Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

Good morning. The Senate Governmental Organization Committee will come to order. As Members know, this is a very short hearing. So really pleased we have so many Members here. I think we have a quorum, but please, those Members that officers are listening, please come on down. Also want to make sure Members are aware that Senator Niello will be replacing Senator Ochoa Bogh for today's hearing. Welcome, Senator. Before we begin, let's establish a quorum. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

We have a quorum. This seems to be a first during my tenure as Chairman of GO Committee that we have a quorum right off the bat. So I want to thank everybody for turning a new leaf during this new legislative session.

It's because of your substitute Member.

There you go. There you go. So we're going to start now that we have a quorum. Is there a motion on our consent calendar which includes file item number one, SB 536. Motion, Archuleta. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay, that's 10 votes. We'll place that on call. We'll move on to our only other bill on the file today, item number two, SB 782. Senator Limón, good morning and feel free to begin.

Thank you, colleagues. SB 782 is back again. It requires the Office of the Governor to maintain on its website a list of all state boards and commissions, including the purpose, membership list, and information board they convened. The bill also requires an annual report with aggregate demographic information of individuals appointed to the state's boards and commissions. You've all seen this bill before, as it's the fourth attempt to accomplish this goal that we've all generally agreed on.

I have reintroduced this bill because it's essential to gather facts to help us institutionalize best practices and the gains made to diversify the state's boards and Commission. Without data to guide us in the appointment process, we will continue to see gaps in geographic, gender, ethnic and veteran representation, among others. SB 782, provides the missing mechanism to measure this commitment and to institutionalize the gains made. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. We'll now move on to any lead witnesses. Come up to the mic, please. Good morning.

Hello, Chair and Members. My name is Maria Morales and I'm the Policy Director for Hispanas Organized for Political Equality, HOPE. HOPE is a proud sponsor of SB 782. For the past three years, HOPE has partnered with Senator Limón on this critical issue to advance transparency in our commercial appointments. This includes sponsoring SB 702 from last year, which you all supported in this Committee.

Each time we have worked on this Bill, our effort has met with resistance from the Administration, citing costs, citing that they are already doing this work, and citing the reliability of self-attested demographic data. In light of the latest veto of this effort, HOPE initiated a thorough analysis of publicly available data from January 1 to December 15, 2023 to uncover the true state of diversity in California's gubernatorial appointments.

And what we found is that white Californians held the plurality of appointments at 52%, with Latinos, Black, API, and Native Americans collectively making up the remaining 39%. Our findings from this report emphasize the need for demographic reporting. Governor Newsom has said that California is one of the most diverse states in the world's most diverse democracy. But how can we know if our government is representative of that diversity without a report to evaluate our progress.

SB 782 only requires that the Administration annually report the information that is already being collected on appointees, which means that this simple but effective bill would come at nearly no cost to the Administration. Our call to action remains. We need in house reporting by the governor's office to highlight where gaps in representation exist.

By requiring annual reporting starting in 2027, this bill would establish a legacy of transparency for future administrations and would advance California's goals of having a government that is representative of the people of our state. For these reasons, we are proud to sponsor SB 782 and ask for your aye vote on this measure today. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Morales. Now we'll move- Anybody else wishing to testify, please come up. Seeing none, is there any witnesses in opposition? Also seeing none, we'll move the discussion back to the Members. Senator Jones?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Good morning. Happy new year. Thank you for pointing out that this is our fourth attempt at getting this through. I'm looking at the track record of the previous years, and you've done a really good job. It started in 2021 with 32 on the floor, 32-0 in the Senate, 62-5 in the Assembly. And then in 2022, you went 31-2 in the Senate, 64-9 in the Assembly. And then worked it really hard last year.

You got it to 39-0 in the Senate and 78-0 in the Assembly. So obviously, you and your team and the advocates have done a great job building overwhelming support for this idea and this concept in this bill. I would say the fourth time is a charm. Why don't we do a veto override and get this put into law?

Well, that is not a decision for me to make, but this is a bill that has significant bipartisan support. So we're just-

I forgot that point, too. It is significant bipartisan.

That was significant. Very very significant.

79-0. It's bipartisan, right?

It's very bipartisan.

Well, I think that some of us would be open to that concept and that idea. If you wish to pursue it, please let us know.

And I would encourage you to do so. Actually, I'm a little bit stronger than just supporting it. We're encouraging it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Roth.

