Senate Standing Committee on Education

Released in July 2023. Titled California State University, it did not adequately or consistently address some allegations of sexual harassment. As you'll notice on the agenda, we'll first hear from State Auditor Mister Parks, who will present the results of the audit as well as the status of the implementation for the audit's recommendations.

CSU chancellor Doctor Garcia and associate vice chancellor Miss Schwarzkopf will follow the State Auditor. The final panel will consist of stakeholders, including representatives from the Cal State Student Association, California State University Employees Union, and California Faculty Association.

Their perspectives are vital on this topic as they oftentimes represent the victims of sexual harassment. Like many Californians, I've been disheartened by the many cases of sexual harassment at CSU campuses in recent years. Understandably, these incidents may cause many Cal State students, faculty, and staff to lose trust in the University's ability to keep them safe.

I appreciate the California State Auditor's thorough examination of how the California State University system handles allegations of sexual harassment. This report is a critical tool for ensuring transparency and accountability. The report highlights several areas where CSU campuses did not adequately or consistently address allegations of sexual harassment.

The Auditor found gaps in how CSU handles complaints, including inadequate investigation, inconsistent application of policies and insufficient documentation and issuance of disciplinary actions. Sexual harassment is a serious issue that affects the safety, dignity, and wellbeing of students, faculty, and staff.

The prevalence of such behavior undermines the fundamental principles of respect and equality that are essential to a productive and inclusive educational setting. Thus, it's critical that CSU campuses respond to allegations of sexual harassment swiftly, effectively and consistently. It's been a year since CSU leadership expressed the University's commitment to addressing the issues outlined in the audit report.

My goal for this oversight hearing is to shed light on CSU's progress in implementing the immediate steps, as well as the long-term reforms needed to ensure a safe and respectful environment at its 23 campuses. I'm committed to working closely with CSU leadership to improve transparency and oversight.

As part of this, I'm committed to supportive legislation and policy initiatives aimed at improving how institutions like CSU can handle sexual harassment. This includes advocating for increased oversight and accountability measures.

There are a number of bills currently in the Legislature, including my own AB 2407, that are aimed at establishing rigorous oversight mechanisms such as regular audits, periodic reviews, and progress reports to hold the CSU system accountable for its actions. I look forward to a robust discussion and engagement from all parties today.

Before proceeding further, I have a few housekeeping items to ensure that we can hear from everyone. I ask that the panels keep their presentations to the time allocated. That's approximately 15 minutes for the State Auditor's presentation. We'll then have approximately 15 minutes for the CSU Chancellor's Office to respond.

And lastly, we'll have five minutes to hear from each participant on the last panel. Following each panel presentation, members will have time to ask questions, and we'll reserve time for public comment after the panel's last Q and A period. Members, are there any questions before we begin with the presentations?

Assembly Member Fong, would you like to make opening comments?

Thank you. Thank you so much, Chair Hart and to each and every one of you, gather here today to really continuing to provide a platform for the Legislature to hear directly from the CSU as to work in response to the sexual harassment complaints.

A year ago, we heard from the State Auditor on their findings about how the CSU have failed to produce proper guidance for campuses and failed to properly regulate the implementation of its sexual harassment policy across the system.

As we heard from our chair, we heard the deep disappointment, tremendous concerns from faculty, staff, and students on the trust gaps that have been created between the system and its community. A lot can happen in 12 months.

In February of this year, the Assembly Higher Education Committee published a call-to-action report which detailed how the state can play an active role in partnering and supporting higher education institutions to further prevent and address sexual harassment on our campuses. As a result, 12 bills were introduced based on the recommendations in the committee's report.

Thank you to my colleagues, Chair Hart, and colleagues here for your partnership and leadership in addressing Title IX through this bill package.

The bills will impact all public higher education institutions, and I would be remiss to not thank the CSU for their input and drafting of the report as well the work that has been done in being thoughtful partners in this bill package.

As author of two of the bills in the Call-to-Action bill package, Assembly Bill 2047 and Assembly Bill 2048. I'm grateful for the partnership of the CSU, and I'm eager to learn more about how the CSU has been partnering with the state to implement reforms and to address the recommendations from the 2023 audit.

Thank you again to my colleagues and thank you to Chair Hart.

Thank you, Chair Fong. Senator Newman, do you have any opening comments you'd like to make?

Yes, very briefly. So, thank you to the chair. I appreciate the chair's overview and your very clear articulation of the context and background for today's hearing. Thank you to my colleague, Mister Fong as well for his comments. I am very pleased to see Chancellor Garcia here today to address the committees.

And I look forward to hearing from the CSU about its implementation of audit recommendations and its continued efforts to foster a safe environment for all members of the University community. Thank you to all of the panelists for being here engaged with us in this sometimes uncomfortable discussion.

I would also like to thank the CSU staff for making themselves available to meet with our Committee staff on how CSU and each of its key campuses are implementing the audit recommendations. I'm going to have to leave very briefly to vote in Senate Elections, but I'll be back. But I look forward to a robust discussion today.

Thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you, Senator Newman. Are there any other comments from our opening statements from Members of the Committee? All right, well, thank you. We'll start then with State Auditor Parks. Would you please proceed with your presentation? Welcome, and thank you for your report.

Good morning, Chair Hart. Chair Fong. Thank you for inviting me today to discuss my office's July 2023 audit of the CSU's policies and practices for investigating sexual harassment. I have Michelle Sanders with me.

She's one of my office's audit principals, and she led the audit assignment and will be instrumental in answering any detailed questions you have about the implementation status of our report's various recommendations.

As the chair noted, sexual harassment is clearly a serious issue that involves unwelcome behavior, such as inappropriate comments or physical touching, which can cause students or employees emotional and physical harm that interferes with their ability to benefit from or work safely within a university. Just by way of context.

At the time when JLAC authorized the audit, the CSU system had been the focus of various high-profile sexual harassment cases. San Jose State University had faced an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice related to its handling of sexual harassment complaints against a former athletics trainer.

In addition, the former chancellor resigned his position in February 2022 after media reported that he mishandled sexual harassment complaints during his time as the President of Fresno State University.

During our audit period, CSU had roughly 55,000 employees and received, on average, between 150 to 300 complaints per year between 2018 and 2022, totaling more than 1200 reports of sexual harassment claims against CSU employees.

And the CSU investigated 254 of these reports, or roughly 20% of all complaints, and substantiated sexual harassment allegations in 98 of the 254 investigations, or roughly 39% of the time.

When approving the audit request, JLAC directed my office, among other things, to review the role of the CSU system's Title IX office in terms of its policies and practices. They asked us to review the CSU's process for investigating alleged sexual harassment and whether the investigation process was free from interference.

They asked us to look at the reasonableness of the discipline imposed and also to examine CSU's policies for retreat rights and letters of recommendations for individuals who had found to have engaged in sexual harassment.

