Assembly Standing Committee on Rules

Good afternoon. The Rules Committee is called to order. Please note that assemblymember Alvarez and Assemblymember Chen have, have been appointed for today's hearing to fill two excused absences. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Here. We have a quorum. Today's agenda includes SB 1407. The motion on SB 1407 will be do passed to appropriations. We have a consent agenda. Is there a motion on, please? I had some questions on that consent agenda.

Okay, you may proceed.

I was just hoping to ask the Rules Committee just to kind of walk us through the declassification process. Sorry, I have to talk on the mic first. Just let me thank the Rules Committee for undertaking this reclassification study. And just looking at staff salaries, I think it's long been overdue.

I've also have gone through my previous job at reclassification study, and I know how difficult it is and how arduous it is and how many meetings, but I was wondering if the Committee staff could walk through the reclassification portion of the proposal, but in particular around the lower level position and when that, you know, when that would be used.

There were some examples that were presented in the proposal, and I was just hoping that we could just get a fuller, Fuller understanding of when that would be used and how that would be used, and frankly, how often it would be used.

Leah, would you like to answer that?

Does it work? Okay. Hi, I'm Lia Lopez, CIO for Assembly Rules Committee. Thank you for your question, Mister Ting. So, the lower-level language was written into the policy to put some practice into the written document.

It's really a mechanism for myself and Rules Committee staff to make sure we stay within budget when employees are change job classifications. So part of this compensation setting document that's before you to vote on is just a nod to make sure we and Rules Committee adhere to an employee's appropriate classification.

So the lower level examples that are listed in the documents are not specific examples per se, but it pertains to when an employee works with Rules Committee and says, you know, for various reasons, perhaps I want to do a different job.

A case in point is a district Director, a real life example, had some life circumstances and said, I really enjoy my job, but I'm not able to take on that full responsibility. And so in that degree, we reclassified that individual and their salary was adjusted accordingly.

I can share it similar to what Members go through at the Citizens Compensation Commission. So, when there's changes in leadership at the Member level this citizen compensation Commission salaries are adjusted, which is your case. So, it's aligning classifications with salary. And, you know, unfortunately, with that is perhaps a downgrade in their employee's salary. Got it.

Got it. I think just for my personal opinion, I feel the citizens Compensation Committee hasn't really done the Legislature justice.

I know the salaries prior to the great Recession, where I believe at around 116,000, plus a number of other benefits that were taken away, and the fact that we're only compensated now to 120,000 strikes me as not even having kept up with inflation, frankly. So, appreciate that example.

So going on that point you mentioned, I just want to clarify because that is the one example you mentioned in the policy.

So if you're a Chief of Staff staff and you're still working as a Chief of Staff with that particular Legislator, regardless of what job your Boss had, assuming you still continue to oversee the four or five staff you potentially have oversight over to your district office, then would you anticipate that that Chief of Staff would be, you know, downgraded, I guess, or just trying to use the proper language?

Yeah. So we're speaking, obviously in hypothetical, but there's two prospective, you know, scenarios of what you're raising. So moving forward, Rules Committee staff will be working with employees to clearly identify where those potential, you know, nods to chairmanships or leadership is so that it's clearly stated. We do. Our current practice is for, like, an interim assignment.

We have some formal, formal process where we will document with employee that this is an interim basis. So it would be similar to that process moving forward. If you're asking about current practice, the only thing I can say is our perspective is to bring employees up, not bring them down where we're currently at.

But to be honest with you, there may be certain employees that are misclassified. But if you're looking at holistically, our intent is not to bring people down.

Yeah, I think I mentioned this in our conversation. I think one of my concerns, and one of my concerns since I've been in the Legislature is I've always felt relative to other positions, there's somewhat of a disincentive.

Well, there's a greater, sorry, I'll just say there's a greater incentive to be Committee staff than to be personal staff for a Legislator. So, one of my concerns, which I mentioned to you in our conversation, was that I was concerned how this would discourage people from, say, working for a Legislator.

Instead, they'd rather be working for a Committee. The Committee staffs are more highly compensated and so for me, that might seem a more attractive job. So are you doing the same with Committee staff? I guess, yeah.

Great question. So this is a first step in the project, and the human resources Director, Liz Foster, is here also because her team is planning to reach out to your chiefs of staff this week and discuss, you know, where your current staff's compensation is and have that discussion. But the project is just beginning.

