Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

I would also like to go over some of our ground rules for appropriate conduct. The Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to committee and floor proceedings in the last few years. Conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impeach the audit conduct of the hearing is prohibited.

Such conduct may include talking or making loud noises from the audience, uttering loud, threatening or abusive language, speaking longer than the time allotted, extended discussion of matter not related to the subject of the hearing or the bill, and any other disruptive acts. To address any disruptive conduct, I will take the following steps. If an individual disrupts our hearing process, I will direct them to stop and warn them that continued disruption may result in removal from the capitol building.

I will also document on the record the individual involved in the nature of the disruptive conduct. I may temporarily recess the hearing. If the conduct does not stop, I will request the assistance of the sergeants in escorting the individual from the capitol building. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome new members and staff to the committee. Assemblymember Waldron, who's not here yet. Welcome back. She is returning to the committee as a Vice Chair of the committee.

I would also like to welcome Assemblymember Essayli, who is absent today, and Assemblymember Kalra, Ward to the committee. Mr. Kalra is here. Welcome. Look forward to working with you. And Mr. Ward. Not here yet, but he'll be here hop1efully. And I again look forward to working with each and every one of you. Welcome back. Please also allow me to introduce Linda Rios, our newest consultant. Welcome, Linda. Glad to have you here. And finally, I would like to welcome Claire Norton.

She's not here yet, but she will be. Claire Norton is my Assembly fellow who will also be taking on some consultant duties this year. Two items have been pulled from today's agenda, AB 1000 by Assemblymember Reyes, and I would like to offer a few comments on AB 1000, which was pulled from today's hearing. I would like to start by acknowledging Assemblymember Reyes for her work on the bill and the elevating of the voice of the community members in her district.

I appreciate her invitation to visit her district last month and to hear firsthand about the impacts the logistics use industry has had on her community. It is clear that a problem is multifaceted, and any proposed solution will need to be multifaceted as well. I thank Assemblymember Reggae for her many years of dedicated work on this policy and for her commitment to continue working on this important issue. And I look forward to working on a solution moving forward on that issue that's being brought up.

Item number three, AB 1090 by Assemblymember John Sawyer is the second item that was pulled from the agenda. We will be hearing one remaining item on the agenda. Item one, AB 817, by Assemblymember Pacheco. We will take two primary witnesses in support and up to two primary witnesses in opposition. These witnesses will have three minutes each to provide their testimony. All subsequent witnesses should state their name, their organization, and their position on the bill. Only looks like we have a quorum now.

Secretary, please call the role.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Madam Secretary.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Today I am here to present Assembly Bill 817. I want to start by thanking the committee staff for their work on this bill, and today I will be accepting the committee amendment of adding the January 1, 2026 sunset. You also have my commitment that I am willing to line AB 817 with all the teleconferencing requirements established in Senate Bill 544 that apply to advisory bodies in the future.

AB 817 is a simple bill that does just one main thing. It reduces barriers to entry for civic participation, opening the pipeline to public engagement and future elected office to include more diverse and inclusive variety of Californians. AB 817 achieves this by allowing nondecition-making advisory-only bodies at the local level to participate remotely without posting their location for public access while maintaining public access and transparency in governance through requiring the use of two-way audiovisual technology for all meetings utilizing this authority.

The goal is to bring parity among the new state standards for advisory bodies and for nondecision-making advisory bodies. With me today to testify in support of AB 817 is Janie Whiteford, president of the California IHSS Consumer Alliance and is a member of the Santa Clara IHSS Advisory Committee. I also have here with us Supervisor Eddie Crandell, District Three Lake County supervisor. He's here on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California. I will now hand it over to my witnesses.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Carrillo and members, thank you for the opportunity to present to this committee today. My name is Janie Whiteford and I am part of a coalition of older adults and disability advocates who submitted a letter of support on this bill. I also currently sit on the In Home Supportive Services, IHSS, Advisory Committee in Santa Clara County and am the current president of CICA, California IHSS Consumer Alliance, a statewide member organization of County IHSS advisory committees and governing boards.

