Assembly Standing Committee on Public Employment and Retirement

Good morning, Members of the Committee and the public, to the Assembly Committee on public employment and retirement. Before we begin, we'll pause for a few minutes to make sure that the audio and video is working all right. Everything is in order. I have a few announcements to make. We have a number of items on the agenda today, and I'll walk through them and how we will proceed.

First, the Committee will hold an informational hearing titled Service Delivery and workforce well being, addressing the vacancy crisis in local government. We're going to hear from a number of panelists and experts regarding the topic, and after the panels are complete, there will be a 15 minutes public comment period. For those who wish to make a public comment at the end, please be mindful during the brief period that others behind you also may want to speak.

If you are unable to make public comments, you may submit written comments to the Committee via the free legislative advocacy portal. Second, at the end of the informational hearing, which will be approximately one and a half hours long, we'll recess for five to seven minutes before we hear three bills as a special order of business that are related to the subject of the informational hearing, those bills are AB 2489 Ward, AB 2557 Ortega, and AB 2561 McKenna.

After those three bills, we'll proceed through the rest of the agenda to hear the other bills on the file. Of those other bills, three are on consent calendar. Item one, AB 1905 Addis file item eight, AB 2455 Gabriel file item 11, AB 2474 Lackey. During the hearing of bills, testimony will be limited to three minutes total on each side of the Bill and two primary witnesses on each side of the Bill.

All others may only state their name, organization, if any, and position on the Bill for Committee Members. We'll take up add on votes at the end of the hearing. If you need to leave during the hearing, return or come late, please make sure that you are at the dais on a microphone and in the view of a camera for public view when casting your vote.

Finally, the Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to Committee and floor proceedings in the last few years so that everyone is crystal clear. Conduct that disrupts, disturbs or impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing is prohibited. To address any disruptive conduct. I will direct them to stop and warn the individual that if they continue, they may be removed from participating in the hearing or the Capitol and will temporarily recess the hearing to address the matter. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Let's get started with the informational hearing and welcome our first panel. Our first panel is on civil service vacancy and local government. We'll bring on Sean O'Brien, a policy Director from AFSCME Savannah Hunter, PhD, associate research and policy specialist from UC Berkeley Labor Center Patrice Berry, chief of impact officer in poverty in California. Good morning.

Good morning. Good morning. Chair McKinner, Members of the Committee, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Shaun OBrien. I'm the policy Director with the American Federation of State, county and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME. Our union represents about 1.4 million public service workers throughout the nation. Many of them are here in California, especially as local government employees. Ensuring that public services are well funded and well staffed is a top priority for, for our Members.

During the pandemic, AFSCME Members led a campaign called Fund the Front Lines, which help secure critical federal funding for local government as well as state government services. And last year, AFSCME also launched the staff the Frontlines campaign. Its purpose has been to highlight the nationwide government staffing crisis, to partner with employers committed to solving it, and also to highlight local and state public service job opportunities. And today I'd like to briefly cover two topics.

First, I'm going to give a brief update on the State of Local Government jobs across the country. And second, I want to share some of the things that we learned about local government staffing, hiring, and retention from our staff. The front lines campaign so first, let's look at the national picture for local government jobs. And here there are both good news and not so good news stories to tell. And I'll start with the good news.

This past December, local government jobs returned to where they were right before the pandemic began. And that recovery, which took 46 months, is actually quite a significant success, especially when you consider that it took nearly a decade, 116 months, to recover from the great Recession that had begun in December of 2007. Further, as part of the good news, governments are continuing to hire.

Although the federal data sources don't allow us to break out local government numbers, we know state and local governments combined filled 336,000 vacancies in February. That's the most recent month for which we have data, and they also had posted 773,000 jobs for hire on net in March. We know that there was a net gain of 31,000 local jobs across the country. There are two parts of the not so good story.

The first is that we don't have nearly enough local government workers in place to deliver adequate public services in our communities. Our population has grown, but the ranks of local public service workers hasn't kept up if local government jobs had grown right along with population since the start of the great Recession, there would be nearly 1.3 million more local government workers in the US than we have today. So we have a long way to go to fill that gap.

The second part of the not so good story is that government employers continue to have trouble hiring. Over the last year, the average number of state and local government job openings each month was a third more than what it was in the year before the pandemic. At the same time, hires have been barely up just 3.4% each month, and that's a dynamic we've seen throughout the government jobs recovery.

The number of jobs posted has surged, but the number of workers being hired each month has barely budged. So let me turn now to some of the things that we've learned from our staff. The frontlines campaign. In 11 cities, we held listening sessions in which elected and appointed government leaders could hear directly from AFSCME Members about the impact of staffing shortages on their communities and themselves, and in turn, that our Members could hear from those leaders.

These included two right here in California, one in San Diego, and one in Los Angeles. Through these listening sessions and many other conversations, we were able to gain significant insights into the nature and causes of the staffing crisis in local government. And some of those findings were things you'd expect. Others were more surprising. And I'd like to just share a few of those things. First, everybody's aware that pay and in some cases benefits have been a problem.

And many local governments had put austerity measures in place following the great Recession and never really pulled back from those. By the time we held our listening sessions last year, progress was being made in many places, but there was much more work to be done, and I think the work continues on that. Second thing I want to point out is that in a lot of places, understaffing has been normalized. It's just become the way governments are doing business.

And so, frankly, simply filling all of the unfunded positions that a government has posted isn't necessarily getting you to full staffing. Third, unaddressed staffing shortages are leading to more understaffing. Excessive workloads, like prolonged periods of 6570 and even 85 hours work weeks, which I've heard of from some workers, are pushing long tenured workers to quit, and it makes it difficult to recruit and keep new workers. Fourth, short term and expedient responses to the staffing crises often end up creating more problems for long tenured workers.

This is something we've heard repeatedly from our Members. Many of their employers have hired contractors or brought in temporary or provisional employees to deal with backlogs and fill gaps. All too often, contractor employees have been ill equipped and poorly trained to do the work the contractors have been hired to do, and our Members are left to fix the mistakes, which can be a source of great frustration to them.

Fifth and final thing I just want to mention is the hiring process in many governments is unnecessarily slow, some might say painfully slow, and it makes it very difficult for them to compete for job candidates against private sector employers. And while governments necessarily have to meet higher standards than private employers in hiring, that doesn't explain things like taking an average of 180 days or more to fill a vacancy once it's been posted.

So the good news is public service workers, their employers, and the public have a shared interest in solving the staffing crisis. Addressing it, however, will require a deliberate, concerted, comprehensive effort that invests in public services and invests in public service workers, and our Members are ready to make that happen. So I appreciate the opportunity to share our perspectives on these issues today, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Thank you Madam Chair and the Committee for having me here today. My name is Doctor Savannah Hunter. I'm a sociologist with expertise in work and employment, and I work as an associate research and policy specialist at the UC Berkeley Labor center. In 2022, the labor center began to see increasing numbers of reports that excessive job vacancies in local government were a significant challenge. In response, we conducted research to understand the obstacles local government employers in California were facing filling vacant positions.

We interviewed nearly two dozen local government and union leaders across the state. We collected and analyzed detailed vacant position data from three counties, and we analyzed publicly available reports and audits on staffing and vacancies. Our research, which we published in December, found that job vacancies in local government are a widespread and significant problem for the public sector. In the 2022 to 2023 fiscal year, our local government interviewees reported that job vacancy rates ranged from 5% to over 30%.

Data we obtained from San Diego, County, Los Angeles County, Santa Clara County, the city and County of San Francisco, the State of Oakland, and surrounding Bay Area cities all reported double digit vacancy rates, with between 12 to 16% of all jobs vacant. For context, that's more than one in 10 jobs unfilled. While local governments expect to have some level of vacancies as employees retire or naturally turn over, vacancy rates reported to us were about one and a half to two times typical expectations.

We also found that high levels of job vacancies are not limited to any one type of job or service. We found high job vacancies in administrative and clerical positions, public health, nursing, behavioral health and social work, criminal justice, public works, public transportation, and many others. So why were job vacancies so high? Our research led us to conclude that there are multiple interconnecting factors that can contribute to high job vacancies. Some of the challenges filling job vacancies are associated with the after effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Layoffs, turnover, and hiring freezes in 2020 resulted in a 10% drop in the number of local government employees in California. As the economy began to reopen, some local governments struggled to compete in a tight labor market where Low unemployment rates and high job openings meant that workers had a lot of employment options. Along with increased retirements and turnover within local governments, they were struggling to compete. However, these challenges in the pandemic were really exacerbated by longer term structural issues within local governments.

First, local government hiring processes are long, complex, and can be cumbersome. They can take anywhere from two to nine months to complete for workers who need employment now, they simply cannot afford to wait that long. Second, long term underinvestment has cast a shadow over the government workforce since the great Recession. Local governments have struggled to regain pre recession employment and revenue levels, especially considering population growth.

These dynamics mean that local governments have had to do more with less, workloads have increased and staffing levels have stagnated, all of which degrades the job quality that has historically drawn people and retained people to public sector employment. Third, in this context, our interviewees expressed concern about the ability of local governments to compete for workers on compensation, particularly in the context of high costs of living in California.

While the public sector typically offers better retirement and health benefits compared to the private sector, wage growth in the private sector has outpaced the public sector for most of the last 14 years, and targeted compensation studies have shown that even when accounting for total compensation, the public sector often lags. High job vacancies in the public sector matter because they affect the ability of local governments to deliver vital services, including Healthcare, social welfare, public transportation, public health, legal systems, and many more.

But vacancies also impact the well being of workers who deliver these services. Both our county and union leaders who we interviewed expressed concern in interviews about a cycle of overwork due to understaffing, subsequent burnout among employees, and then turnover of which positions have to be filled again there are a number of strategies that state and local governments can employ to address their high job vacancies. However, the effectiveness of any particular approach depends on how well it addresses the underlying problem.

For example, for some occupations, high job vacancies may be caused by high turnover driven by uncompetitive pay or other job quality challenges. But for other occupations, vacancies may be driven by insufficient workforce development pipelines and the need for workers with specific skills. As a starting place, local government should collect and publish data on job vacancies and work to understand the specific challenges they face.

This requires looking at data points such as the number and rate of job vacancies, the amount and rate of turnover from quitting or retirements, the level of compensation offered, hiring processes, and retention metrics, among other factors which we detail in our report. Because the underlying reason for job vacancies can vary, these data points should be collected both county or citywide, but also by job classification and agency.

Critically, local government should work in partnership with labor unions and employees who experience and understand these dynamics of job vacancies firsthand to investigate the underlying challenges, analyze the data, and develop collaborative solutions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker

Thank you, chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Patrice Barry. I'm the Chief Impact Officer at an organization called End Poverty in California, also known as Epic, founded by former Stockton mayor Michael Tubbs. And although I'm here on behalf of Epic today, I'm also here as the daughter of a civil servant who served for nearly 40 years until his retirement. And growing up, I definitely saw firsthand the impact of civil service on my family's economic mobility.

And so I'm really happy to have this opportunity to advocate for the sector. Today, EpIC aims to end poverty in California by elevating the voices of people experiencing it and advancing a state agenda that introduces bold policies rooted in their needs. And over the past two years, we have visited over 20 counties across the state, listening to people living in poverty and together crafting an agenda to alleviate immediate stress, but also in poverty long term. And what we've learned won't surprise you.

Talent is universal, but resources and opportunity are not. So EpiK has partnered with people impacted by poverty and advocacy organizations to unlock opportunity to fight poverty, to build a roadmap to a more inclusive, equitable economy. And driven by what we've heard, we're focused on five strategies. Improve the safety net improve quality jobs and worker power ensure housing as a human right, create wealth, opportunities for all, and secure safe communities and second chances.

And I'm proud to say that California, even in the midst of difficult budget times, is implementing some of the most forward thinking and transformative anti poverty policies, policies that the folks we work with. It truly reflects our collective vision of how to actually end poverty. But today, I'm here to hopefully help the Legislature and the broader capital community understand exactly how significant municipal government is to antipoverty work.

When someone turns to the safety net, it is often because they've reached the end of the line of a whole host of other options they've already considered, like a person fleeing domestic violence or a worker waiting for justice in the workers compensation system, an aging out foster youth who has no other family to rely on, or someone like my former student who coincidentally called me on Tuesday. Was that yesterday?

So yesterday she and her partner are expecting their first child, and they're homeless because they're waiting for an inspection on a unit they've already rented with a section eight housing voucher. And all of these stories are real stories that we've heard from communities across the state. And when they show up on the steps of a county Human Services Agency, it is because they're there to ask for urgent help, life saving help, homelessness and hunger preventing help.

And without this help, sometimes it's more than a risk that they fall through the cracks. And sometimes, oftentimes, we can almost guarantee it. So to help paint a picture for you of the demand for county human services and what they mean to Californians, over 350,000 people apply for cowworks every month. More than 3 million people apply for Calfresh Monthly, and over 14 million people apply for medi Cal every single month. And people turn to these services and these programs because they are a lifeline.

CalWORKS provides cash assistance that sometimes can make the difference between homelessness and keeping a roof over your head, diapering a child, or making a visit to an emergency room, Calfresh also provides critically needed food assistance, mostly to children, to families and rural communities who, without Calfresh, have no other emergency food network.

And although in California, I'm glad that we're expanding the Medi Cal program to every income eligible Californian, regardless of immigration status, this program and so many others have been burdened by the expiration of COVID era policies, by the growth in the program and why we're here today, by the lack of workers who are available to process people's applications and recertifications. Two years ago, this is the last thing I'm going to say.

Epic cofounded the benefits, access and equity initiative, and we convened county human service workers, with county administrators, with the people they serve and their advocates. We heard loud and clear that more workers are needed, that more jobs are available, and that the financial resources are critically needed to hire enough staff to process applications timely and accurately. And without these resources, the impact is felt on all fronts, at every level. Yet this is clear to us.

It is clear to us that over and over again, some of the financial resources allocated to hire staff are being returned to the General Fund because they were unable to be spent.

So at the end of the day, the world class safety net that we've built here, that you all have built here in the State of California, that governors and their administrations have built over time, it is only as good as the quality and the quantity of the staff who are able to administer the programs and services. And when these programs lack the staff, lack the staff they need to administer programs, certainly the state gets penalized by federally set benchmarks.

But more important than that, real Californians suffer. And I plan to be here today before I got the call from my student this week. But I'm really, really happy that I have this opportunity to be before you today and to thank you for agendizing this issue and for prioritizing it. And I want you to know that in poverty, in California, at epic, we stand ready to help you implement ideas, create solutions, and garner support across the state to make some changes that we do desperately need.

Thank you.

Thank you guys so much. I have a few questions. I was looking through some of the information, starting with pay these numbers. I used to work, first of all, I used to work for Department of Social Services. That's where I started my career. And so I was an intake worker. And so I remember we could have 250 cases at that time. And this is in 1999. And so we were supposed to have 250 cases.

And at the time, we probably had 400 each person, which meant we worked a lot of overtime, right. But we just worked. We weren't really getting paid the overtime. So I can imagine now the caseloads have, when you talk about the social services, the caseloads have probably even gone up if they're not getting paid. But I'm looking at these salary increases. When are the last time that these folks had real cost of living salary increases?

Do you guys know some of these folks, like the employees, like the intake workers, the senior typist? I was looking through some of the vacancies, and I was just looking at the salaries. I know they're negotiated, but do you guys know, like, the last time they had, like, real salary increases.

Yeah. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer to that. I think it's going to be on a probably county by county basis.

Okay. The contracting out, is that becoming a standard instead of just hiring folks, is it becoming a standard to contract out or hire temp workers?

