Joint Legislative Audit Committee

We are one senator short of a quorum, so as soon as we have our quorum, we'll begin.

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. This is the Committee's first hearing of the year at which we will hear new audit requests. We look forward to a productive hearing today, seeing that we have a quorum.

Madam Secretary, would you please call the roll?

[Roll call]

A quorum is established. Thank you, Members. Before we take up any other items, we have a housekeeping item to take care of. The Committee needs to elect a chair. This takes a majority vote of the JLAC members in each house. Is there a motion?

I would move that we elect Assemblymember Gregg Hart as the Chair of JLAC.

Thank you, Senator Laird. And thank you, Assemblymember Boerner. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion to elect Assemblymember Hart as Chair of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. [Roll call]

Thank you, Members. I look forward to working with each of you this year. Unless there are questions, we'll move forward to the State Auditor's report. Please, State Auditor Parks.

Thank you, Chair Hart and Vice Chair Laird. Grant Parks, State Auditor's Office, happy to be with you this afternoon. Look forward to a productive discussion on hearing audits throughout the day by way of an overview of the status of my office's work in progress.

Our ability to start JLAC audits is really dependent on our statutory work that we have going on at any given point in time. So I'll start with an overview of the statutory work that we have in progress at the moment. In our financial audit division, we have seven statutory audits in progress.

Most of that pertains to the financial audit and related products. But just as importantly, in our performance audit division, we have three statutory audits in progress. That's campus crime reporting under the Clery Act. It's the Proposition 56 Tobacco Tax audit, and it's the Cannabis Grant Program audit at the Department of Cannabis Control.

That was outcome of the Budget Act, I believe, of 2021. In addition to those three audits that our performance audit division has underway, which again impacts our ability to do JLAC work. We have six additional statutory audits that we need to start in the fall. One of those includes update of our local high risk program.

We'll be visiting a variety of cities, Lynwood, West Covina, El Cerrito, Montebello, Blythe, San Gabriel, and Lindsay. We're also expecting to start this fall at the UC system, an audit of their NAGPRA program. It's an audit that's required under the Health and Safety Code. We have our state bar audit that's coming up.

We have our judicial branch procurement audit that's coming up. We have a fiscal status monitoring report that we're going to be starting this fall, and another Department of Cannabis audit.

Having said all that, I will also mention for the Committee that all 13 audits that were approved at the last JLAC hearing are underway and are in progress. I expect most of those audits to be released this spring and into the summer.

For example, the Wage Commissioner audit is going to be released on May 29 and the UC contracting audit on online program management is scheduled to be released on June 6. We have 12 audits on the agenda today.

Most of them are on the consent calendar, and based on our current workload forecasts, I anticipate being able to start the majority of them before the end of the calendar year, with all of the audits started no later than March. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much, Mr. Parks. Questions? Assemblymember Boerner.

Thank you. I want to go back to one of our last JLAC meetings where we approve the 2023, I think it's 2023-126 California community colleges instructor and administrative administer spending. We had a long discussion about what do we do about the categorization of costs and positions that address student support, but are not including the 50%.

And we had asked like, could we include that into item 10? I think it was item 10 or item 11, I think it's item 10. So could you give us an update on how you've decided to approach that?

So that audit is underway. I'm reluctant to go into the methodology of any audit that we have in progress, but I know we are working closely with the Chancellor's office and the community colleges. But at this time, I'm unprepared to answer your question specifically.

I'm more than happy, however, following this hearing, to get back to you in your office if I have a chance to consult with my legal counsel. I just want to make sure that I'm not violating any audit confidentiality rules about methodology and approach.

And that's fine. I think our discussion had been around, how could we include that? And we've asked you to try to figure out how to include that. So it would have been a scope of audit question, not a methodology question.

My understanding, my recollection from our kickoff meeting on that is we did find a way to incorporate that into the scope of the audit.

If we could follow up, that would be fantastic. Thank you.

Other questions? All right, thank you very much for the report. You have a lot on your workload. I'd like to note that audit request number 2024-118 Department of General Services and Department of Human Resources state telework policies by Assemblymember Hoover has been moved for the regular calendar to the proposed consent calendar.

We have 12 audit requests to consider this afternoon. Nine of these audit requests are on the proposed consent calendar. That leaves us three audits for presentation this afternoon.

The nine audits on the proposed consent calendar are number 2024-104 Orange County by Assemblymember Quirk Silva, number 2024-105 the Department of Cannabis Control by Assemblymember Irwin, number 2024-106 Twin Rivers Unified School District by Assemblymember Muratsuchi, number 2024-108 Alameda County by Senator Wahab, number 2024-109 Department of Housing and Community Development by Senator Glazer, number 2024-111 California Colleges by Assemblymember Hart, number 2024-114 California State Facilities by Assemblymember Lowenthal, number 2024-116 Department of Public Health by Senator Laird, number 2024-118 State Telework Policies by Assemblymember Hoover.

Are we still in agreement? Thank you, Assemblymember Rubio and second by Assemblymember Boerner. Madam Secretary, could you please call the roll.

Motion to approve items on the consent calendar? [Second Reading]

[Roll call]

Thank you, Members. The consent calendar is approved. For the audit request that will be presented today, we'll follow the Audit Committee's established format with the Members presenting their audit request in sign-in order. Members of the Committee will present their audit request last. Each member may have up to two witnesses to make brief comments during their presentation.

This will be followed by the State Auditor's presentation of his analysis. I'll then invite the affected agency to come forward to make brief comments and answer questions. This will be followed by questions from Committee Members and the public will be invited to comment on their support or opposition to each audit request.

Next up is Assemblymember Ortega's audit request, number 2024-115 Division of Occupational Safety and Health Oversight and Enforcement. Assemblyman Ortega-- Assemblymember Ortega, thank you for being here.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Chair and Members, I am pleased to present to you my request to audit Cal OSHA, the state's agency charged with protecting the health and safety of the state's approximately 18 million workers.

While it is widely known that Cal OSHA is understaffed, we know very little about the inspection and citation process. In requesting this audit, I am not looking to blame an understaffed or overworked public agency.

Instead, I am interested in understanding deficiencies in the current inspection and enforcement models in order to encourage better compliance with our workplace safety laws.

In a recent hearing that I chaired on workplace conditions for farmworkers, I heard worker testimony about unsanitary working conditions, delays in receiving responses to complaints, lack of follow up after an inspection and if one was concluded at all, and a lack of enforcement, as evidenced by the regular practice of negotiating down fines.

As I noted in my letter, in 2021, Cal OSHA inspectors ordered $4.6 million in fines for COVID-19 safety violations in 200 workplaces. But a year later, only 3% of the total fines had been paid and four out of the five sided employers were appealing their fines.

