Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. I like to welcome everyone who's here in the hearing room today and who's watching the hearing online. For the purpose of this hearing, we are accepting witness testimony in person, and we are also accepting written testimony through the Legislature's position letter portal.

That portal can be accessed through the Committee's website at AELC.Assembly.ca.gov. The Committee has one Bill on the agenda today, and when we hear the Bill on the agenda, we'll hear from a maximum of two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition. The Bill with a limit of two minutes per per witness. Other witnesses are limited to providing their name, the organization they represent, if any, and their position on the Bill.

Additional comments will be ruled out of order. Announcement for today, Assemblymember Cervantes was not feeling well and has been replaced with Assemblymember Matt Haney, which is why he was on the roll call today. And we have a letter from the speaker accepting that replacement, and it was for today's hearing only. With those announcements out of the way, we will now move on to the Committee's agenda. The only item on the agenda is AB 2654 by Assemblymember Vince Fong. Assemblymember, thank you for joining us today and you may present your Bill.

Second thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I sincerely thank the Chair and Committee staff for holding this hearing. We are in the people's house doing the work on behalf of all Californians as a lifelong advocate of transparency in government, specifically through the Legislature, it has been troubling to learn about the use of non disclosure agreements when drafting legislation. In my two decades working at both the state and federal levels, I have never heard of the use of NDAs in the negotiations of legislation.

We were duly elected. As a deliberative body, we are trusted by our constituents to represent them. The public's trust erodes when laws are conducted in secrecy behind closed doors under legally binding confidentiality agreements. Non-disclosure agreements certainly have their place to protect businesses proprietary and financial information, but they should not be used in the crafting and negotiating, the crafting and negotiating of laws that affect the daily lives of our constituents. Under AB 2654.

An otherwise legally valid NDA that is properly drafted has a reasonable scope, legitimate interest to protect financial or proprietary information, and voluntary agreement from the parties would still be enforceable. However, negotiating and drafting legislation does not need to and should not be protected to the same degree as private business information. After all, it's the people's business that we do and conduct. Here in the state capitol, the public already has a poor perception of the legislative process.

Allowing for the use of NDAs will further erode and corrode their trust in government. As for the public's access to government, there are various exemptions in the California Public Records Act and legislative open records act that limit disclosures to the public. NDAs are another tool used to keep information from the public. It's in their name, non disclosure, but also Members of the Legislature. How can we create nuanced effective policy when we as Members are unable to obtain essential information due to certain parties signing NDAs?

The Committee analysis points out one provision of the CPRA that prohibits a public agency from allowing another party to control the disclosure of information that is otherwise subject to disclosure under the CPRA. Quote given the absence of an express prohibition on public officials ability to enter into an NDA in connection with legislative negotiations, however, it is unclear whether a court would find such an NDA to be enforceable. This Bill creates that express prohibition that such an NDA is unenforceable.

Furthering the intent of the CPRA, I'm joined today by Rob Lapsley with the California Business Roundtable and Brittany Barsotti with the California News Publishers Association in support. And when the time comes, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

You each have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Thank you. My name is Rob Lapsley. I'm President of the California Business Roundtable here in support of AB 2654. This Bill marks a crucial step to help ensure transparency and accountability in our legislative process. The Bill isn't about good governance, it's about upholding the fundamental principles of democracy that voters have supported, especially at the ballot box. In 2004, California voters passed Prop 59, called the Sunshine Amendment, which made access to public information a civil right.

It passed with 83.4% of the vote. Yet the Legislature excluded itself from these provisions, leaving a gap that the Bill also seeks to close. In 2016, voters overwhelmingly passed Prop 54 reinforced the people's demand for transparency by requiring legislation to be available to the public 72 hours before a vote. This Bill builds upon that foundation by ensuring that legislators, lobbyists, and special interest groups conduct their work in an open and transparent manner. The Bill is not a solution in search of a problem.

It's a necessary safeguard against the erosion of transparency in our state government. There has been some discussion that this Bill would automatically subject private parties proprietary information to public disclosure. However, it's crucial to recognize the extensive safeguards already in place under current law. The California Public Records Act includes nearly 80 exemptions to ensure the protection of sensitive information, including trade secrets and privileged communications from being disclosed as part of the legislative negotiations. We and many others disagree that this Bill would expose private party sensitive information.

