Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

File item number 25, AB 2037 by Assemblymember Papan has been pulled from the hearing today and will reset for our hearing on July 2. File item number 26, AB 2388 by Assemblymember Joe Patterson has been removed from the consent calendar due to late opposition will be heard today.

Let me announce now the 15 bills that are on the consent calendar. File item number four, AB 2885 by Assemblymember Bauer Kahan. File item number five, AB 2154 by Assemblymember Berman. File item number eight, AB 2337 by Assemblymember Dixon with amendments, file number nine, AB 3004, by Assemblymember Mike Fong.

File item number 11, AB 1849, by Assemblymember Grayson. File 14 ABC 1575, by Assemblymember Erwin. File number 15, AB 20114 by Assemblymember Erwin. File item number 18, AB 3282 by assembly member, excuse me, by the Judiciary Committee. File item number 19, AB 3083, by semi Member Lackey.

File item number 21, AB 2248 by Assemblymember Maienschein with amendments, file item number 24, AB 2998 by Assemblymember McKinner with amendments, file item number 30, AB 2759 by Assemblymember Petrie Norris with amendments, file item number 31, AB 1788 by Assemblymember Quirk Silva with amendments. And finally, file item number 32, AB 2948 by Assemblymember Ramos.

All right, some preliminary instructions. We're going to follow the same protocol that we normally do. So what we'll do is we'll have the author present and then we'll take support. There'll be two witnesses. If you choose to have two witnesses, each of them will be afforded two minutes. Then we will have support.

If you're in support, you approach the microphone, give us your name, your affiliation, and your position. We'll do the same thing with opposition. Opposition will have two minutes for each of the two witnesses, if they choose to have two witnesses, and then we'll take those who are opposed.

They can approach the microphone, provide their name, their affiliation, and their position. So with further ado, we do not have a quorum, but we are going to proceed as a subcommittee. So, Assemblymember Jones Sawyer, if you would like to go first, followed by filem number one, AB 1905, by Senator Addis, who is here. Senator Jones Sawyer.

Floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. And I want to thank my fellow assembly members for allowing someone to go forward, especially since I have my surgery in two days, and so it's really good for me to get off my feet.

Today, I proudly present Assembly Bill 3089, the California Apology Act, for the perpetration of gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity, with special consideration for African slaves and their descendants. First, I would like to thank the Chair and committee staff for working with me on this bill and confirm that I will be accepting the amendments, the committee amendments.

A bit of background on the bill. In 2020, the California created the first in the nation state level task force to study and develop reparations proposals was a special consideration for African Americans. I had the privilege of sitting on that task force with one of your colleagues, Senator Stephen Bradford.

For more than two years, the nine-member task force heard countless hours of testimony and received thousands of pages of documents from state agencies, historians, economists, businesses, attorneys, professors, families of former slave owners, and the descendants of slaves and sharecroppers.

Based on that testimony and documentation, the task force issued its report to the Legislature, a painstaking recitation of the deplorable treatment of African slaves and the ways in which California and the United States benefited from forced human slave labor and how it continued to subjugate Black Californians well into recent times.

As required by statute, the task force was required to include in its findings how the State of California will offer a formal apology on behalf of the people of California for the perpetration of gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity on African slaves and their descendants. This bill is the completion of that charge.

AB 3089 is the first step in truth and reconciliation process. By offering a formal apology for past wrongs, California would join nine other states that have offered some form of apology for their role in slavery.

Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia have all enacted some form of apology for their role in the slave trade. Even though California entered the union as a free state, every branch of government from top down has had a hand in perpetrating the oppression of Black Californians.

This bill is an opportunity to confront those tough truths in a meaningful way. It has long passed time for the state to acknowledge its role and responsibility for the atrocities.

They that promoted and facilitated the institution of slavery in the State of California is also, and State of California is and should continue to affirm its role by protecting and uplifting the descendants of enslaved people who have been harmed by a legacy of state sanctioned policies.

I would like to thank the members of this body for acknowledging the fact that if we continue to ignore our past, we are doomed to repeat those failures. Thank you, Mister chair. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Every child, every small child is taught the importance of apologizing as a means to make amends.

But if we ever want to heal the racial trauma in America, then it begins with this apology today.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Witnesses in support?

You're it.

I think I'm.

All right. All right. Well, I don't think you need more. Right. All right. Others who are in support, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

I'm it.

Good afternoon, Rebecca Gonzales with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you.

Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kristin Gorey on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps, in support.

Thank you.

Julia Lopez with Greenberg Traurig on behalf of Equality California, in support.

Thank you.

Marvin Deon on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in support.

Thank you.

Duke Cooney on behalf of ACLU California Action, strong support. Thank you, sir.

All right, thank you. Opposition to AB 3069, please. That too. AB 3089. Need glasses. All right. Please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members? Other questions? seeing no questions.

We're a subcommittee, and so at the appropriate time, I'll ask for a motion and then I expect that we'll have a vote. So, thank you very much, Senator Jones-Sawyer

Quickly close?

You may close. Yes, go ahead.

I also want to thank my fellow CLBC members because this is a California Legacy Black Caucus priority. We have Doctor Akilah Weber, Assembly Member, and we have Assembly Member Mike Gipson. They're here in support of the bill. So, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you very much. Thank you, Assembly Members Weber and Gipson, for being here present. Thank you. All right, we'll have a vote at the appropriate time. Thank you. All right, next. Assembly Member Addis. So, AB 1905. And before you begin, Assembly Member Addis, let me make an announcement in terms of process.

So, we have historically gone in alphabetical order, as you note today, from A to Z. We're going to change that up on July 2. So, we're going to change it and we're going to go in reverse alphabetical order on July 2. So, I assume that Assembly Member Zbur will be quite gleeful.

Assembly Member Addis, maybe not so much so. All right. All right, thank you, AB 1905.

Let's make today a good day then. But I want to say thank you, Chair and staff and advocates. I'm here to present AB 1905, the Retreat Rights Reform Act, which is part of the Call-to-Action Bill Package to address sex discrimination and sexual harassment in higher education.

And as you may know, I'm a teacher and know firsthand that our school systems and their leaders must provide safe and affirming educational environments for all students to learn, as well as for all staff and faculty.

Unfortunately, California's higher education system has not only failed to protect its campus communities, but has actually rewarded perpetrators of sexual harassment and more. So, I'm authoring AB 1905, the Retreat Rights Reform Act because the time is now to end this kind of madness.

The truth is, perpetrators of sexual harassment who hold high-level positions in California's higher education system have long been rewarded with the right to retreat to teaching jobs where they can continue to victimize students, faculty, and staff, and or letters of recommendation that promote private sector careers.

These rewards display deliberate indifference on the part of our higher education campuses and, frankly, are a slap in the face to survivors. So, AB 1905 will make urgently needed change. Under this new law, those with substantiated claims of sexual harassment would be ineligible for retreat rights, as well as positive letters of recommendation.

It is well past time, and I think we can all agree on this, to create justice for survivors, to restore faith in our institutions, and to prevent further abuse. Joining me today to testify and support is Kate Rodgers, Co-Chief of Policy for Generation Up.

Good afternoon, everyone, Chairman of the Committee, Members. So, my name is Kate. I am the Co-Chief of Policy for Generation Ep. We're California's largest entirely student-led advocacy organization, and we are proud to co-sponsor 10 out of the 12 Call-to-Action bills, including AB 1905.

So, the Call-to-Action report exposed the gross inadequacies of the Title IX policies across the UC, CSU, and community college systems. Years of neglect from our institutions have created the problems, but students have been the ones dealing with the consequences, and AB 1905 is a key part of the solution.

To be clear, I do not believe that our universities are directly responsible for every incident of mixed conduct on their campuses. What they are responsible for, though, is what happens after. So, speaking from personal experience as a UCLA student, navigating the Title IX process is incredibly difficult.

And making that decision, whether or not to come forward after sexual assault or harassment is very hard and like, especially when there are psychological, academic, and social consequences. So, when I personally had to contact my own Title IX office, it was primarily to protect other students.

Of course, I was worried that it would backfire or make things worse for me somehow. But that was a risk I was willing to take at the time because I wanted to make sure that my institution had all of the information needed to protect other students.

So, you can imagine how disheartened I was when they chose not to. So once a school knows of a misconduct violation, especially when perpetrated by a faculty member, there is no excuse not to address the issue.

So, AB 1905 will prevent employees of the UC, CSU, and community college students that have violated harassment policies from ending up in student-facing roles again. So, this bill will ensure that perpetrators are no longer allowed to repeatedly victimize students. So, on behalf of Generation Up, I respectfully request your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Just the one.

All righty. Anyone else in support, please approach. Give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Brenda Vutukuri, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, in proud support.

Thank you.

Lizzie Cootsona here, on behalf of the California Faculty Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1905, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members? Questions? Seeing no questions.

We do not have a quorum, but when we do have a quorum, I assuming we will get a motion and have a vote on the bill. So. Okay. Senator Wilk assures me. So, thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

You going to let her close?

Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead and close.

Well, with that, I will just say that we do believe AB 1905 will make true and lasting change, not just for California students, but for the entire campus community. And we respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time is right.

Thank you very much. All right, once again, I will note that we have 100% of the Republicans here in Committee and about 10% of the Democrats. So, if you're a Member of the Committee, we would encourage you to report to Room 2100. Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry, AB 2587, file item number two.

Good afternoon, Mister chair and Senators. I would like to thank you and your staff for your work on this, and I will accept the Committee's amendments today. AB 2587 strengthens protections for survivors of a sexual assault and gives survivors better access to the justice system. Unfortunately, an act of sexual assault is committed every 68 seconds.

The toxic culture of sexual assault spans across all sectors of employment and society. It can happen to anyone, anywhere, anytime, regardless of age, gender, or sexual orientation. Far too often, sexual assault also includes a culture of cover up.

AB 2587 allows a limited time for survivors of sexual assault to pursue overdue recourse for the trauma they have endured because it can take years to fully realize the impact of an assault and to gain the confidence to come forward with allegations. Survivors need sufficient time to ready themselves and retain counsel to pursue their rights.

AB 2587 will also clarify that a perpetrator of a sexual assault and an entity who covered it up are held accountable for the harm inflicted on survivors. By exposing these predators, we can prevent them from reoffending.

And that means our communities are safer, our families are safer, our neighbors are safer, and the public at large is safer. With me today to testify in support is Doctor Caroline Heldman, a survivor and advocate representing. Stand with Us. And Mike Finnegan, attorney and advocate for the Victim Policy Institute.

And we also have my staff who's been working on this as well, if we have any questions.

All right, thank you very much. Floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Committee Doctor Caroline Heldman with Stand with Survivors, and I strongly support this bill. Stand with Survivors has spent years supporting hundreds of survivors of sexual violence, and I am also a survivor. As a college student, I was raped by a fellow student in his car miles from campus. We both worked at the student newspaper.

And when I confided in our editor, my boss, someone I thought was a friend, she dismissed it, calling it he said, she said. Even after my attacker admitted his guilt in an email, I was ostracized and forced out of the paper. I learned the harsh lesson that speaking out about my assault only led to more suffering, so I never went to the police.

We recognize that countless survivors have been silenced by the toxic culture of victim blaming and stigma they face when they come forward. Our criminal justice system needs the civil justice system to prevent sexual assault, because only 1% of rapists will ever spend a single day behind bars.

Statistics show us that 120 rapists can be responsible for 1225 separate acts of interpersonal violence, including rape, battery, and child, physical, and sexual abuse. This bill clarifies that when the Legislature passed prior legislation, both the perpetrator and the entity responsible for the sexual assault are to be held accountable for their actions.

We must empower survivors to come forward and seek justice without fear of retaliation or shame. I appreciate you taking the time to hear my story today and for recognizing the urgent need for clarity in this law. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. All right, others in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Mike Finnegan with the Victim Policy Institute. I'm an attorney who represents survivors and I'm here in support of this bill, strongly in support of this bill, but also to answer any technical questions that you may have.