This shows how employers fined by OSHA can wait out the appeal process and pay nothing in the interim. These problems within Cal OSHA enforcement do not only affect farmworkers, but they are systemic and prevent the division from adequately enforcing labor laws and leaving millions of Californians without the support that they need.

This audit will provide the data we as legislators need to understand these issues so that we can begin to address them, reform and improve Cal OSHA and ensure the safe workplaces for all. Again, I am not here to talk about the understaffing of Cal OSHA. There's been many audits. There's been lots of discussion about that. The focus of my audit is about enforcement and citations. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Ortega. Motion's been made. Mr. State Auditor, time is now yours for your analysis.

Assemblymember Ortega seeks an audit to better understand the causes behind Cal OSHA's challenges when attempting to enforce health and safety laws to protect workers. When we looked at the audit request, it basically involves four main areas. The first area that I'll talk about is really a data analysis question where over a five year period we're going to be mapping the complaints that come into Cal OSHA.

Of those complaints, understanding how many of those were investigated, of those that were investigated, how many found that there was wrongdoing, and of that, what were the fines that were imposed and how much was ultimately paid.

That's kind of item one, understanding what's the lifecycle from a data perspective of the volume of complaints and what was done with those complaints over a five year period. The second area where we'll look at during the audit is really taking a hard look at what is Cal OSHA's process for investigating complaints.

That's going to involve both looking at its policies and procedures, but also selecting a sample of complaint investigations to understand. Are they following their policies to what degree? For example, we see inconsistencies in their approach.

So we expect a fair amount of work understanding both what's the expectation in terms of how investigations are done, and then from a practical matter, how are they actually proceeding with conducting those investigations and wrapped in that is understanding how do they decide what investigations that they're going to launch versus ones they're going to decide isn't worth the effort or perhaps aren't as severe.

So we'll be following up with Cal OSHA on how they make some of those decisions. The third area where we're going to look during the audit is Assemblymember Ortega seeks information on how Cal OSHA decides to impose fines and then reduces those fine amounts. So we'll be having discussions with their staff about what's the rationale for the fine-setting process. When do you, or when don't you decide to reduce those fines?

And also taking a look at, well, how many employers have repeatedly been fined and how much have they been paid, and then fourth, and finally, the last part that the audit is going to cover really seeks information on the number of vacancies at Cal OSHA and what the agency has done with any savings that has resulted from those vacancies.

How have those savings been used? I'm anticipating a fair amount of work from our information technology auditors to obtain that data set that I talked about as the first of the four items, the lifecycle of how much is coming into the organization. But overall, it's roughly 3500 hours to complete and we have the resources to start it.

And so with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, State Auditor Parks. Senator Cortese, you have a question?

Thank you, Chair. Let me just say, first of all, I'm very supportive of the audit, and I was here in one of these rooms for the informational hearing, which I think led to the conclusion that an audit like this would be necessary.

That said, I have a question that's in the context of budget, and I know the Auditor's not here from finance or budget, but given at least the proposal that's on the table in the May Revise to permanently eliminate vacant positions, will that be taken into account in the audit?

It sounds like it would be, because it sounds like at least in that fourth item, you would be exploring the impact of those vacancies or what happens to the money.

But I think it would be important to us all, as you're doing your 3500 hours of work on this and the budget continues to unfold, that if there's significant provisions like that that are doing more than delaying positions, but actually permanently eliminating them, that we would get that back as part of the report.

Yes, I would agree with you. I think part of our analysis would include not only what has been the department's approach prior to the current budget situation that we find ourselves in, but given the budget situation that we're in now, what is the department's plan with those vacancies, and are they eliminating positions and to what extent?

Thank you.

Any other questions? We'll go now to the affected agencies. Please make a presentation, and if you'd limit your comments to three minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Katie Hagen. I'm the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations and in effect, the State Plan Administrator for Cal OSHA. Thank you, Chair Hart, Committee Members. To understand where Cal OSHA is now and where it's headed, it's important to look back.

During COVID our agency rolled out across the state to prevent the spread. We responded to a record number of complaints and reports of serious injuries, educated employers on hazard reduction strategies, developed emergency COVID-19 regulations, and connected directly with workers in their communities to ensure they knew their rights under the law.

There were times when we were even addressing COVID and extreme heat hazards simultaneously. Our team was stretched. Like most employers across the nation, we saw a large number of separations and retirements. We redirected team members from other inspection and permitting functions and borrowed staff from other departments to maximize our impact.

We saw the challenges of Cal OSHA's existing paper-based inspection and case management process, and limitations of the division's existing office footprint. I share these challenges to acknowledge the need for capacity building within Cal OSHA to strengthen their efforts to safeguard California workers and by walking through recent metrics and efforts underway briefly, I hope you will see our progress.

First, I do want to take a moment to express my gratitude to the Cal OSHA team across the state, whose commitment and dedication to the mission has not wavered. While Assemblymember Ortega's audit request letter states that staffing is not the focus of this request, the fact is, historic vacancy challenges have impacted Cal OSHA's work. I'm proud to say that we've made significant progress. In 2022, Cal OSHA's vacancy rate was 36%. Today, it is 29%. That means 62 more team members on board.

We've added more administrative resources to Cal OSHA and DIR's HR shop to scale our hiring efforts and launched a nationwide recruitment campaign for enforcement positions, which you can see at dircareers.com. We've opened new offices in the Central Valley, the central coast and Inland Empire after hearing from community partners that they needed a larger presence to better serve vulnerable workers.

We're also in the midst of standing up an enforcement unit dedicated to the unique hazards and work sites of agriculture workers.

We are currently modernizing Cal OSHA's case management system, leveraging technology to better equip our inspectors in the field and in the office, along with an online portal for the public to file complaints and see the status real time. We are already seeing an impact. Since 2021, year over year, Cal OSHA has performed more inspections.

For comparison, in fiscal year 2023, the division conducted 1300 inspections when compared to 2021. We report these statistics, as well as others annually to federal OSHA. I share your desire and commitment to transparency.

That is why we provide many of the statistics requested in the audit letter on our website and at our regular Advisory Committee meetings, and why we actually initiated our own internal audit of Cal OSHA's enforcement activities to ensure consistency and accuracy across the state.

This request would trigger DIR's second JLAC audit within a year, as we are still concluding an audit initiated over eight months ago in the Labor Commissioner's office, the ongoing audit has engaged over 50 DIR staff members, necessitated the submission of more than 200 documents, and involved numerous walkthroughs of DIR systems of subject matter experts.