NDAs create a barrier to participation in the legislative process, effectively establishing a sign to play standard that contradicts the principles of democracy and fairness upon which our system is built. This Bill is a logical protection of the repeated will of the people of California. And I just want to add that I've talked to four previous administrations, having been in some myself, at the highest levels of whether they have ever employed or whether there was ever a need for NDAs in any of their legislative policy negotiations.

Not one has employed NDAs, and it was interesting in the response that I got because never had they even thought about using NDAs in their process. So I would ask, I believe this is a key question or key issue, and I would ask for your consideration of that moving forward. We ask for your support in this Bill. Thank you for the opportunity this morning.

And you have two minutes. Thank you.

Good morning, ma'am. Chair Members of the Committee, Brittney Barsotti with the California News Publishers Association here in support of AB 2654. We represent over 450 publications throughout the State of California. I also operate a legal helpline for our Members to call into, and I can say the vast majority of the legal helpline questions that we receive are Public Records Act related. As was already noted, this Bill doesn't compel disclosure, it simply prohibits the use of NDAs.

There are several exemptions under the California Public Records Act. I've actually never counted before, but I believe 80 is about right. And they are already designed to protect the type of information that NDAs protect. Attorney client privilege, trade secrets, and frequently used and most likely abused, is the deliberative process exemption, which is basically has been used to claim calendars shouldn't be subject to the public records acts, basic things like who legislators or Governor is meeting with.

I'd also like to point out that the Public Records Act does have a balancing provision. So if there is information that's requested that the public interest would be better served in non disclosure rather than disclosure, courts are free to consider that as well, and with that, I respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 2654. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room who wants to register their name and organization in support of the Bill, please step up to the mic.

Madam Chair Members, Matthew Hargrove of the California Business Properties Association in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in support.

Madam Chair Members, Tim Taylor with the National Federation of Independent Business in support.

Is there any primary witness in opposition to the Bill today? Step on up to the table. Two minutes each. It's a cozy table.

Very cozy table. Madam Chair Members, Ben Golembeck for the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition to AB 2654 we just want to say from the outset, we do have an immense amount of respect for the author and consider one of the champions for the business community here. But unfortunately, we do disagree on this Bill. We're strongly committed to transparency in state and local government. We did help lead the effort to pass Prop 54 that was just mentioned in 2016.

However, our opposition to this Bill is both focused on and consistent with our longstanding policy of opposing legislation that limits the use of confidentiality agreements among private parties, which is enshrined in existing California and Federal law. A couple of recent examples of bills that we opposed that attempted to limit these confidential agreements include SB 331 by former Senator Connie Leyva, SB 1300 from Senator Hanna-Beth Jackson and AB 889 from former Assemblymember Mark Stone.

We believe these agreements between private parties are important to promote candid discussions on controversial issues without the concern that proprietary information will be disclosed. This comes up in a range of contexts, including legal settlements, discussions around proprietary or trade secrets, and, for the same underlying reasons, between private parties as it relates to legislative conversations between businesses, nonprofits, and their paid advocates. Nothing in these agreements limits legislators from debating bills proposing amendments through the course of the legislative process.

In fact, the legislative process provides Members with an open forum to ask questions and express your opinions, and that the public can witness and participate in. Our opposition also stems from the fact that the Bill is incredibly broad and does not define a number of very important provisions. For instance, there's no provision for what constitutes a non disclosure agreement and there are no exemptions. For example, attorneys are often consulted in the analysis of legislation.

So if a lobbyist retains an attorney to analyze legislation, would AB 2654 interfere with the attorney client privilege? Additionally, the Bill precludes lobbyists from, quote unquote, discussing legislation if they're under an NDA.

Please wrap up your comments.

Yet, there are countless scenarios in the policy and political arena where two parties enter into a legal business contract. The chamber has long defended employers and private parties ability to use confidentiality agreements. And we see this Bill is infringing on that. Right. With all due respect to the author, we are opposed to AB 2654 today.