All right, thank you very much. All right, others in support. If you give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Samantha Maloney, co-founder of the Punk Rock Therapist Nonprofit, in support of this bill.

Thank you. Others in support. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2587, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Members. Jaime Huff, on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, still respectfully in opposition, but pleased to report that with the amendment that the Committee is asking the author to take, that we are going to have the majority of our opposition coalition remove opposition.

As stated previously, CJAC has no issue with the perpetrator of an offense being included in this bill. The coalition has only asked that the COVID up requirements stay in place to alleviate concerns about the overly broad application on the business entities.

On principle, we are opposed to reviving claims solely on the basis of the heinousness of a defendant's alleged conduct. The statute of limitations exists for our judicial system to properly decide cases on inaccurate, reliable evidence, which is a fundamental safeguard of due process.

However, we very much appreciate the thorough analysis done by your Committee, and we want to thank the author and her great staff for their commitment to work with us throughout the process. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in opposition, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else? Well, maybe. Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Umberg. Andy Liebenbaum, on behalf of the County of Los Angeles. And our opposition is contingent upon potentially removing the, or making clear that public entities are not subject to the provisions of the bill. It's been stated in the analysis and in many past analyses.

But what we're confronting in the County of LA is that the courts are still entertaining these motions against us. We're facing literally billions of dollars in claims, and if the intent was not to include public entities, we believe that making that clear would be advantageous. So, with that, thank you.

All right, thank you. Others in opposition, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members? Seeing. Yes, Senator Wilk.

Yeah, I just have a quick one, because I remember, I think it was maybe last week in the LA Times, they had an article about this very issue and how much it's costing the County of LA. So, can you address the county's concerns?

Well, just so you know that AB 2587 is building off of a bill Assembly Member Wicks did AB 277 of last year, and that bill did not include the public sector in that bill. So, we're just building off of that. We will continue to work, obviously, with the county.

We just found out this just a little bit ago, this afternoon that they were opposing it, but we'll be more than happy to work with them and the opposition.

Okay, great. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Seeing no further questions, just a couple comments. Thank you very much, Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry, for working with us to, one, narrow the bill, but two, as I understand that this is still a work in progress, that there's some still challenges that remain.

I understand your focus is on the perpetrator, and that's what we want to do, is make sure that the perpetrator does not escape responsibility. So, with that understanding, I assume you concur.

Absolutely, do I concur? You know, I want to do good policy, and I want to make sure that we make sure anyone that's involved or has concerns that we answer their issues. Sometimes we can't do it all, but I'll give it my best shot.

All right, thank you very much. Is that your close?

Pardon me? Yeah, that's my close. I'll give it my best shot.

All right. Thank you very much. Again, do not have a quorum, but at such time as we do, I expect a motion and a vote.

Thank you, I appreciate all your help.

Thank you. All right. Seeing no other authors here. I. No, I see Assembly Member Patterson there. Yes, he is an author. Yes. You better hurry. Yes. Okay.

Don't give us openings with lines like weaseling in Assemblymen.

Right.

True.

There we go. Thank you, Senator Niello, you are recognized.

So. Okay, great. Thank you, Mister chair. Senators, appreciate the opportunity here today to present AB 2388. What this bill does is it prohibits state. It enhances an existing law that prohibits state agencies from distributing, renting, or selling an individual's personal information financial gain, unless specifically authorized by law. So modernizes the Information Practices act of 1977.

Since that time, technologies have kind of, you know, enhanced, such as cell phones and cell phone numbers. It's a natural extension of the existing law and information collected by state agencies. There have been just our office.

Through the course of the legislative process, we've been approached by some groups that have asked for certain minor changes, and we continue to have those discussions ongoing. And always happy to work with any opposition we did receive after this, passing the entire Assembly on, you know, pretty much unanimous support.

We did receive a late letter from an organization out of Texas on Saturday night. And unfortunately, that resulted in this bill being withdrawn from consent, but always interested in everybody's concerns.

But the intent of this bill is to essentially just update the existing law and make it more clear on what state agencies can and can't do with individuals private information. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote, and happy to take any questions.

All right, thank you very much. Witnesses in support, please approach. Seeing no witnesses approaching in support. Any? Me too. Witnesses seeing no. Me too. zero, here we go.

Duke Cooney, on behalf of ACLU, California action, strong support. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, others in support. Seeing no one else approached the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2388 please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching, let's bring it back to Committee. Question by Senator Wilk.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Happy to support your bill today, but I know you're a freshman, so this is your first term, and you may or may not know this, but it's the constitutional duty of the Senate to protect the people from the State Assembly.

So even though I've got no, no votes in the Assembly, that doesn't mean anything because it's coming over here to the adults. But with that, happy to make a motion for your bill when the time. No comment.

Thank you, Senator Wilk, for setting the Assembly Members straight. Okay with that, would you like to close? Oh, Senator Niello wants to add his two sense.

Just let it be known that Assemblymember Patterson's Senator has not said anything till now.

Okay, I think that's in the record. All right, thank you very much. Senator Patterson, would you like to close?

Well, thanks. I'm mostly thankful for the opportunity to come to the second floor today. It's the first time I've been here in two years. But appreciate the consideration.

I'm sad that we don't have quorum yet because I'd like to know if this bill is going to get out of Committee. But I appreciate the consideration, appreciate the work of the Committee and Committee staff. So thank you very much for that. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time comes.

All right, thank you very much. Thank you.

Okay, other Members of the Assembly who are authors of bills that are currently scheduled to be heard in Senate judiciary, it is first come, first serve right now. So those of you who are fleet of foot, you may want to hurry on down to room 2100.

It close.

So those of you who. oh, here we go. Okay. All right. You are right. First come, first serve.

We're excited.

Is this AB 2377? Yes. All right. AB see? Thank you very much. Assemblymember Rivas, you took advantage. You saved yourself at least 2 hours of waiting. So. All right. Without further ado.

Thank you, Mister chair.

Item number 34 on your play card. AB 2377 go ahead.

Thank you, Mister chair. And Senators, I want to start by thanking your Committee staff, Allison, for working with my office on this bill. I accept the Committee amendments.

As noted in page five of the analysis, AB 2377 seeks to provide accommodations for k-12 students practicing religious fasting by offering them a modified exercise regimen or providing them with academic assignments relating to physical education. Specifically, this bill requires written permission from parents for students under 18 to request PE accommodations.

Fasting is the act of refraining completely or partially from consuming anything of sustenance. During Ramadan, Muslims fast every day for 30 days from sunrise to sunset as a spiritual discipline.

People in the Jewish community who observe Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year in Judaism, practice a day long fast and intensive prayer that requires full abstention from food and liquids. Additionally, several Christian denominations practice full or partial fasting on certain occasions, including Lent.

Other states have recognized the need to provide proper accommodations for students observing religious fasting, with Illinois passing House Bill 160, which permits students to avoid rigorous physical activity during periods of religious fasting.

Currently, students from grades one through eight are required to complete 200 minutes every 10 school days, and students in grades nine through 12 are required 400 minutes every 10 school days to fulfill their PE requirements. There are no guidelines within the school system that provide accommodations for students who are fasting during the PE portion of the day.

The implications of fasting in summer days are even more dangerous, as factors like sweltering heat can create dangerous situations for students such as headaches and dehydration.

Today, I have with me to provide testimony Rosa Hidari, President of the Afghan Student Association and Muslim Student Association from Laguna Creek High School, and Fauziya Faruk, policy and advocacy coordinator at CAIR Sacramento Valley, Central California.

Thank you, and I'm sorry to interrupt, but just as a housekeeping announcement, typically we go in the order in which you're listed in alphabetical order, but. But several of you have heeded my call, so we're going to go. This was a photo finish, apparently, but Assemblymember Friedman, then assemblymember Schiavo, then assemblymember Pelerin. I'm sorry.

We actually asked the sergeants for an official right count of who's okay. We're not okay. Okay. So you know what? You guys could go ahead and file a complaint if I've gotten this in wrong order, but. And then I see assemblymember Rubio, and then after assemblymember Rubio, we're going to go back to file order. Okay? All right.

So I'm sorry for that interruption, but I wanted to make sure that folks that are listening sort of knew what was going on. All right, the floor is now yours. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair. Vice Chair and Members, my name is Rosa Haidari. I'm the President of both the Muslim and Afghan Student Association at Laguna Creek High School. The absence of valuing religious practices in educational settings can significantly impact students experiences. An illustrative example of this issue can be drawn from my personal experience over the past two years.

Two years ago, I sustained a knee injury that required medical attention. Upon presenting a Doctor's note, I was excused from all physical activities for two weeks, and for the following three weeks, I was given accommodated physical activities. Throughout this period, my grade and physical education remained unaffected.

The school's responsiveness to my medical needs ensured that my academic performance was preserved despite my temporary physical limitations contrast with this experience during my religious fasting. About a year later, I submitted a signed parental note requesting to sit out or have accommodated physical activities due to my religious fasting.

While I wasn't outright denied this request, an action that would constitute clear religious discrimination, the school's handling of the situation was marked differently. Day by day, as I either sat out or engaged in less strenuous activities to honor my fasting, my grade began to decline, eventually dropping an entire letter grade.

This disparately highlights a troubling issue, the failure of adequately accommodate religious practices. The school provided robust support for my medical needs. However, when I sought similar accommodations for religious practice, the lack of support led to a significant drop in my academic performance.

This experience underscores a broader concern about the respect and value placed on religious practices with educational institutions. The insufficient support for religious accommodations seen in schools can lead to indirect discrimination where students are not given the same consideration as other needs. AB 2377 takes a further step to truly honor the principles of religious freedom and equality.

Recognizing the importance of these practices, I request the community's yes vote and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Others in support.

Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members, my name is Fauziya Faruk, and I'm the policy and advocacy coordinator at the Council on American Islamic Relations we proudly sponsor AB 2377 Bill addressing critical gaps in our educational systems. Accommodation of religious practices.

Reflecting on my school journey, I faced repeated challenges during Ramadan when fasting made participating in PE difficult and unsafe. Like many others, I had to navigate the conflict between adhering to my religious practices and fulfilling school PE requirements, often risking my health and academic standing.

While the First Amendment and article six of the US Constitution broadly supports religious freedoms, AB 2377 focuses on their practical application in school settings. This bill provides clear, actionable guidelines for schools, ensuring that students who fast for religious reasons can maintain their observances without academic penalty.

The First Amendment serves as the floor, not the ceiling, for religious protections, allowing states to offer greater safeguards. AB 2377 codifies these rights within California law, offering specific clarity and enforcement that broader constitutional principles may lack. AB 2377 is a proactive measure, providing California with the opportunity to prevent potential injustices before they become systemic problems.

Drawing on successful precedents like Illinois House Bill 160, AB 23 aligns with established practices supporting student health and inclusion. I urge you to support AB 2377 affirming our commitment to an educational system that honors diversity and supports every student's right to participate fully and safely. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, and your position. Seeing no one else approaches the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2377 please approach.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. I'm Devon Ford, and I'm here on behalf of CAHPERD, which is the California Association of Health, PE, recreation, and dance. First, I want to thank the Committee staff for their hard work on providing a balanced bill analysis. And I also want to thank the author's office for working with us.

Our position on this measure is opposed unless amended. We feel there's a clear designation. There needs to be a clear designation of identified religions, a definition of fasting, and a clarification on alternative assignments. Here with me today to provide testimony and answer questions is Doctor Christopher Bush, 23 years of experience teaching physical education and PE and health.

He's a previous President and board Member of CAHPERD and was previously a school district administrator.

Thank you very much.

All right, Mister chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Doctor Christopher Bush and I'm a physical educator, and I've had experience in the field for 23 years.

