Assembly Standing Committee on Public Employment and Retirement

[Roll Call]

It appears that we have enough Members to establish a quorum. We'd like to welcome our new Member, Assemblymember Alanis. Welcome to PERS.

Thank you very much.

We have seven items on the agenda with four on consent. The items on consent are file item number two, SB 962. Padilla. File item number four, SB 1189. Limon. File item number five, SB 1202. Newman. And file item number seven, SB 1240. Alvarado. Gill. File item number one, SB 252. Gonzalez has been pulled by the author.

Before we begin, should we take the. Yes. Can I get a motion on the consent calendar? We have a motion in a second. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

... call. Before we begin with the remainder of the agenda, I'd like to inform everyone that we will be limiting substantive comments to a total of two minutes for each side of the Bill, meaning two minutes total for the substance, comments and support and another two minutes for comments and opposition.

Everyone else must only state their name, organization and position on the Bill. If you proceed to say any more than that, we will move on the next individual who wishes to register their position on the Bill. Regarding disruptions to this hearing, I understand and appreciate that a lot of folks may be passionate about legislation.

However, the Assembly and its Committee has experienced a number of disruptions to Committee and floor proceedings in the last few years. So let this be crystal clear to everyone. Conduct that disrupts, disturbs or impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing is strictly prohibited.

To address any disruption conduct, I will direct the individual to stop and warn that if the disruption continues, they may be removed from participating in the hearing or the Capitol. If disruptions continue, we may temporarily recess the hearing. Thank you in advance for your corporation. We did the consent calendar. Let's begin with Senator Dodd SB 1379.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Today I'm presenting SB 1379 to temporarily waive the 960 hours limit for any retired annuitant working for Solano County Sheriff to address the critical staffing needs of the City of Vallejo.

I would like to start by accepting the Committee amendments and thanking the chair and the Committee staff for working with us on this measure. Appreciate it very much with these amendments. This Bill would allow any retired annuitant working for Solano County Sheriff to be exempt from the 960 hours work limit.

This would apply to deputy sheriffs, evidence technicians or communication operators with a three year sunset and limit the amount of retired annuities for this exemption to 20 retired annuitants. The Vallejo City Council declared a State of emergency last year due to a major police officer staffing shortage.

Despite being authorized for 132 officers, Vallejo PD currently only has 32 patrol officers, four detectives and no traffic officers. As a result, the Solano County sheriff is taxed with responding to emergency calls at Vallejo and this Bill is essential to assist them with responding to those calls.

The Bill would also prohibit any officer from being hired as a retired annuitant if they are under investigation by post or on the post decertification list. Additionally, any position must be advertised as a full time position officer six months prior to being six months prior to being fulfilled by a retired annuitant.

There is a precedent for waiving the hour limit in unique circumstances like this and in times of emergencies. Last year, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order in 1-23 in response to winter storms, allowing for any retired annuitant working for the California State agency in a recovery role to be waived of the 960 hours work limit.

Given the staffing shortage in the City of Vallejo and public safety problems it presents, the city can't afford to wait for more officers to be trained. Without this immediate assistance, Solano county sheriff won't be able to respond to the needs of Vallejo.

The Bill is sponsored by the Solano County Sheriff and is supported by the California State Sheriff's Association. Before I announce my speech, I want to make it clear that also the City of Vallejo isn't included in this because there's, for a lot of reasons, but they've had a checkered history and, frankly, in going through the process.

It wasn't going to work. We're obviously there are recruiting vigorously as we speak, but it's the Solano County sheriff who is faced with this dilemma of coming in and having to take over in the name of public safety, and I really appreciate Sheriff Tom Ferrara will be speaking today and also Sheriff's Executive Officer John Robertson.

Good morning. Didn't know if it was on or not. We have to press the button. What I'm dealing with in Solano County is a community in need. We have Vallejo. The City of Vallejo is about 120,000 people. It's the largest of the seven cities in Solano County with over 25% of the county's population. Little history.

