Assembly Standing Committee on Higher Education

Please note, while this hearing will not have phone testimony, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on a Committee's website at www.ahed.Assembly.ca.gov. And today we're gonna do a special order of bills for the first ...on our call to action Bill package, and then after that, bills will be taken up in sign in order authors, you can sign in at the sergeant's desk in room 437.

Additionally, please note that the guideline for Bills heard in this Committee is allowed for testimony from two lead witnesses in support and two lead witnesses in opposition to speak for no more than two minutes each.

Stakeholder groups and entities that are neither in support nor in opposition will be allowed to give testimony for no more than two minutes when a call for tweeners if a measure has more than two entities in the tweener category, only two will be allowed to speak for two minutes each for Members of the Committee.

Members, if you'd like to respond to a roll call, ask a question, or provide a comment, please be sure to activate your microphone and speak into your mic for authors of bills up today. Authors each Member presenting today will provide an opening and a closing statement. As previously stated, your two lead witnesses will each have two minutes to provide testimony and in terms of today's hearing, the following Members have been excused from today's hearing.

Assemblyman Bill Essayli has been replaced for today's hearing only by Assemblymember Juan Alanis. Assembler Evan Low has been replaced for today's hearing by Assembly Member Don Addis. Welcome to the Committee, Assembly Addis and Assembly Alanis and today we have a full and robust agenda with 23 measures on the agenda today, with four measures proposed for the consent calendar. Additionally, file item number 13. Assembly Bill 2094, authored by Assembler Vince Fong, will be presented today by Assembly Member Juan Alanis.

Before we proceed with our first author. Thank you so much for your patience. Really appreciate all the hard work and efforts of this Committee. As chair is my duty to address with unwavering determination the issues facing our higher education institutions. I am proud of the work this Committee has done in recent years to put forth a comprehensive report on how the state can best address sexual harassment on our higher education campuses.

Today, we are here to answer the call of our students, faculty and staff to mandate action by our higher education institutions to address and prevent all forms of harassment, but especially sexual harassment. California cannot succeed if a large percentage of our college students do not feel safe on campus. We cannot succeed if there is an untold human cost and loss of potential because women and men are walking with invisible wounds due to the trauma they have suffered at the hands of others.

We cannot continue to ignore this issue as it is not just a women's issue, or rather a human rights issue, because it would truly say that everyone should have the freedom to access education and to thrive, then we have to mean it. Somewhere there is a young woman, a young gay man, or a transgender student who is suffering from harassment, and it is our duty to help them feel seen, heard and restored. Barriers to education are not just physical.

They can be mental as well, and having educational equity means removing all barriers. I hope everyone on this Committee joins me today in commending the authors who have joined me in saying, time is up. We will no longer turn away from the injustices that occur on our campuses, but we will instead extend a hand to those who have suffered in silence and say, we believe you.

To further demonstrate my resolve in addressing this issue, I have asked each author the call to action Bill package to allow me to be a joint author. I will continue authorized staff for this Committee to continue their amazing, exemplary work in researching how to address all forms of discrimination on our college and University campuses. With that, I will call our first author forward. Assembly Damon Connolly. When you're ready, please proceed to file number one. Assembly Bill 1790. Welcome.

Thank you, Chair and Members, good afternoon. And Chair, thank you for those great remarks, kind of setting up what we're here about this afternoon and really would like to begin by thanking the Committee staff for their tireless work on this Bill package. And I will be accepting the Committee amendments. Last year, the California State Auditor's Office, directed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, conducted an audit of the California State University system to assess CSU's handling of sexual harassment complaints against employees.

The audit included the Office of the Chancellor, California State University, Fresno, San Jose State University, and Sonoma State University, which is in my district, due to complaints that CSU lacks adequate and consistent corrective action in some allegations of sexual harassment. That report highlighted several faults and failings within the CSU sexual harassment policy and cases at many campuses of allegations not being adequately or consistently investigated and addressed.

Where investigations were conducted, it was found that many campuses utilize concerning and deficient processes, including the frequent dismissal of complaints on the basis that they do not meet the CSU policy's definition of sexual harassment. We in the Legislature have a responsibility to our students and faculty to ensure that sexual harassment and assault allegations are not slipping through the cracks. AB 1790 will require that the CSU implement the California State Auditor's recommendations by July 1, 2026.

These recommendations include requiring the chancellor's office to play a more active role in providing oversight, developing standardized guidelines for all formal investigations, and establishing system wide requirements to address unprofessional conduct. These efforts will be critical to improving the livelihood and well being of students at Sonoma State University and campuses throughout the state. And I look forward to working with all my colleagues here today to make sure these issues are addressed. I'm joined today by Kate Rodgers, a third year UCLA student and Co Chief of Policy for Generation Up, the sponsor of this Bill. Welcome, Kate.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good afternoon. My name is Kate Rodgers, and I serve as Co Chief of Policy for Generation Up. GENup is an entirely student led advocacy organization focusing on fighting for students rights through the California legislative process. And I'd like to start today by thanking Assemblymember Connolly for Introducing AB 1790, a Bill to implement this State Auditor's report to the CSU. So while the audit report might have been specific to the CSU, the culture that it uncovered really is not.

I think the approach to sexual violence on college campuses has kind of been. Ignorance is bliss. But for those of us that are on the campuses every day, it's just kind of always in the back of our minds. And when something does happen, which for 1 and 4 undergraduate women, it will, we often just tell ourselves, like, just get over it. Don't be dramatic. And definitely don't go to the Title IX office.

And in my nearly three years at UCLA, I've heard the stories about the inaction of the Title IX office. So when I was faced with the decision about whether or not to file a report, I chose not to. And eventually, circumstances forced my hand, and I had to report. And the person that I'd spoke to at the Title IX office assured me that I'd done everything right and that, you know, something would happen.

But, you know, like, I didn't hear anything for a few days, and I just figured, like, whatever needed to happen was happening behind the scenes. But a few days became a week, and then a month and then I just realized I would just never hear anything at all. So this is what's been happening at California's public institutions. Nothing. So now, thanks to the incredible work of this Committee's staff, the truth about the Title IX processes is no longer just an open secret on our campuses.

Like we all know about it. You all know about it. So failing to pass AB 1790 today would be failing to accept the reality that the State Auditor's report exposed. So, Assemblymember Connolly's Bill has given the Legislature an opportunity to remedy years of negligence. And I urge you to take that opportunity. So on behalf of Generation Up, proud co sponsor of AB 1790, I respectfully request your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room?

Hannah Devine with the Cal State Student Association in strong support.

Alyssa Yun, on behalf of the CSU Employees Union in strong support.

Jocelyn Yow, on behalf of IGNITE National and we're in strong support.

Stephen Felling for the California Faculty Association. Very strong support.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room?

Hi, good afternoon. I'm Maggie White with the California State University. In the interest of time, I'd just like to take a moment now to thank the Committee staff, the authors, and the sponsors for their work on the entire Bill package being heard today. We're thankful for the amendments that we see reflected in the analyses, and we want to thank you all for working with us so collaboratively. The Call to Action report was a monumental lift, and we greatly appreciate our perspectives being considered in this process. I'll be available if there are any questions of the CSU throughout this Bill package hearing. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much, colleagues. Any questions or comments. Mister Muratsuchi.

Thank you Mister Connolly, for this very important Bill. I am thinking about this package of Bills today on Title IX. As a father of a daughter who is getting ready to go to college. And so I want not only my daughter, obviously, but all women to feel safe at their college campuses. And I would be honored if you would add me as a co author to this Bill, and we'd be proud to support this Bill today.

Thank you. We'd be happy to.

Thank you.

Thank you so much Mister Muratsuchi. Any further questions or comments. Assemblymember Addis. We need one more for quorum and then we'll take your motion.

I'll just say thank you, and thank you to the witness. These are hard things to come and talk about, and so just want to appreciate you having the bravery and, and also part of this build package. So thank you Assemblymember, for being an author of one of these bills.

Thank you so much. Any further comments or questions? Colleagues? Seeing none. Assemblymember Connolly would like to close please.

Yeah, appreciate the opportunity. Just really honored and gratified to be part of this larger Bill package, sending a clear message from this body that we stand with students, employees at our CSU's in combating sexual violence. And with that, I'd respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Once we have quorum, then we'll take that motion up. But thank you so much again colleagues, for that robust conversation. Thank you Assemblymember Connolly for authoring this very important measure and for setting a precedent of accountability. And thank you Kate for your powerful testimony. As mentioned in our Call to Action report, the State Auditor is not a regulator body, but we at the Legislature can partner with the State Auditor by mandating that all recommendations are implemented with fidelity.

And with that, I look forward to supporting the measure today. And thank you so much Assemblymember Connolly, for bringing us forward. Thank you. Next up, colleagues, is item number four, Assembly Bill 2326 authored by Assemblymember Alvarez. Welcome Assemblymember Alvarez.

Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I want to thank our colleague from San Rafael who just presented, and certainly the chair, Mr. Fong, and the other members who have joined in this effort. My previous role as chair of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, along with Mr. Fong, chair of this committee and also the Senate Committee, convened an oversight hearing on the findings of the audit and describe it as very sobering.

You could describe it as, in some instances, shocking in terms of what the audit found. And beyond that, the oversight of, perhaps in that case, are one of our institutions or systems of higher education in doing the necessary work to protect all students, which is, as you addressed in your opening comments, the intent of this package.

So it is with that that we bring to the committee, Assembly Bill 2326 part of this package of bills, that it will ensure that the findings of this audit and the facts as we all know them actually get addressed, in this case with oversight on an ongoing basis, as this bill intends to do so. For decades, there have been attempts to address sex discrimination at higher education institutions.

However, a lack of compliance and accountability has occurred to address the seriousness and the sensitivity of that discrimination at our institutions of higher education. We have seen again audits from the two systems within the last decade or less. At last year's Joint Legislative Audit Committee, which we partnered with, we learned that we must increase the accountability for a safe learning environment. That was a 232 page report system wide, where we discussed that in the Joint Hearing.

We found that campuses do not have a system in place to adequately respond to misconduct that doesn't rise to the level of outright discrimination or harassment. We saw instances in the audit where it was reported, as we all hope would be reported, but then there was no follow up whatsoever to some of those incidents.

Additionally, the California State Auditor found the campuses lack clear rationale for closing cases in 11 of the 15 cases that were reviewed in detail in depth, causing questions as to whether they should have investigated the allegations, which again were not investigated. Today I stand as a proud author of AB 2326. For the first time in the legislature's history, we are bringing oversight and compliance to this important reporting.

AB 2326 specifically identifies who is responsible for ensuring that campus programs are free from discrimination and who has the authority to oversee and monitor to ensure compliance with state and federal laws. With this Bill, we are making creating a pathway forward to partner with higher education institutions to assist the fulfillment and the promise to provide an educational opportunity and programs for students that are free from sexual discrimination for students and for employees.

Today we will hear from our lead witness, Kathleen Van Osten, who's here on behalf of the American Association of University Women, AAUW, and George Ashford, who is Chief Operating Officer at GENup. I'll turn it over to them.

Thank you. First, I would like to thank our author for number one, calling for this audit and moving forward to address some of the concerns that were raised in the audit. AAUW California is comprised of 9500 women across California that are active in our branches, and we have another 2000 that are ad hoc members. Social and racial justice is part of our platform. Access to equality education is part of our platform.

And what we view, as I know you do, education is really a gateway for those who have been underrepresented or may not have had the opportunities that others have had to really break out and achieve success in life, follow a career they love. But we also know that when you're young and at campuses, you can run into some trouble. We're also working on another bill dealing with rape survivors. And I can tell you sexual assault on campuses is massively underreported in California.

So we do know we have a problem. We know that intimidation, harassment, assault, whether it's border bullying, sexual harassment or other types, that is going to impact a student. It's going to affect their mental health, it's going to affect their ability to study. It could affect beyond that their attendance at schools, their academic progress, and so forth. So in some cases, we see people leave, we see students leave, or, frankly, other faculty.

So we look at this bill as a critical component for what we need to do to correct Title IX. And that is get a system wide set of guidance, rules, implementation throughout each of these public higher education institutions, and hold that accountability at the top levels, because that is the only way you are going to get the attention that you need to make sure our campuses are safe and that when somebody files a complaint, it's responded to, it's investigated, and there is a resolution.

So we are grateful again for our author for carrying the bill and for the committee for its attention on this issue. And we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Fong and members of the committee, my name is George Ashford. I'm a third year at Claremont McKenna College, and I serve as Chief Operating Officer for Generation Up. GENup is dedicated to advocating for policies that advance the interests of students in the California Legislature, such as Assembly Bill 2326.

Co sponsored by GENup, this Bill establishes a critical system of oversight of the UC, CSU, and community College Title IX practices by making system leadership accountable to the Legislature for compliance. This bill requires California's public higher education institutions to prioritize student safety. The authors of the call to Action Package, the staff of this committee, and student advocates are promoting evidence based solutions to the broken Title IX systems at the UC's, CSUs and community colleges.

Any student on these campuses will tell you that too many of their friends, and perhaps they themselves, do not feel safe and that the systems in place to protect them are not working. AB 2326 will ensure that these essential reforms are implemented at every public campus in California and empower the Legislature to hold institutions accountable for putting their students at risk. On behalf of generation up, I respectfully request your aye vote on AB 2326 today. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And just for a clarifying point, Assemblymember Alvarez, do you accept the committee amendments?

Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room?

Mary Washington with the Cal State Student Association, in support.

Jocelyn Yao with Ignite National, in support.

Anna Matthews, on behalf of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges, in support.

Steven Filling for California Faculty Association, in support.

Hello. Wendy Brill-Wynkoop, Faculty Association of the California Community colleges, in support.

Terry Wilson, on behalf of CSU Employees Union, in strong support.

Tiffany Mok, on behalf of CFT, in strong support. Thank you.

David Hawkins with the California Community College Independence Faculty Union, in support.

Thank you so much. Before we go to any potential opposition, we're going to do a roll call, please, for quorum. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much, colleagues. We have quorum. Thank you so much. Again. Are there witnesses in opposition in a hearing room? Are there tweeners in a hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? I'm sorry.