My organization, CAHPERD, is a nonprofit educational organization which achieves its mission by taking a strong stand for supporting, encouraging, and providing assistance for quality programs in health, physical education, recreation, dance, sports, and other movement related activities. Promoting an activity. Excuse me, promoting an active and Healthy California in reference to this measure, AB 2377.

Let me begin by saying that we believe this bill is well meaning and support religious freedom. We don't want students to be penalized academically for their religious observances. What we find concerning is the absence of defined religions and the time limits within those proposed bill.

The current version of the bill does not specify any time constraints or offer a clear definition of what constitutes religious fasting. This ambiguity raises the question of whether a student could seek excusal for varying durations ranging from a single day to an entire year.

We believe the lack of guidelines with specified time limits, defined religions and a definition for fasting are crucial issues that must be addressed. I'm available for any questions.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Others in opposition, please approach. Seeing no one else approaching, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members. Senator Wilk.

I'm taking Senator Archuleta's place today. I supported this in education. Plan to support it again today. But I thought those were real. I thought those points were on the mark. So is that something as you move forward, you're going to try to address with opposition?

Well, you know this because students are expected to be accommodated only for the duration of time that they are religiously mandated to fast for. Right. It's not a year long accommodation and they're not exempt from physical education. It's an accommodation either.

It could be a lighter workout regimen or some type of alternative assignment during the PE period, but it is not a year long or years long accommodation.

Okay. I know this is hard for you to believe, but I was kind of a smart aleck when I was young, and most people who do this are sincere following their religious beliefs. I could see people gaming the system. So are you open to maybe cataloging certain religions that we know?

I guess that stumbles on freedom of religion. Yeah.

I don't believe it's the state's base right to define religion. Right. I mean, obviously our intention. You know, I did in my opening statement, did, you know talk about Ramadan? Because this idea for this Bill came from my legislative aide, Omar, from his own personal experiences fasting during Ramadan when he was in high school. Right.

So that's kind of the. Where this bill originates from. But. And so that's what I am.

I mean, I'm surprised that we haven't already done this. So I salute you for that. I don't know.

I would like you as you go along to maybe I haven't received a meeting request. Okay. From the opposition with me.

So did you guys hear that? ok. No.

We're going to do this question and answer format. Okay. All right. Senator Wilk, your question?

No, I'm good. So thank you. Thank you for saying that again. Supporting education. Going to support it today.

Right. Okay. Thank you. When Senator Wilk moves to America as he's pledged to do next year and he forms his religion, the question, I think is how do you distinguish between religions that are well established versus religions that have maybe recently emerged that provide for fasting for a year, whatever it may be? I heard what you've said.

I've heard what the opposition said, that they're going to continue to work with you to further make sure that wilkism isn't included as one of the religions that may provide for some.

I mean, right. I mean, I just, I do have an issue with the state, you know, I think there is for freedom of religion. Right. And so I am being very honest with the Committee. Right. On who gets to define religion in our state, I guess.

All right. Thank you. Would you like to close? Is that your close?

No, I just want to thank you. Thank you and the Committee for, you know, your support, or I'm asking for your support today. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you. And I take your point about the state establishing religions. But I also take Senator Wilkes point in all seriousness, that there could be some sort of determiner discriminator between recently reformed religions that may not have a historic basis versus Islam, for example, which has, you know, a few thousand year basis. So. All right.

With that, we do not have a quorum, but we will, I expect there will be a motion and a vote such time as we have a quorum. All right, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, send me Member Friedman. So just to note that when I asked for folks to come down, authors, that there were five female Members of the Assembly that immediately appeared, and until recently, no males, just that they appear to be a bit sluggish. Males appear to be a bit sluggish in the Assembly, so.

All right, Assemblymember Friedman, go ahead.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. And thank you for acknowledging my first-place finish in the race to be here. As you may remember, in 2018 I had the honor of chairing the Joint Rules Subcommittee on Sexual Harassment Prevention and Response.

In that committee, we heard from experts and advocates from across the spectrum about best practices and preventing harassment. And in the Legislature, both the Senate and the Assembly took steps to reform our own culture and to protect our staff and Members. It's past time that we have similar protections for staff and students at our colleges and universities.

AB 810 builds on existing best practices established by UC Davis by codifying their employee verification process for public and private universities.

This bill provides an additional layer of protection for campus communities by providing another tool for human resources officers to engage with previous employers to ascertain whether the applicant has sustained allegations that, remember, sustained is important, allegations of misconduct while employed by their previous employer.

Under current law, colleges do background checks, but unfortunately, background checks do not catch incidences or actions of misconduct or sexual harassment. This has opened the door to what many people believe is a common practice of educational institutions passing the harasser, as it's come to be known in both academic and athletic spaces.

According to a white paper done by the National Academics Action Coalition on preventing sexual harassment in higher education. The term is well known in academic circles and refers to instances where faculty members who are found responsible for sexual harassment can quietly resign and seek employment at another institution without having to notify their new employer of past misconduct.

My staff has also provided to you written testimony to the Committee from a victim that has unfortunately experienced sexual harassment at her university, only to see that same professor find employment at another nearby college that was unaware of the sustained claims against this professor.

By reinforcing more accountability in the hiring process, AB 810 aims to reduce the passing of the harasser from campus to campus to promote a more safe and equitable environment for campus staff and students. Testifying in support this afternoon is Kate Rodgers from GENup.

This bill has received bipartisan support and is also part of the Call-to-Action Package moving through the Legislature. I appreciate your thoughtful consideration and would request an aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Chairman, again, and Members of the Committee. So, my name is still Kate Rodgers, Chief of Policy for GENup, so we're really proud to be co-sponsors of AB 810. I've actually been working on this specific bill with Friedman's office for almost a year and a half now.

And what I didn't know when I started working on the bill was that it would become part of my lived experience at UCLA in just a few short months. So, in my sophomore year of college, I'm now just finished my junior year, a faculty member repeatedly harassed me. He would follow me around.

He learned my schedule, lingered outside of my classrooms, and even chased me into the bathroom several times. And I wish I could say that I had immediately reported this to my Title IX office, but I didn't. I had already kind of lost faith in their ability to help students with this sort of thing.

So, I just withdrew from the class, which is still in my transcript today, and I just never walked around unaccompanied. And eventually, I stopped seeing him. And I realized later that this was probably just because he picked a new student to terrorize.

So, I found out that a friend of mine, an acquaintance, had had the same thing happen to her with this same faculty member. And at that point, I called the Title IX office. But even with two students, and likely many more with the same experience, with the same staff member, the school did nothing.

They never even emailed me back after I talked to them the first time. So, AB 810 will ensure that public colleges and universities have access to information regarding any past substantiated allegations of misconduct against job applicants from previous employers.

So, what I want you all to think about is that if what happened to me and my fellow students at UCLA does not result in substantiated misconduct, imagine how serious the violations are that do. So, it's that type of harassment that this bill will protect students from. So, on behalf of Generation Up, I respectfully request your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is that faculty member still present?

Yes.

All right, thank you. All right, next. Witness. Seeing no one else approaches the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 810, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members? Seeing no questions by Committee Members.

Assembly Member Friedman, would you like to close?

Again, this bill has received unanimous support, and I would request your vote today to better protect our students.

All right, thank you very much. We don't have a quorum. When we do, I expect a motion and a vote. All right, thank you very much. All right, next. Oh, by the way, we have written communication from Hannah Holford, and that will be incorporated in the record. Next, Miss Assembly Member Schiavo.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Senators, I am happy to be here today and grateful for the opportunity to present AB 2499 to you. No person should lose their job because they need time to recover from a traumatic or violent event.

AB 2499 will ensure that family members of living, direct victims, and survivors of trauma can take unpaid leave and time off to address safety concerns, heal, or support their family. One in six survivors of violent crime report losing their jobs or being demoted because they needed to take time off following their traumatic event.

53% of survivors of domestic violence report losing a job because of the abuse and seven out of 10 victims describe feeling unsafe or scared following victimization.

Low-wage workers, including immigrants, women, and nonbinary workers, and workers of color who are especially vulnerable to victimization, are also least likely to have the existing flexibility to leave or leave protections at their job.

We worked with the opposition to address concerns and have limited the amount of leave to two weeks or 10 days, along with limiting the reasons for taking leave. Additionally, leave is only available and usable for covered reasons. Experiencing violence does not entitle a worker or their family member to simply take weeks off of work.

Fewer than 215 complaints have been made to the Labor Commission based on survivor rights in the last three years, for which data is available to the CRD expects only 50 to 100 complaints per year.

Employers will benefit as well, for their employees are far more likely to return and be able to be productive at work given the appropriate time to recover. Joining me today is Manny Sanchez from Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice. And also joining is Senior Staff Attorney, Katherine Wutchiett, from Legal Aid at Work.

All right, thank you. Floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Chair and Senators. My name is Manny Sanchez. I'm a member of Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice. Our program represents a network of over 50,000 crime survivors in California. I'm here speaking in support of AB 2499. I came to crime.

I came to be a crime survivor of safety injustice due to the murder of my daughter, Justice. Justice was taken from us way too soon by gun violence. She was only 19 years old. She had goals and dreams. She was a very loving and caring with a beautiful smile. She was very smart. She was a very smart young woman.

She still had her whole life to live. When Justice had passed, I had already been in the process of healing. My mom had just passed, and I had no more time off to use. I struggled to take time off to meet with law enforcement.

I needed to help my daughter, my stepdaughter, get mental health support to process her grief. I needed more time to meet with funeral service providers. I'm still in the process of healing and processing my grief.

It's going on two years since Justice has passed, and I struggle to take time off for grieving without having the fear of losing my job. We as survivors need the bill to become law. Thank you so very much for taking your time and hearing our stories.

Thank you. And I know this sounds trite, but I'm sorry for your loss. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Katherine Wutchiett, a Senior Staff Attorney at Legal Aid at Work, an organization dedicated to advancing the rights of working families. At our organization we have a project, survive, where we hear from survivors who are reaching out to us because they're trying to figure out what they can do for their safety without losing their job.

And it's not surprising, given that in some surveys, over half of survivors of domestic violence and more than one in six survivors of violence end up losing their job because of the violence that they've experienced or time off that they need related to it.

While California does have some protections in place, they're not adequate for what survivors need, and AB 2499 fills in some of those gaps. First, it allows survivors to take time off for additional specific covered reasons and allows family members to take up to two weeks off for reasons related to safety and recovery.

It's only for specific reasons, it's unpaid time, and it's limited to those who work for employers with 25 or more employees. Second, the bill also expands reasonable accommodation rights to additional survivors of violence as well as their family members.

So, these are only accommodations for the purpose of safety, where they are reasonable, and they don't impose an undue hardship on the employer. And then finally, it also streamlines the process for enforcing these rights by placing them in the Fair Employment and Housing Act enforced by the Civil Rights Department.

Currently, many survivors of violence need to file with both the Labor Commissioner and with the Civil Rights Department, which have separate processes, investigations, timelines, and it can be confusing and burdensome. So, putting them within one agency will make it easier for those who need to enforce their rights to do so.

Nobody who's in the same position as Mister Sanchez should have to worry about losing their job when they're in the middle of that tragedy and trying to be safe. For those reasons, we ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 2499 please approach the microphone. Name, affiliation, position

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice in strong support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Senators. My name is Anthony Di Martino. I'm speaking on behalf of Californians for safety and justice and Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, co-sponsors of the bill.

Also testifying on behalf of the following organizations. Friends, Committee on Legislation of California, LA Alliance for a New Economy, LA Best Babies Network, National Council of Jewish Women Los Angeles, Orange County Equality Coalition, Parent Voices California, UFCW Western States Council, Women, Inc. Working Partnerships USA and Worksafe. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Concepcion. I'm also a Member of Crime Survivor Safety Crime Survivor and Safety. I'm also the mother of Justice and we ask for your support.

Thank you.

Hello. Sarah Diaz with the California WIC Association in support and also testifying on support of California Work and Family Coalition, Asian Law Alliance, Breastfeed LA, California Breastfeeding Coalition, California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Center for Workers Rights, Citizens for Choice, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto and Electric Universe.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Senators and Members. Ivan Fernandez with the California Labor Federation in strong support.