Thank you. Next witness. Two minutes, please.

I'm here to answer any questions we can about PRA or LRA on that front. One point I do want to just flag that Ben didn't quite time to get to. I've spoken to multiple lobbyists in just the last few days, and it's actually quite common for internal in house lobbyists and for contract lobbyists to use NDAs in order to fully understand their clients materials.

If you are a company and you have something which is proportional prior to you in a special, your lobbyist can't watch for legislation that might affect it without knowing it. But if you can't have an NDA with that lobbyist to make sure that lobbyist, then when they leave, can't go tell everyone else. That makes it hard to work with your lobbyist honestly around legislation. And we see that as covered in the language of this Bill.

So that's a real concern for us that Ben didn't quite get time to get to. Thank you. zero, sorry, my manners. Robert Moutrie, California Chamber of Commerce.

I was just going to ask you. Thank you so much.

So sorry.

Thank you for your comments. Anybody in the room who would like to register your name and organization in opposition to the Bill, please step up to the mic.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And Members, Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association. We too, unfortunately, are opposed to the Bill. I wasn't planning on the chamber having both slots. May I say a few words or would you prefer me just to move on?

Just your name and organization.

We are opposed. Apologies to the author for the late opposition.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room? We'll go ahead and bring it back to the Committee. Vice Chair Lackey, please go ahead.

I just have a brief question for someone from the chamber. Has Cal Chamber ever used or heard of NDAs being used in any legislative negotiation before KCRA's report?

Thank you, sir. You know, we take positions and negotiate on hundreds of bills every single year. You know, we don't really comment on specific negotiations that we participate in or happen between private parties. Again, we're here focused on the legislation, the Bill before us.

Any other questions or comments? Assemblymember Essayli.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a few questions. I'll start with the opposition. Just to tease out that last point you made there. I think the intent of this legislation is not to interfere with your ability to engage with counsel, in house counsel or outside counsel to get legal opinions on there. So if the Bill were clarified to make that clear, that this does not infringe on traditional attorney client privileges, does that relieve your concerns about the legislation?

I think there's still a number of incredibly broad and vague provisions in the Bill. I've got it here where it talks about drafting, negotiation, discussion, or creation of legislation, and it also doesn't define NDA. So I think the attorney client privilege example that I brought up and that you're raising is certainly one of the potential examples that we think would be problematic. But there are still a number of other potential. There are a number of other vague terms in the Bill right now that would make it problematic.

What is your concern? I'm trying to understand this because we're talking about, we're not talking about you engaging in private disputes or negotiations with parties. We're talking about drafting legislation. Legislation is the work of this house, the State Assembly. It's the people's work. So, you know, it's not uncommon in Sacramento to have what's called sponsored legislation. You're familiar with that term, right? In fact, Cal chambers often sponsored legislation, legislation in the State Assembly. Correct.

We have sponsored bills in the Assembly.

How do you describe, what does it mean to be the sponsor of the Bill from your point of view? What duties does that involve that you're concerned might impact confidential information when you're the sponsor of a Bill or you're negotiating on a Bill?

Okay. I'm not exactly sure about the relationship here to the Bill, but my understanding of sponsoring legislation generally involves sort of bringing a Bill idea to a Legislator and then, and obviously supporting that legislation, certainly at the beginning and generally all the way through the legislative process.

So you're involved in the legislative process.

I think your support supportive of the legislation, and you will. It depends on who it is. And, I mean, I can't speak to.

Do you have a specific question to the Bill, Assembly Member Essayli?

My point on the Bill is that you said in your arguments that, you know, private parties should be able to, should be free to enter in NDAs. But my point is you're not a private party. When you're sponsoring a Bill, you're negotiating a Bill, you are acting as an exhilarate to the Legislature. You are providing language, you're negotiating language on behalf of legislators or the Governor. So my point is you're not really a private actor you're an auxiliary of the Legislature.

And so to the extent that you're going to engage in legislative activities, why should you not be subject to the same sunshine transparency rules as legislators? I can't enter into the NDA. I wouldn't want to. But why should you not be subject to the, to the transparency rules that we are?

Well, let me just, I've never heard of anybody being referred to as the auxiliary. Auxiliary to the Legislature.

