Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Senate Committee on labor and Employment and Retirement will begin. I see Assemblymember Arambla is with us, so we have our first presenter. Good morning, everyone. Please. We're gonna have everyone sit at the table and not present and give witness statements at the podium today, we'll take full advantage of this beautiful room.

Okay, before we get started, I wanted to just make the announcement that item number 10, AB 3043, has been pulled by the author. We're beginning as a one person Subcommitee, so I thought I had one other Member, but. Please begin, Assembly Members.

Thank you, Madam Chair. AB 310 will improve patient outcomes at California State Hospitals by gathering data to inform future policies that will increase the trust and quality of care between patients and their physicians. Assembly Bill 310 requires the Department of State Hospitals to submit a report by January 31 of 2026 to the Legislature on the amount budgeted and expended for civil service psychiatrists and contract psychiatrists in the state.

This report will inform future policies that improve patient care and will advance civil service psychiatry. At California State Hospitals, 90% of the patients are forensic psychiatric patients who are involved in the criminal justice system. These patients are some of the most complex patients who live with severe mental illness. While the work at the state hospitals is demanding, contracting clinical care jeopardizes patient health outcomes.

It requires patients to constantly adjust to new providers, and it costs the state significant setbacks. The state must make efforts to hire, utilize, and retain its civil service employees before pivoting to the use of contractors. In support of Assembly Bill 310 today is George Osborn, Contract Advocate with UAPD, and Janice O'Malley, Legislative and Political Action Representative with AFSCME.

Thank you so much. You each have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Thought he was still here. The staff analysis did a good job relating the legislative history of AB 310 and establishing a physician registry, and potentially saving the state millions of dollars on expensive contractors. Over 10 years ago, LA County and UAPD entered into a partnership wherein a physician registry was created so that in house physicians, in house psychiatrists especially, could utilize the registry for extra hours.

They would get extra pay, and the state could, the county could then reduce the use of contractors. That was started over 10 years ago. Every year since, they've saved over a million dollars on average, the vacancy rate is practically zero now in the county hospitals, and they're not using any contractors, and we think that's fully to the credit of the registry.

The requirements of AB 310 will be telling to determine whether the physician registry that the state and UAPD agreed to at their last session at the table, especially since the registry, as outlined in MOU, is totally at management discretion rather than the frontline physicians.

So AB 310 will give us the data to determine whether or not the system is working as it's described in our MOU, or if it needs tweaking and where it needs tweaking. It's a really simple bill, and we would urge you and ask for your support. Thank you.

AFSCME is a proud co-sponsor of AB 310, and we thank the author for his continued support and help bolster our medical doctors in state public service. AFSCME, in collaboration with our affiliate, UAPD, have been beating the drum for decades on the need to address the crisis in retention and recruitment of this essential workforce.

This year, we've worked with Assembly Member Lowenthal on an audit of our State Hospitals, CDCR, and the Department of Developmental Services to take a holistic look at some of our facilities' over reliance on contracting out public sector jobs. And let's talk about the bottom line here. Outsourcing medical services to private vendors.

It might seem like a quick fix to address these vacancy issues, but it often ends up costing taxpayers more in the long run. Privatized contracts often come with inflated service fees, administrative overhead, a lack of transparency that can lead to waste, fraud, and abuse. But the cost isn't just financial, it's also human.

When healthcare services are outsourced, our members face precarious employment conditions, lower wages, reduced benefits, and limited job security. This not only undermines the morale and well being of our healthcare professionals, but also exacerbates turnover rates and staffing shortages, ultimately impacting the quality of care to the individuals under their care.

Moreover, privatized contracts often prioritize profit over patient care, leading to substandard medical practices, treatment delays, and compromise outcomes for patients. We hope that AB 310 can help provide us with the necessary information to start engaging in serious conversations with the agency to develop a plan to support the retention and recruitment of medical doctors in state service. So with that, we would appreciate an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to support this bill, please step forward and state your name, organization, affiliation, and position. Seeing none. Is there anyone in opposition to this bill? Opposition witnesses? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition on the bill? Seeing none.

Well, thank you so much for the presentation today. We do not obviously have a subcommittee even, but we will hold this bill on call and we'll take it up when the Members arrive and we have a quorum. Oh, I'm sorry. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Thank you for the opportunity to present. Trust is one of the most important things between a patient and their provider. When we're contracting out these services, we're oftentimes not able to have the established trust that we can get from those who are employed by the county or the state.

I respectfully will ask for an aye vote, as I believe this will ultimately lead towards better patient outcomes and better ability for us to retain the qualified staff who are working at those state hospitals. Thank you for the opportunity to present. Respectfully ask when you have a quorum.

Thank you so much.

Okay, any authors who are presenting bills for Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement, please come to Room 1100. We are ready when you are.

All right, so we are going to take a slight recess as we wait for our presenters and some of our Members here, the committee, to come into the hearing room. What's happening is there is every committee meeting right now at 9:00 at the same time.

And so this is gonna be a little bit of a chess game as people come in and come out of the board. So we're gonna take, I'm gonna say, a five minute recess, see who comes in, and then will reconvene the committee at that time. Thank you.

Okay, we are back.

Thank you, Assemblymember Calderon, for joining us. We are going to move to file item AB 2494. Please proceed when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senator. I want to start by thanking the Committee for working with my staff on this bill, and I will be accepting the proposed amendments. AB 2494 would require employers to provide individuals who have been terminated or have experienced a reduction of their work hours with a notice on their eligibility for healthcare coverage under COBRA.

If a person is fired from their job or their work hours are reduced, they can be at risk of losing their health care insurance, and they may not even know it. These Californians must wait 14 days before receiving a notification from their health plan and can even be at risk of losing it.

If their notice is lost or delayed in the mail, the impacted individual and their family can miss the deadline to opt into these benefits. This bill would ensure that these employees are equipped with the information they need to prevent a disruption in their health care coverage. I don't have any witnesses. It's just me. It's an author-sponsored bill.

Wonderful. Well, thank you for that presentation. Anyone wishing to speak in support of the bill, please step forward. State your name.

Christine Smith, Health Access, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing no more support, let's move to opposition. Anyone in opposition to the bill, please step forward. Name, affiliation, and position.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senator. We have a concerns position. Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators. We've really appreciated the dialogue with the author's office over the last month or so, trying to get to the heart of the issue, understand some of the terms, some of the processes, and we also really appreciate the Committee analysis that really speaks to the question we're really hoping to answer, which is, what are we solving for here?

I think in the author's statement that's provided in the analysis, there's a little bit of a misconception. An employee does not lose coverage when they are terminated. You have basically up to five months if you compress all of the notification timeframes between the employer to their third party administrator, to the individual, and then for when the individual can start providing payments. So, as you know, acts as a school employer.

We want to make sure our employees have all the information they need about healthcare coverage while they're currently employed and following termination, which could be at the action of the employee or the employer. So look forward to continuing the conversation to find a real solution to the possible problem that this bill might be trying to address. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other opposition, I will ask, Member, would you like to close?

I would. So the way I got this bill idea is there was a constituent in my district who worked for a large retail chain, and this person was terminated, and they had a mammogram the following week.