I want to say anecdotally, and I'm not the expert, so I will leave with that. But what I, and I was talking to another panelist out there, but it's not only becoming a standard, it is just to what you said earlier, it is part of the norm. It is the way you staff programs and services.

And again, when I was getting these jobs for the county, because I worked and did more than one position, it did take a long time. So you saw it, you see the announcement, you go in and I think this is still the procedure. You go in and you take the written test, you come back, you wait to see if you pass that. You go in and you do an interview. You wait a couple weeks, months. Do you get that? Then you get put on a list.

Once they rate you, if you pass all the things, they rate you. And then they start bringing people in. The first three candidates they start at the top, they bring in the first three candidates they hire. But I would say at least when I was there, we always had a list of people. Is that still the procedure for hiring? Do you know?

Yeah, I believe it is. You know, the part of what we've found is that there are lots of, I think, decisions that have been made and who knows when they've been made about how to structure these processes and that haven't been, I think, looked at but lead to a slow process. For example, for the tests, are they being administered often enough? Are there other things that are barriers to people taking the tests? Because the tests are important, right.

Because we want to make sure that qualified individuals are being hired for these roles, but there may be barriers around them that need to be looked at. And then the 180 days I was referring to doesn't count. The test position's been posted and people have applied for the position. You know, that sort of, to us sort of inexplicable in many cases. I think, you know, some governments are taking a serious look at that and looking for ways to reduce the time it takes.

But I think there's a lot of work that still needs to be done there.

And who determines the test? I'm sorry, I'm getting all technical because I'm just thinking like, who determines the procedure of the hiring? Is it the Department heads that determine, or is that in your MOU, like, who determines the procedure, the hiring procedure for local government?

I mean, as I can't speak to specific situations, I mean, it's my understanding that, I mean, that is sort of a General matter that is going to be, you know, it's going to be, it's going to be the employer tends to be the, you know, the Personnel Department itself. And so wouldn't necessarily be coming from the individual, you know, an individual unit or agency within government, but so overarching personnel operation.

Thank you. Thank you guys so much. Any of the other Members have any questions? Assemblywoman. Thank you, guys. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

So our second panel is the impact of local government vacancies on workforce and services. Saboa Wright, wastewater collection worker to City of Los Angeles. Vice President, SEIU Local 721. George Osborne, Union of American Physicians and Dentists. AfscMe Claudia Mcfarland, LMFT, senior mental health counsel, County of Sacramento Stewart. AFSCME Local 146. Welcome. Good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Once again. My name is Simboa Wright. I am the Vice President of Service Employees International Union Local 721. I'm also an Executive board Member of SEIU, California State Council. This is a very important meeting, and I just really, really want to thank you for holding this. I'm also, as you pronounce, a proud wastewater collection worker with the City of Los Angeles.

Well, basically, I help to ensure critical pieces of our urban infrastructure, which is the largest municipal wastewater system in the nation, 6700 miles, that functions properly. I understand infrastructure, the physical infrastructure. Behind every infrastructure, there's a human being worker and that's the human infrastructure. One thing you cannot, I mean, you cannot neglect infrastructure, because if you do, it will come to bite you where you just shouldn't be bit with that. Let me get where I am. Sorry. I apologize.

Oh, okay. So in California's public sector, we are really, really suffering the neglect of both human and infrastructure. In the City of Los Angeles, we have over 200 vacancies. In the County of Los Angeles, we have 10 to 11,000 vacancies. I want to talk to you shortly about what it looks like for public sector employees on the front line and how it is with how we serve with our mission.

One stop I'd like to talk about LA animal services at the animal shelters. Animal care and animal control are severely understaffed in the City of Los Angeles. As a result, unfortunately, the animals are suffering, which vacancies are and cannot open up faculties or expand faculties because we do not have enough staff, and it results in humane treatment to these animals. Our shelters are at 221% capacity.

So step into one of our shelters where the cages are stacked on top of each other with multiple animals inside of the cages. And these animals, the noise that you hear from the animals , it just will drive you crazy. So imagine how these animals feel. They feel like they're driving, they're going crazy, and it's heartbreaking. So I want to talk about one of our members, Bonnie, whose mission is to serve these animals. Her compassion, you can hear it in her voice when she talks about her career and her job. She used to work for the shelter. Well, she cannot no longer work for the shelter because she got attacked by a dog that was in distress and she was seriously injured. And so that leads to another vacancy within our already a system that has been broken. The less care for these poor animals, the less care for our mission to serve the welfare of these animals. This is how vacancies work.

The critical impact and conditions will not have our mission to serve any of these agencies or the agency's mission to serve the public. Next, I'd like to take you to the streets of Los Angeles, where the crisis has really unfolded. Despite all the leadership of our city and our great mayor, Mayor Bass, despite good decisions, despite the commitment and good intent, our ability to accomplish the worthy goal of providing help to people in need, our unhoused, to clean up the streets of Los Angeles.

That this has been became a very unsafe situation where you have sidewalks and people have to walk into the street because they cannot get by because of the unhoused. You have folks that own homes, pay property taxes, and have unsightful scenes with people using drugs and so on and so forth. Who does this affect? It affects everyone. Now, I want to talk a little bit about our Skid Row. So skid Row had 5000 souls that were out there, with the vacancies.

They had one behavioral health specialist for 5000 people. That's in the County of Los Angeles. Which Department of Public Social Services, as you well know, the vacancies there are tripled, up to at least 400, like I said, in the County of Los Angeles, up to 11,000. We have to. We have to step up to the plate, all of us, because this impacts all of us with the unhoused crisis. When it rains, you have needles, whatever type of debris go into our stormwater system.

And who does that impact? It impacts the fish. So this is not just human. It does not only affect humans, it affects our environment. But we're not hopeless. We see that we have an avenue. There's plenty of ways that we can take care of this. And of course, that'll be another meeting. So we must, and we can rebuild our human infrastructure, but we have to do it together. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. George Osborne. I'm a contract advocate for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, AFSCME Local 206. Doctor Bussey sends his regrets this morning that he couldn't be here, and frankly, I'm a poor substitute, but I'll do my best. For purposes of this hearing, I want to focus just on LA County and our UAPD positions. The vacancies UAPD experiencing currently are, I guess, best described as outrageous. In the Department of Health Services, we have 178 vacancies out of 996 positions, 18%.

In public health, 7 vacancies out of 58, 12%. Medical examiner, 8 out of 14, which is 57%. And in the Sheriff's Department, jails where our doctors work to treat incarcerated folks, our vacancies are 35 out of 50. That's 70% vacancies. In the Department of Mental Health, the vacancy rate is 35%. Among UAPD Members, these high vacancies cause unnecessary job stress and high anxiety over the workload. It means that members leave. Our members leave county employment to find employment elsewhere.

Better pay, better working conditions, oftentimes less dangerous working conditions. And what does this really mean? What it means is that when somebody is incarcerated, they become a ward, if you will, of the government. We're responsible for their well being from then on, as long as they're incarcerated. That means we have to. We should provide them with food and shelter and adequate health care, and we're not doing that.

We don't have the manpower, female power, whatever you want to call it, in order to do that, and we're failing them. And that's what these job shortages really mean. We're unable to fulfill our mission. We're unable to serve the public as the public should be served. We're unable to take care of those wards of the government who are incarcerated as we have a constitutional responsibility to do. So thank you for listening.

Thank you so much. Next speaker.

Hello, my name is Claudia McFarland. I'm a licensed marriage and family therapist in California, but I'm also a senior mental health counselor for Sacramento County. I'm the former President of the AFSCME Local 146 for Sacramento County and a current steward.

I want to thank the Chair and Members of the Committee for holding this important hearing on vacancies in the public sector. As many of our current employees are working hard to meet the demands of the services the county is responsible for and that the public expects while being shorthanded for several years now.

I've been working for the county for 17 years providing services to low-income families as an eligibility worker, protecting children as a CPS social worker, and now providing mental health services to youth in detention facility, our youth detention facility. Each of the roles I have been in since beginning my county employment has been rewarding both in the services I offered and in the personal career development I was able to pursue. Each role provided another layer of safety and security for the people we serve.

Without us employees doing this good work, many children, families, adolescents and young adults would have worse outcomes for both them and their communities. We represent around 500 workers within Sacramento County Health Services. This includes counselors, medical staff, pharmacists only to name a few. Our members are responsible for providing mental health services to patients in our psychiatric hospitals, jails, youth detention facilities, as well as homeless camps and shelters. Their roles are critical to law enforcement, hospitals and many other community stakeholders.

The high vacancy rate has been a challenge to both management and current employees. We are losing many valued staff due to burnout and an inability to create a work-life balance that is sustainable. An example of some of the ripple effects of these shortages is our inability to take vacations or even call in sick.

The work we do is exceptionally demanding on our psyche and emotional well being as we see and hear every day about the suffering, trauma and horrific ways people are being violated, abused and exploited. This causes what is called secondary trauma and it is cumulative over time. During the pandemic, every classification I have mentioned earlier was deemed essential and had to come to work each day while others were allowed to work from home. The county rewarded the situation by providing us with administrative leave.

Greatly appreciated it. Everyone appreciated this but expires at the end of this year and many have not been able to utilize it due to staffing shortages. We have lost numerous counselors due to their inability to cope with both the emotional and physical demands. There is no one to talk to when you get home to your family. You have to hold it all in. The 15 year old who was prostituting so she can help her mother with the bills.

The 17 year old who watched his brother die from a bullet that that he accidentally shot, to the 15 year old sweating, shivering, vomiting in a fetal position due to opioid withdrawal. I can't go home and tell my wife about this. Recently, a youth at YDF requested assistance with mental health symptoms after suffering a loss in the family, not an unusual request. Due to the shortage of staff, he was unable to be seen as we were only able to attend to crisis/emergencies.

This resulted in him worsening and becoming suicidal by cutting his wrists. Had we been fully staffed, we may have been able to mitigate the risk by addressing the issue before it reached that point. In the past when we were fully staffed, these types of incidences were rare. In the face of these serious staffing issues, we have continued to keep up the high standard expected of us as public employees serve serving our community. As a public agency, we are incredibly rigid.

Inflexible scheduling and remote work options are deterring us from getting quality candidates in the door, particularly when they can work for a more flexible private counseling agency in lieu of public sector benefits like a pension and healthcare. Further, once we actually get candidates in the door to apply for these positions, the length of time it takes for the county to process applications, interview candidates, and ultimately hire can take between six months to a year.

This is much too long to get back to an applicant as they are understandably considering other options for employment and are likely to accept other potential job offers as opposed to waiting for uncertain periods of time to maybe be offered a position. In conclusion, while there are several drivers of vacancies in this field, we believe that there are certain changes that can be made in the short term.

Looking forward, we believe that management could collaborate with the existing workforce to clearly identify the drivers of vacancies. This would start by looking at the hiring process and finding ways that can be shortened to yet ensure that we get qualified quality candidates to fill positions. Additionally, we believe agencies should revisit their policies pertaining to scheduling and remote work flexibility as we are aware that these are frequent priorities for prospective employees that would impact their decision to apply for these positions in the first place.

These are pressing issues impacting the civil service workforce in local government. As a civil servant who has dedicated my career to helping those in need through mental health services, my hope is that the Legislature and public employers promptly take meaningful action to address the vacancy crisis. The health and well being of the public depends on it.

Thank you. Thank you guys so much. Again, being a public employee myself, I just can't believe that the hiring process is still the same after all these years and with all the new technology that we have, that the hiring process is still kind of archaic because, again, I was doing this in 1999, and that's a long time ago. As I listen to you guys, the vacation time, that's another thing that used to keep us going. At least we could take off.

You got a lot of vacation time and you can use it. So from what I'm understanding now, they're not even really being able to use that bulk of time that they need, that you need to go to rest and come back because you could get up to four weeks if you've been there a long time. Right. So they're not able to take their vacations.

Right. So the denials have been higher than ever. It doesn't mean no one ever gets approved. Of course they do, but it requires quite a bit of juggling to make that happen, and it creates stress on those that are not on vacation.

Yeah. And then, like, the four weeks at a time, that's probably not being the option.

Oh no, no, no. That's not even an option.

I don't think any agency is giving.

The four weeks. Cause we used to save up and do a whole month, and that was great. You know, the benefits. Do you. So benefits and retirement are not getting people to come to these, attracting people anymore.

So I'd like to address that a little bit in that the majority of applicants in the behavioral health field are between 20 and 30 years old. They've graduated, they finished their hours. They're at about, you know, 24, 25 years at that point, old. They're not really looking at 30 years down the road. They're looking at right now, what can I get monthly to provide for my family?

So compensation is super important, even with the benefits as well. Not really. I'm not going to talk about the retirement now, but, like, the medical benefits that they get is, that's not attracting folks anymore either. It's really pay compensation and flexibility. Flexibility.

Flexibility is huge. People will take less money if they can create a work-life balance that works for them.

And Miss Madam Chair, you mentioned contracting with this last panel. That is a huge issue. Our doctors who work in the jails work for the county, and they're working next to contractors, oftentimes who are making two to three times as much as they are and doing the same job. And that really affects the continuity of care, duty of care that physicians have to their patients. These contractors come in and out. This is like a revolving door.

And a patient goes in to see a doctor. He's expecting to see the same doctor who examined him last time, and it's somebody who doesn't know anything about him, has to look at the file before I can tell you what to do. So that's a huge issue.

It's the same on the behavioral health side that I'd like to piggyback that, in that the contracted providers for mental health services, the young person or the young adult or the adult that's been getting services from a particular individual, that individual isn't going to stay because they can make money elsewhere, more money, or because they've gotten their license and now can go out on their own. They're only there to learn and grow. So the continuity of care is interrupted frequently. And this is on top of the stigma that some of our populations have about mental health in the first place.

And then the same in municipal services, such as public works. You'll have a contractor do something, and then the already stressed civil service employee has to come back because they did it wrong and repaired and do it the right way. So it's just wasting money.

And if you look at mental health services, it's the same thing without concrete measurements, measurability in that, if I come in after somebody who has left their client to pick up where they left off, I get to start all over with that client.

That client has to repeat everything they just said to the first counselor, because now they have a new counselor, and so the relationship is damaged, the therapeutic healing is interrupted, and they get retraumatized because they have to tell the story again to a new person. And this happens every six months, let's say, for that individual. Eventually they say therapy doesn't work.

And so the long term workers, because when I was there, too, people were retiring like 30 years. They've been there 30 years. We're really not having like 30 year, lots of 30 year employees anymore. Would you guys say people are not staying, they're not retaining them?

That depends on the age of the person we're talking about. The unfortunate thing is that the county lost our lifelong medical for retirement, which is a huge problem because it makes people stay, which I know it sounds like we would want them to stay because we're talking about vacancies, but you got to think about it as a healthy workforce over long periods of time. It makes people stay to 65 to get Medicare, even if they've already been there 30 years.

They can't retire even if they physically are barely managing the job anymore. Makes sense?

Yes.

And it depends on the item number or classification. In certain areas, people are just not staying.

Thank you guys. Any more questions from the Members? Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our third and final panel, Collaborative Solutions to Address Civil Service Vacancies: Ivan Fernández, Legislative Advocate from California Labor Federation; Tim Douglass, boat operator and Captain, City of San Diego; President, AFSCME Local 127; Sandra Barreiro--I hope I said it right. Sandra--Government Relations Advocate, SEIU California. Thank you, guys.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, Ivan Fernández with the California Labor Federation with the California Labor Federation. All of what has been presented today in today's informational hearing is a testament to all the work that has to be done to address vacancies at the local level. As shared by my colleagues in the second panel, public sector workers are being spread thin and expected to take on an exorbitant number of duties and tasks, negatively impacting not only the workers but the public who rely on these services.

