think we now need to turn our focus to effective and equitable implementation of the ambitious rules we've adopted to ensure their success in both reducing pollution and transitioning workers. We must now stay the course to achieve racial equity and environmental justice both internally and externally.

Progress has been made, but nearly all California communities still suffer from unhealthy levels of air pollutants. And dangerous pollutants are three times higher in disadvantaged communities. And lastly, my North Star is really public health. Reducing air and climate pollution must result in improvements in public health for all children and their families and workers in California. So thank you again for the opportunity. I very much appreciate it and look forward to your questions.

Thank you. Let me just say it is obviously time consuming to serve on CARB. It is not one of the light expectation bodies to sit on. So to your families, I want to say thank you.

We'll thank you during the course of the hearing, but to your families and the support that they give for you to do this work in addition to your jobs and the work that you do, I just wanted to acknowledge them, however many decades you've been together, it's a tribute.

Go ahead. And Madam Vice Chair, I let folks know that people would be coming and going because of committees and we take this work seriously in this Committee. But they know that we are multitasking, so they know that. But I'm going to give you a chance to catch your breath and ask Senator Smallwood-Cuevas if you would start and lead us off.

Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to say thank you to the two nominees for our time together this week. It was a very informative discussion and I want to echo the Pro Tem sentiment about how difficult this particular board is, but how tremendous an impact this board is making on our state and leading us into our own green revolution.

So I'm appreciative of your work now, but also in the past, we recognize all of the advances that have been made in terms of making sure that we have clean air for all. And my role in this conversation often is about the intersection of racial equity and economic equity.

And for me, I see the opportunity of climate resiliency in California as an economic proposition, particularly for those communities that are most impacted by environmental racism and exposure to toxins and impacts that create a whole slew of determinants of health that have been adverse to so many communities. So, you know, I also represent South Central Los Angeles. And folks forget that South Central was once sort of one of the largest industrial corridors of the world, the second producer of automobiles behind Detroit.

And when you travel through some of those corridors now, these know, large manufacturing sites that are now sweatshops or they're just boarded up. And as we look at the investment that CARB is overseeing in terms of climate resiliency, industry and some of the workforce opportunities, my concern as always, is as we're moving into yet another industrial shift, another economic shift. Will my communities, communities like South Central be left behind? Particularly women, immigrants, black workers who were left out of the first shift.

And so my question has to do with having you all elaborate a little bit more. And we discussed this in our meeting about the intentionality of CARB to ensure that California has a sufficient workforce to carry out these very aggressive and bold climate resiliency initiatives, given CARB's DEI efforts both internally - and we talked a little bit about and you mentioned that in your comments about really centering racial equity internally. How do we also do that externally, and particularly around the job creation opportunities?

So what strategies have you implemented so that community residents who are in these most impacted communities have an opportunity to actually be employed in what we want and will mandate to be good jobs in the green economy? And I'd really appreciate you lifting up the access and tracking and intentionality around workforce and also ensuring that these are high road good jobs. And I would like both of the nominees to answer the question.

Who would you like to start?

I will start with- and I want to make sure ,can you please tell me your name again? I want to make sure- yes, I want to pronounce it.

Takvorian.

Takvorian. Thank you, Ms. Takvorian.

Thank you. Thank you. I think the- this sounds too loud.

No, you're fine.

Okay. I really appreciated our conversation. And I feel like my trajectory in terms of experience started with workers who are on the front lines. So when we talk about climate justice and environmental justice, we have to talk about worker justice in terms of their exposure to pollutants on the job. And so some of our first experiences, my first experiences were working with shipyard workers who have high levels of exposure to toxins, who have high levels of mortality and very serious injuries. And so working with unions at the shipyards, it was very important to us to ensure that they were beginning to be protected.

Those emissions from the shipyards as well as from other industries like the ones that you named, are also impacting communities. But some of the members of our community went to college on their parents work in the shipyards. That's what lifted them up out of poverty. So we're very aware of the economic relationship that exists and that we need to maintain to ensure that there are these opportunities for folks who may not have college educations and who should have the opportunity to have these positions.

So I guess I want to first say I understand that a just transition is absolutely necessary and that that's the path we need to be on. There are a variety of places where CARB has incorporated it into our rules to require that reporting come back to the board so that we can look at, for instance, as some of these transportation bills rules go forward that we can see how those jobs are being allocated.

So I'm just going to consult with my notes because I want to make sure I'm saying this correctly is that for some of the California Climate Investments, the CCI, we've looked at, and I think we talked about this some 235,000 direct, indirect positions.

So the question I have, and I don't have an answer for this, I think we need to create the tracking systems so that we know whether those workers that are in shipyards or in fossil fuel industry or working in the underground economy as well, how are they coming into this green workforce? And I don't think we know that. What we know is the work that we've been able to do create those jobs.

We're doing a good job, I think, with internships, with relating to universities and bringing folks in. I don't know how many of the existing workers are actually transitioning. There's folks coming into this green workforce, but what's happening to the ones that are in a different kind of workforce and are they transitioning?

So I think the intention is there, but we need to improve our data systems, I think, so that I don't have and I don't think we have the direct answer to your question, but I think it's the right question that we have to answer as we move forward. But I am pleased that we're keeping track of the jobs we're creating. And I think we talked about mid-career folks. We really need to focus on them to ensure that they can make that transition.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Eisenhut?

This was a good question. To be second, I would just like to affirm what I heard Diane answer to your question. And we discussed this, the three of us, yesterday, and I think we explored a number of issues. And part of the rationale that occurred to all of us is that as we watched and you mentioned it in your comments, the impact of globalization and on areas of California and nationally, we have an opportunity to mitigate those impacts before they occur.

I completely agree with Ms. Takvorian's assessment that we have the intention. I've seen it in the recent rulemaking that we've adopted. I think we need to again, I agree with Diane, we need to translate that intention into more robust tracking. And in reviewing what I've termed a layered dashboard, there's an opportunity to consolidate some of the information that we've provided across silos, so that the results of our activities are specific to employment and employment growth.

And so I think the short answer to your question is yes. The intention is there.

No, I appreciate that and the commitment to really lift up the tracking opportunities so that we ensure that our investments are actually hitting those most impacted communities. My other question stems then from sort of the internal process. And we spoke briefly about the ways in which you, as part of the board, are supporting staff, and particularly black staff, who organized and came together to really lift up the need for more inclusion inside of the agency itself and within the board staffing.

Can you share more about where those plans are and how you feel the progress is being made to address the issue of diversity and inclusion, and particularly creating a sense of belonging for those black employees who lifted up those concerns?

Who would you like to speak?

I'll ask Mr. Eisenhut.

Sure. Thank you. I think this journey had two parallel tracks, and the first was our involvement, our responsibility under the so-called 617 program, which made us more involved in communities, more aware of diversity and inclusiveness and air pollution control at the micro level rather than at the average level.

And in a parallel way, as you alluded to in your question, there was a communication from a well written and heartfelt and positive communication from a group of black employees that let us know that we were not as diverse nor inclusive as we thought we were. And I would add that over time, we have a new chair. We have a new Executive Officer, essentially selected by that chair. We have, as Diane alluded to or referenced in her opening remarks, we have a new Deputy Executive Officer.

And to backtrack one second, the Board following the letter from the group of employees, then Board Member Phil Serna crafted an action item that the Board unanimously endorsed, supporting and encouraging diversity and inclusiveness in all aspects of what we do, our own employment and in our programs. And we, as part of that action, requested annual reporting. I don't believe there have been enough elapsed time yet to have the first of those annual reports. I expect those this fall. So that's the progress we have made.

Thank you. I think what we know is that racial justice needs to be integrated into every aspect of CARB's functioning, both internally and externally. And when we received the letter from black employees and did adopt the resolution that Mr. Eisenhut referenced, I was proud to vote for the resolution which established the Office of Racial Equity and also the DARE program. I forget what it stands for, but basically to move us forward.

And so I think there's a racial justice framework that's emerging, that has emerged and is posted on CARB's racial equity website now. So I think that's good. I would say that we've done a really good job for hiring new folks into CARB, that the recruitment efforts are much expanded. We're looking at new places to recruit and bring a more diverse workforce to the agency. So I feel good about that.

Having been an advocate externally, I can say that things are a world different now than they were 10 years ago. So I think that it's very much changed. There are different languages spoken at every meeting. There's interpretation for community members. Pre-pandemic, we went to every 617 community and held the hearings there, which I don't believe had happened previously. So we had a much stronger understanding, I think, of what the community was going for. So it's happening both internally and externally.

Not fast enough for some of us impatient folks, but I think we're moving. Thank you.

I want to say thank you so much for those answers, and I'm happy to continue to work with you. I'm looking forward to hearing about the plan that comes out of the resolution and the next steps and looking forward to your confirmation today.

Thank you. Senator. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon and welcome. I have a couple of questions for both of you and you can both take turns. We can start with, actually, I think let's start with Ms. Tavorkian? Sorry, one more time.

Takvorian.

Confused with Kaborkin if that'll help.

All right, got it. Ms. Takvorian and Mr. Eisenhut. So mine has to do with the fact that recently the board had adopted the zero emissions truck fleet rules. And I understand that there are some built-in offerings for companies to comply on that end.

So my question is going to be relating to the trucking industry and the ability to comply with those regulations for electrification and the competition that they have with housing and getting the what do they call the electric transformer deliveries that take a while to be ordered and received in order to be used in that capacity.

And also in addition to that, wondering the flexibility that you've implemented in that policy to allow for the delay that we have in both supplying those electric trucks, the ability to charge them as well as the cost on those companies requiring that, requiring the changes that are implemented. So wanted to hear your thoughts on how do you measure all of those expectations and accommodating it within today's technology and availability and the cost to the companies which eventually trickles down to the consumers. Sure, I was confused.

Sure I was confused. Okay, yes, that's a broad question and I appreciate it very much. I want to start with one of the things that I think you mentioned where I think you were referring to the charging stations that are clearly not at the level that they need to be at when the regulation actually comes to be fully implemented.

What is the good news, I think, is that we have set out a phased program so that there are a number of years for each category of trucks that must comply with this regulation or fleets that must comply with this regulation. So the first real deadline is for drayage trucks that serve the ports and the ports for the most part, and that'll be in 2035. So all of them must be zero emission by that time.

So we have time and you, the Legislature, and the Governor have awarded some $9 billion. And I know there's budgets and those will go forward, but at this point, it's about $9 billion that will be available for incentives for medium and heavy-duty trucks as well as other vehicles that are transitioning to zero so that they can take advantage of those incentives as they transition. And certainly, those that can transition earlier may have larger benefits. So I think the incentives are very important.

We're working closely CARB is working closely with the Energy Commission and the Transportation Commission to ensure that charging stations are established and that there are resources available for them as well. There are exemptions in the advanced clean fleet regulation if charging is not available for a particular fleet and if vehicles are not able to be purchased for a specific use. So a lot of that's been thought through.

We also have a technology review that will come up in about 2028 where we'll be able to evaluate how the progress is going, especially with the development of zero emission heavy duty trucks. So we'll be able to take another look at how that progress is moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you. My answer is parallel to Ms. Takvorian's. I would first point out that our chair recently came from one of the energy regulatory agencies and has a very clear working knowledge of that process and also knows the folks who are involved in providing for the infrastructure that's required as we move forward, there's work to be done, and that's clear.

Just subsequent to the adoption of the Fleet Rule, our Executive Officer convened a meeting in the valley, San Joaquin Valley, including all the parties involved, the regulatory entities, the utilities, and representatives from infrastructure. Because I think to your point, there are already areas and specific examples where energy, where transformers are not available for current demand and there was a clear discussion of these issues.

I wouldn't say there were resolutions, but there was an understanding of all parties of what the issues were, an agreement to continue the conversation with assigned responsibilities, whether they be regulatory entities, CARB, or utilities in a path moving forward. And then to your question, there are a number of off-ramps or exemptions embedded in the Fleet Rule, the first of which is infrastructure. And clearly, we can't require trucks to be charged if the electrification is not there and those exemptions are embedded in that action.

And as to your question about the economics, the challenge of adopting zero-emission vehicles currently, and our hope and expectation is as this technology is adopted, the capital cost of those vehicles will decrease, but the capital costs are higher and the operating costs are lower. And as Diane indicated, there are incentives available to help folks with the adoption of those original capital costs. So anyway, I think that's responsive to your question. Thank you.

So just as a follow up on that end, it's very interesting that you just mentioned, and it triggered my mind to think about the impact of yes, the infrastructure is higher in cost, in trying to develop and getting that through in our State of California, but the use would eventually be lower. Or now it's lower because it's electrified in comparison to fuel.

But the Legislature is also looking into trying to make up that loss of revenue to try to compensate and have revenue available in a different manner to make up for that loss of revenue to cover the infrastructure part of it. So it's one of those things that we're going around and around, and I just wanted to, if anything, plant the seed that as we consider these requirements for advancing our zero-emissions goals, the State of California.

That it does have, ultimately, a financial impact on the consumers, on our everyday consumers. And if anything moving forward that we think about that immediate impact, especially on the cost of living in California. And I say that because I represent the Inland Empire, which is heavy when it comes to the freight movement and not so much manufacturing in today's times, but a lot of the freight movement that we see in goods within the state.