When they went to confirm their appointment, they were told they no longer had healthcare coverage because the day they were terminated, they had to actually call their insurance company and start some procedure. So I'm just trying to make sure that the employee knows what they need to do. They're notified so the coverage can continue. That's all. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much, and we will hold this Bill when we have a full quorum. Thank you so much. We have. Next file item is AB 2872. Are you, you're presenting that as well?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Yes. Okay. AB 2872 would help to provide a needed pay increase for investigators at the California Department of Insurance. The pay inequity between CDI and other divisions has been identified as a major factor impacting retention of sworn officers at CDI.

Due to the importance and complexity of insurance fraud cases, it's vital that we seek a comparable wage to support the staffing of these public safety positions with experienced investigators. Here to speak more about the need for this bill is Deputy Commissioner Eric Charlick and Deputy Chief Felicia Leib from the California Department of Insurance.

Good morning. Chair, Smallwood-Cuevas, Vice Chair, Wilk and member my name is Eric Charlick.

I'm the Deputy Commissioner of the Enforcement Branch with the California Department of Insurance and I'm here today to as well discuss AB 2872 authored by Assembly Member Calderon. Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara is proud to sponsor this bill to support the critical work of our department's fraud detectives in protecting public safety. AB 2872 does two things.

It ensures pay parity for CDI sworn peace officer fraud investigators, consistent with other sworn peace officers performing similar work within the same state bargaining unit, Number Seven. It also enables CDI to address critical recruitment and retention issues for fraud investigators.

I want to make it clear AB 2872 will have minimal or no impact on the state budget. As CDI is a specially funded agency, we are funded by the fees we collect through our enforcement of insurance law. Our department currently employs about 200 sworn peace officers to detect, investigate, and respond to insurance fraud statewide.

However, current pay inequities among investigator classifications have made it harder for us to retain experienced and broad investigators. Retain and recruit experienced, broad investigators. As a result, the department's current vacancy rate for this classification sits above 33%. This is unacceptable and is putting some of our most vulnerable Californians at risk, including our seniors and our workers.

That is why I'm here today. These investigators are in the same bargaining unit as California Department of Justice sworn investigators, but they earn 21% less than their colleagues. This has been an ongoing problem at our department for almost two decades.

The insurance market in California is the second largest in the world and insurance fraud crimes cost California businesses and families billions of dollars each year. In fact, the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud estimates there's over $17 billion of economic loss to California each year due to insurance fraud.

The reality is our peace officers are significantly underpaid and stretched thin, and because of this, they continue to face critical shortages that put pursuing many cases in peril. The CDI Fraud Division receives over 22,000 suspected fraud referrals each year, representing over $600 million in potential loss.

The significant gap in pay poses serious challenges for the department, the public safety community, the insurance industry, and consumers statewide. AB 2872 is critical to helping our department.

Your time is.

Oh, sorry.

Can you just bring it to a close?

Yeah, this is the last of it. Yes. It's critical in helping our department protect the public and prevent economic loss through the detection, investigation, and prosecution of insurance fraud offenders and on behalf of California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, I ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Felicia Lieb. I'm a deputy chief out of the Sacramento Enforcement Branch headquarters. We are here today because over the last several years, many of our investigators have left CDI for DOJ.

And currently we are aware of six others that are either in the background process or who have recently interviewed for positions with DOJ. And just last week, we were notified to investigators have negotiated start dates with DOJ for later this month. One of those individuals has been with us for 24 years.

This is a tough decision for her because she's grown up with the agency and she's one of our most skilled investigators, assigned to a task force that investigates workers' compensation fraud to include wage theft, labor trafficking, and dissuasion of medical treatment for injured workers.

This investigator is highly valuable, highly respected as a training officer, and she's mentored many of the detectives, a lot of them sitting behind me over the years for our offices. And being a single mom, she cannot pass up a 21% pay increase. She has to provide for herself and her financial future, of her family.

So, we need to retain our experienced investigators. These are investigators who train CHP officers on how to identify stage collisions. They roll out to the stage collisions, investigate. We just had a recent case where we identified 20 additional stage collisions by individuals investigated by our agency.

Our experienced investigators also look at the sober living treatment facilities that have zero regard to patient care and are utilizing these individuals and treating them, but not really treating them, using the benefits. And when that policy runs out, they're kicking them out on the streets and making them suffer with their addiction.

Our experienced investigators also, they're valuable to our succession planning. Okay, so bottom line is, this is a vicious cycle. We need to retain our investigators, and we are hoping AB 2872 puts a more permanent fix to be able to maintain that equity and so we can retain our investigators with our agency.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, anyone else wishing to speak in support of the bill, please step forward. State your name, affiliation, and position.

Hi, my name is Lee Adamson. I'm a detective sergeant with the California Department of Insurance, Sacramento Regional Office, and I support this bill.

I'm Detective Vladimir Olenek with California Department of Insurance Fraud Division, and I support this bill.

Adam Loomis, a detective with Department of Insurance Fraud Division, and support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Detective Gina Camacho, Department of Insurance Fraud Division, and I support this bill.

Detective Adam Babitz, California Department of Insurance, and I support this bill.

Detective Devin Brown with the California Department of Insurance Fraud Division and I support this bill.

Good morning. Captain Christina Smith, California Department of Insurance Fraud Division and I support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Captain Susan Burns with the California Department of Insurance Fraud Division and I support this bill.

Good morning. Detective Sergeant Jean Marshall with the California Department of Insurance Recruitment and Background Investigations Team at the California Department of Insurance. I highly support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Alicia Daniel, Sergeant with the California Department of Insurance Fraud Division. I support this bill.

Good morning. Detective Sergeant Matthew Rodgers, California Department of Insurance. I support this bill.

Good morning. Margaret Pell, detective with the State of California Department of Insurance and I support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Detective Adelberto Armenta with the California Department of Insurance Fraud Division and I support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Detective Mitch Pingree with the California Department of Insurance and I support this bill.

Good morning. Detective Christina Yee with the California Department of Insurance Fraud Division and I support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Detective Christina Michelle with the California Department of Insurance and I support this bill.

Good morning, everyone. Detective Pulumi Abimbola with the California Department of Insurance, Sacramento Regional Office and I support this bill.

Good morning. Lance Ferrari, Captain with the California Department of Insurance and I support this bill as well.

Good morning. Daniel Macias, Detective Sergeant, Golden Gate Regional Office and I support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Detective Michelle Gushard with the California Department of Insurance and I support this bill.

Good morning. Detective Joe Lara, California Department of Insurance Fraud Division and I support this bill.

Morning. John Barlow, Sergeant, California Department of Insurance I support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Janelle Perez, Detective Sergeant, California Department of Insurance and I support this bill.

Good morning. Nelson Rodriguez, Detective Sergeant with the California Department of Insurance and I support this bill.

Morning. Detective Neil Genuso, California Department of Insurance. I support this bill.

Morning. Aaron Gill, Detective with the California Department of Insurance and I support this bill.

Good morning. Tad Baten, Detective, California Department of Insurance and I support this bill.

Good morning. I'm Eric Williams, Deputy Chief, California Department of Insurance, and I support this bill.

