Assembly Standing Committee on Education

Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to call this hearing of the Assembly Education Committee to order. Seeing that we do not have a quorum yet, we will hold off on calling the roll to establish a quorum and proceed as a Subcommitee.

I'd like to invite all of the Committee Members that may be watching this on TV from their offices to please come to the room 1100 for today's hearing. We have 22 bills on file today. Two bills have been pulled. Those bills are file item number three, Senate Bill 480, and file item 11, Senate Bill 1063.

So those bills will not be heard today. If you are here for SB 480 or SB 1063, there are 11 bills on consent. They are SB 98 with amendments SB 920, SB 939 with amendments SB 1094, with amendments SB 1138, SB 1315, with amendments SB 1329, SB 1341, SB 1410, SB 1412, and SB 1429. With amendments.

Those bills will be taken up as a group and will not be individually heard. So if you are here for any of those bills, you will not hear any presentation for those bills. Bills will be heard in sign in order.

As a reminder, for each Bill, we will have up to two witnesses in support, two witnesses in opposition. Each witness may speak for up to two minutes. Members of the public in the hearing room will then have an opportunity to state their position. Please only state your name, affiliation and position on the Bill.

Members of the public are also welcome to provide comment through the position letter portal on the Assembly education Committee's website. And so we will. Do we have a sign in sheet? All right, so first in signing order is file item number 10 by Senator Portantino. SB 997. Welcome, Senator. I understand you have a special guest and witness in support of your Bill today, but I'll leave her introduction for you. oh, hold on, Senator.

Hold on, Senator. We're having technical issues. Here we go. Oh, there we go.

I'll start over. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I'd like to start by accepting the committee amendments outlined in the analysis and appreciate the work of your staff and my staff for moving the bill to where it is today. Before you, SB 997 creates a student right to carry Narcan and fentanyl testing strips while at school. It is paramount that our students are equipped with the tools to combat the current opioid epidemic targeting our youth. Fentanyl poisoning and overdose account for roughly 80 percent of all opioid deaths.

Narcan, which is widely known as, reverses the effects of an opioid overdose, providing more time to receive emergency care. Schools, amusement parks, concert venues, and other locations are readily equipped with Narcan, but students themselves are not in the habit of carrying it. It is critical that we empower students to carry these types of life-saving medications so they may begin to habitually carry it. As you know, the only way to know what's there is to test it, and so that's why the testing strips are important.

We want to make sure that students are armed with Narcan and testing strips when they're at school, at parties, movies. We want to make sure that they have safe environments and they can help and play a responsible role in making their world around them healthier. California has taken great measures to ensure a well-supplied stock of Narcan is available in our system in order to protect students, but these efforts do not include the people who populate schools the most, which are our students.

And the more students are able to help their peers when facing an overdose, the less likely the students will face an overdose-related fatality. So with me today, I'm very proud, is Libby Paquette, who is a constituent and a senior at Marlborough School. Libby is a former intern in my office, and she was the inspiration behind this bill, and so, Mr. Chair, she's my expert witness. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Committee Members, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak today. As Senator Portantino said, my name is Libby Paquette, and I'm entering my senior year of high school. I'm here to represent my generation and to urge you to support SB 997.

This bill, authored by Senator Portantino, is crucial for protecting young Californians from opioid overdoses. In the past three years, fentanyl overdoses among middle and high school students has increased nearly 300 percent. This isn't just a statistic, it's a terrifying reality. This bill allows students to carry Narcan and fentanyl test strips, essential tools for preventing overdoses and saving lives.

These resources must be accessible without parental consent. Despite our best efforts, some students will experiment with drugs, and we must equip them with the tools to do so safely. Fentanyl is 50 times more potent than heroin and 100 times more potent than morphine. Even a tiny amount can cause death. Let me share a story with you.

Her name was Melanie. She was 15 years old, and she went to Helen Bernstein High School, a mile away from my high school in Los Angeles. Melanie and a friend bought fake pills that they did not know contained fentanyl. Melanie spent eight hours in the school bathroom unconscious before paramedics found her and pronounced her dead.

Can you imagine the agony that her family felt when they learned that Melanie died from an accidental fentanyl overdose? These are words that no parent should ever have to hear. A test strip in a couple minutes could have saved her life, and if she would have been found sooner, Narcan could have saved her life.

Two-thirds of teens who die from fentanyl overdoses have no prior opioid use. Narcan is a life-saving medication that is now available over the counter, but it needs to be in the hands of all California students. Teens are more likely than school nurses to encounter an opioid overdose and act in time.

Critics say that this may undermine parental authority, but fear of judgment can keep many students from seeking the help that they need. SB 997 ensures students can access these life-saving tools directly. This bill is about saving lives and fostering a culture of awareness and safety. Support SB 997, think of Melanie and countless others, protect youth from opioid overdoses, and ensure a safer and healthier future for California students. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. I'd like to invite public comments in support of the bill. Please come forward. Before we do that, I'd like to call roll to establish quorum.

[Roll Call].

We have quorum. Please proceed.

Thank you. Tom Renfree, on behalf of the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, in support.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Craig Pulsipher, on behalf of Equality California, in support.

Stella Johnson, on behalf of Alameda County Office of Education, in support.

Grace Harrison with the Steinberg Institute, in support.

Seeing no further witnesses in support, any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing no one coming forward, any public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing no one coming forward. Questions or comments from the committee? Motion's been made and seconded by Vice Chair Flora. Seconded by Mr. Alvarez. Is it Ms. Paquette? Yes. Welcome to the State Capitol.

I want to thank you very much for being a voice for students and raising this very important issue. The 300 percent increase in the fentanyl incidence is very disturbing. I'm a father of a teenage daughter in high school, and I'm always--especially when I hear all of the discussion in the State Capitol about the threat of fentanyl, I'm always sharing that with my daughter, and so your effort here today, working with Senator Portantino, is going to help save lives, educate more students about this crisis, and so I want to thank you very much for being here, being a voice for students and making a difference. Senator Portantino, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate your comments. As Libby has outlined, you know, there are real life and death consequences, and we need to arm our students, our young people, with as many tools as we can to make their world safer, and this bill goes a long way to make that happen, and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File Item Ten: SB 997, the motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

5-0. The Bill is out. Congratulations. Okay, next on the sign in order. Okay. Okay. We have Senator Wahab here, so we don't have our usual sign in. Okay. Okay. This is file item 16, Senate Bill 1318. Whenever you write a center.

Members of the public. I'd like to start by accepting the Committee's amendments. SB 1318 ensures that students experiencing a mental health crisis on school campus receive care qualified behavioral health professional. We are experiencing unprecedented surge in child self harm, and it's time for California to take action. We've seen a spike after COVID, or during COVID I should say.

And SB 13 requires the Department of Education to revise their model youth suicide prevention policy to include crisis intervention procedures that prioritize behavioral health professionals and clarify that law enforcement, including resource officers, should only be involved when there is an imminent threat to the student's life.

SB 1318 is a step towards the protection of our children, connecting them to the resources and professionals they need. I would like to introduce two witnesses. Mike Giambona, school psychologist at San Ramon Valley Unified, and Harveer Saini, Director of policy at Generation Up and rising junior at Dublin High.

Good afternoon. I'd like to thank the Senator for introducing this Bill. I think it's something that is very important. As we've seen post Covid, there have been more and more instances of children struggling with mental health and having mental health crises in school and at younger and younger ages.

And the schools serve as the front line in identifying and supporting these students. And I'd like to give you two quick stories to sort of exemplify where the need for this Bill comes in. There was a student who was a 9th grader with high functioning autism and significant anxiety.

When he became stressed, he would hit himself in the head. He would make statements, I wish I was dead. I want to die. One day during his fourth period English class, he was taking an exam and became overwhelmed. He started to hit himself in the head, said, I hate this. I want to die.

His teacher asked him to take a break outside. One of the aides followed him out. He continued to say that and to slap himself in the face. The aide became concerned, asked the teacher to step out, to call the principal, and they did so.

And as it was coming up on lunch and they could not get him to calm down, they decided to put him in a physical restraint. So a two person restraint means that they take him arm in arm and they hold him in the hopes that he will sort of deescalate.

However, without the proper training, those situations escalate the problem, and he couldn't get himself calm. So midway through lunch, they decided to call the school resource officer, who decided that we should 5150 m because they couldn't get him calm. He was not physically combative, but refused to move.

And so they made the decision to put him in a rolling chair. On either side, a staff member held his arms while another staff member stood behind him and held him by the shoulders to get him out to the front gate so that he could access the ambulance.

In order to do that, he had to be wheeled all the way through the lunch crowd, through the main quad, where his older brother and sister witnessed this, as did everyone else, as they also video recorded the situation and ended up on social media.

He loaded into the ambulance, went to the hospital, and 25 minutes later was released. Because he wasn't having a mental health crisis, he didn't require a hold. He simply was overwhelmed and didn't know how to deescalate.

And the staff in that situation didn't have the training and the skill in order to understand and differentiate that, and so wanting to go above and beyond to ensure that his safety, they took something that could have been sort of on the smaller side and made it a much bigger situation and caused significant harm emotionally to him and his family.

Thank you for sharing. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Harveer Saini, and I'm a rising junior at Dublin High School as well as a Director of policy at one of California's largest youth led advocacy organizations, Generation Up aiming to foster educational equality.

Today, I'm here to speak in support of SB 1318 because I firmly believe that crisis intervention protocols are a critical step towards addressing the urgent mental health and people suicide crisis that is affecting the youth in California.

Since 2017, rates of anxiety and depression among California's children have shot up by 70% and there's been a 20% increase in adolescent suicides. It is imperative that youth voices are heard because these issues are directly affecting us every single day.

In my freshman year of high school, one of my best friends of over five years attempted to take her own life. She was in the hospital for almost two weeks and I was devastated. And her story isn't the only one. Mental health conditions like depression and thoughts of suicide are a reality for numerous students just like me.

And several students have taken their life on campus at my school as well as hundreds of schools in California. It cannot be overstated that currently there is a clear lack of adequate resources for these students to get help. As school environments become more competitive and stressful, tackling this issue has become more important than ever.

And that is exactly why crisis intervention protocols and the early involvement of mental health professionals are necessary in the event that a pupil experiences a suicide crisis on campus. Utilizing our school, mental health professionals and trained school staff Members who our students can trust and count on when addressing such crises is imperative.