Sorry, chair. Quick tweener on the entire package. Austin Webster with w strategies on behalf of the academic Senate for California community colleges. We haven't had a chance to run this through our internal process yet, but look forward to taking positions on these soon and thank the committee staff and all of the authors for their hard work.

Good afternoon. Andrew Martinez, Community College League of California similar to what my colleague said, we too have not taken position on these packets of bills. We look forward to working with the committee and with the author on these bills as they move forward through the process and appreciate the engagement. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much, colleagues. Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Alvarez, would you like to close, please?

I just want to thank you, chair. Certainly the committee staff who worked, I know firsthand how Dylan she was worked on not just our bill, but the package of bills. And again, appreciate the support from all the sponsors in taking action what we clearly found out last year in our hearing. We needed to do so and appreciate your willingness to take action immediately in this new session. And I urge and ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Alvarez, for your leadership and efforts and authoring this very important bill, as referenced the very robust JLAC hearing that we had a few months back as well on title nine reform. This measure will create an accountability structure by which the legislature will hear from the segments as to how they are addressing all forms of discrimination.

With a rise in discrimination and hate crimes on our campuses is imperative for our colleges, which train our future workforce, to be as inclusive as possible and to provide equitable access for all people. With that, I look forward to supporting a measure here today. Colleagues, do we have a motion? We have a motion at a second roll call. Please.

File item number four, AB 2326. The motion is do pass, as amended, to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much, colleagues. That measure is out with six votes, and we'll keep the row open for additional members. Add on.

Thank you all. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Alvarez. With that we'll do, since we have quorum now, we'll do the consent calendar. So we have four items on the consent calendar. File item number 11. File item number 16. File item 18 and file item number 19. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. I'm sorry. Do we have a motion on the consent calendar?

Second.

We have a motion. A second. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

The consent calendar has six ayes. We'll keep the row open for additional Members to add on. Thank you, colleagues. With that, if we can go back to item number one. Do we have a motion on Assembly Bill 1790? Move motion by Assembly Addis. Second by Doctor Jackson. Any additional comments? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

That measures six ayes, and we'll keep the row open for additional Members to add on for item number one. With that, I'd like to welcome Assembler Gregg Hart presenting item number five, Assembly Bill 2407. Welcome.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB 2407. And I just want to thank Mister chair for your leadership on this really critical issue, putting together this package of different legislators carrying important bills that together are an incredibly important package for the State of California. I also want to thank your Committee staff, especially Ellen, for working tirelessly for this very important Bill package.

As chair of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, I'm proud to author this measure to require the state auditors perform comprehensive audits of sexual harassment policies across California's community colleges, CSU, and UC campuses every three years.

These audits will evaluate our public higher education system's ability to address and prevent sexual harassment on campus, and ensure that system wide sex discrimination policies are aligned with state and federal laws AB 2407 will evaluate whether cases are handled properly properly, and the State Auditor may provide recommendations to prevent sexual harassment on campuses. This measure will foster transparency, accountability, and a safer learning environment within California's colleges and universities. I'd like to introduce Christine Hernandez with Ignite, who is speaking in support of the measure.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Hello. Good afternoon. Thank you Assemblymember Hart for having me speak today. I appreciate this opportunity. My name is Christine Hernandez and I am the Director of college programs at Ignite national with hundreds of Members who are currently enrolled in UC's CSUs and community colleges. I'm also proud alumna of Cal State Fullerton and Coastline Community College in Westminster. I am here today in support of AB 2407. Prior to coming to Ignite, I was actually a college administrator for over a decade.

I worked with many students who filed or were considering filing a formal Title IX complaint with their institution. And as a mandated reporter, I can tell you from experience that students are more likely to submit a formal complaint if they can trust the process.

Even if a student had trust in me as a mentor or their instructor, they still had to consider the trust that they had in a system and weigh it against the burden of time, energy and resources it takes for someone to file a complaint and see it through. AB 2407 would add a layer of transparency to the Title ix complaint process by ensuring that the process is is assessed by a State Auditor every three years.

Providing this type of audit would help increase a safer learning environment, which increases their ability to academically succeed overall and by taking a look at both preventative and restorative measures. Respectfully, I request your support.

Thank you. Welcome.

This is generally for me and for my staff. I just want to have her had a chance to thank her in person for the Committee for all the great work that she's doing done on this Bill.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room?

Kate Rogers, on behalf of generation up, strong support.

Hannah Devine with the Cal State Student Association and strong support.

Hello, Wendy. Beryl Weincoop, Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, in support.

Stephen Filling, California Faculty Association, in transparently strong support.

Caroline Wynn, on behalf of the UC Student Association, in support.

Terry Wilson, CSU and strong support.

Tiffany Mock, CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues? oh, sorry, go ahead.

Mario Guerrero. On behalf of the University of California, we've provided Committee with recommended amendments in terms of the period of the audits, but otherwise really thank the staff for working with us. Thank you.

Thank you so much, colleagues. Any questions or comments? Seeing none. Assembly, we'd like to close, please.

I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, colleagues. Do we have a motion? We have a motion by Mister Maritusuchi. Do we have a second? 2nd by summer Addis. See no further comment or discussion. Madam Secretary, roll call.

[Roll Call]

That measure has six eyes and is out. We'll keep the roll open for additional Members. Add on. Thank you. Thank you.

All right.

Next item. Item file number two, AB 2047.

Thank you so much, Mister Chair and members, I will be accepting amendments provided by the committee. Assembly Bill 2047 would establish a system-wide office of civil rights at the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office, the California State University Chancellor's Office, and the University of California office of the President. This measure would endow these offices with the responsibilities that we're seeing the operations of the system in addressing and preventing sexual harassment and sex discrimination in our call to Action Report.

And thank you so much to the various audits conducted by the California State Auditor. We now know the California community colleges, California State University and University of California, have not been fulfilling their role to oversee and monitor compliance with state and federal laws. This measure would be considered a first step and providing a comprehensive oversight system where no body of leadership, including this one, is left unaware of the actions of the systems to address discrimination.

With me today to speak on the merits of this measure are Kate Rogers of Generation Up and Terry Wilson, Vice President of Finance for the California State University Employees Union.

Good afternoon. Kate Rogers, again, Co-Chief of Policy for Generation Up. So, representing students across the State of California, GenUp has a responsibility to fight for safer campuses in California. So, I'd like to start today by thanking Chairman Fong for being our ally in supporting the call-to-action bill package and introducing AB 2047. So, co-sponsored by GenUp, AB 2047 will establish system-wide offices of civil rights in the UC, CSU, and community college systems, as well as standardized Title IX policies.

So, as shown in the call to action audit report, individual campuses are wholly unable to hold themselves accountable. Complex and ambiguous Title IX standards, coupled with a complete lack of oversight, allow sexual violence and harassment to persist in higher education. So right now, it is student safety that's slipping through the cracks of the Title IX system and students. We're not naive. We understand that broad institutional change is hard.

But I can guarantee you it is not as hard as living three dorm rooms away from someone that assaulted you. It is not as hard as focusing in class when you're constantly looking over your shoulder. And it is definitely not as hard as feeling like you are on your own. So AB 2047 will play a crucial role in ending campus sexual violence and harassment. So, by establishing a Title IX framework, this bill ensures that students have more reliable access to their rights.

So, through AB 2047, every campus will be truly accountable for their student safety. So thank you, and I urge you to vote aye today on AB 2047.

Good afternoon, Mister Vice Chair and members. I'd like to thank the committee for your work on the call to action bill package. And I'd also like to thank Chair Fong for authorizing this important bill. My name is Terry Wilson, and I'm the vice president for finance for the California State University Employees Union, which represents 35,000 non-faculty staff student assistants at the CSU.

Over the last few years, an increasing number of media reports, as well as investigations conducted by the State Auditor's office and by this committee, have all highlighted the need for systemic Title IX reform. At the CSU, our members conduct intake on reports of sexual misconduct and are targets of that behavior themselves.

So we have both witnessed and personally experienced issues with the CSU's Title IX system, such as outrageous case delays, lack of consequences for those who violate Title IX policies, and oftentimes, lack of an investigation at all. Given these experiences, our members were not surprised when the state auditors 2023 investigation of the CSU's title IX system confirmed that the CSU is failing to adhere to many title IX policies.

AB 2047 will establish criteria for critical oversight to ensure that all of our public higher education institutions are actively monitoring compliance with federal, state, and system-wide policies to prevent and address discrimination on campuses. Without ensuring compliance, strong policies won't bring us any closer to achieving safer campuses. These measures will help our communities begin to rebuild trust in our Title IX systems and will start to correct systemic failings that have left students, faculty, and staff feeling unsafe and unsupported on campuses.

For these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your presentation. And is there anyone here in a room to support, please?

Jocelyn - excuse me. Jocelyn Yow with IGNITE National in strong support of this bill.

Anna Matthews with the Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges and strong support.

Mary Washington with the Cal State Student Association in support.

David Hawkins with the California Community College Independence Faculty Union and support. Thank you.

Tiffany Mok with CFT and support. Thank you.

Is anyone here in opposition? None. Are there any tweeners in the hearing room?

Mister Chair and members of the committee, Mario Guerrero. On behalf of the University of California, we would just note that the University of California recently announced the creation of a system wide office of civil rights. However, the bill calls for this office to be led by the Title IX coordinator. So we look forward to continuing to work with staff in addressing these kinds of implementation issues. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And I have a question for Assemblymember Fong. So, for clarity, would you like to accept the ammendent upon the committee?

Yes, I accept the commission.

We appreciate that. So thank you so much for ordering this measure and for elevating the need for the system to have the automatic of self auditing to ensure compliance with state and federal laws. I look forward to support your bill. So, any concerns or comments from the committee members? Okay, please.

Thank you, Chair Fong, for your leadership in this overall effort to address this problem of sexual assault, sexual harassments at our college campuses. I note since this is your first of several bills that you're going to be presenting, I wanted to ask you. Well, first of all, a clarification on this bill. Is it one system-wide office of civil rights for all three segments?

It's one system-wide office for each of the two segments.

Your committee analysis addresses or acknowledges the concern about duplication of content and potential increase in costs in finite budget years. Can you and, whatever you can, can you share whatever you can in terms of how you expect any duplication of these multiple measures being addressed so that we have one solid, coordinated response to address this problem?

A great question. Thank you so much, teacher, for that question. In terms of the system-wide Title IX and civil rights offices, what we're trying to do as part of this bill is to really codify and enumerate the duties and responsibilities of these system-wide offices. By codifying the existence of these offices and responsibilities, we're hoping to create checks and balances by which our legislature can hold these systems accountable.

But who is going to make sure that all of these bills work in coordination and address overlapping provisions?

As we move along with the bill of, actually, we are looking at the different similarities and differences within each of the bills and how we can continue to have those conversations. But we need to continue to elevate the importance of these issues. And so if there's any duplication, we'll continue to work with different authors to address those issues.

All right, thank you.

Thank you. All right. Thank you so much for that. Is there any other comment and concerns from member of the committee? If not, Assemblymember Fong, would you like to close?

Thank you so much, Mister Vice Chair and members; I respectfully ask for your aye vote on Assembly Bill 2047 and I am grateful to my witnesses for their testimony. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And I think we have the motion and the second of the floor, Madam Secretary, so who - okay, second. All right. Yes, we have the motion by Doctor Jackson and second by Assemblymember Muratsuchi. Yeah.

File item number two, AB 2047. The motion is do-pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] That's five to zero; we'll hold the bill.

All right, thank you so much. Next item, AB 2048.

Thank you so much Mister Vice Chair and Members and I will be accepting the Committee's amendments provided by the Committee. Assembly Bill 2048 would establish campus based Title IX offices for the CSU, UC, and district based Title IX offices for the California community colleges. This Bill would also codify the responsibilities of the offices and establish a reporting requirement to ensure compliance with state and federal laws.

The measure is aligned with the recommendations from a call to action report which found that Title IX coordinators were often overwhelmed in their duties and therefore were often left unsure which responsibility should be prioritized in preventing and addressing sex discrimination complaints. This measure will not only require the Title IX offices to have appropriate staffing levels, but also codify best practices as identified by the California State Auditor research conducted by this Committee staff and the recent San Jose State University resolution with the US Department of Justice.

This measure, along with the other 11 measures of the call to action Bill package represents the first step of providing a system of compliance, prevention and oversight with the goal of providing safe and equitable access to education for all our students. With me today to speak on the merits of this measure are Kate Rogers of generation up and Terry Wilson, Vice President of finance for California State University Employees Union. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon again here on behalf of generation up, proud co sponsor of AB 2048. So, each of the call to action bills that are being heard before this Committee today play a very key role in addressing systemic issues within the UC, CSU, and community colleges. By establishing a Title IX office at every public campus in the state, AB 2048 will guarantee that the benefits of each of these incredible pieces of legislation reaches as many students as possible.

So I'm going to go out on a limb, and I'm going to say everyone in this room values higher education. And so, with our 10 UC, 23 CSU, and 116 community college campuses, that can take a lot of different forms in California. One thing, though, that should be the same for every student is their access to justice. And navigating the Title IX process at a large, well funded research institution is hard enough.

And coming forward after experiencing sexual assault or harassment is an incredibly difficult decision, especially when there's social, psychological, academic implications. But for thousands of students in California today, there's an added challenge. They don't even have a Title IX office at their campus. So without resources dedicated to their safety, we cannot expect these students to feel like they'll be protected when they reach out for help. So the least we can do is make sure that every student has the opportunity to advocate for themselves.

So AB 2048 will lay the foundation on which we can build a safer California for our students. So, on behalf of generation up, I respectfully request your I vote on AB 2048 today.

Good afternoon, Mister Vice Chair and Members. Thank you again to the chair for authoring another important piece of this legislation and a call to action Bill package. Once again, my name is Terry Wilson, and I'm the Vice President for finance for CSU Employees Union, which represents 35,000 non faculty, staff, and student assistants at the CSU.