We currently have 26 counties as members. The coalition strongly supports AB 817 as it provides equity and inclusion that is currently missing in two-way civic engagement processes for older adults and people with disabilities to have their voices heard on critical issues that impact their quality of life. As California's master plan on aging articulates, we need to create communities where people of all ages and abilities are engaged, valued, and afforded equitable opportunities to thrive. AB 817 aligns with this important policy objective.

Despite the fact that our advisory body is nondecision-making, current law puts members of my community at risk by providing only two options either we must participate in person or we can participate remotely and allow the public access to our homes, regardless of how compromising and potentially dangerous this could be to our health and safety. This does not meet the desired threshold of the Legislature's declared goals for equal access and equal participation and opportunity in civic leadership.

This bill also supports the Americans with Disability Act by allowing a reasonable accommodation by meeting remotely for people who would need to travel hours each way to attend in person who may not be able to do so. California is a huge state and most counties have a large geographic area, and members find it very difficult, if not impossible, to attend meetings. So they simply do not serve on these important committees.

And these committees do not meet because a quorum cannot be met due to the in-person meeting requirement. During the pandemic, when the governor suspended the Brown Act requirements and committees and commissions were meeting virtually, we realized how effective this was and how we could fulfill our obligations and duties in a much easier yet effective manner and made it easier to establish a quorum and to have representation that captures the full scope of lived experience and desired insight.

Most importantly, virtual meetings greatly open up the ability for seniors and persons with disabilities to participate and represent their communities, thereby increasing citizenship. In Santa Clara County, on my IHSS Advisory Committee, one of our members resigned because her IHSS provider did not drive and she took para transit. It would take her 6 hours total back and forth to come to our meetings. Not feasible. She was very engaged member and will be greatly missed.

In Riverside County, a member of their Advisory Committee who has a significant disability and lives in the desert must take an ambulance to type transport to meetings. This costs $250 each way. How unnecessary. In rural counties and very large areas such as San Bernardino County, it can take a half day to get to a meeting site. It is the rare citizen who will do this and is an impossible bar to set for the public to have a voice.

Put simply, the current Brown Act laws create an unacceptable standard for civic engagement for members of the public. We want to provide needed and valuable input to their local communities. As a state that values diversity, equity, and inclusionary opportunities as much as California does, we must do better. For these reasons and many more anecdotes we could share, we requestfully request your support for AB 817.

Thank you. Before we go to the second primary witness, I want to acknowledge Mr. Chris Ward. Just join us. Welcome to your local government. Just for the record. Thank you. Please, second primary witness.

All right. Good afternoon Chair and esteemed committee members. My name is Eddie Crandell and I am the District Three supervisor for Lake County. I'm here on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California. AB 817 is an equity and inclusion bill that would diversify public participation and the input local decision-making bodies receive by providing a narrow exemption under the Brown Act for members of nondecision-making advisory bodies to participate via two-way virtual teleconferencing without posting their physical location.

Advisory bodies provide important recommendations and feedback to their elected decision makers, such as myself, on various issues so that the full body can then deliberate and take action with the best, most comprehensive input that is possible. Only advisory bodies that do not make decisions but merely provide recommendations to decision-makers are covered under this bill.

Local governments across the state have faced an ongoing challenge to recruit and retain members of the public on advisory boards and commissions and bodies. And often the voices at the table do not include those who are representative of the community of interest for which the decisions that will impact most.

The in-person requirement to participate in local advisory bodies presents a disproportionate challenge for those with physical or economic limitations, including seniors, people with disabilities, single parents, and or caretakers, economically marginalized groups, and those who live in rural areas such as my county and face prohibitive driving distances and limited public transit. Additional meeting flexibilities provide a much-needed pathway for residents to participate in local government and provides for increased diverse community input.