Our audit report, although we obtained a lot of system-wide data that we include in the appendices of our report, most of our work focused on a selection of 40 sexual harassment complaints pertaining to employees at the chancellor's office and three campuses, which were Fresno State, San Jose State, and Sonoma State.

And overall, our audit found weaknesses at both the campus level and the system wide level that could be categorized into three main problems that we highlight in our audit report. First, we concluded that the CSU campuses we visited struggled to adequately and consistently investigate allegations of sexual harassment.

Second, we found that campuses could not always demonstrate that they consistently imposed discipline. And third, we found that a significant cause for these inconsistencies was the lack of system-wide guidance and monitoring by the former chancellor's office. I'll talk briefly a little bit about the contents of our report before moving into the recommendations.

With respect to the first point on the inconsistent approach to investigating claims of sexual harassment, we noted a variety of problems in this area, and probably one of the most important ones was the unexplained closure of complaints without conducting investigations.

Deciding whether or not to conduct an investigation is one of the most critical steps in responding to an allegation. It's only through the investigation process that you can determine whether or not sexual harassment has occurred and therefore whether or not discipline is warranted.

In 11 of the 15 complaints we reviewed where CSU officials closed complaints at intake without conducting an investigation, we found that the CSU officials lacked clear rationales for doing so. We found instances where they prematurely concluded that the alleged behavior didn't constitute sexual harassment, which we found concerning given the nature of the allegations presented.

We found that CSU officials did not always document the rationale for closing cases, and we also noted instances where there wasn't any clear attempt to contact other individuals cited in the allegation based on materials that we found in the case file.

Importantly, we also could not always determine which campus officials decided to close a case prior to an investigation because CSU policies did not require a signature or an approval process, and as a result, it wasn't always clear who had accountability for the decisions to close cases prior to an investigation.

CSU's policies require Title IX coordinators to document in writing the decisions about whether to conduct an investigation.

But the policy didn't require any documented rationale for this important decision, which is in contrast to guidance we saw from the U.S. Department of Justice with other campuses and their settlement agreements, for example, with San Jose State, which requires clear, documented rationales for not proceeding with an investigation of sexual harassment.

Moving to the investigations themselves, we also found inconsistencies that led us to question the conclusions that were reached by CSU officials. We noted weaknesses in seven of the 21 investigations we reviewed, and each of those resulted in CSU concluding that sexual harassment allegations were not substantiated.

At each of the four locations we visited, we encountered situations where CSU officials appeared to use an unreasonably restrictive interpretation of CSU's definition of sexual harassment. For example, in one case, a CSU employee physically touched a complainant's stomach and hip in an intimate way and said he thought they would always have sex.

But the CSU investigator who concluded these events did occur found that the conduct was not sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive. We also found issues with investigators admitting parts of allegations from the investigation's final analysis.

For example, a CSU employee made inappropriate comments to a complainant about how she dressed, frequently, hugged her instead of shaking hands, and touched her hair while kissing another staff member.

The investigator concluded again that this activity took place, but found it was not sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive, in part because the complainant was able to continue working and avoid the respondent.

But when we looked in the investigation file, we found that the investigation report noted that they omitted any analysis of other allegations of inappropriate touching that the complainant and other witnesses both told the investigator had occurred.

In response to our concerns over the quality of its investigation, CSU indicated that it offers training to its Title IX coordinators and provided materials which, in our view, were reasonably detailed and helpful. But CSU officials acknowledge they don't require their coordinators to attend these trainings or consult these materials.

In our view, more detailed guidance, such as what's provided in the trainings, is necessary to ensure campuses investigate allegations consistently and thoroughly, and we also believe the CSU should develop a secondary supervisory review process to ensure investigations are conducted in a consistent manner. Another problem with the investigations is we often found missing documentation.

In 24 of the 40 cases we reviewed, we noted the absence of evidence of outreach to complainants and potential witnesses. We noted the absence of relevant evidence that was referred to in the investigation, absent interview notes.

And often we found lacking information on what corrective actions or discipline the CSU imposed, if any, that were followed following a finding of a substantiated allegation of sexual harassment. At the time of our audit, CSU did not establish requirements setting expectations for how investigators should document their casework.

Again, going back to the U.S. Department of Justice, they noted the importance of such requirements in its 2021 resolution agreement with San Jose State, which required that campus to consistently document interview notes, correspondence with the parties involved, and any disciplinary action that was taken. We believe that kind of standard is something that should be applied system-wide.

We also noted problems with timeliness. In 13 of the 21 investigations we reviewed, they were not completed within the time frames established by CSU policy. Generally speaking, CSU requires that their investigations be completed within 100 days.

But we noted that 13 of the 21 investigations that we reviewed were over this mark, ranging from as little as 17 days late, while we found three that were over 200 days late.

In one investigation, it took more than 368 days to complete, and we noted in the case file that the complainant was extremely concerned and, quote, just wanted it to be over. But the CSU investigator extended the investigation five different times, citing other work commitments or needing additional time to prepare key documents.

We also noted that all 13 cases that were late, the case files lacked documentation to demonstrate that the parties involved were informed of the delays on a consistent basis of their cases, and we recommended that the chancellor's office consider employing a pool of system-wide investigators to conduct investigations when campuses may lack the resources to do so timely.

And we also recommended that the chancellor develop a method for the parties to periodically check the status of their complaints through an online portal dashboard or through similar means. Turning to discipline. We also found incomplete records in terms of what happened following allegations and substantiated allegations of sexual harassment.

During our review of these 40 cases, we found seven where the campus concluded that some form of discipline or corrective action was needed, but it did not initiate or document what that corrective action was.

In one investigation we reviewed, we found a professor in 2016 was found to have engaged in sexual harassment, sexual violence, and stalking of a female student. Yet despite the finding, the university did not discipline the professor, even though he had been the subject of various complaints since 2003.

Nearly three years later, in 2019, the campus discovered it missed the statute of limitations for imposing discipline, and the campus ultimately didn't issue a letter of reprimand until May 2022.

During the audit, we noted CSU's sexual harassment policy did not specify any timeframes for initiating or administrating, administering discipline, or corrective action for those found to have violated CSU's sexual harassment policies. We also examined retreat rights and letters of recommendation.

Administrators who violate CSU sexual harassment policies at the time of our audit were able to retreat to faculty positions as long as they weren't terminated or separated from employment. During the audit, we felt that that was a gap in the policy.

We also found that the chancellor should consider revising CSU employees with findings of sexual harassment from retreating to these positions. But following our report, it appears to us that the CSU chancellor has taken positive steps to revise its retreat policy and now generally prohibits administrators with the finding of sexual harassment from actually retreating.

We noted a similar policy gap in the CSU's policies for issuing positive letters of recommendation. CSU's policy at the time of the audit allowed letters of recommendation for those who did not separate or terminate. But in March 2024, again, we noted that CSU changed its policy, we think for the better, that now prohibits positive letters of reference for those who have engaged in sexual harassment.