That is exactly what SB 1318 advocates for. This Bill truly has the potential to save the lives of millions of youth in California, and I strongly urge you to vote yes on SB 1318. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any public comments in support of the Bill, please come forward.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists in support, as well as the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and support. Thank you.

Laura Wasco, on behalf of the California Association of School Psychologists in support of the measure.

Tony Troguero, California Teachers Association proud cosponsors.

Amanda Dickey, on behalf of the Santa Clara County Superintendent Proud co sponsor

John Drebinger with the Steinberg Institute, in support.

Greg Pulsar, on behalf of Equality California, in support.

Estella Johnson on behalf of the California School Nurses Organization, in support.

Bella Kern on behalf of the California Association of School Counselors, in support.

Derek Lennox on behalf of the California county superintendents, in support.

Tristan Brown, CFT Union of Educators and Classified professionals here in support.

Seeing no further public comments and support. Any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing no one coming forward. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? Mister Hoover.

Thank you. Just a question for the author. I think obviously appreciate and respect the goals of this Bill.

I think my only question is in this section as it relates to school resource officers, is there a reason you have that section in there, essentially trying to eliminate their involvement versus potentially requiring additional training or, you know, the districts to offer additional training for the school resource officers so that they can better respond, you know, to the crisis and avoid, obviously these situations like this.

Definitely. We've actually worked with school resource officers as well as the individuals that are actually trained in mental health. Specifically, you heard the long list of supporters. They are all fully trained, licensed individuals that are qualified to be working with students. Number one, people under the age of 18.

Number two is also the fact that their profession is primarily focused on therapy and understanding children and much more. School resource officers are largely police officers. They go through post training, post actually, and I'm chair of public safety. I'm very aware of this does require some mental health training, some de escalation training.

However, it is not suitable enough for the needs of children. Also, children that cannot communicate necessarily how they are feeling.

Also, it takes a little bit more delicate of a touch when it comes to someone who's under the age of 18 and still going through, whether it's hormonal, whether it's chemical, or whether it's just natural lack of being able to understand exactly what's going on and articulate that school resource officers are, number one, still involved if it requires more of their professional skills when it comes to imminent threat, so they are not removed from the process.

But the first thing that we need to prioritize is the De escalation and being able to meet the kid where they're at. And that is what the Bill is really trying to prioritize. And some of these folks that have actually spoken in support also represent the school resource office officers. So that's how the Bill is designed.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I definitely agree with the De escalation portion of your comments. I do kind of one of my concerns is that we're going to continue to have the situation where staff may not know where that line is crossed.

And so I would hate for administrators or teachers to be nervous about calling in a school resource officer if they don't quite know where that line is on whether there's a threat in place or something like that. But I appreciate the answer. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions from the Committee, Senator Wahab? Just following on Mister Hoover's questions. So under your Bill, what would a school resource officer do if she or he were the first to see the need for intervention?

Is there anything in the Bill that would prevent a school resource officer from intervening if they are the first to be there?

Not necessarily. And again, school resource officers do have some training. Again, not to the level that some of these other professionals have their training. So I want to prioritize that. I also want to prioritize the fact that teachers largely know their students. They spend almost a year, if not six months, with a student.

And these teachers are also very much qualified to know, okay, things are escalating. You know, this kid is not necessarily behaving the way that they've done for the last several weeks and so forth.

So if they feel the need to call for extra support, obviously, those calls and those lines would first go to a therapist if they need to call for extra support. And oftentimes, school resource officers and the therapists work hand in hand.

But I will highlight that school resource officers don't always know the student as deeply as the teacher. And at the same time, the professional that we're trying to prioritize first doesn't necessarily need to have the relationship, because they are, you know, trying to implement De escalation tactics first and foremost, and are better trained in that situation.

Yeah. No, I. Again, I can appreciate that we should let the mental health, those that are trained in dealing with mental health crises to be the first to respond.

I just want to make sure that if there is a school resource officer on the premises, that they would not be restricted in any way from being involved in trying to help the student. Definitely. So you would agree that that is not the intent of the Bill?

That is not necessarily the intent, but I do, again, want to prioritize that the spirit of this Bill is to prioritize the subject matter experts first and foremost.

Okay, well, thank you. Important Bill. Thank you for sharing that example. That really kind of illustrates how a bad situation can be made worse by lack of training in terms of the crisis intervention protocols and so fully in support of the Bill with the amendments, which she accepted. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, we need a motion in a second. Okay. Moved by Vice Chair Flores. Seconded by Mister Alvarez.

[Roll Call]

Bill is three to one. Three. Three to one. Bill is on call. Thank you. Okay, next in signing, sign an order, as well as being present in the room is file item number 14. Senator Wilk, SB 1194.

Motioned by Vice Chair Flora, seconded by Mr. Hoover. Welcome, Senator Wilk.

Okay, I appreciate that. First of all, I want to happily accept the Committee amendments, including the one that the Chair was supposed to mention. So you may want to mention that right now.

Thank you. Senator Wilk, based on your conversations with Committee staff, we have a mock up of additional, an additional amendment to what is listed in the bill analysis.

And this additional amendment will prohibit the California Department of Education from posting pupil member information for advisory councils, committee work groups, and other similar bodies established by the Superintendent on the Department of Education's website. So this is basically an exemption from the provisions of your bill for our students.

Correct. And happily accept that. And so I also want to thank you, Chair and the Committee staff for the great work on this bill and your diligence. Really appreciate that.

So SB 1194 is simply a transparency bill in response to the lack of information from the California Department of Education regarding the advisory council that they first announced in April of 2022.

The Parental Advisory Council, I'm going to call PAC from here on out, was announced in April, as I said and quote, with the goal of diverse parents who can directly work with policymakers and educational partners to provide equitable change to California's education system. However, neither the membership information nor the subjects of the council meetings have been publicly available.

SB 1194 rectifies this by requiring PAC members' name, title, occupation, employer only if they're employed by an LEA, as well as the county of residence to be posted on the website as they do with other advisory committees. Parents will then have an idea of who represents him regarding educational policy and what communities the members are from.

The Committee amendments to apply this provision to all similar advisory councils established under the Superintendent, which I accepted with now we're going to do the amendment exempting pupils. Lastly, the bill would subject the PAC to provisions of the Bagley Keen Open Meeting Act to ensure parents have a meaningful opportunity to be informed and participate participate in the proceedings.

Superintendent Thurma stated that the council was created to ensure that the CDE is, quote, reaching out to our families to make sure that they are included in the conversation about what the education looks like for their children. And with that, this bill will help close the gap and achieve that, allowing the parents to be informed of what's going on with policies out of the Department. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Are there, Senator, you are relying on your presentation? You're done with your presentation with no witnesses? Okay, thank you. Any public comments in support of the measure, please come forward. Any? Let's see. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill, please come forward. Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the bill, please come forward.

Seeing none. Okay, bring it back to the Committee. Let me start by saying that, Senator, it's my understanding that the basic intent of your bill is to provide more transparency and accountability in terms of public awareness of who is serving on these advisory bodies for the state superintendent.

And that of course, the participation in these advisory bodies and workgroups are voluntary and it is going to require the basic information of their county of residence, their occupation, and to try to ensure that there is no conflict of interest.

Like for example, if a member of an advisory body is a member of an educational, local educational agency, that they disclose any potential conflict of interest. We did. The Committee did receive some privacy concerns, you know, to concerns that any sharing of personal information at the level of county of residence, not their actual residential address.

But we do know that there are concerns about how easily people can find out their addresses by doing some quick Google search. But it's my opinion that trying to weigh the objective of providing more transparency, that this is some basic information to try to like for example, ensure regional representation and understanding of who is serving on these advisory boards, that that would be a reasonable disclosure that hopefully will be balanced with these privacy concerns that are being raised. I want to give you an opportunity to address the privacy concerns.

Sure. So, I mean, I agree with all that. In the age of Google, I think we're all at risk. And I know I've had situations, being a policymaker. I'm sure you have all as well. That's why we're doing the bare minimum information to allow the public to be, you know, have an understanding.

And it's the same as the other advisory committees. What's interesting though, so I've got a Department of Education, actually, it's a state PTA post that went out. It's undated, but it's about the parental advisory council and it talks about how the members of the council are actually supposed to go out and engage and speak with the public.

So if you sign up for this, and that's part of your job, you're going to have some exposure. So I think we've taken the necessary steps recommended by you, Mr. Chair, to try to minimize that. And you're right, you've got a balance between transparency and safety. And believe me, from some of the experiences I have, I definitely value safety.

Thank you. Any further questions from the Committee? Seeing none. Can we take that as a close or would you?

Yes, sir.

Okay, motion's been made and seconded. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item 14, SB 1194. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

4-0. The bill is out.

Okay, moving back up on the. Okay, it appears that Senator Cortese is accommodating Senator Ochoa Bogh's request to go first. And so, seeing Senator Cortese nodding, Senator Ochoa Bogue, please come forward. And this is file item number 20, SB 1411. Motion made by Mr. Hoover, second by Vice Chair Flora. Welcome, Senator.

Thank you. Was that a motion to move for my bill?

Yes.

So should I just ask for closing costs or closing comments? Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'd like to start by accepting the Committee's amendments.

During the last revision of California's math curriculum framework from 2020 to 2023, many professors and experts in quantitative fields expressed concerns about the detrimental impacts the framework's guidance would have on students entering college and the workforce, and how the framework could harm the underrepresented students it seeks to help.

A recent report released by the UC's Board of Admissions and Relations with schools Area C work group found that specific courses emphasized by the new mathematics frameworks don't even come close to meeting, and I'm quoting here, close to meeting the required standard to be a more advanced course.

They determined these courses would not be acceptable math courses for purposes of UC admissions beginning in 2025-26 school year. As a result, high school students who are currently enrolled in courses approved by the new mathematics framework will no longer be allowed to count them towards admissions to college.

The goal of the Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senate is to improve students access and success in higher education by providing advice to K-12 educational partners on the appropriate level of preparation for students entering a college or university.

My original intention with SB 1411 was for the ICAS to appoint six new members to each from CSUs, UCs, and community college to ensure equitable representation of higher education faculty on the Instruction Quality Commission in curriculum discussions. Having the CSUs, UCs, and community college systems equally represented would encourage the appointed faculty to work together to make curriculum decisions that better prepare students for all three segments of public higher education.