This is the compensation philosophy that you're voting on. And then moving forward, we're going employee by employee, classification by classification. So it's a great point, Mister Ting. Our formal policy was bifurcated by institutional staff versus Member staff. This is putting all employees in one comprehensive policy.

So everyone has the ability to get the same, whether it's a merit, whether it's, you know, unfortunately, in your situation, the downgrade, unfortunately, we're treating all employees, we're trying to stabilize the compensation and make it uniform as much we can moving forward. And so this is the beginning of this project. But thank you.

So that's great to hear. So I just add to curiosity. So I mentioned the sort of the inverse, which is if a personal staff went to Committee staff, if a Committee staff Member, the rare situation that a Committee staff Member moved over to someone's personal staff, would they be downgraded?

Because Committee staff tend to make more than personal staff, which I don't personally agree with, but that's currently what the salary structure is right now.

So, yeah, we're working towards pay equity. So pay equity legislation that this state champion says equal pay for equal work. And we'll be looking classification by classification.

So when you move from, say, a Principal Consultant to a Chief of Staff, we're going to look at your experience and place you amongst the chiefs of staff in our organization to ensure it's an equitable placement.

You know, Lia mentioned it's not our intent to do a downgrade, but there may be situations where there's a huge shift in responsibility that that would have to happen. Like we talked about, a leadership role to a non-leadership role.

And I think what I would just urge is that when those situations happen, that obviously they'd be treated very consistently and that the policy is. It's a policy for the position. Right. So that would be what I would urge, and that's what it seems like you're trying to do, 100%. And so I think it is really important.

I did notice, again, the institutional difference versus the legislative staff reference. I've always felt like that needed to be much more equal and much more equitable, so I appreciate that you are looking at it to try to make it much more seamless and to have that transition be much more. Okay.

Thank you, Assembly Member Ting, did I answer your questions? Yes. Thank you, chair. May I believe assemblymember Arambula had some questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to begin. The comment you've made a few times is moving forward, and I'd like to understand, is this for new hires or will this apply to current staff? Because if it's applicable to current staff, that's not really us moving forward.

That's not giving those employees an opportunity to work under a process that they understood during their years of employment and feels a bit punitive. That I'd like to understand. Is this policy, policy really forward looking?

Is it for those who will be hired after the policy goes into effect, or will it retroactively apply to all employees as is being proposed? I think that's why many of us are asking these questions. Second, if it is retroactive, what do we think happens regarding retention? Do we think this ultimately moves people out of the building?

Will it affect institutional knowledge? How would, how would this policy benefit us? That if we're moving people who have understanding of this building out with this policy, that I'd like to understand what you think this will do for retention.

Yeah, I'm not really quite sure how to answer that, Mister Arambula. It's both. It's, you know, it's going to affect new hires, but it's also, you know, it's a salary policy that, if approved, would go into effect immediately, so impacts current staff.

I guess where I'm a bit perplexed is I'm not quite sure where I see how this impacts retention. In fact, our objective is to retain high quality staff by looking at salaries that we have heard are frankly a little bit Low.

And so the intent of this project is to say this is our criteria of basing compensation and we want to move salaries up for the lower level classifications. And so that would be our first step in that direction.

I understand the rising of all the rising tides will lift all boats, but it seems contrary for us not to hold harmless those employees who have been working hard as well.

And I think what I'm concerned about is the long term effect that the policy will have and whether or not that will shift people into Committee positions or outside of the building, because during all of our times up here, we will have different periods where we will be involved and we will be less involved.

But for our staff, we should be advocating to make sure that they have stability, that they have an opportunity to make a career out of this, and that we are committing to them. And what this feels like a bit is that we aren't. That what we're saying is as long as you're in good graces, things are fine.

But if things ever turn and you are no longer, then the possibility is that your staff will be downgraded and decrease in pay. And how do we then ultimately believe this will help us to build up institutional knowledge and quality staff in this building? That really does make this place work.

Yeah, I absolutely agree. Staff is essential. And I'm sorry, I just disagree with the statements that we're trying to disadvantage staff. I mean, we're basically trying to retain and set up a recruitment policy and go in that direction. So maybe we can have further conversations, because I just respectfully disagree with.