Importantly, I would also note that AB 1904 or 1905, rather by Member Addis, if enacted, would further codify in state law a prohibition on retreat rights and letters of recommendation for employees of public post-secondary education if they've engaged in sexual harassment.

And the last issue I'd talk about is I think the global cause that we found in this audit for the inconsistencies that we noted with sexual harassment investigations was the lack of clear guidance and monitoring at the chancellor's office level.

In our view, the instances and the inconsistencies that we found was not the result of different circumstances related to specific cases, but instead was the lack of unclear expectations and oversight at the time coming from the chancellor's office.

For example, the chancellor's office and the campuses struggled to compile lists of sexual harassment complaints that was necessary for our audit work, and the campuses vary in how they track reports of sexual harassment.

We also found that the Department of Justice often suggests that it's a best practice for universities to have a case management system to securely store complaints of sexual harassment so that you can analyze and monitor that data on a system-wide basis.

Unfortunately, the CSU doesn't have such a system, and that's one of the recommendations that we made in our report. But having data isn't enough. There needs to be some ongoing monitoring.

We found that the chancellor's office hadn't had a practice of monitoring campus compliance with Title IX and their sexual harassment policies, even though that they had made a previous commitment to doing so. In 2014, my office had recommended that the chancellor's office conduct routine reviews of campus compliance, but they had stopped doing these reviews in 2018, despite finding many of the same kinds of issues that we noted in our more recent audit in 2023, such as not addressing all the issues raised in a complaint and not properly analyzing evidence given the CSU's policy definitions.

In terms of recommendation status, and again, Michelle can fill in more of the details, but overall, my office made 16 recommendations to the chancellor's office addressing various issues from intake and investigation procedures, timelines, case file documentation, and system-wide data collection and oversight.

CSU has indicated they plan to implement all of our recommendations, and as of our current evaluation of their one-year response from last July, my office has concluded that the University has implemented 10 of the 16 recommendations, with six pending or partially implemented. Again, the CSU has indicated they plan to implement all of our recommendations.

And further, I would note that AB 1790, which takes effect in January at a basic level, requires the CSU to implement all of our recommendations.

Also, I would note that Chairman Hart's bill AB 2407, if enacted, would require my office to conduct recurring audits of the CSU and UC, which might provide additional opportunities for monitoring CSU's implementation of our recommendations going forward. Overall, for the recommendations that are remaining four are pending and they should be implemented by July 2026, if not sooner.

And for the two others that we've classified as partially implemented, we see that the CSU has actually created policies, but we're just waiting for some additional time to see that those policies are being implemented in practice.

And those are primarily CSU's monitoring of campus compliance of Title IX and their sexual harassment policies and also giving CSU a little more time to see that it's making decisions based on the data it collects from these campuses with respect to targeted outreach and further training for campuses.

So, with that, Michelle and I are here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Auditor Parks, for the excellent audit and the really great testimony. Thank you very much. Members, are there questions for Mister Parks? Yes.

Thank you both for being here. You mentioned what sounds like reasonably good progress on the remaining partially implemented issues, and this is obviously a little bit subjective. Is your sense that the CSU is making good progress?

Yes, I've had a conversation with the chancellor. I know our team has been in contact with CSU staff. We feel that we're very comfortable that CSU is taking these recommendations seriously and are making progress, realistic progress, to try and implement them.

Appreciate that. Thank you. Thanks, Mister Chair.

Thank you, Senator. Assembly Member Fong.

Thank you, Chair Hart, and thank you to the auditors for the robust presentation. Similar line of questioning. You mentioned six recommendations by July of 2026 and two recommendations by July of this year. In terms of the partial implementation, do you see that the CSU will be meeting these recommendation deadlines?

It's difficult to forecast. I never want to promise that things happen when they say it's going to happen, but I think we've had very good conversations with the CSU. We continue to be in contact with them. We're now at the one-year mark.Going forward, we'll be continuing to be in contact with them annually.

And it's not just them providing evidence of policies that they've enacted. For the remaining recommendations that are in a partially implemented or pending status, we're going to want to see evidence that those policies are actually being carried out in practice. And so, most importantly, I think, for me personally, is, I think we see the policies being established.

But I would really like to see the chancellor's office demonstrating that it's conducting these on-site campus level monitoring reviews of Title IX and sexual harassment complaints, because that really gives the chancellor's office an opportunity to have boots on the ground and to see how and whether the campuses are implementing their policies consistently, whether they understand the direction that's coming out of the chancellor's office.

Unless you're conducting monitoring reviews or some sort of oversight, policies by themselves aren't going to get you there. So, I think that's a key recommendation we made, and that's one that we're looking forward to seeing CSU implement.

Thank you for that context and update. And then in terms of the collaboration between the CSU and the State Auditor, are there any differing of opinions on the intent or the outcome of it, on any of the audit recommendations?

Did you see any difference of opinions? I don't recall us having any major areas of disagreement. Of course, with the new chancellor coming in. In my opinion, she's been very forthright. It appears to me that she wants to improve the CSU, and she takes our recommendations very seriously, and I have no reason or basis to question that.

Great. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Senator Cortese.

Thank you to the Auditor. And for the Auditor, in terms of the question, obviously, you know, what you just recounted is unacceptable, and I'm sure we'll continue to hear today about remediation of the situation. So, I'm not.

The question is not intended to make excuses for anybody, but I'm really more curious, based on my experience, which is now going on five years old as a Santa Clara County supervisor, where we stepped in with the private universities in our area to set up oversight, which was really a stretch, of course, for a county on Title IX.

But we felt like somebody needed to come in and put another set of eyes on what was going on because of the complaints.

You know, the amount of public comment we were getting, and what we found is at least some of that was derivative of, you know, changes in Title IX that had occurred, particularly post the Trump election, and then just administrative, federal administrative changes that were made that the universities were ostensibly having trouble keeping up with.

Did you see any sign of that in your work? And again, it's not to make excuses for anyone. These are pretty clear-cut measures, that Title IX is always black letter law. It's clear-cut. I understand that, and what you're suggesting is pretty clear-cut. But I'm just trying to get a feel for the larger picture and if you saw any of that in work.

I may have to defer to Michelle on that. But my recollection is, I don't remember that being a driving factor for the conditions that we saw.

I think what we primarily saw is when we were looking at these allegations, and we were seeing the nature of the allegations, which to us, as a layperson, seemed pretty egregious in some cases, and then CSU investigators deciding this wasn't worth the effort to investigate because it wasn't a violation of CSU policy, that created a disconnect for us.

And so, I think that's primarily what we saw. And to me, that speaks to a need of greater consistency, greater training, greater messaging from the chancellor's office in terms of what expectations should be for Title IX staff at the campus level. But, Michelle, did you have any comments on Title IX changes and impact?