And I can tell you that the costs that we incur, that our companies incur in trying to move these goods ultimately impact. So I admire the goals and respect the goals, but how quickly we implement those or the impact that it has on our communities is great, especially in the cost of living for those that are in the lower socioeconomic area, especially in my community. So I just wanted to plant the seed on that. But thank you very much for your answers today.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Laird.

Thank you very much. And I appreciated meeting with you, appreciate your willingness to do the service. And Mr. Eisenhut in part answered one of the questions I was going to ask, and it's how you were implementing the dashboard Bill. And last year, as part of the climate package, we asked that you do a dashboard so that people can see where we stand on all the issues. And since I met with you yesterday, the first iteration of it was sent to me.

So it is very good. And let me ask more generally to both of you and start with Mr. Eisenhut. How do you feel that the Air Board could improve in communicating what it's doing and what people need to do?

Thank you. I took some time to review the dashboard, and I alluded I'll refer back to my previous answer. I think that there are some targeted goals. Specifically, the one that comes to mind has to do with employment, which is siloed in that dashboard. And the information is there, but it requires the user to sum it up. And I think as the dashboard matures, a single point of access for folks who have those kinds of interests is appropriate. That's my best answer.

I appreciate it, Mr. Morkin.

So are we officially renaming it to the Laid Dashboard? I just wanna be sure I'm referencing it.

I wouldn't be surprised, ma'am. He is the former Secretary of Natural Resources.

Well, if that were a real dashboard, it would tell you that if Kern county were a state, it would be the fourth largest oil producing state in the United States.

I don't remember seeing that.

Not a real dashboard. Please ignore the interruption of my colleagues and proceed.

I kind of think I started that, so I apologize.

Ms. Takvorian, you did not start. You know, our court reporter knew in advance and was typing way ahead of John. I'm sorry, the Senator speaking. So go ahead, Ms. Takvorian.

Well, I think the dashboard is a great start, and I really appreciated that. It shows what the reductions have been, and I would like to see more fine-tuning, I think, of not just the dashboard, but of all our communications. And I think it kind of goes with the conversation we were having about how we're changing externally related to equity, because I think equity is about everyone understanding what the state's doing, and particularly in this case, what CARB is doing.

So I'd like to see it being more in line with a popular education kind of approach where we're speaking in common language so that everyone can understand where we're going and what the changes are. And I think the dashboard is a good start for that.

But having communicated a lot well, been communicated to and communicating a lot with folks who don't live and breathe lists like a lot of us do, I think it's very important that we are able to talk about why these regulations are important and why they may have an impact on people's lives and businesses. So that it's much clearer because we think about heavy-duty trucks, for instance. They only represent 12% of transportation of the transportation population, but almost 50% of all of the NOx emissions.

That to me is compelling and something that we should figure out how to talk about more effectively.

Yes. If I could add to my answer, I would love an acronym free dashboard.

I think I told you in the meeting yesterday I was on a campaign against acronyms.

That would be my goal for that maturation of the dashboard.

I appreciate that because I think people need to understand what we're talking about, and they don't if we descend into acronyms. I think the other question I was going to ask we talked about yesterday, and that is that I know that Member Takvorian is now a public member by appointment, but originally was an environmental justice category, and Mr. Eisenhut is in the agriculture.

And so you're to represent sort of that area, but you have a larger task and to make a brief comment about the larger task, because I think it's appropriate to acknowledge in the hearing, is that the Air Board, when Assembly Bill 32 was passed in 2006 was actually charged, was given authority, was given money, was charged with lowering emissions and meeting our goals. And there have been times in the Legislature where people say, how come this unelected board is doing this?

This unelected board is doing this because the Legislature and the Governor statutorily tasked them with doing it. This wasn't a grab of power. And so now there is this larger task. It is how do we meet these goals to lower emissions in California in increments by decade until 2045? Each of you start or started with a niche you're supposed to represent. How do you make sure your niche is represented and how do you embrace the larger task of meeting these goals? And maybe we'll go in the same order again,

What was the same order again?

That's you.

Well, I would expand on your opening comment. I don't consider myself a representative of agriculture. I consider myself to be a representative. And the oath I took is to the citizens in the Constitution of the state. I consider that I bring an awareness of agriculture, and the challenge is to integrate that awareness, to integrate that awareness with the tasks that we have undertaken. And you do that carefully, knowingly, and always embracing the final outcome. That's the best answer.

Before we go to your colleague, one of the things you told me when we were meeting is that you are the only board member that has had to apply for a burn permit.

That's true.

Talk about that a second and how that informs you in what you do.

Well, I alluded to that. You missed my opening comments, but I did introduce that topic in my opening comments that very specifically we engaged in some rulemaking on open burning, and there were some very, I don't want to get too far in the weeds on this, but there were some complex issues that were an understanding of what was possible and what was not possible.

And I think I brought that understanding to the table as part of our discussion, and I believe it added to the texture and the outcome of the rulemaking that we ultimately adopted. And it also helped in conversation with industry folks who frankly were pushing us in some directions and making pronouncements about what they could and could not accomplish. And I was able to challenge some of those assertions about what they were not able to do. So it was a two-way conversation.

So, you might say that you're not per se representing agriculture, but experience you have had in agriculture, is what really ground truths certain things that come in front of you.

That's correct.

Okay. And go to your colleague.

Thank you. It's interesting. On the one hand, I feel that we're all made up of we're very multilayered, right and have multiple experiences. And I think in my opening, which you may have missed also, I said I've run a nonprofit for more than 40 years, so I feel like I've run a small business and made payroll and had to comply with regulations. So I have that experience, although that's not what's at the top of my resume or my application.

So I feel like I bring those experiences, but I've never farmed or had agricultural experience. And so that's why I feel like our board is diverse and provides us with a variety of experiences that we can all call on. But you have to think about it in a broad way. There's no way for any of us to think narrowly.

That said, I think that as we focus on disadvantaged communities and the pollution that's there, we're benefiting the entire State of California. As we transition heavy-duty trucks, as we've been talking about, to zero-emission. That's going to benefit everyone. Yes, it's going to benefit those communities that have been impacted the most for being next to rail yards and ports and factories and freeways. They've been impacted more. They're going to get more benefit. Just that's the math. But the whole state will benefit as well.

So I feel like most things are, while we may have a particular focus, really serve the entire State of California, and we have to pay attention to what the impacts are across the board.

Thank you. Appreciate the answers from both of you.

Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you both for being here today. Ms. Takvorian, your story was very impactful to be the first person in your family to go to college and to come here from another country and seize the American dream, and become the person that you are today with the wealth that your family has amassed. And I think that's what every person coming to the United States desires freedom and the ability to have upward mobility to just what America offers. So thank you.

Mr. Eisenhut, thank you so much for meeting with me. I follow up a little bit on my colleague, the former Chair of Natural Resources. Comments about you represent the agriculture. You don't represent it, but you do have an agricultural background, a feedlot, I believe. Yes. Or is that correct? So I appreciate your family's dedication and hard work and the time that your family had that feedlot and the experience that it brought you, because I believe with what Ms. Takvorian said.

We all are making decisions about our sphere of influence and the way that we've been impacted in society or the way that we've led our lives. And I think we come from different places. My colleague comes from the Bay Area. I represent the top three food-producing counties in the world, 70% of the state's oil, 58% of the state's renewable energy. My colleague, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, has a large swath of Los Angeles in a very urban area.

So we all have different areas of the state that we represent, and we're all shaped by our life experiences, I guess. So I appreciate you both being there. I want to dive right into questions because of the area that I represent, which is the farming community and the oil industry, obviously. I realize that the Legislature sets the law. I realize that and you guys are just there to adopt the rules and do your best to comply with what the Legislature has adopted.

So there is going to be a turnover in heavy-duty fleet vehicles or not even just off-road vehicles, but heavy-duty fleet vehicles because they want to be electrified. That's in 2036. But in 2024, there will be certain vehicles not allowed on the road because they were purchased in, I believe, 2007-8. There's a certain time frame there which these vehicles will not be allowed on the road because they can't get recertified by CARB, the engine, not the equipment.

So my question is that I realize the Legislature put in a date, a specific date, but has there been any thought about using miles or the engine itself? For instance, I talked to several farmers when they found out you guys were coming up for confirmation. One farmer has 16 vehicles that have to be replaced because of the year that they're in. One vehicle has 10,000 miles on it. The highest vehicle has 30,000 miles on it.

Now, if you have a 30,000 miles vehicle, that's a pretty new vehicle when you look at engine capacity. And so the question I believe that Mr. Eisenhut got part of an answer for me, which I really do appreciate it. So this question will go to you, Ms. Techborian.

If biofuels are a reduction of NOx emissions for these vehicles and we run biofuel through these older vehicles and it reduces the emissions, why would we require our farming communities and our equipment operators and our road construction people to buy brand new vehicles if we can run biofuels through the vehicles, through the engines and reduce the emissions that way?

Okay, thank you for your question. I'm going to try to answer what I can and we may end up with parts I can't. But my understanding is that we have created a schedule to remove legacy trucks from the California fleet at the end of their useful life or 18 years. However, if a tractor exceeds 800,000 miles, it will need to be removed from the fleet at the end of that year unless the engine is still less than 13 years.

So it's a complex system, but I believe that it's fair to say that we're not asking folks to purchase new trucks unless they hit one of those benchmarks. So that, I think, is the first part of your question. And for all other vehicles, including yard trucks, the useful life is 18 years regardless of miles. So you may be referencing a truck that has hit 18 years and has however many miles it has on it.

So an internal combustion engine with a 2015 engine would continue to operate until 2033 before it would need to be removed from the California fleet. So that's my understanding of how the legacy, what we're calling the legacy trucks would operate. And so I think the intention was to provide as much time and opportunity in that system for users, drivers to prepare for that transition.

I appreciate that answer, but I think the overall goal of the legislation is to reduce emissions or go to zero emissions. And part of that has been a process for ultra low carbon fuels, low carbon fuels and I guess the dashboard and how these vehicles will be replaced. So with new technology that wasn't available back when this legislation was passed with biofuels and biodiesel. And biodiesel.

If you could run biodiesel, which the testing is out there, and reduce those emissions equivalent to a new vehicle or at 80% reduction of NOx emissions. Why would we require, and again, you have full authority. Why would we require CARB not to certify older engines with biofuels which accomplishes the same goal of emission reductions, but doesn't cost the user millions of dollars?

Well, I think we're looking at transportation as the major sector that needs to be reduced in terms of emissions. And I believe that it's fair to say that unless we move to zero emission vehicles, we're not getting the same emission reductions. So that is the intent and on both the light duty and the heavy duty side, as I understand it.

And so while there are some exceptions built into the advanced clean fleet rule, I think the goal is for us to move to zero emission and to give adequate time for everyone to make that transition. In addition to, I think, quite generous incentives that are available through the legislature and the budget so that drivers and fleet owners have the ability to make those changes.

I agree 100% with what you're saying. There's time, there's resources available for incentives to buy electric vehicles and electric. I agree with you 100%. I guess I didn't make my point for a response. And a question is, if the new technology for biofuels, biofuel diesel, biodiesel will reduce those emissions to what? It won't go to zero, but it will be 80% if that's tested and true, based on CARB.

If that's tested and true, why would we require in 2024 for somebody to get rid of a 2005 vehicle that only has 30,000 miles on it? If we run biodiesel through it instead of regular diesel, we still have 80% reduction, which meets the standard. Instead of having them buy a new vehicle and then a few years later, 10 years at 2036, buy a zero emission vehicle. If the new technology and fuel will achieve the same low carbon emission goal, why are we not looking at that?

I don't know that we're not looking at that through the low carbon fuel standard. And how that's moving forward. Are you referencing the drayage truck regulation for 2024?

So yes.

So that's only for drayage trucks, and those are only for new drainage trucks that would attempt, want to come into the registry. If you're already in the drayage registry and you're a fossil fuel diesel truck, you're there until you meet one of these other benchmarks. So it wouldn't apply. No one's being asked to buy a new truck in 2024 unless they are wanting to become a drayage truck and register with one of the ports or the State of California.

Okay, I will look for the response I got from CARB and clarify that.

Okay.

I do want to follow up again. Mr. Eisenhut, I do have questions for you too, but I want to ask Ms. Takvorian a couple of more. You mentioned the ports, you mentioned the $9 billion in dollars that we, the Legislature, have allocated for incentives for people to buy electrified equipment. So I met with the Southern California all from Fresno down to the southern border, lift truck operators for Toyota that provides these.

A lot of them operate within the port system, Long Beach Port, and they use electric vehicles. The problem the port has is that in order to lease a facility on the port, to operate, you have to comply with CARB's electric vehicle forklift standards, equipment standards. But the port itself has very old buildings and does not have three phase power in a lot of these places. And they're using gas powered generators to charge their electric forklifts because they don't have infrastructure connectivity.

Is that something that you guys are working for or with CPUC or Energy Commission or whatever to address the Public Utility Commission to address these connectivity issues that people are really struggling with? So, Ms. Takvorian?

I think the simple answer is yes. We've had multiple meetings with representatives of the Energy Commission and others in order to talk about what the system should be that can expedite infrastructure development. And ports are certainly ones that need to have as much assistance as I think we can provide to them.