Public sector jobs were once considered the backbone of the middle class, but decades of low funding and government austerity measures have led to the decline of the stable union jobs that once sustained communities. Widespread vacancies have led to the elimination of middle class career opportunities for residents, especially for women and BIPOC individuals. This has an impact on entire communities as lower quality private contractor jobs replace good union public sector ones.

It is also very important to note and mention the harm that local vacancies have on workers outside of the public sector. Counties across the state have local offices to enforce workers' rights laws such as minimum wages, paid sick days, and prevailing wages. With vacancies impacting local labor enforcement agencies, workers face backlogs and delays when they try to exercise their rights under the law.

Essentially, public sector vacancies contribute to a lack of labor law enforcement, as well as other critical laws such as food facility safety, county public benefit programs, and many other services. The need to fill vacancies is integral for an efficient California. Public sector jobs are an investment for our communities, and as a valuable investment, we must ensure that we place long term solutions forward. Solutions may include making sure that local government jobs pay a living wage with good pensions and benefits as we had previously mentioned. The erosion of public sector wages and benefits makes it harder to attract and retain dedicated public servants we need. Local governments ought to also consider implementing outreach programs to recruit workers from underrepresented communities. Public sector jobs once provided communities, particularly Black and Brown communities, with a secure union job with stable income and benefits and a pathway to the middle class, as previously mentioned. Today, local governments have the same opportunity to foster a workforce built by the community and for the community.

There are a wide range of solutions to address this crisis, many of which the colleagues on this panel will discuss. However, it's crucial to understand that the vacancy crisis cannot be solved through short term contracting or sweeping positions. Communities and workers alike deserve sustainable solutions to ensure these vacancies become and remain filled. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good morning Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Tim Douglass. I am the Senior Boat Operator for the City of San Diego, which is one of the largest ocean monitoring programs in the United States currently. I have worked for the City of San Diego for over 28 years. I am also the elected President of AFSCME Local 127 and I have been the President of AFSCME Local 127 for nearly three years now.

AFSCME Local 127 represents over 2100 essential employees in the City of San Diego, City of Coronado and the City of Lemon Grove. In the City of San Diego, AFSCME Local 127 represents over 140 job classifications. These job classifications range from equipment operators to street light electricians, patch truck drivers and sanitation drivers are just an example of some. There are folks who make San Diego work 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Today I want to focus my testimony on the impacts of our sanitation drivers vacancies in the City of San Diego. In 2022, the Environmental Service Department of the City of San Diego were experiencing over a 30% vacancy rate among sanitation drivers, which translated to 64 vacancies positions. As a newly elected President, member and department heads have informed me. So as I was newly elected, Department heads were coming and informed me about how the high vacancy rates impacted health and well being of their employees.

Management was volunteering, basically telling employees they had to work mandating overtime to covered missed routes. Management to meet operational needs was denying time off requests from denials. So if employees were requesting time off for doctors appointments and for dentist appointments, any kind of appointments, they were being denied on a regular basis, which meant that they would have to call out sick and use occurrences. It was not a system that was set up appropriately.

Members were missing quinceieras they were missing weddings that were planned because they were being told that they had to work. While the sanitation drivers who remained were being stretched thin, constituents of our elected leaders down in San Diego were not getting their trash collected. The city could not fulfill its legal obligations under SB 1383, compensation for a primary factor causing the vacancies among sanitation drivers.

With these barriers in mind, we hand delivered supporting documents to and advocated to all the sanitation on behalf of all the sanitation drivers before all nine City of San Diego Council members and the Mayor, Todd Gloria of San Diego.

Throughout this process, we cultivated and developed a great working relationship with all the Council members and the office of the Mayor Gloria to address these vacancy issues among our sanitation drivers, in the end worked collaboratively with members of the department heads, Council members and the office of the Mayor, we secured a 24% special salary adjustment for our sanitation drivers. With the increase in pay we have helped to fill now almost all the vacancies along the sanitation drivers, bringing their vacancy level down below 4%.

As a local agency and public sector workers forward, we believe that meaningful collaborations and acting should be taken to address vacancies and local government. Collaborating with the union to identify barriers, challenges or corresponding solutions to retention and recruitment is critical to ensure that the public receives quality, timely services. Our members care about being able to do their jobs with quality and dignity. They just need the appropriate compensation to do their jobs. Thank you and I'm open for any questions.

Excuse me. Thank you so much. Next speaker good morning.

My name is Sandra Barreiro and I am a governmental relations advocate for SEIU California. My work focuses on public sector employees, and I'd like to offer some solutions to the vacancy crisis based on feedback I've received from members across the state. So unions don't have a right to influence the application and hiring process unless they've won specific contract language to do so. But that doesn't mean the union leadership hasn't proposed the solutions I've covered already to their employers.

And yes, public sector pay is a contributing factor. But we have to remember that the public sector has always paid less than the private sector, so it can't be the only factor. When employers focus on compensation, they miss opportunities to change the working conditions that they can control. And across the state, local governments consistently underestimate the role of workplace culture in retention. So DEI trainings, pizza in the break room, or wellness programs with pedometers, they don't solve institutional cultural problems.

This is an area where public employers can beat the private sector by creating workplaces where workers feel supported. For some people, like a previous panelist said, work-life balance is actually more important than pay. So that means public employers should strive to beat the private sector on scheduling flexibility whenever possible. So that includes accommodating workers familial obligations, offering remote or hybrid when possible, or break up FTEs into several part time positions.

Part time positions are growing in popularity now that healthcare is so expensive, a lot of people feel it's unaffordable anyway. A long hiring process and recruitment practices are also contributing to the problem. It can take, like another panelist said, six months to a year, and existing employees are actually leaving at a faster rate. So the recruitment problems start with applications that are time consuming and difficult to navigate. For example, employers could streamline this process by by creating applications that can be completed by smartphones.

Also, employers can no longer rely on the post and pray model of recruitment. Recruitment needs to be proactive. Attend job fairs with same day hiring and onsite live scan. It's likely that some hiring delays are due to inadequate staffing of HR departments. So if a employer needs to hire nurses, they may need to hire more HR personnel first. Nurses, social workers, any position where there's steep competition in the private sector. The hiring process for those jobs need to be streamlined and be lightning speed.

Lastly, outdated minimum qualifications need to be evaluated, but employers can't skip union involvement in the process. Madam Chair, you asked earlier what the process is for updating job qualifications. And typically there's a personnel board or civil service commission that has regulations that helps that dictate the process. But job qualifications for existing positions are considered a mandatory subject of bargaining. So if you skip this step, you might give existing employees the perception that their positions are being deskilled, and that could exacerbate retention problems even more.

So, unions provide public employers with a structure to recognize the value of existing employees while working on solutions to attract new ones. Employers need to embrace creative solutions to solve the vacancy crisis, and they'll find willing partners in local labor leaders. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Let's do. I have. I do have a couple of questions. When you talked about the applications. Oh, did I let everybody speak? Yes. I'm sorry. Yeah, the applications, you could do them online, though, right? Like, they have online applications, but are they using the government, the LinkedIn? Like the LinkedIn, like the job apps that people, when people go to look for jobs now, the recruitment apps, do they use those too?

I've seen job postings on LinkedIn, but sometimes, you know, like Sacramento, City, for instance, there's a separate application you have to fill out with really specific information. And, I mean, it's easy to imagine someone would give up halfway through the process of completing that application if they need a job right away.

If I could add to that, you are spot on earlier when you said it was archaic, because for the City of San Diego, it is very archaic how we have to do our application process for the city, for also the City of Coronado and City of Lemon Grove.

And so the updates haven't necessarily happened where people can really. Where it could be accessible. And like you mentioned, the smartphone. So you can't really fill them out via your smartphones because they're so technical. And it's the personnel boards who set these, the hiring process is where I'm really trying to go. I know we talked about the job classifications, but, like, the hiring process, is it the personnel board, is it the executive at the directors of the departments, like, who are actually setting the process?

So, for instance, the City of San Diego has their own personnel Department, which is separate from human resources, and they're the ones that set the guidelines for the hiring process, which San Diego has done huge improvements in the last six months with a new personnel director.

And then you did mention that in San Diego, they had a 24% increase?

So if we were able, through the civil service process, get a 25% recommendation, and then through the meet and confer process and working closely with the mayor and the need we were able to facilitate, ultimately a 24% salary increase over two years, 12% the first year, 12% additional the second year of salary increases which fixed this gross vacancy, this mandatory overtime, these issues where people were able to take time off.

Everything that the other people have brought up as issues, we found with the salary increase, bringing proper staffing, recruiting from the private sector for the first time back into public sector. Where we're doing right now is because of these salary increases for our sanitation drivers. These are the only section that we're able to do because we were able to sustain that special salary adjustment for our sanitation drivers right now. But it was very, very beneficial for the sanitation drivers.

And it was because the community?

Correct.

I'm pretty sure, raised up when they weren't getting their trash picked up.

Correct. And they all knew how to get hold of their appointed leaders, their Council members of their district. And the Council members were getting bombarded with excessive phone calls and complaints. Why is my trash refuse not being picked up in front of my house? I better call my Council member immediately. And then now the Council members are going, "what's going on?" I'm saying what's going on as a Union President representing all these folks.

And that's when we realize, hey, we have a problem here and we're not competitive in our salaries.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any more questions from any of the other Members? Back to the dais. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thanks.

And so we're going to open it up to public comments. We have 15 minutes total for this portion, so please try to keep your comments brief so that we can hear everyone. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, my name is Lee Adams. I'm a Sierra County Supervisor and former sheriff representing the Rural County Representatives of California. This morning, it's obvious that some parts of urban California have some real issues, but I would beg you, when you make fixes, please don't ruin the world we have in rural California. I don't recognize what I heard this morning. Counties provide vital public programs and services with the state to act as a safety net for millions of Californias.

We, along with our local agency colleagues in rural California, are concerned that AB 2557. I appreciate the discussion today about workforce challenges and vacancies in local government. Unfortunately, none of the bills before you today address the root cause for high vacancy rates in rural areas. We have a limited workforce with an aging population. We suffer from some of the same housing struggles that urban areas do.

Rural economies are struggling, resulting in reduced revenue for counties making waging, raising wages high enough to compete with urban areas increasingly challenged. If we are lucky enough to recruit an employee from a suburban or urban area, they often come for a few years and then leave to go back to their community. We call this train and trot. We find that if we can recruit someone living in an area into public service, they are more likely to stay.

This is why the focus needs to shift toward greater resources directed to pipeline development, training, education opportunities through our community college system and to help students afford the education necessary for our positions. Require higher education like social workers, planners, therapists and nurses. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, Committee. Thank you very much for having me here. I'm Anil Comelo. I'm the current city manager for the City of St. Helena, and for over 20 years, I've served in finance and HR positions in the public sector. As a proud public sector employee and desire to provide excellent services to the community in all the areas that we serve, it is really important that we have the right solution to the right problem.

I have no issue with the fact that we need more resources in the public sector. We need more money which will then enable us to pay competitive wages. We are in a war for talent with the private sector, and of course, we don't have the resources. But the solutions being presented in each of these bills are inconsistent with those problems. They don't solve them. In fact, I think they compound them.

For example, if you again, I've worked in urban city like Oakland where I was the HR Director and now with 5000 employees, and I work in a tiny city in the wine country with 5000 residents. So I understand the difficulties of public sector employers. And yes, we do need to collaborate with unions. We do need to find common ground. But that common ground cannot be at the cost of increasing bureaucracy and costs in the public sector.

I would agree that on wages we need to provide comparative wages. But frankly, in Oakland, for example, the union rules prevented us from being providing flexibility and work environment that was, and in fact even hiring rules that were complex embedded into the labor MOUs. You want to ban those? I'd be first in line. Providing flexibility, that's nice. But we need to be able to manage performance, which means that we need to be able to hold people accountable to work from home.

And again, union rules prevent us from doing that effectively and consistently. And finally contracting out. Even though I'm talking about the issue of vacancies and the reporting, it's nice to create data and gather data for the purposes of academic research. But frankly, that'll increase our workload, make it more complex for us, increase burdens on us and contracting out.

I should say whether it's a large city like Oakland or a small city like St. Helena is essential, I repeat, essential to providing safe, efficient, and cost-effective services to the community. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, I'm Coby Pizzotti with the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians. We represent approximately 5500 psych techs in state hospitals, prisons, and developmental centers. I wanted to take a moment and piggyback on some comments made by Mister Osborne. At DSH alone, we are budgeted for about 4500 positions. Only 3000 of those positions are filled. This has led to about 1.4 million hours of overtime worked last year alone. Also, that equated to approximately 600,000 hours of mandatory overtime. So this is involuntary overtime.

You cannot say no to this without being subject to an adverse action. Additionally, the state has decided to supplement state staff with outsourced contract registry mental health staff. At top step, a psych tech in the state makes $38 per hour. In certain portions of the state, an outsourced registry employee is being paid $59 an hour plus $900 a week per diem in travel per diem with 100% medical and excellent 401K contributions.

So if we look in the post-PEPRA era, there is no longer an incentive for an employee to become a state employee when lucrative benefits, pension, healthcare are being offered by outsourced staffing agentcies so, unfortunately, these are kind of the realities that we're facing in trying to get new employees to come into state service. Thank you.

Excuse me, sir. Excuse me. Can you come back to the mic, please? So you're saying that the contracted employee, the temporary contracted employee who's putting in the 401k?

The employer is. So it's a part of the state's contract with the employer, an allotted, let's say, $1.0 million contract for three employees or four employees. The employer is playing into the. Is paying into the agency. The staffing agency. The staffing agency is giving these lucrative benefits to recruit staff to work in same facility, side by side with my members.

Yeah.

And yet the state is paying this exorbitant amount for a contract, but not willing to negotiate a contract with equal or same value with us.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members. My name is Myles Menetrey. I'm a Mariposa County Supervisor. It's been very interesting for me to hear the struggles of the urban counties because, as supervisor Adams said, that's quite different in rural counties. In rural California, we struggle to recruit and retain individuals outside of our community given many rural counties' remote nature. To fill vacancies, we must build our workforce through educational opportunities for employees, students, and residents to create a pipeline into public service.

Unfortunately, rural California lacks adequate access to educational opportunities. There's five counties in the state, Alpine, Amador, Mariposa, Modoc, and Sierra, that are partially or wholly outside of California community district college districts. If we want to fill vacancies throughout California, we must address the gaps and educational opportunities to ensure that residents in rural California have an opportunity to enter the public service realm. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good morning, Chairman Members. Kalyn Dean with the California State Association of Counties. We are the voice of all 58 counties and CSAC, and I'm sure the other legislative representatives in the room would have welcomed the opportunity to have sat with you and prepared comments and remarks today. And we would have welcomed the opportunity to answer any questions that you might have had.

The state would do well to keep in mind that counties do deliver the vast majority of services on behalf of the state, and the state does have a responsibility to provide adequate funding to the counties. The issue of the lack of funding by way of these unfunded bills and mandates that we see further exacerbate the issues of workforce retention and recruitment.

We need to be careful to not put forth state legislation that employs a one-size-fits-all approach, and counties, post-pandemic have been creative to offer up incentives for hiring bonuses and housing stipends, and creative ways to try and address these issues. And then the last comment I'll just make is that with the civil service comment that was made, the civil service process that is in place right now is inherently slow.

And so counties are being responsive to kind of some of the processes, policies that they're required to follow. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members, Jean Hurst here today, on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, the state's largest 14 counties, I want to start by making clear that ensuring that the current public sector workforce crisis is the number one challenge facing counties across the state.