And I'm fine with that, Madam Chair. And I'm happy to. I think for many of us, it's simply this lower level position or downgrade that we have issues with. It's not the remainder of the proposal and the lifting of our ledge aides and field reps. It's more just.

I want to acknowledge that this is a change for all of us, and there is angst among change, but this is a way we as an organization can actually talk to all 80 Members and all staff Committee, you know, support staff, as well as your staff, in the same regard.

And, you know, so people understand that we are basing compensation on other relevant experience. Yeah, we need staff. We need institutional knowledge. So, I'm sorry there's a miss disconnect there, but happy to continue to work with you.

And then next up, we have somebody, Member Dixon.

Thank you. I'm glad we're having this discussion. I have only heard about specific numbers and classification ranges, I guess through the rumored mill. And so I just wondered if you could please address what is the status? Some people seem to know that some positions are being adjusted. I don't have any information that's been communicated to me directly.

So just to help me control maybe misinformation. What is the process going forward, and what do people know? And are all classifications being reviewed simultaneously? Are you doing it in stages? And maybe that would be helpful to people who have already heard they're not being reviewed currently? And so when would. Are their positions being excluded?

I just think there's misinformation. If you could just, for the record, tell us what's going on.

So step one is the policy adoption. Step two is to look at our lower classifications office, assistant secretary, legislative assistant, Field Rep. From there, we'll progress based on salary. So we want to focus first on our lower paying staff, which is about for ledge assistance and field reps.

It's about 350 employees that we would get to address, bring hopefully the minimum base salary up and then place them appropriately in that range so that there's no compression issues.

So how are people getting those numbers? Because I've heard numbers.

Well, HR staff is doing that, and they'll be reaching out to your chief.

Assessment because people are aware of numbers. And seeing that maybe from a communication standpoint, I'm not quarreling or finding any fault with your process. This is a perfect, I guess, kind of a microcosm of how information is communicated. Some people get information and your intentions are well laid out.

But maybe it's creating some consternation among those who are not being reviewed at this time. And will they ever be made whole and what happens to everybody else?

Just maybe they all know it and I'm the only one that does it, but they're asking me, and so I, and they're forming some conclusions that perhaps aren't not accurately defined in your process.

Yeah, I mean, we're going to take it one step at a time. We're going to be making calls later this to each and every one of your chiefs of staff.

The chiefs were able to come on the meeting that we had last week, were informed 71 is the first group, and then we're moving to a second group on 81 and continuing on until we, as we said, look at every single employee that is in this organization.

And I think that's great. I commend you for that. There seems to be information or misinformation that some groups are being accelerated before others or being compensated at the newer rate before others.

So maybe just to kind of lay out that every, maybe, I'm asking you to this question, will all new compensation salary ranges take effect on the same date?

They will not. So the future plan would be, once we almost, to some intent, not doing them at the same time, because then as years go on, we will be making this a more automatic process and consultation with each office.

And so we're splitting groups up so that 71 is the first group, 81, and then next year those reviews would be 7181. And so it doesn't all happen on the same time, but the people who will be later will have more experience calculated in, you know, when we assess where to place them.

So it isn't, you know it isn't all going to be 71. We also are aware that our greatest competitor has already moved, and we were already hearing that people were losing recruits and staff to that competitor. And so that was one of the reasons that these classifications went first.

All right. Okay. Just communicate it to everybody. That'll be very helpful. Okay.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Assembly Member Flora.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you both for being here. I think one AB of the big things that is sort of being lost like this all kind of got brought to everybody's attention with the passage of 1. Right. Where we really needed to take a look at salaries at staff level.

And I think one of the issues that we're starting to see, and I commend the work of, honestly, all of you, because this is not an easy thing to go to look through.

But the former Chairwoman of Appropriations Committee had a quote on her office a number of years ago in doing the most for the most amount of people. Right. And I think that that is sort of what we're grappling with right now.

I just, I just applaud the Rules Committee for probably trying to just lift everybody up and there might be certain scenarios where it's not exactly what you want. But again, I do love that quote from labor doing the most for the most amount of people. So I applaud your efforts.

Thank you. And then, Senator Holden, did you have a question?

Just briefly, I just wanted to also congratulate you on taking on and continue to move forward in a very positive way as best you can to lift every boat. I guess one of the questions that comes to mind is that you talked about looking forward.