And when you have those conversations, what are the solutions that you're offering? What are the solutions discussed and coming forward? Is it rate increases on utility payers? Like, how are we going to pay for this infrastructure and how is it going to be put in place in order to achieve carbs goals?

Well, I think the Energy Commission and CPUC are working on that. I don't have a direct answer to that since I don't serve on that Commission.

Yeah, but you've been working with them.

We hear reports from them, updates from them, because infrastructure, charging infrastructure is, as I think Mr. Eisenhut said earlier, a common topic, let's put it that way.

I agree. My phone rings off the hook regarding that common topid. Thank you very much. Thank you to your question, Mr. Eisenhut. Thank you for meeting with me. Obviously representing the top three food producing counties in the world, and like your colleague, Ms. Takvorian has run a nonprofit, has never grown food. We grow food in the Central Valley. One of the questions that I have for you is farmers are very, very concerned about the tenure expectation away for heavy duty electrified vehicles.

Their concern is that if there is not the technology, which there is not now available, how will our farmers that produce top three food producing counties in the world--so the impact of the world's food supply--how will we get our commodities to the border of California and Nevada, Arizona, so that we can offload that equipment onto diesel trucks or trucks that will travel throughout the United States and deliver our products. Like, how do we get it there?

First, let me go back to your comment. And I want to clarify. I was not involved in the feedlot business, but in the almond business, I need to make that, I need to make that clarification. The adoption of the fleet and other clean truck requirements is a long phased in adoption, and it has off ramps. Specifically, the Advanced Clean Fleet Rule has some technology off ramps. And if that technology is not there, not available, the adoption will be delayed pending the availability of that technology.

So I know that folks have anxiety looking into the future. They don't have the confidence that this action is technology forcing. We do have that confidence. And to the folks who are worried, and Ms. Takvorian and I are unified in this, when we have these discussions at the board level, our consistent request of staff, our expectation of staff, is that we will hear annual reports on the progress of this technology. And if we have to go back and look, we'll go back and look. But our expectations are high.

Okay, I appreciate that very much. And that really does ease a little bit of my concern, because when I had the meeting with these growers and farmers and people that provide this product or this commodity to the world. They equated it to 65,000 people leaving a concert and trying to all get an Uber driver to get their product moved or to get home. So I think that would be a disaster on our border going east. So thank you for that.

Ms. Takvorian, do you concur with that, or would you like to change that?

I agree. I was responding to the analogy that you were giving about the Uber drivers.

It's just one of the ones that the farmers brought up. I appreciate that. So I do, Ms. Takvorian, I do want to ask you one more question. It's just a follow up based on what you said on the impacted Advanced Clean Fuel Rule, not just drayage. So the other fleets, other than just what is considered in the legal definition of the definition that you put forward on drayage, other fleets are impacted as well, including tractors from, like, western growers use.

It's not just drayage fleets that are affected. And again, go back to my question. I realize there's all this other I don't want to say commotion on the sides, know mileage and rules, and this. The ultimate goal is to reduce emissions in the State of California. And if you can achieve those emissions by using biofuel technology, which was not available in the past, and you can achieve that, why would you get rid of your equipment? That's perfectly good.

If the biofuels will reduce, the biodiesel will reduce those emissions, and it affects more than drayage equipment.

Yeah, I was just responding just to go back to the 2024 that you had mentioned. So that's drayage registration, so other trucks, high priority fleets, so then you have to have more than 50 trucks in a fleet are on a phased schedule starting in 2025 to 2040. 2042. So there's a schedule for that. So if I misspoke, I apologize.

No, you didn't.

I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

And there will be, I think, as Mr. Eisenhut mentioned, technology reviews and a report that's coming forward in 2028. And that would be an opportunity for us to take a look at other systems that may work as well.

No, it's okay. I appreciate that what I'd like you to do, and I know I've exhausted my time, and I apologize to the Madam Chair for doing that.

But I just want to drive home the point that even after this Committee hearing, if you guys go back to your staff and you have a board and they're here in this room or listening to this conversation, I really would like an answer that if you can use the technology adopted by biodiesel and biofuels that will reduce the emissions even in older vehicles, why are we not using that instead of requiring the new purchase?

Because you're looking at changing a fuel product and still achieving the emission goals versus paying $250,000 for a brand new piece of equipment. That's significant. So just think about that, and I would appreciate if you would follow either of you or both of you would follow up with my office. Thank you for taking my questions.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. And clearly the conversations here, a lot of really in-depth questions because this has obviously not been an easy topic to figure out how to undo behaviors, changing technology, obviously economics. California, the size state that it is, fourth or fifth largest economy in the world, depending upon who you ask. You know, there are a lot of issues to be considered. So I appreciate the fact that you're willing to dive into these issues so deeply.

Again, it's not a full time job, and yet we spend a lot of our time talking about these issues, and various bills and policies come forward based on our discussions, and these are our full time jobs. So I appreciate that. My colleagues have asked a lot of questions. I could go into great detail about cap and trade, but I actually am going to defer because of time factors because I get to have these conversations with you directly, in particular, Diane, who lives in San Diego County.

I just want to ask one question about local air districts because they've complained about the funding related to AB 617 hasn't kept pace with the rate of additions of new communities to the program. And the existing funding for the program is being spread more thinly as more communities have been added. That makes sense. How should CARB balance adding more communities to the program versus supporting existing communities to meet the goals? What's your framework for approaching that?

And Ms. Takvoria, I'll let you go first, and then I'll ask Mr. Eisenhut if he wants to add anything.

Thank you. I would agree with your statement that the air districts are correct, that we haven't been able to grow the pot of money. So we're at 19 communities now, and the Legislature, there was extra money made available in this last budget cycle that allowed there to be some additional dollars, not comparable to the initial allocations for the two new communities that were being added. And one of those was the international border community. So we were pretty familiar with that.

No dollars were added at the point when that community came on. So just in our region. I think there's an issue of, we need more money, honestly, in order to do this work. It's deep work. It's work that requires community members, 30 at least, coming on. The community driven community steering committees, they create a very detailed plan. The air districts have a lot of work to do. We're paying stipends to community members to be there, and so it's not inexpensive to do it.

And then there's all the incentives. In order for these community emission reduction plans to be successful, we need to have money to allocate so that the vehicles can transition, so that we can do a variety of things. So I would say that we need the Legislature to continue to fund those programs. And I think we need,and this is not a CARB perspective. It's my perspective. And that is that we need to make sure that the allocations are equitable across the communities, because they haven't been.

And I think we need to relook at that. And I think CARB is very well equipped to do it and should do that at this point.

Thank you. Mr. Eisenhut, anything you want to add to that.

I'm debating. What I would add is I agree with Ms. Takvorian's assessment and her recommendations. I think that moving forward, and there is an ongoing assessment of the 617 lessons learned paths forward, and we expect to have that assessment available to us, I believe this late fall, early winter. So that's information coming. My perspective is that we have garnered a substantive amount of information about community air protection, community assessments, community involvement.

And that moving forward, rather, this needs to become a blueprint for action across all communities, because if we just continue to add five communities a year to this program, there will be winners and losers, and I resist that as an operating technique.

Well, thank you for that additional comment. We're going to go to members of the public now. I feel like we could probably spend hours, because I'm sure my colleagues have other comments or questions just to have the dialogue. But I appreciate that you're both willing to follow up or take our calls, maybe, if we have questions or concerns. I did want to say I want to thank you both.

I want to thank you for the role that you play, Mr. Eisenhut, and the communities you represent and the perspective you bring. And obviously to you as well, Ms. Takvorian. You know, to the former Secretary of Natural Resources, obviously, we like to give him some grief. There actually isn't a designated EJ appointment to this board, I don't believe.

I think there's been pieces of legislation advanced to put different Members, but what I see are two public Members, AG, Automotive, Law, Air Pollution Control, and six Air Quality Management District representatives, a Senate appointment and an Assembly appointment. So I think we try to cover a lot of bases when we put appointments onto these boards or approve appointments. There are designated ones. I appreciate the AG perspective. I know my colleague from Kern County does as well as others.

But I also appreciate the environmental justice position and appreciate your role in that as well. So we're going to go ahead and go to members of the public and, what are you pointing at? Oh, as I was getting ready to say, my Vice Chair is backing me up quite well. We're going to go to members of the public, and I'm going to let her start that process so I can step out for 1 second. But I will be right back. Madam Vice Chair. Thank you for.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So we'll go to members of the public in this room. If you want to step forward to this microphone. We'll take positions of support and opposition both.

Hi, Raquel Mason, here on behalf of the California Environmental Justice Alliance, here in strong support for the nomination of Diane Takvorian. Also registering support for the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Environmental Health Coalition, Scope, CCAEJ and Cause. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Hi. Olivia Seideman with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability in strong support of Diane Takvorian's nomination. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Sofia Rafikova, with the Coalition for Clean Air, in strong support of both Board Member Eisenhut and Board Member Takvorian, for this confirmation.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Good afternoon. Tiffany Eng, here on the behalf of Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles, Communities for a Better Environment or CBE, the center on Race, Poverty and Environment, or CRPE and PODER in strong support of Diane Takvorian. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon. Darryl Little, on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, in strong support of both candidates. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Little. Next witness.

Dan Chow, with Enterprise Holdings, in support of both candidates before you. They're seasoned, principled, and pragmatic.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon. Taylor Roshan, on behalf of the California Fresh Fruit Association, Western Plant Health Association, Western Agricultural Processors Association, Plant California Alliance, Walnut Commission, and the California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association, in support of Mr. Eisenhut. Thank you.

Thank you.

Michael Boccadoro, on behalf of the AG Energy Consumers, in support of Mr. Eisenhut. We've also had a great opportunity to brief Ms. Takvorian on some of our issues as well, and find her to be very open to learning. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others in room 2200? So I guess we'll go to the moderator. Moderator, if you're available, do we have individuals on the line that would like to comment? We'll take both opposition and support.

If you would like to provide public comment today, please press one, then zero at this time. And we have a comment from line 26. Please go ahead.

Hi. This is Kevin Hamilton, Director of Central California Asthma Collaborative and also representing Valley Improvement Project in Stanislaus County in support of both Mr. Eisenhut and Ms. Takvorian. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Moderator. Is there another?

We have two more comments coming through. One moment, please. Will we provide them with line numbers.

Thank you, sir.

And we have a comment from line 27.

Hi. My name is Melina Mason. I'm here on behalf of the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District and with strong support for Diane Takvorian. Thank you.

Thank you.

We lost the other comment, so we have no further comments at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I appreciate that. We'll be back with you shortly, and when we get to our next conferee, I'll bring it back to the dais.

Madam Chair?

Yes, sir.

We can do this as one motion for both of them, right?

They have to be separated, sir.

Okay, then I will move Member Eisenhut first. For confirmation.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, Mr. Eisenhut's confirmation. Would you please call the roll?

Laird? Laird aye. Ochoa Bogh? Ochoa Bogh not voting. Smallwood-Cuevas? Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Grove? Grove aye. Atkins? Atkins aye. Four to zero.

And then, Madam Chair, I would move Member Takvorian for confirmation.

Thank you, Senator Laird.

Laird? Laird aye. Ochoa Bogh? Ochoa Bogh not voting. Smallwood-Cuevas? Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Grove? Grove not voting. Atkins? Atkins aye. Three to zero.

Thank you. So both of you have been voted out of Rules Committee to go to the full floor vote, hopefully in the next few weeks. Congratulations. You have your work cut out for you. Both of you do. And we appreciate you being here today, and thank you for your families, if they're here as well.

Thank you. Do we need to take a short break? Well, I know that you guys have the next order of conferees been waiting, but we do need to give our court reporter a little bit of a break as she takes down every single thing that we say. So we'll be back in 5 minutes? 5 minutes.

You.

Okay, colleagues, let me go ahead and call us back to order. And while we do this, let me ask our secretary. We're going to go ahead and call the role on some of these votes, madam Vice Chair. So let's see on item and I will tell you how it was done and the votes were broken down. So, Madam Secretary, will you call the role on governor's appointees not required to appear F and G. And those were the Commission on the Peace Officer standards and training.

Grove.

Aye.

Grove aye. Five to zero.

Five to zero. Thank you. And then item two, H and K together. These are Members of the Arts Commission.

Grove.

No, sorry.

But I think maybe what is unique about me is I'm not sure it's unique, but I think I'm a good combination of being an inherently creative person, a writer, someone who doesn't take no for an answer if I think that it's incumbent that we find a solution. And that combined with a legal background, too. And I'm an athlete, so I think that I have a good sense of how teams work and that we're stronger when we work together.

Grove no. Three to two.

Okay, three to two, that is out. Thank you. And then item two, I, J, and L together. Also Members of the Arts Commission. Call the roll.

Grove.

Aye.

Grove aye. Five to zero.

Five to zero. Thank you. Item three, referral of bills. Call the roll.

Grove.

Aye.

Grove aye. Five to zero.

Thank you. Five to zero. Item four, Subcommitee ratifications. Call the roll.

Grove.

Aye.

Grove aye. Five to zero.

Five to zero. Thank you. Item five floor acknowledgments. And this is the one by myself for SDSU Aztecs. Open the roll.

Grove.

Aye.

Grove aye. Five to zero.