In 2008, they declared bankruptcy. Since then, nothing's really ever been the same. They were allocated 160 sworn officers back in 2008. They declined. Since then, they've never been able to get back up to that. They're currently allocated for 132, as the Senator said, but that includes the Chief of Police. Captains on down.

My number as of this morning is they have 31 assigned to patrol, four detectives, and this is for 24/7 coverage in the city. At times, there's less than two officers available on duty to handle calls for service. There are zero programs in place such as traffic, human traffic enforcement, things like that.

It's not uncommon for the City of Vallejo to have 60 priority calls pending when an officer comes in to. To start their duty. So this obviously is letting things like domestic violence, robberies, human trafficking, any shootings and all those are an extended response.

My dispatch center routinely receives calls from help from the citizens of Leo because they can't get a response down there. So it puts me in, as you can imagine, a very awkward position. The Senator said they declared the city declared a State of emergency almost a year ago. Their numbers have not changed. They continue to lose staff.

They are unsuccessful at hiring. I think, as you said, with the checkered past, it's hard to get folks that want to go to work down there. They formally requested help from me. The only choice I have is I don't have 100 extra deputy sheriffs sitting around. The only option for a short term, limited time would be to backfill some of my folks so I could release full time deputies to go down and assist with Vallejo. Thank you.

Hi, John Robertson, Executive officer for the sheriff. This emergency legislation is a key component to assist us in serving the City of Vallejo. The legislation assists us by allowing us to increase our staffing levels rapidly and retain currently trained and vetted police officers by giving them the ability to continue serving their community past their date of retirement.

This emergency staffing proposal will assist us in responding to requests for emergency assistance from the Vallejo police. Officers and dispatch respond to critical calls for service from the community, stabilize crime scenes and protect life and conduct community engagement and crime suppression efforts in targeted areas. Everyone deserves a safe community. Your support of Senate Bill 1379 will assist us in accomplishing this endeavor. Thank you.

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

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Are there anyone that want to voice their opposition? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there any comments, Assembly Member Lackey.

Yeah, I have a question. How long has this desperate circumstance been in existence where these really stark numbers. I mean, when you tell me you only have 30 some officers able to be deployed and you're staffed at over 100, there should be your strength. Should be. I mean, those are really stark numbers. Having been served in law enforcement and having been involved in staffing, I've never heard that kind of desperate circumstance before.

Correct. I've been with the sheriff's office for 40 years, so I've seen Vallejo in the eighties. I've never seen anything like it. It's been about the past two years. You have a lot of people exiting the organization for a number of reasons. Their ability to attract anybody that wants to go to work there because it's kind of a checkered pass. If you're new and you're looking for a job that's probably not on your top 1010 things to look for, it's a real problem.

Now, this is a true emergency and trying to build public trust is really hard to do when you have those kind of numbers. I think it's impossible to do that. All it does is it encourages vigilantism, which is very, very dangerous. So, no, you certainly have my support.

Thank you, Assembly Member.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Sheriff, welcome. And thank you for being here. I feel your pain. My last assignment when we were going through Covid had to bring a lot of retirees that were working for me. And the 960 was always something that we had to watch and monitor and balance. So having this mechanism in play obviously does help. So I thank the Senator for bringing this Bill forward and I am also going to be supporting this. Thank you.

Senator, would you like to close?

I appreciate everybody's time here this morning. Thank you very much. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And thank you so much, Senator, for bringing this up. And I'd like to thank the Solano Sheriff for keeping those folks in Vallejo safe. I know that this is hard, some hard times, but we thank you guys for taking that responsibility. You could call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much. Thank you for sharing, Members. Mister Padilla, file item number three, SB 1070. Each witness will have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And Members, I'm pleased to present SB 1070, and I'd like to start by accepting the Committee amendments and thanking the staff for working collaboratively with our office. As you know, access to intellectual talent, especially in emerging science and technology fields, is crucial to California's government and the economic growth of this state.