While we will certainly comply if the audit request is approved, it is important for the Committee to understand the operational implications on both the DIR and Cal OSHA team, particularly amidst the ongoing organizational initiatives I've highlighted. Thank you for your time and attention. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much, Director Hagen, are there questions from the dais? Senator Seyarto?

Thank you and thank you for your response here to the audit. So, given that the audit request seems to be requesting information that you have pretty much told us, usually when we have these audit hearings, the people come up and say that's not happening.

But in this case, you acknowledge that there are some shortcomings and that your agency is already addressing them. I'm not sure, perhaps later we can ask the other question.

What more do you think would come from this audit, from your agency, other than maybe they decide how many people you should have versus how many people you don't have or that you have now? You think this would be helpful in identifying any other issues that you're having?

Is the question addressed to me?

Yes, it's addressed to you.

Thank you for the question. I think that any opportunity for transparency is a good one in government. I've been in this field for almost 30 years and been through my share of audits. I think this would be an easy lift for us because as I indicated in my letter to you all yesterday and today, a lot of this information is publicly available.

I do think the Assemblymember raises some good questions about collections at the appeals process, but much of that is due process and in labor code, which, you know, the Department has little impact over.

So I do think that, again, there are some good policy questions being posed, but I can't-- I don't know that it's worth the Committee's time when all of this information is available and I'm ready and willing and able to meet with anybody who would like to have additional information offline outside of the audit process as well.

Senator Min.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you, Assemblywoman, for bringing this forward. I guess this is an important set of issues, but I just want to associate myself with the comments of my colleague Senator Seyarto. I mean, I guess I'm wondering, what do you hope to accomplish with the audit?

And has the Director been-- I'm sorry, Director or Secretary-- Director been uncooperative? Is there a reason that we need an audit as opposed to just seeking these answers voluntarily?

We have seeked the answers in terms of the, again, we have a lot of data on the vacancy rates. We've received reports on the progress they have made, but to date, I have not received an answer on the investigations from the beginning to end, when the fines happen, what is the decision-making process?

And then why are we settling for so much less that information? And I have my consultant from the Labor Committee here who has digged into every single document that we have received and have not been able to get that information, which is why I requested the audit at the hearing that Senator Cortese was at as well, we repeatedly ask these questions and I still don't have answers.

Maybe I'll just flip that to the Director then. Is there a reason that your office is not responsive on these particular requests?

I believe we have been. I met with the member after the hearing. I was not at the last hearing. My team was and asked if there was any additional information I could provide.

I did, with my team, assemble a list of links to information and sent it all in a letter that I hope you all received yesterday with trying to go line by line through the audit ask to see if I could possibly provide the information that was being requested.

I did also note there was two pieces in the letter of information that I do not have because we don't collect it, and harassment specifically is not covered under our jurisdiction. That would be the office of civil rights. But other than that, there are lots of opportunities to engage.

Assemblymember Rubio.

Yes, a question. So what you mean by providing links? So you sent the list of links to the Assembly Member?

Yes. And the Committee last night,

But links, but she's not requesting links, she's requesting the information from you. And I think that's where the discrepancy is.

As you can imagine, we are all busy and I doubt that the Assemblymember has time to click on the links and that's why we're requesting, or she's requesting the information from you and that's probably why we're here. If you send links--

I sent it yesterday in preparation for this discussion.

Yeah, but if you send links, I hope you understand that that's not what the request is, it's actual documents. So when you say you provided links, it just sounds very--

To publicly available reports. For example, federal OSHA audits us annually, and there's a lot of this information contained in the federal reports available on our website.

The reports were actually provided to the Assemblymember or--?

Well, the links to the reports.

Right. See, that's the discrepancy here. You're sending links--

You would like me to print out the documents and send them. I'd be more than happy to do that.

Or not. Or we can have the Auditor collect information from you. So that's the whole point, right? If she's not receiving the information, that's why we're here. A link doesn't help and maybe communicate with the Assemblymember as to what specifically she's looking for. Cause I doubt-

I did that, ma'am. I met with the Assemblymember after the last hearing and asked if I could provide any additional information if she wanted to ask me questions. So I just would like to add that to the record that I did reach out.

But again, we're not here because all the questions were answered I believe.

I understand that.

So that's where we're, you know, it's the semantics again, providing links doesn't help us, it's providing information. And even if you don't want to print the reports, then state, you know, would you like me to print any of these reports as opposed to just sending a letter with links? The communication is key. That's why we're here.

I think if you use the word transparent, transparency would be, would you like me to provide those documents in the event that, you know, how many links were provided, do you know? On the list?

I believe there were eight or nine. It was an addendum to my letter where I directed folks if they wanted additional information. You all received the letter.

Yes. No, no, I understand that. But when you provided those links, did you say to the Assemblymember, here are the links, you are welcome to look at that.

I believe she was copied on the memo.

Okay, so nothing was provided to the Assemblymember? The links.

I provided a copy of the letter that I sent to this Committee.

Right, but the point is that if we're providing links, then that's not what she's requesting. I don't know about all the other Assemblymembers or Senators, but I don't have that kind of time to sit there and click on links. If there's a specific question, then that's what she's asking for.

We can avoid all of this by just being transparent and providing that information.

More than happy to meet or provide whatever information is requested by the Member.

Well, we're here now, so thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Boerner.

Thank you. If the information happens to be embedded somewhere in those many links and documents, it's my understanding that our policy of the State Auditor, and the State Auditor can probably answer this best, that all that information that's already reported would be used in the audit, and thereby, if all the information Assemblymember Ortega is looking for is actually there, that would reduce the number of audit hours.

Is that my understanding? Is that understanding correct?

That understanding is generally correct. I would caveat it with saying that it's not just publicly available information. We would do some due diligence to make sure what's publicly reported is in fact accurate based on the underlying documents.

And I think that's really important. I mean, I know I've worked with state agencies and I think their intentions can be the best, but if I don't have my questions answered, and I think Assemblymember Ortega has been clear about which questions are not answered, which is why we have an audit before us today.

I think it's our legislative oversight requirement to go and look into those things to make sure that we're getting those answers that really affect how our government works for real people.

Senator Seyarto. Okay, are there any other questions? Are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this item? Now is your time, and I just ask that you keep your comments to one minute each. I don't see anyone coming forward. So, Assemblymember Ortega, would you like to make some closing remarks?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion from Assemblymember Boerner. Is there a second? Second by Assemblymember Rubio. Secretary, could you please call the roll?

Motion to approve audit request number 2024-115 Division of Occupational Safety and Health Oversight and Enforcement by Assemblymember Ortega.

[Roll Call]

Members that audit is approved. Thank you very much. Next up is Assemblymember Zbur and his audit is number 2024-107 the California Healthy Youth Act Implementation. Welcome, Assemblymember Zbur.

Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you. The California Healthy Youth Act, or CHYA, was enacted in 2016 to provide every student with the knowledge and skills to protect their sexual and reproductive health from unintended pregnancy, HIV, and STIs.

CHYA requires students in grades 7 through 12 to receive comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education at least once in middle school and once in high school. The content must be age-appropriate, medically accurate, and help to promote understanding of sexuality as a normal part of human development.

CHYA has a strong emphasis on healthy relationships, providing students with the knowledge and skills they need to build and maintain healthy relationships, and how to avoid unhealthy behaviors such as sexual harassment and intimate partner violence.

Instruction must also recognize different sexual orientations, be inclusive of same sex relationships when examples of relationships are discussed, and teach students about gender, gender expression, and gender identity.

Research demonstrates that receiving comprehensive sexual education results in healthier behaviors and lower rates of unplanned teen pregnancy, HIV, and STIs. Instruction that is inclusive of LGBTQ+ people also has enormous positive benefits on the mental health and well-being of LGBTQ students and lowers rates of bullying, harassment, and violence.

Unfortunately, there's evidence that many school districts across the state have not fully implemented key provisions of the law.

A 2022 report from Equality California analyzed self-reported data from over 100 unified school districts and found that 13% of districts do not provide sexual health education and 24% do not provide instruction that is LGBTQ+ inclusive, and this is likely a significant undercount given that these data only include districts that chose to respond to the survey.

Recent news reports have also highlighted resistance to implementing key aspects of CHYA, particularly its mandate that sexual health education incorporate discussion of LGBTQ+ people and relationships. I'm requesting an audit of high school and middle school, and unified school districts to determine whether and at which grade levels they provide CHYA-compliant instruction.

An audit will provide independently developed and verified information to gain a better understanding of local CHYA implementation. It will help us identify potential actions that can be taken to support school districts struggling to implement the law. As well as assist in holding intentionally noncompliant districts accountable for not providing students the education that they need and deserve.

It is the state's responsibility to ensure that all students, regardless of where they're educated, receive the instruction they need to live healthy and productive lives. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time, and with me today is Craig Pulsipher, the Legislative Director for Equality California, and Melodie Kruspodin, Prevention Specialist for California Partnership to End Domestic Violence.

Their sponsors of the audit request today, they're here to provide additional information and assist with questions. I don't know if it's appropriate to allow them to speak.

First, we'll go to State Auditor Parks. Thank you, Assemblymember Zbur.

Yeah. Assemblymember Zbur is requesting an audit to examine statewide implementation of the California Healthy Youth Act. And the audit request raises concerns over whether districts have fully implemented key provisions of the law regarding curriculum, whether it includes information on LGBTQ+ people, and how to maintain respectful and healthy relationships. The audit scope is primarily in two parts.

The first part is going to entail a survey of the school districts that the Assemblymember mentioned, and in that survey, we'll be asking and seeking information. For example, at what grade levels do you provide the instruction? We'd be asking for an inventory of the topics covered during the instruction.

We'd also be asking questions about, district by district, what particular barriers you may have faced in implementing the law.

And the survey would also ask questions about to what extent are you seeing parents or guardians opt out and at what rates, and trying to understand what proportion of the students are completing the courses versus those that have been exempted from it.

In addition to the survey to understand how implementation is going on, the audit request also has a select a selection of school districts to actually go visit. So it's not just a survey that we would be doing.

We would be on the ground at a selection of school districts to talk to school administrators and school officials, to review the curriculum in person, to understand how school districts are implementing the law, and hopefully to make recommendations to provide useful information to policy officials up here so that you have a clearer picture on how the act is being implemented on the ground.

The second area and the final area that we would look at really deals with how the districts are providing training to educators to make sure that they're qualified to provide the training under the Healthy Youth Act and to what extent applicable teachers receive that training. Overall, it's a medium sized audit.

I think a lot of our work is going to be administering the survey. I think there's going to be a fair number of districts that we'll have to hit. Also, a significant portion is going to be dealing on the ground at the school districts that we visit.

I estimate the audit will take just over 3,700 hours to complete.

Thank you, Auditor Parks. Now I'd like to invite the affected agencies. Would you please limit your comments to three minutes each? Thank you. I meant the Member witnesses. You fixed it. Wrong word.

So thank you to the Committee for having us here today. My name is Melodie Kruspodin. I'm a Prevention Specialist with the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence. We are California's state-recognized domestic violence coalition, representing California survivors advocates and domestic violence organizations across the state.

You know, we believe that CHYA is of vital importance and that healthy relationship and violence prevention education. As part of AB-329 in 2015, which established the law, one of the purposes is to include new language relating to adolescent relationship use and reinforcing a focus on healthy relationships.

According to the CDC, one in three adolescents report verbal, emotional, physical, or sexual dating abuse each year, and survivors of teen dating violence have increased risk for truancy, dropout, teen pregnancy, suicide, experiencing eating disorders, and engaging in other harmful behaviors such as use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs.

And youth who are survivors in high school are at greater risk of victimization during college, and adolescent perpetrators of dating violence are more likely to abuse their intimate partners as adults. Schools are where young people go to learn the life skills they need to be healthy adults, and it's at this critical age that this education be provided.

Many youth do not learn what it means to be in a healthy relationship at home and often receive unhealthy modeling, whether that be from family, peers, or the media. And youth need education on how to address this in their lives and on campus because students can't learn if they don't feel safe.

This education is a required part of CHYA, but we know that implementation has been uneven across the state. Teen dating violence and sexual violence prevention educators are denied access to provide this education to schools and to students and school districts.

We have spoken with community based organizations who partner with schools to provide healthy relationship and sexual violence education and have heard their direct feedback that many schools and school districts are not open to receiving this support.

And when the organizations communicate to schools that this education will help them come into compliance with CHYA, these schools and school districts still turn down the opportunities for partnership, though the school does not have their own practices in place to meet this educational requirement.

By preventing domestic violence, we also address significant long term health impacts of domestic violence in adulthood. We know that people have healthier lives when they're given the knowledge and skills they need to have positive and safe relationships and behaviors.

Dating and domestic violence is not inevitable and can be prevented before it occurs, and an audit is necessary to gain a deeper understanding of the issues and develop recommendations for improving implementation. Thank you.

Alright. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California, one of the organizational sponsors of this audit. Over the past several years, we've sponsored numerous laws aimed at supporting and protecting LGBTQ students, including the California Healthy Youth Act, to ensure that students in California receive accurate and inclusive HIV prevention and sex education.

In California, roughly 10% of middle and high school students identify as LGBTQ, and LGBTQ students too often are made to feel invisible in health classes when their specific health concerns are not addressed. LGBTQ inclusive education has been shown to have a positive impact on school climate and make LGBTQ youth feel safer at school.