Five to zero. Thank you. And the last item, item six, a request from Senator Skinner to introduce some folks. Open the roll.

Grove.

Not voting.

Grove, not voting. Three to zero.

Thank you very much. Three to zero. That is out. We will go next to item one, C, D, and E. And these are Members to the California State University Board of Trustees. Let me welcome Leslie Gilbert, Laurie Jack McGorry and Jose Antonio Vargas. And thank you for your patience, by the way. We will ask each of you to do what the former appointees did, which is to introduce yourself, thank anyone you would like, or acknowledge anyone, and then make some opening comments.

We'll just go down the row. We'll start with you, Mr. Vargas. Then go to Mr. McGorry. And then Ms. Laurie. Actually, it's Gilbert Laurie. Did you want to ask something before?

I think these two have volunteered me to go first.

Oh, they did? Well, that's kind of them. Mr. McGrory, happy to let you go first. Do you have a recommendation for who goes second?

Yes. Leslie.

Okay, absolutely.

And Jose. We're team here.

Teamwork. What is that phrase? Dreamwork. Thank you. So, Mr. McGorry, go ahead. And then I will proceed.

I want to thank President Pro Tem mapkins, who's been my sponsor in this endeavor. And I've been on the Board of trustees for the last five years. I was appointed by Governor Brown, and after a 1 hour and 45 minutes interview with him, I made it through it. And it's been a real honor to be part of the board. Just a little personal information. I grew up in South Boston. Neither of my parents are high school graduates.

The war interrupted their high school, and off they went. And I was a first generation college student, so I got to Colgate University on a full scholarship, played two Division One sports. Then the Selective Service Board got a hold of me, and I spent the next four years as a Marine Corps infantry officer. And when I came back after 13 months in Asia, I ended up at Camp Pendleton, and that was 50 years ago. And I love California and San Diego and could never leave again.

I've had a great career after the Marine Corps, I went to work in the City of San Diego city government for 23 years, started as an administrative trainee and then ended up seven years as city manager. And then I got recruited by Saul Price to be CEO of Price Enterprises. Salt Price was the founder of Price Clubs, and eventually Costco and I spent a few years doing that.

We built up the company and sold it, and then I became Chief Operating Officer of the San Diego Padres and the President of the company that built Petco Park. And we got done with Petco Park. I realized that we had come in last place in the National League West for three years in a row, and this probably wasn't a good future for me. And I went back to work with Saul, and we founded a Price Club company in Central America, the Caribbean, and South America.

And now we have 55 stores here. And after he died, I have my own company, which is a real estate and investment company. I have been heavily associated with San Diego State. When I started with the city, I went out to San Diego State and got my Master's in Public Administration at night, and then got my law degree from USD at night and proceeded through my career with the city. I've taught at San Diego State for 25 years at night as an instructor.

I was on the Campanile Foundation board at San Diego State. The last three years I was chair, and we completed an $830,000,000 campaign on behalf of State. So it's been fun. I've enjoyed it all. I'm still Chair of the School of Public Affairs at San Diego State and Chair of the Veterans Council there, along with the duties I have on the California State University Board.

Leslie.

Ms. Gilbert-Laurie, go ahead.

Thank you. And I guess you should have gone last, actually. But thank you, Senators, for inviting us here today. I'm honored that the Governor has given me this opportunity. And I also want to introduce I really appreciate my wonderful husband, cliff Gilbert Lurie. I don't know how many tens of decades we've been married and my colleague Emmy Meyer, who are both here in support.

I was born in Los Angeles, and I'm a product of public education from kindergarten through law school as an undergraduate at UCLA I gained invaluable board experience and educational policy experience when I was appointed to be the student Regent on the Board of Regents of the University of California. So this is sort of like there's no place like home almost coming back here. And I was the first in my family to graduate from college and then from law school.

I clerked for a 9th Circuit judge after law school, worked briefly at a law firm, and then spent much of my career as a television Executive at NBC. I was the head of comedy there and ran their in house production company, NBC Productions. While I was there, I helped found a nonprofit called the alliance for Children's Rights, which is a nonprofit law center that focuses on foster youth. And 30 years later, I'm still on the alliance board and integrally involved.

When I left NBC, I was appointed to be on the La County Board of Education, where I served for 13 years. During that time, I also wrote a memoir, Bending Toward the sun, which explores my mother's experience as a child in the Holocaust and the intergenerational transmission of trauma. So I sort of go from comedy to tragedy. My mother and I speak frequently about our book in connection with events in the world today at schools, high schools, middle schools, colleges throughout the country.

I also currently serve on the International Board of Human Rights, the La Mayor's Fund Board, the Pacific Council on International Policy Board, and the UCLA Foundation, UCLA Law School Board, and UCLA Hospital Board. So I bring to the CSU experience I said I would talk slowly. Okay. I bring to the CSU experience in education, business, strategic planning, advocacy, and creativity. And I also bring a humility.

I hope that comes from having three young adult children who often remind me that I grew up in a different world and that I can't really relate to a lot of their opinions in this world, which I think I'm still a part of. But all of this will inform how I approach this great challenge. I'm looking forward to working with our CSU team, my team up here, and each of you, to make the system more equitable, diverse, collaborative, forward thinking, user friendly, and financially sustainable.

I'd like to play a role in helping to creatively brand the system, showcasing what makes each campus unique. And I also want to work with our board to ensure that students, staff, and faculty feel safe from discrimination, harassment, and violence of any type. I'll just end by saying I want the Cal system to not just be the biggest, but to be the very best in the country at what we do. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mr. Vargas.

Thank you for having me here. Is it on now?

It is.

So you said someone to thank? I would love to thank my mother.

It's always a good move.

So she sent me to America 30 years ago this August, and because of our immigration system, we haven't seen each other since. But she sent me here. And when she sent me here, my grandmother, her mother, raised me. So on my drive here, I was thinking of one of my favorite poems by Dr. Maya Angelou. It's called grandmother. And in the poem, she says, I come as one, but I stand as 10,000.

I called my grandmother on my way here to remind myself kind of who I am. And then I am a journalist by training, so I have to check my facts. So I reached out to the Chancellor's office. So if I'm confirmed here, apparently I would be the first Filipino and the first undocumented immigrant who's regularly appointed trustee to the system. I am the grandson of this woman, LeoniLA Salinas.

She made it only up to 6th grade at IBA Elementary School in Zambales in the Philippines, because she had to go work. So 6th grade was it? The value of education is deeply instilled with who I am. I got to this point because I'm fortunate enough to have had opportunity to pursue an affordable let me underline affordable education. I am fortunate to call the state my home because in our state, we're almost, what, 30% of the population is foreign born, right?

More opportunities are afforded to immigrants regardless of immigration status. I cannot say the same about most of the states in this country, and I will not talk about the other states when it comes to undocumented immigrants. Because I've had these opportunities, I endeavor to have as much impact as possible and live my life as freely as I can. I'm a journalist by training. I'm also an author.

I'm happy to say that the first book that I wrote, dear America Notes of an Undocumented Citizen, the first University to really look at it and study it, is Cal State Northridge. So I was really happy about that. I'm the founder of a nonprofit organization called Define American, and I own a production company. I may not have the privilege of having a valid US passport or a green card, but I am creatively borderless.

And if I am to be confirmed as a trustee of this system, I want to pay my opportunities forward to everyone, regardless of race, class, or immigration status. I arrived here, as I said, in 1993. I think that was also the same year that Toni Morrison ended up being awarded the first Nobel Prize for Literature for a Black woman. And she has this great saying that I carry with me a lot. The function of freedom is to free someone else.

The function of freedom is to free someone else. So this question how do you define American? I take this very seriously. I've been traveling around the country in front of everybody, regardless of what they think of my status, asking this question. And as I sit here with my colleagues, I cannot imagine defining American without undocumented people, without Filipino people in them. So I'm just very humbly, very humbled to be here. Thank you for having me.

Thank you very much. Wonderful to hear from each of you. I am going to turn and start with you, Senator Laird, who wears multiple hats, one of which is on the budget Subcommitee related to education. Senator Laird.

Thank you. Just this hearing seems mundane after your opening statements. One of the things I was going to ask and all three of you almost totally answered it anyway, but let me give you a chance to add what unique personal experiences all three of you have. How are you going to bring that to the board?

And I'm going to ask you a more mundane question in a minute, but when you get to those more mundane questions about how to provide in the system, how is your life experience going to influence how you operate as a board Member?

Do you want to direct it?

I think I'll switch orders because we're voting now. I'm just teasing. We'll start with Gilbert-Lurie and I think come across to McGrory and Vargas, if that's okay.

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to answer that question. I feel like there's so many ways I could approach it. I'm struck on our board by how unique so many of the trustees are when you get to talk to them and know them. And it seems that what bonds us all is a passion for students and the potential of an education.

I also think my mother's I bring up my mother's experience as a Holocaust survivor because I think that even though I carried around my whole life a guilt, that I had so much more opportunity than my mom. Things like birthday parties and moms and normal and going to elementary school, I have a sense of both being an outsider and an insider. And I feel those both. And I also feel that I'm who I am today because of all the mentors in my life.

So I bring a sense of wanting to connect with students I meet, wanting them to come along. And I connect almost everything I've accomplished in my life to having been a product of public schools in California. And I want the CSU, I want every student at a CSU to believe that they could be anything they want to be as a result of going through the system.

Thank you very much. Mr. McGrory.

That's a tough one to answer. But I think what I try to do is not to forget where I came from. I came from a tough South Boston, Irish Catholic working class neighborhood. I was in a gang at 11 years old. It was just a tough place to grow up. And a lot of the students.

You were in a gang?

In a gang, yeah.

At 11 you would have been the last one of the three I would have.

But for the students in our system, the vast majority are first generation college kids. They come from tough circumstances and we have to do more than any University probably in the country. We have to do more to support them and keep that in mind, where they came from, what they need in terms of being successful in their careers. And it takes a lot of work.

Our system is the social mobility engine in the State of California, and we need to remember that and make sure that we're providing all these kids every opportunity to succeed and to get a college degree and move on and be part of our labor force.

Thank you very much.

I just want to second something that Leslie said, which is just the sheer diversity of all the board Members. Like when I walked to my first board meeting, it was really incredible because you really get to see why diversity matters, right? Like, for example, one of our board Members is Latifah Simon. I don't know if you follow her in her career. And I'm saying that when you ask about the unique thing. I am a journalist by training. I became a journalist when I was like 16.

And being a journalist for me, is not just something I do, it's just the way I think. And so sometimes I feel as if we focus so much on answers without actually figuring out if we're asking the right questions. So that is the kind of discernment and the thinking that I hope to bring to this, which I'm going to be really honest, this is overwhelming just how huge the system is, right?

And so I'm still kind of trying to figure out exactly what it is we're not asking and why we're not asking them. So I think that's the first thing, and the second thing I think I have to say is maybe because I'm not a legal citizen, I find this question of citizenship very important.

I would say really critical that we're not just handing out diplomas, we're actually talking about what it means to be a part of the state, what it means to be a citizen of California, whether or not you have immigrant status. And that's something that I think I'd like to bring to this system, like what it means to show up as a civic participant, what it means to be a contributing part of our state. I'm glad that Jack said this.

Leslie, in one of the meetings preparing for this was quoting this statistic that for every dollar invested in the CSU system, we get $7 back. Right. And that's numbers, and that's great, but I was thinking about that in terms of what that means for our communities. Right.

The great majority of CSU graduates stay in their communities, stay in this state, and I want to be a part of trying to figure out what that means moving forward, especially because this appointment is for an eight year term, so I'll be, like, 50 when it's over.

You're a kid.

Is that old?

I don't know. I'm just saying, just factually saying I'll be 50 by the time that term is over. That's a long time, and I want to make sure that I use that time as wisely as possible.

Well, let me thank each of you for your answers, and having had an uneven path to where I am here, it's hard to talk personally about it, and each of you did, and I just really appreciate that. And then for my more mundane question, but it is the top of the line for what you're doing. As was mentioned by the chair, three of the four Education Budget Subcommitee Members are Members of this Committee, and in this room.

We considered the CSU budget earlier this year, and it is in crisis. I don't think there's any other way to say it. There's billions of deferred maintenance. The increase the last two years doesn't even keep up with inflation. And you have labor agreements coming up, and you have people looking over at UC settling and thinking they have the ability to go much further than maybe the resources allow.

Last year, we attempted we had a recommendation to go about three times farther than the Governor was in the budget because we had a recognition of the challenges that are being faced by the CSU. And now you have a report in front of you. I think Trustee Julio Lopez did it that really lays out your financial challenges, and you don't have enough to do what you're supposed to be doing this year, much less in the years to of.

And we talked about this in our meeting, and thank you for the meeting. It is first, how do you see that challenge, and how do you see, other than your role as managers, your role as advocates, to be able to try to do what it takes to meet these needs going forward and address what was identified in those studies? Maybe we'll go in reverse order this time.

But the amount of resources that a lot of the tech companies that are based in the Bay Area give Stanford versus what they give to CSU East Bay or San Francisco State or San Jose State, Sonoma, that's the kind of thinking that I'm trying to understand. I'm also trying to understand, giving our declining enrollments, how do we talk about the value of a CSU diploma?