Many commissions require representation from people with lived experience, certain geographical regions, or professional backgrounds where in person requirements make participating in these are the challenges. For example, in my district, I have three municipal advisory committees and there are six municipal advisory committees in the county. Half of them are in my district. Since I've been the supervisor, East Region town hall has had a hard time filling one position, so we've had four.

And a lot of the folks that are applying for these live in different or work in different counties and have a hard time coming home. My West Region town hall is comprised of seven. However, three out of the last two years have actually had to go to the doctor quite frequently and couldn't attend the meetings, but could have in this scenario and the Central Region town hall is always struggling with the specific amount of people that work out of town as well.

Library advisory boards that we have are struggle in home supportive services, public authority advisory board committees, mental health boards, and Section Eight resident advisory boards. Participation in local advisory bodies also acts as an entry point for greater civic engagement and pathway for public service. In conclusion, AB 817 is an important and needed measure that protects access and transparency while promoting equity and inclusion. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for that testimony. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I'll try and keep it brief since we already have a motion to move the bill. My name is Brittney Barsotti. I'm a general counsel over at the California News Publishers Association. We've been involved in a lot of Brown Act bills over the last several years, and I want to start by thanking the author for your work. Trying to expand diversity and inclusion on these boards is critical, right? Like, we fully support those goals and making sure that there's equitable access.

So our concerns with the bill are sort of how it is tailored. It creates a new definition of bodies under the Brown Act, whereas historically the beauty of the Brown Act is that it applies to all bodies equally. We would encourage the author to consider moving forward with the structure that appeared in AB 2449, which included an in-person quorum requirement and perhaps add in categories of just cause.

The in-person quorum requirement was one of the reasons we were able to actually remove our opposition to 2449, and the Assembly member also brought up SB 544. That bill allowed Members who were participating as a result of a disability to count towards the in quorum in-person requirement, and we actually supported that amendment. So with that, I will respectfully urge your no vote but also commit to continue to work with the author's office to try and find some resolution here. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Cynthia Valencia. I'm a legislative advocate with the ACLU California Action. We also respectfully still remain opposed to the current text of this bill. We largely agree with the points made of wanting to diversify bodies, but we believe that only moving towards having these virtual options for members of the body is not the best way to make bodies more diverse.

It really requires public officials and agencies commit to robust outreach to communities that historically have been underrepresented to provide stipends, travel stipends for unpaid positions, implement an open and transparent selection process, and exercise the political will to appoint members from diverse backgrounds to these public bodies. We also want to agree with what my colleague here has said, but AB 2449, that just went into effect last year, has expanded a lot of opportunities for people to join remotely.

And we think that some of the examples that were used by people who gave testimony could use what's currently in law with AB 2449 to have access virtually and to reaffirm what the in-person quorum for people with disabilities. There's an in-person quorum. Plus, people with disabilities who join remotely can be counted as part of that quorum would significantly change how we would review this bill.

So we are open to hearing more from the author's office and hope that we can continue this dialogue so we have public transparency and that public business is performed with the public being able to access those who are representing them. So for right now, and those reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you for that. Before we open it up to the public to make comments, I'd like to put for the record that the Vice Chair Waldron, has joined us. Welcome back to the Committee on Local Government. Nice to have you back. Without any members of the public that wants to speak in support of the bill.

Good afternoon. Kyra Ross. On behalf of the City of San Marcos and the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers, in support of the bill.

Thank you.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of San Bernardino County and the City of Ontario, in support.

Thank you.

Chris Lee with POLITiCO group here on behalf of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, in support.

Kim Rothschild, in support, on behalf of the California Association of Public Authorities for In Home Support services.

Good afternoon. Devon Anderson, on behalf of San Mateo County, in support.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the UrbanCcounties of California, a co-sponsor of the measure, as well as the Boards of Supervisors of the counties of Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Ventura, all in support.

Mr. Chair. Chris MIcheli, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, in support of the bill.