It differentiates itself geographically, as you've heard, size wise, but it is a crisis on a statewide basis, and it directly impacts our capacity and ability to address the multiple crises of the day and unfortunately undermines trust in government, which obviously we can ill afford at this moment. I just want to go back quickly to the UC Berkeley Labor Center study because I think they carefully documented the challenges that local agencies face when it comes to meeting their needs.

We are working in a very tight labor market. We have increased turnover by folks who don't see the public sector as their sort of lifelong career that is obviously generational, but also probably a result of the pandemic. We have changing labor force demographics and, frankly, a longstanding underinvestment in local government programs and services as my colleague from CSEC mentioned previously. We have difficulty competing with the private sector. As you've heard from your witnesses, these jobs are difficult.

And often folks can earn more in salary and have a more balanced quality of life by taking their skills elsewhere. This is particularly challenging in high-cost areas of California. We have a high growth in demand for workers in certain occupations, particularly in the behavioral health space. You may have heard elsewhere in legislative hearings that we have a dramatic shortfall in behavioral health workers on a statewide basis.

And the bottom line is they're not going to show up tomorrow because these are kids who are in college that need to be incentivized to move into these fields so they can become public sector workers. And obviously, that takes a great amount of time, and it takes resources and a focused commitment on that. And of course, we've already addressed the hiring processes.

I also think the labor center study points out a number of potential solutions to the problem that I think my colleagues and I would welcome additional conversations about. I would just note that, respectfully, the bills before your Committee today don't address the issues that we have in meeting our workforce needs and don't reflect any of the recommendations in the report for solutions.

And I think it's important to point out somebody said it earlier, and it's really something that I've tried to think about as we discuss this issue. What is the problem that we are trying to solve, and is it the right problem? Is the problem that we don't have enough reporting on our contracts? Is the problem that we don't have enough plans to fill vacancies? My educated guess is that the answer to that is probably no.

We need to work collaboratively to address some of these underlying issues, and that's what we would respectfully request of you as you continue a dialogue on this issue. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Wendy Pelletier. I'm from Aspen Council 57, business agent, union representative. Claudia is one of my members. I just wanted to come up here to address some of the questions that were asked earlier about wage increases, hiring process, and benefits. We can negotiate wage increases, but they don't offset the cost of living, and they don't offset the cost of medical. For example, Sac County, where, and I represent from Carmichael Water District, Yolo County, all the way to San Jose.

So for Sac county, we can negotiate 4% COLAs, but cost of medical goes up 18% in one year. So their wages are going to their medical. And we do have people leaving because of that. So that's that middle age where you asked earlier, are people staying 25 and 30 years, they're leaving in that middle gap age area because they could go to another county that does provide 100% medical, because they are out there five minute, 10 minute, 15 minutes drive away.

So that is one of the issues as far as recruiting. It is a big issue. And like I said, I represent it all the way from frontline staff, field service workers, all the way up to management and transit. And the hiring process is horrific, and it doesn't happen quick enough. And we're still recovering from the 2008 recession. We still haven't replaced a lot of those positions from then. And so I just wanted to come up and answer some of your questions in regards to that.

I'm sorry, did you have any more information? I'm sorry.

Oh, I could talk to you all day, but I'm not.

That's okay.

Well, because I have everybody, but I'm not going to take everybody's time.

Thank you. Thank you so much. We'll take this one last comment. Yes.

Oh, thank you so much, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. Jennifer Fearing, I'm the Sacramento advocate for the California Association of Nonprofits, and we're a statewide policy alliance of about 10,000 member organizations. And I just wanted to echo what I heard as resonance, particularly with what was described as the challenges facing the civil servant, the public sector, on workforce challenges. We feel them deeply in the nonprofit sector as well. Many of the descriptions, I listened intently to the description of the challenges in animal services.

Those challenges are being felt whether you're a provider of those services in the private sector, public sector, or nonprofit sector. We are all really kind of getting crushed under the weight of there being lots of issues that are affecting vacancy rates and attracting the right talent and being able to address the various issues raised. I commend the authors of that report. I feel there were recommendations in there that the nonprofit sector has started to implement themselves and should seek to implement to address those issues.

So they've done a service for more employers than just the public sector with that. And I would just also beseech that we move forward addressing things in a collaborative manner and recognizing the interdependence of the nonprofit sector, which seeks to partner with government and does indeed all over the state, partner with government to support community services. Thank you.

Thank you so much. I'll come back to the dais. Is there any Member that would like to, that has a comment?

Well, I would just say really appreciate the testimony from all the witnesses who came today and from the members of the public who I think all agree that this is an incredibly complicated issue. There are so many facets to it. I really appreciated the kind of summary that the Urban Counties folks made about the demographics, tight labor market. Ms. Fearing's point about how both the private sector and the public sector and the nonprofit sector are all struggling with very similar issues.

So I think there is, this hearing has been very valuable to highlight those issues and to bring everybody's attention to the challenges that we face. The answers to these things, obviously, is working collaboratively and understanding how the systems fit together and how we can best provide critical services to our constituents.

And I would also like to thank everybody who testified this morning, really appreciate your knowledge and coming forward to give us this information. The rural community, thank you. Because it's good to hear something different. I'm from LA. I worked at DPSS in LA, and so it is different from the urban cities and rural counties. So we should think about that, take that in as well.

And I think that we all, employer, and employees and labor, can get together and legislators and work on some of this stuff. Collaboratively together to solve some of these problems because these were good middle-class jobs. I started working for the county at 19 years old. I went back to college. It helped me pay for my schooling. I bought a home by working there because the pay was great. But the cost of living also has gone up, really, really gone up so much.

And just to live here in this state is really expensive. And so we know that our public sector, we have to keep up with that so that we can attract some good quality folks to come and work for us, for public office. And it also, when we have people working, it also helps the public because we serve the public when we work in public sector. And so these problems have to be solved. And so let's work together to come up with some great solutions.

And thank you guys for this hearing. This concludes our informational hearing. The Committee will now take a five to seven-minute recess before moving on to special order of business. Can I have the sergeants, please, call the first three authors. Ward is here, Ortega and me.

The Committee has reconvened to resume its hearing and will now proceed through the special order of business on the agenda. Sergeants, please call absent Members. We need to establish a quorum. Secretary, please call the road to establish a quorum.

Roll Call

We have a quorum. Thank you. We have a quorum. We're on File Item Number One. Good morning, Mr. Ward.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm pleased to be able to present to you today AB 2489. I want to start by thanking the Committee staff for all their hard work on this bill. Civil service jobs are really the backbone of both the strong middle class and a robust local government. They are skilled professionals who are highly qualified to fill these jobs and they're dedicated to civil service, often for their full careers.

However, some of the contracting out of government jobs has been steadily rising for decades. Typically, this is done at times when we're trying to address budgetary problems, but what we've observed is that when these jobs exit the government role, they rarely return. Public work is the expectation of taxpayers and constituents. Ongoing public functions are best addressed with a right-sized workforce to meet the demands of use.

With contracting out over time, the government's institutional talent pool is diminished and it hurts the worker because they are no longer entitled to government pay rates and benefits. A troubling trend that has become a part of contracting is the lack of parity of qualifications. Every civil service job has stated education, experience requirements, and some other requirements that are along in their pay salaries. Contracted jobs often will ask for lesser qualifications to do the same job that the government has historically been doing.

This creates an imbalance and pits civil service employees against contracted employees. Civil service employees are getting undercut by less skilled contracted hires while also having to compete with them on a lower pay scale. Government, however--we--are responsible for the work getting done.

Maintaining a pattern of reliance on private workers reduces accountability, creates a layer of reporting and delays, directs public dollars to support management, compensation, and company profit at the expense of workers, and less assurance that the work deliverable will actually satisfactorily be performed, leaving the government, the taxpayers, and the representatives holding the bag. I'm aware of the comments made by some local government and nonprofits and take them sincerely and will continue to work with them on their concerns.

If passed out of this Committee, I would be amending in Assembly Judiciary Committee, language that allows local government contracting in emergency situations, and I look forward to, of course, working with any other opposition points as this moves forward. It's an important issue that we must get right if we are going to be able to guarantee that the workforce that we have for the future is going to be able to meet the public's demands.

And centrally, this bill--I know there's a few other bills in this space--is about making sure that apples to apples, we have equal qualifications when we are considering contracting, which is important for some of the outcomes. I have testifying in support of AB 2489, Claudia McFarland, the Senior Health Counselor for the County of Sacramento and Union Steward for AFSCME Local 146, and Ivan Fernandez from the California Labor Federation.

Mr. Ward, this bill enjoys an aye recommendation from the Chair, and the motion is 'do pass and re-refer to Judiciary Committee.' Thank you, Assembly Member Ward. Let's hear from your witnesses in support. Again, we're limiting testimony to three minutes total for two primary witnesses in support. You may begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Ivan Fernandez with the California Labor Federation, a proud co-sponsor of AB 2489, a bill that will ensure contractors perform services for local public agencies, meet the minimum qualifications required of public sector employees, as referenced by the author. When local governments choose to enter contracts with private firms to provide services, contractor workers are not required to meet the same licensing, training, or experience requirements as public sector workers.

Traditional public service jobs require employees to meet a number of qualifications to ensure services are provided by a highly qualified professional workforce focused on efficiency and effectiveness to ensure that service delivery is met to millions of Californians. These qualifications include background checks, years of professional experience, education, and reporting certifications, all very crucial to the service delivery of our state. Without these qualifications, the job of a public employee with decades of experience could be outsourced to a firm utilizing a staff without the same qualification.

This creates an inequitable hiring environment for hundreds of qualified civil service workers and leads to the degradation of the quality of services at the local level. AB 2489 addresses these challenges by requiring all private contractors to adhere to the same qualifications and standards required of civil service employees who perform the exact same jobs.

AB 2489 will ensure that communities receive quality services from appropriately trained workers while increasing the accountability of private contractors and addressing the inequity public service workers face today. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. My name is Claudia McFarland. I'm a senior mental health counselor still, and I still am an AFSCME Local 146 Union member for Sacramento County. I am speaking today in support of AB 2489. Contracted providers for mental health services claim to be able to perform the same service as Sacramento County mental health service providers. This is just not true, nor is it responsible.

Due to limited oversight, contracted providers can use less qualified workers to work with the most ill members of our community. At private mental health agencies, interns are frequently used in place of licensed therapists because they're cheaper or free. This very reason is why once interns earn their license, they leave shortly thereafter. In my current role at Juvenile Hall, I have heard many youth describe to me their counseling experience with organizations that are contracted with the county.

The common theme I hear over and over again is they become attached, begin to trust, and begin to do the hard work when their counselor abruptly leaves their agency. The ideal therapeutic model to really assist individuals in making changes is someone they can count on that will be there without judgment every week, no matter what. To have to repeat their story each time they get a new therapist is re-traumatizing them.

Besides the length of time the county takes for their hiring process, one thing that is excellent is their vetting process. It ensures a highly skilled workforce. County employees are afforded job security, benefits, and a retirement pension. All of this provides our county mental health providers the ability to focus on their jobs.

AB 2489 will ensure that private contractors meet the minimum qualifications, requirements, and standards expected of civil service employees who perform the same functions. Through AB 2489, the Legislature can further protect the public and ensure quality delivery of services. With that, I respectfully ask for your yay vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in support? Please come forward and give your name, organization, and position.

Sandra Barreiro, on behalf of SEIU California. We are co-sponsors, in support.

Good morning. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California, proud co-sponsors as well, and urge your support. Thank you.

Let's move in witnesses in opposition. Please come forward. You have three minutes total.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Excuse me. I'm Jean Harris, again, here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, which is an association of the state's largest 14 counties. We provide services to about 80 percent of the California population on behalf of the state and federal governments, and I'm here today to express our opposition to AB 2489. You'll likely hear some frustration from local agency officials regarding this and related measures that seek to limit locals' ability to contract for services.

And that's because local agencies have been significantly challenged to do more in our communities to more effectively address the crises and challenges of our time--behavioral health, homelessness, impacts of climate change are just a few examples--and to serve individuals in need in a more equitable and culturally aware manner. At the same time, and as you've heard in the previous presentation, local agencies are facing a perfect storm of workforce challenges. The baby boomers have reached retirement age and are leaving the workforce en masse.

The great resignation has taken hold, and we just don't have a pipeline supply of trained new workers to meet the needs of our communities. This is especially challenging in specific parts of the state. We believe AB 2489 is an unnecessary and inflexible proposal that will not assist local agencies in hiring and keeping a public sector workforce that can meet the needs of our communities. It is a one-size-fits-all approach that won't improve services, reduce costs, or protect public employees.

We talked--Assembly Member Ward spoke earlier about the notification process for the procurement ten months prior to the employee organization--the employer organization. As we noted in our letter, this is infeasible. We don't always know of a need for procurement ten months prior, and I just want to be clear that emergency circumstances don't always mean a fire or a flood. An emergency could be a labor dispute, a global pandemic, emergency utility repairs, an unanticipated need to care for those crossing our southern border seeking asylum.

These are kinds of examples that local agencies have sort of had to spring into action on an immediate basis to address local community needs, and we think this requirement in 2489 is both arbitrary and unworkable. Further, the requirement to meet or exceed the minimum qualifications and standards required of bargaining unit civil service employees who performed or performed the same job functions, are a challenge.

These requirements, including criminal history and background checks, academic attainment, and assessment exams, which we assume are some sort of civil service exam process, among others, undermine our efforts to engage with more community partners to connect with vulnerable communities more effectively.

There are countless examples of state-directed programs and policies that have specified components that are directed to be delivered by entities that have direct lived experience and/or cultural familiarity, particularly in physical and behavioral health programs and services, as well as our work with justice-involved individuals. Simply put, from our perspective, AB 2489 sets local agencies up for failure.

Without reasonable tools to manage our constitutional and statutory obligations, there can be no expectation that local agencies make progress on the policy goals that the Legislature and Administration have set forth. We respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Please state your name, organization, and position.

Thank you. Ronak Daylami with Cal Chamber, respectfully also in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, respectfully opposed. Also for the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, the California Health Executives Association, the County Health Executives Association of California, the County Welfare Directors Association, and the Association of California Healthcare Districts. Thank you.

Good morning. Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities in respect opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Jeff Neill, on behalf of the County of Contra Costa, as well as the American Council of Engineering Companies, the American Institute of Architects California, the American Public Works Association, the California Geotechnical Engineering Association, and the American Society of Civil Engineers, Region nine. Respectful opposition.

Good morning. Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, also respectfully opposed.

Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, respectfully opposed.

Kaylin Dean, on behalf of the California. Oh my goodness. California State Association of Counties in respectful opposition. Also on behalf of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association.

Alyssa Silhi, on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, would like to educate echo many of the sentiments of my colleague at Urban Counties, respectively, opposed.

Good morning. Mike Robson here on behalf of the California Staffing Professionals and the American Staffing Association of Post.

Thank you. Let's move to witnesses that have concern. Yes, you can come to them. Same as before. We're limited to three minutes.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members. Again, Jennifer Fearing, the Sacramento advocate for California Association of Nonprofits, a statewide policy alliance of more than 10,000 member organizations. Count nonprofits concerns with AB 2489 are shared by a dozen other nonprofits that have been working together, along with many legislators and with the support of hundreds of nonprofits, to strengthen partnerships with government, specifically advocating for improvements in the ways that nonprofits in the state work together to use taxpayer dollars equitably and efficiently to achieve vital state priorities.

We support similar efforts that the Biden-Harris Administration earlier this month finalized new rules making federal grants more accessible and transparent for families, communities, and small businesses. Governments partner with nonprofits and our employees to provide services to communities and to complete projects that benefit Californians.

These partnerships provide nonprofits with the resources they need to meet government's policy, service, and program goals and support the government, therefore, with a robust and diverse supply chain of providers. And governments turn to nonprofits for many reasons, not just or even primarily, to seek a low cost alternative to public provision. Indeed, to treat our sector as a low wage or low skill workforce would harm both the public and nonprofit sectors.