Thank you.

Justin Bowers with cleanerthforkids.org, we strongly support. In addition, North County Equity and Justice, Eco-Sustainability Peeps, and the NCCCA also strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn now to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2499 please approach.

Mister Chair and Members of the Committee, Stephanie Roberson, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, I want to first thank Assembly Member Schiavo for working with us. One, to keep the integrity of the bill, but also tailor it and provide some balance to this bill.

But because this bill will be the 10th expanded leave on the books, we must remain opposed for that reason and that reason alone. But thank you for your work on this bill. But we remain respectfully opposed and sorry for your loss. Mister Sanchez. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister Chairman. The Members of the Committee, Bryan Little, California Farm Bureau in respectful opposition for the reasons previously stated. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in opposition, seeing no one else approach the microphone, bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members? Seeing no questions by Committee Members. Assembly Member Schiavo, would you like to close?

I think the witness testimony was enough for all of us. Respectfully request an aye vote.

All right. Thank you very much. Appropriate time. I expect there'll be a motion to vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our sergeants are so good. I don't know how they missed that. I apologize.

I know. Well, maybe we'll have another chance for a re-race.

Well, we're going to on July 2. We're going on the other order, so there'll be some redemption. All right. Thank you. Assembly Member Pellerin.

Good afternoon.

And you have two bills?

I do.

Right.

So thank you, Mister chair and Senators, for the opportunity to present AB 2249. I'd like to start by accepting the Committee's amendments and thanking Committee staff for working with my office on those. Under existing law, specific election materials must be retained by county elections officials.

Records regarding federal elections must be retained for 22 months and all other election records must be retained for six months. The package containing these materials must remain unopened for the duration of the retention period, after which these materials are destroyed.

In the pursuit of transparent elections, the preservation of the paper and electronic record of the election is of the utmost importance. However, there have been cases where the Secretary of State and a court have come to differing conclusions regarding which documents may be shared without compromising the security of an election.

In order to provide more clarity regarding retention and document access, AB 2249 clarifies which materials must be retained by elections officials. AB 2249 also requires an elections official to take all reasonable steps to preserve packaged records in light of a natural disaster or other unforeseeable and unavoidable circumstance.

AB 2249 clarifies that all voters may inspect the contents of the package or packages at all times during the official canvas and retention period, excepting those items that contain signatures of voters which may not be copied or distributed. In order to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. AB 2249 is sponsored by the California Association of Clerks and elections officials. My witness had to go home, so there is no opposition to the Bill, and at the appropriate time, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Those in support of 2249. AB 2249, please approach microphone.

Good afternoon. Chair Member Stanicia Boatner, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support of AB 2249. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Larissa Mercado, on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election officials in support. Again, our witness had to leave, but appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alyssa Silhi, on behalf of the. City Clerks Association of California in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, others in support, seeing no one else approached the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2249 please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members. Seeing none, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

When you get a quorum.

When we get a quorum, we'll do so.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I see Assemblymember Holden here. Assemblymember Holden, would you like to go next?

All right, next matter.

Number two. So thank you again, Mister.

Item number 28. AB 2493.

Thank you again, Mister Chair and Senators for the opportunity to present AB 2493. I will be taking the Committee amendments. The amendments clarify that reusable screening reports may be accepted by a landlord and they cannot charge a fee if they accept such a report for no additional charge pursuant to Section 1950.1. While many landlords are running above the board businesses, California's housing supply crisis, coupled with the lack of knowledge about tenants rights among the average renter, presents the perfect window for bad actors.

AB 2493 require landlords to either take the first come, first qualified applicant or use a reusable application. It also requires the landlord to provide a copy of the credit report to the applicant. AB 2493 will also prevent a landlord or property management company from charging a potential applicant a fee to to be entered onto a waiting list for a rental unit if no rental unit is available at the time or will be available in a reasonable amount of time.

By prohibiting such fees, the Bill ensures transparency and prevents applicants from being financially exploited when there is no immediate prospect of securing a rental unit. I have two witnesses with me today, Ana Luz Acevedo and Veronica Martinez from the Communities Organized for Power in Action, COPA, who will testify in support of the Bill.

Alrighty. Thank you. Floor is yours.

My name is Ana Luz Acevedo and I am a COPA leader at Our Lady of Refuge Catholic Church in Castroville, here to support AB 2493. COPA is a broad based organization composed of 27 faith based, nonprofit and labor unions in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties. My experience with rental application fees takes me back to my first job out of college when I didn't have the money to afford paying for the typical moving expenses plus application fees, plus security posit, plus first month's rent and at times the last month's rent too.

So much so that the only thing I could afford to do was take over somebody else's lease so I can save some money on these expenses. And had the previous tenants not left their bed behind, I would have spent the night on the floor until I got my first paycheck. And I know that my story resonates with many other young professionals who constantly stress out about the cost of moving. I know that's something that my peers and I have talked about constantly over the years. In my case, I paid over $500 in application fees, but I know that's still low compared to some of my peers who have paid over $1,000. If passed, AB 2493 would help ease the burden on young people and keep talent in California. I will also be translating for Veronica.

Alrighty, thank you very much.

[Speaking in Spanish].

So this is Veronica Martinez. She's a leader with COPA and Mujeres en Accion in Salinas. She says, I speak Spanish and Mixteco and I'm here to support AB 2493. My husband and I have four children, and we wanted a bigger place so our kids would have more room to play and do homework and so we could be closer to their school. But the process to find a bigger apartment was terrible.

On top of the security deposit and rent, we had to pay more than $300 just for the privilege of having our name on wait list for apartments that we later learned are totally full. And my story is not new. There are many people in my community that pay $95, $75, $55 for each adult for each unit during a surge. For families that have multiple adults and live paycheck to paycheck, the process is impossible. AB 2493 helps families like mine who need relief and want a better life for their kids. Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support, please approach. Give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Duke Cooney, Legislative Advocate with ACLU California Action proud supporter. Thank you.

Hello. Janice O'Malley, AFSME California in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Josh Gauger on behalf of the County of Santa Cruz in support.

Thank you.

Eli Holiday, on behalf of COPA and its 27 member institutions in strong support.

Thank you. Others in support, please approach. Let's now turn to opposition. If you're opposed to 2493 please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice. All right, seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members? Seeing none. Thank you, Senator Stern, for joining us. I'm feeling a little bit like the Maytag repairman here. If you laughed at that, you're too old. It is impacting my self esteem that we are having challenges getting a quorum. So if you hear this, please report. We need at least two more Members to form a quorum. Assemblymember Pellerin, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you so much. I do want to thank my Lizette Jones in my district office, who's staffing this Bill and is here in Sacramento today. She's done an amazing job, and she knows firsthand the struggles of a renter in California and the cost of getting a unit. So this Bill will really go very far to help her and others in the same position. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. At the appropriate time, I assume there'll be a motion to vote. All right, thank you.

First of all, let me thank you, Chair Umberg and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to present today on Assembly Bill 2193, dealing with hazing accountability. As many of you know, California already codifies laws in 2006 that make engaging in hazing unlawful.

Despite this, we continue to see hazing incidents occur around educational institutions, oftentimes proving to be fatal. It is clear that our laws are overlooking a key player when it outlining responsible parties: the educational institution itself.

This bill allows for a civil action to be brought against an educational institution that knew or should have known of the dangerous hazing practices of an affiliate organization. Additionally, this bill establishes a rebuttable presumption that an educational institution took reasonable steps to address hazing if the educational institution had taken specified anti-hazing measures and requires universities reporting hazing incidences to the Legislature.

It's time that we hold all parties involved responsible for these tragedies in the hope that we can come together to prevent them in the future. Here with me to testify in support of AB 2193 are Attorney of Law Christa Ramey, along with family members to a victim of hazing, Myeasha Kimble and William Hilliard. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Floor is yours.

Thank you. My name is Myeasha Kimble. Our son, Tyler Hilliard, was born March 26th, 1998. He would have been 26 years old in March. Tyler loved spending time with family and friends. He loved dancing and baseball, which he started playing at the age of seven. Our son had a passion for learning.

We sent our son to UC Riverside to get an education, but only two years into his college, who would have predicted we would have to lay our son to rest? One of Tyler's goals and aspirations was to become an Alpha because one of his role models, Dr. Martin Luther King, was also an Alpha.

The thought of losing Tyler is just heart-wrenching. The treatment that he received from an organization that he held dear to his heart is sometimes unbearable. We are forced to relive the nightmare of losing Tyler every time we see a young man dancing, playing baseball, every holiday, like Christmas and Thanksgiving, Mother's Day and Father's Day, his birthday, and even looking at our youngest son.

It is a gut-wrenching pain of a nightmare that I cannot wake up from. The pain is that much more unbearable because this could have all been prevented, and this bill would help accomplish that. The regents say they didn't have a duty of care towards my son, but the fraternity won't take responsibility either. Who is looking out for our children?

Imagine sitting at the side of your child's hospital bed while he or she is attached to a ventilator, unresponsive, feeling helpless, begging God to save your child and to take you instead because you know without a shadow of a doubt, you would trade places without a second thought, and now you have to make the decision to remove your child from life support because there is nothing else that could be done. We beg you today in the name of Tyler and others before him to pass this bill so that no other parent has to experience the loss of a child as a result of hazing. Thank you.

Thank you, and we're sorry for your loss, and thank you for channeling your pain into something that may benefit others. All right, other witnesses.

Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, and I have a strict policy never to let anyone cry alone in my presence, so I'm going to pull it together. Good afternoon. My name is Christa Ramey. I'm an attorney, and I am here to talk on behalf of AB 2193. I'm here on behalf of Consumer Attorneys of California.

I'm an attorney who represents kids that have been the victims of bullying, sex abuse, and hazing. Parents call me when schools fail them and fail their children. My heart breaks when I hear stories like Tyler. And in their case, the regents has said that it owed no duty to him in his off-campus activities with the fraternity.

While fraternities might exist off campus, they find their members on campus, and the campuses which they find these members on benefit from fraternities being there. Schools have a responsibility not just to teach our kids, but to keep them safe.

We believe that 2193 made the necessary changes that the Governor asked for in his veto message last year to this bill, and we made clear changes when it comes to when liability attaches. This bill now uses the more standard language for notice that is used with all government entity claims for known or should have known standard.

There is also a compromise with a rebuttable presumption. The CAOC has never supported a bill with a rebuttable presumption, but the CAOC has decided that they would look at this on a case by case basis. This compromise was done because in this instance, it's important to address the current holes within the law when it comes to hazing.

Lawsuits are ultimately a check on the free market. Holding an institution accountable will ultimately cause that institution to take a look at their practices and make the necessary changes, and that's what this bill does. The idea that if this law passes will open some sort of litigation floodgates is not correct.

Subsection C of the proposed legislation addresses how to avoid liability while making campuses safer. If these steps are followed in a reasonable manner, there will be a rebuttable presumption that the school acted reasonably. If, on the other hand, they do not and their actions have contributed to the harm, then they may be held accountable. We recognize that lawsuits only make up for the harm that is caused.

If you could wrap it up?

But this law will help make schools safer for our children. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. All right, others in support, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Hi, Justin Bowers with cleanearth4kids.org. We strongly support this. In addition, Activist San Diego, North County Equity Injustice, Eco-Sustainability Peeps and the NCCCA also strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2193 please approach.

Good afternoon. My name is Joanna Hull and I'm a litigator with the California State University. Hearing from the parents about the pain of losing their child is heartbreaking. CSU extends our deepest and most heartfelt sympathies to the family. While CSU is here today in an opposed unless amended position, we want to be clear that the CSU shares the author's goal to wipe out hazing practices and protect our students. The CSU supports the prevention measures outlined in the Bill, and we believe they strengthen our existing policies. The CSU is absolutely committed to preventing hazing.