How long is the process going to continue in terms of looking at these classifications and these reviews? I know you talked about maybe going into next year. I just don't want to get ahead of what I believe is getting a better handle on these classifications and positions that need to be, be lifted up.

But in this are those that may be downgraded and downgraded in their job classification. We don't know the fullness of what that represents. It doesn't appear to me at this point until you continue the process that you will embark on once we give some direction on a policy today.

So I guess I'm trying to understand, is there any reason why we can't build in a little bit of cushion for the downgrades as we continue to go through this process, as we continue to, as you continue to have your interviews with our staff and others that may have been in a position of leadership and now or not know the fullness of what that represents.

I won't be back next year, but maybe my Chief of Staff will. So I'd like to know what thought process we could integrate into this. Because I'd like to think in every Committee, not just every other Committee, but this Committee, that there's an opportunity to have some flexibility to proposals that land in front of us.

I don't want to ever feel like in this Committee or any Committee, that there's not an opportunity to make a suggestion that would allow for us to get the best coverage and have people as whole, whatever that ultimately is defined to, as an individual would interpret it so that no one feels that they're injured.

If we have an opportunity to kind of think through some approach that would allow for flexibility, and when you look at the second bullet point under lower level position, downgrade, and it describes a downgrade and job classification will result, and a salary adjustment.

I would like to suggest that we have an effective date of December 12024 which would then give you more time to outreach to more staff and determine whether or not there's anyone else or any who all the universe might be that could fall into a category of downgrade.

So we can give additional sensitivity to what that might represent.

I hear. I hear your recommendation and you know, it's really before the Members as currently drafted. If you know, Mister Holden, that's your suggestion. My recommendation, Madam Chair, would be then we would need to pause on the base minimums because we need to have some mechanisms to control our spending.

Certainly want to support raising the base minimums, but we have to, as an organization, look at our higher paid staff and understand, you know, how we do merit increases to Mister Arambula's point, to retain the institutional knowledge.

So, you know, it's certainly a discussion for all you, you know, I'm your administrator, so I will certainly take direction from the membership. But I just am pausing to make sure that there's some fiscal prudency in your policy and your direction. So I put it before you guys, but thank you.

Well, and just one other thought, and I think that's what I was sort of getting at. When you get a report for whatever Committee, there is some kind of already attached fiscal impact.

Unless I overlooked it even in what you presented, I don't think that there's a representation on what the fiscal impact would be based on what you're recommending. And if I missed that, my apologies. So I'm not quite sure how you can.

I mean, I get what you're trying to say, I get what you're saying, but that should already be part of what's in front of us to look at and evaluate. And maybe I look at that and I don't even make the recommendation.

But absent that, I'm being asked to make a decision where I'm starting to feel like, do I have all the information that I need to have as a Member of this Committee? If you're updating caucuses, that's one thing.

If you're talking about a policy that now we need to dig deeper on and make sure we have everything that we need to make the fullness of a recommendation to the rest of the body out of this Committee. I'm not sure at this point I have all of that.

Okay. Thank you. Is there a motion? zero, sorry. I'm sorry, Senator. Member Friedman, you had questions?

I have a few questions, and I want to thank you for being here, and I appreciate the work that's being done. I represent a very high cost of living area, and certainly we have not really had a problem attracting quality staff, but certainly retention has been a bit of a challenge.

I mean, I always looked at the job, a lot of these field rep jobs, as being starting places for people who are interested in policy with the expectation that in a couple of years they would move on to something bigger and better, which is what's happened many times.

But while people are working, it can certainly be a challenge. That's for sure. So I'm really glad to see that base salary increasing. I don't know if you've given thought to changing it for different parts of the state, but that's maybe a different discussion for a different day. I do have some questions.

My first question is, what are we exactly voting on today? Because I have similar concerns as to Mister Holden, that there's a lot of vagueness in a lot of this, that I don't exactly know what the policy, in some cases, what the policy is going to be or what it's going to cost.

So I'm wondering today if we're moving you forward to continue to develop this, or if we vote and it's not coming back to rules after that.

What's before you is the salary policy that was posted on the agenda. So it's that, that new salary policy which would circumvent what the current policy was, which was adopted in 2017. So let me, let me just ask a few questions. So, you know, I'm leaving.

So it's not going to affect me going forward in my personal office, but I care deeply about the people who have dedicated themselves to this, to this building. And as a californian, it's really important to me that the people who are representing me have adequate staffing to help them run the state.