Sure. Thank you, chairs and members of the Committee. Just for the record, my name is Michelle Sanders, Principal Auditor with the State Auditor's office. So, just something to note. We examined CSU's policy primarily in doing this audit because it is a more stringent standard than the federal regulations that are going on.

If there are any changes and that sort of thing. So, our recommendations would still be applicable to, you know, changes to the policy, to the guidance, because all of that's still more stringent.

So, even if there are changes and they're trying to keep up with them, their policy is really the main driver to making sure that going above and beyond that and making sure that they're protecting the students, employees.

That's great. Great answer. You know, in terms of answering my question, that clears that up for me. I don't know if it's fair to ask, you know, a question. I don't mean to present a hypothetical at all because I do believe that there may be room for legislation for what I'm going to ask next.

And that is, as I noted, my home county when I was there as a member of the Board of Supervisors, just took its own initiative to set up as much of a oversight mechanism as it could with its own, with its public hearing process and so forth.

And, you know, that's not something to my knowledge, that's the State of California has, certainly the Federal Government hasn't authorized or set up anything like that.

But to the extent that legislative council might say that we could establish statute that would give the 58 counties at least the right to come in and do the kind of oversight that obviously you, we can't afford to have, you do, you know, every year, what do you think of that idea? Is it, again, assuming it has, you know, we have the legal standing to do it?

Is it, I'm really asking about the necessity of it. Is this something that we really should have checks and balances on and another set of eyes?

Well, I'll be careful to limit my comments to what we talk about in the audit report, but I will say generally, clearly, sexual harassment is a very serious issue and needs to be taken seriously, whether it's at a university campus, whether it's at a local government, whether it's anywhere.

And to the extent that the Legislature finds that there are additional tools and oversight mechanisms you can advocate and authorize for universities or local governments, that's just one more tool to put in the toolbox, assuming the resources are there to fund it and to make it a real oversight process.

I think in the area of sexual harassment, more oversight, more accountability is definitely a good thing.

Yeah, I mean, clearly, given the way things work here budgetarily and appropriations wise and everything, it would probably have to be an opt in, a permissive kind of a statute that a county could do it.

But it was my recollection that a lot of the pushback that we got for doing something that would otherwise seem to be, you know, helpful and common sense to step in and hold hearings and gather evidence, you know, the pushback was, do you really have the authority to do that, you know, as a county?

So, it's the only reason I'm probing a little bit. Thank you very much for your responses. And thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you, Senator Cortese. Senator Eggman.

Thank you. Thank you to the Auditor. I was working on some legislation this year, 1491, that would ask the chancellor's office and the CSUs to have a designated point person for LGBTQ issues and complaints as they come in. That requirement was made, I think, a decade ago, but it's never really been instituted all the way.

And we're also asking that it be a confidential person. Any issues that you saw around LGBTQ issues on campuses as it's related to to report retaliation and harassment?

In our evaluation of the 40 case files, that's not something that came up. That doesn't mean that it's not a concern and that this isn't really important, but that's just not something that we saw in the 40 case files we reviewed.

I do recall that we did see examples in our cases that it's. When you think of sexual harassment, sometimes the common thought is it's a male harassing a female. I believe we did see instances where it was males harassing males. So, it's not just typically how you view sexual harassment. We did see it across all sides of society.

Any difference on reporting or handling of those situations?

No.

Thank you. Senator Eggman, any other questions from members? I have a question. One of the most troubling things about your report is the fact that this is not the first time that this has happened, that this has been going back to 2014. Your office recommended that the chancellor's office conduct routine reviews, and those recommendations were accepted.

And the CSU campuses were doing those reviews from 2015 to 2018, and then they have they stopped at a pertinent period of time, and you, again, have made these recommendations. And I know we have new leadership at CSU, and they have been very forthcoming and agreeing to correct those issues and address the systemic issues.

But, you know, what gives you reason to think that we're not going to be in the same place five years from now with a repetitive, systemic problem? Is there something that you think is different this time around that gives you more encouragement about this is going to work this time?

Well, I wasn't involved with the prior audit, but from my limited conversations with the chancellor and the new staff, there seems to be a level of commitment to implementing our recommendations, which I find to be hopeful. When the CSU decided to stop doing its monitoring reviews, I remember.

I seem to recall, and, Michelle, you can correct me if I'm wrong, that the explanation we got was we have changing leadership, we have changing funding priorities, other issues come up.

I think to the extent that we have legislation, I believe, such as your bill, that would allow continuing monitoring by the state to make sure that these recommendations are being implemented. And further, the fact that we have a state law that now requires CSU to implement our recommendations.

I think their level of discretion to implement a recommendation one day and then stop doing it another day, I wouldn't say the risk is zero, but the risk is less now. And so I think that that's a positive development that didn't exist before.

Thank you. I agree. It's important to make sure that we have legislation in place that will ensure the accountability as time goes and leadership changes occur in the future. Assembly Member Friedman.

Yeah. So, just listening to the report, I have to say a lot of it is really shocking and awful.

When I saw the report, I was surprised at this date, given the focus on sexual harassment over the years and also on the very clear power imbalances and age imbalances that make the population at our universities particularly vulnerable to harassment and assault, that it just seems that we are just mired in this culture that is, for whatever reason, kind of refusing to change.

And I guess I'm just wondering whether you feel that the campuses have a real understanding of the scope of the issue and an understanding of how to change whatever the, the culture is there that is just sort of allowing this to continually happen.

You know, do you get the sense through your conversations that, you know, whether there's, I mean, certainly I have no doubt that there's a desire with the administration to fix this. But do you get the sense that they understand how to fix it beyond implementing what you've put on paper? Because it's one thing to have some recommendations.

It's another thing to really commit to the kind of serious culture change you need to address this because, you know, we know from when we went through this, you know, here, and the continual efforts that we have with our own climate, that it's not the case that putting a rule on paper is going to change anything.

Well, I think a change in culture always starts with the tone at the top of the organization, and then it needs to be followed up with monitoring to make sure that that tone and that messaging is filtering down to the people that actually implement the policy.

To answer your question about whether or not campuses consistently get it, I would say during the period of our audit, when we were looking at the decisions that were being made about whether to investigate or not investigate, I would say the answer was no.

Clearly that there were allegations that were being brought by CSU students or other CSU faculty that raised serious questions about why some of these allegations weren't worthy of an investigation and pursuing the matter further. But I think culture changes when expectations are clear. But to your point, it's not just clear expectations.

It's making sure that there is ongoing monitoring by those who are setting policy to make sure that there's follow-up and that there's consistency in the implementation of those policies.

We can audit, we can provide, CSU can provide trainings, but I think it's going to take time and it's going to take repetition and it's going to take feedback from the chancellor's office to make sure that the staff that are doing the work are getting the message.

Thank you, Assembly Member Friedman. Are there any other questions from Members of the Committee? Well, thank you, Auditor Parks and Miss Sanders. Really appreciate your information today. Thank you. Next we'll have the second panel which is California State University. Chancellor Garcia.