Although I still preferred that the three segments of higher education are represented, I have agreed to accept the Committee's amendments. As amended, SB 1411 will task ICAS with nominating two college faculty subject matter experts to serve on the IQC's curriculum framework and evaluation criteria committees.

These higher educational professionals will improve Committee diversity and provide insight to members regarding K-12 curriculum and the course content requirements necessary for students preparing to enter higher education. Joining me to answer technical questions is Professor Brian Conrad from Stanford University.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Brian Conrad and I'm a math professor at Stanford University. In my role as the Director of Undergraduate Studies for Math at Stanford for the past decade, I've spoken with many faculty at UCs, Cal States, and colleges and other states about quantitative skills relevant to contemporary college degrees and jobs. Bill 1411 strengthens how curricular frameworks support the skills needed for the future workforce.

Experienced K-12 teachers and district staff can judge both grade level appropriateness and the bridge from elementary to middle to high school, but college faculty prepare students in critical ways for the jobs of the future.

Representation from multiple segments of public higher education, community colleges, Cal State, and the UC system, in the development of curricular frameworks will provide a comprehensive range of perspectives for ensuring college preparedness. But the bill's value goes far beyond providing subject matter expertise for higher education. In a word, it provides alignment.

The role in the bill for the Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates, or ICAS, ensures that those whose names ICAS puts forth would not merely be individual experts, but also official representatives of entire educational systems.

This supports channels of communication back to those who are training the workforce of the future and thereby helps to align them with the curricular guidance given to school districts. Bringing K-12 teachers and college faculty together to coordinate and implement instructional and curricular practices supports students in their transition from high school to college.

Bill 1411 is not about a balance of control between K-12 and higher education, but about promoting dialogue to improve degree and career readiness. It will strengthen how curricular frameworks in all fields serve the needs of California students, so I urge you to support it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any public comments in support of the bill, please come forward.

Mr. Chairman and Members, I'm Brian Rees, speaking on behalf of the Ed Trust West. We're removing opposition. We'd like to thank your staff for working on the bill and coming up with a fix, and thank the Senator for listening to us so we're officially neutral with the Committee amendments.

Okay, thank you. Any public comments in support of the bill? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from the Committee? Seeing none. Senator Ochoa Bogh, thank you very much.

We met to discuss your bill and fully appreciate your intent. Of course, bringing a math professor from Stanford highlights your concern about. Well, I know that recently, a few years back, we had the heated discussions about whether about 8th grade algebra.

And of course, I follow that closely and I can see how the importance of having higher education informing the curriculum, the instructional material discussions for our K-12 students. And so I believe you're. Thank you for accepting the amendments.

I believe your bill strikes the right balance between making sure that the IQC is primarily informed by the classroom teachers in K through 12, while at the same time with your bill being informed by the perspectives, the research, the work of our scholars in our institutions of higher education. So happy to support your bill as amended. She did accept the amendment? Yes. Okay. Would you like to close?

Certainly. SB 1411 will allow higher education experts to participate in curriculum development discussions who gives us the overview look of what is required for today's jobs and for tomorrow. This will improve K-12 course content so students have a clear pathway to college. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded. Please call the roll.

File item 20, SB 1411. The motion is do pass as amended to Higher Education. [Roll Call]

40. The Bill is out. Thank you. All right, Senator Cortese has four bills, so we will start with file item number two, SB 333.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. Today I'm here to present SB 333, the California Soar. S. O. A. R. Guaranteed Income program. Approximately 270,000 students within California's K-12 school system are currently experiencing homelessness, a number that has increased by over 48% in the past decade. About 15,000 of these students are in the 12th grade.

In fact, when we think about graduations that have just occurred, you can think about 15,000 students who have crossed the stage giving up their federal benefits, or Mckinney Vento benefits as they receive their diploma.

School districts support these students, of course, when they're in school, by utilizing funds from the Mckinney Vento Act, a key legislative support for students experiencing homelessness. Again, at the federal level, however, the law only applies to currently enrolled students, meaning a student experiencing homelessness will only receive support up until they exit high school.

The lack of support available to youth experiencing homelessness post graduation significantly hinders their ability to pursue their educational career ambitions, typically just because of that period that we call summer melt phenomenon, which we see and we all see, where high school graduates are accepted into college and tend to enroll, but ultimately do not.

While federal and state law would provide extension financial aid typically to these youth experiencing homelessness when they get to that enrollment point in college again, the problem is we're not getting there between this time of year and fall enrollment.

This problem is common among Low income students who lack the financial resources to make the transition from high school to college in the fall.

They can often become sticker shocked, of course, when they learn of the upfront fees associated with attending college that must be paid before the financial aid kicks in, such as their summer orientation fee, housing deposit or parking pass.

In recognition of the need to extend support to our most vulnerable students during the bridge between high school graduation and post secondary education or employment, SB 333 establishes a statewide guaranteed income program that will provide direct cash assistance on a monthly basis to these youth.

The Bill defines an eligible participant as an individual who is enrolled in the 12th grade meets the definition of homelessness. According to Mckinney Vento act, the program will serve approximately 15,000 youth experiencing homelessness statewide beginning May 1, 2025 through August 1, 2025.

The no strings attached guaranteed income model will empower these youth to use the funds as they see fit, whether that be entering into the workforce, an apprenticeship program, pursuing higher education, or what they really need to keep them off the streets or to keep them warm on cold nights.

Other guaranteed income programs, including one that I piloted in Santa Clara County when I was there as a county supervisor to serve transitional aged foster youth, have proven to be successful, and the results have demonstrated that guaranteed income helps people find full time employment, improves physical and mental health. It creates new opportunities for people.

I want to emphasize this is a pilot. It will be assessed, obviously very rigorously, and it is not year round support. Again, it is support for that period we are trying to bridge typically between graduation and fall enrollment or employment.

The Bill will equip youth experiencing homelessness with the financial resources to embark on a path towards stability and success. And I would just close this portion of my presentation by saying we can't turn the tide on homelessness while we continue to graduate young people into homelessness as we graduate them out of high school.

Here to testify in support of the Bill, we have state Superintendent Tony Thurman, along with Tomas Vargas, a Stockton economic empowerment demonstration GI recipient, to speak to his lived experience with guaranteed income. Thank you chair and Members, and at the appropriate time, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote thank you.

I look up and magically our State Superintendent appears. Welcome, sir.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Members of the Committee, Tony Thurmond, here in support of SB 333, the California success, opportunity, and academic resilience, this guaranteed income pilot program.

I'd like to thank Senator Cortese for his consistent leadership in bringing this idea forward, and I believe that he has articulated all of the main reasons for why this Bill is worthy of your support.

I would just offer that in a state where we have more than 240,000 homeless students, almost 10,000 of them, who are completely unaccompanied, they're on their own. This might be the most important investment that this Legislature could make to support children who experience vulnerable circumstances. We know that a homeless young person will likely become a homeless adult.

And while this Bill has a high cost, think of the great cost to not act to support this group of young people. Think about the pilots that we've seen already with basic income and the results that it has generated.

And by making an investment in this way, we will support the housing needs, the social development needs, the academic needs of these young people, and help to create a great future for them. I can tell you about the high rates of dropouts for homeless students.

I think we all know that this is a group of students that absolutely needs our help. Most of them are on their own, and this is the opportunity for us to make a game changing investment in their present and in their future. And for those reasons, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote for SB 333.

Thank you very much.

Hello, thank you for your time. For me to speak about my personal experience with the SEED program or the GI program, my name is Tomas Vargas, Junior. In 2019, I was picked to participate in the Seed program in Stockton, California, under Mayor Tubbs.

When I was involved with the SEED program, as it came in for the first couple months, I was really confused and kind of scared because I didn't know if it was going to come in and if it was going to be there at all times.

When I found out and got my comfort with it, and I understood that this was going to be an income that was going to be on time and always consistent for the timeframe that I had it for, it helped me build up a financial confidence and financial stability.

When I say financial confidence, I mean I knew that I had bills, and I can have that money set for those two bills, and I wouldn't have the stress and I wouldn't have the worry of having to do the extra income or have time without my family because I would have to do extra side hustles to sit there and make sure I was trying to provide and make sure my kids wouldn't go without.

In my childhood, I grew up without a father, with my mom for a short period, and then I had to move in with my grandmother having those changes. I didn't want to ever see my kids go through that, and I didn't want to see them to have to see that through my eyes.

When I was part of the seed program, it gave me the opportunity to spend more time to be more present as a father and also to have more time to invest in myself, to sit there and actually go through different opportunities and not face them so scared or not so worried about the no effect or hearing no all the time.

I was able to sit there and transition from the part time work to full time work and able to sit there and spend more time with my family and sit there and do things like vacations and stuff like that. It really gave me more peace and it really let me level out and not be overstressed.

Before the program, I would never do things like this. I would never have the confidence to speak to individuals like yourself. But after the program, I don't see why not. I see that I have the opportunity to do it and I should speak for it. And I thank you guys for your time.

Thank you for sharing your experience. Public comments in support of the Bill please come forward.

Good afternoon Mister Chair, Members of the Committee. Christina Boss Hamilton here representing Economic Security California, a proud co sponsor of this Bill. Thank you urging your support.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Devon Gray, President of End Poverty in California, proud co sponsor of this Bill. Thank you.

Leilani, Aguinaldo, on behalf of Fresno Unified School District and Oakland Unified School District in support.

Kim Lewis with the California Coalition for Youth in Support.

Good afternoon Chair and Members Tristan Brown with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals happy to support.

Stella Johnson on behalf of the Alameda County Office of Education in Support.

Bella Curran on behalf of Western Association for College Admission Counseling and Michelson Center for Public Policy in support.

Eric Harris, Disability Rights California strong support.

Genesis Coronado on behalf of the Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Savannah Jorgensen on behalf of the Lutheran Office of Public Policy California in strong support.

Ejiro Okoro, United Way California Capital Region in strong support.

Yarelie Magallon with Political Solutions on behalf of Silicon Valley Community Foundation in support.

Good afternoon. Danielle Bautista on behalf of Unitedaways of California in support.

Elizabeth Escovel, board trustee, on behalf of the Yolo County Board of Education.

Good afternoon. Marcus Sedra on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in support. Thank you.

John Sweeney on behalf of the Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools, proud to co-sponsor.

Good afternoon. Erin Evans on behalf of the County of Santa Clara in support as a proud co-sponsor of the measure. Thank you.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Children's Partnership in support.