Thank you. Well, anyone. I think that's it on support. Anyone here, witnesses in opposition to the bill, please step forward and have a seat at the table. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Shane Lavigne, on behalf of the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, which is CSLEA, Bargaining Unit Seven's recognized labor organization. Sadly, we are in a opposed, unless amended position. The issues of pay and retention rates across the board are not new issues for us.

They continue to be issues that we are always in constant conversation with CALHR and the Administration about and trying to effectively collectively bargain. So, this isn't isolated to simply CDI or any number of the other folks that we represent. It's a challenge. So, look, again, we're not opposed to increasing wages.

In fact, we submitted amendments that would allow for a. We would support a one-time equivalency payment to get CDI investigators caught up to DOJ. Again, nobody's opposed to more money. Certainly, that's anathema to what we represent or more benefits. It's simply the way the bill is crafted to create a parity formula with DOJ.

We have to oppose that. That circumvents the collective bargaining process. So, if that were unshackled and this simply became about CDI, we would fully support this initiative. And as Mister Laird, who was a former natural, the natural resources secretary, can probably illuminate his time with the rangers. I mean, this is an issue. We're well aware of it.

And we're going to continue to work hard on behalf of our members, both CDI investigators, DOJ agents, and everybody else, to continue to work hard for better pay and benefits. And we're going to continue to do that. But right now, regrettably, we're in a position to oppose unless amended with that, with that amendment.

So, we'd respectfully ask for a no vote right now. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to the bill, please step forward. State your name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none. We're coming to the dais. Senator Laird.

Yes, and she's going to call on every other senator that's here. Let me speak to this bill. And since I was just referred to, I'm going to support this bill and thank you for bringing it. And I think that what was just referred to as, yes, I was a cabinet secretary for eight years under Jerry Brown.

And yes, there were massive inequities throughout the system. And we attempted to take them on wherever we could, whenever we could. And with regard to the, everybody knows them as game wardens, they're now wildlife officers and park rangers.

When I was in the Assembly and chair of the Budget Committee, we did a special augmentation in the budget just for those two units and allowed an adjustment up because they couldn't recruit. They were losing people. It was affecting our ability to implement the programs. I think the same thing is true here. The testimony mentioned it.

And so, I think that it's important that we approve this and make the point. But I also want to recognize the opposition because it doesn't mean, we don't have to attack and address issues that exist across the unit and across state government because with the inflation, the cost of living, we are having trouble filling positions.

And in a lighter moment, I would just say if there was ever a morning to commit insurance fraud, this might be it, because everybody's here and not there, even though I know that's a long-term issue. So, I appreciate the differences, but I think, I salute the author for high highlighting this.

And we'll support the bill when it comes to a vote, but will not lose sight of all the other things that we have.

Thank you, Senator Laird. And, you know, I also wanted to say that I will be supporting the bill today. I understand the challenge here, and, but I understand also pay equity and how difficult it is when you're doing the same work, very similar work, and not being paid and compensated and really appreciated the testimony of the witness.

I do know that generally, collective bargaining is how we resolve pay issues. That's why we have unions. That's why we believe in unions. That's why I believe in the collective bargaining agreement. But sometimes in this role, we have to think about ways to develop solutions that actually may end up strengthening our bargaining units.

And I want to say my commitment to workers of the state to always work with our unions to ensure that we are paying our staff what they deserve and also addressing the competition and vacancies that we struggle with because we are competing with so many forces out there for our talent.

And so, you know, this bill will help the Department of Insurance fulfill that mission to protect Californians from fraud by having a staff that feels respected and can be retained because they have stronger standards. So, we will put this bill on call, wait for us to get our quorum, and then we'll work to take our votes then.

Thank you so much. Would you like to close before we.

Want to say, I appreciate both of your comments, and, you know, it really is an honor to bring forward this bill and respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. How have you been? I am going to present Assembly Bill 1137 on behalf of Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer. And I would begin by saying that on his behalf, I would like to accept the Committee's amendments and thank the Committee staff for their work on this bill.

This bill will ensure fairness and state employment by providing equitable benefits to state supervisors and managers. A currently excluded employee, such as state supervisors and managers, do not have collective bargaining rights and are only able to access better benefits through legislation.

This bill will increase parity by requiring that the state supervisors and managers receive notification when denied a merit salary adjustment and provide compensation for time worked on premium holidays. It will promote equity in the workplace for hundreds of state employees.

With me is Ted Toppin, on behalf of the bill's sponsor, the Association of California State Supervisors. And at the appropriate time, hopefully in our natural life sometime, when there is a quorum, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. It's Ted Toppin for ACSS. Let me first thank Mr. Laird for stepping up and stepping in and doing a fabulous presentation. We certainly appreciate it. I would be remiss if I didn't also acknowledge Assemblyman Jones-Sawyer, for I thank him for introducing the bill.

He has been a champion for state supervisors and all supervisors and managers in public service throughout his time in the Legislature. And I just wanted to acknowledge it because it's much appreciated. This bill is about fundamental fairness and equity for state supervisors and managers.

If we want people to step up, manage other employees, manage state departments and programs, you got to treat them equitably. And this bill simply provides to them the same benefits that their rank and file colleagues have achieved through collective bargaining. We would urge your aye vote, and happy to answer any questions that might arise. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here speaking in support of the bill, please step forward.

I guess I could officially with my proxy, but the Professional Engineers in California Government are also in support and Caps UAW. So thank you.

Dual duty. Thank you. Anyone speaking in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, I thank you so much, Senator Laird, for that presentation. And you know, I will be supporting the bill today with the acceptance of the amendments.

We want to thank you for, you know, looking at those technical amendments to ensure that the bill does raise benefits for excluded employees. We know that we want to make sure that our rank and file are able to draw down on those existing benefits. And we appreciate it. Would you like to close?

Just I appreciate the very robust discussion. And at the appropriate time, would request an aye vote.

We will take it up at the appropriate time. We have a quorum. Thank you. Okay. The Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement will take a brief recess. We are calling all authors. In the meantime, Assemblymember Schiavo, Ortega, McKinnor, feel free to come on down so we can wrap up this session. Until then, we will have a five minute recess.

Hey, we're going to come back from our very brief recess. Since we have a quorum, we don't want it to slip through our fingers. So let's see. Committee Assistant, do you want to call the roll?

[Roll Call]

And, Madam Chair, I am really moved, so I would move the consent agenda.

Well, thank you very much. Let's call the roll.

Today's consent calendar has file items number three and file item number nine. That's AB 2134 and AB 2573. [Roll Call]

Okay, we have a vote of three to zero on the consent calendar, and it is on call.

We have four bills that we heard and we could catch up if it's okay with you. Then I would move file item number one, AB 310 by Dr. Arambula.

We have a motion from Senator Laird. May the Assistant call the roll.

On file item number one, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations, [Roll Call]

We have a vote of three to zero. That bill is on call.

And, Madam Chair, I would move file item number two, AB 1137, by Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer.

A move by Senator Laird. Assistant, call the roll.

On file item number two, the motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, we have a vote of three to zero. That bill is on call.

Madam Chair, I would move file item number four, Assembly Bill 2494 by Calderon.

Thank you. Assistant, call the roll.