Welcome, Chancellor Garcia and Miss Schwarzkopf.

I may begin?

Yes, please.

Good morning. Chairs Hart, Fong, and Newman. Thank you for holding today's hearing and for providing me the opportunity to take part in it. I am Doctor Mildred Garcia, chancellor of the California State University. With me today is the associate vice chancellor of the CSU's newly established Office for Civil Rights Programming and Services, Haley Schwarzkopf.

I want to begin by acknowledging that for too long, the CSU has fallen short in our efforts to ensure that our universities are safe and welcoming environments where students, faculty, and staff can thrive personally, professionally, and intellectually free of discrimination, harassment, and sexual misconduct.

Our actions and inactions related to title ix have harmed our students, staff, and faculty. We have heard it from Members of the CSU community across the system. Them we have let them down, as we have let you down. To all of them, and to you, I say we are deeply sorry.

Discrimination and harassment has no place at the CSU, and I am committed to ensuring we learn from our mistakes so that we may never repeat them and so that we can turn weaknesses into strengths. The work we are engaged in requires nothing short of cultural change. Of course, we must strengthen our culture of compliance.

Our processes must not be overly complex or legalistic, but rather easy to access, supportive, respectful, and compassionate throughout, and they must result in prompt and fair and meaningful resolutions. But we must also build and maintain a culture of care. That means ongoing prevention programs, awareness campaigns, and bystander education.

And it means honoring and living out our core values so that our universities are places where every person is respected, protected, and empowered to pursue their goals free from any harassing or discriminatory behaviors.

It has been one year since the CSU received comprehensive reports from both the California State Auditor and the law firm Cozen O'Connor regarding our civil rights program and services. Both of those reports set forth detailed recommendations and timelines to inform our work to strengthen our systems of compliance and of care.

Implementing these recommendations has been a top priority of mine since I became Chancellor 10 months ago on October 1. To this end, I have directed $15.9 million to be invested across our universities to bolster our title ix practices this academic year. I can report that the CSU has submitted proof of completion of the year.

One recommendation from the State Auditor, many of which are aligned with those made by Cozen O'Connor, related to the policies, procedures, and oversights of our civil rights programming. 12 recommendations had a suggested completion date of July 2024.

We are pleased to have received agreement from the State Auditor that 10 of those recommendations are fully implemented and two are partially implemented. In the two case of partial completion, we have created the processes that were required.

However, as you heard, the State Auditor has asked to see those processes in action at the University level before they consider those two recommendations fully complete.

The new and strengthened policies and programs that we have implemented are critical, concrete improvements that are the result of significant effort by the entire CSU community, from our board of trustees to our faculty and staff and to our students.

Associate Vice Chancellor Schwarzkopf and I look forward to discussing our progress with you today, as well as the work that lies before us. But first, I want to emphasize that the CSU is committed to going beyond the Auditor's recommendations.

We are taking a comprehensive, holistic approach to our title ix and civil rights programs, one that is centered on our students, staff and faculty. Further, we are committed to programs that prioritize prevention. To this end, we are constantly communicating our values and expectations.

Training our student staff and faculty, and keeping our policies and programs against discrimination, harassment, retaliation and other conduct are concerned front and center in the work of our system and our 23 universities. We are committed to modeling what a caring, supportive and equitable community looks like.

As noted by the State Auditor, there's still much work to be done. We are committed to this work and we will meet or exceed our deadlines, but significant progress has been made.

Specifically, in the past year, we have created a system wide office of civil Rights programming and services to provide centralized planning, oversight, support and resources to the CSU's campus level title IX and DHR offices, with a focus on trauma, informed care and fair processes.

This includes the creation of five system wide Director positions and the addition of five civil rights attorneys in the office of General Counsel who will work with our University partners in a regional model.

On a day to day basis, we have gone from a total of five Members conducting this work at the chancellor's office to 15 who will be providing direct support to our 23 universities. I believe you have an organizational chart in front of you.

In response to the Auditor's recommendations, we now require all universities to track key dates and timeline extensions in a consistent manner, including developing a system for reminders and follow up. To improve the timeliness of investigations.

We require critical documents to be maintained in the case file before closing the case, including documentation of the University's initial assessment of the allegations and its rationale for whether or not to conduct an investigation.

System wide we have adopted new policies regarding retreat rights and employment references so they do not benefit those employees who have engaged in improper activity and we have fully revised the CSU's nondiscrimination policy based upon feedback from the stakeholders across the system. The non discrimination policy became effective August 1.

It addresses a recommendation from the State Auditor and aligns with the legislation in the Assembly's title ix package. I understand that much of this work may seem heavy on reorganizing staff, revising policies, issuing guidelines, building new tracking systems, etcetera. Indeed, we are building new and better infrastructure.

But this new infrastructure is what is needed to create a more consistent, responsible, and reliable system, one that works properly when our students, staff, and faculty need it to.

As I have noted, we still have a great deal of work ahead of us, but we are on track to meet all of our deadlines in 2025 and 2026, and we have significant momentum as we continue to move forward and as we honor our commitment to accountability.

We will conduct regular program reviews of the chancellor's office and the title ix DHR offices for each University campus at least once every three years to ensure that our policies and processes are effective. This first set of program reviews will begin this fall.

Before I close, I want to emphasize again that this work is not about mere compliance. It's not only about checking boxes. This is about transformative, sustainable cultural change.

And that means transparently monitoring and measuring our results in a commitment to continuous improvement as we strengthen our cultures of care and compliance, and to ultimately realizing our vision to serve as a national model in protecting and supporting our University communities.

As the nation's largest, most diverse, and most consequential four year University system, it is our moral imperative. Our students, faculty and staff, indeed, all our constituents and stakeholders, demand it. You rightfully demand it, and the CSU's mission and core values require it. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

Now I would like to have associate Vice Chancellor Schwarzkopf share further details about the work that is being done system wide at each of the CSU's 23 universities.

Thank you, Chancellor Garcia. To the chairs and the Members of the committees here today, I welcome the opportunity to share more information about the structure of the system wide office for civil Rights programming and services at the CSU Chancellor's office and the work that we have been doing.

My name is Haley Schwartzkopf, and I'm the Associate Vice Chancellor for Civil Rights Programming and Services with the CSU. I have spent my entire professional career as a civil rights practitioner. Before I was hired at the CSU six months ago, I served as a Title IX coordinator and DHR administrator on a college campus for over seven years.

Before that, I served as a litigator representing employees and employers in cases involving discrimination, harassment, retaliation, whistleblowing, and other civil rights cases. I know firsthand the challenges of this work and the impacts that these cases have on our students, employees, and greater campus community.

Following the comprehensive report from the California State Auditor and the internal Assessment conducted by Cozen O'Connor in 2023, the CSU has invested significant resources to create the infrastructure necessary to support transformational change across the CSU's 23 University campus system.