As I mentioned in my previous statement, CSUEU Members have both witnessed and personally experienced issues with the CSU Title IX system, including extreme case delays, lack of consequences for those who violate Title IX policies, and failure to investigate claims. Aside from Title IX policies compliance issues, these problems have also been exacerbated by both the severe staffing shortages in our Title IX offices and the lack of system wide coordination and oversight in addressing complaints. AB 2048 will address both issues.

Adequate staffing is absolutely essential to support a robust and effective Title IX system, and the oversight component will add a layer of accountability that will ensure our state campuses are making sustained efforts to address and prevent sexual misconduct. While there has been a lot of focus placed specifically on the CSU's Title IX system, this Bill gives us the opportunity to prevent the same systemic failings from occurring across our UC and community college campuses as well.

Everyone who steps foot on a state campus deserves to live, work, learn in a safe environment, and we believe this bill is an important step towards achieving that. For these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote and thank you.

Thank you so much for your presentation. Is anyone else in the hearing room in support?

Jocelyn Yow of Ignite National and we're in support of the Bill.

Anna Matthews of the Faculty Association of the California community colleges in strong support of this program Bill.

David Hawkins on behalf of the California Community College Independence Faculty Union in support.

Hannah Devine with the Cal State Student Association in strong support.

Tiffany Mok with CFT and support. Thank you.

Is anyone in opposition? Are there any tweeners in the headroom?

Good afternoon again. Andrew Martinez, Community College League of California. Deeply appreciative of the fact that there is a funding request associated with this proposal of $73 million for our community colleges. It is a significant ramp up for our colleges to ensure that we are adequately doing this bill as quickly as possible as envisioned by the bill. So appreciate the investment, appreciate the fact that the Legislature wants to provide dollars to support this significant expansion of staff for our campuses.

We're a little bit different than CSU and UC in this space, so the ramp up is probably going to be more challenging. I appreciate having the conversation going forward as well.

Thank you so much. Any common concerns or questions from Member of the Committee? I see none. I want to thank others for bringing this measure forward. Having designated staff on campus who can address complaints in a timely and reasonable manner is an issue that every system should address. Look forward to support this Bill. Assembly Member Fong, would you like to close?

Thank you so much. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. So do I have a motion? Motion and second. Madam Secretary, can you do roll call vote?

File item number three, AB 20048. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]. We're five to zero. We'll hold the roll open.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much colleagues. Next up we have item number seven, Assembly Bill 2608, authored by Assemblymember Gabriel. Welcome.

Thank you very much Mister Chair and colleagues. I want to start by thanking you and your staff for your leadership on Title IX in issues of sex discrimination on campus. And I am pleased today to accept the Committee amendments and also to present Assembly Bill 2608, which will strengthen preventative measures against sexual assault on college campuses by requiring important updates to student trainings. ABA 2608 will require two important updates.

First, the updates will include information related to the signs, symptoms, and prevention of drug facilitated sexual assault and harassment. Secondly, it will also require that information is provided on how students can access confidential support and care resources for sexual violence and harassment. This Bill ... trainings provide students the information and resources they need to stay safe on campus and will contribute to promoting important Title IX protections and awareness.

AB 2608 has broad support from students and faculty, as well as Valor US California statewide coalition against sexual assault. It has no known opposition. With me today to testify in support of this measure is Brianna Conway Miller, Director of the UC Santa Barbara Campus Advocacy Resources and Education Center. Thank you and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, Members of the Committee. My name is Brianna Conway Miller. I use she/her gender pronouns. Today, I offer my professional expertise for California Assembly Bill 2608. As the Director of CARE at the University of California Santa Barbara, a position I have held for 10 years. As Director, I lead one of the UC system's 10 campus prevention and survivor support programs for sexual assault, intimate partner violence, stalking, and harassment.

There's a widely used proverb among public health practitioners that says an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The Bill's emphasis on primary prevention is essential for centering resources on stopping violence before it begins. At the University of California, CARE employs a prevention strategy backed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is informed by research and local campus climate data.

To implement such a strategy, the effective prevention practices outlined in this Bill include, ensuring collaboration among experts in the fields of sexual assault, health promotion, and alcohol and drug services, is essential for designing, delivering, and evaluating curricula that reduces sexual victimization overall. These prevention methods must align with current research, address aggressor behaviors, and provide skill based intervention strategies among peers. And they must prioritize trauma informed education that empowers survivors and ensures access to confidential resources such as campus advocates and connections to the local community rape crisis centers.

Assembly Bill 2608 is a critical step towards enhancing the primary prevention requirements at California colleges and universities. Institutions of higher ed often prioritize response and compliance over prevention. This is leading to reactive environments. This Bill acknowledges the interconnectedness of two public health issues, sexual violence and the dangers of substance misuse, and ensures that our prevention efforts are integrated and comprehensive in promoting healthy behaviors and safe campuses. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses and support in the hearing room?

Good afternoon, Mister Chair. Jessica Dong with the University of California in support.

Jocelyn Yow with IGNITE National, a co sponsor and in strong support.

Kate Rogers with GENup. Proud co sponsor of AB 2608 in strong support.

Mary Washington with Gall State Student Association in support.

Caroline Nguyen with the UC Student Association proud to co sponsor.

Tiffany Mok, CFT in strong support.

Wendy Brill-Wynkoop, constituent of AD 46 and President of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, in support.

Stephen Filing, California Faculty Association strong support.

Terry Wilson on behalf of CSUEU in strong support.

David Hawkins, California Community College Independence Faculty Union in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in a hearing room? Are there tweeners in a hearing room?

Good afternoon. Chair Fong and Members of the Assembly Higher Education Committee, Imran Majid, on behalf of the California Community College's Chancellor's Office, while we do not have an official position on the Bill today, we want to thank the author and their staff for working with, for working closely with us on the bill Language. We also want to thank and acknowledge the work of this Committee, all the authors, all their staff, for their dedication and attention to this issue.

And we look forward to supporting policies that would ensure a safe, welcoming, and inclusive campus environment for all of our students. Thank you so much.

Thank you, colleagues. Any questions or comments? Assembly Member Maratsuchi.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Gabriel, for this important measure. I just have a few questions to clarify. Make sure I understand what I'm voting for. So your bill is not to train every single student, but to offer the opportunity for every single student to be trained.

So it's to amend a prior bill of mine that has required this training. It's a little bit different on the community colleges than it is at CSU, but where they are offering that training, it's to update that training to make sure that the training that students are already going to be receiving about sexual violence prevention, sexual assault prevention, would include this additional information about substance abuse and how that might play into those situations.

Certainly important addition to your previous Bill. But then, so the current requirement, does that require that every UC, CSU, and community college student be trained?

It's phasing in, as you'll see, because the bill that we previously passed, had they, they have until September 1, 2024 to implement it. So we're not quite there yet, but we're getting there. So, because it's different at the community colleges, because orientation is not mandatory there, but students at CSU should be receiving this training.

At CSU?

At CSU. And hopefully at UC as well.

What about UC?

And so what's the nature? I mean, like, how often, how long is this?

Yeah. So if you take a look, it's on page four, the analysis, it says, all new and continuing CSU students must complete an annual online training on preventing sexual violence and sexual harassment. At UC, all students are required to take sexual violence prevention intervention training and education annually. So it's an annual training for the students.

Do you want to speak to that?

And how long is the online training session?

Sure. So at UC Santa Barbara, we use a kind of a three pronged approach of an online module, which takes about anywhere from 60 to 90 minutes, and then we have an in person session that has to be delivered within the first six weeks of fall quarter. And that is 90 minutes. It's shared with alcohol and drug, mental health, diversity, equity and inclusion, and sexual violence. So I would say approximately about 45 minutes are sexual violence.

And how do you enforce this requirement?

Great question. So students are required or they experience blocks and they have difficulty registering for winter quarter classes. So we work on an iterative process in that we try and get every student through and so that they don't have that impact to their academic progress in winter quarter. But they will be have some blocks on registration.

Okay. Okay, great bill. Move the bill.

We have a motion and a second. Any further comments or questions?Assembly Member would you like to close?

Yeah, I just want to just. I'll finish the way that I started, which is. Thank you, Mister chair. I want to thank you and the Committee for all of your leadership on these important issues and miss being on this Committee. But I'm grateful to have you here leading our Assembly forward. So thank you and respectfully request, and aye vote.

Thank you so much, Assembly member for your leadership and efforts and really for being part of this call to action bill package. As we all know, knowledge is power. And if we want to empower our students to identify the signs of sexual assault and sexual violence and to intervene on each other's behalf, students must be equipped with the tools necessary to identify when consent is or is not provided.

I look forward to supporting a measure here today, and thank you so much again for your leadership and efforts on this. With that, Madam Secretary. Roll call please.

File item number seven, AB 2608. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

That measure has six ayes and is out. And we'll keep the roll open for additional members out on. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, we have Assembymember Irwin presenting Assembly Bill 2492 item number six. Welcome.

Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm pleased to present AB 2492 a bill related to providing supports to students, staff, and faculty during Title IX proceedings at our Institute of Higher Education. AB 2492 would create two positions, a confidential advocate and a respondent coordinator on college campuses to assist students, staff, and faculty who are involved in a Title IX adjudication process.

California's colleges and universities are filled with the best and brightest students who come from around the world to study, conduct research, participate in athletics, and better their lives. At times, their higher education journey presents them with challenges related to sexual harassment and sex discrimination. Oftentimes, staff, faculty, and students are not emotionally prepared to navigate these proceedings on their own. This bill would create a confidential advocate for those filing a complaint and a respondent coordinator for those receiving the complaint.

These staff Members would be able to connect those involved to important campus and community resources, including mental health resources, as they work through the Title IX process. AB 2492 will help ensure our colleges and universities prioritize providing the support that students need during Title IX proceedings, which are often prolonged and confusing to all involved.

The model outlined in AB 2492 is already implemented at the UC campuses and is seen as a solution to expand to other segments in the committee's report, a call to action this bill would codify those practices and require that all our public colleges and universities provide these type of supports to our students. And with me here to testify today is Jeewan Kaur, a Member of Ignite good.

Good afternoon.My name is Jeewan Kaur, a student at Berkeley City College and a Member of Ignite, and I'm here to testify in support of Bill AB 2492. Today, I'll be sharing my personal journey of encountering discrimination within the educational system. As a woman pursuing stem fields, I've encountered sexism and discrimination at various states. Stages of my academic journey allow me to shed light on a recent experience at Alameda City College that left a profound impact in a particular class. The educator's behavior was alarming.

He not only belittled students, but also undermined their confidence, creating an environment of fear and intimidation. What's more concerning is that this behavior was directed predominantly towards female students and certain racial groups. Despite numerous attempts to address the issue, I encountered resistance. The educator wielded unchecked power, manipulating grading systems and stifling dissenting voices. It became apparent that standing up for myself or others came at a steep cost.

With the threat of academic repercussions looming large, navigating this hostile environment and going through the process by myself took a toll on my mental health. Feelings of anger, frustration, and isolation became all too familiar. Despite seeking support from school authorities, initial responses dismissed my concerns and as misunderstandings, exacerbating the sense of helplessness. This bill holds the promise of change by implementing measures to address discrimination within educational institutions and having a confidential advocate or confidential respondent service coordinators alongside them throughout the process.

It offers hope for students facing similar challenges. No student should endure what I experienced, and passing this bill is a crucial step towards creating a safer and more equitable learning environment. Thank you for considering my testimony.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support? In a hearing room.

Mary Washington with the Cal State Student Association, in support.

Kate Rogers with Generation up, strong support.

David Hawkins on behalf of the California Community College Independence, in support.

Caroline Nguyen on behalf of the UC Student Association, in support.

Steven Filling, California Faculty Association, in support.

Terry Wilson on behalf of CSU EU, in strong support.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room?

Chair Fong, members of the committee, Mario Guerrero on behalf of the University of California we do not have a position on this bill, and as we've said before, we really thank our ability to work with committee staff on this bill.

We have shared concerns in particular with this bill specific to making respondent service coordinators confidential. Establishing respondent service coordinators as confidential resources could be misleading for respondents who may assume that their communications will be provided the same level of confidentiality as communications with resources that hold explicit evidentiary privilege.

So, in the court of law, under the UC policy on sexual violence and sexual harassment, any UC employee who is not identified as a confidential resource is considered a responsible employee, meaning that they are required to report sexual violence, sexual harassment, or other conduct prohibited by the policy to the title IX office. Respondents service coordinators are not confidential resources currently in the UC system and are therefore deemed responsible employees. Establishing respondents service coordinators as confidential resources and exempting them from responsible employee requirements raise concerns.

It is also worth noting that under the UC's process, respondent service coordinators support students while faculty and academic personnel are supported through academic. Other academic personnel and non represented staff are supported through the local human resources office. We continue to look forward to working with the committee staff, the author's office on looking at this issue and see if we can address it. Thank you so very much.

Thank you. Assemblymember, just for the clarification of our committee, do you accept the committee's amendments?

Yes.

Thank you colleagues. Any questions or comments? Mr. Murasuchi,

Ms. Irwin could you respond to that last concern?

We will continue to work with UC to bolster confidentiality. We want to make sure that this works for UC. They do have a program, as I mentioned already in place, and we wouldn't want to change what they're doing, and so we'll continue that effort.

Thank you. I trust that you'll find a solution to make it work. I just want to thank your witness. I know that students face a lot of pressure, the fear of repercussions, consequences, retaliation for speaking out, and so thank you very much for sharing your personal experience. Thank you. Move the bill.

Thank you. We have a motion in a second. Any further questions or comments? Seeing none, assembly member would like to close, please.

Yeah, I just want to echo it. Assemblymember Muratsuchi said, not only this young woman, but all the students that have come forward. It does require a lot of bravery and we appreciate because they're making a big effort on what the package is finally looking like. And I want to thank you for getting us all together.

And of course, as I've mentioned before, you have excellent staff that have really put together a package of bills that I think will make a big impact on these title IX issues that we've had at the universities. And with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Irwin, for authoring this very important measure and take all your comments. Thank you so much to all our student speakers, all the powerful testimony here today. Really appreciate your bravery here. And as mentioned in the call to Action report, confidential advocates are the first line of action when it comes to helping survivors determine next steps.