I can't speak for everybody else. I'm encouraging it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, this is a superb bill, actually. I really think it should go further because the data that you're going to get may not necessarily give us the information that we really need in order to fix the issues that we are probably going to find. Sometimes we establish requirements for positions here that the Governor is then entitled to fill by appointment, and we place requirements on the individuals to serve in those positions that may pose a barrier to selection.

And so at some point, we need to evaluate whether the requirements that we put on some of these positions, whether it's an engineering degree or a PhD in whatever, are actually creating a barrier to doing what you intend to do with this bill. And I'm sure there are other examples. So more detailed reporting is probably something that we need to include at a later date. So the Administration may want to be thinking about that as well. Obviously, I'm going to vote aye.

Thank you.

Senator Niello.

I want to emphasize the point that Senator Jones has made. This is an important issue beyond the importance of this legislation. We have co-equal branches of government here. We are making them less co-equal by doing this. This is the fourth time. The Governor is going to veto it again. I mean, you know, he's going to veto it again. And to continue this is like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown and you're Charlie Brown, and it makes no sense whatsoever.

Again, I don't view this as earth shattering legislation. It's important, but not earth shattering, but it is earth shattering to allow the Governor to be more than a co-equal branch of government in the State of California.

It is a very important point that goes beyond the importance of this legislation, and I don't think that this institution should allow the Executive branch to continue to dictate to it with a virtual unanimous approval of a particular policy proposal and let the Executive branch override what the Legislature overridingly has approved. Other than that, I don't have an opinion.

Thank you.

Senator Archuleta.

Yes, thank you. We heard the fourth time might be the charm, but we've also heard the progression of numbers that seem to be increasing, even to the point 39 to zero in the Senate. Whoa, great numbers. What do you think has been happening? Is there improvement each year? Have you reached the pinnacle of finalizing this thing? What has been the problem, do you think, other than just the Governor saying no, but if you're making progress, we might be just there.

So I do think that the biggest problem is the Governor saying no. I think that there is legislative interest and support for this. I think what we have done, regrettably, and unfortunately to Senator Roth's point, is we've actually narrowed the information that we are collecting. We started very big, and we narrowed it with the hope that narrowing it would be something that would then be approved. All messages have been slightly different over the past three years in terms of the reasons for not signing this.

So we just feel it's an important bill. And I want to stress, too, that it's really important because there's been past reports, independent reports that have been done. For example, UCLA did one in 2022 that also showed that some of these appointments, the majority, 75% of these appointments, come from three different areas in the state. We have 58 different counties, 480+ cities.

And so what we're really also trying to get is really ensuring that we see that information and that folks from different parts of our state are able to weigh in on these really important boards and commissions. So we believe that there is legislative appetite. That is evidenced by the increasing number of votes it has. It's really a matter of how we can get it.

And I want to be very clear that we are very open to working with our Governor and the office to be able to move this forward. But we think it's an issue that, as has been said, the world's not going to change. But I do think that the world in our state can be improved by having more diverse voices on these 480 boards and commissions.

And with that, I'll move.

So anybody else wishing to speak on this item? Do we have a motion?

I think Archuleta made the motion.

He always does. Motion made by Senator Archuleta. The motion is due passed to Judiciary Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Bill has 13 votes. We're going to put that on call. I appreciate all the Members. Senator, I didn't even ask you if you wanted to close.

That vote was a great close. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. We're going to go around. I just want to thank those Members that made it for both those votes. You can feel free to leave or stay, whatever you want. So those Members that are in their office, I'm holding this call open for five minutes and I'm closing it down. So can we lift the call on the consent calendar, please? Consent items.

This is the consent calendar. [Roll call] 13-0. Leave it open.

13. We're going to leave that open for five minutes. And now we'll move to file item number two, SB 782. Do we have anybody new here?

No.

Okay. Senator Glazer and Senator Padilla, we need you in room 1200.

Let's open the roll on the consent, please.

Absent Members. [Roll call]

We're going to go now to file item number two. What's that? What was the score? 15 to zero. That Bill passes. That Bill is out. We'll now move to our only other bill, file item number two, SB 782. Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is due passed to Judiciary Committee. Absent Members. [Roll call] 15-0. It's out.

That Bill has 15 votes. 15-0. That Bill is out. The Senate Committee on Governmental Organization is now adjourned.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.