Yeah, it's a very common term, auxiliary, used to provide support to the Legislature.

I just have never heard of anybody describe somebody sponsoring legislation as an auxiliary to the Legislature. So I'm not sure I would agree with that sort of description of it. Again, our longstand, we have a longstanding policy. There have been a number of bills attempted to sort of limit confidential agreements between private parties. We have had a longstanding history of opposing those bills. I listed a few examples from the last, from recent years.

You know, our read and interpretation of the Bill is pretty clear that it would do so, that this would limit the ability for confidential agreements between private parties. And that is going to be something that we oppose.

Okay. Let me move on to.

Okay, yes, please.

I'd like to move on to another question. Can you give me some specific examples of the type of information that you believe needs to remain confidential during these legislative drafting negotiations between parties? What's the type of information that you're worried that about needs to be protected through an NDA? Either of you can answer.

Thank you. I, sorry to keep stealing the mic. Robert Moutrie, California Chamber of Commerce I mean, to the point I made earlier about. Right. You are limiting your questions to sponsorship, but this is actually broader than sponsorship. The Bill doesn't say that. Right. The Bill is any discussion or drafting around legislation. So as I said, if you are, let's imagine that I'm a food chain who has a particular recipe that involves certain chemicals. Right. And this is my most important recipe.

When legislation comes up around those topics, I need to have told my lobbyists, hey, specifically, we actually use exactly these things. Right. And that's the kind of trade secret that I need to be able to limit with them. Otherwise, if they quit next year and go to another food chain or another manufacturing company or others. Right. That formula is now out there. I need to be able to limit that for them. And that involves discussions around legislation with my trade secret.

So I think that's the kind of information that's very important to us. And I think that is something that lobbyists have to know about in order to do their job.

But I'm trying to understand this. So you are a food maker, and so you tell your lobbyists the lobbyist works for you. It's not a third party. We're talking about discussions between third parties in the negotiation of legislative terms. So why does a third party need to know your recipe? They would just need to know that, look, I use this ingredient and I don't want it in the Bill. Why does that require the disclosure of trade secrets or confidential information?

Well, I think you're, I think it sounds like you're blending two things that I don't. I don't think the Bill is actually limited in the way you're discussing it. This would deal with any agreement amongst lobbyists around legislation. So you were using a term around third party versus in house lobbyists? I don't know that that distinction is actually in the Bill. And second, again, I am much of what lobbyists do. Right.

We are in this building listening and trying to make sure that we know what's coming. And so then we can go back and ask our clients, does this affect you? Is this part of it? Right. And as part of those discussions, I don't even, obviously, I'm not in house. I'm a trade Association. But for in house folks, I don't even know what to watch for. For security concerns, proprietary concerns, I don't need to know.

I don't even know what to watch unless I can be briefed on those things. And so that immediately is me knowing a trade secret, needing an NDA. That is going to be around legislation. And under this Bill, we don't see those NDAs as possible, which means I can't brief my lobbyist fully.

I don't read the Bill that way. But again, if we were to clarify, this Bill does not apply to the relationship between a lobbyist and their client. We're talking about third parties talking to each other, one lobbyist talking to another lobbyist, or one labor union talking to another trade union. I'm not talking about conversations between you and your client. I think you're conflating the two on purpose. So why does a third party, not your client?

Why does another party at the negotiation table need any trade secrets? Why do they need any confidential information when we're crafting legislation? Why is that?

Yeah. Do you have any specific.

That is a specific question.

Let's bring it back to the office.

What are the secrets that need to be kept?

We have the author who would like to speak. Let him speak.

Let me just focus on the fact that this Bill, and to all the Members, this Bill does not prohibit the normal use of NDAs to protect sensitive information. What is not sensitive for private information, however, is legislative language. And this is what our Bill is trying to focus on, is that the use of NDAs in terms of crafting legislative language. Current law already prohibits sensitive information from being released. The California Public Records Act already exempts trade secrets and other protected information.

This is where I disagree with the opponents. And the other point I just want to make is that, yes, there are hearings. We're here in a community hearing, and Members can ask questions in response to the opposition. But what I'm not concerned about is actually the asking questions. What I'm concerned about is the answers.