We are still analyzing the new requirements proposed in AB 2489 and how they'd impact non profits that run the gamut of services involved in thousands of contracts around the state. But initially, it concerns us that AB 2489 covers a wide and unclear scope of service types and job functions, lacks sufficient safeguards to ensure that critical services will not suffer from from delay or reduce service levels, and is inflexible during emergencies.

And as drafted, AB 2489 imposes requirements on potential contractors like certain background check and educational attainment criteria that would reinforce hiring and workforce inequities that can create barriers for justice impacted individuals. These are also shown to contribute to the high vacancy rates we've been discussing that local governments and other sectors are experiencing.

We strive in our sector to provide opportunities to people who are excluded by certain historical hiring requirements that increase our cultural competence and lift up voices of those with lived experience of the very problems we are tasked to confront. We would not want to retreat from these practices to qualify as contracted partners with local governments as we want to continue to hire from members of historically marginalized communities.

We are also unsure how our employees have covered by this bill would be assessed through exams or evaluated for performance to meet the same standards as public employees. So we very much want to find a path. I'm intentionally here with concerns rather than opposition because we would like to thread the needle of ensuring robust public employment, improving the ability of nonprofits to partner, and to continue that we have quality services for Californians who are counting on us, both the public and the nonprofit sectors, to work together on their behalf. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's bring it back to the Members. Any questions or comments? Yes, Mr. Lackey?

Yeah, I have a question to the author. Help us understand the need for this 10 month notice prior to starting the procurement process. That provision seems to limit local government's capacity to respond quickly. As you heard in the opposition testimony to emergency circumstances. I'm trying to understand why that's that 10 month period is necessary.

Thank you for the question. A few things. One, as I mentioned in my opening, I've already begun to get very critical feedback and take all of that sincerely as we try to find ways to be able to address any concerns with regard to emergency situations. That immediately is something I'll be looking for this to pass out a Committee, look forward to working through amendment and the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

The 10 month sort of marker in the bill is opportunity for the process that needs to occur, for the evaluations, and for sort of the development of information for a city to begin to think about a contracting opportunity. I would want to work closely with both local governments and with supporters as well to try to make sure if that number needs adjustment, it's meeting the interests of both parties.

Having worked in local government on a number of fronts, I do understand the benefits of union qualified workers, I really do. But I don't think it's pragmatic. And the reasonableness standards is not really met, in my opinion, on this particular proposal in its current state.

Sure, if I can, an observation. I think why this bill inspired me so much to start to kind of work in this area is my own time on city government as well. And noticing that with every successive recession and with every cuts that we've had to municipal budgets, and those are difficult and regrettable, they've often come in the backs of workers and, you know, dialing back even a step further.

As local officials, we have the responsibility, and we hear that from our constituents to get certain things done, and things get done because of our workforce. And to have, I think, more, more model systems in place where we are going to have the right size workforce with the right qualifications that are going to be able to perform those functions, I think is what we're trying to get towards in the end and achieve the interests of our constituents and our taxpayers on some of those deliverables.

Now, under these circumstances where we are losing core civil employee positions that had been performing that work because a budget required us to do so, when that comes back, those often have not been actually replenished. And the city's workforce, and I think really retaining, I think, the assurances that we're going to have the accountable and deliverable work performance that's expected of us, but that contracting out has started to become a pattern of growth.

And so what this bill says is actually, all this bill says is to make sure that we are not having any unintended consequences with the qualities of product or the deliverables that we are expected of making sure that when we are contracting out, that there's equal qualifications. Right.

You want to make sure that when you are a local government is making these decisions about whether to hire in or contract out, at least apples to apples, you are trying to make sure that the playing forces, the playing field is leveled.

Thank you. Assembly Member Nguyen.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the author for bringing this forward. And I think, Claudia, my question maybe is for you. I heard you speak earlier during the hearing, and I thought I wrote down the numbers of how many vacancies there are coming from the nonprofit world. And knowing that many organizations in the nonprofit community do provide mental health services, behavioral health services, and I worked with them for over a decade now. I could say a couple of things.

I can say that as the young lady spoke earlier, some of these folks have tried to apply them because of qualifications. They didn't, but they are truly from the community. And the most important thing is they're a trusted messenger and that they can get the information out. They can sometimes get these patients to open up to them. But what I also found is that you mentioned they would come and they would work for a few months and they would leave.

They would leave because they would get recruited by the county to come work for them because they worked in, in the community organization and the community aspect of it. And I can say that because in one month, I lost half of my staff to the county because they recruited directly from my organization, because they saw that when these individuals tried to apply, they didn't qualify for whatever reason. They didn't test well, they didn't interview well.

But seeing that they were directly from the community, and I'm a person of, I don't hire you based off of your GPA, what college you went to, whatever you graduated from, whatever college, it's really just the experience you have in the community, your life experience, and what you can do, especially if you're a trusted community member in this vulnerable community that we're serving. And I found throughout the decades that I was in the service, is that many of the county really did recruit directly.

I would lose staff straight from the county. Right. Because they would recruit the individuals, because by now they have the experience, they can pass the interview process or whatnot. And so I guess I want to know, as we talk about the vacancies that are around, I mean, how does this necessarily help in reducing some of the vacancies? What is the plan that you think might help in reducing some of these vacancies? Right. If their vacancies are available and individuals can apply for them now.

How is this going to help you in that, when, in fact, some of these contracts that are out to community based organizations that are really doing the work out there for a lot less pay because they really care about the community members. I would never, I know you talked about the loss of the lifetime benefits. Never in my life would I have been able to give that to my staff. But they were just there because they cared about the community. They were a trusted messenger.

They spoke the language. Cultural, linguistic competency is a huge thing in our community. And I know you know that, but, you know, I just want to put it out there that many times. They didn't leave. Maybe they left because of the lack of pay, but for the most part, they didn't qualify from the very beginning at all. And I know the gal talked about, you know, the justice involved. I've hired those that were formerly incarcerated because they didn't qualify. Right.

And then after they worked for me for a few years, and they would apply, and ta-da, they were, you know, hired at another agency for whatever reason that is. And so I guess if you can help me understand that, how this bill would help that, and I don't know if maybe the author can or any one of the witnesses can explain how this would help.

Well, I used to work in nonprofit organizations prior to working for the county. I worked in residential treatment. I worked in substance abuse treatment, outpatient, everything you can think of, psychiatric hospitals, et cetera. And what I can say about being a county employee now opposed to working in the nonprofit sector is that my sense of security is much higher. I don't worry about being discriminated against. I don't worry about being able to pay my bills.

I don't worry about whether I have the time to take off for an emergency, whether I have the time to stay home when I'm ill, whether I can get to a funeral for my stepchildren. I don't have to worry about a lot of things I used to have to worry about. And the other thing I'd like to say about that is the county has begun. Sacramento County, I can't speak for all counties.

Sacramento County has begun to hire peer support specialists, lived, experienced individuals, because we, I think the employer has found the value realized, that they need to bring them in house so that we can keep them and don't lose them. The turnover rate is high in nonprofits, I have found, and the model is pretty much like this. Most mental health service providers that are a nonprofit organization, and I am totally not against nonprofits. I want to make that clear.

I believe we need them, and I believe they have a definite, we have a need in our community for them. But the model is right now, this way, you have a clinical supervisor at the nonprofit that is licensed, who then supervises the interns, who actually are the ones who go out and do the work. Now, the interns, having been one myself, I have lost a client because of my inexperience. And what I mean by lost is they died.

They committed suicide after leaving my office, and that is not an experience I want any intern to have. They are the lowest skilled, including myself. I was the lowest skilled person working with the most acute ill in the community. We have to do better. We cannot put these young people in that position. It's irresponsible to them and to the clients that need them, because they can't. It's too complicated, these cases that the public sector is responsible for, our community members, are complex.

They're substance abuse, they're mentally ill. They're homeless, they're volatile. They're hostile. It's not an easy job. And we need the protections that the county can offer to allow these people to have the ability, the fortitude, the safety, the backup, the police, everybody involved to be able to do this work, including nonprofits. I'm just saying that we need to compare apples to apples. I was not skilled enough at the time that I was an intern to help these people. I know that today. I didn't know that then.

Would you say that before? And thank you. Thank you so much for your work. I know that you go home with it every night, and it's on your mind even right now. Right. Because I know that work, you know, you inherit thousands of individuals that become your own family member, and you think about them more than you do about your own family members because, you know, they become a part of your soul. Right.

So would you say that before you applied to become a county worker, or did you apply to become a county worker and didn't get hired, and so you went to the nonprofit sector and got picked up?

Well, here's what happened for me. I worked in the nonprofit sector because I wasn't licensed yet, and I couldn't. So when I got a job with the county, I had a bachelor's degree, and the county allowed me to continue my education. By the way, that's a side note.

Being a county employee allows you a little more fortitude to do that. Okay. And the loan forgiveness program. Thank you very much. I just qualified and finished, so there are a lot of benefits to working for the county. Again, another.

Sorry. So you didn't qualify at the time to work for the county, so you went the nonprofit sector?

No, I went to the nonprofit sector originally because I didn't have a degree. I've been working in the nonprofit sector since before I finished my educational process.

Would you say your experience in the nonprofit sector gave you a pathway to be where you're at right now at the county?

Yes and no, ma'am. I do want to say to that what I know today is that we're exploiting those people. That is the way I see it. They're young, they're impressionable. They're in a learning environment when they're working as interns. That is a teaching environment. That is a three or four year learn, learn, learn. Understand the complexities, the difficulties, the nuances, and develop into a therapist. So if we're putting them in these difficult, complex, almost set up to failure situations, what they're learning is that maybe they aren't very good at this, maybe they don't have what it takes.

And then we weed out the ones that can do it right, and they're the ones that stay. But we exploit their caring, their wanting to help, their desire to make a difference. I believe they deserve better than that.

Thank you.

Yeah, I think my comments apply to all the bills we're seeing today in the special order of business. My starting point is that the public sector jobs that you're looking to protect are critical and the foundation of the public sector middle class employment contract, and that making sure that the contracting that's done is strategic and smart and equitable. I don't personally think it makes a lot of sense in a lot of instances, and I'm concerned that it is increasing.

And I think that that's a appropriate thing to be looking carefully at. I also see the role that nonprofits play in providing public services as different than the private sector competition and contracting. And so I'm encouraged that you're speaking directly to wanting to work with the nonprofit sector and to figure out how this can actually operationally work. I think there's some big challenges, and I think it's going to take a lot of work.

But I trust in your skill and ability and willingness to make that conversation happen. And I want the bill to go forward to enable that work to happen. So I'll be supporting the bill.

Mr. Ward, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the comments and discussion and very important questions here. Because I think, you know, if and as this moves forward, there's gonna be a lot more points laid out. And I think to that point, you know, for what we've heard today and leading up to this discussion here today, I want to make sure that we're not talking past each other. We have a very strong, important, and revered partnership with many of our nonprofit organizations.

I think maybe to add to your characterization, Assembly Member, the supplementary work and the complimentary work that they do to be able to fulfill expectations is important. The temporary, the emergency work is critical. And so there's a lot more, I think, definition that can be worked out here through this bill to make sure that these concerns are alleviated.

At the same time, I don't want to just accept some of the statements made here today as well, on their face, that somehow that this is going to create more barriers of access to entry. Our public workforce has been a wonderful opportunity for many and all members of our communities to be able to get a good middle class job and have job security and being able to provide for their families and for their retirement.

That is a model that we should hope for in all of our workforce opportunities. But it's because of these exact kinds of jobs that we are bleeding and losing that we are seeing, I think, also connectedness with the broader picture about retirement security and instability that we have in our communities. We are accused that this is somehow going to set local systems up for failure. I think just the opposite. And this is someone coming from local government.

I felt failed upon by many of our contracts that went south, money that already went out the door, but the job never got performed satisfactorily. And who's left holding the. And then, you know, the contract either was terminated or maybe the period had ended and they decided not to renew. And what happened for that $5 million? Nothing that I can tell my constituents, because we have to go right back to the drawing board again. But that kind of accountability is exactly what we have in our in house, in our local governments to be able to support.

So I think that while we have been living under a paradigm that has fostered, for the most part, you know, this very collaborative relationship, we have to look, I think, structurally, about where things have headed and where they're continuing to head, and make sure that we are trying to be able to thoughtfully reset that bar. Again, underscoring that these jobs within this bill are for those that are currently or within the previous 10 years held by a civil service employee.

So it really does narrow down what we're talking. When you have new grant funding to be able to do something that the city has never done before, that's a great opportunity for a partnership. When you've got federal resources coming in that are trying to be able to perform emergency work, there's absolutely an allowance for that. So I think that there still is an outcome here that's going to have many mutual wins for all those that are interested.

And my commitment, of course, always remains to be able to work with those concerned and those with opposition on these points. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member Ward, thank you for carrying this bill. As I said earlier, these jobs are extremely important. These public sector jobs are extremely important. They create the middle class. We must protect them. And so is there a motion? We have a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass and re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Thank you. The roll will be kept open. Next we'll have Assembly Member Artega, you're here to present file number two, AB 2557. This Bill enjoys an aye recommendation from the chair. And the motion is due pass and refer to Judiciary Committee. You may proceed when ready.

Good afternoon or morning. I don't know what time still morning. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present AB 2557. Today. I would like to begin by addressing two concerns brought to us by the opposition and if we move forward out of this Committee, I am committed. I am committed to removing the 10th month notice requirement and provisions around the withholding of payment for noncompliance. Now, I want to talk about what this Bill does and really what this bill is about.

This Bill is about transparency and results. I don't know about you Members, but when I saw a headline not that long ago that said California fails to track its homelessness spending and people don't know what happened, I was embarrassed. I was infuriated. My constituents were calling and asking, what happened to our taxpayer dollars? That's what my bill does. My bill tracks. It asks for information. It is not a punishment to our nonprofits.

It is not a punishment to our local governments or our cities who we rely on to do the essential work that we talked about earlier, I grew up in a community full of nonprofits. I wouldn't be here today if they worked for my nonprofits, doing what needed to be done to uplift communities of color.

With that being said, I don't want to wait 10, 15, 20 years to find out whether the billions of dollars that we are giving to private entities, to our cities, to our counties, to our nonprofits, and realize that it was just a waste. And so, you know, I read over and over the opposition's letters, and I want to make it very clear that this Bill does not prevent local governments from contracting out for services. It just does not do that.

Again, at the end of the day, we, as legislators, policymakers, elected leaders, are expected to deliver results. And in order for me to deliver those results, I need data. I need to know what is happening with our resources. I need reporting, and I needed it yesterday. You know, we are held accountable every single day when things go wrong, we are held accountable as we should be. And that is why I am asking for this bill today, because I want to be held accountable.

But I also want to work with our partners. It's a Bill that will help them and us to be able to make decisions based on tracking results. I have two witnesses testifying with me today, Bryant Miramontes with AFSCME California and Sandra Barreiro with SEIU California.

Thank you, assemblywoman. You guys have three minutes together. You may get started. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair McKinner and Committee Members. My name is Bryant Marimontes. I'm a legislative advocate with American Federation of State County Municipal Employees. We represent approximately 200,000 workers here in California in the public service. We are here today to speak in support and as proud co sponsors of AB 2557. I first want to thank the author for bringing this forward and the Committee and staff for their work on this Bill.

Over the past several decades, our Members have seen a slow and steady increase in the privatization of public services. As employers continue to outsource public services traditionally performed by their employees to the public sector. To the private sector, excuse me, these services often include substance abuse treatment, healthcare delivery, and housing placement, to name a few.