AB 2193 as currently in print, goes a long way in addressing the CSU's concerns, and we believe additional amendments are needed to clarify the scope of universities potential liability under the Bill. For example, we believe it is important that the Bill clearly set forth when hazing incidents must occur for the new civil liability to attach.

As currently drafted, the Bill is unclear as to which duty attaches, whether existing law or the Bill. We are seeking clarity about the timing of the duties and obligations set forth in the Bill as to the date of the hazing incident. We have shared our proposed amendments with the Committee consultant and the author. We appreciate the direction the Bill has taken so far, but we believe additional clarifying amendments are needed. We are maintaining an opposed and less amended position and would be willing to shift our position to neutral if and when the proposed amendments are accepted and in print. I am happy to answer any questions Members may have.

Thank you. Others in opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members Alex Graves with the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities. I would echo the comments from my CSU colleague in that one, we absolutely agree with the goal, and I don't think we dispute much, if any, of what was shared by the last witness in support.

Again, I would just add that we have worked in conjunction with the CSU on the additional clarifying amendments that we believe address any remaining concerns around potential ambiguity in the Bill and think we're really close to getting to that point where the language is workable from an implementation perspective. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you. Others in opposition.

Good afternoon, Nuna Garapian on behalf of the Community College League of California, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Brenda bass with the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in opposition. Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members. Senator Niello.

I completely agree with what you're trying to accomplish. My concern is the possible reactions that the implementation of the Bill could create, specifically that the affiliated organizations become non affiliated so as to jettison the liability. How would you respond to that? You can't prevent it.

Excuse me, Senator, I think it's fair to say that if an affiliate had committed an environment where hazing was being done against young people, our daughters and our sons, that there's a responsibility of the University to make sure that their safety when they step on the campus, the affiliate is a part of the University's, the fabric of the University because there's benefit that's gained from that affiliate being a part of the University experience.

When we look at a situation where affiliate has to take due care and there is liability that assigns to the affiliate, there is additional responsibility that the University should hold. We laid out a fairly clear and I think very appropriate set of standards to be followed. The University, quite frankly, if they knew or should have known and the affiliate did not do what they were supposed to do, that, quite frankly, they should not want to be affiliated with that particular organization. If they are not, if they are creating an unsafe environment for the young person to, whether it's a fraternity or sorority.

We heard the witness testify to her son being in an environment that he wanted to be in because there was value to that organization that he connected to. But if that affiliate created an unsafe environment, there should be standards of which we should all want to make sure that if they continue to do those type of activities, we should not want to be affiliated with them. If they can meet the appropriate standards of safety, by all means, there's value added. But I believe that, quite frankly, the universities should look at this Association and question it themselves whether or not they would be willing to or should continue to have that affiliate associated with the University.

Your last point got to my question. Fraternities and sororities are affiliated in most institutions of higher education. Some cases they're not. They don't have to be. If the institution assessed their liability situ - if this measure passed and they assessed their liability situation and the affiliates as they existed, if they had concerns about that liability, if they had the concerns about the safety in those affiliates, they could just unaffiliate all of them, which would somewhat, in a way, get to the intent in that that would put those organizations out as non affiliated.

I'm not sure that it would stop the system from existing, but it would free the institution of the potential liability without actually altering the underlying potential issue. So I'm talking about unintended consequences. I don't think that you intend for this to result in fraternities and sororities becoming unaffiliated from the institutions of higher education. But the mere passage of this may indeed result in that because of a fear of significant liability.

Well, I think what we tried to, and your argument, I think, probably had maybe, certainly resonated, I think, to some degree with the Governor, and I think we addressed that this year with the issue of rebuttable presumption and to lay out standards in which there could be a release of liability from the University. I don't think we're.

This is not an effort to try to torpedo affiliates that obviously have significant connectivity to the University experience, but it is making it very clear that with laws that are currently on the books, they aren't getting the job done to the level that they should. That's why this Bill is necessary. Universities haven't. They're released from a lot of liability, but we have now the opportunity to step in and fill the gap where we see there's a need to do so. And when you see young people going to school, going to a University and finding themselves in an environment where they don't return home, something additional has to be done.

And I'm hoping that it doesn't become a situation. I don't think it necessarily will, where the affiliates decide they do not want to be a part of the University or vice versa. But there has to be a recognition that the standards that we are putting out there, that there is a desire and a real clarity on how that the standards would be established so that the universities can respond appropriately. And we are continuing to have conversations on how to address additional issues that we may have to address.

I'm not even implying that is the intent of your legislation to result in what I'm suggesting could result. I'm talking about an unintended consequence of the legislation. And I'm not suggesting that the affiliated organizations are going to unaffiliate. I'm suggesting the institution of higher education would refuse to recognize them as affiliations. The story that we heard is tragic indeed. I absolutely agree with that. I absolutely agree that we should take steps to try to prevent that from happening again. But what I fear is the unintended consequence of this legislation may not end up with that preventative effect?

Well, I think what we needed to do was make sure we had appropriate standards to give the universities an opportunity to, having met them, to be not held liable, as you heard our witness identify. But at some point that could be an outcome, intended or otherwise. But at the end of the. Yeah, I hear what you're saying, but if we can tighten this up, which I think we have from last year to this year, I think we're in a position where hopefully the universities will see an appropriate recognition of how they can hold the affiliates accountable and yet protect themselves in the process.

Thank you. Other questions or comments? Senator Stern?

Yeah, thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you so much for bringing this back. I know we had similar debate on some of these issues last year, and a lot of the tough calls were made around this rebuttable presumption question, or if the University was making best efforts, how can they protect themselves? I'd love to get a sense from either you or the sponsors how things are going in terms of the clarification question that the opposition raised. And yeah, how far apart are you? It didn't sound like any major structural issues, but more so what is this going to be based on, current law or the new framework? And that they were trying to get some footing on that if I could.

So with respect to that, we did get amendments, proposed amendments recently that were forwarded to me, and I've taken a look at them. And so that process is working through that. The first that I've heard about the timing of the law, I think that that may have been addressed, I might have overlooked it in a markup of the legislation that was proposed.

And I would certainly agree that there should be absolute clarity as to when a law takes effect and when, whether or not it includes instances that happened before the law takes effect or not. So there needs to be that clarity. And if there's not, I don't think that anyone has any problem with making sure that there is, because all institutions need to make sure that they know where their liability might change.

Sure. That's very helpful. And so just what I'm hearing from you, and I presume the author is want this to be a go forward framework, not a retroactive framework. Is that? Okay? Very helpful. Thank you. Especially for the novel stretching with the CAOC here. Look, this is tough territory, right? And I think it does take creativity and flexibility to get to this gray area of these entities.

When it's a party off campus and terrible things are happening and kids lives are being lost, how do we get that University to really step in and go maybe above and beyond what current negligence law requires them to do and the resources that going to be asking of them to undertake. So I think it's only right that we manage that the liabilities that's going to go with that extra duty of care that we're going to be assigning. So I appreciate that. Hope you all can keep to work with that opposition and we can land this to get to a neutral place and get this Bill signed into law because our students need it anyway. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you Senator Stern. Let me just put this in a little bit of context. I know some of you are, Holden, you've been working on this for more than a year, more than two years, as a matter of fact. And this has come a very long way. And let me just point out that the concern about a rogue organization or rogue affiliation doing something that was out of character, that does not, at least as I read the language, that does not impute liability to the institution. You've included something that is very different in years gone by.

So for the educational institution I'm reading now from the analysis, had direct involvement in, or knew or should have known either actual or constructive knowledge or actually participated in the hazing practice of the organization. And the organization involved in the hazing was affiliated with the educational institution. This is very different than the language that we had before. An it's a fairly high bar for liability to be attached to the institution. At least that's my read of it. So I appreciate that. And having said that, if there are other questions or comments, I see none. Would you like to close?

Well, first of all, I want to thank you, Chair, for your collaboration in this process as well. You know, I've got today, it just so happens to be a coincidence that my young legislators are here visiting the capitol, all graduates of high school, and will be entering college in the fall. If I could just have them just. You don't have to stand, but wave your hands.

There we go. Thank you.

These young folks are going to have an amazing college experience. They're going to have an opportunity to participate in all that represents the college experience. And these affiliates provide that kind of opportunity. They may pledge for sorority or fraternity, but we want to make sure that we have put in place in California strength and law.

And as was pointed out, I think we have tried to go a novel route to be responsive to the Governor's concerns. And I look forward to this Committee moving the Bill forward. We will continue to have conversations with the opposition, as I have on all of my bills and to make sure that we are doing our very best to, I think, as someone mentioned, land the plane. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. All right. We don't have a quorum. I am hoping for a quorum very soon. My self esteem is quickly being right impacted here.

Can I just say one last thing, too? I want to thank also my witnesses, because I think that every time we present a Bill like this and present this Bill to a Committee, they come out and have to relive in front of the public pain and loss. And I appreciate the Committee's recognition of that, but I think they're growing a bit weary of this process. I know I would be and I know I am. So I hope that we can get this to a place where there's a sense of comfort that this institution has heard their concerns, and not just theirs, but for all the families that they're speaking to.

All right, thank you Assemblymember. All right, so consistency is the hobgoblin of small mines. And so I'm going to go ahead and demonstrate that I don't have a small mine and call folks in the order in which they arrived versus the order in which we have a file. So that would mean that we would go with Assemblymember Wilson, then Haney, then Mckinnor, then Alvarez. So, Assemblymember Wilson, you win. Right.

To my colleagues. I will be sure to be as brief as possible. And I wanted to make sure my witnesses arrived in the room. They're here. If you're ready, sir, I'm ready.

Go ahead.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Senators, I'm pleased to present AB 2257 a bill designed to enhance the transparency, efficiency, and fairness of the rate-setting process for water and sewer services in California. At its core, AB 2257 is about fostering a constructive dialogue between public agencies and the people they serve.

Under existing law, Proposition 218 requires public agencies to provide advance notice to property owners, a public hearing for protests, and restrict the imposition of fees unless they represent the actual cost of services. However, the increase in Prop 218 litigation challenges local agencies' ability to set fair rates to cover operational and investment costs.

Often, these legal challenges come without prior objections being raised during the public comment period, leading to costly and unforeseen lawsuits that strain the financial resources of these agencies. This bill aims to resolve disputes early and reduce the frequency of litigation, which can be costly and time-consuming for both parties.

AB 2257 represents a balanced approach to rate setting. This bill is about more than just procedural adjustments it's about ensuring our public agencies and our communities can work together more effectively to tackle the challenges we face. We've accepted all of the committee amendments, which prioritizes the public noticing process and requires a link to the fees written basis B provided. Importantly, this bill still protects the right to litigate against ongoing failures by an agency to implement rates in compliance with the substantive requirements of Proposition 218.

This ensures that agencies cannot misuse fees for purposes other than those explicitly stated. With me today are Kristopher Anderson, senior state relations advocate at the Association of California Water Agencies, also known as ACWA, and Kaitlin Bursey, associate at Baker Manock and Jensen.

Thank you very much. Floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Kris Anderson on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies and we are the sponsor of AB 2257. Public water and sewer agencies provide essential government services for the benefit of communities, agriculture, industries, and the environment.

These agencies are responsible for ensuring a consistent and reliable water supply, safeguarding the quality of drinking water, planning, constructing, and maintaining critical infrastructure, and much more. With climate change presenting unprecedented challenges, these agencies also must adapt and enhance aging infrastructure to mitigate the impacts of increasingly frequent and severe climate-related events.

Billions of dollars of infrastructure investments are necessary to ensure water supply reliability for future generations. Prop 218 places strict limitations on how agencies can raise revenue, and as a result, public agencies predominantly rely on revenue from service rates and assessments to finance their essential government functions.

While these agencies require financial stability to meet increasing demands, a rise in Prop 218 litigation is making it increasingly difficult to ensure agencies can pass fair and reasonable rates to cover the cost of operations and investments. Oftentimes, these suits are filed without first having raised concerns during the rate-making process.