In front of you is a copy of an organizational structure of our system wide office for civil rights programming and services.

This structure moves the chancellor's office away from providing only advice and consultation to our University campuses when requested to a true leadership and oversight model that has been envisioned by this legislative body, the State Auditor, our chancellor, and the board of trustees.

As noted by Chancellor Garcia, the system wide Office for Civil Rights expanded from a team of five to 15 employees to support this work and ensure consistency, transparency and accountability in an ongoing manner. While there are many positions that are represented on this organizational chart, in the interest of time, I'm going to specifically focus on a few.

Today, I'd like to draw your attention to the green boxes. The five boxes on the right represent our system wide directors. Each system wide Director is assigned four to five University campuses that they support in a regional model that I will share with you momentarily.

The system wide directors are in daily and weekly contact with the civil rights offices on their assigned campuses. What's not reflected are the five civil rights attorneys who are partnered with each of our system wide directors to support their University campuses on that day to day basis.

The system wide directors meet weekly together to ensure consistency, and they also meet weekly with the civil rights attorneys to ensure consistency in their oversight of cases, best practices, and the support that we are providing to our University campuses. There are two other system wide directors on the left hand side.

The first is our system wide Director for prevention education and training. You heard the chancellor speak about our work and prevention and how to clearly communicate our expectations to our campus communities. Sue Mccarthy recently transitioned to this role in June, and she is responsible for supporting prevention education and training for students and employees across the CSU system.

She will work collaboratively with the campus prevention education teams to create awareness, events and prevention programming. She is also responsible for creating professional development opportunities for our civil rights practitioners. For example, that included our annual civil rights conference that we just held at the end of July through regular workshops and ether series.

This year's conference was heavily focused on the guidance that we have issued over the last year, again to ensure that consistency and application another system wide Director position supports investigations and resolutions. Laura Anson is the employee who has been selected for this role.

She's currently serving in an interim capacity to support our University campuses while we hire the fifth and final system wide Director. And when she transitions to this new role, she will help support the oversight of all of our investigations throughout the CSU system that includes investigations involving high level administrators or other campus title IX coordinators.

We are also working on a system wide approach to investigations, including the creation of a system wide network of investigators who will support our University campuses as needed. Finally, I'd like to highlight the team Member in the yellow box.

Marianne Lowe is the employee who has been designated to support our unified case management system that will be forthcoming. She is our data integration partner and is responsible for collecting and analyzing the data from our University campuses and the chancellor's office under SB 808 that went into effect on January 1.

The CSU will provide a report to this legislative body on December 1. That report includes things such as the timeliness of completion, the number of cases. Our annual survey to collect this information from our University campuses is underway, and we look forward to sharing that report with you. This model represents more than just a structural shift.

It is a cultural shift in a way that the chancellor's office is working with our campus partners and overseeing this work. This is represented in the second chart that you should have, reflecting our regional leadership and oversight model. Each campus, including the chancellor's office, is divided into one of five regions.

Each region is supported by a system wide Director and a civil rights attorney. This means that every campus has their own civil rights staff and additional layers of support through the chancellor's office with the system wide Director and civil rights attorney. This is a level of support and oversight that has never existed within the CSU system before.

The CSU recently transitioned to this regional oversight model in June. While it is still new, we are already starting to see the benefits of this structure. Our system wide directors are holding office hours with their entire region and building that rapport and synergy between our University campuses.

Each region meets regularly to build those relationships, share challenges, best practices, go through case studies, and conduct training. The chancellor's office is ensuring that our guidance is being implemented in a consistent way. We also hold monthly meetings with all of our civil rights practitioners across the system, again to ensure that consistency and accountability.

This model aligns with our focus on trauma informed practices to support our students and employees impacted by discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. We have also kept our eye towards the 12 pieces of legislation that have been introduced. The legislation aligns with the direction that we are going, and we are supportive of the package.

We have appreciated the partnership with the Legislator and your staff to enhance the work that we are already doing and provide greater accountability for our measures going forward. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Chancellor Garcia and I will be happy to take your questions.

Thank you, Chancellor Garcia and vice Chancellor Schwartzkopf. Questions from Members of the Committee. Senator Newman,

Thank you to both of you for being here today. And I really do appreciate the chancellor's comments. It's obvious from the passion in your voice that you're committed to making progress. My question is actually from Miss Schwarzkopf.

What, as you move forward, what are the biggest challenges that you're facing in both changing the culture but also implementing the recommendations?

Thank you. The challenges are that there is a dearth of title ix and civil rights practitioners. This is not something that is unique to the CSU. This is a challenge that is across institutions of higher education throughout the country.

And so one of the things that the chancellor and I in our leadership have spoken about is how we can create a pipeline, how we can create our own pipeline, not just for the CSU, but also for other institutions of higher education. The other challenge that faces the CSU, it's not just with our civil rights practitioners.

It's also with the quality of investigations. Even when the CSU hires outside external investigators, the vast majority of whom are attorneys, we don't always receive the work product, the quality that we would expect.

And so one of our other areas of focus is how we can streamline and create an infrastructure within the CSU to have those consistent investigations and address the issues that have been brought up in the Auditor's report and in our own internal assessment.

I appreciate that. So how many additional lawyers do you think you need to do this work? Correct. Across all 23 universities in the system.

I don't know that we've gotten that far in our planning. We're still in the initial stages where we're continuing to build our infrastructure. However, that is something that we will be looking at over time.

I think we have to look at the number of investigators that we have system wide, what our current pool is, and the number of our cases to ensure that there's an appropriate workload for all of our investigators across the CSU.

I appreciate that. Thank you, Mister chair. Thank you, Senator Newman.

Assembly Member Fong. Thank you, Chair Hart and thank you to the chancellor and vice chancellor for the presentation. As mentioned by the vice chancellor, the chancellor's office will be collecting data on campus trends of sexual harassment complaints.

How will the data be analyzed and used to prevent sexual harassment from reoccurring on both the campus levels and system wide levels? And how will the information be provided to the public?

Absolutely. So we're going to do two different types of analysis. As our University campuses report to the chancellor's office. We're first going to look individually at each of our University campuses. We want to ensure that if there's a pattern or trend that's occurring on that University campus, that we're addressing that pattern or trend for that campus.

We will also look more holistically across the entire CSU system to see is there a pattern or trend. So that that way we can address, through our prevention, programming and training.

And awareness events. And so it will be both. And then to your question about how we can ensure transparency, all of that information will be aggregated into a system wide report which will be publicly available and posted on our website.

Great. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Assembler Member Fong. Next we have Senator Eggman.

Thank you and welcome. And thanks for the vigor which you accepted the Auditor's report and then put things into action. And I appreciate the difficulties in trying to address a whole system wide issue that goes around the state. So I guess my question is that you've put in a lot of the recommendation.