I think it's, you know, the staff does most of the work around here, as we all know. And so it's important that we are able to attract and retain the people who are in the best position to help elected officials make these really important decisions.

So in terms of the lower, the downgrade positions, I'm wondering if you can expand on what the responsibilities of the individual or the Members decreasing actually looks like.

I've chaired committees and I've not chaired committees, and I would hate to think that if I'm no longer chairing a Committee that all of a sudden my staff has to have a salary downgrade because of that, because there's certainly still a lot of work to do. They're certainly doing a lot of work.

It might be a different kind of work, but it's not like they're going home any earlier.

So do you have any, is there any guidance in any of the policies that we're voting on that make sure that we don't have a situation where just because a Member maybe is on less committees or no longer chairing something, that their staff is going to be downgraded?

So currently there's one classification for chiefs of staff. So if you're chair of a policy Committee and that chair responsibility shifts, your staff would still remain in that classification. So it's only specific to job duties that change based on their classification. So currently it wouldn't impact your staff? It wouldn't impact my chief or my staff. Correct.

There are certain classifications in our leadership schedule that are different, and so those would be impacted moving forward.

And then, of course, the scenario where an employee works directly with Liz and her staff based on their needs, as I use the scenario of a district Director, you know, making the change based on, you know, their circumstances, and then.

Are we talking about one pot of money that's being redistributed or are there going to be additional funds coming in to Fund those increased salaries at the lower range?

So this is all coming from the Assembly operating budget, I guess.

I'm wondering, is the downgrading of the more senior staff that you. That are anticipating in here, is that going to be what then? Help what makes the lower increase possible?

No, frankly, you know, although it's, I said earlier, a prudent decision. It's also what we should be doing. It's really a nod to people who are working out of their class. So it's misclassifications that we're zeroing in on.

I'm only asking because I've heard, you know, some concerns from people who are more senior as to whether they're no longer going to receive, you know, raises commensurate with their experience to sort of pay for the newer people coming in.

Yeah, that's a great question because it's part of us who have been here a long time, like, how does this impact us? So this is a pretty common practice in hrtaine where you reach your cap and then they'll say red, circled, y rated, frozen.

There may be some people who have been at the top of their range and we will be notifying them. Unfortunately, currently, to be honest, it impacts many rules, Committee staff. So we're having those conversations that, hey, you might be at the top of your classification. So there are scenarios and we'll reach out.

But I would have to get into specifics by your employee or your situation to kind of understand, you know, who you're concerned about or what their specific facts are.

I'm not necessarily concerned about a specific employee. I'm just trying to understand what I'm voting on.

Yes.

And I do think there are concerns from staff. And so I hope that there's enough communication to really address the concerns because it's new. People are talking, people are worried, and I have had heard concerns from people. So, you know, we want to make sure that we can attract and retain certainly people that are incoming.

And we also have to be sure that we can, we can retain our senior staff with their knowledge base so we don't lose them to lobby firms, to state agencies, et cetera. We have to be sure we're competitive to people who have really dedicated themselves to here.

And as much as I love being here, I can tell you that the amount of time that my staff puts in on weekends and after hours is not necessarily reflected in their paycheck. So it's something beyond money that keeps people here, but there's only a certain point where people are going to deal with that.

And then lastly, I would ask, so there are people whose current salary increases that they would have otherwise been entitled to, let's say a year ago, I think, are frozen because of the new policy.

And one thing that I have heard from staff who are in that position, and I'm talking, I have a field person who is at that lower level who's been waiting for a while to get the raise that she would normally have gotten, but I think because of that, it's been frozen.

Are they going to have that sort of return to them retroactively so that they feel that they weren't just losing money waiting for the policy to be finished?

I think we should sidebar on each of these individual inquiries. You know, the intent is to have the policy go into effect 71. So I don't want to disadvantage staff the intent. I think we're all on the same page of our intent, which is we want to support staff. We value them.

How do we make this right? And it feels very new. And so it's scary and I can understand that. But let's have a conversation about your specific situation, because we were in this kind of gray area where we were working with HR to get these mechanisms up and going so that we could move forward.

And now we're before you to say let's move forward. But I understand there's situations, but I can't, I don't know the facts to how to respond to your inquiry, but my hope is that most of the staff will feel comfortable and support their increase in those lower level positions moving forward.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions? I just have one follow up on Mister Holden's question.