Mandating all campuses have at least two is the least that we can do to provide support during what can be the worst moment in students, in our students young lives. And with that, I look forward to supporting the measure here today. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary. Roll call. Please.

File item number six, AB 2492. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much. That measure has six ayes, and it's out. And we'll keep the roll and for additional Members to add on. Thank you. Assembly Member Ortega, welcome. Presenting item number eight, Assembly Bill 2987. Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present AB 2987. I want to start by accepting the amendment suggested by the Committee, and thank you so much for all your work on this bill. AB 2987 would bring transparency to the handling of sexual misconduct allegations by both California State Universities and community colleges and strongly encourage the University of California systems to do the same.

The bill requires campuses to give investigation statuses updates to complainants and respondents every 30 days, as well as whenever an update is requested by either of the parties involved. Moreover, it requires campuses to inform complainants and respondents within three school days of the investigation's conclusion as to what disciplinary actions the administration will take in response to the findings. Last year, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee conducted a hearing on the management of Title IX complaints on CSU campuses.

The audit found that CSU often ignored reported complaints and neglected to communicate with complainants, leaving victims in the dark. This is unacceptable. I've been shocked to hear the stories of victims bravely coming forward to make complaints, only to return to class and be confronted with their abusers or harassers without warning. This can be a very traumatizing experience for victims. Students and workers deserve the right to feel safe in their place of study and work.

They deserve the right to feel like the universities will uphold their commitment to make them all feel welcome. It is shameful to see that campus leadership has failed to live up to the standards the public expects and we expect of each other. That is why it is essential to pass AB 2987 to ensure that students and workers have the right to live, work, and study in safe environment free of sexual misconduct. Today, testifying with me are Dr. Andrea Terry, a Sacramento State University Professor and California Faculty Association, and Christine Hernandez with IGNITE.

Good afternoon, Chair Fong and Members, and thank you to this Committee, the bill author, and the staff for being so thoughtful and diligent in bringing these recommendations forward to solve this critical issue. My name is Dr. Andrea Terry, and I am currently a Professor of Communication Studies at Sacramento State, and my pronouns are she/her.

I'm a double alumna of the CSU, and I've worked in the CSU system as an instructor now for almost a decade. I'm here on behalf of the California Faculty Association, representing almost 30,000 faculty, coaches, librarians, and counselors who serve as first responders to Title IX challenges across the CSU each day. We are proud sponsors of AB 2987. First, I'd like to thank Assembly Member Ortega for centering the survivors going through this painful and courageous process of coming forward to Title IX offices.

Second, I'd like to share a personal story for why this bill is so important. When I was a lecturer at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, a young woman in my public speaking class confided in me about being sexually assaulted in her dorm room at Cal Poly. I encouraged her to report using the Title IX system. She went through this emotionally grueling and time consuming process only to receive complete silence from the Title IX office for months.

I encouraged her to reach out to Title IX, only to find that during a personnel change, her information had been lost. She had to go through the process and relive her trauma all over again in order to move forward with her case. When I left to take a position at Sacramento State, her case had still not been resolved nearly three years later. The last time I spoke to this student, she was on the verge of leaving the university.

Her story and many others, far too many others like it, show how challenging it is for a survivor trying to navigate the process with limited information on their case status. AB 2987 would mandate our public higher ed system to provide timely updates on the outcomes of sex discrimination complaints, including sexual harassment cases, to complainants and respondents involved in the case. This student deserved timely updates on the status of her case.

She deserved to have her pain acknowledged and respected with a simple act of consistent and timely communication. I want to close with some comments on our our response to the Title IX scandals. We want to make sure that these recommendations don't simply just become another box that gets checked off. We don't want this to continue administrative bloat or create a system that further enforces racial, gender, sexual orientation, or other biases.

But we also want to reiterate that to create real change, we need solutions that are survivor focused through prevention and healing, not just punishment. Thank you for your time and your commitment to our students, faculty, and staff. We respectfully request an aye vote on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Ortega, for allowing us to speak. My name is Christine Hernandez. I'm the Director of College Programs at IGNITE National, with hundreds of members who are currently enrolled in the UC, CSUs, and California community colleges. I'm also, as I shared, a proud alumni of Cal State Fullerton and Coastline Community College. Prior to coming to IGNITE, I was a longtime college administrator. Since 2011, I can remember the Dear Colleague Letter. I have witnessed the evolution of how Title IX has been addressed, and compliance and adequate training still be a challenge. And we're a decade out.

And while the field of higher education has expanded in training professionals in how to properly address sex discrimination on campus, clear and consistent guidance is one of the best tools that a statewide system can provide in order to ensure equitable and fair treatment for all involved. As was found in the report by the Assembly Higher Education Committee, an issue of timeliness of campus' responses to sexual harassment allegations was uncovered, and we hear it from so many stories.

You heard it just a moment ago from our student Javon Carr, who shared with us at IGNITE, an experience she faced with a professor at Alameda College. How he belittled, how a professor belittled students and undermined their confidence, and that this behavior had been directed predominantly towards female students and certain racial groups. She faced resistance in addressing this issue, and even after filing a formal complaint with the school, the issue is still unresolved.

There is a need for rebuilding trust in how Title IX complaints are addressed and that includes adequate and timely communication. Regularly communicated updates allow our institutions to build more trust with students, faculty, staff, and stakeholders. And without the trust in the system, we can assume that individuals are not submitting complaints because of a disbelief in the current way Title IX has been addressed.

So for every story you hear of a Title IX issue that has not been adequately addressed, you can assume that there are many more that have not been reported because of a disbelief in the system. We can feel more empowered when we know to expect communication and what information we will receive. The transparency and guidance provides not only a more empowering experience for the complainant, but it also provides a distinct layer of accountability for institutional responses to complaints. And for that reason I request an aye vote, respectfully.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room?

Mary Washington with the Cal State Student Association in support, and appreciate the work of the Committee on this bill package.

Kate Rodgers with Generation Up, proud co-sponsor in strong support.

Wendy Brill-Wynkoop, Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, in support.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT in support. Thank you.

Terry Wilson on behalf of CSUEU in strong support.

David Hawkins with Community College Independence. Title IX addressing sex discrimination education was enacted in 1972. So this is, it's well past time. Thank you.

Steven Filling, California Faculty Association, proud co-sponsor in support.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Seeing none. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Mr. Muratsuchi.

Thank you, Ms. Ortega, for this important measure to, at the very least, give updates to the parties involved in a situation. Would be honored if you could add me as a co-author, and like to make a motion for the bill.

Absolutely.

Thank you so much. We have a motion. Do we have second? Second by Assembly Member Jackson. Any further questions or comments? Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close, please.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Assembly Ortega, for for bringing this very important measure forward and for agreeing to be part of our Call to Action bill package. Providing periodic updates to complainants and respondents is very important to rebuilding the trust gap between the campus community and Title IX offices. And with that, I look forward to supporting the measure here today. Thank you so much. Roll call please, Madam Secretary.

File item number eight, AB 2987, the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much, colleagues. That measure has four ayes, and we'll keep the roll open for additional Members to add on.

Thank you.

Thank you. And thank you so much again to all my colleagues, to everyone for their leadership and efforts around the bill, the Call to Action bill package. As you heard from the testimony from our students, from faculty, staff, this is a very important issue that we're going to continue to elevate, to uplift, and to really do the hard work necessary in the years ahead.

And I'm grateful to my colleagues for their leadership. And thank you to the students and staff and faculty for sharing your powerful insights and narratives to make sure that we are seeing you, hearing you, and to restore that trust. And I'm grateful to my colleagues and to Committee staff, especially Ellen, for your tremendous leadership and efforts around this issue, and to all of the sponsors here today, to all the witnesses that have provided expert and key testimony here today.

And I really appreciate all the hard work and efforts that have gone into the Call to Action bill package. And with that, we have a lot of hard work ahead, and we're going to continue work with all the authors and everyone going forward. Thank you so much. With that, thank you everyone for your patience as well. We are going to proceed with Mr. Ramos presenting Assembly Bill 3015, file item number 21. Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members.

AB 3015 helps to expand college affordability for Native Americans, the most underrepresented group in higher education.

This measure would help ensure qualified students who are not disadvantaged by tribal land boundaries and would aim to expand diversity within California's higher education institutions by granting students of fully recognized tribes whose tribal government lands borders another state and who live in that state to be classified as a resident for the purpose of tuition and fees, and eliminates a financial barrier and helps them pursue higher education in the State of California.

As stated in the analysis, Native American students make up less than 1% of enrolled students, and with this bill, we can offer potential solutions to a problem and support Native American students in pursuing higher education. With me today to testify and support is Jason Murphy, associate Director of UC State Governmental Relations.

Good afternoon Mister chair and Members. Jason Murphy, on behalf of the University of California here today in strong support and also the sponsor of this Bill. I want to thank the author for agreeing to work with us on this important measure and just want to say it's my honor to be here with Mr. Ramos today. I'd also like to thank the Committee staff for the wonderful and robust analysis. I think that the Assemblymen has laid it out very well.

I just want to underscore we're talking about California based, federally recognized tribes here and the fact that it's due simply to arbitrary, somewhat arbitrary state borders that there are students who are not taking advantage of in state tuition residency levels. I would just point out, you know, we've heard examples within the UC system of students who've gone to the same tribal high school. Just one student lives on one side of a river and the other student lives on the other.

Colorado river factors in a number of times into a number of the six tribes that are being recognized here. And again, that arbitrariness is something we've been trying to correct at UC. So appreciate the witness to consider this issue. Thank the author for carrying it forward, and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room?

Good afternoon. Annabelle Urbina with the California State University. We recently just finished our review process and we're unable to get a letter in time, but we are in support.

Good afternoon. Nune Garipian with the Community College League of California in support. Thank you.

Hello, Wendy Brill-Wynkoop, Faculty Association of California Community Colleges in support.

Good afternoon. Daniela Rodriguez with the California Student Aid Commission and support.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Mr. Maratsuchi?

Thank you, Mister Ramos, this is a brilliant idea. I just want to make sure I understand. So if there is a federally recognized tribe that crosses over the California border between California and Arizona, that it would apply to the federally recognized tribes that cross over the California border?

Yes, that's correct. That's the premise of the Bill. Certainly with Arizona and Nevada, tribal lands do border those that are predominantly here in the State of California. And by moving forward on this Bill allows them that residents tuition and allows them to move forward in higher education.

Okay. And at a later time, I'd like to learn more about why I thought there were more federally recognized tribes, you know, in the State of California, but it appears that there's only six.

There's more fairly recognized tribes in the State of California. However, their lands are all within the State of California. The federally recognized tribes that border states next to the State of California, Arizona and Nevada. Are the ones that we're talking about to be able to get the tuition.

There we go. Okay, thank you for that clarification. Would be honored to be added as a co author to a Bill.

Thank you so much.

Happy to make the motion for the Bill. We have a motion. Do we have a second 2nd? Second by Assembly Member Jackson. Any further questions or comments, colleagues see none. Assembly Member would you like to close, please.

Thank you Mr. Chair. And thank you for the questions I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much Senator Ramos, for bringing this very important measure forward and for your leadership and efforts to address low higher education attainment levels for Native American students. And as you mentioned, we also believe that reciprocity agreements should be part of the measure.

Please work with our Committee staff and appropriate stakeholders to address the reciprocity concern raised in page four of the analysis. And we're really grateful for your leadership and efforts around education level and attainment levels for Native American students. And with that, I look forward to supporting measure here today. Madam Secretary, roll call. Please.

File item number 21 AB 3015. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Thank you so much colleagues. That measure has four ayes and we'll keep the roll open for additional Members to add on. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Next up we'll have Assemblymember Jackson presenting item number 10. Assembly Bill 1818, welcome Assemblymember Jackson.

Thank you very much mister chair, AB 1818. I want to thank you and the committee staff for the robust conversations and back and forth on trying to make sure that we are able to get this right in the true fashion of a Higher Education Committee. AB 1818 offers a temporary solution by allowing students to park their vehicles on campus for housing purposes without facing penalties on select campuses.

This bbill is a crucial step towards decriminalizing homelessness among students and providing them with a safe and stable option during times of need. Importantly, the bill before you now is not the bill I first introduced. I am proud of the work we've been able to do and the progress I know this bill will make for California's college students who are dealing with housing instability. In brief, we limit the scope and turn this into a pilot program.

We limit the number of CSUs and we limit the number of community colleges as well of who fall under the bills pilot program. We now require students to follow policy and procedures when parking overnight so no students there are no tailgating overnight. For example, we require a zero-tolerance policy for the use of drugs or alcohol. Our higher education institutions now have civil liability protections due to students having to sign a civil liability waiver form.

The bill also requires that participants in the pilot program be granted access to overnight parking until students are provided access with a suitable alternative, including, but not limited to grants that are necessary to secure or prevent the imminent loss of housing, hotel vouchers through a public agency or community organization, rapid rehousing referral services and placements. In other words, this is just the beginning of a process in which they began at a parking lot, but they should be ending up in housing. And so I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room?

Anna Matthews on behalf of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges in support.

Mister chair and members, Michael Gunning here on behalf of Power California Action in support.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT in support. Thank you.

Steven Filling California Faculty Association in support of our students having a safe place to park.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Other.

Good afternoon chair and members Nune Garipian on behalf of the Community College League of California, I want to thank the author and his staff and the committee for the amendments to the bill. Our organization still remains concerned with the legislation in print. We believe that a more comprehensive solution is needed to address the housing and security of our students. I would also like to express the opposition of my colleague who could not be here from the Association of Community College Administrators. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Mister Muratsuchi?

Doctor Jackson, thank you very much for addressing this important issue of housing and security for our students. Like many of your bills, my first words, like many of your bills, I appreciate the intent. The question is implementation.

So first of all, allow overnight parking. I couldn't find the amendments. It may be in the amendments, but is there a limit? A time limit?

We have not come to a conclusion on a specific time limit. As you know, each county is different in terms of how many housing vouchers they may have available at a particular time. Right. When a particular dorm might be available at a particular time. So that's something we're still going back and forth on. But we're, I mean, obviously we've got to figure that part out because number one, we also trying to address, well, what if housing's available but they decline? Can they still stay there too?