On file item number four, the motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We have a vote of three to zero on that bill. That bill is on call.

And, Madam Chair, I would move file item number five, Assembly Bill 2872 by Assemblymember Calderon.

Thank you. Senator Laird. Assistant, call the roll.

On file item number five, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We have a vote of three to zero, and that bill is on call. Okay, we see Assemblymember Ortega is in the house. We will proceed. Just have a seat. And we're ready when you are. That is file item number seven.

AB 2557.

Members, thank you for. The opportunity to present AB 2557 today. I would like to begin by thanking. The Committee staff and accepting the Committee. Amendments which will exclude any contract for. Services that are under $100,000 in which the work is not usually performed by public employees. AB 2557 has been substantially.

Amended and now really is just making sure that any contracts that go out ensure that we have transparency and accountability. By making sure that the contracting out. For services are displayed on websites, so. That as Assembly Members and Senators and. You know, it is our duty and responsibility to make sure that we know.

Where our resources are going, our taxpayer. Dollars are going, and that we know. Whether or not we're getting the results. That we were told we were going to get. That is how we are able to evaluate whether things are working or not. And so this has just been, always has been a simple transparency and accountability Bill.

With me testifying is Bryant Miramontes with AFSCME California and Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Federation.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Ivan Fernandez with the California Labor Federation. A proud co-sponsor of AB 25. 57 as stated by the author. We appreciate the opportunity to have worked. With the chair and Committee staff in. Developing the amendments for the Bill. As stated, AB 2557 will require.

Local agencies to post contracts that they have entered into with private service providers on their websites by 2026. Contracts between local agencies and private contractors will contain key information such as the financial expenditures of the public dollars and the deliverables expected from the contractor. AB 2557 aims at increasing transparency.

On the widespread practice of contracting out by local governments. Contracting out has led to the decline. Of middle class career opportunities, especially for women and BIPOC individuals. Previously viewed as the backbone of the middle class, public sector jobs provided community Members with long term, sustainable employment. Today, many simply do not have these opportunities.

In house public sector workers provide high quality services for communities in need. Communities reliant on government services often benefit. From direct local agency support conducted by. Workers trained and selected through the public agency directly. The current process for local of local. Governments approving and reapproving contracts needs improvement. Given the fiscal environment we are in.

Today, there needs to. We need to ensure every dollar is spent effectively. AB 2557 increases transparency on contracts. Between private service providers and local governments by requiring contracts be made publicly available. And for these reasons, we respectfully urge. An I vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair, Committee Members Briant Miramontes with American Federation of State County Municipal Employees, representing over 200,000 public. Service workers in California, including many cities, county special districts. We are proud co sponsors of AB. 2557 and thank the Committee for.

Your work on this Bill and also the author for bringing this forward. We agree that contractors in both the. For profit and nonprofit industries provide services. To communities that many governments don't, won't, or simply can't do. The nature of such external work is not what our unions are concerned about.

We are specifically concerned about the services that have been increasingly contracted out that. Are customarily performed by public workers like social services, health services, transportation, to name a few. When local agencies contract out work that. Could and should be done by private public sector workers without adequate oversight, the affected workforce and Members of the public suffer.

And I first want to dispel what you will hear from the opposition today. You will hear that the MMBA already prohibits employers from contracting out for cost savings. From our view, this is simply not true. The opposition may be conflating the state. Employment contracting requirements with local contracting requirements, which aren't subject to such protections.

Additionally, you will hear that these requirements will limit the pool of providers interested in contracting with local agencies. This is also not true. This Bill is so limited in nature that it simply requires agencies to upload. Their contracts and eventually include essential information.

In them if and only if those contracts exceed $100,000 per the Committee's amendments, and if and only if that work is customarily performed by public sector workers. Further, you will also hear that the. Scope of services is much too broad.

But with the new amendments, this will be again be very limited to the contracts that are currently provided by the unionized workforce. This is about protecting public sector workers. And holding agencies accountable for being more. Transparent in their contracts by requiring them to upload them online and include just really critical importance.

Let me begin to wrap up your time with that.

Respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you so much. Anyone else here wishing to speak in support of the Bill, please step forward. State your name, affiliation and position.

Madam Chair and Senators Terry Brennan, on. Behalf of SEIU California and support, I'd. Just remind you that every dime spent. On salaries for the public employees currently. Performing these jobs, including their pensions, is publicly available. We'd ask the same for the contractors. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Senators, Doug Subers on. Behalf of the California, Professional Firefighters in support.

Good morning. Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association in support.

I think that is it for support. Anyone here wishing to speak in opposition to the Bill, please step forward. Opposition witnesses, have a seat at the table.

You both have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. My name is Jose Vargas with United Ways of California, the State Association for. Our local United ways here in respectful opposition. We appreciate the conversation that many leading. Nonprofits have with you, Madam Chair, to share some of the many concerns that. We continue to uplift. Unfortunately, our concerns have not been addressed.

And the latest amendments, regrettably, don't move the needle. United States of California is part of a nonprofit contracted coalition working to strengthen and improve government and nonprofit partnerships, as. Conveyed in a letter signed by leaders of more than 200 nonprofits across California. We urge Renovo to avoid significant negative impacts that would result from this bill's.

Enactment, including the potential disruption of service. Delivery for countless Californians. I'd like to acknowledge that despite the issues with the Bill, our relationship between. The nonprofit sector and unions is rich and full of joint victories. This scales all the way back from the expansion of social programs and labor.

Rights under President Roosevelt's New Deal policies, President Lyndon B. Johnson's war on Poverty, which brought unions and nonprofits together to. Tackle issues of economic inequality and poverty. And so much more. We're proud to have supported Senator Leno's successful effort to increase California's minimum wage. And will continue to support such measures. In short, we are embedded in the.

DNA public services and social programs. Nonprofits are consistently relied upon by the. Government precisely because we're deeply connected to. Communities and can provide specialized, quality, cost effective services that match the unique needs of each community. Governments are able to leverage this deeply rooted trust to expand the reach and ensure the needs of citizens are robustly met.

Our primary concern with AB 2557. Revolves around how the Bill wouldn't actually improve services or service delivery. For starters, the Bill encompasses a wide and unclear scope of services and job functions, while also including terms and requirements. That don't fit the way that nonprofits. And for-profit companies, especially small organizations, are organized.

For example, the use of job category. And job classification in the Bill Language. This is particularly worrying for our rural communities. Unfortunately, the only thing this Bill would. Do with 100% certainty is drive up. Administrative costs for local governments. This would result in fewer contracts and. Thus, a reduction of services for communities.

Lastly, while we appreciate the proposed amendment. To exempt contracts that are less than $100,000, we'd be remiss if we didn't mention that this wouldn't even cover a single a full time position with benefits. As such, this change would make no meaningful difference.

I think we all want the same thing, robust employment and the betterment of our communities by providing the highest levels of services we can. This Bill helps neither. For these reasons, we respectfully request your no vote.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Chair Smallwood-Cuevas and Members of the Committee. I'm Lake County Supervisor Eddie Crandall and I am here on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California in opposition. Of AB 2557. There are more than 4800 local agencies in the state, most of which rely.