Comprehensive sex-ed also has been shown to reduce HIV and STI diagnoses and lead to better health outcomes overall. Unfortunately, we know that many school districts have not fully implemented the law for a variety of reasons.

In 2022, Equality California released the results of a survey that we do on a regular basis, our safe and supportive school survey, which included self reported responses. It's an optional survey of 118 unified school districts about their policies concerning a wide range of issues, including LGBTQ inclusive curriculum.

The report found that 13% of districts do not offer mandatory sex education and 24% do not offer instruction that is LGBTQ inclusive. And these data, again, are likely significant underestimates given that it is optional and over half of school districts did not respond to the survey.

This audit is an important next step to provide really more in depth information related to implementation of the California Healthy Youth Act, including whether instruction includes information about LGBTQ bodies and relationships and will really help us to get a more in depth understanding of barriers that school districts are having in implementing the California Healthy Youth Act and additional steps that the Legislature can take to ensure that all California students receive the education they need and respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you both for your comments. Are there any questions from the dias? Motion has been made and seconded. It was made by Senator Gonzalez or Assemblymember Boerner and then seconded by Senator.

I think it was Senator Gonzalez. I had a question.

All right, we'll figure it out. Your question?

Yes. What is the methodology that you're proposing, for which school districts will be selected?

I think at a high level, we'd be taking a look at all school districts where this act would apply so my understanding there's roughly 345 unified school districts there are 76 high school districts that are either 7 to 12 or 9 to 12 and there are also 411 elementary school districts that go up to K-8 so that would be the middle school component of it so my intention would be to survey all of them.

Any other questions? All right next go to members of the public who'd like to provide comments now is the time I ask that you keep your comments to one minute each. I don't see anyone so that brings it back to us Assemblymember Zbur, do you have any closing comments you'd like to make?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Gonzalez and a second by Senator Min. Secretary, could you please call the roll?

Motion to approve, audit request number 2024-107, California Healthy Youth Act implementation by Assemblymember Zabur. [Roll Call]

The audit is approved.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up is Senator Min and his audit is number 2024-103. The City of Huntington Beach Pacific Airshow settlement agreement. Senator Min, welcome. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate it. So, the audit I'm requesting is for one of the City of Huntington Beach's settlement agreement with Pacific Airshow LLC. To review the use of public funds to compensate the airshow for revenues supposedly lost due to the cancellation of one day of the 2021 air show following the oil spill off the coast of Huntington Beach.

Now, you may remember back then, there was a major oil spill off the coast of HB, on October 1, 2021. In conjunction with the state, with the County of Orange, the County of Oranges Healthcare Services, the City of Huntington Beach made the decision to close the beach for Sunday, thus effectively forcing the cancellation of the last of a four-day air show in 2021.

We'll note that the state itself, as well as Laguna Beach, also closed the beaches and this decision was a coordinated one. Pacific Airshow subsequently sued the City of Huntington Beach to recover revenues it lost due to the cancellation of the airshow.

I will note that the air show did not have a contract with the city, but just an event permit granted by the city.

While there is no dispute that Pacific Airshow lost revenues due to the cancellation of the 2021 event, the last day of that, the settlement agreement reached between the City of Huntington Beach and the Pacific Airshow has not provided any information as to how the settlement payments were calculated or if they exceed appropriate compensation, and thus constitute a gift of public funds.

Numerous requests have been made for substantiating documentation for the settlement agreement from the City of Huntington Beach, but to date, nothing has been provided and it's clear that there needs to be oversight as to whether this decision to enter into the settlement agreement was a misuse of public funds. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Min. Mr. State Auditor, now the time is yours for your analysis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Min is seeking information on the nature of and the rationale behind the settlement agreement, including information on the amount the city will pay. The audit is basically in four parts. The first part deals with how did the city select Pacific Airshow as the events producer.

The second area focuses on how much the city has paid to the vendor for any and all services over a four-year period from 2019-20 through 2022-23.

Third, the audit asks us to evaluate what was the city's rationale for entering into the agreement, given the permit agreement, and how does the amount the city will pay compare to the amount the city would have been obligated to pay had the airshow not been canceled.

And fourth, and finally, the audit request asks us to evaluate does the city's event permit reasonably protect the city's financial interests and comply with applicable procurement rules and city policies? Overall, it's a very straightforward, limited audit request.

What I will say at the outset, however, is I understand there is some ongoing litigation pertaining to this audit with respect to the settlement agreement itself and whether it can be publicly disclosed. So that may have some impact on our ability to be as specific as we would otherwise otherwise like to be.

Those are issues we'll have to work out during the audit in combination in talking to the city and our own legal analysis of the documents that we obtain. It shouldn't impact our ability to obtain the records we need. Rather, it may impact the level of specificity that we're able to talk in a public audit report.

But my commitment to the Committee and to the requester is we will be, as you know, specific as we can be as we go through those materials. Overall, I estimate the audit will take roughly 2,300 hours to complete.

Thank you, Auditor Parks. Now we'll go to the affected agencies and if you'd please limit your comments, identify yourselves please, and then limit your comments to three minutes each.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Eric Parra, Interim City Manager and Chief of Police for the City of Huntington Beach. Thank you for the opportunity to present. The air show is vitally important to the City of Huntington Beach. This is an event that's a once-in-a-lifetime event for people to see.

During 21, as you've heard, they had a cancellation of the air show which resulted in litigation. For 202, the event producer made it clear that the air show would not occur unless there was a settlement and there was numerous settlement negotiations, including impasse a couple of times.

The City Council decided to, they had several meetings, they decided to settle this appropriately and as a charter city. They're not using state funds for this, it's general fund. They made that determination after numerous meetings and the city's contention is that it was an appropriate settlement. I'm going to turn it over to City Attorney, Michael Gates, for a few more comments.

Thank you, Mr. Parra. Thank you, Chair and Joint Committee for hearing us and having us here today. My name is Michael Gates. I'm the City Attorney of Huntington Beach.

I do have somewhat of a unique vantage point in that I was there every step of the way during the cancellation and also the litigation and the settlement. In the January 3, 2024 letter to Chair Hart, Senator Dave Min requests an audit of the 2023 Pacific Airshow settlement with the City of Huntington Beach.

Yet the letter fails to cite any legal authority for this request, and the premise for the request is infirm. Senator Min seeks a detailed financial and process audit of the permitting of the airshow and the 2023 settlement agreement as a misuse of public funds.

Just a quick timeline, Pacific Airshow LLC made it clear in 2022, after 2021, the 2021 cancellation, and in early 2023, that as long as Pacific Airshow is mired in disputes with the city over the 2021 air show cancellation, the annual air show was not going to occur as usual in the fall of 2023.