California has taken important steps to keep our technology workforce competitive, but there continue to be challenges. By one recent count, while 60% of new PhD graduates specializing in AI choose to work in industry and about a quarter entered academia, less than 2% decided to work in government.

In 2023, nearly eight in 10 State Chief Information Officers said they lacked the workforce necessary to meet their current needs. In short, technological expertise is concentrated in our universities, not in our government.

SB 1070 would address this expertise gap by leveraging an existing model of talent exchanges between government and higher education institutions to provide state agencies with access to the deep wells of expertise housed in California's world class universities and community colleges.

This is an existing program that has been utilized to provide a skill set that cannot be ordinarily found through civil service. The compelling need must be of limited duration and to meet either special projects or assignments that cannot be obtained under normal staffing procedures.

To utilize this program, the agency, before being able to bring someone in temporarily for a management need, needs to consider and document other management options such as devising and implementing new workflow, workload or staffing strategies, or hiring by way of transfer, reinstatement or list appointment.

SB 1070 would clarify that both public universities and nonprofit private institutions of higher education are eligible for participation in these talent exchanges. Talented people that staff our agencies and government programs are critical part of our success as a state.

Talent exchanges like this mean that the public benefit directly from the work of the brightest minds in the state. Joining me today are Christine Tsang at Stanford, RegLab and Mike, obviously Mike Wicklenberg, former secretary of California health and Human Services.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, Christine Tsang, Executive Director of Stanford RegLab, which partners with agencies to use data, science and AI to improve government. Our work focuses on serving as a bridge between the cutting edge advances being developed in our universities and the public sector.

For example, we partner with the US Department of Labor to use AI to pilot new cases to improve benefits Administration, including workers comp and Unemployment Insurance. This work is possible through the Intergovernmental Personnel act, or IPA, which offers a mechanism for talent exchange.

At the federal level, California has a similar mechanism for inter jurisdictional employee exchanges that includes universities. However, ambiguity in the statute has resulted in regulations that include public universities but leave out private universities. As a result. When Santa Clara County's Department of Public Health urgently requested our help at the height of the COVID pandemic, it took over seven months to formalize the agreement as case counts rose each day.

As we face this moment of incredible technological change, the need for expertise in government has only become more acute, both to take advantage of the benefits of technology, but also to ensure it's used in a fair and responsible way. As the Senator mentioned, nearly eight in 10 State Chief Information Officers already say they lack the expertise they need today, and the experts, the PhDs in AI, are not going into government.

SB 1070 would clarify the existing statute and enable our faculty and researchers to share their deep expertise for the benefit of California for short and temporary periods of time, and typically on a voluntary basis. The goal of this proposal is to complement rather than compete with the civil service system by allowing agencies to draw on expertise they otherwise wouldn't have access to, and to provide real opportunities for state employees to gain new skills and build capacity through direct collaboration. I respectfully ask for your support of this Bill. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. I'm Michael Wilkening. I was in California State government for over 25 years, 13 years at the Department of Finance, 11 years at the California Health and Human Services Agency as Undersecretary and Secretary, two years as Governor Newsom, special advisor on innovation and digital services.

I also served in the Federal Government for approximately two years as a senior advisor for delivery at the US Department of Health and Human Services and at the Office of Management and Budget. During my time in government, I've seen the value of talent exchanges.

At the federal level, departments utilize the Intergovernmental Personnel act to meet specific needs in a time limited manner. Likewise, at the state level, I've seen the valuable impact of bringing people from school districts into the state.

These people bring valuable skills, expertise and perspectives with them in many fields, and especially in technology, expertise is concentrated in academia or the private sector. Accessing this talent in California's world class universities can provide government with different perspectives and innovative approaches that can inform and bolster government's approach to emerging problems and novel technologies.