At least in part on contractors to provide a variety of local programs and services that, given our current public sector. Workforce, shortages, would be difficult to provide without their capable assistance. Make no mistakes AB 2557 will be costly to implement. At a time when the state and local agencies are facing significant fiscal challenges.

It is difficult to fathom that the extensive requirements of the Bill are worth. The investment of scarce public resources. While recent amendments remove the obligation for reporting by contractors directly, AB 2557. Takes most of those same requirements and. Requires local agencies to put them in the contractual agreement.

New amendments also remove a prior exemption for contracts between government governmental entities, imposing redundancy for both state and local government. Contracting partners with no discernible benefit. While Internet posting already occurs for most. Contracts, per statutory requirements to post meeting.

Materials under the Brown Act, AB 2557 would now require that contracts and any related documents be posted separately on local agencies Internet websites. This is an expensive endeavor that would require considerable investments in it infrastructure and. Staff for local agencies. Further, the Bill makes no accommodation for. The small subset of local agencies that.

Are not required to maintain websites. AB 2557 is a significant burden for local governments as we rely heavily on trusted local nonprofits, small businesses and. Community partners to deliver core services, especially for vulnerable Californians. In my county, for instance, North Coast.

Opportunities as Members of the community will be aware, North Coast Opportunities is partnering with Cal OES, CAL FIRE and the. County of Lake to implement the Lake County Home hardening program.

Please wrap up. Your time is almost up.

With that being said, I'll just respectfully. Request that there's a no vote on this Bill.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition. To the Bill, please step forward. State your name, affiliation and position.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of the Orange. County Board of Supervisors and San Bernardino County, in respectful opposition, please speak up.

It's hard to hear you all. Good morning.

Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Jennifer Fearing Sacramento advocate for California Association of Nonprofits. On behalf of our 10,000 Member organizations, I was also asked to express the. Opposition of the 109 nonprofits that make. Up the Inland Empire community Collaborative, the California Council of Behavioral Health Agencies and. PATH, one of the state's largest homeless services providers.

Hi. Jacqueline Wong Hernandez with the California State Association of Counties, representing all 58 counties. In opposition, respectfully to this Bill and also on behalf of the California Municipal. Utilities Association, also in opposition.

Jamie Miner on behalf of Eastern Municipal. Water District respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Faith Borges. On behalf of the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities respectfully opposed.

Good morning. Kira Ross. On behalf of the town of Truckee and the Marin County Council of Mayors and council Members, respectfully, good morning.

Madam Chair. Chris Micheli, on behalf of the Los Angeles area of Chamber of Commerce and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Members of Bed Franco, on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California and respectful opposition. Good morning. Porvo Batticharji with the California alliance of Child and Family Services, in respectful opposition. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members Karen Lang, on behalf of the boards of supervisors in the counties of Butte, Fresno, Kern, Humboldt, Merced, Placer, San Joaquin, Shasta and Stanislaus, as well as the California Animal Welfare Association, which is a representation of public and private animal shelters. So both sides of the coin on that one. Thank you.

Good morning. Dorothy Johnson on behalf of the Association. Of California School Administrators and respectful opposition. And also on behalf of my colleague. With the California County Veteran Service officers, opposed. Thank you.

Kasha Hunt with Nosimon with the county. Of Monterey Board of Supervisors, in opposition. Good morning. Chair Members Cassandra Marr, on behalf of the City of Downey, in opposition.

Good morning. Dawn Koepke, on behalf of the Child. Abuse Prevention center and California Family Resource Association and respectful opposition.

Chair Committee Members. Blake Johnson, on behalf of child Action. Incorporated and respectful opposition.

Morning. Valak Tang with the American Council of Engineering Companies in opposition. Good morning. Ryan Souza, on behalf of the EMS. Association of California and Meals on Wheels California, and respectful opposition. Good morning. Ashley Lugo. On behalf of the California county superintendents and respectful opposition.

Good morning. Alyssa Sohai. On behalf of the California. Association of. Recreation and Park Districts and also on. Behalf of the cities of Bakersfield, Carlsbad, Corona, Foster City, Merced, Santa Rosa and. The town of Hillsboro, in opposition.

Good morning. Madam Chair Members. Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California. State Sheriff's Association, in opposition. Good morning. Josh Gagger. On behalf of the Urban counties of California, the Santa Clara County Board of. Supervisors, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, the county Health Executives Association of California County Welfare Directors Association, and the California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, all opposed. Jeff Neil, representing the County of Contra. Costa and the City of Visalia, both.

Andrew Mendoza, on behalf of the California building officials, in opposition.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, respectfully opposed. Also on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies in the California Association of Sanitation Agencies. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jason Igert, on behalf of the American. Staffing Association and the California staffing professionals, also in opposition.

Good morning. Michael Gil, on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials, representing 30,000 school business leaders statewide, in opposition. Good morning. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce.

Thank you. Okay, we will move the conversation to Members. Go ahead, Senator Laird, since everybody's rushing forward.

This Bill has been very difficult. For me, and I have had conversations with a number of people in this. Room and Committee Members and the sponsors. And I think to not give tremendously long comment. I'm a former nonprofit Director and a nonprofit Director for an AIDS agency.

At a time when government wouldn't do so many different things we were doing. And couldn't say so many things that we were saying. I really value that and don't want to feel like anything is aimed at that. And the author, in a very heartfelt comment, assured me that that was not. Her intent or not her goal, and.

I respect that, and I believe it. I think this just the first version. Was very difficult, and I think it's been hard to reel it back. I really appreciate the work of the chair, but I don't think it takes away some of my concerns. And so I am not going to support the Bill.

But what I would say is I know that there are things that the author and the sponsors are really trying. To do, and whether it's some of the contracting that might have been related. To the change in incarceration to the local level, or whether it's actually just salaries and benefits for nonprofit or non.

Government groups, it's like, I am totally committed to working on that. If there are bills that are focused right at that. And I think that's the difficult thing, because I recognize one thing, and we. Talked about it, the salaries are not very good in the nonprofit sector in General.

And when I was heading that particular nonprofit, we were doing God's work. And so the ratio between my salary as the Executive Director and the lowest. Paid one was two to one, because. We were committed to doing what it needed to be done. And I get the fact that there.

Might be issues that need to be addressed in that, but so just hard vote. But I appreciate the work, and I look forward to moving ahead and figuring. Out how to address some of the. Things that were the concerns behind this Bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Cortese

Thank you, Madam Chair. And appreciate, you know, observing the Committee. Staff and your work, you know, to work with the author to get us to this point. I'm going to be supportive of this Bill. I think it's really interesting listening closely. To my good colleague from Santa Cruz. Here talking about lived experience.

And I came out of an era. At the City of San Jose where we put together some of the most. Aggressive sunshine ordinances in the country. Not because there was any particular problem with the nonprofit sector or professional lobbyists. Or any one sector. It's just because the government had gotten very big and it wasn't very transparent.

What was going on in terms of contracts. And people wanted to know, and people wanted to know in a way that was user friendly for them, not have to go through tedious procurement documents to try to figure things out. So I think that's kind of been the intent here.

I went to the County of Santa Clara and with my colleague Ken Yeager. Co authored the first sunshine ordinance in the history of the county as kind of a next step based on what. We had learned over at the City of San Jose. There has to be limitations. And it seems like everyone's tried to.