Public agencies frequently outsource their services to private contractors under the guise of saving costs, but ultimately at the expense of lower paid workers with fewer benefits than full time service staff who are also frequently unionized, it is critical that more safeguards be in place to ensure that these contractors provide quality services with similar oversight.

AB 2557 increases transparency of public contracts by requiring private entities that provide services that are or were previously performed by a local agency's employees to submit reports detailing the cost of services rendered, the workforce data, performance reports, and progress towards contract objectives. Given the challenging budget outlook and a steady uptick in reports that describe frequent misuse of taxpayer funds by private contractors, this Bill is a timely and relevant step to safeguard taxpayer resources.

By enacting AB 2557 we can uphold the public trust, ensure the efficient use of taxpayer funds, and ultimately deliver better services to our communities. I would like to close by adding that we have met with members of the opposition and look forward to reviewing any potential language as well and having further discussions.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Member Sandra Barreiro on behalf of SEIU California, we are co sponsors of this Bill. I'll align myself with the previous comments and I just want to add that the current process for local government approving, auditing, and reapproving contracts isn't working, if you pay attention to the press coverage, it seems like weekly we have stories about local government contractor fraud and mismanagement.

And given the fiscal environment that we're in and the need to find more revenue to do things like provide simple services or make sure that we have employees who are operating our emergency call centers, we need to scrutinize every dollar that's going out. I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in support? Please state your name, organization and your position.

Toni Trigueiro, on behalf of the California Teachers Association and we are in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Doug Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, in support.

Madam Chair Members. Ivan Fernandez, California Labor Federation, in support.

Chris Myers with the school employee, California School Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Chair and Members Pat Moran, with Aaron Reed and associates representing the Orange County Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's move to witnesses in opposition. Please come forward. Your testimony is limited to three minutes total.

Thank you again, Madam Chair. I'm still Sierra County Supervisor Lee Adams, a former sheriff. And just a note, I started as a public employee at age 22 as a deputy sheriff, and now I'm 68 and I'm still a public employee with Sierra County. So 43 year career. I'm here on behalf again of Rural County Representatives California, and we're concerned that AB 2557 creates a de facto prohibition on local service contracts due to the onerous obligations. We appreciate the willingness to delete the 10-month requirement.

And I would just point out that in Sierra County, with 132 total employees, we have many one person shops. If we have a building inspector or environmental health person or DA's office does not even have an investigator. If they need specialty services from time to time that the sheriff's office cannot provide, contracts are just absolutely necessary. The Bill also creates quarterly reports that require contractors to include personally identifiable information for its employees.

We already experienced safety concerns for our own employees, and now contractors would potentially put their own employees in similar situation. These provisions would also undoubtedly defer nonprofits from engaging with local agencies. And I would just say that, respectfully, that in this Bill, I don't believe these contract provisions are not accountable to the state, but they are to local agencies. And I would submit, if it's good enough for us, then why doesn't the state do it with its own own contractors?

In Sierra County, community based organizations really make us tick and make the community whole. We have senior programs, family programs, arts and culture, and museums that would not be able to operate without CBOs. I would also respectfully point out, when it comes to salaries and whatever for public employees, the state owes local agencies statewide 1.6 billion in dollars that we could use for salaries and everything else. My little Sierra County alone, the state is $500,000 in arrears to us with payment in lieu of taxes.

In Sierra County, our biggest problems with employment is housing and salaries, and we would respectfully on behalf of RCRC, to give this Bill a no vote. Thank you.

1 minute.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members, my name is Erin Avery with the California Special Districts Association. Respectfully opposed to AB 2557. I want to thank the author and sponsors for meeting with us and especially want to thank Mister Bolden for taking the time to meet with our coalition several times on a number of bills during a very busy time of year.

Recognizing that I only have a brief amount of time, I just want to touch on really just what we view as the most problematic aspect of this Bill, though there are several outlined in our letter, and that is the ability of an employee organization to essentially veto the ability of a local government to pay for services that have already been performed by a contractor under the provisions of this Bill. So we appreciate very much the author's willingness to work on that issue.

I'm taking it out. It will be removed.

Thank you. So obviously, that is one of the most concerning aspects of the Bill for us. Also, the Public Records Act components, potentially exposing personally identifying information of our contractors, could discourage this type of contracting for our local agencies. Respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition, please state your name, organization and position.

Good morning. Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators, respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Ronak Daylami with Cal Chamber. Respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Kalyn Dean, California State Association of Counties. Respectfully in opposition, as well as on behalf of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association.

Jean Hurst, on behalf of the Urban counties of California, in opposition. In addition, would like to state the opposition of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, the County Health Executives Association of California, the County Welfare Directors Association, and the Association of California Healthcare Districts. All opposed.

Alyssa Silhi on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts. Also opposed. Thank you.

Good morning. Johnny Pena with the League of California Cities and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Mike Robeson on behalf of the California Staffing Professionals and the American Staffing Association. Opposed. Thanks

Thank you. Let's move to witnesses that have concerns. Same as before. You're limited to three minutes.

Good morning for the third time, Madam Chair and Members. I'm still Jennifer Fearing, and I'm still here on behalf of CalNonprofits, and we are joined by a dozen other nonprofits at this stage that share our concerns about AB 2557. Governments turn to nonprofits to help deliver critical services such as health and human services, animal welfare, juvenile justice, domestic violence, childcare, immigration support, legal aid, and so much more.

We have a long and proven track record of providing quality, cost effective, linguistically appropriate, and culturally competent services that are trusted and deeply connected in communities of all types. Californians trust nonprofits to deliver services by margins of as much as 40 percentage points higher than the private sector or government. The initial concerns that we've identified with AB 2557 as drafted include the following. It appears to cover a wide and unclear scope of services and job functions.

It lacks sufficient safeguards to ensure that critical services will not suffer from delay or reduce levels of service. It inhibits flexibility during emergencies. It goes further than the contracting standards that the state utilizes. It would expose sensitive information about nonprofit workers, sometimes potentially in violation of state and federal privacy laws. I heard them mention that the union, the bargaining representatives, would be removed from being able to stop payment.

But I think the Bill still reads that an individual at the government level would have the authority to stop payment for work already performed, and it doesn't have a defined process for that contractor to dispute the finding.

Ultimately, these drive up the cost of services provided by nonprofits, often increasing our overhead, which in our sector means it jeopardizes donor confidence, which somehow snowballs and further affects our ability to get private funding and ultimately just create significant new risks, uncertainty and compliance costs for nonprofits doesn't have a funding source to help cover those expenses.

And ultimately, because of those impacts, we are worried that this Bill would have the potential to dramatically reduce nonprofits' ability to pursue or renew partnered efforts and to reduce the flow of public dollars to already under resourced communities. Since government and nonprofits have always been interdependent, our successful partnership is really critical for meeting California's needs. But to effectively collaborate, we rely on contracts, policies and processes that lay out details that govern our shared goals, working relationships, and performance criteria to drive results.

A robust nonprofit sector complements a strong public sector, and both benefit from the kind of collaboration that civic leaders, nonprofit providers and public employee labor union leaders in Los Angeles have done. They have developed a framework that's part of a measure headed to the November ballot that would raise more than $1.0 billion annually for homeless services and affordable housing construction and I commend the framework of that collaborative approach to the author and others for some consideration as an alternative here.

We want to enter into similar dialogue as they had in LA here in the hopes of finding a path to achieve our shared objectives. Again, we very much want to thread the needle of ensuring robust public employment, improving the ability of nonprofits to partner with government, and to continue to ensure quality services for Californians who are counting on all of us to work together on their behalf.

Thank you. Now I'd like to bring it back to the Committee. Mister Lackey.

Yeah. If you could help me understand, this is to anybody on the panel, help me understand how this Bill will help with reducing vacancies and building a public sector workforce.

I mean, we don't know right now. I don't have, I want. That's why I'm asking the questions. That's why I'm asking for the data. It's hard for us to make these kinds of assessments when we're not getting the information. So I'm just asking for an opportunity. My Bill is about getting information.

Okay.

Assembly Member Nguyen.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the author for bringing this forward and the sponsors like you, when I read the article, I was really disturbed about the amount of money that was put into helping our homeless unhoused community. And these are our taxpayers' dollars. And how is it that we are not able to tackle this? But I think the bigger issue is more than just the services being provided. There's just not enough housing or shelters that are around.

Getting them employed is difficult because of the requirements, sometimes in places that will not hire them because they, they are unhoused or they are homeless. And so there are bigger factors that are involved in this. And as the young lady spoke earlier about nonprofits, again, I'm going to beat this because this was my livelihood for over a decade. During the COVID pandemic, it was the nonprofit organizations that the state, the county, and the cities turned to to deliver their services.

Both the information, but also the vaccines, the testing that was done weekly. I myself am a certified COVID tester, and I was swabbing people's noses and showing them how to do it every single week because nobody else would do it. And because the nonprofit organizations were the organizations that the communities trust and they can come to, to get that service in addition to the food distributions. Right? Those were done on a weekly basis. If we're talking about these contracts that are through county. Right?

It took decades for us as nonprofits to be able to build that trust, to be able to say, we can do the work. We are the trusted messenger in this community and that they do come to us. And, you know, my fear is that this will take away from all of that.

If you look at the communities, from unserved, underserved communities, low income communities, immigrants, refugees, they go directly to the trusted messenger, which most of the time, all the time, are the nonprofit organizations that look like them, smell like them, eat the same food they do, speak the same language, and they walk in and they're comfortable and they're not walking into some big, fancy building. I know this because as a child, that's what I went through. My parents went through as well, too.

You know, for services like, we just, you know, tax day was April 15. The state here, we pushed the Cal EITC free tax prep. Guess what? I did that for a really long time. And I can tell you, thousands of community members came in for us to prepare their taxes.

And that was a state or a county contract as well, too, that they begged us to apply for every single year because they knew that we would get the individuals to come in so that we can prepare their taxes. CalFresh Medi-Cal enrollments, I did those.

I sat down and across the table, the individuals would come in and I would sign them up for it, and the counties would come back and say, please apply for this because we know that you are able to bring the people in that we can't. Right? And that they trust you and that you can enroll them into these programs that we really need to get out there. And so I completely understand why you're doing this.

You know, my fear is that this is really going to cut out many of the nonprofit organizations that are doing the work out there, the groundwork, the boots on the ground, work with the community and then put them out of jobs as well, too. You know, I did the work for many years, and I was always recruited to go somewhere else to make more money, and I never left. I never left because that was the work I loved so much.

And it didn't matter if you were going to pay me 20 times more than what I was making. And I think that is the same to be said about many of the folks that work in the nonprofit sector. And cutting them out of these contracts or these funding are really going to impact not only the individuals that work at the nonprofit organizations, the service providing organizations, but also the thousands and the millions of community members that come in for that service every single day at 8:00.

Right? And they hate the days that we are not open because you know what? That impacts them, that impacts their family, that impacts their children. And so I don't know if you have comments. I'm sorry, I just.

Yeah, I have a comment. I mean, thank you for your passion. First of all, I think we share similar passions. We come from, you know, I come from a very similar background, again, when my opening statement talked about relying on many of these nonprofits for the services.

But nothing in this Bill takes away from that. Absolutely nothing from this Bill takes away from your ability to continue to do the work in a nonprofit sector. Nothing. All it does is ask for financial expenditures. How are we spending the money? Information about some of the contractors and who are getting these contracts, description of the deliverables that they say that we're going to provide. And are we meeting our outcomes? And if not, how can I help?

How am I supposed to help a nonprofit or a local city or county if I don't have this information and vice versa? We honor our nonprofits here every year because of the amazing work that we do. And I would not be in this Committee asking you to vote against the nonprofit or a local city or government that are trying to achieve our goals to serve our most vulnerable communities. What I am asking you to vote for is for transparency, accountability and results.

We all want to see results. I never want to see another headline that says we are not delivering results for our constituents.

Thank you.

Through the chair. May I add another comment on this? So I want to make sure we're not getting outside of the scope of the Bill here. This is a Bill that's limited to bargaining unit work that is or was recently performed by civil service employees. So I just want to, like, reel it in because there are certain services that, of course, nonprofits are relied on to provide for the community.

We're specifically limiting this scope to work that is or was recently done by those public service employees. So with that said, it would be helpful to know. We are sensitive to that concern that you've raised, but we would like to know when have reporting requirements actually deterred a nonprofit from applying for funds. I would like if you could produce, if anybody can produce a couple cases.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mister Hart.

Yeah. I think the key is the compensation that's provided to make that happen. And absolutely the goal of information and transparency and accountability critical. We have to have that. And I think, you know, all of us share that goal. And that's why I'll be supporting the Bill. But I really want to thank you for working collaboratively with, you know, the folks who've raised issues. I trust that you're going to continue to do that.

We're going to work through this process and get precisely to the issues that folks are concerned about and find solutions to those.

Thank you.

Thank you. For me. Thank you. Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. Because when I came to the state, when I became a Legislator, I asked for a lot of data. Every time I got ready to do a Bill or look at an issue, I asked for data. And it we don't always have that data. And so I do believe that we can't make strategic, pragmatic, smart decisions without having the data. So I appreciate that. I come from both worlds, the nonprofits and the public sector.

And so I just know that we need to be accountable, especially in these times where we don't have a lot of money. And so would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do I get? Is there a motion? There's a motion and a second. Please call the roll.

The motion is do pass, and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll call] That vote is two to two. We'll put it on call.

I'm going to turn the Bill over to Assembly Member Lackey.

Okay. Assembly Member McKinnor, you're here to present file item number three, AB 2561. This bill enjoys, no surprise, an aye recommendation and the motion is do passed to re-refer to Appropriations. You may proceed when ready.

Good morning, Members. Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm here to present AB 2561 which requires local agencies with bargaining unit vacancy rates exceeding 10% for more than 180 days to produce, implement, and publish a plan to fill remaining vacancies with the subsequent 180 days.

Additionally, local agencies are to include an assessment of the following components in their plan: total numbers of positions and vacancies for specified job classification separated by the agency's department or division, compensation rates and relationships to employee retention, terms of employment in departments with high job vacancies, and obstacles in the hiring process.

At its core, AB 2561 seeks to ensure that essential public services are adequately staffed while safeguarding the rights and interests of public employees. By mandating collaborative efforts between public agencies and recognized employee organizations to develop comprehensive plans to fill vacancies, this legislation promotes transparency, efficiency, staff practices, and positive labor relations. I firmly believe that through the implementation of these measures, we can fortify our public workforce and enhance our ability to serve the needs of our communities.

I remain committed to exploring potential adjustments to ensure that the effectiveness of this bill. Our objective is to foster ongoing dialogue with both support and opposition, aiming to achieve a solution that serves the interests of all stakeholders and effectively tackles the labor crisis confronting local agencies in California. With me today on behalf to testify on behalf of the bill is Bryant Miramontes from AFSCME and Ivan Fernandez with the California Federation of Labor.

You may proceed.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee. Ivan Fernandez with the California Labor Federation, co-sponsor of AB 2561, a bill that will protect public sector jobs and the quality of public services across California. Much of what I will touch upon today has been said throughout the morning, but we'll be reiterating many of these points. Local governments provide essential public services that Californians rely on every day. These services are provided thanks to the hard work of public sector workers.

Some of these workers who you've heard speak today, such as nurses, firefighters, sanitation workers, and so many other dedicated public service workers. However, due to widespread vacancies, some counties experiencing vacancies as high as 30% in sub-counties, public agencies are chronically understaffed and struggle to provide basic services. As a result, our public sector workers face increased workloads, mandatory overtime, and the stress of trying to do multiple jobs at once.