Right. So we're still trying to work that baby out in terms of those particular things. But the idea is that the reason why it's a pilot program is that as we begin to deal with these issues, and particularly some of the different campuses, maybe the safest parking lot may not be the one that's closest to the restroom. Right. So we're trying to pick different campuses and different situations. So when the pilot is complete, we actually see what some of those best practices can be.

Okay. You also said there would be no tailgating or zero tolerance for drugs or alcohol, but how would you enforce that?

Well, I think that overall, universities still have the right to have particular parameters and rules when it comes to the overnight staying overnight. So we don't wanna take that away from them. And so I think it's perfectly reasonable to ensure that as they are being monitored for law enforcement that's on campus, who's doing some of the monitoring.

If it seemed that there might be some times to see if they have drug or alcohol, if there's some assumption that there is, and they have a right to look at it, and if they are, and they're not following the rules, then again, we don't want to take that right away from the universities either.

Okay. But that would involve some monitoring.

Securing monitoring, correct.

Some personnel.

Correct. And some of the things is, one of the things is we also wanted to make sure that that's why we didn't even prescribe what parking lot. It has to be, or whether it should be a parking structure versus a, because many universities have also come to us saying that, you know, depending on the route of the security, they want to make sure that they can pick the appropriate one to ensure that security is there frequently.

You know, I'm watching with what's happening at a lot of our college campuses across the country now. Like, for example, you know, these debates about how do you balance free speech versus student safety on campus? And, you know, like, if a group of pro-Palestinian students were to, like, set up a, you know, park at the, take over the parking lot and put up political speeches, banners, etcetera. Yeah, I guess I'm just trying to think.

Yeah. You know, first of all, I know on particular campuses there are free speech areas in which they have to participate. Now, the question I think you're raising is, well, what if they use this opportunity to take advantage of what we're trying to do for the good, but they're using it for some other reason other than it was intended, to say the least. I think we need to continue to work through that. My initial thinking was this. I'm a student.

I'm a student who is up to date on his tuition. I have paid for my parking permit. My only thing I'm guilty of is not having a place to stay at night and should I be then kicked off of a parking lot that I have a permit for and go to a unsafe place, a more unsafe place, and then when we're ready to accept you the way we want to accept you, you can come back to do your thing.

I'm of the opinion of, and of course, you know, like most of my bills, there's a lot of people who object to all the things I do or say. But I think that if you are a state institution, when homelessness is a state priority, it is every state's, every institution of the state responsibility to do its part in helping to solve the greater issue. And I think that we've got to figure this out.

I mean, obviously, I always pick some of the most grayest areas to try to figure out because they're some of the most complicated. But I believe that if we continue to go through this road, I think we've, I don't believe this is going to be the only, you know, set of amendments that, that we'll be going through as we go through the process.

But I welcome more robust discussion because I think we need to have it and we need to also make sure that counties are working with universities to making sure that they're a part of the continuum of care process in terms of giving them the housing vouchers and those type of things. Right. But then also making sure that we give universities the necessary authority. So if there are people who are misusing the process, that they have the authority necessary, and we're not handcuffing them in the process.

But if you have any ideas in that process, we'll continue to work with committee staff and both houses to try to figure out how we can make sure that any unintended consequences are not a part of the future of this pilot.

Okay. Again, Doctor Jackson, I appreciate, always appreciate your good intention and pushing these often difficult conversations. I think the challenge for us, all of us as policymakers, is to not only raise the issue, but also figure out how to make it work. Absolutely. And so, out of respect for you and your intention, I will support this bill. And I hope we can figure out how to make it work.

Absolutely. And I'll reach out to your office as well, in case you have any other particular ideas.

Thank you.

Is that a motion?

Assemblymember Jackson, just for the clarification of our committee, do you accept the Committee's amendments?

Yes, I do.

Thank you. Have a second? Assemblymember would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much Assemblymember Doctor Jackson, for bringing this very important measure forward. As we know, student housing and housing security is a very, is a crisis level in California and these amendments make the bill better. And I want to thank you and your staff for working with our committee and we all came to Sacramento trial and help people and do the right thing. I believe the bill passes both of those tests and the work that you've done to elevate this very important issue. I look forward to supporting the measure here today. With that. Madam Secretary, roll call.

File item number 10. AB 1818. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measures three aye's and we keep the roll in for additional Members to add on. Thank you. Next up is Assembly Member Soria. I'm sorry. Welcome Assembly Member Soria presenting Assembly Bill 2104. Welcome.

Thank you. Chair and Members, AB 2104 will help address our healthcare workforce shortage and improve the access and affordability of a nursing degree by establishing a pilot program allowing up to 15 community college districts to establish nursing bachelor's program. One of the most significant consequences of COVID-19 of the COVID-19 pandemic in California has been an unprecedented nursing shortage. California is actually projected to be short over 44,000 registered nurses by 2030.

This shortage is felt the hardest in rural areas like the Central Valley, where we've already seen Madera Community Hospital close, in part due to its lack of available medical personnel. In fact, when we look at Madera Community Hospital, at one point it was relying on traveler nurses being 40% of the actual nurses staffing the hospital, which becomes really too expensive for small hospitals like Madera.

While our exceptional community college system has provided many students with an associate's degree in nursing, our healthcare system more frequently demands a background bachelor's. And while our rural students would love to complete their education at a CSU campus, they don't always have the transportation to reach these schools. And when they do, there may not be any slots available.

For many of my constituents who live in places like Huron, Los Banos, Fireball, and even Madeira, going to maybe even Fresno State may not always be an option because of lack of public transit or even coming from a low income family not having a vehicle to transport themselves to get to the University. But their community colleges are closer.

It is all too common for our most promising students uprooting their lives to go to schools in other parts of the state and never coming back, or attending a closer private University where they are burdened with huge amounts of debt. Our community colleges are the most affordable and an accessible higher education option for California students. They are the solution to our healthcare workforce shortage, and that has been staring at us in the face this whole entire time, and we must meet this current moment.

Meet the moment today by supporting AB 2104, they are ready to help us meet this challenge. All we have to do is allow them to help us. AB 2104 does this by directing the community college chancellor's office to select up to 15 community college districts to participate in a pilot project to offer a bachelor's degree in nursing. With me here today, Chair to testify in support of AB 2104, I have Doctor Carol Goldsmith, who is the chancellor of State Center Community College District.

And also joining us today is a nursing graduate from Fresno Community College. Alex Speaks.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Fong and Members of this Committee. I'm really proud when I did my homework that you represent 29 community colleges. So thank you for representing us. I'm Carol Goldsmith. I'm the chancellor of the State Center Community College, the four colleges serving over 58,000 students in the Central Valley. As you know, we face a daunting challenge. California is number one as it relates to the shortage of nursing.

You know, and this really is a true crisis, although this is not the first time California has faced a crisis. 20 years ago, we faced another crisis regarding teachers and the teacher shortage. Then Governor Schwarzenegger signed a Bill which allowed the CSU system to grant doctorate degrees. And it marked a departure from the California master plan which was drafted in 1960. That was before I was born. So it was a while back.

Earlier during the legislative debates, then the CSU Executive Chancellor David Spence argued that due to the tremendous growth of the state and this booming K12 challenge, the changing demographics, this was truly a crisis that needed to do something different, to do something bold. That argument was sound, that argument was logical. And the teacher crisis resulted in a need that the CSU were able to help. At that time, the argument was sound. It still is now. It's just a different crisis and it's different players.

So you're going to hear arguments and that's okay. But we're here to say we want to be part of the solution. We believe this is an all hands on deck moment. We've done our due diligence. We've participated with the Administration on the Master plan for education. We've been appreciative of the Governor's efforts. We've addressed the workforce shortages with Department of Labor. We're grateful for their support in helping us step in this moment.

We have the clinicals, we have the faculty to step in this moment and help the hundreds of students in Central Valley and across the state wanting to earn a BSN and be a part of the solution. AB 2104 is not just educational heresy. It's not. It's a pilot. A pilot to be able to help us meet the moment. It's a beacon of hope for those of us in the Central Valley that face hospital closures, not just Madera, but others.

By approving this, we're hoping that we can help address the critical shortage and pave the way for a more diverse and skilled and resilient workforce ready to meet the future healthcare challenges ahead. It's going to take all of us working together to ensure a healthier, more inclusive California. I'm now really pleased to introduce Miss Alex Snyder, who's a working RN and a proud Fresno City College alum.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you for listening. Like she said, my name is Alex Snyder. I currently work at our level one trauma hospital in the Central Valley. I graduated from Fresno City in May of last year of 2023 and got right into the workforce. I was also doing a concurrent program with Grand Canyon University at the same time of doing my ASN program at Fresno City. After I finished my associate's degree in May of 23, I had one more year at GCU and I graduated in February of 24.

So just recently and I plan to start my master's program at Gonzaga University in May of this year as well. On top of going outside of the local area, I did apply to CSUs prior to applying to Fresno City College and on I applied three different times to three different CSUs and was told that my GPA and my test scores were not good enough to go to campus. I called the offices and asked why my application was rejected or why it wouldn't even be considered.

And because of my 3.8 GPA and my 80% t score, they told me because I was not a 4.0 student and because I was not testing in the 90% test range for our entry level examined nursing school. I was not good enough for their campus. So that's why I applied to Fresno City. Luckily, I got in on my first attempt and it has been wonderful. GCU offered the ASN to BSN program because they work with Fresno City. There are other programs.

At the time, Fresno State was not one of the ASN to BSN programs, so it was not available to me. They do have one now. Again, I was not able to partake in that as it wasn't available to me at the time of my education at Fresno City. So I did go to GCU and I spent over $10,000 for my bachelor's degree to take 11 classes.

So I hope that by having this Bill being raised, we can offer a bachelor's program in the Central Valley and to our associate nurses who travel from various locations even to go to Fresno City. We had a bunch of students from Oakland and Turlock and just other areas outside of the Central valley that.

Like I said, traveled for this program. And if they can have a community college that have a bachelor's program in their local area, I think you'd see a lot more nurses with a bachelor's degree versus an associate's degree. A lot of the workforce are sending nurses back to school to get their bachelor's degree if they want to stay in the workforce or even do higher level care if you're an intensive care unit or if you're wanting to do something so specialized.

They are requiring a higher level education, and it's a lot harder to get back into those schools with such limited spots. So please, please take this into consideration. We appreciate you listening.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses and support in the hearing room?

Mr. Chair and Members, Randy Perry with the California Hospital Association in full support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Justin Fanslau, on behalf of President Vitelli from Merced College, in support.

Alia Griffing with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in support.

Pat Whalen, Ellison Wilson Advocacy here on behalf of UNAC UHCP, in full support.

Chair and Members, Austin Webster with W Strategies, on behalf of the California Community Colleges Association for Occupational Education in support.

Chair and Members Joe Saenz, on behalf of the County Health Executives Association, representing local health departments, in support.

Anna Matthews with the Faculty Association of The California Community Colleges in strong support. Thank you.

Nune Garipian, on behalf of the Community College League of California and strong support. Thank you.

Mister Chairman, Manny Diaz representing the San Jose Evergreen Community College District, very much in support.

Thank you. Chair Members Mark Mcdonald, on behalf of the Antelope Valley, San Diego, Contra Costa, Kern, and the Community College Baccalaureate Association in support.

Good afternoon. Chair and Members Ashley Walker on behalf of North Orange County Community College District, Mount San Antonio College, and Citrus College in support.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room?

Good afternoon, chair Fong, members of the committee, I'm Rehman Attar. I'm the Director of health Care workforce development for the California State University Office of the Chancellor, here to present our systems position on Assembly Bill 2104. While the CSU is deeply appreciative of Senator Soria's attempt to provide solutions to address the state's nursing workforce challenges, the CSU believes that AB 2104 will not accomplish its intended goals. The CSU prides itself in providing programs that educate and train California's nursing workforce at all levels.

However, the state faces systematic and infrastructural challenges, which hinders all nursing programs from growing and expanding. Specifically, the limited availability of clinical placements and over regulation by the state's Board of Registered Nursing both impact enrollment growth in our nursing programs. These challenges are not unique to the CSU and would equally affect community colleges while also limiting the state's opportunities to increase the number of nurses and add to the challenges we are already experiencing.

The CSU believes that addressing these specific issues will benefit all public and private nursing programs. To address these challenges facing the state, the CSU has developed and provided solutions, such as through our partnership programs that provide increased accessibility as well as accelerated pathways. These partnership programs offer concurrent enrollment, with many California Community Colleges streamlining the pathway for students seeking their associate's and bachelor's degree in nursing at an accelerated rate.

The CSU has also developed a robust nursing education infrastructure that eases access and no longer limits students education to the regions where they live. The partnership programs benefits students in rural areas and provides flexibility for non traditional students. The CSU has the capacity to increase its enrollment but is hindered by external barriers. The CSU believes further investments in these partnership programs provide a return on investment that will benefit all segments throughout the state, but most importantly, the students that seek to enter the nursing workforce.

For the reasons stated, as well as a strong objection to duplication of programs and the precedent this bill will create, the CSU will respectfully request a no vote on AB 2104. Thank you all for your time.

Good afternoon. My name is Doctor Ann Stoltz, and I've been a Director of three nursing programs in the State of California, both public and private, and I'm speaking to you today on behalf of of the California Association of Colleges of Nursing in opposition to AB 2104. CACN welcomes discussions about how to address nursing education and workforce issues, but this bill fails to address the underlying challenges preventing an increase in the nursing workforce and in fact, serves to exacerbate existing barriers the major impediments to increasing enrollments in nursing programs are lack of clinical placements and a lack of clinical faculty.

Neither of those issues are addressed in this bill, and therefore we do not believe that this legislation will add one single additional nursing student into the pipeline to address workforce shortages. The need to increase the number of BSN prepared nurses is being met through the intersegmental partnerships that currently exist at public and private universities. These innovative collaborative programs provide online and concurrent enrollment models with pathways to the BSN in as little as two additional semesters. We should be encouraging the expansion of these model programs.

The move to the BSN at the community colleges will only increase the number of faculty required by those programs, thereby shifting the limited supply of faculty away from current BSN and MSN programs. I propose that instead of straining existing resources, we should focus on expanding clinical placements and pipeline programs to leverage existing pathways.