An independent economic impact study from 2022 revealed that the annual Huntington Beach Airshow brought in over $100 million in positive economic impact to the region each year. Huntington Beach has benefited from hundreds of thousands of visitors to this annual event and millions in additional tax and parking revenue.

Negotiations between the city and Pacific Airshow LLC over its lawsuit spanned many months. They were extremely difficult negotiations. I was personally involved, and on a couple of occasions settlement discussions broke down with total impasse on both sides.

After five months of negotiations, Pacific Airshow LLC and the city agreed to a compromise in exchange for the dismissal of the city from the lawsuit. The matter settled this with the city in May of 2023.

The City Council Members since have made it clear in various public statements that the compromise of $5 million paid over six years to Pacific Airshow was a smart business decision for the city in order to secure future airshows and the attendant millions in economic benefit, and also to eliminate the risk associated with proceeding in the lawsuit and proceeding to trial.

The 5 million to be paid over six years comes out of the city's general fund and not from any funds linked to state funding.

Huntington Beach is a charter city, as Mr. Parra mentioned. The California Supreme Court has repeatedly held and instructed that charter cities have the autonomy to spend their resources as they deem fit when it comes to their own municipal affairs. This lies at the heart of the constitutional home rule doctrine found in the California Constitution, Article 11, Section Five.

For example, in Johnson v. Bradley - 4 Cal.4th 389, the California Supreme Court upheld a local law that allowed for city financing of election campaigns despite a conflicting state law.

In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court said, we can think of nothing that is of greater municipal concern than how a city's tax dollars will be spent, nor anything which could be of less interest to taxpayers of other jurisdictions, and that's found at page 407 of the opinion.

Other courts have likewise recognized that when a project is being funded exclusively by local dollars, the manner in which those funds are spent is unquestionably a municipal affair. You can also refer to the case City of Pasadena v. Charleville, 215 Cal. 384

The Court of Appeal has also instructed the money to be expended belongs to the city and the control of its expenditure is a municipal affair. Also, in Vial v. City of San Diego, 122 Cal.App.3d 346. We believe that as a matter of law, the requested audit is not justified or proper.

And as a matter of fact, the record shows that the 2023 settlement with Pacific Airshow was justified, at least in public comments, by the City Council, as a prudent decision to ensure future air shows and the related vast economic benefits to the city and as importantly, to avoid any risk associated with proceeding to trial.

And with that, Chair, I've concluded my statement and I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much for your comments. State Auditor Parks, could you speak to the authority of the Committee and your office to audit?

Sure. And I may have my Chief Counsel come to the table as I make some opening remarks. Under government code Section 8546.1, we're authorized to audit any local government agency, including any city, county, school, or special district. We have authority, in our view, to audit a charter city.

I also think of our local high risk program where we frequently go out and audit cities repeatedly. And there's nothing about our audit work, in my judgment, that would be a threat to home rule. Our audits provide transparency and we make recommendations to cities. We don't mandate and require cities to implement our recommendations.

So nothing that we would do would require through a mandate that the city takes specific action. And I don't know. My Chief Counsel, Stephanie Ramirez-Ridgeway is here if she wanted to expand on my remarks.

Thank you, Mr. State Auditor. Your answer was thorough and correct. The bottom line is there is absolutely no California case that prohibits the California State Auditor's Office from auditing publicly created entities. That's plain language in the statute you all wrote and enacted.

Thank you. Senator Wilk.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So before getting here, I was on a community college board, and there's many times we settled lawsuits. Oftentimes I did not want to settle them because I knew that we were in the right, but we settled it anyway because it was going to be cheaper in the long run.

So my question is, I'm not sure who's the proper person to ask is, because in there it says gift of public funds. Who determines if it is a gift? Is there some statutory threshold for that or. So that's where I'm getting some confusion on.

Thank you, Senator. And I think the answer is we actually have no idea as far as the threshold. Like, look, we get into gray areas in the law all the time, and I would just rebut one aspect.

I think the Auditor did a good job of rebutting the idea that charter cities are somehow exempt from the authority of this body. I would also make the contention that home rule does not protect lawbreaking, that the rule of law applies to everybody, including city officials for charter cities, that no one is exempt from the State of California's generally applicable laws.

As far as, you know, as we know, sometimes the law is going to have gray areas that are hard to dissect. Sometimes it's going to be very clear. We have no evidence.

There was no evidence, no facts ever presented to the public as to the rationale for this lawsuit. And I will just say no other city or the county was settled similarly along these lines. Now we know that the state was mandated, I believe a shutdown of this particular beach, Huntington Beach, went along with that.

We know that, I think 7 or $8 million was what the air show asked for and what the City Council decided was to give them par, exactly what they'd asked for with, no, this wasn't a settlement, I believe, so much as it was just a capitulation to the demands.

But I don't have that information because I don't know, because we don't have any information. So I think what we are trying to get here is some transparency as to why was this lawsuit settled when it looked, frankly, like a meritless lawsuit from the outside? What were the merits of it? What was the justification?

What were the calculations that went into this? And what I've heard a lot of is, hey, the air show was going to provide lots of future benefits. That may be true again, I don't have any data on that either, but that's not really what a lawsuit's supposed to be about.

It's supposed to be about the cost benefit of the legal claims involved, not about potential future revenues from doing business with the same actor. Here, I think you have a fiduciary duty and an obligation to protect taxpayers.

That may or may not have been the goal of the city council and the city attorney here enforcing the settlement agreement. But again, we're just looking for answers.

So where's the line between a bad decision and some illegal act, I'd say that's what I'm struggling with.

I'll put it to you this way. If, like the legal analysts determine that this case was worthless and that the airshow, let's just say it's a hypothetical, was only able to show $50,000 in damages, and yet the city were to settle for 7-$8 million, as was the case here, 5 million, plus a number of other things that add up to 7 million in total.

I think you'd say that probably crossed the line, right? Now again, you get in those gray areas. I'm not making any determination as to whether the city, this was a public gift. We would just like information to start making that determination ourselves.

Okay. And then question for the Auditor, are you going to be able to determine that?

So when we look at objective four in the audit request, it really gets at how did the city go about calculating the amounts to be paid under the settlement agreement, and what was the rationale?

So, the focus of the audit, again, to the extent that I can be as specific as I can in a public report, trying to provide some transparency about how the city reached those amounts, so that the residents of the city and the public in general, can understand the thought process behind the amounts that were paid.

Assemblymember Patterson.

I'm troubled by this. I'm a former mayor of a charter city, Fresno, California. At the heart of this, I think, is an allegation of illegality. And you want the Auditor to go in and either disprove it or prove it. How do you have jurisdiction in order to enter into that kind of an audit?