This has led to worker burnout and high turnover rates, only worsening the vacancy crisis we are experiencing. This is an unfortunate reality considering that public sector jobs once provided pathways towards home ownership and financial stability for so many Californians. Public sector work ought to be seen as an investment that state and local governments should focus on fostering and protecting. Yet, the vacancy crisis has come to a point where innovative planning and strategies are needed to hire and secure these crucial positions.

AB 2561 will address the vacancy crisis by requiring local agencies with vacancy rates of up to 10% within a bargaining unit for 90 days within a six month period to produce and implement a plan to fulfill these remaining vacancies. AB 2561 puts forth long term, sustainable solutions to fill vacancies, improve service delivery, and protect public service opportunities. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you so much.

Okay, if we have any other supporters who would like to express their support, please come forward and state your name, your position.

Excuse me, Mr. Chair, we have one more.

We have one more? Okay, so sorry. I thought we were done.

Sorry.

Remember, you have a time limit. Just kidding. Go ahead.

I'll make it quick. So, good morning, Chair Lackey and Committee Members. My name is Bryant Miramontes. I'm a legislative advocate with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees. We appreciate the Chair for bringing this forward and the Committee staff's work on AB 2561 for which we are proud, co-sponsors. Public service workers dedicate their lives to serving their communities, from providing mental health care to some of our most vulnerable citizens, to helping people in danger situations such as 911 dispatchers.

These professions face a vacancy crisis in local governments, as was articulated during the informational hearing today, and that's shared throughout California. The vacancy rate for positions ranges anywhere from 10 to 50%, depending on the jurisdiction, and high vacancy rates mean public sector workers must make this up through additional workloads and longer hours, which often leads to increased burnout and a cyclical higher turnover process, further exacerbating the vacancy crisis.

As was articulated in the earlier informational panels, high vacancy rates are also known to diminish the ability of local governments to provide services to communities in need. It leads to 911 operators being unable to respond to calls that they receive, to nurses being too thinly stretched to provide emergency care to patients, and sanitation workers not being adequately staffed who handle illegal dumping in their communities. Now is the time for us to address the vacancy problem and start meaningfully identifying solutions.

AB 2561 will provide that local agencies sit down with their workers to identify the unique barriers in retention and recruitment that each group faces and develop a plan to fill those remaining vacancies. And with that, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. My apologies. Okay, now it's time for those who would like to express their support for this bill. If you'd state your name and organization.

Mr. Chair, Members. Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates, representing the Orange County Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Janice O'Malley, on behalf of Aspen California, proud co-sponsors, and also on behalf of SEIU California who couldn't be in the hearing, want to me too on behalf and support. Thank you.

Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. Doug Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support.

Thank you. Those who would like to express opposition, please come forward. And you have three minutes. You may proceed, sir.

Good morning, Chair, Members. My name is Jason Britt and I'm the county administrative officer of Fort Tulare County. Tulare County is a member of the California State Association of Counties, which is part of a large coalition of local government advocates opposed to AB 2561. Today I respectfully request that you vote no. Counties face several challenges related to recruitment and retention, such as rebounding from the COVID-19 pandemic, the great resignation, and local government competing with private sector for a limited hiring pool.

Counties recognize the impact that long term vacancy rates have, both on current employees and residents who receive services. Counties have been implementing innovative ways to try to boost recruitment and incentivize retention. Yet many specialty positions like nurses, behavioral health professionals, social workers, and sheriffs are experiencing nationwide shortages and dwindling pipeline of new entrants. I'd like to clarify some comments made earlier that state law currently prohibits contracting out for human service jobs.

Workforce challenges impact all counties, but rural counties tend to fill these challenges, most due to limited financial resources, a limited number of available workers to hire, and underfunding of programs by the state. If the true intent of AB 2561 is to provide a path for public agencies to reduce staff vacancies, then diverting county staff away from core service delivery and mandating they spend time producing reports on their vacancy rates will not achieve that goal.

We cannot ignore the impact of what feels like unending state mandates without adequate funding and flexibility that also contribute to vacancy rates. Adding another unfunded mandate on counties like mine will not fill vacancies. Please vote no on AB 2561. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. You may proceed.

Thank you. Anil Comelo, city manager for the City of St. Helena. The intentions of the bill, AB 2561, are, are clear. We are facing unprecedented difficulties in hiring employees in the public sector. There are high vacancies in all levels of government locally. I really, truly appreciate Assemblyman Tom Lackey's question about what are we trying to really achieve, and is this bill intended and the other bills we have heard before intended to achieve the goals?

I want to repeat, I don't want to repeat the points that were made previously, but I'll just say this. As a person that has worked in various levels of government, at the county level, at a city level, as special districts. I've worked in all three. I have been an HR Director, a finance professional, a city manager, now a deputy city manager, City of Richmond. I also was the President of Cal PLRO, which is the Premier Labor Relations Organization for public sector managers.

And I tell you, every time we would come to our annual conference, we would groan at the new bills that would come up. This particular one is well intentioned but is, I think, counterproductive. It requires us to produce data anecdotally which we already have. Also in both cities of Richmond and Oakland, where I was HR Director and deputy city manager, and my current organization, we have had vacancies as high as 20% and now as low as five. It fluctuates.

So we'll be going in and out of producing these reports. And let me tell you, it is time consuming and unnecessary. This is exactly the kind of problem bill that we don't need. So it's a solution looking for a problem. We know what the problem is. Get more funding, and we'll be able to solve the problem in terms of hiring. This is not it. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any others in the room that like to express their opposition? Please state your name and organization.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the County Board of Supervisors of Del Norte, Shasta, Humboldt, and Fresno, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alchemy Graham, on behalf of the California Transit Association, also in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kaylin Dean, California State Association of Counties and also on behalf of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, in opposition. Also on behalf of the County Welfare Directors Association and the County Health Executives Association of California, in opposition.

Thank you.

Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Jeff Neill, representing the County of Contra Costa, also respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ross Buckley, on behalf of South Coast Air Quality Management District. We have an interim opposed unless amended position. Look forward to working with authors.

Thank you. All right, let's bring it back to the Committee. For questions or comments. Seeing none, I just have a quick statement that in the Kern County opposition letter, they note that this bill may have unintended consequences of entities eliminating vacant positions. I know that's the opposite of your intention, and so I have some concerns. And with that, you have a chance to close.

Well, I don't see how it could eliminate positions, but what I do know is that we're in a crisis. And so I would think that this might, this should already be really happening already is that we're coming.

We're trying to come up with plans, and we just want to see them. Like I would think that the counties and the cities and local government is trying to come up with plan and working with their others, with their nonprofit partners, with their local officials to come up with a plan to hire. And so I know that the witness also stated that you guys already have this data, so it should be easy to produce.

And so I don't see how this could stop us from having hiring people, but they should have a plan anyway. This should be something that they're working towards, is a plan to hire people and to solve these problems.

Okay, we need a motion. Moved by Assembly Member Boerner and seconded by Ms. Nguyen. Let's call for the question, please.

I'm sorry, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

You certainly can.

Thank you.

The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] We have four to one. This bill's on call.

Okay. Okay. Okay. Assembly Member Calderon, you're here to present file item number 10, AB 2872. This Bill enjoys an aye recommendation from the chair, and the motion is to do pass and re refer to Appropriations. May I proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mister chair and Members of the Committee, I just like to begin by thanking Assemblyman Grayson for graciously allowing us to go first. We have several people in the audience today who have been here since 08:00 in the morning. And so, thank you, assembled. And Grayson, so I'm here to present AB 2872. This Bill would help to provide a much needed pay increase for investigators at the California Department of Insurance.

The pay and equity between CDI and other divisions has been identified as a major factor impacting retention of sworn officers at CDI. Due to the importance and complexity of insurance fraud cases, it's vital that we seek a comparable wage to support the staffing of these public safety positions with experienced investigators. Here to speak more about the need for this bill is the bill's sponsor, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara.

Welcome, Commissioner.

Thank you. Thank you, Members and Mister chair, appreciate your time. AB 2872 really does two things. It ensures pay parity for our CDI's sworn peace officer fraud investigators, consistent with other sworn peace officers performing similar work within state bargaining unit number seven. And it also enables CDI to address the critical recruitment and retention issues for our fraud investigators. Want to just be clear. I know it's a policy Committee, but we are in a deficit.

AB 2872 will have minimal or no impact on the state budget as my Department is specially funded, is a specially funded agency where we are funded by the fees that we collect through our enforcement of insurance law. My Department currently employs 200 sworn officers to detect, investigate and respond to insurance fraud statewide. However, current pay inequities among the investigator classifications have made it harder for us to retain, recruit experience fraud investigators. As a result, the department's current vacancy rate for this classification is nearly 32%.

This is unacceptable and it is putting some of our most vulnerable Californians at risk, including our seniors and our vulnerable workers. That is why we're here today. These investigators are in the same bargaining unit as the California Department of Justice Sworn Investigators, but they earn 20% less than their colleagues. This has been an ongoing problem for the Department for almost two decades. The insurance market in California, as you know, is the second largest in the world.

Insurance fraud crimes cost California businesses and families billions of dollars each year. This, you know, California consumers and businesses end up paying the price for these crimes through higher insurance premiums and more expensive goods and services. The reality is that our peace officers are significantly underpaid and stretch thin. And because of this, they continue to face critical shortages that put pursuing many cases in peril. Just to let you know, the CDI fraud division receives over 18,000 suspected claim referrals each year.

This represents $600 million in possible losses. The significant pay gap really poses serious challenges for the Department and the public Safety and the insurance industry and consumers statewide. AB 2872 is really a critical, is critical to helping my Department protect the public and prevent economic loss through the detection, investigation and prosecution of insurance fraud offenders. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Witnesses, sorry, witnesses in support, please come forward. Yes. And you have three minutes. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and good morning, Committee. My name is George Mueller. I'm the deputy Commissioner over the enforcement branch. This is my 40th year starting in law enforcement and I'm proud to have served that many years as well. I want to talk, just elaborate a little bit about the Commissioner and what the assemblywoman said. This has been a battle for us since I've gotten here. We have become basically the farm team for these other state agencies.

We hire these people, we go through a long background process. We send them through a academy for six months. We have one of the best field training officer programs around. We work very complex cases. And one of it was talked about a little bit is if you remember, years ago there were two elderly women down in Los Angeles County and they actually went after a couple unhoused individuals. They put them up in an apartment for a couple years. They bought life insurance policies on them.

If you remember this hit national news. They drove down an alley and they killed them both to collect over two and a half million. And so here are these people that are using insurance fraud. We have to stop that. The other thing is, there was a family that was killed on the Long beach freeway many years ago.

It was an Assembly Bill 1050 that was carried through to give us money to go after these organized rings that are driving down the freeways that could set up any one of us, our family Members, going to church, going to a ball game with your kids. And it killed a husband and wife and a two year old child as well.

The other things that people don't hear about are the sober living homes that where these people are, they buy policies for them, they bring them in into California, put them into a house, get them clean. And when the insurance company stops paying, they take them out, they get them back on drugs and they sell them. They broker them to other people as well.

We had a case in Los Angeles called LA Recovery where they actually, the person who owned the sober living home took them out on a yacht, got them on drugs and then raped them. And we filed those charges along with the sheriff's Department as well. And so the impact on what we're doing to protect Californians across the board and underserved communities.

The other things I want to touch about really quick is what people don't realize too, is the outreach we do to these disasters and these fires in the history of our Department. When that paradise fire hit through there, everybody lost everything. The insurance companies could not get into that area to make these people whole and reimburse them. My Department went out and drove into that area on mutual aid and helped Paradise recover.

When you looked at the floods in Santa Barbara, in Montecito, when people were sleeping at night and the mud came in, 23 people died there as well. We went out and did outreach, and the most current one was down in San Diego with the flooding there. We went into these underserved communities. And you see today our law enforcement people have so much respect for the people who work for this Department, went into that community. They had no idea.

We didn't want them to be victimized a second time. So we educate them. So we do that as well as a lot. I could be here all day to talk, but I just appreciate your time. This is an amazing apartment. We've been walking the halls here. People are all turning their eyes. We had no idea that you guys were law enforcement. And so I'm just proud of my people that are here, all in the room today and for the work that they do.

So thank you very much.

Thank you. Any witnesses in support, please come forward. State your name, organization and position.

Good afternoon, chair Members Allison Adey, on behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, very happy to support this important measure.

Mark Sektnan with the American Property Casual Insurance Association. Also in support of the Bill.

Mister. Chair Members John Norwood, on behalf of the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of California, also the California Pool and Spa Association, thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Deputy Chief Felicia Lieb with the California Department of Insurance Fraud Division in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jennifer Hollander, sergeant, with the California Department of Insurance Fraud Division in support of this Bill.

Good morning, or afternoon. Sergeant Marty Dito with the California Department of Insurance, the Fraud Division. I'm in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Susan Burns, captain, with the California Department of Insurance Fraud Division, and I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. Christina Smith, Captain, California Department of Insurance. Fraud Division, and I'm in support of this Bill.

Good afternoon. Gina Camacho, Detective, California Department of Insurance Fraud Division, and I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. Pulumi Abimbola, detective with the California Department of Insurance Fraud Division, and I also support this Bill.

Good afternoon. Leslie Dasilva, I'm a Detective of the Department of Insurance Fraud Division, and I'm also in support of this Bill.

Alicia Daniel, California Department of Insurance Fraud Division I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. Thank you. Joanne Reyes, detective, California Department of Insurance Fraud Division. I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. Christina Michelle, detective of the California Department of Insurance Fraud Division, and I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. Lee Adamson, Detective Sergeant with the California Department of Insurance Enforcement Division. I am in support of this Bill.

Good afternoon. Jean Marshall, sergeant, California Department of Fraud Division, Insurance Fraud Division, and I support this Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Devin Brown, detective for the California Department of Insurance Fraud Division, and I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. Deputy Chief Eric Williams, California Department of Insurance Fraud Division, and I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. Eric Charlick, chief of the Fraud Division, California Department of Insurance, and I support this. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Detective Adelbert Armenta of the California Fraud Division, and I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. Christina Yee, California Department of Insurance Fraud Division, and I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. Detective Gerardo Dominguez, California Department of Insurance Fraud Division, and I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. Detective Adam Loomis, California Department of Insurance. And I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Detective Ben Loy, California Department of Insurance Fraud Division. I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. Sergeant Rube Lino with the Department of Insurance Fraud Division. I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. Mark Dray with the California Department of Insurance Fraud Division. And I support this Bill.

Hi, good afternoon. Margaret Bell with the State of California Department of Insurance. I'm a detective and I support this Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Danny Macias, California Department of Insurance. Sergeant, and I support this Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sergeant John Barlow, California Department of Insurance Fraud Division. Nice. Support this Bill. Thank you. Good morning.

Lance Ferrari, captain with the California Department. Of Insurance Fraud Division. I support this Bill.

Thank you. Let's move to witnesses in opposition. Please come forward. Are you going to come here?

I'm a tweener. If I could real quick, on behalf of the California statewide Law enforcement Association. So we're the recognized bargaining unit for the CDI investigators. We're in a support, if amended position. And I want to make it abundantly clear, very clear, that we support these investigators and their desire for more pay. That's unimpeachable. And to the extent that there's a narrative out there that suggests otherwise, we also want to make clear that's false and disingenuous and we support the Bill.

We've submitted language with a small tweak that undoes the parity formula in the Bill that we believe shackles our ability to collectively bargain for the two independent departments within this Bill, Department of Justice and the Department of Insurance. So if that language is addressed, will support the Bill and we look forward to future years in which the Department supports our efforts in bargaining so to get these guys more pay. So thank you.

Thank you. Is there any more witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions?

Move the Bill.