According to the research from UCSF, the nursing shortage in the state is actually expected to resolve in the next few years, which begs the question of why add more BSN programs? If the issue is rural access, there are a plethora of online BSN programs currently offered in the state. In short, AB 2104 does not address the nursing shortage and may have unintended upstream effects that decrease this critical supply of RNs in California. Thank you, and I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. Are there any witnesses in opposition in the hearing room?

Good afternoon, chair and members Alex Grace, the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities representing 90 private, accredited, nonprofit colleges in the state, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any tweeners in the hearing room?

Good afternoon, members. Bryan Ha with the California Faculty Association. My members have expressed some significant concerns on this bill, citing duplicative and unnecessary, and I've been fighting this issue since I was a lobbyist at my previous job at California faculty California Federation of Teachers. But I am hopeful that I can work with the author and hopefully, we can find a solution that works for all. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Imran Majid on behalf of the California Community College Chancellor's Office. While we do not have an official position on the bill today, we are very supportive of efforts to expand our nursing education pipeline. California community colleges graduate about half of the state's nursing workforce, and we satisfy more than one fifth of the state's demand for nurses. But as what's been noted by our witnesses here today, the BSN is becoming the barrier to entry for our nursing students.

We believe this bill would expand the nursing education pipeline and also it would provide an accessible and affordable option for students to complete their BSN. Our students, our colleges will graduate also a more diverse population of nurses, and we believe these students will practice in more ethnically diverse communities and close regional health disparities. Those regions often suffer. We want to thank the author and the sponsors for the leadership on this issue. Thank you.

Thank you, colleagues. Any questions or comments, Doctor Jackson?

Thank you very much, mister chair. You know, this is an interesting conversation here because obviously I'll be supporting you so that you can continue to have fun having these discussions. But I think overall, I remember when I was on the CSU board of trustees and we were advocating and won having a doctorate of education to be able to do. And I remember the UC's fighting us when we're on the CSU system. Right.

So I think at the end of the day, I mean, obviously you're fighting for key things in your community that you need to have, that you feel like you need to have. I hope you continue to have these discussions and kind of figure out and address some of the issues. But obviously, I think there's not only just an access issue, there's an affordability issue as well.

Some systems have been proven to be able to deliver a degree at a, without having debt issues or as many debt issues, I could say. So certainly a discussion worth having. I mean, you know, the number of nurses we need to continue to have, the amount of nurses who were retirement, including my mom, who retired and said, I ain't going back. I think overall, we've got to kind of figure this out.

I think all things need to be on the table because at the end of the day, we have to remember this is not a system issue. This is how many patients are we able to see, how many hospitals can we fully staff, how many clinics can we fully staff to meet the plethora of issues that we're facing throughout California. So look forward to supporting this bill today, but encourage you to continue to have these discussions before they come to the floor.

Thank you so much. Assemblymember Jackson. Assemblymember Muratsuchi.

First of all, thank you, Miss Soria, for being a champion for your community. I know that the closure of your hospital was a very critical issue in your community, and you've been such an effective champion in making sure that your communities have access to healthcare. And we know that the workforce shortage is a critical part of that access. I fully appreciate your argument.

I think your strongest argument, as far as I'm concerned, is that allowing community colleges to provide bachelor's degrees in nursing would expand access, geographic access, affordability access. And I appreciate those arguments. On the other hand, as you and I had discussed, I do have some concerns.

I'm looking at the letter from the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities and their, they're quoting language from former Assemblymember Medina's bill AB 927, apparently a clear restriction that a baccalaureate degree program shall not offer a baccalaureate degree program already offered by the California State University or the University of California.

And the letter even indicates that the chairs of the Assembly Higher Education Committee, the then chairs of the Assembly Higher Education Committee and the Senate Education Committee sent a joint letter as recently as April of 2023 affirming this position. So here we are one year later. Yeah, almost exactly to the date. Right. We appear to be reneging on that commitment. I want to give you an opportunity to comment on that.

Thank you for that. And I appreciate all the comments being made this afternoon. While obviously I appreciate the joint letter, I was not part of that letter. And truth be told, I think for me, when I talk about this issue and when I advocate for this issue, it's really about the communities that don't have access. And, you know, yes, a decision that was made maybe a year ago.

I think the conditions today in my community and communities across the State of California where, you know, facilities are, healthcare facilities are struggling to staff up, and having to rely on traveler nurses is an issue that we have to, I believe, meet the moment. And today by, you know, putting this bill forward to continue to have the conversation. And I'm happy to have the discussions with the CSUs.

But to me, to be honest, I think it's incredibly also just interesting how, you know, I could pretty much quote what the CSU then argued on the educational doctorate degree when they were fighting the University of California. I could just insert, you know, the two also, you know, community college and now the CSU. And so I think we're in that same boat today, that we have an opportunity to meet the moment because the challenge is real.

And if we don't do the hard things, and sometimes you do have to kind of go in a different direction because it is critical, and I believe that this moment is critical and that in order for the Madera hospitals not to ever have to happen in your district or in your district, we have to do something, and we can't continue to do the same. Right.

We all know the definition of insanity if we continue to do the same and expect different results, you know, and so I think that today we have an opportunity to do something different. And I also just want to address, you know, the comments being made by there's online courses. I will tell you that in my communities like Huron, Mendota, fireball, my folks are struggling to get Internet services. And, you know, so for them, it is a true access issue.

But what I know that is close to home is the community college. And that's why today I believe that it's our time to say we need to continue the conversation and really meet.

The moment, you know, I mean, I completely agree with you. I was also frustrated during the pandemic, like seeing how California had to rely so much on traveling nurses and knowing how much more expensive that is.

But when I looked into that issue, you know, and I was contacted by a number of nurses or people that had previously worked as nurses in foreign countries, you know, I was told, and it's my understanding that the state board of nursing is perhaps a bigger obstacle to getting more California residents as nurses because they restrict the licensing of nurses.

And so I didn't follow up on that issue, but it seems to be reinforced by some of the comments made from the California State University that perhaps there are bigger obstacles to addressing the workforce shortage issue. I'm just flagging the issue. I probably get myself in trouble for even flagging it. But if it's a real issue, I would like to get at the real source of the problem. Not saying that you're.

It does also sound like I heard, I talked about this Bill with the Chairman, and the chairman indicated that there is, the nursing programs are impacted at our community college, programs not just in your district, but even in Los Angeles County, that there are 23 year backlogs to get into nursing programs. So while I appreciate the master plan, I appreciate the segments and the original intent of the segments.

It seems like if the segments under the current arrangement is not meeting the demand that is facing our workforce, that in fact, if educational access is part of the problem, if not the main problem, but at least part of the problem, then it seems like you're offering part of the solution. So I promised you I would vote for your bill for today. I do have concerns about, you know, how we seem to be reneging on this commitment that was made just a year ago.

And I also want to acknowledge the concerns raised by the California Faculty Association. I trust that you will work out the differences for today as a courtesy vote. I will support your measure.

Thank you. I appreciate that. And I'll just say that. I don't intend to say that AB 2141 is going to address the entire issue, but it is, I think, one kind of factor addressing one of the factors. And I think that it's our opportunity to grow the pie and rather than just try to, you know, stay with the same that we need to really grow. And I think the community college is a great option. So I do want to thank you guys for the comments.

And you have my commitment that we will continue to have this discussion because it is a crisis that we are facing and it is a very important conversation that we need to have with the various stakeholders.

Thank you so much, Mister Muratsuchi. Any further comments or questions? Assemblymember Soria would you like to close?

I would just ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. We have a motion. Do you have a second? We have a motion and a second. Thank you so much to summer Soria for your leadership and efforts and really advocating for residents in the Central Valley, in Fresno, Madera, and the central part of California and many underserved communities to explore options as to how we can continue to expand healthcare programs.

I just want to know for the record also the letter that was referenced that the Senate Education chair and I sent was a letter understanding law regarding the process and procedures as to how we approve bachelor degree programs at the community colleges and then working with both segments. So I just want to put that out there.

But at the same time, as policymakers, as we've heard, we have an obligation to explore existing policies and to ask those hard questions and to take action on behalf of the people and believing, I believe that this pilot will help us understand going forward how we can address the housing, I mean, the nursing shortage, and to also look at how community colleges should be offering a bachelor of science nursing degrees and whether or not they should be offering going forward.

But really, this is a tremendous opportunity going forward as well. As noted also, this pilot is a deviation from the traditional tenants of the master plan. But as noted in the committee analysis, there's a history of going back 20 years to explore new programs when there is a need that is demonstrated and warranted. And we've heard the impact of long waits for our programs at our community colleges, at institutions up and down the state, the nursing shortage as well.

I appreciate the testimony and to everyone's comments on this bill as well, and look forward to seeing the results of the LAO study for both this bill and for the legislation last year that you authored on joint programs as well. And with that, I look forward to supporting the measure here today. With that, Madam Secretary, roll call, please.

File item number 14, AB 2104. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

I want to thank all the authors for all their patience. I know folks have been waiting in the audience for a bit here, but we're doing everything by signing order and I'd like to welcome Assemblymember Berman with Assembly Bill 3158.

That measure has five ayes and we'll keep the roll open for additional members to add on.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. We're here to get you back on time. Students throughout California are struggling to meet their basic needs such as food and housing. In my district, the soaring costs of living have been particularly challenging for community college students. To address this, West Valley-Mission Community College District funded a college promise scholarship program through their unrestricted general fund. But the district would like to do more for their students.

AB 3158 would allow until July 1, 2030, West Valley-Mission Community College District to provide free college to their students by waiving tuition fees, which the district is ready and able to do with their existing local funding. This would put significant financial resources back into students' pockets, ensuring they do not have to choose between taking the extra classes they need or affording groceries or rent.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote and I am honored to be joined today by Melanie Ho, the West Valley College student trustee, and Cade Story-Yetto, chief of staff for the West Valley-Mission Community College District chancellor's office.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Assembly members. My name is Melanie Ho and I serve as the student trustee at West Valley College located in Saratoga, California. Today I'm here to speak on behalf of my experience with free tuition. I am a first-generation college student who struggled with the FAFSA process since my parents don't speak English and I experienced firsthand the reimbursement process for free tuition at West Valley.

Prior to fall semester, I paid roughly $900 out of my own pocket for all of my classes and this was not including the cost of textbooks or any other bills that I may have. I received a reimbursement for my first semester's tuition several months later, roughly January of this year. I just wanted to emphasize the difficulties that many students face due to the rising cost of living in the Bay Area.

I can attest for myself and on behalf of many students that waiting several months for nearly $1,000 is quite painful considering we all have to pay bills and this isn't even factoring all of the other expenses relating to school. AB 3158 is a step towards making education more accessible and affordable for students in the Bay Area. By removing financial barriers, this bill can help ensure that more students are able to pursue their educational goals. I urge you to support AB 3158 for the future of students seeking an education. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Welcome.

Hi. Thank you all for your time and your stamina. It seems like it's been a long day. My name is Cade Story-Yetto. I'm the chief of staff to the chancellor of our community college district. Our district serves just over 16,000 students across our two campuses. But as the member alluded to, more than half of our students struggle with basic needs and securities. A lot of times this means that our students may drop out or become homeless as a result of that.

In response to this, our district has pulled many levers to try and make college more affordable for our students. We've waived fees associated with mental health counseling, with parking, childcare fees for our parent students. In this semester, we expanded the Promise program to offer select tuition waivers for students that qualified and completed the complex reimbursement process.

While the program enrolled over 5000 students in just our first semester, it's become clear to us that the process has been operationally cumbersome for our staff and difficult to navigate, and often too expensive for our students to go through. So what this bill is is the next step in removing barriers for our students. Just to be clear, it does not ask for a single dollar from the state. It doesn't increase our budget whatsoever.

It simply asks that you authorize our district to draft the policies to make our existing program much more efficient for our staff and much more accessible for our students. So for these reasons, we humbly ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room?

Chair and members, Austin Webster with W Strategies on behalf of my colleagues at the Student Senate for California Community Colleges, in support.

Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room?

Thank you, Chair and members. Thank you so much for your wonderful testimony and highlighting this wonderful issue. Just wanted to thank the author and his staff for the continued discussion to make sure that the goals of the bill are reached and we ensure that we lower the financial barriers while ensuring that we can provide all the classes at the sizes that they have and have the resources to provide the necessary resources for all students. Thank you so much. I forgot my name. Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFD. I apologize.

I was gonna say 'cause it's been a couple of years, it has been that I've known Tiffany for 30 years, so. And she was the all-student body president in high school when I was just the senior class president in high school. Tremendous leaders here. I will always work with Tiffany on concerns that she has.

All right, to our student body presidents here. Thank you, Tiffany. And thank you, Mr. Berman. Are there colleagues, any questions or comments? Do we have a second? Second by Mr. Ta. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Berman, for bringing this very important measure forward. Community colleges are designed to help communities thrive by providing resources to address the unique needs of their respective regions. This measure aligns with the mission of the community colleges by having a fee waiver to help students meet their educational goals when other fee waivers and statute have failed to support their unique circumstances. And with that, I look forward to supporting the measure here today. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

That measure has four ayes and we'll keep the row open for additional Members to add on.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up is Assembly Member Alvarez with Assembly Bill 2953. Welcome. Thank you for your patience.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you Committee Members. I am back with Assembly Bill, this time with Assembly Bill 2953. Assembly Bill 2953 is a bill that calls on the CSU and the UC system for a four year accountability plan to empower first generation students. I want to thank the staff, as always, for helping us work through this Bill and for the analysis that is prepared before you that I think well identifies the issue we're trying to solve.

As a first generation college graduate, myself, and a proud product of the California State University system. I think myself and many other Members, colleagues of ours, are a testament of how higher education can be critical and it's pivotal in leveling socioeconomic disparities in our state. A 2020 report by the Public Policy Institute of California PPIC confirmed that low income Latino and African American students are less than 50% likely to make it from 9th grade to obtaining a college degree as compared to their peers.