So if we are not able, as legislators or the public, to get answers or to get a full picture of how provisions or laws are being crafted, that is what we're trying to get at with this Bill. It's narrowly focused. We're not dealing with proprietary information or sensitive information amongst private parties or within an advocate and their client. We're trying to get to the point that we're protecting the legislative process.

The very thing that all of us as Members, who I respect all of you dearly, is that we're protecting this institution. And that's the fundamental principle of this Bill, is that if an NDA is being used to shield information to legislators or the public on how a Bill was drafted or made, we can ask all the questions we want, but the answers are what we want, and the answers are not what we're gonna get. If the NDAs are allowed to be used.

Can I accept that as your close.

No, I have more questions. Madam Chair, I'm not done with my questioning. I'd like to ask specifically. I know we talk in the broad, but let's talk specifically about this fast food Bill. There was. You don't deny an NDA was used between SEIU and the Franchisee Association in that context, correct?

I have no idea.

You're here to defend this, to oppose this Bill. You're not aware. Excuse me? Are you aware that an NDA, what.

You're talking about, happened in another Bill?

I'm asking you where that NDA was used in that context.

I am not aware. I have obviously seen news reports that I think everybody else.

Let's assume it was.

But I am not aware.

Let's assume it was aware. Okay. You're saying I would still be able to ask questions on that Bill and how that language got in there. So when we're looking at the panera.

There will be examples of. You will have Committee hearings, you'll have opportunities on the floor. You all have a number of opportunities.

I want to play that out. So I see there's an exemption for a bread maker in fast food who happens to be Panera in there. And I want to understand how that got in there. So I will ask the author, how did Panera get an exemption in the Bill? And the author's going to say he doesn't know because he didn't negotiate it. So how will I get the answer to that if there's an NDA between the parties who wrote that language?

Can I ask a point of clarification?

Point of order. Madam Chair.

Excuse me. Excuse me. You've been taking up a lot of time. We have another question here, Excuse me.

But my question's not answered. Point of order.

Excuse me.

Point of order.

Assemblymember Berman, please proceed.

Point of order.

The issue that just got brought up is the Panera gate language. The act or the. What was pointed out by the news was that there are NDAs between the follow on Bill that happened in, I think, 2023 last year. Right. Did that Bill have the Panera gate language in it? Was that the Bill that had the issue of a bread exemption, or was that the prior Bill that was first passed? That we have no idea. There's been no accusation.

I guess you could say that there was an NDA used for the prior Bill. So the Panera language or the. And, you know, it seems like that Bill didn't apply to Panera, but the bread exemption language wasn't in the Bill that had an NDA. The bread exemption language was in the prior Bill that was passed before then that there's no indication whatsoever that there was an NDA. NDA in. So let's get the facts right.

Are you talking to me? Are you asking questions to the witnesses?

I'm talking to you.

Okay, well, either we're gonna follow proper decorum here or were not.

Okay. All right. We have. Excuse me. We have another question by Assembly Member Weber. Please proceed.

But, Madam Chair, I have a question I'd like to know in that context.

Excuse me. It is Assembly Member Weber's time right now.

The Chairman has to be able to run the meeting.

Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Okay, let's all calm down. Want to thank the author so much for bringing this Bill forward. Thank those who have come to speak in support and opposition. You know, I have tremendous respect for what you're trying to do. Assembly Member Fong. I think all of us in the Legislature are, want transparency and ensure that the information is able to get out, not only to us but also to the public. This is an extremely important Bill that deals with a very important issue.

What I'm hearing with some of the back and forth as far as what the opposition is saying versus what you're saying versus what some of the other Members are saying, to me really gets down to the point that there probably needed to be more time in drafting this Bill so that you could really sit down with some of the opposition and hash out some of these points about whether or not the Bill is too broad, where some of the things could be tweaked a little bit to ensure that we're not allowing for the possibility of trade secrets, excuse me, to be exposed.

The fact that this Bill just came forward a week ago does not oftentimes allow for those kind of conversations. And so what I would recommend is that if this Bill does not make it out of Committee, that you continue to work or, you know, tap someone to continue to work on this issue so that something could be brought back that everyone is kind of in agreement with. And there's not a lot of questions or concerns about the current language. Thank you.