Ana Petero, Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District Governing Board Trustee Area Six in full support.

Thank you very much. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing no one coming forward. Any public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Miss Bonta.

I just want to thank the author for bringing forward this bill. I think we talked about this legislation two years ago. I know that this has been a passion project of yours, and I hope that the State of California will ensure that our homeless youth have the pathway that they need to be able to succeed.

And thank you to the Superintendent of Public Instruction for being here and lending your strong support of this measure as well and your leadership.

Any further. Mister Hoover.

Thank you, Senator. Just a quick question. So, I'm trying to find it in the bill here, but are there going to be metrics that we're using to track these dollars? Maybe a study? How are we going to know that these dollars were effective? I guess that's really what I'm concerned about.

Obviously, if it is a successful program, that's what we want. But curious your answer?

Yeah, it's very important. And the walk that we have to walk with guaranteed income programs, on the one hand, of course, is to make sure that, be it youth, pregnant women, the various programs that we see, understand that there's no strings attached, or conditions put on the money that they're forced to participate in, you know, exit interviews and so forth.

However, in the Santa Clara County program, which this is in part modeled after the, and what is typical is the local governments, be it in Stockton, be it in Santa Clara County, where these dollars would push, the program itself is pushed down for implementation, solicit on a voluntary basis, actual exit interviews.

And then of course they have data because the kids are typically in systems that the county's aware of. They have the ability to assess data. I know you and I have are proven advocates for making sure that we don't have data deserts when we put money into programs like this.

I think guaranteed income because it came up from the locals and from grassroots, has always had that kind of an evaluation attached to it. We'll make sure to make that very, very clear, you know, going forward in, you know, any kind of final resolution on the bill.

Thank you. No, I appreciate that. And you know, I obviously understand the goal here and I think it's a very good one. I am concerned, I guess you use kind of the term that I'm concerned about is there really aren't a lot of strings attached here. Right? And so our ability to assess this, I do think is limited.

But I appreciate your response. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mister Chair. If I could, I would just mention that every one of our 58 county offices of education has liaisons who are assigned to support homeless students in those counties.

And I believe, Assemblyman, that those liaisons would be in a great position to have knowledge about the success or lack of success of these participants who have participated in these programs.

And so there are some built in ways to have metrics and data about the success of these programs, which, mind you, every program that's listed in the staff report nicely lays out positive benefits that have been provided for young people.

And as someone who's worked in the social work profession for many, many years with young people who are homeless and in foster care, I can tell you resources like this make the difference.

But the county offices of education have the ability to track the success, and we would be happy to work closely with them and with the Department of Social Services to make sure that those metrics are monitored.

No, that's great. And would love to see that. I think would love to see that in the bill, to be honest with you. So, you know, maybe adding something as the bill moves forward to require, that would be great, but that's where I'm at right now. Thanks.

Just following on that, Mister Hoover, I see in the committee analysis summary, under the summary for the bill, item number 12 and 13, the bill would require the Department of Social Services to work with at least one independent research-based institution to establish program outcome measurements to inform an evaluation report, and that the evaluation report shall be submitted to the Legislature upon conclusion of the program.

So, yeah, I think that's. I appreciate your questions. You know, we want to make sure that we have some data to measure the effectiveness. Seeing no further questions from the Committee, Senator Cortese, want to thank you.

I know that there is growing debate and interest in the guaranteed income approach to addressing the challenges of poverty that we face here in the State of California. Thank you, Superintendent, for continue to be a champion for our most vulnerable students.

And I think this is an important proposal to bridge that transition as our homeless students graduate out of high school, to not just leave them stranded and so fully in support of your bill. Senator Cortese, would you like to close?

Well, thank you, Mister Chair, for your support and the help of the Committee and the reception of the Committee to the bill as we, as we arrived here from the Senate. I do want to publicly thank these witnesses here at the table, and of course, all those who came in to testify or to share their support earlier.

Let me just say on the evaluation issue, one final word on this. The problems that exist, or that we perceive to exist regarding large-scale homeless funding are largely because we've had trouble tracking dollars getting to where they need to go. You do not have that problem with guaranteed income.

The beauty of guaranteed income is these students receive an application, they apply to the county, and they get cash directly into their bank account. There's no question as to where it's going.

So, the only remaining evaluation is, did you help somebody who was homeless stay out of homelessness, or get out of homelessness if they're graduated at 18 and just joining our adult population out there on the street? So, it's very clear, very easy to see what's going on with these dollars.

It's not passing through a lot of nonprofit organization or government departments that are taking cuts. This bill has been set up to have social services respond with a simple stipend, that it goes directly to the bank account of the student.

And I hope that clears up some of what is an elegant and simple way of dealing with safety net services. And I suspect at some point these kind of programs will take over.

They'll subsume the old processes that we have, which really came from, I think, a much more conservative and probably misguided approach that attempted really to put too many prescriptive attachments to the kind of help we're giving people, including overhead and profit of a bunch of, you know, middlemen in between. That doesn't happen here.

And we appreciate that you recognize that. And I would respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. A motion is made by Mister Alvarez, second by Miss Bonta. Okay, thank you, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item two, SB 333. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

4-0. The bill is out.

Thank you.

Thank you. Your next bill, Senator Cortese, is file item number four, SB 483.

All right, thank you again, Mister Chair and Members. I'm here, of course, as you just indicated, to present SB 483, a bill prohibiting prone restraint, which is a technique that physically or mechanically restrained students in a face-down position, typically in all California schools. Meaning that it's available in all California schools currently.

California law currently allows prone restraints to be used by trained personnel and stipulates that the student's hands can't be held behind their back. Staff must also observe the pupil for any signs of physical distress throughout its use.

But even with those safeguards, this technique is still one of the most dangerous restraints used in schools because it restricts the student's airway and has the potential and has in fact been fatal. And we will hear more about that today.

Despite the U.S. Department of Education recommending its elimination, prone restraint is unfortunately still in practice here in California. According to California's Department of Education data attained from the Assembly Member Weber's passage of AB 2657 in the 2022 to 2023 school year, California schools used physical restraints on students 6,785 times.

Though just 14% of the student population, students with disabilities, endured 95.5% of those physical restraints. Moreover, prone restraints are applied at a higher rate against Black students according to findings by the Sacramento Bee.

SB 483 seeks to prohibit the use of prone restraint in California schools and have us join the 30 states that have taken the necessary steps to protect children from the dangers of this technique.

In 2018, 13-year-old Max Benson tragically passed away at an El Dorado Hill school after being held in a prone restraint for over an hour. I'm honored to be joined here today by Max's mother. As a parent myself, and I know many of you are, I can't imagine what she's gone through or fully process it myself.

Your vote today would of course honor Max's memory and help ensure. More importantly, I think, that similar tragedies never happen again. With us today, we have Stacia Langley, Max Benson's mother. Additionally, we have Doctor Melara Tomaino, co-founder and principal of Portview Preparatory to serve as a technical witness. Thank you Chair and Members.

And again, when appropriate, I would ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

It doesn't matter that.

Chair and Assembly Members. I am Doctor Melaura Erickson-Tomaino, and I'm a board-certified behavior analyst and licensed clinical psychologist.

I have served students with disabilities for 25 years and serve as the co-founder and principal of Portview Preparatory, a non-public school that serves over 50 California school districts who rely on us to educate their students, who demonstrate the most severe, challenging behaviors, and who require significant services and supports.

My partner, Doctor Edward Miguel, and I have never allowed the use of prone restraint at Portview, as we saw firsthand how dangerous these techniques are, and recognize that educators have an ethical obligation to implement evidence-based interventions. Prone restraint is not supported by peer-reviewed research and has no therapeutic benefit.

Over the years in educational settings where prone restraint is utilized, we have seen tragedy after tragedy occur due to an overreliance on restraint rather than intervention, forced compliance rather than understanding, and outdated responses rather than expertise. Allowing prone restraint creates a culture that promotes a power differential where prone restraint becomes the first and only intervention used.

Even when performed by trained personnel, prone restraint is often implemented incorrectly. Not only does prone restraint pose serious risk to students, it is also overutilized with students with disabilities. And in a state that promotes diversity and equality, educators are disproportionately restraining students of color, especially Black students. 37 states have banned prone restraint. California has not.

The risks of not adopting this bill are too great. I urge you to imagine your child, niece, nephew, or grandchild. Imagine them heading off to school. Now imagine them lying face down in their classroom. Their last words, I can't breathe. Their bedroom empty, as they will never return. California can do better. Let's not lose another life.

Please keep our students safe and pass SB 483. Thank you, Senator Cortese, for bringing about this very imperative legislation.

I think she was talking. My name is Stacia Langley, and I graduated from UC Davis, and my three children attended the public schools there. I am here to express my strong support for SB 483 because my son, Max, cannot. In 2017, he was killed by a teacher who put him in a prone restraint.

It is impossible for me to adequately describe what it's like to lose a child, especially when you know that they died a slow, painful, and terrifying death at the hands of somebody who was supposed to educate and protect them. Max was a bright and hilarious kid. He could do more than light up a room.

He lit up my entire family's life. Every member of our family struggles daily with the darkness left in his absence. We try to make our hearts big enough to hold a grief, but it's really hard. If this bill had been enacted and enforced in 2017, Max's light would still be shining on us all.

Prone restraint is a barbaric practice, and I have no doubt that its next young victim will be sitting in a California classroom this fall. I urge everyone to help save that child's life by supporting this bill. And I'd also like to thank Senator Cortese.

Thank you. Thank you for being here. Public comments in support of the bill please come forward.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Members. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education in strong support of this bill. I'd like to thank the witnesses. We do have a letter of support into the Committee, and we'll resubmit it for the record. Thank you very much.

Ella Johnson on behalf of the Alameda County Office of Education in strong support.

Jennifer Abenat on behalf of the Alliance Against Seclusion and Restraint with support.

Leah Darrah on behalf of the Davis Joint Unified School District Trustees in strong support.

Eric Harris, Disability Rights California, proud co-sponsor of the bill as well as California Foundation for Independent Living Centers in support.

My name is Brendan White. I'm a resident of Davis and a friend of Max Benson's family. In support.

Matt Best, Superintendent, Davis Joint Unified School District in strong support.

Ruth Dawson, ACLU California Action, in strong support.

Josh Gauger on behalf of the California community Living Network in support.

Thank you very much. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Mister Flora. Vice Chair, Flora.