I had a fascinating conversation with President Newfeld at CSU San Marcos because her University is the top considered in the social mobility index report that came out last year from CollegeNET. And it was fascinating how I think nine of the top 20 in that list, which to me, by the way, is a more important list than the US. News ranking and World Report. Nine of them were CSUS. I wonder if our students know that. How do we tell? Leslie and I have bonded over this.

How do we tell a better story about this system and the uniqueness of each of these campuses? We have a storytelling challenge, right? And I want to meet that storytelling challenge and figure out how we can attract more investment and more fresh thinking and keep students. Right.

Basically, I'm happy to say, this season, I've convinced three of my relatives, one nephew, one niece, and one cousin, to go to a CSU instead of a UC or a private school, because I was like I sat them down, looked at the numbers, and said, see, this is what would happen. Right? And then I'm thinking, can I go to the CSU website? Can I go to the Instagram account? Do we have a TikTok thing for this?

How do we actually tell this better story of this campus? I know for me, when I got hired at The Washington Post in 2004, right out of college, surrounded by Princeton, Yale, and Harvard grads. I was so happy to say I went to San Francisco State. I majored in Black studies and political science, and I paid 850 a semester. How are you doing? Right.

I was really happy to say that, and I would think that that's the kind of thing that we ought to be continuing that kind of pride into what the system is.

Thank you very much, Mr. McGrory.

Yeah. I was a Member of Trustee Julio Lopez's task force, and we spent a lot of time looking at the expenses, looking at the potential revenues. Where can we save money? What are the potential revenue sources that we can look at? And she did a deep dive. She did a great job of leading this task force. And as far as we're concerned, everything's on the table. We've got to really begin to look at how do we sustain this university system long-term and what we've done now.

And as you all well know, we come to you every spring and we ask for money, and we don't look at other potential sources of revenue as hard as we should probably. I think we're missing the mark on philanthropy. We were only raising about 500 million a year in San Diego State is 130 of that. We should be in San Jose, San Francisco. We got deep pockets, and we need to do a much better job, like the UC does in raising money.

We need to, as Jose said, expand the relationships with corporate partners. We have a great relationship at Northridge, with Apple. San Diego State's got a great relationship with Qualcomm. They put money into the University. They provide internships and they provide jobs. And we need to continue to do that campus by campus and build as many corporate partnerships as we can. And we still have to look at the other revenue sources. We look at the governance compact as a minimum level of funding.

When you look at it against a flat tuition this year, it's a 2.6% increase in our funding. And we got a lot of challenges. I mean, we've got, as Jose said, declining enrollment that we've got to tackle. We have major issues in Title Nine that you're all too aware of that we're going to have to deal with immediately. And we've got the labor unions all at the table as of July 1, negotiating for new contracts.

We want to pay them a fair and equitable wage, but we're going to have to figure out a way to pay for it, and that's our biggest challenge.

Thank you very much.

I agree with everything that Jose and Jack said. In addition, the way I think about it is, as Jack said, well, I would say the only thing that's off the table is the CSU failing on our watch. We can't let it fail. So we do have to look at every alternative possible. We have to tell better stories and sell our schools better so that students understand why this is an education worth paying for.

The students who can afford to pay for it should be asked to pay for it, and those who can't, we need to raise enough money from the students who can to help fund the students who can't afford to pay for it. We need to sell the state. I read something interesting. In addition to every $1 invested, the state gets $7 back.

I was reading an interesting article the other day that talked about workers with a bachelor degree in California earn 62% more than workers without a bachelor's degree, and workers with a graduate degree earn 90% more. The average income of a college graduate is $81,000 as of 2021 in this state, and it is 12% of that only for graduates with a high school diploma. And the final thing, college graduates over the long term have three times more wealth than non-college graduates.

So, to me, the math is really clear that in the long run, investing in the CSU, which is the largest university in this state, in this country, but in this state, is investing in our state. It's bringing wealth and money into the state. So I think we have to be advocates, as you're suggesting. Even when people say we should be grateful for what we have, we can't be grateful. If we think we don't have enough to sustain the CSU.

We have to be grateful and still advocate for more from the state. We have to sell our students on why this is worth investing in. And then, as Jack suggests, we need to raise more money. Our alumni do not have a culture of giving. And I've tested that out over and over again since I've been appointed. I'm shocked to see that our entire endowment for the CSU is less than UCLA's endowment.

I mean, we just don't have a culture of giving, and we have to grow that. And we all are the ambassadors as CSU trustees. So going to the corporate sector, going to the philanthropic sector, telling stories, and we just have to believe how great we are to sell it to everyone else.

Thank you. This was very powerful personal testimony and very meaty testimony and the facts. And it's like I made some suggestions in the meeting, and I heard them come back. So I really appreciate them. And you're great students, and I wish you luck, and I look forward to supporting you. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Senator Laird. Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Madam pro tem. I am very impressed by all of your backgrounds of the history, sir, specifically to you, as the first female veteran that's ever served in this building, thank you for putting your hand in the air to swear to defend this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic and your service.

You're talking too fast.

Your incredible service to this country. I do talk fast. I apologize. And both of you, Ms. Gilbert-Lurie and Mr. Vargas, your stories are very compelling, and I love the balance that you put between what you called your guilt, versus what your mom went through, and I can't even imagine. I think it's something that sometimes our war veterans come back with. They come back with missing two legs or whole and have PTSD, but they came back. And so when you shared about the guilt that you carry, having birthdays, a mom, just simple things in life that shape all of us.

Mr. Vargas, you recognized your mom. I just think that the life experiences that you have. I really appreciate your stories of your life experience. All of you. I do have questions on the CSU stuff. So you talk about money and you talk about funding. I love, Mr. Vargas, how you said we got to tell a story, get on TikTok. I don't think Mr., just making an assumption here, like my colleague did earlier, I don't think you're on TikTok, sir.

Okay, forgive me, but the majority of our youth and college age kids or those approaching that age are on TikTok. They are on Instagram. They are on Snapchat. They are know several other platforms. I think a lot of them know on some platforms, like Facebook. I think they think that's an old person's thing. Tony and I are on excuse me, Senate pro tem and I are on Facebook. That's a reference to the age reference you made earlier when you said you'll be 50.

We both looked at each other. So just I appreciate each of you, if confirmed, would bring something very special. Obviously, all of you have wisdom. All of you have stories. But I do have questions on, like I said, the CSU. You talk about money, you talk about being able to get the message out. You all mentioned, I believe all of you mentioned the fact that you have underenrollment, that people aren't enrolling in the CSU system. So how about that be my first question.

What do you think the reason is for that? Do you think it's marketing? Do you think that it's because of what happened during the pandemic, that people went off and got jobs and are content with where they're at? I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but I'd like to know what you think that is, and I'll start on this end. Mr. Vargas.

This is where that was one of the first things that when we get kind of the pre-reading for the Board Meetings, that was probably the first thing that I was thinking to myself, are we asking the right questions here in terms of why? The why. Right. I think definitely a pandemic had something to do with it.

But if I were to use just the past four months, an example of trying to convince my three relatives to pick a CSU and then going to the website and I'm a trustee, right? Or if I'm appointed, I get to be a trustee. And how do I tell this? When we say marketing, people think of that as some people think that's a bad word. So let me just use telling the story part.

I don't think we have done an adequate job of making this system sexy, because it is sexy. It is an attractive system. If I'm looking at ROI in return of investment, if I'm looking at this is how much it's going to cost, right? And not just the tuition. It's the housing. We have to be able to be proactively tell that story ourselves.

And I'm not sure even we not just trustees, but the staff, and we almost need some sort of training and some research that needs to happen to do that. I think that's a part of it. I think a part of it, too, is just the reputation. Right. I mean, I remember for me, when I told people I went to San Francisco State, this idea that I just settled, right, that I couldn't go somewhere higher.

And then I'm thinking to myself, no, San Francisco State at the time has a wonderful journalism program. I'm proud to have gone to the first university, especially in this era we're in right now, where we have to really tell American history, all of it. I went to a university that was a groundbreaker when it comes to that, the College of Ethnic Studies program. Right. Have we even told that story?

And that you don't have to be Black or Latino or AAPI to take Asian American Stories or Chicano Studies or Africana Studies? Back then, it was called Black Studies. Right. And even that story of how we have 23 campuses and they all offer something really distinct and different.

And I think sometimes the fact that we think of the system as one system instead of, like, what are those 23 schools and what makes them different, I think that's something that I could see us really leaning in more on. So, yeah, the marketing, but also, again, research. Do we know the whys as much as we ought to know the whys before we have an actual strategy and campaign?

Thank you, sir. Mr. McGrory?

Yeah. In terms of the enrollment, it's a tough one. We went down 7% two years ago, which is incredible. Most of it was in Northern California, which was we're trying to figure that whole thing out, how you analyze that and come up with some answers. Clearly, if you look at our admissions, half of our students come in as freshmen from high school. The other half are transferred from community colleges, and community colleges have taken a huge hit along the way. And that's part of our issue.

We've got to strengthen that relationship. I think culturally, we have been very reactive. Students have come to us. We haven't gone out and recruited the students as hard as we could. When I was looking at colleges, it was really easy for me. Whoever was going to give me the most money is where I was going to go. And we ended up being Colgate, but they were very proactive about it.

We don't go out and actually proactively, other than athletes, go out and tell a student, okay, if you come here, we're going to cover your $5,742 in tuition, we should be using that. And when 70% of our students get financial aid, we should be using that as a marketing tool and really going out and recruiting hard in the high schools and the community colleges. And we're seeing and the campuses are making a shift. I mean, they now realize we continue to have drops in enrollment.

We are really going to be not meeting the state's mission, not fulfilling the needs of the labor force, and we need to do a much better job. And I think the campuses have got that message, and they're trying to come up with brand new recruiting strategies so that we can bring more students into the system. We should be expanding at at least one or 2% per year and not dropping.

Thank you, sir. Ms. Gilbert-Lurie, do you have something to add?

Well, in addition to the comments that were made, because it does seem that it's mostly transfer students that are dropping off, mostly transfers from community colleges. And I think on the plus side, it seems that where we're beginning to make concerted efforts to re-enroll those students, we're already beginning to have an impact, which, again, I think, goes back to what Jose suggested, which is we need to understand more about why students are not coming back or why students have left to begin with.

But somehow, and I think it's a combination, my guess is it's a combination of COVID, housing shortages, which makes it difficult to feel at home, and a home people could stay at on campuses. I think we really need to look at that. But it's messaging, too, because I think we're fighting against a message coming from the corporate world, which is it's not important for everyone to go to college.

And I know that President Beck, for example, at Northridge, at CSUN, was telling me recently she was invited to be a keynote speaker at a corporate event. And at the corporate event, the CEOs were telling her, I think it was some film camera companies, and I don't remember who was there, but she said they were pushing back on her as to why a college education is important. And what I said to her is, I bet they're not saying that to their own children.

Everyone who says college isn't important are telling it to other people's kids who they think shouldn't spend the money on college. We all think our own children should go to college. So again, I think we have to counter that message with our own message of the facts of the financial payoff to going to college, not to mention the payoffs for society and as citizens in our country and state.

Thank you. I'm going to go there. My mom was a single mom. I grew up in Arvin. I was Seguera. Geringa. Right? Went to Guadalajara. That's where I learned to speak Spanish because Maria, Sophias, Mercedes, Isabel, Juan, Sonaida, Elias, and Angelica were my neighbors, and I was the little girl that lived next door, and my mom was a single. There was no money to go to college, so I didn't go to college. I don't have a college degree.

I barely graduated from high school, and I'm sitting in a room or in a building that is I'm one of 40 in the State of California. So although I agree college education is very important, I do not think it is for everyone. And all of my kids went to college. I'm glad that they did, but I think there needs to be a balance. But I appreciate what you said, but I wanted to just lay that out there. Sorry.

Yeah, no, and I really appreciate that. And coming out of the entertainment industry, so many of the leaders of studios say the same thing. You know Jeffrey Katzenberg didn't go. A lot of famous, you know, a lot of successful people didn't go to college. But you'd like everyone to know that there's a value in it.

And I also, from my children and their friends today, I honestly think it is so much harder to succeed today, to buy a home today, to get equal footing today than when I went to college. I would just suggest that, in a sense, I think it's even more important today than when we started. But it's amazing that thank you for your service on every front.

It's okay. Thank you, ma'am. I'm just going to throw this out there. Anyone can answer. It's not a specific question to anybody. It's a General question. I don't need all three of you to answer because I think it'll be the same answer. What's the percentage of budget that you have for labor? Like, out of your entire budget, what percentage of it is labor?

I think Jack knows.

Okay. Jack, sorry. Or Mr. McGrory. Sorry.

75%. You take salaries and benefits. It's 75% of the general fund.

Wow. Okay. And you meet with labor on July. What?

Well, we've already started meeting, but the contracts expire on June 30.

And 75% of your budget now is labor. Okay.

Ironically, that's kind of true of cities and counties, too. I mean, it's up and down the state. It's about 70% to 75%.

Yes. I'm not shocked by it. I just think that obviously, we want our education system to be affordable. We want our education system to offer scholarships. We want people to be able to come into it. We'll offer you the 5,000 whatever number you said for your education. But if there's no resources to do that because 75, and possibly after July, 80% of your budget or more is going to be labor.