These surprise lawsuits prevent public agencies from endeavoring to resolve the dispute and avoid litigation, and they also have the potential to undermine an agency's ability to maintain stable budgets necessary to operate effectively. This bill will bolster the existing rate-making process in order to enhance dialogue and transparency between public agencies and their customers.

The goal of this legislation is to shine sunlight on potential objections to proposed rates or assessments when agencies have the opportunity to address their concerns. Just want to thank the committee, the staff, certainly the author for carrying this bill, and also note a me-too in support for Padre Dam Municipal Water District.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Kaitlin Bursey and I'm an attorney with the Fresno-based law firm of Baker Manock and Jensen. And among other things, I help public agencies as they navigate the rate-making or assessment process and, if needed, help them defend their rates in litigation.

Now, Proposition 218 imposes both procedural requirements and substantive limitations on the adoption of new, extended, or increased property-related fees or assessments for water or sewer service. Public agencies already are at a steep disadvantage if they find themselves defending their rates or assessments in a courtroom for a few reasons.

First, under Proposition 218, the burden shifts from a plaintiff challenging the assessments or the fees to the public agency to demonstrate compliance with Proposition 218. Second, the standard of review. A trial court will exercise its independent review in a Proposition 218 case, meaning the agency is not entitled to deference.

And third, in litigation, the agency's evidentiary universe is limited to the administrative record that was before the agency's governing body while it was making the decision on the proposed rate or assessment. Defending these fees or assessments in litigation becomes even more challenging if a ratepayer did not raise the issue with the proposed rate or fee during the rate-making process when the public agency's governing body and staff still could have done something about it, or at least answered questions or addressed the issue in more detail in their record before adoption.

Now, the goal here is to help bolster public participation, develop sound and well-informed fees, and promote financial stability for public agencies. AB 2257 will help public agencies achieve that goal. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to help the author in answering any questions.

Thank you very much. Others in support please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Ross Buckley, on behalf of the City of Sacramento, in support.

Thank you.

Kristy Foy with Arnold and Associates, here on behalf of Three Valleys Municipal Water District, in strong support.

Thank you.

Alyssa Silhi, on behalf of the Cities of Santa Rosa, City of Carlsbad, City of Corona, City of Rancho Cucamonga, and Town of Hillsboro, in support.

Thank you.

Jennifer Williams with the East Bay Municipal Utility District, in support.

Thank you.

Jaime Minor, on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District, Santa Margarita Water District, and the California Stormwater Quality Association, in support.

Thank you.

Lizzie Cootsona, here on behalf of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District. Thank you.

Thank you.

Stanicia Boatner, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Dawn Koepke, on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, CCEEB, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, opposition, if you're opposed to AB 2257, please approach the microphone.

Hello again, and hello, Members of the Committee. I'm Scott Kaufman with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. AB 2257 requires nothing more of an agency than mailing the notice that is already required under Proposition 218, stating the amount of the charge on the basis of the computation, and then forecloses litigation for any property owner or ratepayer who fails to raise a specific legal objection within 45 days.

Nothing in this bill requires an engineer's report, rate study, or any other documentation that would allow ratepayer to specify grounds upon the proposed rates might be invalid to be available for review during the notice period. Some water agencies may make these materials available during the 2018 notice period, but it is not required by law, and not all agencies do. And we fear should this bill become law, there will be a perverse incentive to not release them until the last possible minute.

But even if this information is provided, 45 days is simply not enough time for a ratepayer to schedule a consultation with an attorney, have the attorney research whether there is a violation, find and retain an expert witness, have the expert prepare a report, and have an attorney to draft and submit a thorough objection preserving all legal theories.

Further, there is already a 120-day limitations period that is really 75 days because there is an agency response period baked into it. That applies to water and sewer rates. That time frame, in our view, is already too short, and further limitations are just creating an impossible time trap by design.

To further this point, I have brought Amy Sparrow, Senior Counsel for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, with me. She has 20 years of experience with Prop 218, representing both ratepayers and rate-making agencies. She will explain the real-life implications of this bill. I thank you, and ask that you oppose AB 2257.

All righty. Thank you very much. Next witness.

Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Amy Sparrow, and on behalf of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and I'd like to discuss the impact this bill would have on due process by calling out my own experience with the City of Pasadena, which recently adopted new water rates. One of our members contacted me with concerns about the new Pasadena rates, so I went to the city's website expecting to find their rate study.

In this case, Pasadena not only failed to post its rate study online, but incredibly, initially refused at the advice of their attorney to respond to my Public Records Act request for a copy of the report, which turned out to be over 100 pages long with charts, tables, graphs, and technical analysis, which is really required in order to evaluate the validity of water rates.

The point that I'm making here is that agencies are not required to make these rate studies available in the absence of a Public Records Act request, and even then, they might not make that study available until after the new rates are adopted, at which point the courthouse door will have already slammed shut under this bill, which requires specific objections during a time period when the rate study need not be available to the public.

So I'd really like to know, how does anybody expect ratepayers to voice specific objections to new rates without access to the technical rate study? So this just opens the door to a blatant violation of due process, and the legislative declaration that this bill is intended to provide, quote, 'a meaningful opportunity for ratepayers to present objections,' which is, quote, 'especially valuable in cases where evidence is highly technical' is quite frankly just painfully cynical.

Yes, the evidence is highly technical, and that is exactly why rate studies should be available with adequate time for legal evaluation before the statute of limitations closes rather than afterward, as would be the case under this bill. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Others in opposition? Your name, your affiliation, your position.

My name is Stephanie Swela, and I have done the 218 process as a ratepayer out in Rio Linda, Elverta. They do not have sewer.

Ma'am, your name?

Stephanie Swela.

And your affiliation?

I am a ratepayer with the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District.

All right, thank you. And your position?

Okay. My position: I oppose. 218. It's my job to oppose it.

Thank you. All right, let's bring it back to committee now. Questions by committee members? I do not see any questions by committee members. Assembly Member Wilson, would you like to close?

Thank you. I appreciate the concerns that have been brought forth by the opposition and those concerns have been ongoing throughout this process and we've made adjustments accordingly because at the end of the day, my ability or my strong sense is to protect ratepayers as I'm working with trying to support our agencies that are providing a service to the ratepayers. And I appreciate the amendments, the thorough review from this committee, and have agreed to take those amendments. So with that, at the appropriate time, I'd ask for an aye vote.

All righty. Thank you very much. All right, thank you. We still do not have a quorum. We need two more members and then we will have a quorum. So let me just do a little housekeeping here. So here's how we're going to go.

Next, we're going to call upon--let's see, File Item Number 12 by Assembly Member Haney: AB 2747. Assembly Member Haney will also be presenting File Item Number 17: AB 3281, then followed by Assembly Member McKinnor with Item Number 23: AB 2833, and then we're going to get back on track with Assembly Member Alvarez with Item Number Three: AB 2326.

After Assembly Member Alvarez, we'll go with Assembly Member Bryan and then Assembly Member Lee, then Assembly Member Maienschein. All right, so Assembly Member Haney, File Item Number 12: AB 2747.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. AB 2747 will bring rent reporting up to standard practice by requiring some landlords to give tenants the option to opt into reporting their positive rent payments to a credit bureau agency. Credit scores are designed to reflect the good and the bad of a person's financial history. Usually, if a person misses a credit card payment, their score will go down and if they stay on top of their payments, their score will increase. However, this is not happening when landlords report rent payments to a credit bureau agency for most tenants.

Millions of renters around the state are paying their rent on time, yet they never see a positive impact on the credit scores unfairly, if they fall behind on the rent, they can at times have that negatively show up on their report and bring their scores down. Additionally, although credit scores are a fundamental part of living in the United States, only one in 10 Americans do not have a credit score. This is because this is not because they haven't been paying their bills on time, but because none of their monthly expenses are able to be used to build their credit. For those who have credit scores, millions of them have poor credit only because the bills they have to prioritize are not reported to credit the credit bureau. This will ensure that many more tenants have their positive rental history reported to credit bureaus.

The most recent amendments removed opposition from the California Apartment Association and Association of Realtors, allowing landlords to collect a fee of $10 or the actual cost of rent reporting, whichever is less, from tenants, and exempt buildings with less than 15 units from the bill. I'm also looking at some of the suggested amendments from some of the tenant organizations and we'll be in conversation with them to help to address some of those questions and concerns if this bill is to move out. With me to testify in support of the bill, I have David Ramirez, the government relations committee chair for the UC Student Association.

Thank you. Mr. Ramirez.

Good afternoon chair Umberg and Senators. My name is David Ramirez. I serve as a government relations chair for the UC Student Association, representing over 230,000 undergraduate students at the University of California. I recently graduated from UCLA, which is where I currently live, in an off-campus apartment in one of the most expensive rental markets in the country.

Last year, when I was searching for a lease, what became abundantly clear to me is that without a cosigner, I would be unable to qualify for any off-campus housing units despite having the means to pay for my rent. I've been renting an off-campus housing for the last year, but my rent payments have never shown up on my credit score. As I begin my life after graduation, I'm realizing how crucial having good credit is to buying a car and renting my first home after college.

But one main consistent payment has never been reported to a credit bureau agency. Having my rent payments count towards my credit history would have made transition to post-college life much easier. College students often have low or non-existent credit scores and are denied housing due to their lack of credit history and credit scores.

This impacts our most vulnerable students, which is our low-income, first-generation students who often cannot rely on their parents or guardians to serve as cosigners for their rental occupations. At UC alone, homelessness is at 8% system-wide and far more facing housing insecurity. Homelessness is far worse at the California community colleges and the California State universities.

Additionally, many college students have no way to build credit while in college other than their on-time rental payments which they are already making due to their age and lack of credit history. College students tend to have lower credit scores, which are much more difficult to build. Many people do not apply for their first credit card until after college due to fears of ruining their credit, but for the majority of off-campus college students, all their on-time rental payments throughout college are currently doing nothing to build their credit score. This is why University of California students support AB 2747 which would allow many Californians, including many college students, who are currently living in large apartment complexes.

Thank you very much. If you'd wrap it up.

Scores and to use their payments to account for their credit history. And I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much. All right, others in support of AB 2747, please approach.

Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you. Others in support. Seeing no one else approaching, opposition, if you're opposed to AB 2747 please please approach the microphone.

Yes.

Ready?

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Tina Rosales Torres with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. I'm a housing attorney and advocating on behalf of a majority of renters in California. We have a respectful unless amended position on this bill to remove the provisions exempting certain landlords from offering rent reporting.

The exemption that the member referred to is one where this bill does not apply to rental properties that contain 15 or fewer units unless the landlords are more than owns more than one residential building, is a REIT, a corporation, or an LLC in which a member is a corporation. That is completely unworkable because it is nearly impossible for a tenant to determine if their property owner owns more than one building, and LLCs are not required to list their beneficial owners.

So there's really no way to determine if this bill will apply to them or not. Furthermore, the 15-unit exemption language comes from an existing bill that was passed previous years by Assemblymember Bradford. And then this committee got another version of the bill passed to extend the sunset.

And what's unique about that is it requires the 15-unit exemption only for affordable housing complexes, which most California residents do not live in affordable housing complexes. And the way that it's structured, it's really negligible and won't actually exempt anyone from the bill. However, using that language in this bill does have a significant impact on California renters.

In fact, the way that this bill is written, it will exclude 72% of California renters who live in units with 20 or, excuse me, buildings with 20 or less units. 68% of San Francisco residents live in buildings with 20 or less units. So creating a law or an exemption that's supposed to help renters that actually excludes a majority of them, really just sets a bad precedent and shouldn't be replicated throughout this body. With that, we respectfully request that this provision be removed from the bill and your opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Ooh. That was two minutes, right?

That's two minutes. There you go.