Strike a balance here so that there's. Not too much burden on those that. Have to do the reporting, including the county itself. But it seems to me that most. Of this information should be readily available. And I know in my home county over the last couple of years, there's. Been a lot of added requirements on accountability.

Coming out of the deep recession, people learned, or felt like they learned at the elected Deus that, you know, we really have to have people at least. Somewhat frequently reporting back to us on outcomes. Are we getting those outcomes? We talk about it here a lot in any number of ways. You know, at the state level, which.

Is an even bigger government, that's even. Harder to figure out sometimes what's happening. In terms of outcomes with your procurement. But, but anyway, this just, it's just my background. I can see, you know, this is. Very much about workload and burden and doing this.

I doubt very seriously anybody is going to walk up and say, I just hate transparency. It's a question of how much people can do. And I'm just going to go with. Enough work has been done here. And the author dived into a difficult area, and it seemed to strike a balance here with the Committee.

So I'll be an I vote.

Thank you, Senator Cortese, and thank you to you, assemblymember Ortega, for bringing this Bill forward. It's a very challenging issue because we. Really love and appreciate our nonprofits, and. We absolutely love and appreciate our public sector workers. I would take exception with something that was said by the opposition.

We can't be in the business of doing work cheaper. I think that is a zero sum. Argument, and I don't think is where. My decision came to work with the. Author on these amendments, because the public.

Sector has to set an example for what good wages and good benefits and to be paid so that all of that public sector work and engagement has dignity at the same time, nonprofits, as Senator Laird mentioned, I come out of a nonprofit workers rights space, and the.

Work that the nonprofit does is very different in terms of the approaches to getting the work done. And I think we need that flexibility of the approach. Meeting workers at midnight, speaking 22 different. Languages, being able to answer the phone when the worker is not able to submit something, that's what nonprofits do that.

We don't expect our public sector workers to do. And so I think we have to. Respect that we bring something to the table of serving. And I think this Bill helps to respect and protect the public sector, but also ensure that we keep our trusted nonprofits in our ecosystem to serve our community.

So I will be supporting the Bill, and we'll ask you to close.

Thank you, Senators. You know, I will close with restating what I told Senator Laird on the phone this morning. This Bill has never been about punishing anyone. I grew up in Oakland, a city that didn't have a lot of resources. In a neighborhood where kids were either. Ending up dead and drugs or dropping out of school.

And there was the nonprofit sectors and. Community that helped raise me, that helped. Provide the services that I needed to be here today as a state Assembly Member. And I work with our nonprofits consistently. I uplift them, just like we all. Do when we bring them up here. And celebrate their work.

So this has never been about whether. Or not our nonprofits are, you know, doing God's work, because they are. But this has to be about transparency, accountability, and results. As a state Assembly Member, I was. Elected by the voters to ask these. Questions and to be able to deliver. With their taxpayer dollars.

Are things working are they not? And that's all I've been asking for. And I appreciate the amendments. This is why we've been working so. Hard with your Committee to strike the balance.

And I will continue to uplift our community and those who are doing what we need them to do when government cannot step in so respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Thank you very much for that. Get a motion from you. Thank you. Senator Curtace, assistant please call the roll.

On file item number seven, AB 2557. This motion is do pass as amended. To the Committee on Appropriations [Roll Call]

We have a vote of two to one. This Bill is on call. Take it up when we have more of our quorum here.

Thank you.

We will now move to file item number six, AB 24. Nine. Nine. Assemblymember Shribo.

Thank you and good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm grateful for the opportunity to present AB 2499 to you today. No person should lose a 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 as time off to address safety concerns, heal, or support their family. One in six survivors of violent crime report losing their job or being demoted because they needed to take time off following a traumatic event.

Fifty-three percent, over half of survivors of domestic violence report losing a job because of the abuse. Seven out of 10 victims describe feeling unsafe or scared following being a victim of a crime.

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

We worked with opposition to address concerns that have limited the amount of leave to two weeks or 10 days, along with eliminating the reasons for leave. Additionally, leave is again unpaid and 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 Commissioner based on the survivors rights in the last three years, which is data that's available, and the CRD expects only 50 to 100 complaints per year.

Employers will benefit as well, for their employees will be far more likely to return to work, more able to work and focus when given the appropriate time to recover. Joining me today is Manny Sanchez from Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice and also Senior Staff Attorney Shazzy Kamali with Legal Aid at Work to testify.

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

I came to be a member of Crime Survivors of Safety and Justice due to the murder of my daughter, Justice. Justice was taken from us way too young by gun violence. She was only 19 years old. She had goals and dreams. She was very loving and caring with such a beautiful smile.

She was smart young woman who still had her whole life ahead of her. When Justice passed, I still been in the process of healing. My mom had just passed away 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 stepdaughter get her mental health support for her process, for her grief. I needed time to meet with funeral service providers. I'm still in the process of healing in my grief.

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

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Shazzy Kamali, and I am a staff attorney at Legal Aid at Work, a nonprofit organization that provides legal representation and advocacy for workers across the state. I'm here to talk to you about AB 2499 which will strengthen workplace protections for survivors of domestic violence crime.

Workers seek out our legal services because they're concerned about their safety, but also because they're not sure what they can do to stay safe without risking their job. And maintaining employment is critical to maintaining the bridge to financial independence, which empowers survivors and allows them to heal and move on.

AB 2499 addresses gaps in existing law by adding additional specific reasons survivors and their close family members can act unpaid leave, which is really important. It allows a parent to take leave for a day to help their daughter move from an abusive home or for a sibling to hold their sister's hand in court.

And those things can make a difference between someone achieving safety or experiencing continued violence. AB 2499 also expands access to reasonable safety accommodations at work to those who experience all types of violence and to family members who need an accommodation for their own safety.

Finally, AB 2499 also moves survivors workplace protections from the labor code into the Fair Employment and Housing Act so that workers can seek justice without having to file with multiple state agencies.

Safety for survivors is critical for an adjusted healthy California, and AB 2499 is will take common sense steps to better ensure survivors can achieve safety without having to lose their jobs, and we urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. We will move to support in the room. Anyone wishing to speak in support, please step forward. State your name, affiliation, and position.

My name is Concepcion Sanchez, the mother of Justice, and I am member of Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, and I'm for the bill. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Ed Little, on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice and Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, our co-sponsor. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Federation, in strong support.

Morning again. Bryan Miramontes with American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Okay, let's move to opposition. When wishing to be a witness in opposition, please have a seat at the table. Just a me too?

Oh, yeah. Ashley Hoffman, the California Chamber of Commerce. I just really wanted to thank the sponsors and the author's office for working with us on amendments. Our only outstanding concern is just a general concern that this would be the 10th new leave or expansion of leave in just the last couple of years. But again, really want to thank the author's office. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Marlon Lara with the California Restaurant Association, echo the comments of the Cal Chamber. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to the Members. We have a motion from Senator Cortese. We will wait. I don't think we have. Sorry, I was thinking about my count. Would you like to close, please?