Okay. So I think in response to Mister Holden's idea, maybe we hold the downgrades till, you know, end of November, beginning December. You had mentioned then we would have to wait to raise other people's salaries. And could you, is that a financial, is that a financial reason?

Well, again, we wouldn't have to, but it would be my recommendation to do so so that we can pause and look at that action and can you walk?

And why is that? Is it because you need the money from the downgrades to Fund the increase?

I guess I would just, my concern is that we as an organization keep increasing salaries, which might be rightfully what we need to do. But there's no mechanism to say from the organizational perspective, we have a limit based on Prop. 140, what our budget is from the Assembly's perspective.

And so I don't want to put the Members here in a predicament where in future years we're coming to you as Rules Committee staff to say we need to do reductions enforced because we have too many employees on our payroll. And so that's, it is a real concern of mine.

Maybe I'm a little nervous there, but that would just be my recommendation that we look at it wholistly statistically.

And are we, as a operating budget, are we running a deficit? Are we running a surplus? I mean, do we have a Reserve? I mean, just going back to. Because as Mister Holden mentioned, there's no fiscal piece. So just trying to understand why we couldn't do both.

I think it's, you know, a question of where does the spending and the salary increases continue, what are the mechanisms to put limitations on? But to answer your question, we, the Assembly, are in. Okay. Situation, I don't know what years, do.

We have a surplus?

We are. Okay. So we have a surplus. Yes.

And is that from a percent standpoint? Can you give us a sense of.

How I can get back to you on that? Certainly, we'll do so. But, so it just depends how you all want to move forward with this policy.

My recommendation would be to proceed forward with the policy that is at hand.

As a new person. Is this updating an existing policy? Is this a new policy or does it, a current policy, exist? And this is updating, this is revisions to an existing policy. Replacing. It would have been helpful if we could kind of see a redline version and what's new and what, well, we're.

Throwing out the old version.

This is new. Okay. It's deleting and replacing. Well, and Mister Farr referenced earlier, the ACA one. And I remember as part of, part of that, that discussion and that Bill that it contained, I don't know if it's an admonishment, is a recommendation that employees of offices, one is Republican, one is Democrat.

Obviously there are no partisan differentials in salary and compensation. Is that principle being reflected in how you're calculating your numbers? Yes. Okay. All right.

That's very good. Okay, there's a motion. Thank you very much. I'm sorry, I had one other thing I wanted to just say. One of the other concerns that I have heard from some of the staff at the highest levels has to do with just historic pay inequities, particularly with women versus men.

And I do hope that as you look at this, you look at some of those inequities so that we don't sort of freeze everyone where they are and allow for this discrepancy between groups of people. So I don't know if you have. Any comment about what you mentioned.

I've heard this a lot. And you know, this is a struggle for Rules Committee staff, because based on the legislation, it's equal pay for equal work, and we would be in trouble if we base someone's compensation on a protected class issue. So even though I hear you and I understand that there's systemic issues out there.

That's not our job to look at an individual based on those protected class. That's why we're setting this policy out based on relevant work experience as well as time and position and trying to give a nod to people who have been in the building for some time.

Well, maybe it's something that can be looked at as you look at how, when, how and when you do those steps, given that, you know, some classes of people may have had a lot more steps even while they've been here working in the Legislature and trying to find a way to acknowledge that and reconcile it, you know, not to mention the pay scale at which people enter, you know, not necessarily being reflected in the, in the work they're doing.

So I would say, I agree with you, equal pay for equal work. But are we sure that we are paying people equally for the work that they're doing? So I would. That's what I'm suggesting, yeah.

That's why we're looking person by person by person. And that's the reason for having a downgrade option, because if you have somebody who had a very, very large responsibility and no longer does and has moved into a classification with people who have less responsibility, it's hard to meet those pay equity goals if their compensation isn't appropriately adjusted.

No further questions. It is 01:41 p.m.

question of the chair. Is it your expectation that this Committee will get an interim update so we can track a lot of what was shared today that may not be as evident in front of us?

My office is always open for a.

Committee, for the Committee to be have a session, and maybe it's just for this purpose. I mean, we. It is under the purview of this Committee where we can get an update within 45 days or something like that. You tell me.