Right. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Andres Ramos. I serve as legislative counsel with Public Advocates. We're a nonprofit law firm and advocacy organization that works with renters and renter advocates to strengthen the voices of renters in public policy and to advance renters' rights. We also respectfully are opposed unless amended on this bill.

While we appreciate the author's goal to expand access to positive credit for renters, this bill, as written, will set a harmful precedent by continuing to treat renters differently based on how many units their landlord happens to own. This opens the door to excluding most renters from tenant protections for no fault of their own and threatens to undermine the effectiveness of tenant laws, other critical laws in recent years that protect renters don't do this.

Imagine how less meaningful AB 1482 or the Emergency Rental Assistance program would have been if they didn't apply to 15-unit or less properties, and how many more Californians would be facing homelessness if they had been excluded from these critical protections for this arbitrary threshold. As my colleague indicated, it's also difficult to know which property owners this would apply to, since llcs don't have to disclose their beneficial owners. On a personal note, I'm a renter here in Sacramento. I live in a seven-unit building.

The owner of my building is an LLC that I think owns multiple rental properties, but I have no idea if a corporation is a member of the LLC. So I don't know if this bill would apply to me and my neighbors, and it would be really difficult to figure that out. But I know for sure that LLC is not a, quote, mom-and-pop landlord. Lastly, I'd note that if you look at the analysis, renter organizations and renter advocates are opposed to this bill. We didn't agree to the 15-unit carve out nor we part of the negotiations.

When renters are not at the table, our voices and needs get lost, and it's easy to horsetrade away our rights to the landlord lobby. We encourage the author, especially as chair of the Renters Caucus, to work with us early and ensure that renters have a meaningful seat at the table from the outset. Thank you for your consideration. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote unless amended.

Thank you. All right, others in opposition, please approach.

Christopher Sanchez with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and the National Housing Law Project, respectful opposition.

Mr. Chair and members, Pat Moran with Aaron Read and Associates, representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, seeing no else approaching the microphone, let's bring it back to committee for questions by committee members. Questions by committee members. Seeing no questions by committee members. Would you like to close?

Yes, thank you. This has been in effect for subsidized and affordable housing for some time. Thanks to Senator Bradford. This would be a large expansion of what I think is a very important program that offers tenants the opportunity to build their credit. But I like it to apply to 100% of tenants for sure. Absolutely.

This is still progress. Millions more tenants would have this opportunity. And I think the exemption for the size is also because for the smallest of landlords, it may be hard for them to logistically figure out how to ensure the credit reporting. I think for the ones that have a property manager, that was why, from a policy standpoint, we decided to draw that line where we did. I still think it's an expansion of something that will help a lot of people. And with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We don't have a quorum. I've already remarked as to how it's impacting my self-esteem. If we get one more person, we will have a quorum. We do have 100% of the Republicans here, as noted previously. All right, thank you very much. Okay, next, we will have Assemblyember McKinner with item number 20.

I have the.

Oh, you have two bills. I'm sorry. Yes, I apologize. Sorry to create that anticipation. Assemblymember Haney, go ahead. You've got another bill that's file item number 17, AB 3281.

AB 3281 is the Judiciary Committee's annual Civil Law Omnibus Bill. Contains numerous minor updates to various code sections within the jurisdiction of the committee, saving the Legislature from having to consider dozens of additional bills. All the changes in the bill are fairly minor and generally clarifying in nature. These changes have been proposed by the several state agencies as well as NGO sources and are all consensus. This bill has no formal opposition. And at the appropriate time, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you. If you're in support of AB 23, excuse me. Strike that. 3281, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching. If you're opposed, please approach. Seeing no one approaching. Questions by Committee Members? Seeing that there are none, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. At the right time, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. All right. Now, at the right time, we will have a quorum, I'm hoping, and your bill will be moved. All right, thank you. Assembly Member McKinnor, this is file item number 23, AB 2833. Followed by Assembly Member Alvarez, followed by Assembly Member Bryan. Okay.

Good afternoon.

Good afternooon, Chair and Members of the Committee. I am here to present AB 2833, a bill that will provide comprehensive admissibility and confidentiality protections for all restorative justice processes that occur within the state. Currently, several restorative justice programs in California address the issue of confidentiality by entering into MOUs with local prosecutors offices and our law enforcement agencies.

These MOUs typically govern aspects of the program's operation, including confidentiality. They choose what is confidential and typically prevent information obtained during a restorative justice process for being used against the person who caused harm in future proceedings. However, not all organizations use MOUs, and it's incredibly labor intensive to negotiate and renegotiate these agreements.

It also leads to inconsistency across jurisdictions and result in a patchwork of understanding regarding confidentiality for California, rather than a comprehensive protection related to restorative justice processes. Additionally, these MOUs are highly subject to localized politics and thus in need of standardizing and guardrails that can come from well crafted legislation. With me here today is Danica with Initiate Justice. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice, proud co-sponsor and member of the California Restorative Justice Policy Coalition. AB 2833 does seek to protect statements that are made during the course of a restorative justice process from being used in future court proceedings. That is in order to really encourage people who might be inclined to participate in a restorative justice process to do so fully and openly.

We know that restorative justice is most effective when people enter those processes and feel like they can truly share, be very accountable for actions that they have done, harm they may have caused, and for survivors to be able to share very openly and honestly about how they've been impacted by that harmony.

A lot of the conversation in the capital thus far about restorative justice has been centered on less serious cases and in educational settings. And I want to note that restorative justice is actually most promising in the most serious of cases, where in criminal cases in particular, defendants are discouraged from speaking and meant to remain silent, and survivors have very limited opportunity to ever be heard about their experience.

As a personal note, I'm the survivor of a woman who was raped in 1982. The man who was arrested for that rape has been civilly committed as a sexually violent predator, and I had an opportunity to do a victim offender dialogue with him last November, and I will share that that experience was very meaningful, in part because he was able to be very open and honest because he's already civilly committed. Right. There's nowhere else for him to go. There's really no more rights or access for him to lose.

And so there's really nothing that he could share in that space with me that could be used against him. But that's not the case for a lot of people. We want to encourage to be a part of these processes.

People do risk losing their further liberties or maybe being incarcerated for longer or being charged with the sex offense and labeled a sex offender. And none of those things actually help survivors to heal or have meaningful access to processes that may actually help them. So with that, I urge your aye vote on this bill.

Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. All right. Others in support?

Anthony Di Martino, on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice and Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, proud co-sponsors of the bill. Thank you.

Grace Glazer, on behalf of Valor US California Sexual Assault Coalition, in support.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Others in support? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn now to the, oh, there we go. One more.

Last but not least, Duke Cooney on behalf of ACLU California Action, proudly support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2833 please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members? Comments by Committee Members? There are none. Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Niello.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Restorative justice can be very beneficial, I think, in particular with regard to juvenile justice, I think it can have a tremendously positive effect on juvenile offenders who are, who have reached probably a meaningful moment in their time and be able to make amends.

My concern with regard to adults is what would keep an offender in dialogue with a victim of, in that restorative justice process to talk about other offenses that he or she committed and then absolve themselves from that being prosecuted under the terms of this bill?

It doesn't, I'm sorry, it doesn't go into detail about what happens during the media. We have a mediator for sure, and I'm sure that the mediator would guide them into talking about the one particular case, what happened to them, because it's used as also a therapy.

It's like not just punishing people, but also being able to heal the victim and the person that did the harm. But you have a mediator there, so they're talking about what happened to them. So I don't know about them going off on other crimes.

And what would be the purpose of the legislation if the mediator keeps the conversation narrowly to what happened?

Because maybe whatever happened in the harm between the victim and the person that did the harm, maybe that wasn't brought up in their case. And so they start to talk about maybe what, you know, what happened leading up to the crime.

And so we just want them to be able to come and talk freely because they won't. They won't go through this if they feel like they're going to be charged. But we want them to, because it's a, we don't just want to punish people. We want to make sure they're healing.

And I think this is a way for them to heal and the victim to heal, because as we put people away, we don't want to just, we're not just in the punishing business. We always say that we rehabilitating folks. So I believe that this is a part of rehabilitation.

So thank you, Senator Niello. I think your witness wants to contribute here to that question. Do you have a further answer? It's an important question.

Yeah. I mean, nothing in the bill would prohibit somebody from being prosecuted from any other action if they were involved in any other crime or harm outside of what the topic of discussion is within that restorative justice process, even if they talked about it in there, would not stop people from being able to be prosecuted for that.

So let me ask a question. So if someone--this is a follow on to Senator Niello's question. So if someone in a session apologizes to the victim who's there and they have a colloquy, but the perpetrator says, and I'm also sorry for the other three murders I committed which have not been identified, have not been assumed, he not associated. Can that information be used in the prosecution of that individual?

After the amendments in Senate Public Safety, yes.

Okay. All right. Thank you. I don't know. Senator Niello, I don't know if you heard that answer. Did you? So the answer was that if a perpetrator reveals other crimes, at least as far as I understand, the amendments provide that information as to other crimes can be used for purposes of prosecution if, if they result in a life term. Okay. Meaning certainly certain specified crimes. All right. Thank you. All right. Other questions? Comments? All right. Thank you. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Thank you. We still don't have a quorum, but we will, I hope, soon. So thank you. At the appropriate time, there'll be a motion to vote. Okay, Assemblymember Alvarez, you're up next. Then Assemblymember Bryan. Item number three, we're back on track.

AB 2326.

Glad to put you back on track, Mister Chair. Thank you. And Members, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today and present. AB 2326. For decades, there have been attempts to address discrimination at our higher education institutions.

However, a lack of compliance and accountability has occurred to address the seriousness and sensitivity of this type of activity.

So last year, I, as Chair of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, had a hearing in collaboration with the Assembly Higher Education Committee and the Senate Education Committee, where we learned that we must increase accountability for safe learning environment for our students.

There was a 232-page system-wide report that we discussed at that Joint Hearing for several hours, and we found that campuses do not have a system in place to adequately respond to other misconduct that doesn't rise to the level of outright discrimination or harassment.

Additionally, the California State Auditor found that campuses lacked clear rationales for closing cases, causing us to question as to whether they should have investigated the allegations, which they never did. They just closed, in some instances, just closed those cases. Because of the fear that students have about their safety and a result of the Legislature's findings.

I stand here proud author of AB 2326 because for the first time in the Legislature's history, we are hoping to bring oversight and compliance to this program. I'm also proud to be part of a package of other bills to attempt to do the same.

This bill specifically identifies who is responsible within each public higher education segment for ensuring that campus programs are free from discrimination and who has the authority to oversee and monitor compliance with state and federal laws related to anti-discrimination.

With this bill, we are creating a clear path so that our higher education, our colleges, our universities campuses are free from sex discrimination for students and for faculty and staff. I like to now turn it over to our witnesses. First, Kate Rodgers with GENup, and then Kathy Van Osten on behalf of AAUW.

Alrighty. Thank you. Go ahead. You're getting your steps in.

I was going to say, I promise this is the last time you'll all be hearing from me today. So, one last time. I'm Kate Rogers with GENup. We're proud to be the co-sponsors of AB 26 or 2326.

So, unless you're living every day, I think it's pretty difficult to understand the culture surrounding sexual violence and harassment on college campuses. It's like, very easy to look at the Title IX system we currently have in place on paper and think everything is fine.

But after three years at UCLA, I can confidently tell you that everything is not fine. Sexual violence feels like a lurking threat on campus, and that's because it is. One in four undergraduate women will become survivors by the time they graduate. And for students, that one in four is our classmates, our friends, or ourselves.

And I understand the argument that our universities can't help us if we don't reach out. So, when I found myself on UCLA's Title IX website, staring at the file a report button, I thought of all the stories that I'd heard about the Title IX office doing nothing when they had a complaint. And I just closed that tab.

So, nearly two years later, after a separate incident involving a faculty member that I described previously in this hearing, I did contact the Title IX office, and the representative I spoke with on the phone assured me that they would do something. And like I said, I never heard from them again.