It's very difficult to offer those things or even do a competitive outreach program on TikTok and purchase social media and things like that, which I think that's what you will probably with your, I'm not putting words in your mouth or a position in you, but I think that's with your background and you'll do that. Another financial thing that I have. Maybe it goes to Mr. McGrory again. The CSU system.

Actually, when you look at the cost, I noticed in your budget that you have a $1 billion, 1 billion in the last few years because of PAGA lawsuits, the Private Attorney General Act. So Ms. Gilbert-Lurie, you're nodding your head. Can you explain to me if it was the liability piece, like, did you do something wrong? Not you, but the system itself, did they not pay meal and rest periods, rest and recovery periods?

Or was there an error, like a simple error on a paycheck stub, but you still can't avoid the penalty phase. So what I want to know is, when the claim was filed, was there something wrong? Did you deny people wages, didn't pay them, didn't pay the minimum wage, whatever the labor code, section 226 requires you to do? Or was all of that okay?

But because you had a PO box on a paycheck stub versus. There's a liability phase, like where you did something wrong and you have to pay reimbursement of wages plus penalties for those wages. Then there's where you don't do anything wrong. But the penalty still stands at $50 per employee per paycheck per pay period going back four years, which is substantial, I would think, with all of your employees. And that's why we ended up with $1 billion payment to some trial lawyer out there.

So who wants to tackle PAGA with me?

Well, our collective blood pressure goes up significantly every closed session we have to discuss litigation, and the amounts we pay out against the gravity of the claim, and sometimes, as you said, it's minor, are tremendous. And we are advocating for a change in the state law. I can't give you the details of it, the General Counsel's Office has been working on it, but we think there needs to be a change. We are paying out a ton of money and our insurers are paying for it.

For the most part, we have a big deductible, but the insurance companies are paying for it. And as you see, the insurance companies are leaving. It's just you can't sustain this as a matter of equity. It doesn't make sense. And we sit there and listen to these cases coming in closed session and it's crazy.

And I realize that you can't discuss things. So in the real world, I'm a business owner. I had the privilege of starting a business 30 years ago. And the greatest opportunity that I have in my life is to give somebody a job. Because a job creates financial security, independence, it also creates self-worth and it gives somebody an opportunity to provide for their family. We employ 60% 2nd chancers.

Most of you won't like this, but they work in the oil industry and they make about $100,000 a year. But that's where you can go to teach anybody a skill in a trade, to be a welder, to be a PLC board operator. As long as they're willing to show up, you can teach them to work there. And personally, just shortly, briefly, I got hit with a PAGA lawsuit. My horrible, horrible offense as an employer in the state is we paid every single week.

Nobody got jipped out of wages. Nobody had wage theft. Everybody got meal and rest periods. But our biggest, biggest, awful thing that we did is we paid weekly, and our paycheck stub said week ending 7/1, week ending 7/8. And the law requires you to have inclusive dates, 7/1-7/8 under the labor code, which I should have known, but I didn't. And we also had offices. We had seven offices throughout the state. And I didn't want Paso Robles to have a problem cashing a check from Bakersfield.

So I just put the Wells Fargo Stagecoach logo, and it said Wells Fargo under it so they could cash it in the city under a Wells Fargo Bank. But the law requires you to have an address. So the reason why I tell you that story, and I asked that, is because under the liability phase, the judge ruled in our favor 100% that we had no exposure, no employees were harmed.

But the way the law is written, under the penalty phase, the penalty stands $50 per pay period per employee, going back four years. So that's why I asked you that question. Was it something you did? Which I don't think that's what it is. And I know it's closed-door session and you can't discuss it, but I wanted to know if it was, did you not pay what you were required to pay the employees?

And again, I just wanted to bring that up, because $1 billion, $1 billion, no matter how you spend it, is significant when you're doing labor negotiations, and it's significant when you're trying to recruit people to come to the CSU system. And so you made a comment about advocating for a law change. I appreciate that. I have personal experience with that. And I get an email every single day that lists the 70 to 80 PAGA cases filed in the State of California every single day.

And it's seven attorneys in the state that predominantly do all that. And just to say all that, I know this.

I'm like, Where are we going? What is the question?

The question is yeah, I know she's looking at me. So the question I asked previously without doing the explanation, but I wanted to know why I asked that question, and it has cost the CSU system $1 billion.

And is there anything that you guys are doing to address this other than to advocate for a law change? And you said your insurance company pays for it, so I'd like to know what insurance company it is, because I didn't know you could get insurance like that.

Yeah, we fight them all, and we fight them hard. As you know, a lot of them don't have any substance to them, and they're very minor issues. And it pretty much drives us crazy when you hear these cases and our General Counsel. I can give you what we're advocating for in terms of changes in that law, but it's crazy money to be spending and it doesn't make sense. It's not addressing any real issue in society.

I agree with you, sir. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you all for answering my missions and listening to my story.

Thank you. Madam Vice Chair, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

So good afternoon. It's a pleasure to meet you all here today. I apologize for not having had an opportunity to meet with each of you, to develop a more personal conversation and relationship with you as you are embarking on your journey or continuing your journey and embarking a new journey with regards to being board of trustees. So a couple of questions for you all. First of all, let me just comment on the fact that my parents are immigrants.

But I also had much of my youth was also spent with my grandparents being raised by my grandparents, which is why I have such an old soul. And I'm more comfortable with older, wiser people as I look up to them for wisdom and life experiences. On that end, So when it comes to grandparents, I'm right there with you in the impact. And the difference between a lot of grandparents, I think, and parents, is that their parents are in survival mode.

And grandparents usually most of the time, have the time to spend in counseling and nurturing and meeting the emotional needs that sometimes are not being met by the primary parents on those. So, having said that, I wanted to make a couple of comments that triggered my thinking and I had pre-designed questions for you all.

But in regards to the decline in enrollment, in regards to finding value in the education and a degree from Cal State, in listening to the corporate culture, not advocating for higher education, some of the things that I have been listening to and hearing and understanding through our education committees, our budget education committees, is one, a lot of concerns about the cost of attending our schools in general.

And I believe I was looking for in my notes, but I believe the overall increase in tuition I could not find. I'm not sure where my notes, I wrote it in here, but I believe it was over 200%. And I'm looking at my. right, it's over 200% over the past 30 years. On that end, I'm not sure if you folks were and I read it and I'm like, where are my notes? And I thought that's a lot.

That's a huge increase when you look at it in proportion to the, and I'm not sure how the cost of living is incorporated in that. But the other concern is that I watched a documentary and I shared this in one of my other committees. I watched a documentary in which they interviewed graduates of learning and their concerns with what they owed versus what they made.

And as I've interviewed past board of trustees, I said, we need to do a better job in providing information that has a correlation of the majors provided, the salary ranges which they're expected to make, and the debt that they will be in when they graduate. Because many of these individuals chose that particular school.

And I'm not saying CSU in this particular case, but it's just in general, they pick a school, they go into debt by choice, they pick a major, and then realize that they don't make the money to pay what they owe, or it makes it very difficult.

And then we receive propositions here or resolutions or even bills that say or are advocating to pay that debt with taxpayer money, many of whom have not attended school, but yet they have to pay for that education that those individuals chose to have. So that personal agency, that personal responsibility needs to be there. And based on the documentary that I watched, many of the nations didn't really think about that.

And this is why I'm such an advocate for financial literacy and why I advocated and make sure that you understand how this impacts your education. So planting the seed here, that perhaps, if not already in place, that you do provide a system or a framework that allows you to see majors, range of salary potential, and the debt that you will be in so that you can be a better-informed student.

Choosing, one, the school that you're attending, you have that key in there, but number two is trying to figure out, okay, will I be able to repay this? And not asking the government to come in and say, which is a taxpayer, by the way, many of whom do not go to school to pay for your choice of school major in that end.

So just planting the seed on that, and especially as we discuss the potential increase, which takes me to my next question with regards to.

Can I interrupt and just ask, do you want a question in there? Do you want them to respond?

Yes, sorry.

So they can keep track of the question.

Real quickly.

Sure.

On tuition, in the last 11 years, we've had one tuition increase, $250 in 11 years, which is part of our problem in terms of looking at financial sustainability. One-half of your general fund budget isn't moving at all, and we're relying on the other half from the Legislature. Two, I saw the numbers the other day. A majority of our students graduate with no debt. Right.

I think it's 75%.

And then last night, as I'm boning up for this session, I ran across a chart that actually showed all of our majors and the projected salary that they would make. You want to tie that into student and into financial student debt. So we will try to provide that number, but I think, Nathan, we can email that over to you today that chart.

The only thing I want to add about that is I actually think that is a key part of the story we have to tell. I'm so proud that I didn't have debt when I graduated from college. And even though it is doubled, I remember when I went, it was 850 a semester, I sent an undocumented student, actually, at San Francisco State, and it was 4,000. I think it was like, at the time, it was like 4,200.

But still, when we broke the numbers down, that's still relatively affordable. I mean, again, I talk about ROI, the return of investment here, but that's a story that I bet you most people in the state don't know. Right. And I think how do we put that in a sizable bite that people can understand? And I have to say, in financial literacy, absolutely. So many of our students come from immigrant families, and we don't really learn financial literacy. And not just immigrant, but just in general.

My experience has been that's something that is something we realize when things go bad, it's not something that we provide. It's kind of like nutrition, right? You don't know the difference between food and it's just food and it's nutrition. Right. And that's something that we don't get enough of and I actually wonder, given the social mobility index part of our education system, that's actually something that I think we can take on as a system, and it's part of our selling point. Right?

Yeah. And just to add one more number, 60% of our students right now pay no tuition at all. I think it's like 75% that graduate without debt, but 60% pay no tuition. And I think in all of the conversation, whatever we talk about tuition increases, it's still assuming those same numbers, that large amounts of students, the majority by far, are not going to graduate with debt. But I think we all agree with you 100% that students should understand the value. We shouldn't ask.

It's not a leap of faith. Going to college should not be trust us, it's going to be good for you. We should be able to document that and show the value of an education. And show the value of education in different majors.

So, really quick, and I wanted to give you an opportunity to clarify. I'm not sure whether or not what you said was what you intended to say. So I just wanted to clarify. Did you say that the students that could afford school should help those that do not, that can't afford to go to school?

I didn't mean they should help them, but I meant that we have students at the CSU who could afford to pay tuition. Just as there are know at the UC who pay tuition like we should not take tuition increase off the table entirely. Where our numbers don't pan out, where our experts are telling us that our system is not sustainable without a tuition increase. We know that we have some students who attend our colleges who can pay tuition.

And so for the students who can, that's who we're talking about when we talk about increasing, the way it was presented to us was a portion of the increase would then go to pay financial aid to the large majority of students also who can't.

It is so the kids that can't afford to pay the increase in tuition. You're saying that what they pay into the system should help offset for the ones that can't afford.

In other words, tuition would be tuition for everybody. But we would make sure that the whole idea is that there would be sufficient financial aid for those students who are qualified to attend but meet the standards for financial aid.

And that would be subsidized by those students that can afford to pay more.

Well, I think that's how it is now too. It is subsidized. I mean, it's exactly as it works now. But we shouldn't assume we're at the upper limit of what a tuition can always be, because I think we're told that we don't have a financial model that pens out without at some point increasing tuition. I mean, the UCs, I think, figured it out, and they increased tuition in cohorts.

So students know when they enter school what that tuition is, and I think that we have to figure out our own model that makes sense. But again, I just think I was just appointed to this board, but in listening to the reports, I believe the analysis that takes, I don't think we could just put our heads in the sand when we hear that the way that the budget is put together now doesn't make financial sense. So I wasn't thinking about changing.

I think that I'm thinking about that an increase in tuition at some point might be inevitable.

And I understand what you're saying. I just wanted to make sure I had it clear in case that that's not what you wanted to say. Just wanted to give you an opportunity to clarify. So a couple of questions. So in the state right now, we're dealing with a lot of legislation and trying to allocate resources and majors. Oh, sorry. Because we don't have enough workforce.

And it's funny, we're graduating many, many individuals in our state, and yet we do not have enough workforce to meet so many of the needs within the state, and especially in the Inland Empire, such as education. We don't have enough people meeting those needs. We don't have enough healthcare workforce in that capacity. So there's so many areas within our state that we're not but yet we're graduating many, many individuals.

So I'm not sure whether or not the CSUS have an opportunity to assess the needs of the state and provide guidance as to what fields they should focus on and make available that meet the needs of the workforce that we have in the state. So any thoughts on that?

In that I'll embed the fact that, I'm not sure if you folks have an opportunity, but if you want to address just in education, for instance, it's in my notes that between 2003 and four, the CSU system issued over 19,000 teaching credentials. Yet, less than 20 years later, we're only issuing about 7,000. So are you folks doing anything or are you aware of these demands of workforce in our state?

And as members, what is your commitment and your plan, your investigative mind, and how we can address the workforce shortage in our states, what Cal State can do to help promote fields that are in need in our state, and how do we start working to meet that need as a state?

To whom do you?

I was just going to make a comment. I was furring my brow because I'm not sure that we have that broken down in a way that would be best so that we can, again, sell the value of specific schools. Like, again, a lot of nurses in my family, right?