How do individual faculty members at different campuses and students, how do they feel the impact of this? As you talk about a culture shift, it's always hard to like, how do we know the culture is shifted and how do the actual people on the ground know that? Can you talk about that?

Let me start, because I think we're still at the beginning stages of this. And what we're doing is, for example, every president has in their goals every year, Title IX, and complying to the audit reports and to the recommendations.

And that's new.

That is new. And also in their Triannual. Number two, I truly believe in role modeling. How are we doing this? And in my opening address that I just taped the other day, Title IX, CalNAGPRA, and NAGPRA are prominently discussed in that opening statement. Number three is how do we hold the Chancellor's Office accountable?

Where the Board, by the way, is asking us at every board meeting they want a report. Where are we, how are we doing, and keeping us abreast. And number three is that, as you heard the Vice Chancellor speak about, we are going to have ourselves auditing every three years.

So I can't give you an exact, because we just started this. Right. You need to have time to get the information here. But we're paying attention. We're speaking to our presidents. I know Office of Civil Rights is speaking to directors and seeing how things are moving. Change is hard for people, but we keep pushing.

Okay. And do you have everything you need for the electronic system wide database, or does that come with another, does that need legislation and a budget request?

Thank you. So we are actually in the process right now. We have posted the request for proposals, the RFP. That is right now out and available. We anticipate about six months from the time that it was posted in late July until a contract will be signed with the vendor that is selected. So we would anticipate that we will know more information about that in January 2025, including the overall cost of what that system might be based on the features that we are trying to have in that system.

And will you be collecting any SOGI data at that point?

Yes. So sexual orientation and gender identity data. We will want to make sure that we are collecting data on the cases so that we can analyze adverse impact, that we can disaggregate that data and look at how we can improve for our protected populations.

And, Chancellor, I really appreciate and agree that you needed a whole system wide approach to be able to do this and cutting it into chunks. How do you think it got so bad, and what do we do from keeping it going back?

You know, I don't know. Again, it's hard for me to say. I think for some reason it wasn't a priority, but it's a priority now. It's a priority in my goals to the board, it's in the priority of every president, to me. And so holding people accountable and making sure that they understand the priority. The same way budgeting is a priority.

The same way that scheduling of classes is a priority. The same way that making sure that their campuses are moving effectively and efficiently. This, too is a priority. And that is why it's in their goals. Will it? The idea is to keep ourselves accountable, and the audits does inform us and help us with an outside set of eyes.

Thank you. And thank you.

Thank you, Senator Eggman. You know one thing. I'll just take a minute. I think this would be improved if you had another box with your name above that in terms of accountability, you have Al Liddicoat at the top, and I think it would be improved.

Yes, of course.

There you go.

And, Chairperson, I just remembered my last question I was going to ask. You have a... If I may?

Yes, please.

You have had trouble maintaining presidents in the last little while. Perhaps some of them being gone is not the worst thing in the world, looking at the problems that we have here. But in choosing new presidents and new leadership, how do you keep that at the forefront?

Well, first of all, we asked a question in the interview, and we do really deep background checks. That's number one. And we also ask in the interview and then we do the deep background check. So there is a disconnect that person has not ever considered. Number two is letting them know what are the goals that they are coming into. What is it that that campus needs, and what do we need that president to do to stay on task on all of their goals that include Title IX and CalNAGPRA.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Eggman. Assembly Member Jackson.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Madam Chancellor, I have to be honest with you. I've really lost confidence in the CSU. I know you're inheriting a lot of these things. You're relatively new. But as I used to be a proud graduate of the CSU. I used to be a proud former member of the Board of Trustees.

But given some of the things, it's not just on this issue. I mean, the way Native American remains have been handled, the way that issues regarding homelessness students at the CSU, the way that many of your representatives here in Sacramento have mischaracterized some of our bills in the past and haven't had honest conversations.

How CSU groups have had unprofessional behavior here in hearings, particularly with Roth's bill that we had a hearing on. It seems to me that the worst has happened that usually happens to many systems and institutions, and that is prioritizing the system over doing what's right and the people in which the system serves.

Those of us who have studied systems know that this can happen, but it takes bold leadership to undo a lot of that. And I guess my question is, number one, I've been very impressed with the way the questions have been answered and definitely know your stuff, and so I feel more confidence in that. But overall, how do you plan on instilling greater confidence in a system in which we tout as California as one, as a shining star for the nation?

Let me begin by saying you have lost confidence, and we understand it. I understand why. We did not meet the expectations of taking care of faculty, staff, and students. And I'm sorry. I'm talking this way because I want to talk to you.

It's okay. I'll move over for you.

Move over, move over. Understand that I... Going forward, I am the new chancellor. I am committed. I am a... If you check my background, I come student centered first and people first. That's what makes up a system. It is how do I hold accountable the way the board is holding me accountable to meet your expectations and mine, that the CSU is a model system for the nation. You've lost trust, and it's going to take time for you to gain trust in us.

But hold us accountable. Exactly what you're doing here with Title IX, at the CalNAGPRA, we said the same thing. We're moving forward. Here's what we've done. We're working with the tribes. When we're talking about students, how do we ensure that we're supporting our students, faculty, and staff? And finally, holding people accountable. I don't believe in uncivil conversations.

That's out of the question. It's one of the things this country has to get back to. How do we have conversations where we agree to disagree, but we walk away feeling like, okay, we've heard each other, we understand each other. All I can say to you is, yes, we have failed in the past. What we're moving forward to be better and better as we move forward.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Assembly Member Jackson. Assembly Member Friedman.

Thank you. You know, I certainly hear your passion about this issue, and I'm grateful for it. This is a really, these are really, really difficult, sticky issues. You know, I spent 20 years in the film industry, which has had a problem with harassment over the years, and I spent eight years here, which has had a problem with harassment over the years. And there are a few little things that I've learned. First of all, I don't know how to solve these problems.

I do know that solving them is not going to come from you or 10 people or 20 people. That this is something that really is systemic in our society, that is not getting better, and that you have some very unique challenges. And to me, it seems that one of the biggest challenges you have is that a large amount of your victims, some of them are faculty, but many of them, most probably are students. And these are primarily young people who are just maybe having their first adult experience, and they're not necessarily going to know what harassment looks like.

In fact, many adults don't know when a line's been crossed or what it means necessarily. They often don't recognize what's happening until it really becomes egregious, which is how things end up building up in the workplace, or they don't know how to respond.

And there's a lot of evidence that people, particularly women, even those of us who have been in these situations when we're facing a moment of an improper situation, freeze up. You know, there was a recent study done with interviews where women who were professional women, who said that they knew what to do when they were sort of presented with something in the, in the heat of the moment freeze.

So given that, I'm not going to ask for an answer now, but I do think that you have to get... What I haven't seen in this presentation is what you're doing to spread information in a meaningful way to the student population. Because whatever rules you have for your faculty, whatever response you have set up, which I know is also, it's not easy to set that up. But let's assume you set up a great tracking and reporting system.