So I certainly have tremendous respect for you and the questions. The timeline is certainly something that I'm very sensitive to. The reason why this Bill was introduced, we learned of the use of NDAs after the Bill deadline. That was what spurred this Bill and why the timeline has been shrunk. And so this is the impetus of this hearing and everything that's transpired.

We, of course, have been in conversations with the opposition, and we have offered changes and amendments, and we look forward to working with the opposition. We did not come to an agreement, and so this is why the Bill has moved forward. I will just like to say, just in respect to this Committee, is that bills have moved through committees in other committees. And where we will, we were given time to work out this language.

If there were amendments to clarify the third party rules and to ensure other guardrails. We're happy to work with the opposition and with the Committee to do that. We were not presented any amendments, and the amendments that we suggested ourselves were not accepted. And so, look, as the Vice Chair of the Budget Committee, we see budget bills, budget juniors, Trailer bills passed out of Committee with very little time to review or analyze.

And so I do understand the timeline perspective, but you and I and all of us have been here for a very long time, understand that we can move legislation very rapidly this morning was a gut and amend on a Bill that the Governor wanted that was done in matter of days.

And so I just respectfully ask that this Bill and the importance of preserving the lawmaking process of this institution would be allowed to move forward to preserve what the people expect us to do when we work on their behalf.

Thank you, Assemblymember Weber.

Yes, thank you so much for that. And I do remember you are one of the main people that always speaks up and speaks in opposition when we're moving too fast on a Bill.

Thank you for any other comments or questions on the Bill.

I have a couple more questions, but I'm sure I still would like an answer to hypothetically. There is an NDA in place. The parties to the NDA negotiated specific language that goes into a Bill. And I ask the author of the Bill about how that language came to be. And the author says, I don't know, you need to go talk to the people that negotiated it.

How am I going to get the answers to my question if there's an NDA in place to prevent the disclosure of that information?

So again, I think you were, the original question was talking about the sort of saga of AB 1228 last year, and then I think it was AB 257 before that.

And then the provision you were alluding to that, my memory was, I don't have it pulled up in front of me, but my memory was that the sort of bread provision that you were alluding to was in the Bill that was voted on in 2022, when I believe everybody in this Committee was still in the Assembly, and I don't remember, and that was certainly before, as it's been.

Can you just answer my question, please?

Well, you're asking a hypothetical question about something that he was not even in the room about. So I think this is getting a little absurd. So what is your other question?

I still want to know the answer. How am I, as a Legislator, going to find out how this text came to be? If there's an NDA in place that prevents the information from getting to me? I need to know. What if you were in a room, you said, you know what? The Governor has an important donor. We need this exemption. How am I going to find that out?

That's not the case.

We don't know, Madam Chair. We've never had any hearing.

What you see is the Bill. You see the Bill in print. You see the amendments in print. And if you read that Bill carefully, you will understand what it does.

I need to know if there was corruption involved in drafting the Bill.

We're not turning this into this. If you have another specific question, please ask it. Otherwise, we are going to close the hearing.

Last question.

Okay. Do we have Assembly Member? Fong, you may close.

Sorry. Let me start again. At the heart of this Bill, hit the wrong button is our duty to be transparent. In response to, to the overly broad definition of non disclosure agreements, there have been legislation, there are bills moving through this legislative body that use the exact definition of nondisclosure agreements. So if there is a concern of the nondisclosure agreement definition being too broad, then I think we need to clarify those other bills that use it as well.

And we're happy to take amendments and make changes if this Bill move forward. As the opposition states, nothing prevents us from asking questions in Committee meetings are on the floor. It's not about the questions, it's the answers we're trying to get. We and our constituents deserve to know the background and the truth of what happens when bills are being drafted. And this is why this Bill is narrowly focused on that. Who wanted a provision? What organization? Who laws.

I mean, laws don't magically appear in this building. Someone drafted it. Someone asked for it. As legislators, we deserve to know how the legislative sausage was made. And so NDAs prevent the Trans, the transparency and disclosure of those answers to our questions. And so that's what we're trying to get at. I do sympathize with the Chair's concerns about the process and the timeliness of these amendments. And this was our only option.