If I might answer that question.

I'm asking the Auditor.

But it's my audit. And I think.

I'm asking the Auditor.

But if you might, sir, I think you missed what I asked. If you.

No! No, I'm taking privilege of this seat. The Auditor is the one that needs to be answering these questions.

Mr. Parks.

So under objective four, when we approach this audit, our focus will be to understand how the city calculated the amounts that it paid to specific airshow. I don't envision us making any conclusion about whether that was an appropriate or inappropriate decision. This is purely about the decision making process that went into that payment.

And again, I would caveat it with the specificity that we have our ability to be specific in a public report would be potentially limited by any lawsuits that's ongoing currently. To also answer your question, what authority do we have to audit a city? Government Code 8546.1 grants us the authority to audit all cities.

I understand that, but you are being put in the place of a judge and jury.

We would not be passing a legal judgment. We are not a legal body.

Well, you are being asked to determine how did they get it. When you have those findings, who is going to assess or make a determination one way or the other, whether this was satisfactory or whether this was somehow lawlessness

The public. I just, if I could add on to that, Mr. Chair, I don't think in any way, shape, or form are we asking for this to be a criminal investigation. We're just looking for more answers.

And I don't believe anywhere in the scope of the audit request does it ask for anything related to any kind of judgment or finding of such. We're just really looking for information that the city has not been willing to provide so far.

Senator Seyarto and then Assemblymember Valencia then Senator Laird.

Thank you. So along those lines, whether there's statute or not, you know, there's a blurring of the responsibilities between federal, state, and local governments. That's what a City Council is for, frankly. I was on a city council and also mayor of a city also. And we had lots of agreements, and some of them the citizens didn't agree with.

And so their course of action was to come and yell at us at the council meeting until we gave them the information that they thought they wanted, because there's no reason to hide it. The reasons that the city has given for entering into an agreement with something like the airshow.

And it's kind of funny, because in 22, I think it was, we rented a house down there to watch the air show. We were part of the economic development effort there, the economic effort there. So at some point it becomes a business decision between the city and the entity.

Whether they're going to be able to continue to have that entity provide that economic benefit to the city. It's not our role. I feel like, you know, I keep hearing Huntington Beach, and I feel like the state got their eye on Huntington Beach for whatever reason, and we're going to keep piling on.

And I don't see this as a legitimate audit for the state to be doing, especially in the fiscal environment that we're operating in now, to use our resources to go get in between a lawsuit that was settled between a city and a private entity, that their city council has full authority to say no, yesm and answer to citizens for.

So I'm really struggling with why you think the state should intervene in what the city is doing in this particular case.

Is that a question or comment? We're not trying to intervene in what they're doing. We're asking for answers, which, again, you pointed out you would give the information. The information has not been provided. And I think that's the gist of this. The information requested in this audit has not been provided to the public.

And so I think that's what we're looking for.

As a follow-up to that. How did you deal with the public and making sure they had the information they need to ensure that they trusted their city council to make the decision on their behalf, because that's who represents them ultimately?

I appreciate the question, Senator, because I think this answer will shed a lot of light. So on day one, when the settlement agreement was executed, we prepared a memo of the settling terms. There were other portions of the settlement agreement that were not disclosable, and that's in front of a judge right now.

That decision in front of a judge whether to disclose it or not. The terms of the settlement itself, the operative terms that actually settled the lawsuit, were made public on day one visa via memo that was sent to the press.

It was sent to a bunch of people in the community, and community members came, as you said, to council meetings for months after that, complaining. And so we did disclose all of the operative settlement terms.

I can tell you, as one with a unique vantage point that the demands, the initial demands in the case by Pacific Airshow were much higher than what it was ultimately settled for. Negotiations were difficult for Munson. We were at impasse a couple of times. The state has purview over a lot, but it doesn't have purview over everything.

And I will take exception with the government code citation, because it does not say charter cities, the government code, when the Legislature intends a statute to apply to charter cities, it says county, city, charter cities and other political subdivisions. The government code does not say that here.

And if this Committee needs to look no further than the agenda itself, every single item on here is a state project or a state funded project. Except for the Huntington Beach item, every single one is a state project. Those are all within your purview. The Huntington Beach item is the only one. It's the outlier.

And if this council, or, I'm sorry, if this Committee wants to probe further, what you're going to have to do to get the answers that he wants is to pierce closed sessions. And you're never going to get those answers because not only under the penal code but under state law, close session is sacred.

And all of the answers, all the reasons you want for while things were settled, you can't get, and I can't tell you because they were privileged in closed session. That's what closed session is for. That's where all of the decisions were made. So you've heard Senator Min say repeatedly, we want to know why.

We want to know why. We want to know the decision making process. He's basically saying we want to peer into what was discussed in closed session because that's the only way you're going to get it.

Every other way to get information is already a matter of public record, which we have disclosed, except for the settlement agreement, which is before a judge right now. And I will add that this settlement agreement, in an attempt to get more information or to actually, I'm sorry, more clearly prevent the settlement in the first place.

A lawsuit was filed against the City of Huntington Beach and Pacific Airshow to prevent the settlement, to prevent the settlement from going into effect. And that lawsuit was brought for those same reasons. And a judge dismissed that lawsuit.

So a judge was not persuaded, Superior Court judge was not persuaded by Senator Min's arguments to either stop the settlement or release the settlement agreement, and that judge dismissed the case. So this has already been adjudicated in a court of law. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. Senator Laird.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. A few comments given this conversation. First, I am a former Chair of this Committee. I am aware that, in fact, we have audited charter cities. We do it because we audit across the board on the fiscal health of cities and their charter cities that haven't.

You get to wave around this agenda, but if you waved around the past one, you would see that we have an audit because of malfeasance, or alleged malfeasance with the County of San Diego jail and various cities there. If you look at one that happened since I've been back in the Senate.

We audited the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California because of their sexual harassment allegations. That is the habit and practice of this Committee. And I, too, am a former mayor of a charter city.

And when I was sworn in in the City Council the year before, six police officers were accused of 25 counts of felony brutality on unhoused people. And the last people to investigate it should have been the people of that charter city. That would have been a very appropriate audit because it was similar issues in a different way.

That was at the root of the San Diego audit. So I think it's appropriate. The thing that is, I think the difficulty here is that everybody wants to jump to the characterization before we know the facts. Is it a gift to public funds?

Well, is the fact that the loss to the airshow was a million dollars and the payment of the city was 5 or 8 million? It seems to me that if you can get to the facts, then you can have the argument about the characterization.