Thank you, Mister Chair. And Senator, thank you for bringing this forward and to the family obviously our condolences, but as I was reading over the committee agenda for this particular hearing, I didn't even realize this was a thing. And so, I guess thank you for educating me and condolences, but happy to support this bill today. So, thank you.

Thank you. Any further? Miss Bonta.

I want to thank you for sharing your story and that of Max's. You are giving us a gift and a little bit of a window into who was somebody who was incredibly beautiful. We know, and I'm sorry that he passed in such a tragic way. And I want to thank the author for bringing forward this bill to be able to correct that. So, thank you.

Seeing no further questions or comments. Senator Cortese, thank you very much for bringing this very important measure before this Committee. I want to thank Miss Langley for sharing your experience, Max's experience, and how this is going to change the law in the State of California to save other children.

Proud to support this important measure to eliminate this dangerous practice. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members, and thank you for your comments. And I'm sure the witnesses appreciate those comments, as well as those who testified a few minutes ago. To Max's mom, and you will always be Max's mom in California history from here on out and in our hearts and our minds.

Thank you so much for the courage to come and do this as a parent. Was wondering if I would have the courage to continue just to close after listening. So, I can't imagine what it must be like to do what you just did. I think we all feel that way.

The bill, I want to note, just because it's also an important point of attribution, was inspired when I was asked to a Starbucks meeting by a constituent in a wheelchair who said he had a bill idea and immediately lost it. Basically, became so emotional he could hardly explain.

And it's because of the trauma he experienced as a student. This is an individual that is more than 40 years old. The trauma that's still with him from being put in prone restraint when he was a student. How many more of the thousands perhaps didn't lose their life, but are carrying that trauma around with them? And we could put an end to that. I respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We have a motion from Vice Chair Flora. A second?

Seconded. Yes.

From Miss Bonta. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item four, SB 483. The motion is do pass to the Floor. [Roll call]

5-0.

The Bill is out.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next, we have file item eight, SB 956.

Excuse me, Chair. We at 956.

956.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Members for the opportunity to present this Bill, SB 956, which reauthorizes K-12 districts to use the design build delivery method when constructing and designing school facilities. This Bill also removes the sunset altogether. For design build for K-12 districts.

That's an opt in for them. Design build, as most of us know, is a unique project delivery method that allows the school to select a design professional and contractor concurrently through a single contract. Districts use this valuable tool to expedite project construction, generate creative solutions to unique issues, and encourage collaboration between architects, engineers, and contractors.

Design build provides an alternative to the traditional design bid build delivery method. Rather than selecting the DBE based solely on the lowest bidder, design build allows the school to use best value to do that selection. That criteria may include life cycle costs and other features or functions.

By establishing a guaranteed maximum price for the project, which I think is the key for many of these districts. This method reduces the risk of cost increase change orders once the construction begins. This is particularly important given the recent double digit annual cost escalation in the school construction market during the last sunset extension.

The statute was amended to require K-12 design build projects to utilize a skilled and trained workforce for all work on a project that falls within an apprenticeable occupation in the building and construction trade. So I'm making that clear because that's not something added in this Bill.

It's currently embedded in statute SB 956 eliminates the K-12 design build authorization Sunset and grants school districts the permanent authority utilize this construction delivery method, which is important, especially as we hopefully move at some point to the kind of resources for school districts in this state to build out, not to have them worried about this methodology sunsetting just as they're about to start a project.

Schools have proven over two decades that they can use the method responsibly to the benefit of their communities. With us to testify, we have Dave Walwrath representing his client, Coalition for Adequate School Housing, and Frank Kamatra, Coalition for Adequate School Housing. Board Member I respectfully ask for your aye vote Mister Chair.

Mister Chair, Members, my name is Dave Walwrath has head representing the coalition for adequate school housing. The coalition has Members, school districts, county offices of education builders, architects, all types of different professions that are involved in school construction. School construction is very complex. It is not straightforward. It is not easy.

Design build is one of the options that the tool in the toolbox that school districts can use in order to have, as the Senator said, the ability to have both the architect and the contractor brought onto the project as the project begins. This reduces potential conflicts because nobody is perfect.

An architect's plans might contain within them something that the contractor finds to be more expensive than being able to do something else. They can work collaboratively in order to help the school district, the building owner, to have a project that comes in on time, on cost, in order to ensure that their project goes forward.

Best value provides things such, in addition to what Senator Cortese said, experience past performance in an architect. It could be design examples. It provides, as he said, for complex projects such as large high schools, performing arts centers, career technical education facilities, a better coordination for delivering those facilities. We thank the Senator for authoring this Bill.

It's very important because it provides school districts the certainty he mentioned to be able to use this option, this tool as they plan their school facility projects. Thank you for your consideration.

Good afternoon and thank you Chair Muratsuchi and Committee Members. My name is Frank Kamatra. I'm the chief operations officer for the San Juan Unified School District, also board Member for the Coalition for Adequate School Housing. Thank you for the opportunity today to provide some comments on this important piece of legislation.

School districts are grateful, we're grateful that our legislators are providing additional procurement tools to deliver high quality education projects. The reason I'm here today is I'm uniquely positioned to provide this Committee insight on the merits of design build.

Due to my experience using this procurement method in San Juan over the course of the last six or seven years. I've also created design build workshops set on panels with industry professionals both nationally and across the State of California. Committee Members all projects are unique and require a unique response in choosing a procurement method.

Design Build offers districts the opportunity to select a delivery method that fits the desired outcomes of a particular education project. To provide some context on the growing use of design build across the State of California in k 12, I recently scored 22 architects proposals and one of the qualifying values for those architects.

It was the experience in delivering alternative delivery methods such as design build. I was not surprised to see that there's a large volume of projects being completed by school districts across the state using design build, and it has become a valued method of procurement. Why is this procurement method valuable to districts?

A couple of bullet points for the Committee Members to consider. Districts are selecting design build entities based on a rigorous standards of qualifications or a guaranteed maximum price. This provides the districts with greater cost controls and highly qualified teams.

It also provides a rigorous pre construction process that ensures greater constructability, predictability and cost for construction and opportunities to adjust budgets and forecasts that are budgets that are forecasted are being higher than expected or beyond the entity's available funding amounts.

It lends itself to a high level of collaboration, as Mister Walrath mentioned during the design, development and construction process. And finally, design build reduces the risk to the local education authority.

And for those reasons, I believe design Bill is an effective it's a reliable procurement method for school districts to utilize and for this Committee to consider recommending its extension. Thank you.

Thank you. Public comments in support of the Bill please come forward.

Mister Chairman and Members Bo Biller, on behalf of the Design Build Institute of America, Western Pacific region in support. Ask for an aye vote.

Sasha Horowitz, Los Angeles Unified School District in support and also on behalf of. AXA in support.

Elizabeth Escovel with the California Association School of Business officials in support.

Sam Nasher on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education in Support.

Stella Johnson. On behalf of the Alameda County Office of Education in support.

Sierra Cook. With the San Diego Unified School District in support.

Seeing no further public comments in support. Any witnesses in opposition to the Bill, please come forward. Seeing none. Public comments in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from the Committee? Seeing none.

Move the Bill.

Moved by Miss Bontes, second by Miss Addis. Senator, thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I remember when I was on my local school board, we did two school facility construction bonds where we used the design build method.

And when I heard that you get the best value and you minimize the number of change orders, I thought, who wouldn't want to do this? And so I strong support of your measure to remove the sunset of the authority for school districts have this option and recommend support. Would you like to close?

Thank you very much. And again, I'd just like to thank the witnesses and the public comment today and, of course, the Committee's help in cooperation with the Bill. As another former school board Member, I know what that professional lived experience is like, and I appreciate your insight into it.

Along with the rest of the Committee, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item eight, SB 956. The motion is due. Pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

4, 0. The Bill is out.

Thank you.

Last, we have Senator Cortese file item 23, SB 1445.

Okay, thank you. I'm sure you're getting tired of me by now, but I do very much appreciate the opportunity to get all this work done today, and this will be my presentation of Senate Bill 1445.

The bill will enable school districts and charter schools to allow their student board members to receive limited case information separate from a closed session meeting with the consent of the student facing expulsion and their parent or guardian to provide restorative justice recommendations for the larger board's consideration when they do go into closed session.

Although California has made strides in recent years to address overly punitive actions in schools, low-income students, students with disabilities, and students of color are still expelled at higher rates compared to their peers. The California Department of Education data shows that expulsion trends are returning to pre-pandemic levels.

For example, in the 2022-2023 school year, 4,718 students were expelled. Of those students, 88% were low-income. Even more troubling, a quarter of those expelled, 1,036 were students with disabilities, nearly twice as many as the year before. Black students accounted for 4.7% of California's student population, but they were 12% of all students expelled.

Excluding student board members from the expulsion hearing process deprived students of the opportunity to advocate for their peers. Restorative justice alternatives are necessary to protect our most vulnerable student populations by ensuring they remain in school while emphasizing the importance of collaboration and community-involved conflict resolution.

By passing this bill, we will be enforcing restorative justice principles in our schools and strengthening connections among affected individuals, peers, teachers, and the wider school community.

I want to emphasize this does not, despite all those statistics, change or interfere at all with the expulsion process directly, but simply allows the school district to opt into this program where they take advantage of input from their student board member in a confidential manner prior to the board entering into closed session.

Today, we have Garrett Shu from the California Association of Student Councils and Ana Petero, student school board trustee from the Fairfield Unified School District, and I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Members. My name is Garrett Shu, and I am here on behalf of the California Association of Student Councils sponsoring SB 1445. Established in 1947, CASC is a student-led nonprofit dedicated to amplifying student voices and developing future leaders.

The Student Advisory Board of Legislation in Education, or we call it SABLE, is a CASC program where students annually gather to develop proposals for legislation and then present those to the education committees. SB 1445 is based on a policy proposal our restorative justice group developed during SABLE to advance restorative solutions for students, specifically those facing expulsion.

Punitive actions in schools disproportionately affect low-income students, students with disabilities, and students of color at rates far greater compared to their peers. Restorative justice alternatives are necessary to protect our most vulnerable student populations by ensuring they remain in school while emphasizing the importance of collaboration and community-involved conflict resolution.

SB 1445 allows school student board members to receive limited expulsion case information, of course, with the consent of the student facing expulsion and their parent or guardian to provide restorative justice recommendations for the larger board's considerations in their closed session meeting.