So if I'm trying to convince somebody to go to SF State or to go to Cal State Nordridge, how would I tell them to say, if you go to that school, this is the tuition, and this is how they're going to prepare you to get that diploma? I don't think it's as specific as that.

I think there are some reports system-wide that I've seen in the short time that I've been on the board, but I don't think we have done it in a kind of a disaggregated way that you're describing. If I'm wrong, Jack.

No, I think you're right. I think we should focus more on what the labor force needs. Driving the ship, though it doesn't move real fast sometimes to get the faculty to change in a collaborative way and move resources into a new academic area. My experience was it takes a little bit of time and a lot of political savvy to get it done. But on teachers, I looked at the last 10 years, and it was a relatively stable number.

We had a couple of blips up and down. The area that I think we were hurting in is nurses. We're down about 15% in degrees for nurses. That one really caught my attention. And so I asked a couple of questions, and one is that we have a state law that you have to go into a clinic for your practitioner side of being a nurse, and you can't do it virtually. And that hurt us during the pandemic, so our numbers went way down.

Okay.

And so I think we need to look at what are the barriers to these degrees. The other thing is teachers need to just be paid more. We don't recognize their value. And so when you talk to students about a degree, they're looking, as you said, at a chart, what are you going to make at the end of the day? And teachers are way down, and there needs to be some collective effort to move those salaries up, and maybe California can lead the way in doing that.

The other category I would add to teachers and nurses are mental health professionals, which we have a huge shortage in in the state. I do think the CSUS are focused on wanting to attract more students to all three of those areas. I mean, I've heard things just talked about in terms of how do we incentivize financially students to come here, how do we create opportunities for really exciting internships and opportunities when students are in those majors?

Again, I think it's a matter know, I think it's working hand in hand with the state. We should understand the work deficiencies in the state. We should work together to beef up those programs. Interestingly, I know at UCLA, the nursing program is the hardest program to get into in the whole college. Only 5% of applicants are even admitted.

So we have to figure out at the CSU how to attract students, how to get them through the program, how to graduate them and them to have the expertise that we need in those areas.

So speaking, on that point, there's something that I have in the back of my mind, and I'm not sure if you folks are the right personnel to ask or I need to figure out who to ask. But it's also my understanding that when it comes to schools that provide nursing degrees, many of these schools have to ask for permission to be able to expand the number of students that they can accept in the programs. And I'm not sure if that is still the case or not.

I'm not sure if you folks can answer that particular aspect, but that's something that's been in the back of my mind as to if that is still the case. And if that is the case, how do we facilitate the state coming in and approving the expansion of those nursing programs within those particular schools so that they can admit more students? And my last remark that I have to mention is that and I hope that this is taken in the best way possible.

First of all, my sister is a nurse, she's a neonatal nurse practitioner. And when I gave birth to my babies and I was in the hospital, which is really the only times I've ever been in the hospital, the most nurturing, loving, attentive, doting nurses, when I was in lots of pain C-sections were my Filipino nurses just as an FYI. I don't know why, but they were just beautiful, beautiful nurses. And I value them.

So I want to just vicariously thank your aunts for.

12 of them. 12.

Oh, you see, just want to thank them for that service. And then one last question, Mr. Vargaa, specifically to you. If you had the opportunity, and I know the immigration system is incredibly broken and that is a federal state, not a state issue, but one last question on that. If there was an opportunity to fix our immigration program in our country, would you become a citizen?

So that's actually why there's 11 million undocumented people, right? There's no process for us to follow. And this is, by the way, I have to say is because I publicly outed myself 12 years ago against the advice of 28 immigration lawyers. But I have to say that in the 12 years that I've been publicly out as an undocumented person, that's probably the number one question I get asked is, why don't you just fix this thing? And then I have to tell them, what do you mean?

And because of how specific my case is, the reality is I had to break laws so I could have jobs, right? I checked the U.S. citizen box. That's why citizenship is so important to me. When I was 19, applying for a job. When you get an employment form, right, it asks you, are you a US. Citizen? Are you a legal resident? I checked the U.S. citizenship box, and I checked that four times.

And because of that, I did not know at the time that falsifying or claiming U.S. citizenship is the highest offense you could take under immigration law. I can only imagine how many people do that. Right. And so, in many ways, I think the fact that we don't have a process right now to follow, and I don't know how long the Federal Government in Congress is going to take to do this. The question for me is what is our responsibility state by state?

I feel like this is going to happen state by state. Thankfully, we're in California. If we were in North Carolina, if you're undocumented, you can't even go to community colleges, right? If you're in the State of Georgia, you can't go to the top three schools. I wonder Dr. Martin Luther King would make of that.

And so I have to say, by the way, because as an undocumented student, when I was at San Francisco State, there was no language around this, and I'm happy to say that now. Go to the CSU website. There's actually not only language, there's, like, programs, there's legal services. This is how you apply. This is mental health support. It's been really good to see that kind of services. As I understand it, we have 10,000 that we know of who are undocumented students.

I was saying, I think in one of the meetings with Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, that too often people think of undocumented people as a Latino issue. And I've met so many undocumented Asian and undocumented Black immigrant students within the CSU system, and I wonder if they're counted in that when we say we have 10,000, right?

So what can we do, given that nothing's going to happen in Congress, what can we do to set up our students so that they can enter the workforce and that they can be contributing parts of society? Oh, so there's no way for me to legalize myself.

No, but.

Don't talk over each other.

It's hard for.

Oh, sorry. If I had a chance?

If you had the opportunity and the system was fixed in a way that would allow you to enter that process and become a legal US. Citizen. Would you take that opportunity?

As I understand it, I'm already an American. I'm just waiting for my own country to recognize it. Yes, absolutely.

Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And I guess the benefits of going last is that many of the questions have already been answered. And just like our conversation yesterday, just a very rich discussion and a product of CSU system, recognizing how it creates real access to a ladder for students who often have to put themselves through school, who often don't know that higher ed is an option and who desperately need the certification and degrees to step into the opportunities that their families have been denied.

And I want to say I'm so excited to hear the discussion about ways to address enrollment, to be more inclusionary for undocumented and other marginalized students, and how to continue to make sure that these institutions, which employ over 150,000 folks across the state, continue to be an economic engine for our communities. Whether it's faculty, whether it's the classified staff, whether it's grad students and other campus workers. I just want to say that is a tremendous value.

And certainly as a Legislator and being on budget sub one, wanted to make sure that folks did earn a living wage and have the resources to continue to allow the CSU to thrive. And we still have a long way to go. So I just wanted to make those comments. My questions, and I appreciated Ms. Lurie, you said something about the sort of vacancy rate and we talked about it, so I'm not going to touch on that.

But just this economy of resources and how you all are thinking about that and really trying to create that specification and to align with industry that are looking for workers in those particular sectors. And I just remember that being a really important point from our discussion that I wanted to raise. My questions have to do with and I think it was mentioned and I wanted to raise this because it wasn't touched on it was sort of alluded to.

And that is the ways in which we ensure that our campuses are safe for students and for workers and particularly students who have historically experienced things like sexual harassment and wanting to make sure that we are creating discrimination-free campuses for everyone. And there was a recent report that I know came out in the last trustee meeting where the Chancellor's office said that there isn't a real mechanism for tracking across the system sexual harassment and misconduct cases system-wide.

And talked about just the different ways in which some of those tracking mechanisms in some ways help to create and add to a culture of distrust from students and from employees because there isn't vigorous enforcement and transparency in the process.

And I do know that this educational system is one in which many marginalized communities have access to. It is a commuter campus where there is working parents who are coming in and out of that system, and also coming from communities where there's also a lot of trauma related to some of these issues. And so it is critically important to see ways in which we are documenting, we're transparent and we're educating on this issue across the campus.

But if you don't have data, you can't change what you can't measure. And so I wonder, what should trustees, in your opinion, be doing about this? What are the ways that CSU can change this reality and really not just say, we're against these things, but have evidence-driven practices and policy changes that really address the issue? So I want to get a sense of what's been discussed around this and what are you seeing as ways to really arrest this trend? I'm sorry about that. I will start with Mr. Vargas and we'll come down.

Cause I'm sure Jack and Leslie have a lot to say about this. But the thing for me that struck me about the Cozen O'Connor report was that 18,000 respondents, clearly there is a hunger. People are hungry to actually talk about this. And what I just want to name and I'm glad that the conversation about mental health professionals and the kind of support that's needed, especially with the student body that we have, and thankfully, mental health is a much more mainstream thing to be discussing.

When I was in college, that was not the case. So I think we know that there's hunger for this, but what we don't have is an actual, as you said, system-wide, system-wide way of tracking it. And absolutely, for me, I mean, I know that this has come up in the conversations we've had before we even got this report, is figuring out how we go about doing that.

Yeah, I think what's been uncovered over the last couple of years, which has probably been around for a long time, is we didn't make it a top priority. And that's really unfortunate. And the system was very decentralized. There weren't controls from the Chancellor's Office that should have been there. We lacked the training to provide to the people on the campuses. Then the campuses ended up with inconsistent policies as a result of that. Some responded to the complaints the way they should, others didn't.

And we now need to take the bull by the horns and say, we're going to have system-wide controls. We're going to have to beef up the Chancellor's Office involvement in this, and we have to provide consistent training and consistent procedures for all 23 campuses because every one of our students deserves a safe environment.

Totally agree. This is a national nationwide problem, probably a worldwide problem, but certainly a CSU problem. Jose and I came in at the sort of after a lot of the publicity, but we've had the benefit of hearing a very interesting system-wide report that Cozen O'Connor came to us and reported on at the last meeting. And they had excellent recommendations in terms of beefing up our system in general, our central system, the Chancellor's Office system.

And I thought most exciting, they told us that nothing exists like this in the country. They said to us they really encouraged us to create a Regional Center that would coordinate our 23 universities. And then they encouraged us we don't have enough staff on campuses. And every time I haven't gotten to tour that many University campuses yet, but I think I've toured five or six.

And every time I've asked to meet with the Title IX office and to meet with students, and I was so interested to hear sort of the trepidation that students have going into Title IX offices, it's like to go into an office like that is to go into court. They think there has to be a lawsuit. So we have to think about how do we have enough advocates on campus?

And as Jose was saying, how do we have enough mental health services so that we just have support systems? And then we educate students, faculty, staff on campuses too. Because honestly, nothing has probably hurt the reputation of the CSU more than reading about these harassment incidents on the first pages of newspapers. So it's important to us as a system. It's important to us financially, and it's certainly important that everyone feels safe on campuses.

Thank you for that. And I know this report just came out, and I'm not sure structurally how the board of trustees are thinking. I don't know if there's a strike team or a worker. I'm not sure how that is. But I'm curious to hear back just what are the ways. Because if there isn't some intentional focus and folks who are just really working on that issue, I come out of the UC system and working in that space.

And the challenge is sort of how do you communicate policies down through a statewide system that has a lot of different bureaucracies and layers? And I think that will take some intentional focus and effort, not just what is the fix, but how do we communicate that and really educate everyone? So I'm appreciating the response and looking forward to those action steps.

My next question, and we talked about this, and you talked about enrollment and COVID and how there are promising results that are coming up in terms of folks returning to campus. Really excited about the graduation initiative and seeing the increase always in the CSU graduation rates. There is that still sort of stubborn troubling statistic around the ways in which we still have the six-year graduation rates for Black students and it's at 50%. And in some ways, the trend is going downward.

We also see just the overall enrollment, too, of Black students. And my theory is, if we really develop strategies that attack what's happening in this very small population of students and arrest the problem. Everyone on top is going to be elevated. It's going to create new opportunities across the system.

And I know that there also have been reports of just the challenges right there's, the lack of Black faculty, in many cases based on a CalMatters report that talked about what are the things that are contributing to such low Black student participation. Another just there's the culture right there's a culture of anti-Blackness. I think Chico State was one where this was raised.

And so I just think my overall question here as we think about some of these percentages, 1% of black students at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, 17% at Cal State Dominguez Hills. Just how can we improve our efforts? And what do you as trustees see as a tool that can produce the most beneficial outcomes in this space? Because this is a stubborn statistic. It's been here for quite a while.

And how do you each individually see what you will contribute to be able to move the needle on that condition and improve, really, the educational opportunities for all? Because when Black students are on campus, other students get to learn from that experience as well. So I just want to have each one of you and I'll start with you, Ms. Lurie, and work through the group on that answer.

Thank you. I think in terms of what I would suggest I bring is an interest in it's an interesting challenge. It's a critical problem, and I will bring a desire to keep a focus on it until we don't have that inequity. I'm very interested in, I know a task force was put together last year. I think President Param and President Sandoval chaired it, and they gave us sort of headlines at the last meeting, but I think it's going to be presented soon.

I think they have this 13 point plan, and I don't know the details of it yet, but I think what just the top lines were that they have systemic changes for the Chancellor's Office and then they have suggestions for the campuses. I think they started with, again, intense interviews of the Black students, Black faculty, Black staff on campuses to sense what is getting in the way of more students wanting to attend college, stay in college.

I know that part of their plan is early outreach from middle school and high school to college and then making the programs as relevant as possible when students are there. And then, like, everyone wants to get to see and learn from people who look like them and feel similar to them. And so we have to make sure that colleges feel welcoming and friendly and familiar to all our students once they get there.