As I said before, the NDAs that came out in reporting and in the media and how it was, how those, how that information was revealed was not known to the public until the deadline to introduce legislation had passed. And that is why I'm very respectful of the process in trying to slow things down. This was why this legislation was crafted in the way it was.

And as I said before, as the Vice Chair of the Budget Committee, we've had tremendous amount of bills that have moved very rapidly. And yes, I caution against moving quickly for those bills. This is the First Committee to try to get the conversation started so we can get it over the Senate and have a longer discussion. As a Legislator. And I know all of you understand this.

We are trying to pull the curtain back and allow legislators and the public to understand what's happening when laws are being made. It is not. It is my biggest concern that we are actually trying to shield the public from information and from legislators as well. That is critical to our votes and to how laws are being made. And so, I mean, this is fundamental to me, and this is a core principle as a Legislator.

And I know that all of you share this concern and want to make the best laws possible, but to ensure that we make the best laws possible is ensure that we have all the information being made and NDA is being used in the lawmaking and crafting of laws, that process has to be discouraged and eliminated. So to that end, I respectfully ask for. I vote.

Thank you. And I just have one question. I understand that you first came up with this idea on March 8, and we're now looking at it was amended April 18. So I'm just curious what was happening during that process?

That process, it took time for those amendments to cross. So the way that the amendment process works, once we indicated that it took that time to cross those amendments.

Just curious.

Okay, so, I mean, we worked with the GO Committee. Everything has been, as I said before, fully transparent in terms of the amendments that were drafted.

I got an amendment. Okay, so we have a motion by Assembly Member Essayli, a second by Vice Chair Lackey. Transparency in government is paramount, and it builds trust and confidence in our elected officials. And when legislators vote on bills, we do so in publicly noticed hearings and floor sessions, and do so with the benefit of public input and publicly available Bill analyses and scrutinize the policies proposed in those bills.

To be clear, I am not aware of any reporting, and the author has not pointed to any that suggests that public officials signed non disclosure agreements or asked anyone else to do so as part of legislative negotiations. So the crux of what this Bill seeks to address are conversations between private parties, not legislative negotiations involving public officials. And we've heard from multiple organizations today about whether the Legislature should be regulating discussions between private parties about legislation.

That's a complicated issue, and this Committee's ability to appropriately consider that issue has been hampered by the fact that the author waited to amend this Bill until the week before the relevant Committee deadline. Because of that delay, the Bill only referred to the Elections Committee on Monday afternoon. This rushed process, which necessitated an expedited hearing by this Committee, prevented this Bill from receiving the level of scrutiny and the analysis that bills normally receive before being heard.

It has also restricted the public's ability to review and analyze this Bill and to provide public comments. So while I take the author at his word that he introduced this Bill in an effort to improve transparency in the legislative process, the legislative process for this Bill has not lived up to that standard of transparency. And I think we all want and deserve for that reason, I will not be supporting the Bill today. I encourage you though, to bring it back next time for a full discussion.

Madam Chair, I'd like to amend my motion, if I may. I made a motion to pass the Bill. I'd actually like to make a motion to pass the Bill and make it subject to recall to this Committee here. So that way the Bill does not die today, but we can bring it back and continue to work on it. So I amend my motion.

I want to pass the Bill and make it subject to recall to this policy Committee, Mister Lackey, if you'd be willing to second that. Thank you.

So we're going to take a vote on whether we're going to allow the substitute motion. Okay. Okay. Okay. Madam Secretary, call the roll. [Roll Call] So the substitute motion has failed. Are we back to another motion to pass the Bill out?

Okay, so the motion to move the Bill by Assembly Member Sailie, seconded by Vice Chair Lackey. Madam Secretary, call the roll on AB 2654 by Vince Fong. The motion is do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.[Roll Call] That fails. Thank you so much for your time.

How about reconsideration?

I'll second.

Yeah, I'm not sure how this works here. Hang on 1 second. Without objection, reconsideration can be granted. All right, Meetingas adjourned.