We believe that allowing the student perspective and peer support will diversify the decision-making process to ensure that approach to school punishment keeps restorative justice in mind. Implementing restorative justice practices also allows students to build trust and have faith in their ability to improve in an environment that will support them.

We appreciate Senator Cortese's leadership in authoring SB 1445 in supporting restorative justice practices and student voices. And so, we ask for your aye vote on the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Good afternoon. Members of the Committee. Ana Petero, Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District Governing Board member, trustee area six. I'm here to speak to and advocate for student voices with regard to student board members advocacy on with regard to restorative justice and expulsions.

Over the last few years, and just this last week, I've had an opportunity to witness graduations from all of our students. At each of those graduation ceremonies, the student speakers spoke to the resiliency and perseverance of this graduating class. They were the first class, incoming class, freshman class, to have to study through COVID.

So, they really rallied together. And you could see from all of the students' speeches how much they matured because they had to go from in-person learning, adapt to online learning, and then readapt to in-person learning.

And I will tell you, as you've seen with all the students support that you've had here speak to you and in the past, you can see the maturity level of these students. They see each other every single day for the last four years, some for the last 12 years. They know each other.

They see each other in cafeterias. They see each other in classes. They are neighborhood students. They know each other growing up, so they know each other's socioeconomic status. They know each other as individuals. And so as you see them graduate from elementary school to junior high school to senior to high school, it's a rite of passage.

And this right of passage gives them an opportunity to get into the next level and to participate in that level and in those spaces. As student board members, I see these students who are very mature. They're ready to participate in their democracy.

And I think it's incumbent upon all of us to ensure that they get that rite of passage. And they have their voices heard to advocate on behalf of the students who elected them to represent them. They are the best voices. We are so far removed.

Some of us, board members, as you all know, have been graduated from high school in over 30, 40, 50 years. We are so far removed from teachers, as we've heard earlier, see students about a year to two years at the most. But the students see each other for much longer.

And I think having student voices on the school board gives us better insight and advocacy for those students on behalf of each other. And I think as adults, it is incumbent upon us to give these students that rite of passage and give them the voice to be in that space to advocate for their peers.

And I strongly urge a support for SB 1445. Thank you, Senator, for introducing this.

Thank you. Public comments in support of the bill. Please come forward.

I'll move the Bill.

Fiona Nicolaiescu, student at Bella Vista High School in Sacramento County, in support.

May Lonnie Solivan, student at Vista Delago High School from Folsom County in support.

All right, Mister Hoover's constituents. Oh, no, he's not here. He is here. Okay. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Any public comments in opposition to the bill? Bringing it back to the Committee. Miss Bonta.

I want to thank the author for bringing forward this bill and for the testimony of the, especially the student board member. I served on school board and the student board members who were served that I had the privilege of serving with, had incredible insight about things related to school climate, school facilities.

And it always bothered me that their insights were lost at the time at which we went into closed session and discussed disciplinary. So, I'm very thankful to the author for threading a very fine needle to allow for that kind of privacy ability for fellow students to be able to have the right to be able to ask for a student board member to not participate.

But I know that having student board members in that room while those conversations are happening with a frame of restorative justice is going to be, quite frankly, a game changer for students across the State of California. So, thank you.

Any other? Mister Hoover.

Thank you, Senator. Well, I do appreciate, obviously, the goal of increasing student voices in this process. Obviously, you know, I actually heard this directly from student board members when I was a board member, that it is frustrating, right? Because they are excluded from the obviously, closed session and oftentimes have input.

I think my concern with the bill as drafted is if we really want to allow that input in all its forms, why not draft a bill that just allows the student board member to give input as opposed to kind of predetermining what that input has to be?

So, this bill seems to say that the only input that can be given would be for restorative justice practices versus, you know, maybe some other input provided. So, just curious on that.

It may very well be that when the student board member gets together with the student after the permission authorization has been granted and have their confidential discussion, that the student board member ends up writing a report to providing a report to the, to the board members of the district ahead of their closed session that says the student is not agreeable to a restorative justice plan, or this student would prefer, because of some circumstances, to do something else.

We have limited, or obviously, it could be after that discussion that the two students come up with the makings of a restorative justice plan that may allow the student to stay in school, if the school board agrees to that, but would allow at that point would typically require some form of restitution.

In the example of a student that graffitied the facilities at their own school, for example, to have to repaint that or take care of that damage to make a public apology, those are all the kinds of things we've seen, I know, in Santa Clara County and in peer court restorative justice situations where sometimes the parent and the students say, no, thank you.

You know, we don't want to go down that path. We would rather just take our lumps with the school district on, on the expulsion. But it gives, it creates that opportunity.

And I think the important thing that we've heard, when the CASC students came and spoke at a joint hearing here of the Legislature a few months ago, they talked about this kind of empowerment that an insight that the students have in terms of what that restorative justice plan should really look like, what would really count, what would make a difference.

We've heard in peer court situations that are slightly more open in the hearings where an adult, a school board member, can actually step into those hearings, we've heard the kind of void there between the peers and the student that's, frankly pretty harsh at times. Why would you do such a thing?

And you need to explain to us why and whether or not you have any remorse for it. Those kind of things sometimes I found, as a former school board member, were much more blunt and much more real, if you will, than the kind of questions and answer void there that the school board itself would ask.

But we wanted to limit the information, school district by school district. They can make a decision whether to do it at all. If they do it, how much of that packet, that closed session packet to provide to the student board member?

Because some districts may feel that transcripts, which are typically provided in closed session expulsions, maybe want to be left out for purposes of the restorative justice discussion, or maybe some health records or something like that that we would all consider likely to be confidential. They get to make those decisions.

Of course, they'll have the benefit of counsel, and it really is a site-based or district-based decision at that point as to how far to go with this.

So, it's really enabling legislation that says if you want to do it, you can, you can't bring them all the way in to close session because then there'd be no limits.

Right.

And, but you can, you can at least get that advisory recommendation from the school board member if you, if you think that that's valuable. I think a lot of school districts will, we've had plenty of good response on the bill from districts that would like to opt into this.

I appreciate that. And I do appreciate that flexibility for districts. The opt-in. I think that's great. I, obviously, as my colleague stated, the privacy provisions are really important. I think my concern with the bill remains that, you know, I would like students to be able to give their input, and in a lot of cases, right, it is going to be this restorative justice plan, a recommendation to the board, input.

But there may be cases where the student board member agrees with the expulsion, and I want them to be able to share that recommendation as well.

There's no limit on that in the bill.

Okay.

There's absolutely no limit on what the recommendation of the student board member is.

Okay.

But there is allowable for that student board member to make restorative justice recommendations. They will already be looking at the expulsion recommendation and juxtaposition to that. They will have it and they'll say, this is going to work with this kid or it's not. That's what we're expecting to happen.

No, I appreciate that. And I think, I just want to make sure that, you know, because in a lot of these cases, right, where there is. Obviously, this is a pretty serious situation if we're discussing expulsion. Right? At the local level. And so, in the cases where another student is involved. Right?

Because in a lot of cases, there is a victim as well. There is a student who has been harmed. And making sure that we're respecting, you know, the rights of that student as well, I think is really important. But I appreciate the response. Thank you.

Any further questions from the Committee? Seeing none.

Thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote with lots of gratitude, as I said earlier with my other presentations to the Committee. And thank you to CASC and the witnesses for their help.

Thank you. We have a motion. We need a second. Who made the motion? Okay. Okay. All right. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File Item 23, SB 1445. The motion is due passed to the Floor. [Roll Call].

Two to one. The Bill is on call. Thank you. All right, Senator Menjivar, item number seven, SB 954. We've seen this Bill before.

You have?

All right.

Did I just respectfully ask for an aye vote again? You saw. Yes, you're right, Mister Chair. You saw this last year. I'm back with it again because this time we've attached a budget request to it, and we'll see in the next week if we were successful with that.

So it's basically doing almost the same thing as last year. SB 954 is asking for schools to distribute. Be made available into different locations. Condoms. Will prohibit health centers from coming. Will prohibit health centers from providing condoms when they are at schools during an educational health presentation.

And one of the different amendments that I want to thank your Committee staff and working with me and doing some author amendments on this is authorizing the California Department of Education to monitor the compliance of the California Health Youth act.

Unfortunately, the CHYA is not being followed adequately across our state, and its goal was to ensure access to comprehensive, medically accurate, and inclusive sex ed that follows statutory requirements. So we added that in the Bill as well.

And lastly, through some technical assistance from CDE, we are going to be on top of supporting and monitor CHYA, adding a liaison for each school site to implement these provisions. So why do I continue to introduce this Bill?

Well, because we continue to have almost 50% of our STI cases in California be between the ages of 15 and 24 years old. We continue to turn to that CDC report regarding the decrease in utilization of condoms more amongst our male counterparts.

And to that, I would like to turn over to my witnesses to talk more about that. I have one witness here today, or two witnesses. We're here. We're both here. We're going to start off with Stephanie. If you want to introduce yourself, Mister Chair that works.

Good afternoon, Chairperson and Committee Members. My name is Stephanie Ocampo and I currently serve on the board of directors of the California School Based Health Alliance and a former youth board Member as well.

The California school based health alliance supports around 400 school based health and wellness centers in K through 12 schools across California and is a co sponsor of Senate Bill 954, the Youth Health Equity and Safety Act.

California's youth spend most of their time in school, so it makes the most sense to meet them where they are to support their educational and comprehensive health needs. It is common for high students to have experiences and make decisions that will impact their journey as young adults.

For those high school students who decide to engage in sexual behavior, having access to free condoms at school is really helpful to support them in making healthier decisions that will reduce the risk of STI's and unintended pregnancy.

Ensuring all youth, especially those most at risk of contracting STI's, have free access to condoms in schools will reduce stigma and the barriers so many youth face when making important decisions to safeguard their sexual health. Some high schools do provide condoms to school.

However, many schools in areas where there are some of the highest rates of sexually transmitted infections do not. Senate Bill 954 would bring a much needed equitable approach so all students have the same opportunity to protect themselves from STI's.

Teens face multiple barriers to accessing condoms that deter them from seeking and securing the resources they need to protect their health and prevent unintended pregnancy. Some of these obstacles are cost and lack of transportation to visit a store or a health care provider to get condoms. Teens are also shamed, harassed and discriminated against.

Whether against when they do or try to buy condoms, sometimes they being asked to show an ID or denied services because they appear to be too young.