It's just adopting this policy that's performed. We have another agenda that we can, another item we can place on the agenda? I'm more than happy to discuss that as well. But the only thing that's on the agenda is this policy.

I know. I understand. And you're asking us to vote on the policy, and I think that there's a lot of good energy moving, trying to move in the right direction. I'm just saying that there have been questions raised.

Will there be an opportunity to get an update from staff for this Committee to be updated on how these meetings with staff are going and how, what feedback they're getting? That's all. And I'd like, maybe I should ask that it be agendized and we can.

Have further discussions, and if necessary, we can agendize it. And I do take your concerns very serious. And so if it's a matter that should be agendized, then we should definitely agendize it. So I hope that answered your question.

If everyone is making a motion to agendize this, I would second it.

Make a motion to agendize this.

Okay.

Secretary, call the roll agenda.

And I'm actually, maybe I'm not even.

So there's, so there's, I think, a main motion that's been made to adopt the policy. Policy. You take that.

And then Assembly Member Alvarez, I like.

To ask the professionals in the room who worked on this, what would be an appropriate timeframe for you to provide potentially an update on the status of your conversations and your thinking. How much time do you need?

I think, you know, appropriately. We could, you know, get back to the chair within a three month timeframe.

Okay. Yeah. Great.

So would you like to make a motion to provide an update in three months?

I don't want to make this really complicated, because it's not. There was a conversation that ensued. There were a lot of questions. I'm prepared to move forward with the motion, but I'd like to know that the questions that I put on the table, we can get some feedback to in a reasonable period of time.

I mean, you don't want it to be, be in December when I won't even be here.

I'm just saying there's an expectation that we can, as you continue your conversations with staff, as you go from your priority levels, that at some point in the near future you can come back to us and let us know how that process is going.

So that would be approximately three months, as you heard. Of course, if there's an item that we need to agendize, more than happy to agendize it. I just don't think we'll have the information by July. So did you want to proceed with your motion? Sorry. Assemblymember, floor.

So there's currently a motion that's on the floor right now, which is to move it as it is in print. So if there's a substantive motion, then we need to deal with that. But we have to dispense with the first motion first.

I thought the motion was to approve consent. I'm sorry? It was to approve consent, to pursue. Consent because this item has not been taken off consent. That's correct. It's not, but I think so.

We have a motion somebody. Member Low. I'm sorry.

I was just gonna ask. Given that there's been significant discourse, it would be helpful to know what the chair's prerogative would be on proceeding. So we can help but understand that you are privy to much of the context and the functions of this as well, too, but adequately addressing any of the outstanding concerns you already articulated.

That there's opportunity in your office is open. But do you have a prerogative on the direction of the substitute motion versus the three months?

I believe. I think my recommendation would be to proceed forward with the original motion. I think Anita clarifying as to what the substitute motion would be. I'm not fully understanding it, and that's why I'm recommending that maybe we have further discussions, and if we need to agendize it, we will agendize it at a future meeting.

But my recommendation is to proceed forward with adopting the policy and approving the consent calendar. So my recommendation would be to proceed forward with the motion and the second and for us to vote.

Yeah, and I'm good with the motion. It's already been made on the consent calendar. All I'm saying is that there are going to be ongoing conversations. There are chiefs of staff, of Members who aren't going to be here, who are still not quite sure where they land on all this.

There are other staff that you will be talking to as the days and weeks go forward. Out of that, there may be some additional issues that we need to know about. So if there's an opportunity for there to be an item agenda, just to update on the progress, well, keep in.

Mind, every office is going to have a different set of questions. So your office may have a certain set of questions, and this dialogue should be open to all Assembly Members, even those that are not here on this Committee. So it's important to get everybody's input, not just those Members that are here on this Committee.

But, of course, if we need to agendize a particular item, I am more than happy to agendize it.

Okay. I guess that's the bottom line. But to your other point, you know, I serve on energy. Happy to make sure that everybody gets to hear everything we're going to hear today in their energy. But I don't think that's what you really want to do.

This Committee's focus is on these type of issues, and then we report out, and we certainly can take time to get input from others. That's all. I don't. I don't understand why it's so complicated. Yes, we can. Agenda. It's not complicated. Sounds like what you said, and that's fine.

Thank you, secretary. Please call the roll.

So, on the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

Motion passes. Rules Committee is now adjourned.