I'm sorry I wasn't here. So we have. Well, I would just like to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. I think that we do deserve, I think that these officers, they deserve parity. I believe that, as I found out, the force is about 40% women. And so we want to make sure that we bring these women up to parity. And so I just appreciate the author, for bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I really am honored to bring forth this Bill and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And so we have a motion in a second. Please call the roll.

The motion is do pass and be referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you, Madam Chair. We're gonna take a five minute recession. Thank you.

It was very much like the second.

We'll call back to order. We'd like to take up the consent calendar. Secretary, is there a motion to take up the move. Consent calendar? We have a motion and a second. Please call the roll.

Item number four. The current motion is do pass and be referred to the Committee on Appropriations with recommendation to the consent calendar, item number 82455. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations with recommendation to the consent calendar and item number 11, AB 2474. The motion is do pass, as amended, to Consent. [Roll Call]

Thank you. Assemblymember Grayson, you're here to present file item number six, AB 2284. I understand that you are accepting the Committee's proposed amendments. Thank you. This Bill enjoys an aye vote, aye recommendation from the Chair and a motion of do pass, as amended. Assemblymember Grayson, you may proceed.

Thank you so much. With that news, I will defer my time to our witnesses and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Well, I'll read this briefly, quickly, as quickly as I can. So I appreciate - Madam Chair. Member Shane Levine, on behalf of the California Fraternal Order Police, one of the co sponsors on this Bill, let me just give you a brief illustration why the Bill is necessary. So the scenario would be you have two deputies. Both are designated deputy ones. One does patrol for their career.

The other, in addition to their normal duties, is taken on additional specialty designations, working on the bomb squad, working k nine, or working SWAT. So despite the training or requirements of any of those specialties, in some jurisdictions, without the definition of grade, which is what this Bill provides, those deputies would both retire with the same pension. That's simply inequitable and unfair. The definition of grade is what creates that line of distinction between the deputies here, thereby clarifying what is deemed compensation earnable.

So, a few points about the Bill. First, it's permissive. We intentionally chose the word may and not shall as it applies to the 37 act counties. The county or system is not required to use this term or definition. We think this definition is helpful, and it provides guidance, but no one, again, to be clear, no one is forced to use it. We believe there is no confusion around this. Second, this definition is not new or novel, its pulled from Perl.

Third, there are systems that need clarification of what grade is and how it's defined. This Bill does that. Lastly, this Bill or definition is not about touching or avoiding in some way, pepper or Alameda. I just want to be crystal clear about that as well, which is becoming a bit of a boogeyman.

And I understand, simply put, as we see it, wherever there seems to be a lack of clarity in the law, the only people who seem to be left holding the bag or the rank and file copper firefighter who are having their retirement cut despite showing up to work every day, holding up their end of the bargain throughout their career. And we think this Bill helps rectify that. So we thank you for your support.

Thank you. Doug?

Thank you. Madam Chair Members, Doug Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, pleased to co-sponsor this measure and would like to thank Assemblymember Grayson for bringing it forward. CPF has the honor of representing 35,000 professional firefighters and emergency medical response personnel statewide. Many of those firefighters are members of county retirement system, subject to the county employee retirement law.

Over the last several years, we worked on many various policies to try to achieve statutory clarity between the public employee retirement law and the county employee retirement law. And we do think that clarity ensures consistency in delivery and also understanding for our members that rely on a secure retirement and that rely on their recognized employee organization to bargain over pensionable benefits, that they understand what those benefits are and that they will be securely there in retirement. So, as Mister Levine noted, when we don't have clarity, it seems that our Members are impacted, and therefore, we would respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come forward. Seeing none. Is there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee. We had a motion and a second. That's right. Would you like to close?

Madam Chair, I first wanted to say thank you so very much for you and the great work, thorough work of Committee staff, and thanks for your consideration to the Committee Members themselves. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. There's been a motion and a second. Please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended. [Roll Call]. Leave it on call.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and colleagues. This Bill, AB 2404, will protect public sector workers rights to honor other unions picket lines during a strike. The right to collectively bargain and strike are fundamental democratic rights of Americans. The National Labor Relations act gives private sector employees the right to strike and further specifies that nothing in the act can interfere with or impede or diminish in any way the right to strike or to affect the limitations or qualifications on that right.

Like the federal law, California has enacted laws giving public sector workers the right to strike. The Public Employment Relations Board has affirmed that public sector employees have the statutorily protected right to strike and that public employees that go on strike are protected from discipline by any. By an employer participation. AB 2404 declares that public employees may demonstrate solidarity with other public employees by honoring a strike or refusing to enter the premises or perform work for a public employer engaged in a primary strike.

The right to honor picket line is not just a democratic right. It is a matter of conscience for many Californians. It is a choice that people make according to what they believe is right. In light of recent employer actions, California needs to ensure public employee rights to honor and support strikes. I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Speaking in support today, I have Neal Sweeney, who is co-President of UAW 4811 the union of nearly 50,000 academic workers at the UC, and Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Federation.

You guys, you have three minutes together. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chair Mckinnor and Members of the Committee. My name is Neal Sweeney and I'm co-President of UAW 4811, the union of nearly 50,000 academic Workers at the University of California. And we're a co-sponsor of AB 2404. As the author said, this Bill is about giving individual workers the right to personally choose to stand in solidarity with their coworkers without being disciplined or fired, and the right to honor their own moral compass.

In late 2024 bargaining units of our union went on strike together over UC's unfair labor practices and bad faith bargaining. We felt solidarity from every corner of the labor movement in California, including UPS teamsters, who had the contractual right to respect picket lines and turn their trucks around. However, we also experienced firsthand the moral injury that is caused when public employers do not respect the First Amendment rights of workers to abide by their conscience and honor a picket line.

When two of the four bargaining units settled their contracts after about a month on strike. Individual members of those units were forced to cross the picket lines of the other two units who remained on strike. By pitting workers against workers. This created a hostile work environment and members of every other union. At UC, about 100,000 other workers were also forced across the picket line or face discipline, forcing them as well to act against their conscience.

AB 2404 would protect the right to honor picket lines as assigned as an essential right for all public employees and enshrine this First Amendment freedom into California law. It will also encourage good faith negotiations and speedy resolutions so that workers can get back to the work they want to do as public sector employees serving the people of California. I respectfully ask for your aye vote thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, Yvonne Fernandez of the California Labor Federation, proud cosponsor of AB 2404, a Bill that, as mentioned by the author, will protect the public employees right to honor a picket line during a labor strike. As highlighted by my colleague representing UAW 4811, AB 2404 serves as direct response to the UC wide UAW strikes that occurred in 2022. During this period, UC workers represented by other campus unions, were unable to honor their colleagues picket line.

Justin Garcia with CAPS UAW in support.

In addition to not being forced, not having to be forced into hostile work environments by crossing strike lines, workers should not have to compromise their rights and ability to act according to their conscience in order to avoid disciplinary actions from their employers while protecting workers across the state. AB 2404 does not compel any worker to go on strike, but rather protects an individual's right to respect a picket line.

Deciding to respect a picket line is an extremely challenging decision, especially for public servants who care deeply about their work. And that. And that decision is not made any easier by this Bill. AB 2404 is about giving individual workers the right to personally choose to stand in solidarity with their coworkers without being disciplined or fired, and the right to honor their own moral compass. And for these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come forward and state your name, organization and position.

Alan Moore, UAW Local 4811 and strong support. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Tom Hinsey, on behalf of the International Union, UAW Region 6100,000 strong in support.

Agnes Henning, on behalf of UAW Local 4123, the academic student workers in the CSU system, in support.

Tony Troguero, on behalf of the 310,000 members of the California Teachers Association in support.

Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association in support.

Ian Utz with the California Association of Professional Scientists 6000 strong in support.

Rebecca Nordenholt with CAPS UAW in support.

Jacqueline Tack with CAPS UAW in support.

Laura Radke with CAPS UAW in support.

Jumare Fernandez in support.

Let's move to opposition. Is there any witnesses? In opposition, please come forward. You have three minutes total. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members, Sarah Duquette on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, our concerns with AB 2404 are consistent with the issue raised in response to last year's AB 504, which is the same measure reflected in the veto message by Governor Newsom, which states, unfortunately, this Bill is overly broad in scope and impact.

The Bill has the potential to seriously disrupt or even halt the delivery of critical public services, particularly in places where the public services are co located. This could have significant negative impacts on a variety of government functions, including the provisions of services in rural communities where colocation of government agencies is common and accessibility of various safety net programs. For millions of Californians in rural counties, it is common to see co location of government services.

Almost every single court in California has collaborated services our public defenders, our district attorneys, our Bayless I have a county that has health and human services co located with a special healthcare district to make sure people are coming to one place for services.

I have a campus where there's a county library, a county museum, and a community college because it's hours away from the actual location of the community colleges, or a county that has put plan check at a city on the coast because it's two to 4 hours away from the county seat. Public employers that bargained in good faith and have approved MOU agreements should not be penalized for sharing a business space with another government employer, especially when we're trying to serve remote communities.

Without additional amendments to address these issues, communities may be left without needed services. Shutting down government operations for sympathy strikes is an extreme approach that goes well beyond what is allowed for primary strikes and risks of public health and safety. We've provided amendments to the author, to this Committee and Judiciary Committee, and we truly want to resolve this issue so we can hopefully get to a position of neutrality. Thank you. Thank you. You have 1 minute.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members, Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities today. Here in respectful opposition of AB 2404, state law has created a framework for when unions can engage in the protected activity that has been honored by local government and employee representatives alike. Fortunately, this Bill allows those who have not gone through the negotiated process to now refuse to work simply because another bargaining unit is engaging in striking.

AB 2404 would upend the current bargaining process and would pose a serious problem for the public agencies that are providing public service on a limited budget in a time of a workforce shortage. As local agencies, we have a statutory responsibility to provide services to our communities throughout the state. And as it's been said, the Bill potentially jeopardizes the delivery of those services and undermines the collective bargaining process. And for those reasons, we're respectfully opposed. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition, please come forward. State your name, organization and position.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, respectfully opposed. Also here today, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair Members. Jean Hurst, here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, also in opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no more witnesses, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Mister Lackey.

Yeah? You heard the opposition state that there was a veto message of the Bill that was very close to this one, that AB 504. And in that that message, it emphasized the impact this policy would have on rural regions, which I represent. So do you have any response on how this Bill would address that veto message?

This Bill is about the right of any individual worker to cross or to not cross a picket line, which is a fundamental worker, a democratic right of it. The goal of this Bill is not to shut down services or to harm anyone. And indeed, I don't think any public sector worker aims to go and harm workers, but they also deserve to have fair reputation and compensation.

I think whether it be rural or urban places, we ought to always have those same rights, and we shouldn't preclude folks just because they live in farther, more rural areas from the same democratic labor rights. And so that's why this Bill is crafted the way it is. But I still remain open to working with stakeholders on making sure it's appropriate, and that the fundamental right to respect a picket line is the most important part of this Bill.

But do you see the unique challenge it creates for rural areas that are so far apart?

Well, I would say every jurisdiction is unique. Urban areas as well.

Okay, so I'm not understanding your response. Do you recognize that there's a significant challenge, as stated right now, to areas that have these huge distances in between these areas that will impact services?

I recognize there's always challenges to every district. I said urban and rural areas. We're going to work to try to resolve them as my I'm happy to work with stakeholders on these issues.

Okay, thank you. So can I get a motion? Second, would you like to close?

On behalf of the many public sector workers who want to respect the picket line and be in solidarity with their other fellow striking workers respectfully ask your aye vote.

Please call the roll.

The motion is do pass and we refer to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

[Roll call] To place this Bill on call.

Thank you, Assembly Member Mike Fong, you're here to present file number nine, AB 2573. This Bill enjoys an aye recommendation from the Chair and the motion is do pass. You may proceed.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you so much. Assembly Bill 2573 makes clarifications in the Legislative Code of Ethics and the Political Reform Act to make it clear that legislators and state agencies that host policy fellows organized by the API Capital Association are not in violation of these laws. APICA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization with membership from Legislative Department or agency staff, advocates and lobbyists, and other Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander professionals in the state's capitals. One of the programs sponsored by APICA is the summer fellowship program.

The program brings together college students and recent graduates to Sacramento and provides them two-month internships to learn about our state Legislature in hopes that the experience will spark an interest in public policy and public service as a career. APICA provides a stipend to the fellows due to the belief that participation should not be limited to by the person's economic background. This has created potential issues with conflict interest laws and gift limit laws.

In response, policy fellows have been limited in the types of work they can do in order to avoid these conflicts. Assembly Bill 2573 will make it clear that the placement and work of the policy fellows do not constitute a gift, compensation, or interest. This will enable the fellows to expand their work experience.

Madam Chair, in response to the suggestion and analysis that we brought in the Bill to include other fellowship programs, I would like to inform you and the Committee that we are working with the Fair Political Practices Commission to expand the Bill to include all nonprofit organizations. Joining me today is APICA's most notable fellow, Assembly Member Alex Lee, and Charmaine Mills, a former APICA fellow who's now Legislative Director for Assembly Member Pellerin.

Thank you. You have three minutes.

I would say we're both notable alumni of the program, so I, Alex Lee, state Assembly Member, very proud to be the I was in the first cohort of paid APICA interns, API Capital Association interns, and really this made the big difference for me less than 10 years ago because there are very few internship programs that are paid.

I think there are more so nowadays, but for young people trying to get their foot in the door in politics, this was one of those game changers and allowed me to really see myself working here in the building, which I did for several of our colleagues, staff, and then eventually see myself as running.

But I think it's an important, invaluable experience that we want to ensure that other APICA interns have substantive and meaningful work so they can really engage in the content, so that perhaps one day they can also become staffers and maybe Members as well.

Hi Madam Chair and Members, my name is Charmaine Mills and I'm the Legislative Director for Assembly Member Gail Pellerin. I had my start in the Legislature as an APICA fellow and then served on the APICA Board for three years when I had the opportunity to mentor the interns that came in after me. APICA's mission is to provide a network and a community for aspiring AAPI individuals who aim to build a career here in the capital community.

Specifically, they assign fellows to host offices and provide training workshops and mentorship that are considerate of the Asian American cultures and immigrant experiences. Since its inception in 2015, APICA has hosted up to six fellows each summer, and nearly 40 fellows in total. Of those fellows, four continued onto the Assembly Fellowship Program.

Five of them became full time led staff and four, and there were a number of fellows that found sustainable and fulfilling work in the state departments and in the third house. APICA proudly provides their fellows with a stipend that is equivalent to the state's minimum wage. However, because the fellows are provided with that stipend by a 501 nonprofit, state law bars APICA fellows from being a part of the real decision making on legislation and the budget, since the stipend could constitute a gift to the member.

In practice, that means APICA fellows are not able to give vote recommendations or staff bills, which denies them extremely valuable firsthand experience that could enrich their decision to work in the Legislature. Other similar programs are also provided with the statutory allowance for paid interns to perform those duties, so this Bill will open doors for these fellows to more fully understand the work of a legislative staffer while under the supervision and guidance of experienced staffers. And for those reasons, I ask for your support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in support? Please come forward. State your name, organization and position.

Hi, Madam Chair. My name is Jessica Duong. I'm with the University of California in strong support. Also, former APICA Board President, in support.

Hello, my name is Kumari Fernandez. I'm in support.

Hi. I'm Paco Torres, former President of the API Capital Association, in support.

Allison Lim, former APICA Board member in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee. Assembly Member Nguyen.

Thank you for bringing this Bill forward, and thank you for testifying and sharing your story. I'd love to be added as a co-author.

Absolutely. Thank you. Oh, yeah. And Mister Lee too.

Would you like to close?

Thank you so much. Madam Chair and Members, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.