So, this is why students don't reach out for help. We don't trust that our Title IX offices will keep us safe now because they never have. Individual campuses have proven themselves incapable of holding themselves accountable.

We need AB 2326 so that the Legislature, you all, can. With more transparency and oversight, lawmakers and advocates alike will have the tools that we need to protect California students. So, on behalf of Generation Up, I respectfully request your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Members. Kathy Van Osten, representing American Association of University Women California, proud to sponsor this bill. And again, want to thank the Assemblyman for not only carrying this bill, but also asking for the audit. I think that was really incremental in advancing and moving Title IX forward.

First of all, AAUW California, we've got 95 active members around the state, about 2,000 members at large. This has been a very important issue for us for a few years. We've been doing quite a bit of research, trying to figure out ways to try to move this needle on this law that's been in place for 52 years.

And yet women, faculty, men, you know, people of all kinds are harassed, bullied, sexually assaulted, raped. For them to not have a place to go at their university is. It's unconscionable these days with all the heightened sensitivities. This should be in place. And there are some very good public higher ed institutions in California.

My client, AAUW, one of our policy co-chairs, actually works on this issue at CSU Long Beach, and they have a fantastic program. But there's inconsistency. And the way that you're going to get that inconsistency, I'm sorry.

The way that you're going to get that consistency is if you have folks at the highest levels of each institution paying attention, making sure their campuses are complying, that their local presidents, chancellors, what have you, are focused on this issue and making sure that they have the right people in place and making sure that complaints are being investigated and responded to.

If you don't have those eyes on this issue at this point, this will never happen. These students are just going to be victims. So, we implore you, ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. I'm leaving.

Thank you very much. All right, others in support.

Vrinda Vutkri, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis in support.

Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of the California Faculty Association in support.

Thank you. All right, others in support? Seeing no one else. Opposition. Opposition to AB 2326? Seeing no one approaching the microphone. Let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister Chair. And I once again want to thank Miss Rodgers for her testimony. I think it's really powerful. I hope you take away the seriousness of what we're trying to address with this and the other package of bills in the other bills, in the package on Title IX. Appreciate your aye vote when the right time comes. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member Alvarez. All right, we do hope to have a quorum someday, so. All right. Assembly Member Bryan, right? For those of you who are watching, one of the challenges today is there are multiple committees being conducted right now, both in the Assembly and the Senate.

So, various Senators have either bills to present or have other responsibilities on other committees. So, thank you. Having said that, Assembly Member Bryan, floor is yours.

Absolutely. Are we doing AB 3049?

Whichever order you'd like to go in.

We'll start with 3049.

That's file item number seven, AB 3049.

Just want to keep you all on your toes. Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. Today I'm here to present AB 3049, a bill that has received unanimous bipartisan support thus far. I want to start by accepting the committee amendments and thanking the committee staff for their thoughtful work on this bill.

A recent statewide survey conducted by Advokids and the Western Center on Law and Poverty revealed that many foster children in California, particularly those in rural counties, do not have an opportunity to meet with or speak to their court appointed attorney before the hearings. It's unacceptable. It's shameful. We can do better.

Children in the child welfare system depend on their counsel to help them navigate an often traumatic and confusing dependency process. AB 3049 aims to improve our dependency court system by empowering a juvenile judge to continue a hearing if they find that a foster youth has had has not had an opportunity to consult with their attorney. The bill also codifies existing rules of court, which establish guidelines for court appointed attorneys, including require them to have sufficient contact with their minor or non-minor dependent clients.

This is in alignment with guidance from the Federal Bureau of Children and Families, which states that attorneys must spend significant time with their clients to build a trusting and supportive relationship and to counsel clients on all legal matters. AB 3049 will bring accountability to the dependency court process and ensure that, when life altering decisions are made about a child, that decision is informed by the child's very own opinions and lived experiences.

We've worked with various stakeholders, including the Judicial Council, to address concerns, as evidenced through today's committee amendments, and I remain committed to having conversations around any outstanding issues, if those still exist. Joining me to testify today are Margaret Coyne, Executive Director for Advokids, and Christopher Hernandez, Statewide Legislative Coordinator for California Youth Connection.

Thank you. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Senator Umberg and Honorable Judiciary Committee. I'm Margaret Coyne, Co-founder and Executive Director of Advokids, a legal advocacy nonprofit, statewide legal advocacy nonprofit for children and youth in foster care. Since 2004, Advokids has provided the only free telephone hotline and legal services in California for anyone concerned about a child or youth in foster care.

We manage over 700 cases annually involving over 1000 children. Our legal services are a critical legal lifeline for foster youth and relative caregivers and relatives of children in foster care. Very often they call Advokids because a child is at risk of experiencing or currently experiencing a traumatic event. The first questions my staff asks any caregiver who calls and any foster youth who call our hotline is, have you talked to the child's attorney?

Because when a child is facing a traumatic event, as children and youth in foster care so often do, a child's attorney has quick and direct access to the juvenile court to seek protection of the child. Too often, what my staff hear every day from our caregiver and foster youth callers is, no, I didn't know that the child had an attorney, or no, I don't know their name, or yes, I knew they had an attorney. I reached out but have never heard back.

Advokids collects data from every foster youth and caregiver who calls us and has for several years. And we ask every caregiver and foster youth caller whether or not they, the child in their care or the foster youth themselves has had contact with their appointed attorney. What's clear from the data we collect and from our statewide investigative report was that in many, many counties across the state, and again so often in rural counties, attorneys for children are failing to meet their basic obligations.

If you'd wrap it up.

Oh, sure.

Yes.

One is to provide their contact information and let the foster youth or the caregiver know who they are and how to reach them. And two, to have some contact with them. So it is under the Welfare Institutions Code, Section 317 E 7, it is the court's obligation to protect...

So you're urging an aye vote?

Sorry?

You urge an aye vote, I assume.

I do urge an aye vote. And just to say one last thing, please, Senator, is there's only one rule of court right now that provides any protection for children who aren't having contact with their lawyers.... It's not geared. The remedy is not for children or youth.

Thank you very much. Okay. Next witness, please.

Hello, my name is. Yeah, okay. Hello, my name is Christopher Hernandez. I run the legislative department at California Youth Connection. CYC is a youth-led organization that develops leaders who empower each other and their communities to transform the foster care system through community organizing, legislation, policy, and practice change.

Our membership base is made up of 14 to 24-year-olds who are current and former foster youth from all across the state. CYC is in a unique position in child welfare because it has such an unmatched direct connection to young people who are currently or formerly in the systems we are talking about today.

Our advocacy this year has been centered on system accountability and protecting foster youth rights. When introducing this bill to our membership, they immediately supported the idea because of the legislation's direct connection to accountability. Meet Faith, or as the state may know her, Ariana. She was two when she was taken from her family.

Her visit stopped shortly after she was adopted and she turned 16 this year. It's been 12 years since she has had any contact with her family. I knew her as my younger sister, but now I'd probably consider her a stranger.

During our introduction to the foster care system, I had little to no support from my workers or assigned attorneys. Faith and I were navigating this system alone with no accountability to ensure we remained in contact or were placed together. If I had regular contact with an attorney, I would have understood what was happening.

Someone would have recognized the signs of separation, and someone would have fought on my behalf to ensure that I remained in contact with my little sister. This bill is a true step in the right direction for accountability. I should not have been expected to navigate or advocate for myself at ten but there was no accountability in place to ensure that I was meeting regularly with my assigned attorney. My story is one of thousands from across the state. CYC and I stand in support of this legislation because youth navigating this complicated system deserve an advocate who will truly fight for their rights. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. All right, others in support, please approach the microphone.

Rebecca Gonzalez, Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support. Seeing no one approach the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 3049, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Tracy Kenny on behalf of the Judicial Council, we were opposed unless amended to the legislation as it came to this committee. We greatly appreciate the amendments that are proposed in the analysis and appreciate the work of the author and committee staff on beating us part of the way.

It's still under review whether our opposition will be able to be removed. I do want to make very clear that the council absolutely shares all of the goals of this legislation. We were the sponsor of the original legislation requiring appointed counsel for children in these cases, and we think it's vital that they have zealous representation, because if their voices are not heard, then the courts can't make the best decisions in their best interests.

We just question whether a systemic response is necessary or whether this is a more limited problem. And we want to ensure that the communications between the judge and the child before them in court are the most productive and comfortable for that youth in that situation. So we will be taking these amendments under review and continuing our conversations. We appreciate all the effort.

Thank you very much. Others in opposition? Seeing no one approache the microphone. Let's bring it back to committee. Committee questions? Comments? Seeing none. All right.

Co-authors? I can see. It in your eyes.

Yes. Assemblymember Bryan, just to be sure, you've accepted the committee's amendments?

Yes, sir.

All right. Would you like to close?

Absolutely. I mean, this bill came about because we were informed about a statewide issue where there are many, many kids who have court-appointed attorneys but have not had contact with them in the last six months. There are many instances where those attorneys are going and advocating for children with whom they have not talked to. And we can do better. I think we have a responsibility to do better, and this bill is a step towards helping us do better. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, should you ever have a quorum.

Should we ever have a quorum. Thank you very much for that caveat. All right, thank you. You've got another bill. Item number six, AB 2046.

Thank you, Mister Chair and colleagues. AB 2046 extends the sunset date for the authorization of single gender schools and classes in Los Angeles. In 2017, AB 23 unanimously passed to allow LA USD to continue operating its pilot program to address specific educational goals and have a biannual evaluation to track the results.

These schools were established to support educational equity by increasing the representation of women and young girls and minorities in STEM and leadership roles. The evaluations during the pilot period were impacted significantly by the Covid-19 pandemic. Extending the sunset date allows for a more comprehensive and uninterrupted evaluation of the programs long term impacts.

AB 2046 will maintain all original provisions, including biannual evaluations, to ensure ongoing accountability. It will also make evaluation findings publicly available on the school district website to increase transparency. To give testimony, I am joined today by. By Anna Ioakimedes, representing LAUSD. This Bill and the State Assembly passed through completely on concurrence, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you. Please approach.

Good afternoon, Chair Umberg and Members. Anna Ioakimedes on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District. Los Angeles Unified is proud to sponsor Assembly Bill 2046, which will extend the sunset date of a pilot program authorizing school districts with a daily attendance over 250,000 students to offer single gender educational options.

Los Angeles Unified was first authorized to offer this option in 2017. With the passage of AB 23. We have implemented three of these educational opportunities for students, each focused on STEM education and leadership opportunities. Los Angeles Unified is also the authorizer for the Girls Academic Leader - excuse me, the Girls Athletic Leadership School, a charter school focused on health and wellness for middle school girls. Pursuant to AB 23, Los Angeles Unified has contracted with an independent third party research firm to conduct evaluations every two years of its pilot program. The results are promising.

Students frequently outperform their peers at matched coeducational schools and report higher levels of feelings of belonging and acceptance at their school than the district average or average of peer schools. The analysis revealed that these schools and classes are accepting and supporting of LGBTQ students. While these early research reports are promising, the three evaluations conducted thus far were substantially impacted by the disruptions of the Covid-19 pandemic.

For this reason, we believe it is appropriate to extend the authorization for the pilot program to allow for a longitudinal assessment that is not impacted by a public health crisis. Los Angeles Unified is committed to ensuring all of our students receive this option to choose their best educational setting so they can thrive in college, career and life. And these schools are providing that option for students and families who choose to enroll there. For these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you for your testimony. Others in support of AB 2046, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed. AB 2046, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone. Questions by Committee Members. Seeing no questions or yes, I do.

I don't really have a question, but we still don't have a quorum. But I got you when this one comes up, and we do have a quorum.

Okay, so Senator Ashby has you. All right. Would you like to close?

I appreciate the Senator from Sacramento always having me. And this is a bipartisan Bill just to extend the sunset in LA USD. We've got to make sure that we're accounting for the delays that Covid-19 had in our evaluation processes. This is one of those Bills, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.