The same report also confirms that wage gains by Californians with a bachelor's degree are about 43% higher than counterparts with just a high school diploma. I think this statistic alone is important to note as oftentimes we overlook the significance of a bachelor's degree as it relates to social mobility, economic mobility in our state. According to a report by EdSource in 2023, 56% of California high school graduates did not complete A through G requirements. More than half of our students.

Those are the requirements in order to attend our universities. The lack of fulfillment is disproportionate and it's seen in our black and brown communities where only 36% of Latino students, and 32% of African American students, and 25% of Native American students graduating with an A through G requirement. It's also clear that first generation students are becoming increased in the larger populations of our UC and CSU system.

The 2023 Forbes Advisory report stated that 46% of college students in California were the first in their family to go to college. Almost half of our students, students of color who are the first generation University students often face intersectional barriers while encountering challenges in meeting those A through G requirements.

For those reasons, our Legislature has an imperative to set a precedent for UC and CSU to organize and annually report on outreach efforts targeting first generation students, and AB 2953 does exactly that, with a particular consideration to regions in California with low attainment and completion rates in those a requirements as a focus.

This report establishes a consistent and structured initiative aimed at gathering and understanding data to assess the steps our higher education sectors are taking in bridging the gap for potential first generation students eager to pursue a college degree. Together, we can make a tangible difference in strengthening outreach programs and empowering first generation students from across our state to speak more on the benefits of higher education opportunities for first generation students. In particular, we have Doctor Inez Gonzalez Perez Chica.

She is Executive Director of MANA De San Diego, here to testify as a witness and answer any questions.

Thank you Assembly Member Alvarez, Chairman Fong, and the Committee. I'm representing our members, we are the largest chapter of a national organization. Our mission is to transform communities by empowering Latinas to achieve upward mobility and a better quality of life.

Education is a path to upward mobility, as you all know, this is why MANA De San Diego is proud to sponsor Assembly Member David Alvarez's Bill AB 2953 this Bill shines a light on the unfortunate statistics that more than half of high school students in California graduate without completing A through G requirements. In San Diego, Latino High School graduates face the lowest college readiness rates of all demographic groups, at 38%.

In other words, the majority of Latino high school graduates in San Diego are ineligible to apply directly to San Diego State University straight from high school. This bill enhances equitable access to four year institutions by addressing the information gaps that low income families face. Many low income parents and students are not aware of the A through G requirements and the opportunities that come with completing this coursework. AB 2953 promotes outreach efforts to address this information gap.

We understand that not every student plans to attend a four year university and that community colleges are an important pathway to higher education. Nevertheless, all Californian high school students should have the opportunity to know about A through G requirements and to complete the coursework. This will make them college ready. Under this bill, UC and CSU can help address this information barrier throughout through outreach efforts. As was said earlier, knowledge is power.

Let's make sure that students know the A through G requirements opportunities so that they can make their best choices to go to higher education institutions. Thank you. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses and support in the hearing room?

Hi, my name is Katy Alvarado. I here with the California Charter School Association in support.

Thank you. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Thank you, Assembly, would you like to close.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this important issue as it relates to first generation students and certainly on the underrepresentation that occurs primarily in communities of color with vast majority of students not completing these important requirements and therefore not having access to the same higher education opportunities that other students face. And we respectfully ask your aye vote to continue progress in this regard.

Thank you so much Assemblymember Alvarez, for bringing this very important measure forward and for your leadership and efforts on behalf of first generation students. Thank you in advance for working with my Committee staff and appropriate stakeholders in order to address the policy comments on page four of the analysis. And thank you for bringing that resolution forward last week as well. With that, I look forward to supporting the measure here today. We have a motion by Senator Jackson. Do we have a second 2nd by Vice Chair tah. Any further comments? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, roll call.

[Roll Call]

That measure has five ayes and we'll keep the rope in for additional members add on. Thank you. Thank you colleagues for your patience. Next up in signing order, here is Mr. Ting presenting. Yes, Ms. Friedman's been waiting patiently for a long, long time. Assemblymember Friedman, welcome. I'm presenting item number 17. Assembly Bill 2507. Welcome Assemblymember Friedman.

Let me thank Assemblymember Ting for very graciously letting me go first. Thank you very much Mr. Chair and committee members, I want to thank you and your committee staff for all of your hard work on this Bill over the past two weeks. I will be accepting the suggested committee amendments as discussed between our staff and outlined in the committee analysis. As we all know, financial barriers pose significant obstacles for low income students striving to complete their college education.

High tuition fees, expenses related to housing, transportation, and textbooks often force students to juggle multiple jobs to make ends meet. Moreover, and the issue is particularly bad for Californians who are grappling with increased levels of student loan debt. And I've always wondered when we have people who are trying to better themselves, who are trying to make themselves more valuable to society and our community. Why we don't see that as an investment for the whole community to make.

The long term repercussions of repaying student loan debt over several decades cannot be overlooked.

With the current landscape of student loan interest rates in California soaring as high as 9%, AB 2507 would establish a pilot interest free and no fee student loan program at the University of California, Los Angeles, California State University, Northridge and Glendale Community College to meet the skyrocketing demand for students who are low income, homeless, at risk of homelessness or food, insecure to have their financial needs met while in pursuit of higher education. Now, we're not saying that we're going to pay their loans back.

We're not saying they're not going to have loans. We're saying that we're not going to profit off of those loans. As a community, implementing an interest free, no fee student loan program would afford graduates the chance to repay their loans within a reasonable timeframe, while simultaneously saving for important milestones such as starting a family, starting a business, owning a home and their own retirement. Testifying in support this afternoon is Cliff Berg with the Jewish Free Loan Association and the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California.

I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this bill and would request your aye vote.

Thank you, Cliff Berg here on behalf of Jewish Free Loan, which is the sponsor of this legislation. First off, I want to thank the assembly member for bringing forward this bill. As the author, I want to thank the chair and the committee staff for working with us on amendments, and we'll continue to review their suggestions as we move forward on this legislation.

Jewish Free Loan has been providing zero interest, no fee loans for Californians for over 102 years and understands firsthand the impact that these loans have on students facing dire financial circumstances. Interest free, no fee loans are a lifeline to those in need and repeatedly provide financial assistance when people have nowhere else to turn. Financial barriers hinder low income students from completing college due to high tuition, housing, transportation and textbook costs, often leading to multiple jobs and accumulating student debt.

At CSU schools, nearly one third of low income students are graduating with student loan debt over a 20 year period, and at current interest rates, this amount can double, making the cost of attending college even more unaffordable. I know you, as the members of this committee, are well aware of the crisis low income students are facing in California and the barriers to education and the crisis in student loan debt. With government programs providing loans but charging interest, we're just increasing the debt burden.

Jewish free loans experience in this area shows that we can provide financial assistance to students to keep them in school, get paid back, and ensure that our low income students that are facing food insecurity, housing crisis are able to stay in school. This is a pilot project. We believe that it will lead to further and increased discussion of this issue and would urge your aye vote switching my hats here for JPAC, the Jewish public affairs committee, which is also in support of this bill.

And your analysis lists I think, over 30 organizations that are members of JPAC that are in support of this legislation. Thank you and urge your support.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room? Are there witnesses in opposition in a hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Seeing none. Assembly member. I'm sorry, Alanis.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Sorry I'm late to the party, but thanks. It's a great bill. Yes, just as explained.

Obviously we are expecting a lot and we want success, but yet we're not helping them get there. That's what this bill does. I feel like I was just in my meeting with my staff today hearing you speak on your point. So thank you for bringing that up and I'll be supporting this.

Thank you so much, Mr. Alanis. Any further questions or comments? Seeing none. Assembly member would you like to close.

I will accept Mr. Alanis comments as my closing. Thank you.

Thank you so much Assemblymember Friedman for bringing this measure forward and for accepting the committee amendments as outlined on page five of the analysis. This measure is a creative way to provide eligible students zero interest loans. Please continue to work with our committee and appropriate stakeholders in order to address the policy questions raised in analysis. And with that, I look forward to supporting the measure here today. We have motioned by Assemblymember Jackson second by Assemblymember Alanis. Madam Secretary, roll call please.

File item number 17, AB 2507. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

The measure has five ayes and we'll keep the rope in for addition members to add on. Thank you. Next up is Assemblymember Ting with Assembly Bill 1780. Thank you for your courtesy there. Item number nine. Welcome.

Thank you Mr. Chair. First, let me thank you and your committee for your help with the bill. I'll be happily accepting the amendments for AB 1780. AB 1780 quite simply will prohibit private higher education institutions in California from providing legacy admissions preferences when making their admissions decisions.

And quite simply, what our legacy preferences legacy preferences are preferential treatment for institutions, for their alumni or their wealthy donors. What we've seen from a really fascinating, groundbreaking report by opportunity insights, when they looked at some of our most elite institutions, is that legacy applicants were 33% more likely than non legacy applicants to receive an admissions offer.

They also found that, all things being equal, that families making more than $600,000, and when they looked at students with comparable GPAs, test scores and extracurriculars, families who are making more than 600,000, which is the top 1% of the country, actually were twice as likely to receive admissions than students from families from below that income bracket. What we see also is, based on a bill that I did a couple years ago within California, that three institutions primarily use a significant amount of preference for legacy admissions.

That's the University of Southern California, Santa Clara University in Stanford. Based on the data that they themselves submitted, that hasn't been audited, but they themselves reported that they admit between 13% to 15% of their class through legacy admits. For those institutions, it's sometimes more than double the number of African Americans. That size of legacy admissions almost equals the number of Latino students they admit as well. So it's quite a large chunk of their incoming class.

In terms of penalty, based on the amendments, what we've done is we do have a penalty, and that penalty will be based on the amount of Cal Grant that they receive. It's similar to, you know, we looked at different penalties from other states that have also taken action on legacy admissions, and many of them have penalties in a similar nature.

So again, given the Supreme Court's decision on striking down affirmative action in institutions, inability to actually look at anything around race, it doesn't make sense that we can't take into account race or racial disadvantage, but that we can't take into account someone's wealth as well as their connections to the university. While this does not say that you can't admit donors or children of alumni, what this says is you just can't offer them preference. And so again, very proud to author this bill, AB 1780.

I have Sara Arce here, who's with the Campaign for College Opportunity.

Thank you, assembly member, good morning, or I should say good afternoon. Chair Fong and members, my name is Sara Arce. I'm the vice president of policy and advocacy with the Campaign for College Opportunity, an organization dedicated to ensuring all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, documentation, status, or the zip code that they were born into, can access a college education.

With the Supreme Court's decision last summer to ban race conscious admissions, it is crucial now more than ever to promote evidence based solutions and equity advancing strategies in college preparation, access, and completion to ensure those who have been historically excluded and underserved in our colleges and universities have a real opportunity to go to college and succeed. Legacy and donor admissions perpetuate a cycle of privilege that fortifies an equity in higher education where students from wealthy backgrounds are granted undue advantages in the admissions process.

One study found that legacy applicants, who are typically white and wealthy, are 45% more likely to gain admission to selective colleges and universities compared to equally qualified non legacy candidates, further widening the gap in educational opportunities. The vast majority of California's college age population are first generation Black, Latinx, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander students who do not benefit from legacy admissions but have the most to gain from a college education.

The practice of legacy and donor admissions is a barrier to social mobility for these students and a barrier to the economic competitiveness of the state. I want to recognize that some private colleges in California, like Occidental College in Los Angeles, have chosen to do away with legacy admissions of their own accord in the wake of the Supreme Court decision. And we applaud this decision and commend the colleges for their effort to move toward more equitable admissions.

AB 1780 provides a simple solution in alignment with the efforts of five other states pursuing similar policies prohibit preferential treatment and admissions based on legacy or donor status, ensuring that all students have an equal opportunity to gain admission to private California universities, regardless of their privilege.

We are due to support AB 1780 and send a strong message that in California, we believe that power, influence, and money should not dictate who gets a seat at our esteemed colleges and universities, and that all students deserve a fair shot at a college education. Thank you.

Chair Fong, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of AB 1780. My name is Ryan Cieslikowski. I'm a Californian and a recent graduate of Stanford University. I'm here today as the lead organizer for a nonprofit called Class Action, which consists of students, alumni, academic experts, and administrators who are working to ensure that so called elite colleges prioritize the interests of all Americans and not just the privileged few.

75% of college students think that legacy admissions is unfair, and they're mobilizing across the country to end it. From California to Connecticut, class action student organizers are testifying in state capitols, lobbying their representatives to introduce bills, passing resolutions in their student governments, writing op eds, and, as they'll demonstrate later today, showing up even when it's inconvenient to make their voices heard. In the last few weeks, I've asked these students, many of them Californians, what they would like me to share with you today.

And they asked me to say that legacy admissions needs to go because their schools accept more students from the top 1% of the income distribution than the entire bottom 50%. And legacy admissions is one of the leading drivers of this harrowing disparity. Students asked me to remind you that legacy has anti semitic origins and disproportionately advantages white people, a reality which is all the more unacceptable after the fall of race conscious admissions.

They asked me to convey that trust in higher education is at an all time low, and legacy is one of the reasons why. How can we expect Americans to trust higher education while our most heralded colleges practice blatant nepotism? Finally, students wanted me to say that their schools, which are fast tracks to the halls of power and therefore hold the responsibility of selecting and educating the next generation of leaders, should not be allowed to preference certain applicants over others solely on the basis of bloodline members.

AB 1780 is on the side of students and aye urge you to be as well. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses and support in the hearing room?

Chair and members. Austin Webster with W Strategies on behalf of my colleagues at Gen Up, California's largest youth led advocacy organization, roud to be a co sponsor.

Good afternoon chair and members. Maria Morales on behalf of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality hope as a proud co sponsor. Thank you.

Hello. Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing justice Southern California. We're also a proud co sponsor. I also have the following organizations who can't be here but would like to provide a me too, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for Civic Empowerment, AAPI Force Latino Latina Roundtable from College for all Empowering Pacific Islander Communities, also known as EPIC, Center for Asian American Action, Southeast Asian Resource Action Center, SARAC, and Los Angeles United Methodist Urban foundation. Thank you.

Katy Alvarado here with the California Charter School Association, in support.