Having access to talent exchanges allows governments to access the specialized talent in a proactive manner. This need was highlighted during COVID governments had needs across many functions. Universities had centers of medical, epidemiological, and modeling expertise. Expertise. Responses were most effective when these pockets of talent could be accessed and utilized to bolster government capacity and decision making.

Technology is another area where government would benefit from the use of talent exchanges, especially with regards to AI. The technological expertise is clustered in academia. In the private sector, the use of talent exchanges will allow government to access the talent and capacity.

In California's University, the use of talent exchanges is a valuable tool to bring additional expertise into government, to broaden the array of perspectives in government and to enhance the capacity of government. I respectfully ask for your support.

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

Madam Chair Members. Nick Romo, on behalf of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no more witnesses. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Madam Chair Members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and associates representing the California Association of Professional Scientists, UAW. Not in opposition, just clarification. I didn't hear the Senator. Is he accepting the Committee amendments that are in the analysis?

Madam Chair Members, again, as I stated earlier, I'm accepting the Committee amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? I have a question. Are these positions, these technical positions offered in the government agencies? Like why do we need the transfer? Like why is there a need for the transfer?

Madam Chair, I could speak generally, and I would defer to perhaps some expert witnesses, but the premise of the exchange program, as you know, is to fill gaps based upon demand and need that are extraordinarily unique in circumstance. And that is why we draw upon.

The state has already built this structure to be able to avail ourselves of that. In these circumstances, it may not reach the scope or permanence of classifications. Perhaps you raise a good point, Madam Chair, that maybe that's another question for some legislative action down the road.

But as we are here today, I think it's important that we avail ourselves of this, this when we can, in a manner that harmonizes with all our civil service protections. I don't know if anybody wants to add. If I might.

I'll just say that from our experience at the federal level, a lot of the work we do is involving some of these areas of emerging science and technology where there may be a data scientist that we're working with inside the government, but they may not have as much access to kind of the more frontier techniques that might be really useful in certain circumstances.

So, for example, we work with the IR's to use active learning to help close the annual $500 billion tax gap, using new methods to do a better job of selecting tax returns for audit that are more effective and more fair. And similarly, as I mentioned, we are working with the Department of Labor to improve the fairness and effectiveness of benefits Administration and delivery. And we also, in the case of Santa Clara County, we were helping to guide questions of scarce resources. So how can contact tracing teams be more effective?

How can we do a better job of delivering wrap around services and things like that, in which we used, basically data science to help advise the agencies. In that case.

Well, thank you. It sounds like we have to do some position updating in state and government agencies. Are there any more questions? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to first thank Secretary Wilkening and Miss Tsang again. And I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We move the Bill and have a second, secretary please take the roll SB 1070.

[Roll Call]

We'll hold the roll for absent Members. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair of Members.

Next we have item four. SB 1189, Le Mans. I'm sorry. SB 1220. File item number six. Good morning.

Good morning.

The witnesses have two minutes each.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. This Bill will protect the quality of public services by requiring human workers to remain in call centers for government benefit programs instead of being outsourced to artificial intelligence.

These call centers serve the most vulnerable Californians, enrolling in programs like Cal Work, CalFresh, Medi Cal, healthy families, and Covered California or local state funded programs that provide similar benefits. The Bill will ensure that there is human assistance available when people call to receive help.

But our intent is not to preclude AI from being used as a tool to assist workers. We want to create a system where workers can be a part of the decision of how and when to use AI. With me today, we have Ivan Fernandez with the Labor Federation and Kimberly Rosenberg with SEIU California. Rosenberger, I always do this.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Ivan Fernandez with the California Labor Federation, a proud co sponsor of SB 1220, a Bill, as mentioned by the Senator, that will protect call center workers and the public by putting guardrails on the use of AI at public benefit call centers.