Good afternoon. Kate Laddish, Chair of the Yolo County In-Home Supportive Services Advisory Committee and steering committee of the nonpartisan good government group called Democracy Winters in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Alyssa Silhi, on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, a co-sponsor of the measure, and also on behalf of the City Clerks Association of California and the cities of Belmont, Carlsbad, Santa Rosa, and Redwood City. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities, co-sponsor of the bill and in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Eric Lawyer, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, representing all 58 counties in strong support.

Good afternoon. Karen Lange, on behalf of the Boards of Supervisors in the counties of Napa, Solano, Sonoma, Mendocino, and San Joaquin, in support. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson, with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange, on behalf of the San Mateo County City County Association of Governments, the San Mateo County Transit District, and the California Transit Association. Excuse me. All in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Andrew Antwih, with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange, here on behalf of the cities of Goleta, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, and Los Angeles, all in support.

Good afternoon. Steve Wallauch, on behalf of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District, the Napa Valley Transportation Authority, the California Association for Coordinated Transportation, in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Matthew Siverling, on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Max Perry, on behalf of the City of San Carlos, also in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Gregory Cramer, on behalf of Disability Rights California, in support.

Geoff Neill of Nielsen Merksamer, representing the counties of Contra Costa and San Diego, also in support.

Hello. Cindy Perez, on behalf of Yolo County, in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Jason Ikerd, on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, also in support.

Good afternoon. Marky Isidro, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Anybody in the audience who wants to come up in opposition of the bill.

By proxy for California Common Cause, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and First Amendment Coalition, in opposition.

Thank you.

David Bolland of San Fernando Valley Alliance, in opposition.

Thank you. With that, I take it to the committee members anybody wants to. Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward and working with the committee. I think this bill strikes a difficult but I think appropriate balance. I really have great respect for the opposition, the Newspaper Published Association, and the ACLU.

I think that it's important to kind of have that voice making it clear to us that we have to be very cautious whenever we're looking at the brown act or when it comes to access when it comes to public access to decisions that are being made. And so I do appreciate it. And I know, knowing the opposition, knowing the author, that there will still be constructive conversations moving forward. I do want to thank the supervisor, and I certainly want to thank Janie from IHSS from Santa Clara County, who I've had the pleasure of working with and meeting with the Advisory Committee.

And I think that one of the silver linings of the pandemic, it did show that we were able to increase participation from people with disabilities, seniors, working-class folks that maybe didn't own a car and couldn't just get to a meeting without going on a bus for an hour to get there, especially in rural communities, right? And so I think that we should learn from those lessons to find appropriate opportunities for that increased participation.

These nondecision-making, decision-making committees, appointees, whatever a lot of them are, elected officials or political appointments, what have you, the nondecision-making advisory committees that play such a huge role in advising local officials, I think many of us come from that role, are so critical.

And there's no doubt that in these advisory committees is where you really find people on the ground, neighborhood leaders, community leaders, advocates that otherwise wouldn't have not only their voice heard, but their suggestions and thoughts and recommendations strongly considered and taken into account when the decision makers actually have to vote on policy or create policy.

So the fact that you still have to have an agenda that shows where the teleconferencing is taking place and have the opportunity for some location for folks to come to and the appropriate suggestion and acceptance of the sunset date so we could take a look, are the fears that are being put forward? Is that going to actually be the reality? Are we going to see more diverse participation? I think that it gives us a chance to take a look at it over the next couple of years, and I think it's going to be a positive outcome. So for that, I appreciate the author for bringing this forward.

Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Ward. And then somebody else wanted to go on this side or no?

Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to thank the author for bringing this forward. We have been having conversations, I think, prior to your joining us, about other bodies, higher-level decision-making bodies. And I think it's important that we look at those principles and look at all of the necessary elements for good civic discussion that guides a lot of the decisions that ultimately come to be.

When I'm looking at AB 2449 or others, I had reservations, and initially it opposed that because of, I thought what might be either abuse would be a strong word, but maybe an overutilization is something that's meant to be an accommodation. And so I think the important work that was done to be able to accommodate a lot of the opposition's points and negotiations helped me to get to a better place when that actually came before us for concurrence. So I hope that I recognize already you are accepting the committee amendments. I'm sorry to miss your introduction. Is that correct?