Hi, Carol Gonzalez here on behalf of Ed Trust West, in support and we want to thank the author for the latest amendments. They were really happy to see that inclusion. And then on behalf of USPYR who couldn't be here, they're also in support. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Kamryn McCondichie. I'm a Stanford graduate and Class Action organizer, in support.

Hi, Calvin Probst, Stanford student and Class Action organizer, here in support.

Hi, Sophie Callcott, legacy student at Stanford and Class Action organizer here, for support.

My name is Katie Fee, I'm a legacy student at Stanford and a Class Action organizer in support.

Nalsa Dakot, student at Stanford University, Class Action organizer, here in support.

Sebastian Andrews, student at Stanford University, Class Action organizer, here in support. Thank you.

Ava DeConcini, legacy student at Stanford University and a Californian, here in support.

Hi, Anya Hooper, a legacy student at Stanford University and Class Action organizer, in support.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room?

Good afternoon. Alex Graves with the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, here in respectful position of opposed unless amended I want to start by saying we appreciate the discussion around how we can ensure that students, families and the public feel that the admission processes of our institutions are giving all applicants an equitable review and want to thank the member and the campaign for taking time with us in the last week or two, us being our president as well as our board chair, to discuss our commitment to trying to work towards a path that works for us.

Many don't realize that Prop 209 did not apply to California's private, nonprofit institutions. And so when the Supreme Court decision came down last summer that had significant ramifications for our institutions, our university leaders had to re examine their policies around admission, recruitment and outreach. And that self reflection has certainly extended to broader considerations about what policies could best promote a diverse set of applicants coming to our campus communities.

Regarding legacy admissions, maybe 1780 I'd like to just make four brief points, but do want to thank the committee analysis for covering much of this. First, our colleges are compliance driven institutions and adjust our policies in accordance with state and federal laws passed each year. For example, we've complied with recent legislation regarding a ban on scholarship displacement, additional protections for students beyond what's contained in Title IX, greek life transparency scorecards. And since 2020, we've fully complied with the data reporting as outlined in AB 697.

2nd, we philosophically don't believe that a Cal Grant tie or a civil penalty in the amount equal to the Cal Grant Dollars is the is necessary to ensure compliance by our institutions, again giving that we comply with state and federal laws each year. So moving forward, that's certainly something we hope we can work on with the author and sponsors to craft language that provides the appropriate disclosure as to our compliance with the law.

Third, as our reporting with AB 697 shows, nearly all students admitted who are donor or legacy related met the same academic qualifications for admissions as every other applicant to the institution. The university of students from the reporting we've done, who by the institution's own admission did not meet the same criteria, has been very small, probably in the ballpark of 10 to 12 student applicants across four years, and seven to eight of our institutions who have self reported.

And then fourth institutions do use that information regarding legacy status for things that are outside admissions. And we certainly hope that this policy can clarify that that data point can still be collected for other purposes. I know the State of Maryland has legislation that very clearly distinguishes what this can and cannot be used for, and we hope we can work on that as well.

And so, in closing, you know, as non public colleges and universities who do not receive direct support for instruction, you know, we are admittedly a bit uncomfortable with the idea of the state starting to dictate admission practices for our institutions, to be honest. But with that said, we do welcome this discussion on an appropriate path forward that ensures there's greater clarity for policymakers, students and families as to how our institutions admit diverse classes of students. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much for your comments and appreciate that. And thank you. And happy birthday to you as well. And are there any tweeners in the hearing room, colleagues, any questions or comments? Seeing none and assembly member, would you like to close?

Again, appreciate the comments from the AICCU.

Again, I think what we're trying to do is to ensure that we have an admissions process within all our institutions that is as open and transparent and as fair as possible. Many states have gone the extra step and actually started to ban legacy admissions for their public institutions. We did not need to do that because our public institutions do not practice legacy admissions.

And so, again, us taking the step of the private universities, I know that in particular, on the steps of the Supreme Court case, I think the time is right to really reset the bar for all of our universities, especially some of our most desirable universities here in California. And what we've seen, and you understand this in this committee more than anything else, is that higher education matters. It definitely changes the trajectory of people's lives. It really creates significantly more opportunity.

It's why we spend so much money on higher education in this committee, in this state, and why we've seen so much of the benefits. I think it's because of our private and our public universities that we've realized that California is now the fifth largest economy in the world. It's not an accident. It's something that was something that was planned for and that we continue to invest in. So again, respect for us, for the. I vote on AB 1780 and appreciate all the help from the committee.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Ting, for being a champion of addressing the fallout from operation varsity blues several years ago. And thank you for accepting the committee amendments as outlined on page eight of the analysis. And please continue to work. Keep working with independent colleges universities to address continued concerns about the feasibility of implementation. And with that, I look forward to supporting the measure here today. We have a motion. I'll second it with that. Madam Secretary, roll call please.

File item number nine. AB 178 z. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measures three ayes and we'll keep the roll open for additional Members to add on.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next step, we'd like to like to welcome Mr. Chen presenting item number 23, Assembly Bill 3167. Welcome.

Thank you Mr. Chair, for your time. Allow me to present AB 3167. Under current law, many nonprofit universities fall into the same regulatory category as vocational schools.

The support law established to protect students from predatory institutions now has an outsized effect on institutions that merge with California schools, such as Northeastern University and Mills College. While this important law protects against fraud that could lead to the loss of students tuition and fees, it no longer serves students attending certain highly qualified institutions that remain committed to educating California students. As more nonprofit colleges and universities merge, students attending those institutions are unfairly burdened with fees and requirements that other students do not face.

As more colleges universities merge, highly qualified nonprofit institutions with approval to operate in California should not be required to subject students to burdensome restrictions based on bureau rules that were established for risky institutions. AB 3167 offers highly qualified institutions an alternative approval pathway. While maintaining bureau oversight and safeguards for students, this Bill requires important safeguards.

To be considered highly qualified, an institution must be nonprofit, not have operated for profit in the last 20 years, awarded at least 500 degrees per year, be accredited for at least 10 years, and the board of directors must not have an equity interest in the accrediting agency. Now here to testify with me, we have Renee Jadushlever of Northeastern University and Alex Graves of AICCU. We also have Mike Ferrari of Northeastern University. For any of the technical questions with.

That, Mister Chairman and Members of the Committee on Higher Education, thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon on Assembly Bill 3167 offered by Assembly Member Chen. My name is Renee Jadushlever and I'm Vice President of campus Administration and strategic initiatives at Northeastern University, Oakland. Prior to joining Northeastern for 31 years, I served in a variety of leadership roles at Mills College, in a star private liberal arts college, and leaders on issues of equity, social justice, and women's leadership.

Founded in 1898, Northeastern University is a comprehensive, nonprofit, global research one University and the recognized leader in experiential lifelong learning. In July of 2022, Mills College merged with northeastern, joining Northeastern's network of 13 campuses across the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. This includes a campus offering graduate degree programs in San Jose, which opened in 2015.

Under current law, high quality nonprofit institutions that maintain a physical presence in California but which are headquartered outside the state, such as Northeastern University, fall into the same regulatory category as private, for profit vocational schools offering short term training programs. The intent of AB 3167 is simple, to streamline the registration process for high quality nonprofits like Northeastern, but only when those institutions meet rigorous quality standards, protect students, and maintain consumer safeguards.

Importantly, the bill would eliminate requirements that impede student academic progress and relieve financial burdens on California students. At comprehensive research universities, academic exploration and discovery are the hallmark of an undergraduate education, particularly during the first year. This bill would correct the practice of requiring students at such institutions to enroll in a degree program before they have decided on a major and career pathway. Additionally, students at such institutions are required to make payments into the student tuition recovery fund.

These fees are based on a student's expected four year course of study. This drives up the cost of attendance for California students by hundreds of dollars prior to their enrollment. Students should not be required to pay this additional fee if they attend high quality nonprofits that are not at risk for closure. AB 3167 will waive this fee if such institutions issue a surety bond to cover this risk on behalf of their students. For all these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote thank you.

Hello again. Alex Graves with the AICCU in support. Just briefly, I'd like to say that the issue posed by Northeastern University is illustrative of issues that would face any nonprofit University in California that, while accredited, is not accredited by WASC. As the higher education landscape changes, high quality institutions that offer full liberal arts educational programs do not fit the same regulatory structure or purpose that has existed in the past with the bureau. This has resulted in complex and burdensome requirements for students attending those institutions.

AB 13167 creates an alternative pathway while still providing strong oversight and consumer protection in alignment with the role of BPPE. And as institutions meet this high standard of highly qualified institutions, we think this strikes an appropriate balance and pathway moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Assembly Member Jackson.

Can you just reiterate the problem you're trying to solve here? Sure, sure. Kind of so layman's terms.

Right. Thank you. Sorry. I apologize for my back. Thank you for the question. Thank you for the question. Mike Ferrari, associate Vice President for external affairs at Northeastern University. Basically, the problem we're trying to solve is that the bureau's regulations are really designed to regulate, as my colleague Renee said, for profit programs.

But as applied to comprehensive universities that offer four year degree programs, it creates the regulatory regime, creates burdens on students that both impede their academic progress and also drive up their cost of attendance. It also creates burdens on the institutions as well, in terms of compliance in several ways. I can give you a couple of just examples on the institution. I need some examples. Sure, sure. Just give me an example.

So in terms of the student academic progress, the undeclared major issue that Renee just mentioned is one. The student tuition recovery fee is another. On institutions, under the bureau's existing rules, if an institution like Northeastern University wants to offer a new degree program, it needs to make an application to the bureau that has to be signed by every member of the institution's board of trustees, not electronically, but with an actual wet physical signature.

And in this day and age, you know, that's designed so that the trustees who are fiduciaries certify that they're, you know, that they're personally responsible for the application. But in this day and age, a high quality, nonprofit institution that is very well endowed and has no risk of closure, poses no financial risk. And so instead of having a wet signature, what we've talked to the bureau about is having just the Chief Executive Officer or the President, for example, make that application. Make that application.

That's one way. There's one other thing I want to draw your attention to, and that's the student performance fact sheets that are required for every program. Northeastern currently offers over 400 programs in the State of California, but under the bureau's. And under the bureau's. I'm sorry, Northeastern is currently authorized to provide over 400 programs in the State of California, but only provides currently about 30 programs.

But under the bureau's rules, Northeastern in any institution has to prepare a performance fact sheet for each of the programs that are authorized in the state, even if they aren't offered. And so that creates a compliance burden in terms of the number of staff hours that is required to be required in order to comply with that burden. So these are some of the ways that.

So you're trying to simplify the process without onerous.

That's right.

Or antiquated processes.

So this would create a registration process. And if there is a problem, instead of there being a set of requirements that we're trying to fit sort of a square peg into a round hole. What you have is a situation where an institution like Northeastern, we're proactively let the bureau know. The bureau still has oversight. We'll let the bureau know that it's having an issue and it can be addressed.

Got it. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any further questions or comments from colleagues? Seeing none, Assembly Member would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member Chen, for introducing this bill. I understand what you're trying to accomplish here, and I think it makes sense that an expedited registration process could exist for highly qualified nonprofit institutions. I ask you to continue working with BPPE going forward and analysis, identify some concerns about the existing process, but look forward to supporting the Bill here today with that. Madam Secretary, I'm sorry. Motion and a second. Motion by Assembly Member Jackson. A second by Senator Muratsuchi. Madam Secretary, roll call please.

File item number 23, AB 3167. The motion is do pass to business and professions Committee. [Roll Call].

That measure has four ayes, and we'll keep the row open for additional Members. Add on. Thank you very much. Next up, I'd like to welcome assumer Santiago presenting item number 12. Assembly Bill 2093. Welcome. Hey, sir. Hello, Mister chair. How are you? Good. How are you, sir? Good. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you for letting us present AB 2093, which is continuing the work of free community college that both you as a chair and myself have been working on for a number of years.

Now that we've made free community college to all those eligible first time, full time students to earn an AA or the or as we like know as two years, we're now expanding that to the bachelor's degree the community colleges currently do, for all the same reasons we now know that if a student goes full time, they're more successful than a part time student. We also know that the cost of education leaves every student in the State of California an average of about 17,000 when they're done.

We have a unique opportunity now that community colleges do bachelor's degree to extend the work that we've done at Free Community College, also known as the California, The Promise program, I was getting tongue-tied on that one, to the BAs that community colleges currently do. So it makes perfect sense that we now have two years of Free Community College.

We add the additional two years so a student can now go to community college for four years under this Bill, absolutely free, leave debt free, and earn a bachelor's degree all near their neighborhoods at a community college like the wonderful district of the Los Angeles Community College. And I have one witness, Jim Limbaugh, President of West LA.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you. Well, good afternoon, chair Fong and Members of the Committee. Again, my name is Jim Limbaugh.

I'm the President of West Los Angeles College, and I'm sharing testimony on behalf of Chancellor Francisco Rodriguez and the board of trustees of the Los Angeles Community College District. Our district is a proud sponsor of AB 2093. As Assemblymember Santiago mentioned in his opening statement, this Bill addresses the critical issue of student financial assistance at community colleges.

Landmark AB 19 and AB two legislation authored by Assemblymember of Santiago in 2017, created the current California College promise program that provides two years of tuition and fee waivers for first time, full time students at California community colleges. That law was expanded subsequently to full time returning students as well. Now, AB 2093 will further broaden California community college program by allowing students to pursue their baccalaureate degrees tuition free at community colleges that offer bachelor's degrees.

Community colleges play an essential role in promoting equity in the labor market by providing the opportunity for individuals to access high quality post secondary education at a Low cost. For example, the tuition cost of an LACCD bachelor's degree is approximately $10,560 compared to the cost of a California State University four year degree, which is estimated at almost $30,000 based on the fall 2024 tuition and fee schedules, and even higher for a University of California degree.

In closing, AB 2093 will help California community colleges to build the educated workforce that California needs to maintain its place as one of the largest economies in the world, and it will create more financial assistance opportunities for community college students to attain their goal of a baccalaureate degree. For these reasons, the Los Angeles Community College District respectfully asks for your aye vote on AB 2093.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses and support in the hearing room?