The exponential growth of artificial intelligence will impact every industry and worker across California. As a tool, AI can support workers. However, without worker centered guardrails, AI can be used to exploit, deskill and replace workers, harming not only the workers, but in the case of SB 1220, the state and residents.

Overall, SB 1220 does not ban the use of AI, but rather ensures that the impact on workers be considered before using these technologies in the workplace. SB 1220 has two main provisions. First, SB 1220 prohibits state and local governments from using AI to eliminate or automate the essential core job functions of public benefit call center workers.

Under the Bill, public benefit programs are those such as CalWORKS, CalFresh, EDD, and Medi Cal. Essentially programs that are serving our most vulnerable Californians and those who should need a person at the other end of the line.

The second main provision of SB 1220 requires an agency to produce an impact assessment report if the call center utilizes an AI system that impacts the core job functions of these workers. The report is intended to increase transparency for the workers and includes information such as all the intended uses of the AI system.

SB 1220 creates guardrails for workers and ensure AI is used as a tool for workers to increase efficiency, productivity and effectiveness when responding to callers and support. For these reasons, we respectfully urge arrivo at the appropriate time. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU. As my colleague noted, SB 1220 is not about opposing automated intelligence or decision making. In fact, we think that there's a role for it. We know that public sector has long been plagued with incredibly high caseload workforce for a shortage.

We think that this technology can help serve our workers where they are doing. It's doing the mundane, behind the scenes background work so our workers can be out in the front lines doing the human to human interaction that is so desperately needed in the public sector.

However, we're seeing a technology creep in public sector, and this Bill puts in appropriate guard rails. We know with safety net services that any kind of a gap delay crash is a difference between someone getting food, housing, healthcare services. There's not really wiggle room for catastrophe.

And we have seen this before where workers were not at the table early. With Cal saw's rollout, we saw things get shut down because the technology did not include the workers, and it wasn't ready to be out in the public. Our workers were using pen and paper to keep people in their services. Many fell through the cracks.

It was not only a disaster, but it was really hard on the workers that were trying to keep these people in the services they so desperately need. Which is why we want to ensure that certain services, certain benefits are protected.

And we think SB 1220 walks that fine line of allowing technology, but ensuring that workers are at the face and are the ones that have that first interaction with people. And for those reasons, we strongly support this Bill. And we're available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in support?

Good morning. David Shapiro, California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Janice Omeli with OpsCalifornia in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Jose Vargas with United Ways of California here in respectful opposition to SB 1220 in its current form. I want to thank the author and her staff and the sponsors of the Bill continuing to work with us to resolve our concerns. In particular, we appreciate the exemption for the out of state mandate as it's absolutely vital for California's 211 system to be able to seek help from colleague 211 providers in other states during times of natural disasters and emergencies.

As stated in our letter to the Committee, we oppose the Bill due to its overreaching language. The mandate's application to public benefits contract could unnecessarily extend to cover 211 and 988 services, not just the specified contracts. By explicitly naming two in one and 988 services instead of using neutral terms, the Bill might let state funded similar services not labeled 211 or 988, including for profit competitors, bypass the bill's restrictions.

This could inadvertently encourage local governments to outsource to providers not restricted by the Bill from using AI or automation simply because they don't carry the two in one designation. Counties are not mandated to Fund two in one services and could switch to non two in one information and referral centers not regulated by this law.

Additionally, we share the author's concerns about the use of artificial intelligence and automation tools. We firmly believe that the highest value 211 can deliver is access to live help from a well trained information and referral specialist.

And we always have sought to make smart, efficient use of the best technology we can access in order to preserve and expand access to that live help. In our view, AI and ads should be used to supplement and support, not replace, INR specialists.

As currently written, SB 1220 unfortunately only allows three uses of AI, contrary to claims that there are no restrictions, and that way, we think a key consideration for the Bill should be how AI and ads can be used to improve and expand service to Californians to meet their vital needs.