So I think I have to hear more of the report to have specific suggestions, but I think we're on the right track by asking the questions.

Thank you.

I think, as you pointed out, we've made good progress on the overall graduation initiative. The graduation rates are going up. The rising tide lifts all boats, but we still have this stubborn 10 to 12% equity. We haven't been able to knock it down. I think one of the things I think we have shifted as trustees and the Chancellor's Office shifted resources now into trying to address particularly the African-American issue. And there are lots of things we can do.

We can have the counselors intervene during the semester when they see grades starting to drop, students having problems, bring career counseling in to deal with that. Interview people who were leaving the campus to find out, why are you leaving the campus? What's the problem? What can we do to help you come back? There's going to just have to be a lot of personal touch, I think, in this.

And the system is realigning its resources to try to figure out how to tackle this problem because we can't have success in the graduation initiative and keep this equity gap.

I totally agree, by the way, with the interviewing students who decide to leave, because I think that was one of the things that I think I remember underlining on one of the reports. The thing for me that this was already the reality when I was attending San Francisco State starting in 2000, is we have an opportunity here as the state that became the first minority-majority in the country to really rethink what it means to have that kind of reality on campus.

So when I think about how non-Black students benefit from having African-American classmates right, we've seen the faculty. It was interesting looking at the hiring of the faculty of Black faculty and how that's improved. Right. But that hasn't come with the Black students. And I've been trying to understand the why of that. And then some of the reports was talking about, well, curriculum, what kind of curriculum programs are we offering?

I actually think this idea of the fact that the state and also the country is being remade, the fact that it's becoming a minority-majority country. I mean, we've been hearing this for 20 years, but what does that mean when it comes to talking about equity?

For example, and this is because I'm finishing a book right now, I bet you most people have no idea that the 1965 Immigration Act in this country is the reason why there are 45 million immigrants in this country documented and undocumented. According to Pew, those 45 million immigrants and their kids and their grandkids are going to make up 88% of the population growth in the next 50 years. Right? Mostly Latino. Mostly Asian, Black. One out of 10 Black people in this country is a Black immigrant.

Right. And yet looking at those reality, I'm curious about then how do we then talk about what that means when you go to a campus and how you teach about the fact that if it wasn't for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, if it wasn't for Black people actually advocating for their civil rights, all these immigrants could not have come. The 65 Act would not have passed, right? And so the debt, this is something I learned as a Black Studies major at San Francisco State.

The debt that immigrants, that Latino and Asian immigrants and Black immigrants owe the African American civil rights movement is immeasurable. But I bet you most people don't know that because we don't teach it. Right.

And so those are the kind of thinking in terms of curriculum and in terms of what it means that the country is demographically changing and how we as a state and as a system, the largest one in the state and in the country, I think we can actually lead that kind of conversation.

Thank you so much for that answer. And I ponder that very thing as we're shifting into this new majority. And I think part of the challenge is that Black and brown and immigrant folks have had so many barriers generationally historically, and now that very fragile, vulnerable sort of what was the minority community is now the majority of our state with the same sort of economic inequality, the same barriers.

And so the stability of our state really rests in this new majority that has had these historic overlapping barriers. And so if we aren't intentional about addressing those overlapping barriers, our state is not going to have the stability that we need. So I really appreciate that because these fates are connected historically, but more importantly, now more than ever, as we have this beautiful tapestry of a California majority that looks like this room. So I appreciate the comments.

I look forward to your confirmations today and also hearing about the different reports around the sexual harassment and around the Black student achievement pieces and being a partner with you here at the 28th District. So thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Smallwood-Cuevas, the pro tem, stepped out for just a brief moment, and she will be back. We all serve, like she said earlier, different duties and different committees and different meetings. So I apologize on her behalf and she should be back shortly.

But in the meantime, we are going to take a public comment on the confirmees now, and we are going to ask anybody in room 2200 to come forward to the microphone either in support or opposition. Seeing no one coming forward in room 2200. Mr. Moderator, we will come to you on the phone lines as a reminder, if you wish to make a comment on either of any of the nominees before us, the telephone number is 877. This is a toll-free number.

It's 877-226-8163. That's 877-226-8163. And the access code is 161-8051. That's 161-8051. Earlier, it was Mr. Moderator. I'm assuming it's still Mr. Moderator. Are you available?

I am. If you would like to provide public comment, you may do so by pressing one, then zero at this time.

And we have no comments.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Sorry, I had to read that. I should have addressed a question that I asked the Pro Tem I asked before she left because I just got some recent information. So I am going to take that privilege to do that. And it is kind of a controversial question, but I don't think that you're not used to controversy, Mr. Vargas. I think that you have been just a most reasonable appointee in this conversation. But after reading some of the information, it occurs to me that there's a controversial and polarizing comments, especially your video titled White People speaking from a white person's perspective and speaking for USC CSU, individuals that are on campus, that are white, and they're students that deserve an education just like any other person. Not to mention in 2020, the people of the State of California overwhelmingly opposed a Proposition 16, which creates a colorblind California. I guess you would say they affirmative action. They shot that Proposition down. What do you mean briefly by white people?

Oh, um, it's actually it was a documentary. It was an hour long documentary for MTV that aired in July 2015. I was actually also glad that it was nominated for an Emmy. And the documentary was basically an idea that I think, for me, started when I got to this country in 1993 and started asking, wait a second, so people are black or white? What am I? right? This question of actually that question of what is white? That's why it's called White People, which is a very provocative title. But if you see the film and I'm glad that it's for free on YouTube, you can watch it if you want. I'm actually really proud of the fact that what the film does is ask white students what they think whiteness is. Because for me, what's been so interesting doing the work that I do is going around the country. I always get asked where I'm from, like, where are you from? And which is such a fascinating question. So what I basically did is pulled the glove inspired by Toni Morrison, I pulled the glove inside out and I said, well, what are you, right? And then when people and then white students say, I'm an American, I said, I know, but what kind, right? And when they say, you know, white is not a country. Are you Italian? Are you Irish? Are you German? Are you Danish? Do you know, for example, the history that Italians and Germans, the anti German sentiment, anti Italian sentiment. So if you watch the documentary, that's the kind of process that I go through. It's certainly not about trying to make white people. I don't see it. And when you see it, I think it proves itself. It's actually, for me, a line of questioning, a line of thinking that I think is healthy, especially because white people are starting to become the minority in many places in the State of California, and in Texas, more than 50% of all public school kids, k to 12, are Latino or Latino. Right. I mean, we are becoming this minority, majority country, and we always ask what it means to be a person of color. I don't think we've asked that question of white people, and that was literally the process of thinking that I went through as I made that documentary.

Thank you, sir, for that question. I apologize for going out of order, madam, Pro Tem. I know she's probably listening to this. I will bring it back to the dais. As there's no comments on the moderator, I have to separate out each go ahead, ma'am.

You brought that up. I'm going to think about that. May I ask an additional question, or are we done discussing?

Well, you have to wait. Let me get legal counsel.

Okay.

I'm not the chair, I'm the Vice Chair. Yes, you may.

All right.

Yes.

Okay.

And please know that it wasn't about your question, it was about the process of the hearing.

Yes.

We've already taken public testimony.

Yes, go ahead.

Yes. Which is why I was asking, can I still ask a question or not?

Yes.

So on that note, now that you are well, you will be well. You are a CSU trustee board, and that represents all Californians. I'm kind of curious as to how you're going to work towards building the trust of representing all races and backgrounds in the CSU and advocating for the needs of every student. Because I look at the needs of every student being unique, but yet still the same as far as wanting, especially if they're coming in through the educational system, they want to continue their further education. How are you going to earn the trust of those students and the families who may not agree with your activism?

Great question. And first of all, I actually don't refer to myself as an activist in any way. People say that, and I'm like, zero, okay. I guess I'm being an activist or an advocate by asking questions that are provocative. And as somebody who has been I'm sitting here because I have been the beneficiary of mentorship by mentors by everybody, white, black, Latino, Asian, Jewish, Christian, Muslim. Right. So I think I have a responsibility, if I am confirmed as a trustee, that I'm not here to be a trustee for Undocumented gay Filipino people, which is what I am. I'm here to be a trustee for all of Californians. Right? Absolutely. And I would say to you that probably in addition to this privilege, I had this surreal thing where my hometown of Mountain View decided to name an elementary school after me a few years ago, which is kind of bananas and crazy, given that I'm not legal, but the school is legal. And when I look at those kids of all ethnicities and backgrounds, they are going to Jose Antonio Vargas Elementary School and I want them to know that I stand for all of them. Right. But I also want them to know that the person that when they first approached this, I thought it was a joke. And then I said, well, what if I do something that you're not going to be proud of? What if I do something in the kids protest? So in some ways, as a namesake school and as a trustee, my hope is that my service here is something that all Californians would be proud of, that they would say that that person is representing me in that capacity.

May I add one comment to this question? Because Jose and I started on the same we were appointed the same day. And even though know not any of the things that Jose just said, he is as a white Jewish woman, the day I showed up, Jose came up to me and said, I read your book, and I can't wait to talk to, you know, maybe was the first person on the board to make me feel included. And I just imagine that that is how he approaches human beings in General, and that's how he would feel about all students on our campuses.

Thank you, Leslie. Thank you, Senator Ochoabog. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

So since we're having closing statements, I don't know what we're doing here. I stepped out, and I don't know we're back into questions, but I do want to say I've had the opportunity to work with Mr. Vargas and some of his colleagues, natty Dominguez and others who have been on the front lines. And the one thing I appreciate about California and why we are such a beacon of hope is that we recognize the contribution of individuals that actually make us the dynamic, you know, CSU system. We need an advocate and a representative for undocumented students there. If we aren't putting the perspectives on the table as we put on the table for black students, for white students, for LGBTQ plus students, and really see what are the issues that we need to reconcile so that those students have the best and greatest opportunity, then we're doing a disservice to those students and to our system and to the future. So I just want to say I appreciate the discussion, because at the end of the day, this is who we are, and we want to represent that in a bold and dynamic way and make sure that we are creating the system that will thrive into the future. So I don't know if we took the vote. I'm ready. I will move the motion that we go forward with nominating OIC, my great Senator from Santa Cruz. I will hand it over to my colleague.

Thank you, Ms. Smallwood. Cuevas Senator Laird.

Actually, I'm where Senator Smallwood Quavis was, and it's time for us to vote. And given the process, we need to do these each individually. So I am going to go right to left. And I would move the confirmation of Ms. Gilbert-Lurie.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Laird, aye Ochoa Bogh, aye. Ochoa bog, aye Smallwood-Cuevas, aye Smallwood-Cuevas aye Grove, aye Grove I Atkins on call.

Then I would move the confirmation of Jack McGrory to the board of trustees.

So moved. I apologize.

Yeah.

So moved. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Laird, aye. Laird aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Ochoa bogh aye Smallwood-Cuevas aye Grove aye Grove aye Atkins on call and then.

Madam Chair, I would move the confirmation of Jose Antonio Vargas to the CSU board of trustees.

And I second that's the Assembly okay. We don't have seconds in the we.

Appreciate your but that's a very good.

Sign for his confirmation.

We appreciate your enthusiasm, Ms. Smallwood Cuevas, but we don't need a second, just a motion. Thank you, Senator Laird, for the motion. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Laird, aye. Laird aye. Ochoa Bogh ochrebogue. Not voting. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Grove. Not voting. Grove not voting. Atkins on call.

So we will keep the roll open so Senator Atkins, when she returns, will be able to vote to move your confirmations to the full Senate Floor. And then all of the Senators, all 40 of us, will have an opportunity to vote for the confirmation hearing at that time. Thank you all for being here. Thank you for who you are, your stories, your testimony. I just am going to share my heart with you. You caught me very much by surprise with everything that I had read about you. I really anticipated somebody different. And you are really an incredible human being. And I just want to say thank you for being here today. And thank you both for being here as well. I'd like to thank all the individuals who participated in the public testimony today. If you were not able to testify today, please submit your comments and suggestions in writing to the Rules Committee or visit the website for instructions. Your testimony and comments and suggestions are important. Thank you, everybody, for your patience and cooperation. We will hold the roll open and not close down Committee and give Ms. Senate pro Tim Atkins an opportunity to come back and cast her vote. And right now, we are in recess. Recess. Here's a gavel. Recess. Back in session. And I will or back in Committee, and I will pass the gavel over to the Senate Pro Tem.

Actually, Madam Vice Chair. Go ahead. Since you know where we are and I'm catch up, go ahead and tell me what I need to do.

So we'll have the secretary open the roll and call the roll on the Comfrey's that just left the facility. So I believe we took up Ms. Gilbert Laurie. First, yes. Madam Secretary, please open the roll.

Atkins aye. Atkins aye five to zero.

Thank you. And I believe second, we took up. Mr. John McGrory, Madam Secretary.

Atkins aye. Atkins aye. Five to zero.

Thank you. And the third conference was Mr. Jose Antonio Vargas. Madam Secretary?

Atkins aye. Atkins aye. Three to zero.

Thank you. So this concludes our hearing for today. I read the individuals who wish to provide public testimony in teleconference services, and I'm on the wrong page, and I apologize. We are adjourned. And I read that previous statement earlier. And the Rules Committee for today is adjourned. Thank you, ma'am.