Make sure that people aren't losing their jobs because they've been a victim of a crime. And respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And thank you so much for bringing this bill and to the parents of Justice. Thank you so much for being with us and having the courage to share your story for other families. And now we'll have the assistant call the roll.

On file item six, the motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Have a vote of two to zero. This Bill is on call. When we have our quorum, we'll take it. Thank you. I see Assemblymember McKinnor is in the audience. We are going to move now to AB 2561. Proceed when you're ready.

Chair and Members, I am here to present AB 2561 which aims to tackle the persistent issue of high vacancy rates within our local agencies. These high job vacancy rates significantly affect public services, delivering deliverables and contribute to workout work burnout.

The Bill mandates that agencies experience in a 15% vacancy rate for over 180 days must, upon request by recognizing employee organization, convened within 21 days to strategize filing these positions in holding a public hearing within 90 days to address hiring obstacles and strategies.

Importantly, employee organizations will be granted the opportunity to present at these hearings ensuring transparency and ensuring transparency. At its heart, AB 2561 aims to ensure that our essential public services are adequately staffed while protecting the rights and interests of public employees by fostering collaboration between public agencies.

Recognizing employee organizations, this legislation promotes transparency, efficiency, staffing practice and positive labor relations. Initially, the Bill required a full assessment of recruitment and retention processes and a vacancy plan. We amended the Bill to give workers a voice ensuring clear steps to address staffing issues and allowing public input.

This process is activated only if an agency Department has a high vacancy exceeding six months and if the employee organization requests it. The Bill also ensures public access to employment information and allows cost reimbursement through legal means. I firmly believe that through these measures we could strengthen our public workforce and better serve our communities.

I am committed to making any necessary adjustments to ensure the bill's effectiveness. Our ultimate goal is to foster ongoing dialogue with all stakeholders to address the labor crisis facing local agencies in California. With me today to testify on behalf of the Bill is Brian from AFSCME and Ivan Fernandez with California Federation of Labor. Thank you.

You may proceed. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members of the Committee, Von Fernandez with the California Labor Federation, a proud co-sponsor of AB 2561 local governments provide essential public services that Californians rely on every day.

These services are provided thanks to the hard work of our public sector workers such as nurses, firefighters, sanitation workers and so many other dedicated public service workers. However, due to widespread vacancies up to 30% in some counties, workers, such as public agencies, are chronically understaffed and struggle to provide basic services.

As a result, our public sector workers face increased workloads, mandatory overtime, and stress of trying to do multiple jobs at once. This has led to worker burnout and high turnover rates, only worsening the vacancy crisis that we are experiencing.

This is an unfortunate reality considering that public sector jobs once provided pathways towards home ownership and financial stability for so many Californians. AB 2561 will address the vacancy crisis by requiring local agencies with high departmental vacancy rates to meet and confer with impacted unions to discuss and develop strategies to fill vacancies.

In addition to meeting with the impacted union, a public hearing will be held for public engagement. AB 2561 is a step in the right direction at addressing the issue of local vacancies and for these reasons, respectfully urge your I vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair Committee Members Brian Marimontes with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees. We represent over 200,000 workers throughout the state in the public service. I first want to start by thanking the author for bringing this forward. This issue is a huge priority for our folks.

We also want to thank the Committee's work and the chair's work on this Bill as well. So I'll start with just sharing our Members provide critical services to communities throughout through local governments within each district throughout the state.

However, due to local agencies failure to hire and retain civil servants into the public sector workforce, our Members are being overworked and overextended.

The UC Berkeley Labor center released a report in December citing various fixable issues that are creating barriers to retention and recruitment across several counties in California, such as poor working conditions, uncompetitive compensation and an arduous hiring process, all of which, again, are addressable and fixable.

A state audit of the LCO released just last month showed that they were backlogged 47,000 cases and specifically cited not only the staffing shortages as the main issue in addressing the backlog, but the utter lack of urgency of the office or the DIR to meaningfully do anything about it or make any meaningful changes to their hiring procedures.

Clearly, the current process for addressing retention recruitment is not working. This is why we need this Bill. AB 2561 has been significantly amended and the new language simply does two things.

As the base amendment Member stated, if any, if and only if the agency has high minimum vacancy rates and if the union requests it, the agency would sit down with the union to discuss what is causing the agencies to, for example, take six to eight months to get back to a candidate or not provide flexible working conditions when they can are not able to provide competitive compensation similar to those in the surrounding areas in both the public and private sectors.

Then they would use this info to identify steps to address the problem, and after sitting down, they would hold a public hearing on the issue, allowing Members of the community to weigh in to wrap up. This Bill is about giving the affected and overworked workforce a voice and holding our local public leaders accountable for being better employers.

With that, I respect the SBI vote.

Thank you. Okay, we will turn to those in support. Please state your name, affiliation and position.

Madam Chair and Senators Terry Brennan, on behalf of SBIU California, you would think this is just common sense. I'm appalled that we have to require employers to sit down with the people who actually do the job to find out how to make it better. So I applaud the Bill and the author. Thank you.

Just a reminder, name, affiliation and position.

Chris Myers of the California School Employees Association and support.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators Doug Subers on behalf of the California. Professional Firefighters in support.

Okay, turning to opposition, is there anyone here who will be a witness in opposition? If you are witness, please have a seat at the table. You each have two minutes.

Good morning, chair Members. My name is Jason Britt and I am the county administrative officer for Tulare County. I have also served Tulare county for 30 years, beginning my career as an eligibility worker. I've also served as the public guardian, social services Director, public health Director, and Health and Human Services Agency Director.

All this to say that my roots and commitment in Tulare and county government run deep and are sincere. I'm invested in my workforce and I believe my fellow county administrative officers are equally invested.

Tulare county is a Member of the California State Association of Counties, which is part of a large coalition of local government groups opposed to AB 2561 counties face many challenges related to the recruitment and retention, including rebounding from the Covid-19 pandemic. The great resignation local government competing with private sector for a limited hiring pool.

Counties who, by the way, are on the front line delivering services on your behalf, both have long term vacancy rates, both on current employees and the residents who receive services from those departments. We understand and recognize those impacts. Counties have been implementing innovative ways to try to boost recruitment and attention and increase retention.

Yet many specialty positions like nurses, behavioral health professionals, social workers and sheriffs are experiencing a nationwide shortage and dwindling pipeline for new entrants. Workforce challenges impact all counties, but rural counties tend to feel these challenges, most due to limited financial resources and often more limited number available workers to hire.

If the true intent of AB 2561 is to provide a path for public agencies, reduce staff vacancies, then diverting staff time away from core service delivery and forcing numerous additional meet and confers on an unreasonable 21 day timeline will not achieve that goal.

The total impact of what feels like unending state mandates without adequate funding and flexibilities contributes to vacancy rates. Adding another 30 seconds mandate on counties like mine will not fill vacancies. It is incumbent upon all of us to make public service attractive. Therefore, I'm asking you to respectively vote no on AB 2561.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Lisa Murry. I'm the deputy city manager for the City of Santa Cruz and the former human resources Director for the City of Santa Cruz for eight years.

I've been in local government for over 24 years, and I also stand before you as the immediate past President of the League of California City's personnel and Employee Relations Department. Assembly Bill 2561 fails to address the critical issues of filling vacant positions.