Despite the fact that there are no age requirements for condoms, young people would greatly benefit from being able to get free condoms when they are at school and support them in making healthier decisions. Thank you for your time and I respectfully urge for your aye vote thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Muratsuchi and Committee Members. It's such an honor to be here on a very bright and sunny day. My name is Martin Urrea. I am 17 years old and a recent graduate from Troy High School in Orange County.

I'm also proud to serve as a youth health equity and safety; Yes, for Condoms, campaign ambassadors championing Senate Bill 954, the Youth Health Equity and Safety Act. Yes for Condoms, is a youth informed and led campaign composed of student advocates across California.

We are united in our mission to ensure that all students in California, regardless of gender, geographic location, or economic status, have equitable access to condoms, which are essential tools that can help young people prevent the spread of HIV, AIDS and other STI's and give youth the power to own our own health and shape our lives and futures.

As the Senator mentioned, more than half of STI's are within the age ranges of 15 to 24, with youth of color and LGBTQIA youth bearing the brunt of the crisis. If left untreated, STIs can lead to long term and serious health problems, including infertility and increased risk for HIV, AIDS.

Condoms are an evidence based prevention method to reduce STI transmissions, yet, as the Senator mentioned, their usage among youth has declined over the decade. This decline is alarming, but also highlights the systemic barriers that prevent youth from accessing these resources.

In a survey conducted by Teen source among California youth from December 2023 to January 2024. 68% of teens indicated that they do not have access to condoms in schools. However, approximately 98% of youth agree that more sexually active teens would use condoms if they were easier to obtain.

And over 92 said 92% said that schools should make condoms available. Should make condoms available. At my formal high school, and for many of my peer schools, they did not have condoms accessible or many resources accessible for that matter.

However, one of my peer schools, their school did provide condoms, and they shared how empowered and comfortable they felt, reaching out to trusted faculty and parents about any questions that they had about their health and body.

As California, we should strive to empower all students and young people with health resources, especially in Low income areas where condoms may not be as accessible. It's easy for the blame to be shifted onto us. But when youth continually ask for what they need, it's a. It's a failure of the system.

Access to condoms is not just a health issue, it is a lifeline for our autonomy and future. When we have the tools to manage our health, we can stay in school, choose if and when to have kids, and contribute positively to our communities.

The ability to get these resources enables us to lead healthier, more productive lives and achieve our dreams.

Could I ask you to wrap up?

Yes. Thank you for your time and on behalf of all of youth impacted, I think Senator Menjivar, for leading on this important issue and respectfully urge your Aye vote.

Thank you very much. Public comments in support of the Bill please come forward.

Sara Bachez with Children Now in support.

Kim Lewis with the California Coalition for Youth in Support.

Annie Chou at the California Teachers Association in support.

Ryan Spencer with the American College of OBGYN's District Nine in support.

Martin Radacevich on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All California in support.

Bella Kern on behalf of San Francisco Unified School District in support.

Marissa Vismara on behalf of State Superintendent Public Instruction, Tony Thurmond in support.

Craig Pulser for on behalf of Equality California in support.

Symphony Barbee on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support.

Melody Yan on behalf of Essential Access Health. Proud co sponsor call Proud co sponsor in strong support.

Kat Deburg with the Health Officers Association of California in support.

Ruth Dawson with the ACLU of California Action in strong support. Thank you.

All right, any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Any comments, questions from the Committee? Going once. Going twice. Seeing none. Senator Mengevar, thank you for continuing to champion this cause. Hopefully, you'll have a better outcome this time.

Would you like to close?

Hopefully, just once again, respectfully asking for an aye vote?

We need a motion in a second, moved by Miss Bonta, second by Miss Addis. Roll call.

Please file item seven, SB 954. The motion is do passed to Health Committee. [Roll Call] 3, 0. The bill's on call.

The bill is on call. All right. On behalf of Senator Stern, Senator Limone is in the room since she's file order ahead of Senator Gonzalez. And this is file number 24, SB 1471. Senator, welcome.

And I do hear we have a motion and a second, so I will go ahead and have Gary Cooper, who is here to speak in support of the bill, present.

Thank you, Senator Limon. Gary Cooper. And today I'm representing Saving Lives, Camarillo, which is in Senator Limon's district. And it is a coalition made up of educators, religious leaders, public safety officials, and their main focus is trying to reduce drug and alcohol use in schools, in Camarillo, and in the general area.

And this bill, 1471 acknowledges that so many people, so many young people do not have a moment or quiet moment to at least reflect on daily life, daily activity, their life, positive things.

And so basically, what this bill does, it, you know, there's not a mandate, but it basically authorizes schools, which they pretty much can do now, but it kind of puts it in writing that they can offer up a quiet moment during the course of the day, whether it's in the morning afternoon, whenever the teacher decides that it's appropriate to basically reflect on hopefully positive things and hopefully positive things that have been instilled in them by their parents or guardians.

We realize that right now, with so many people and so many students having mental health issues, this is a positive way to get them to at least focus on something that will be helpful to them during the course of their day. This is not going to be religious. It's not going to be with any religious overtones.

We're not asking any teachers to offer up any of their own personal thoughts. We're only asking the teachers to be able to offer up moment of silence or a quiet moment, however you want to look at it.

But basically, we're asking for the teachers to offer this up as something that will be very helpful to the mental health of the students. And with that, I ask for an aye vote from this Committee. Thank you.

Thank you. Any public comments in support of the measure? Any witnesses in opposition to the measure? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the measure? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Miss Bonta.

I certainly appreciate the intention of this bill. Being somebody who went to a Quaker school since the age of nine years old and who had a moment of silence that was obviously a religious school.

I did want to just have some assurances, however, for our public school system around how the actual implementation and practice of this moment of silence, and by the way, that is a term that we used in our Quaker school, would be exercised to ensure that students would have the ability to participate, not participate, and to ensure that it was actually agnostic or didn't make any comments or reference to a particular religion.

Again, our primary focus is to have the instructor offer up a particular period of time, the 60 seconds, 30 seconds, whatever it is, and basically say that this is time for you to think of your own thoughts. There will be nothing religious. It will not be conducted as a religious service or as a religious theme.

Basically saying, we would like you to be able to think about your thoughts of the day, something that your parents might have taught you, something your relatives might have taught you. But just take that 30 seconds, 60 seconds, and think about something hopefully positive, but absolutely nothing religious.

And that is the commitment that we certainly make from the saving lives Camarillo. And I know that that's been done in Senator Limon's district currently, so thank you.

I appreciate the commitment that you are making. However, we would be implementing this in state law to be practiced across many school districts.

So, I'm just asking, as this bill proceeds of the author who isn't here to ensure that there is some very explicit language around kind of supporting the explicit direction that this of the practitioners, ultimately the teachers and school administrators, around how to be able to implement this in a way that would assure that it would not have any specific religious on your tone.

Thank you. Miss Bonta, just for your reference, there's the mockup amended language in the committee file. And in Subsection B, number two, it states, pursuant to state and federal law, silent reflection may not be considered or be conducted with any religious content, reference, or overtone.

So, that statutory language will be in there to clarify that it is not to be interfere with any issues of separation of, of church and public schools. But certainly, appreciate your bringing that topic forward because I was going to bring that up also. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Mister Hoover.

Just want I share the concern from my colleague from Oakland. So, thank you for clarifying that in the amendments.

And, you know, I do think this practice could be helpful, especially in a day and age where there's so much going on, especially in the minds of our kids with smartphones and all the other distractions in their life, but did want to make sure that protection was in there. Thank you.

Thank you. And the Committee Secretary reminded me. Senator Limon, do you accept all amendments?

On behalf of Senator Stern, I accept amendments, yes.

Thank you. Any further questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Senator Limon.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Motion? Motion made and seconded. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File, item 24, SB 1471. The motion is do pass as amended to the Floor. [Roll call]

5-0, the Bill is out. All right, final presentation is Senator Gonzalez, File number 9, SB 991. You have a motion from the Vice Chair. Flight Laura.

Okay, thank you.

And second from Miss Bonta.

Thank you. And Mister Chair, and Members, before I begin, I'd like to accept and thank the Committee for their recommended amendments, which will require the LAUSD Office of Inspector General to conform to the principles and standards for offices of Inspector General.

And in regards to audits, follow the generally accepted government auditing standards issued by the Controller General of the United States, or standards for the professional practice of internal auditing issued by the Institute of Internal Auditors. That was a mouthful.

So for over two decades, the Inspector General has maintained the ability to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths or affirmations, take testimony and compel the production of information when there is a reasonable suspicion that a law, regulation, or policy has been violated.

And LAUSD must maintain a meaningful authority to ensure the construction projects, contracts, procurement contracts, student services, processes, functions of the district, and other important programs do not fall victim to poor performance or illegal activity.

And SB 991 removes the 2025 sunset date and allows the Inspector General to continue its transparent oversight responsibilities in perpetuity. Testifying in support of this measure today, I have Sue Stengel, the current LAUSD Inspector General, and Martha Alvarez, Chief of Legislative Affairs and Government Relations for LAUSD, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good afternoon, Chair Muratsuchi and Members. My name is Sue Stengel. I have the privilege of serving as the Inspector General for the Los Angeles Unified School District. I'm here today to support SB 991, which reauthorizes the LAUSD's Office of Inspector General, or OIG.

25 years ago, the Los Angeles Board of Education and the State Legislature partnered to create the Office of the Inspector General exclusively for LAUSD. The OIG serves honorably as a steward for public trust. The work of the OIG includes auditing district contracts, programs and operations, and investigating suspected misconduct, both administrative and criminal.

The OIG also manages the district's 24/7 whistleblower hotline. Each year, the OIG conducts a comprehensive risk assessment of district contracts and programs in accordance with government auditing standards and best practices to determine our audit plan for the upcoming fiscal year.

Our work plan is vetted by both the Board of Education and the district's Bond Oversight Committee at public meetings, and the work plan is published in advance of these meetings for the public's review. According to the statement of principles for Offices of Inspector General, we serve the public best when we follow the basic principles of integrity, objectivity, independence, and confidentiality. Being free from personal impairments and external influences, both in fact and in appearance, ensures that our opinions, conclusions, and judgments and recommendations are impartial and are perceived as impartial.

Supporting SB 991 will send a clear message that the Legislature is dedicated to rooting out corruption, promoting transparency, and ensuring that LAUSD serves the best interests of students and families. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Muratsuchi, Members and staff. Martha Alvarez, the Chief of Government Relations for the LA Unified School District, here for any technical questions that you may have. Thank you.