Correct. The committee amendments of the sunset date.

The sunset date and the second.

And then the second one. We were going to be aligning this bill with AB 817.

Okay. Yours is 817.

I'm sorry. Senate Bill 544.

Got it. So that would then retain a requirement for a quorum of members to be physically present in one location.

So it would be for telephonic to allow for participation to be with, I believe, teleconferencing requirements. So in other words, the person would have to have. There's requirements that are put in that bill as to teleconferencing requirements, so to have your camera on and just different requirements. And that's what we're going to be aligning this Bill with.

Those are important descriptions. But you're not taking one of the Committee amendments to require the majority of Members to participate from a single. A quorum of Members to participate from a single location.

That is correct. We're not taking that amendment.

Okay. I do think that that is ultimately important because, and we are taking the.

Amendment to require a location so there will be a physical location so that people can attend the meeting, so that way they have the opportunity to engage.

Okay. I think we want to have that conversation about maybe the way we used to do business and sort of what we're doing with lessons learned in today's experience in 2024. And regardless pre or post pandemic and with all the new technologies and accessibilities that we have, there is something that is helpful to have that central location be the gravitation point of discussion.

There's a lot more that we get through conversation here in person, with access to staff and with access to audience that's present, where we can, I think, have a more kind of robust and sincere conversation in that context. And then allowing for and what we've been doing is to accommodate more, as defined through some of these exceptions.

So I would encourage you, as this moves forward, to look at some of these other provisions of 2449 because it was the sweet spot that moved a lot of members during this discussion over the last session that I think don't inhibit what you are trying to do for accommodation, but really narrow it in a way that keeps the original intent and character and feel of these important discussions. These are important discussions even though they're advisory, not decision-making.

If you think about police review conversations, library conversations, park and rec board mobility advisories, questions, these are all critical components of local government functions that really originate from these discussions. And so it is helpful for generally, most of the public to be able to be in that one place as a part of that sort of environmental chemistry that we have as humans conversing with each other. So with that sort of as background, I'll be in support today with your commitment to be able to continue to look at some of the provisions of 2449 as this bill moves forward.

And I'm still open to having discussions with opposition, so that won't cease.

Yeah, thank you, Assemblymember Ward. Anybody else? No. Without Assemblymember Pacheco, do you have a closing statement?

Thank you.

So I just want to, again thank all of you for having me present this bill before you today. I respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank Assemblymember for your work and your staff on this bill. I appreciate your willingness to accept the first committee amendments as outlined in the analysis to add a sunset date consistent with the pro-related bills. I believe that there will be a tremendous value to revisit at the same time the many changes that have been made to the Brown Act in recent years. So I thank you for that.

Thank you.

I would also like to express my appreciation for your time on the many conversations we had about additional proposed amendments. I believe we have reached a compromise that allows you to achieve your objective to provide more flexibility for local advisory bodies while maintaining many of the avenues for public participation that the Brown act was created to protect.

I understand you will be working on further amendments, as it was just discussed, to align your bill with provisions of Senator Laird's SB 544 that govern remote participation for the state advisory bodies. I will also ask that you continue to work with this committee on this amendment so that I can continue to support your bill as it moves forward. With that, I will be voting aye. The motion is do pass as amended. Secretary, please call the roll.

Carrillo. Aye. Carrillo, aye. Waldron. Waldron. Aye. Essayli. Haney. Haney, aye. Kalra. Kalra, aye. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos. Ramos., aye. Ward. Ward, aye. Wilson. Wilson, aye. Eight, zero.

The bill moves on with an eight, zero. Thank you all for being here. Thank you all for being here today. Welcome back to those returning members as welcome. Welcome back to local government and the new committee members. Thank you. Thank you all.

Thank you.

The bill is out eight, zero. Thank you.

Thanks. Thank you. Nice to meet you.

And we have the same issue with our IHSS.