In fact, this Bill will extend the process, create layers of bureaucratic paperwork, and prevent limited staff resources from actually filling vacant positions. While we all strive for a highly qualified and fully staffed workforce, the proposed requirements do not align with practical solutions.

Mandating extensive plans will not resolve the fundamental challenge of filling specialized roles like code enforcement officers or electricians, where oftentimes private sector compensation significantly outstrips public sector offers.

This legislation appears to circumvent traditional bargaining processes by pressuring cities like the City of Santa Cruz into year round negotiations on individual compensation and working conditions rather than fair and comprehensive union contracts for everyone.

This is an effort to circumvent the Myers Milius Brown act by requiring public hearings before the City Council rather than meeting, incurring and conferring in good faith. The difficulties in filling positions extend beyond mere bureaucratic timelines or arbitrary vacancy rates.

They're compounded by external factors like varying municipal budgets and competitive private sector salaries, and the lack of enthusiasm, quite frankly, for the public sector.

If the city is not able to fulfill the requirements of the plan as required by this Bill, the unions will have the ability to file an unfair labor practice charge with perb, which will allow for a union to go on strike, which ultimately hurts the workers in the community.

This will not fill positions in the City of Santa Cruz. If we had one of our employee unions, which has 72 employees, if we had a 15% vacancy rate, that's 11 positions that we'd have to create an individual plan on each one of these. You have about 30 seconds. Could you please. We are working.

Thank you very much. We are working on very diligently in the City of Santa Cruz to resolve these problems. We are working together with our unions, in collaboration to fill our vacancies. While cities are committed to filling vacancies, this Bill overlooks the necessity for sustainable revenue streams. Thank you. I respectfully urge no vote.

If you are speaking in opposition, please come to the mic. State your name, affiliation and position.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors in respectful opposition.

Jacqueline Wong Hernandez with the California State Association of Counties in respectful opposition.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Kathy Sunderling Macdonald for the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, in opposition.

Jamie Miner, on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District, respectfully in opposition.

Good morning again, Madam Chair Members. Karen Lang, on behalf of the California Association of County Treasurers and Tax collectors, the boards of supervisors of Butte Del Norte, Fresno, Humboldt, Merced, San Luis Obispo, Shasta Solano, all in opposition this morning. Thank you.

Morning. Alyssa. Still high in opposition. On behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park District and also the cities of Bakersfield, Carlsbad, Corona and Rancho. Morning, Madam Chair. Erin Avery with the California Special Districts Association, respectfully opposed. Thank you. Good morning, chair and Members. Daniel Sanchez, on behalf of the chief. Probation officers of California and respectful opposition today. Good morning, Madam Chair. Kiera Ross, on behalf of the Marin County Council, mayors of council Members, the City of San Marcos and the town of Truckee all in opposition to the Bill.

Lee Camerick with the Rural County Representatives of California. In opposition. Madam Chair. And Members, Corey Salzilla on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in opposition, Madam Chair Members.

Michael Pimetel with the California Transit Association. Opposition. Good morning. Josh Gagger on behalf of the Urban counties of California, the county Health Executives Association of, California, the County Welfare Directors Association, the California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, and the Colusa County Board of Supervisors, all in position. Jeff Neil representing the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, also opposed.

Thank you. Chair Members. Ross Buckley on behalf of South Coast Air Quality Management District. We have a post lesson in the position. We've had good conversations, officers and sponsors.

Thank you. Okay, we will bring it to the Gaius Members. Comments, questions. Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Cortese. Member. Would you like to close?

Well, I'd like to thank you guys this morning, thank the witnesses for coming out. I also started my career out as an eligibility worker, and so I was a public sector worker for 25 years. I worked for Department of Social Services, and I was an Auditor for Los Angeles County Office of Education.

And so I know the services that you guys provide and how hard you work. But we had some hearings this year on vacancies in public sector, and we know that we have to start to fill these positions.

We know that there's people out there that need work, but for some reason, there's a disconnect, and we're not actually filling those positions. We know that the community needs these services, and so they're suffering as well. And we're overworking the folks that are there. And so what this Bill does is try to help move that process along.

I look forward to working with you guys throughout, hopefully, my tenure here on vacancies, because we know that it's hard for you guys as well, to continue your work with these types of vacancies, and I request your. I vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Cortes, assistant.

Please call the roll on file item eight. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on appropriation. [Roll Call]

We have a vote of two to one. We're on call. When we get a quorum, we'll take it up.

When the Members return, we'll take it.

All right. Well, we are going to do a little bit more housekeeping while we wait for our Committee Members to arrive. Hello, Senator Welk. Welcome. I know, I know we know.

So we just a reminder file item number 10, AB 3043 by Assemblymember Rivas was pulled by the author and we now will reopen the role and sort of start from the top so you can your votes in. We will start with the consent calendar assistant please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we have a vote of four to zero. Consent calendar still on call. Let's move on to file item number one. That is AB 310. Assemblymember Arambula, Assistant please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that Bill has a vote of four to zero. It is still on call. We will now move to file item number two. AB 1137 assistant please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a vote of four to zero. That Bill is still on call. Moving on to file item number four. AB 2494 assemblymember Calderon, on file item number four.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is a vote of four to zero and it is on call. Moving to file item number five. AB 2872 assemblymember Calderon assistant call.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is on call with a vote of four to zero. Moving on to file item number six. AB 2499. Assemblymember Shivo on file item number six.

[Roll Call]

Four,zero. That Bill is on call. File item number seven. AB 2557 Ortega

[Roll Call]

That Bill has a vote of two to two. It is on call. Moving on to file item number eight. AB 2561. Assemblymember McKenna, on file item eight.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we have a vote of three to one. That Bill is on. Call. Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment retirement will be in recess for five minutes. Senate Labor Committee has reconvened. We will reopen the role, and we will start with the consent calendar and work our way through Committee assistant please.

[Roll Call]

With a vote of five to zero. Consent calendar is out. Moving on to file item number one. AB 310. Assemblymember Arambla the motion for file item.

[Roll Call]

With a vote of five to zero, that Bill is out. Moving on to file item number two. AB 1137. Assemblymember Joan Sawyer for file item two.

[Roll Call]

5-0. The Bill is out. Moving on to file item number four, AB 2404. Assemblymember Calderon, for file item number four.

[Roll Call]

The vote of five to zero. That Bill is out. File item number five. AB 2872. Assemblymember Calderon, file item number five.

[Roll Call]

A vote of five to zero. That Bill is out. Moving on to item number five, AB 2872. Assembly Member Calderon. Shoot. Okay. So efficient. We already did that one. File item number six. AB 2499. Assembly Member Schiavo for file item number six.

[Roll Call]

With a vote of five to zero, that Bill is out of. Moving on to file item number seven. AB 2557. Assemblymember Ortega for file item number seven.

[Roll Call]

With a vote of three to two, that Bill is out. Moving on to file item number eight. AB 2561. Assemblymember McKenna, on file item number eight.

[Roll Call]

So with the vote a four to one, that Bill is out. That concludes our hearing for Senate Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement. If you would like to submit any testimony, feel free to do so in writing. With that, this hearing is adjourned.