But the real issue here is what the facts are and whether the facts exist in a way that wasn't clear. And so I think this is an appropriate audit. It's appropriate with a charter city. It's consistent with what we've done as a Committee.

And it is always difficult because, you know, I've served as a School Board Member, as a Mayor, as an Assemblymember, as a Board Member, as a Cabinet Secretary, and you always struggle with what to release or what is out there.

But at the heart of everyone is a kernel of truth, and the heart of everyone is a practice that we would like to learn from and not repeat. And so I am going to, at the appropriate time, support the audit.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Are there any other questions? Senator Cortese.

Thank you, and I appreciate it very much. Senator Laird's eloquent explanation of his interpretation of things today. We just, the Auditor just recently unveiled an audit on homelessness in the State of California. I wrote that audit request. The primary city identified for that audit was the City of San Jose, my home city, which is a charter city.

City showed up here to give their input on that audit request over a year ago, as I recall, and didn't raise any charter city objections. I feel like that issue today needs to be a matter of consistency for the Joint Legislative Audit Committee.

I don't think we can pick and choose whether or not counsel is somehow correct in this particular case. I think there's an issue here in terms of consistency. What the Joint Legislative Audit Committee does and has been doing, Senator Laird pointed to past custom and practice. At a minimum.

I'm doing the same, I suspect, because the issue of a gift of public funds, if, in fact, that's on the table, is actually embodied in the California Constitution, not, you know, necessarily in statute around charter cities, that our Auditor has the right to go in and review any encroachment on the Constitution of the State of California, wherever it's coming from in this state, if it's a matter of public concern.

And then as to the issue of closed session.

Having spent about 30 years in those sessions, I think there's a legitimate interpretation that you have the right and the Brown act intended another state law, by the way, to protect your bargaining position while you're in closed session, so that the very entity that you're negotiating with isn't privy to your bargaining position, whether your offer is high or low or what the details are in the terms that you're wishing to offer and not undermining those elected officials who may want you to start low and move up or whatever that position is.

What I'm not clear on is that that you can withhold from the public the final terms of that agreement once public funds are actually involved or public consideration in terms of the settlement. And perhaps that's something that needs to be adjudicated or litigated at some point further than it has to date in case law.

But again, I don't think that's the jurisdiction of this Committee to, as Senator Laird, I think, alluded to jump ahead and try to anticipate what the interpretation would be of withholding terms of the agreement that Senator Min is looking for pursuant to the Brown Act. I think that's a different question.

And if it's challenging or not, I think the city in this case has to go home and caucus and figure out whether or not they want to challenge the jurisdiction of the state in that regard. With all those comments, I'm going to be supporting.

First of all, let me just say I appreciate all of the debate and discussion here. I understand, I think what council for the city is trying to protect.

I suspect at the end of the day that the city has a right to make a decision about the value of the consideration to arrive at a final contractual agreement of settlement. And that's not going to be an issue in and of itself.

But I also suspect that the public has a right to know what a lot more than they do presently about the final terms of the agreement. I think that's what Senator Min's after and that I'm willing to support today. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. What was mentioned was what purview do we have at the state to, in essence, insert ourselves into whether it's charter or even local government? And that indeed has been the question of our time was mentioned is why is Huntington Beach making headlines? Are they being picked on? Is this something that to be punitive?

The truth is that Huntington Beach is making their own headlines for not following state law. In this case, it's about transparency. This is a request for transparency, not just from community members who have come time after time to Huntington Beach to say this is of their concern.

But when we say the general fund funded this, the general fund is indeed taxpayer dollars, and it is the public's business to know how taxpayer dollars are used. I too was a Sitting Member of the Fullerton City Council, and we often get public records requests.

There has been an explosion of public records requests, and in fact, it is what we now all in public office face. People want information, and whether that information is used in a positive or negative, that is how the public now works.

And we often ourselves, as elected officials, find that we too are part of this information fact finding. But at the core of this, it's about transparency.

And when we say we want transparency and accountability for things like homeless studies, for how we use homeless dollars and what is the state doing with all of these billions of dollars, then we too should be asking those same questions at the local level and be ready to provide that information. We shouldn't.

Yes, we have closed session in closed session, but we should be willing and able to want to share why decisions are made. Obviously, there's certain private information that cannot be disclosed.

But as much as we can be consistent across the state to say, if you want this information for this topic, then we also need to provide it for this topic. So I support that and move this agenda item.

Thank you, Assemblymember Quirk-Silva. Are there any other questions from Members of the Committee? At this time, we'll ask if members of the public have any questions or would like to provide comment. Now is your time. And please keep your comments to 1 minute each. I don't see anyone. So we have a motion on the.

Excuse me, Senator Min, would you like to make a closing comment?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Members, for the robust discussion. This is, as Assemblywoman Quirk-Silva said ultimately about transparency and justice. Louis Brandeis once said, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Excuse me. I will respectfully disagree with some of the conclusions of law made by the City Attorney.

I do think this Committee has the authority to conduct this audit. I do think that this information should be available, and I don't think that anybody, including City Council Members in a charter city, should be considered outside the purview of California State law. With that being said, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion from Assemblymember Quirk-Silva. Is there a second? Second from Assemblymember Valencia. Madam Secretary, could she please call the roll.

Motion to approve, audit request number 2024-103. City of Huntington Beach Pacific Airshow settlement agreement by Senator Min. [Roll Call]

The audit is approved. Can we please call the absent Members on the audit request for add ons?

Motion to elect Assemblymember Hart as Chair of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. [Roll Call]

Motion to approve items on the consent calendar ,2024-104 Orange County section eight program by Assemblymember Quirk-Silva. 2024-105 Department of Cannabis Control Youth Advertising and Marketing enforcement by Assemblymember Irwin.

2024-106, Twin Rivers Unified School District and Highlands Community Charter School programs and oversight by Assemblymember Muratsuchi. 2024-108, Alameda County Department of Children and Family Services by Senator Wahab. 2024-109, Department of Housing and Community Development Housing element reviews, procedures, and oversight by Senator Glazer.

2024-111, California Colleges Affordable Student Housing by Assemblymember Hart. 2024-114 California State Facilities Medical and Mental Health Care Staffing Contracts by Assemblymember Lowenthal. 2024-116 Department of Public Health Office of AIDS by Senator Laird.

And 2024-118, Department of General Services and Department of Human Resources State Telework Policies by Assemblymember Hoover. [Roll Call]

Motion to approve audit request number 2024-107, California Healthy Youth Act implementation by Assemblymember Zbur. [Roll Call]

Motion to approve audit request number 2024-115, Division of Occupational Safety and Health Oversight and Enforcement by Assemblymember Ortega. [Roll Call]

That concludes our business for the day, and I adjourn this hearing. Thank you very much.