Public comments in support of the Bill? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Either way.

All right, Chair and Members, Carson Eades, on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association. We currently have an opposed unless amended position on this Bill. We would like to thank the author, the author staff, and the sponsors for their ongoing dialogue about our concerns on this issue.

We'd also like to thank the Committee and their staff for their work, hard work on the Committee amendments to this Bill and the author for accepting those amendments. We think those amendments go a long way towards addressing our concerns, and obviously, they would require that the OIG follow yellow or red book standards for audits.

We would like to see a little bit more clarity around exactly which standards should be used when doing audits of independent external charter schools, while recognizing that we need to preserve the OIG's flexibility on audits for all the internal work and everything else, all the important functions that they do internally for LAUSD.

So we think we could maybe strike a balance there that would preserve that flexibility while ensuring we protect our schools from some issues that we saw in the past in this situation.

So, for those reasons, we haven't opposed this amended position on this Bill, but we look forward to continuing to have conversations with the author, the sponsors, and the Committee as this Bill continues to move forward. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. And I might have a few questions for you. So if you could stay at the witness table. Appreciate it. Any further witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Any public comments in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Mister Alvarez.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you to the author and the testimony. I just want to get a little bit more of the historical context and understanding of the, without. I'm assuming the state required an Office of Inspector General because of something that occurred in LA Unified.

Without getting into details about that and not judging, certainly that was something that happened. It sounds like, a long time ago, and I'm sure the leadership is new at LA, but why is there an office of Inspector General that is authorized by the state, specifically at LA Unified?

And I don't know who can answer that question, so I'll just pose it to the Inspector General, who's here, and the author, whoever.

Sorry. My understanding is that there was a partnership with the State Legislature, that it was in response, yes, to a crisis that had occurred, and that the local state legislators and the school board members partnered to create the state legislation.

Okay.

And then I would also add, and Sue can also allude to it. So the statute was passed in 1999. It was for a two year period. Since then, there was two other authorization extensions for 10 years each of those times.

And that extension will sunset in 2025 so that we're not pursuing this permanent authorization for the OIG to exist. As a school district, we are the sponsor of the Bill. We believe it is good for the public. We have over $10 billion budget between, and not counting our school bonds.

So it is something that we can proudly be able to share with our community, that we have integrity in upholding the ethical standards that we're good public stewards of funding. The other piece that I'll mention, the OIG does have subpoena power, and that's where the statute came into play. Otherwise, they would not be able to have that, should they want to elaborate about the subpoena power and some of the examples of the work that they've done over the past 25 years in existence.

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. Is there a cost associated to the state for the office of the OIG, or is it all costs that the district is responsible for?

It's all local, locally funded.

Okay.

From bond money and then general funds.

Bond money as you're implementing the bond program, and then for ongoing for operating annual budget approved by the Board?

Correct. We conduct work related to the bond funded construction.

In LA Unified?

Yes.

And just last year alone, in 2023, the OIG was able to have a $6.5 million in savings by being able to recoup any funds that may have been misappropriated by employees or other personnel.

So it is a deterrent mechanism to be able to, again, uphold the trust of the public, given the size of LA Unified being the largest district in California.

And again, Sue can explain anything since they're the ones who conduct investigations, how this has been a useful tool to deter any wrongdoing, and again, uphold the integrity of our school district.

Yeah, I appreciate it. I think there's definitely some learned lessons that could be applied to government in other ways from your work. So I would be interested in that at another time with more detail. I don't understand the opposition, so maybe I'll turn to the opposition on the concerns.

One, I appreciate that you are coming before the Committee and expressing your concerns now. Oftentimes we don't hear from opposition until, you know, very late in the process, and it makes it difficult to address some of these issues. So I want to thank you for coming.

But I also am not clear as to what the concern is specifically. I know the author has already been working on this Bill, as is evident by what we have before us today.

And so I want to make sure maybe she's already clear on what your position is, but I am not from your testimony, so I'd like to understand.

Got it. I'm sorry. Yeah. I don't want to relitigate the entire situation and everything. This goes back, actually, a ways to 2015. There was a situation involving an audit that was done that wasn't completed. There were basically, like, there weren't processes properly followed.

And essentially what happened is the Board didn't get the full access to the report that was done, et cetera, and they didn't have complete information to act, and they decided to close several charter schools. Because of the way everything was handled, there was a lawsuit. It was a really messy process.

Let me pause here just to understand and follow you. So there was an audit that was performed by the Office of the General. Okay. And there was information. You're stating that there was information that was kept from the Board, that the Inspector General had information that was kept from the Board?

Yeah. So there was a report that was made, and what was given to the Board was a memo of the report, not actually the report of the audit. And there were comment procedures that were not followed. The audit procedures at the time were basically. It was a messy situation. There was a lawsuit.

Three charter schools were almost closed. The lawsuit resulted in the charter schools continuing to stay open. There was also a BSA audit of the whole situation involving the charter schools and of the OIG, and they had found in that situation, the BSA had found, the VR state audits had found that the OIG had skipped some steps and had done some things wrong. And in a follow up to that, the OIG then said, we're going to follow generally accepted government auditing standards and all that, which is great.

We think the OIG has been better since, frankly. But part of the reason that we're here is we want to make sure the laws are just a little bit stronger so we don't have that kind of a messy situation again in the future.

So, given that we're asking for completely removing the extension, the sunset, making sure it's permanent.

To the Office Inspector General, I don't know how long you've been at the office, but do you have anything to add or comments about that response?

So I've been with the office for a year and a half now, and this was 10 years ago. I'd like to say that since, not since then, but since we've been in existence since 1999, we, today, we, up to today, we've located 30 charter school audits that we've done.

All of them were done in compliance with the Yellow Book standards. Almost all of our work is done in compliance with Yellow Book standards. Our operations manual lays out that we will use Yellow Book standards. So that is our current operating situation.

Is there a discrepancy in your understanding of that operation? Yeah, I'm asking you.

Oh, yeah, sorry. So we, we just would like to see. Our members have had some heartburn over the situation, and so we'd like to see a little bit more strength in the law to clarify that charter schools should generally be audited that are external under Yellow Book standards.

We worry in a situation where Red Book standards might be used. Not to get overly nerdy here, but the Red Book standards just are, they are not as strong on comment procedures.

You know, Yellow Book standards are generally, you know, meant to be used of auditing other government entities, and they have very strict requirements and guidelines for how comment, you know, the audited entity is supposed to comment, et cetera.

You've seen this in a BSA audit, right, where you see, you know, the official comment and the record of the audit, and then the auditor's response to that. Red Book doesn't have that. So we worry about, you know, potentiality where maybe a charter school may be audited under the Red Book in the future.

So if we, if we could see just a little more clarity that external charters should be audited under Yellow Book, that would be great. I think maybe it might make sense that dependent charter schools that are run by LAUSD internally and fall under the traditional LAUSD command structure.

That might make sense for Red Book, but in the case of, you know, nonprofit independent charters, we think Yellow Book is appropriate and should be specified.

Well, my only feedback to the author, I'm very confident that I think there will be conversations on this, is that I do think that there should be some consistency and not different treatment.

And so what that is, I don't have a prescribed response at the moment, but, you know, that's, that's, I hear that concern and that's my response to that concern. And certainly interested in if there's a way to make this fix, if you will, then great.

And if you think this is the appropriate, the way it is, certainly would, would be open to hearing, you know, your argument on that. But given where this is going and where we stand out today, I'd be supportive of this moving forward today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Hoover.

Just want to echo those comments, I won't repeat, but I do appreciate the amendments you've taken. I definitely came in with some concerns, and I definitely will be supporting the Bill today. But, yeah, I really appreciate you working on those amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. So I had an opportunity to nerd out a little bit on the auditing standards. I'd like to take advantage of the Inspector General being here. How would you feel about a possible further amendment to limit the independently operated charters to the Yellow Book standard?

So we would be opposed to that. We operate under the principles and standards for Offices of inspectors General, and they allow for audits to be conducted under either the Yellow Book or the Red Book.

Also, what is being proposed is in conflict with what the principles and standards for Inspector General say about independence, and I'd like to share that with you. The principles and standards identify six conditions under which the OIG would not have complete freedom to make an independent and objective judgment.

Among these conditions are interference or undue influence in the OIG's approach to be used in our work, so it infringes on our independence.

Okay, so while historically you've generally abided by the Yellow Book, you want that option. You didn't want your hands tied.

That is correct.

Okay. All right.

And I'll just add, Mister Muratsuchi, the issue that CCSA has brought forward from 2014, over a decade ago, that was an isolated incident. There's been, in the audits that have been conducted since then, they have been mostly around charter school division operations. There's been five audits since 2016.

The bulk of the audits around charter schools have been prior to 2014. So we believe that the concern that has been brought forward is not a valid concern right now. Should there be any concerns down the road, and if SB 991 becomes enacted, entities including CCSA could always pursue legislation to amend the Bill and update the law if necessary. But at this point, we don't think it's a valid concern that stands on its own.

Okay. And I appreciate my meeting with the charter schools where you reiterated your position that. That the Charter School Association supports full transparency in terms of charter school operations and that you want to hold any potential bad actors accountable.

And so to that end, I do recognize the importance of the Office of Inspector General for our state's largest, especially for our state's largest school district. And so I'm happy to support the Bill as amended. Senator Gonzalez, seeing no further questions from the Committee, would you like to close?

Well, I want to thank you and the Committee as well, for their work with us, but we have certainly taken quite a few amendments that I think strike a really good balance between ensuring that there is independence and impartiality on behalf of the OIG, but also in a place where, I think to Assemblymember Alvarez's point, to ensure that there is equitable applicability as well.

So we'll continue talking with the opposition, and I look forward to those discussions and thank you and ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded? Yes. Roll call, please.

File Item 9, SB 991. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Bill is out. Thank you. Consent Calendar, entertain a motion for the Consent. Motions made by Mister Alvarez, second by Vice Chair Flora.

[Roll Call]

All right, let's take up the calendar for bills that are on call, so we'll take up the bills on call first. Madam Secretary

[Roll Call]

50, the Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

Five to one, the Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

Six to one, the bill is out.

[Roll Call]

6-0, the Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

7-0 the Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

The Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

The Bill is out. All right, I think that's a wrap. This hearing is adjourned.