Public agencies and nonprofit providers, like two in 1 and 98 contend with limited budgets and staffing, diminishing our ability to provide the level of service we think the public deserves. AI and ads tools, if used judiciously, can improve and expand our services to the public.

We welcome the opportunity to continue working with the author in this regard. In fact, there's a national group of public sector nonprofit leaders currently working on AI standards for the information and referral sector. We understand and share the author's desire and commitment to protect California workers jobs.

Should this Bill pass in its current form, however, it would result in a reduction of 211 coverage, thereby also leading to potential losses of jobs. Until SB 1220 is amended to remove reference to 211, or at least brought into not single out two in one, we respectfully request your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any more? Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Clare Margason and I'm the 211 Director of the 211 in Bay Area, which covers San Francisco, Napa, Marin, Solano and Santa Clara counties. I'm here in respectful opposition of SB 1220.

Every day, 211 connects thousands of families and individuals across the state to housing resources, utility assistance, food, child care and other essential services. Two on one provides access to live help from highly trained information and referral specialists 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and in over 150 languages.

Two on one services are available via phone, text and web and are tailored to provide people of all cultural backgrounds, income levels, languages with unique resources specific to their concerns and geographic location. Two on one providers can identify emerging community needs and can relay valuable data and insights to public officials at local, regional and state levels.

In short, 211 plays a critical role in our state's infrastructure for meeting people's needs day to day and also during emergencies and disasters. At 211, we are dedicated to providing the highest level of service to California residents. We firmly believe the greatest value we provide is live interactions with trained, compassionate call specialists.

At 211 Bay Area, we partner closely with Santa Clara County, which can be considered the home of tech and innovation. We have a contract with the county to support 211 services. However, it only covers one fifth of the cost to operate there. The remaining costs fall on us at United Way. In fact, our public funding has decreased over the past five years, but 211 costs continue to rise.

Our worry with this Bill is that should the provisions extend beyond just public benefits to include all services that 211 provides, counties may not be incentivized to go with call centers, including those that are for profit, that wouldn't be disadvantaged by SB 1220. We are simply asking to be on the same playing field as everyone else.

In terms of AI, we believe that smart use of technology is required to preserve access to live call specialists and that technology tools should supplement, not INR specialists. We would never want to replace our specialists. Rather, our chief goal is always to lighten their loads, make their jobs easier and more efficient, while simultaneously maintaining quality experience for all our callers.

With this in mind, we would respectfully implore the sponsors and authors to look at ways that AI can complement our call specialists, rather than placing stringent prohibitions upfront that may actually end up hurting workers and stifling innovations that can help meet the needs of millions of Californians.

We hope to continue working with the author and sponsors to ensure that we are not inadvertently diminishing to own services for individuals. And we respectfully request your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I'd like to bring it back to the Committee Members. Any questions? I would like to say thank you for this Bill. I worked for Department of Social Services.

That was my first job I worked on, like in the call center where people actually called and not help them. Usually when people are calling these type of places, they really need help, and it really would be nice to have a person.

I know it's a lot of work, and I can imagine that it's, with the technology, it has to be a little bit easier than it was when I did it back in the eighties.

And so I thank you for this Bill, because I have, I have experience that when people call these type of, for these type of services, they really want to talk to somebody. So thank you for the Bill. We moved the Bill in a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. zero, I'm sorry.

Would you like to close, Madam Chair.

I will take your comments as the closing. Thank you.

Thank you.

The motion is do pass, and we refer to the Committee on Privacy, consumer protection. McKinner? Aye. McKenna? Aye. Lackey, not voting. Lackey. Not voting. Alanis? Alanie's not voting. Berner? Berner. Aye. Hart Hart. Aye. Stephanie Nguyen. Stephanie Wynn. Aye. Luz Rivas. Lise Rivas. Aye. That Bill is out, five to zero.

Thank you. Thank you.

Would like to take bills on call and add ons. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Happy Juneteenth. The meeting is adjourned.