It's not going to work if people don't know what to report and how to report. You have thousands of students. Handing them a piece of paper or hanging something up in a bathroom is not going to work. I can tell you from experience, they have got to internalize and understand exactly what harassment looks like at the very beginning and what the appropriate response is. The appropriate response, it's also not binary. It's not going to be something where it's either fireable or it's not.

There's got to be ways, of course, correcting early on so that people have a chance of saving their own careers, correcting their behavior, you know, not victimizing other people. Because sometimes people who are perpetuating this actually don't... Some people are predators.

Some people kind of fall in the middle where they don't really know that what they're doing is crossing a line. Or if they do, you know, until someone really calls them on it, they might be reluctant to stop. So there's a whole wide range of behavior and of responses and of understanding.

And so I think one of the most challenging things for you is going to be what it's been here, quite honestly, is how do you make sure that everyone's on the same page, that people recognize when they're being taken advantage of, when they're in a position they shouldn't be in, you know, when maybe it's, you know, they might, maybe it's not cool to be having an affair with a professor. You might, you know, when you might think it is kind of a cool place to be. So I don't know if you want to respond, but how are you going to make this something that really is a systemic understanding?

So totally, totally agree with you. I was a university president at three places, and not only have I seen that with my students, I saw that with one of my family members in a university that did not come forward because she was afraid. So I get this. And if you think I'm passionate because it's happened with students that I served and family members that... And let's be frank, as women, we have felt it too. So that's why I'm so passionate about this.

We are working right now, and we will get you more detail, that I guarantee you, with our presidents to make sure through our Vice Presidents for Student Affairs, that it's talked about at orientation, that it's talked to through CSSA, that we continue to send the message. What does it look like? Where do you report?

What is the process? Not only a piece of paper, but that they're talking about it in the clubs with the faculty so that we understand. Each president's doing it differently. They'll report to us how they're doing it, and we'll get some information back to you. But I agree with you. Having a system is not good unless people know what the system is, how it's going to help them, and how we hold people accountable, and how we demonstrate that we're holding people accountable.

Right. Well, I'm glad to hear that because that ongoing discussion, especially with the new students as they come in, is going to be the most important thing. And, you know, it's one thing to have people report, but also to train young people to not be willing victims to put themselves in positions. To understand, you know, when they're, I mean, quite honestly, for lack of a better way of saying when they're being taken advantage of is, you know, tremendously important.

And that's not gonna come, as you know, through a rule on paper. It's going to come through really discussing this with them so that they understand, because they may never have had these conversations before, ever in their lives. They may never have been in a position, and they may not know how to react or how they should be reacting when someone who's in a position of authority is preying on them and victimizing on them.

And making sure that all the people that are in those positions of authority understand that they are in an unequal power balance with people who are young and that they need to, you know, take their, you know, be really conscious of their own actions at every moment and, you know, making and continuing that work and having a way of weaving it into all of those programs that are available right from orientation going forward. I commend you for, you know, having an understanding of that, and I think that that's the only way that any of this is going to work.

I totally agree with you.

Now let me, and I understand also how challenging it is. And let me switch gears for a minute. So we are, I'm working on a bill this year, AB 810, that's about the reporting of harassment from university to university. Because as we've seen and as the report shows, we still have had a situation, you know, even in recent times, where people are getting positive letters of recommendation, even though there have been investigations and sustained allegations of harassment and discrimination.

You know, I understand that you are now correcting that. I would still like to hear some elaboration of what those letters are. You know, it seems to me and this is not a university thing, but just with employment in general. I don't know how we've gotten to a place where people feel that they always have to give people positive letters of recommendation even if they've not been great employees. You know, I think that that just hurts other employers.

But at what point are you saying we're not going to give a letter or it's not going to be positive? You know, my bill would require that they are reported to the next, you know, employer. And I think that that's really important. I don't think it should be. I think it should be what I think whether you hire that person should be voluntary, but every employer should know if there have been sustained, you know, allegations of harassment and discrimination or retaliation. But how, how are you implementing this? How is this going to work? Who is responsible for doing this?

Is it, you know, we have seen where people just want to get people out of their departments because there are problems. So they'll write that letter of recommendation. You know, how are you going to make sure that that doesn't happen and that other universities and other colleges, high schools, et cetera, are warned if there's someone who's been a problem.

We do have a process. The board did pass something in March 2024, and Hayley has all the details. Vice Chancellor.

Thank you. And I'm aware of your bill. I think it is great that we should be sharing that information so we're not in a past the harasser situation. With respect to the CSU's policy, including our employment reference policy, our Board of Trustees did revise that policy so that those letters of reference are not happening when there is any type of misconduct finding, including sexual harassment, but other forms of misconduct as well.

In addition, when the CSU is contacted requesting a reference, we actually have a system in place where, before a reference can be given, you have to check with human resources, our faculty affairs, and the Title IX and DHR Office, our civil rights practitioners, to ensure that we are not giving a reference where we shouldn't be. In addition, our policy is very clear that the CSU system is one system. We will be open and transparent so that we are not passing the harasser between our own universities as well, or to other institutions of higher education.

So does that mean that you don't write a letter at all or that the letter just says they worked here? I mean, are there different sort of gradations? So if someone is, I understand if they're terminated, that's one thing. But if someone is still staying, you know, they've had incidences. How do you kind of handle that? I mean, clearly, maybe it wasn't egregious enough for you to terminate them. You know, kind of, what would that letter say and how would that work?

Absolutely. So it's a two part question. The first is, if they are terminated, they're not eligible. If they're non retained for any reason, they are not eligible for a letter of reference. If they engaged in misconduct, but it didn't warrant termination or separation from employment, we are still very clear in our policy.

We cannot give a positive letter of recommendation if the employee asks. So our policy doesn't have a time limit. Say we have somebody who, 15 years ago there was a substantiated finding of sexual harassment, and they say, I'm going on. I've learned from my mistakes.

I have had a positive record for the last 15 years. Will you put that on paper? The CSU, our policy says we would. But we have to outline the fact, nature, and circumstances. We are an institution of higher education, and we believe that those conversations should be happening with the employee and their future employer, with respect. But we will be honest and transparent and open.

When you say facts and services, you mean there had been this incident? It was 15... Okay. Yes. Good. I'm glad to hear it. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Assembly Member Friedman. Senator Laird.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And first, let me say thank you for taking the job as chancellor, because you came at a time when there were unbelievable series of challenges, and so your willingness to deal with them is great.

I have one observation from my colleagues, and that is that Senator Eggman and I sit on the Rules Committee, and it was the misfortune of four of your trustees to be up for confirmation within days after your predecessor resigned. And so when we had the confirmation hearing, the issue of sexual harassment at the CSU was front and center, and it has been for the subsequent confirmations.

And so it was refreshing to hear you were hearing from your board, but they are hearing from us, and we really lay it out in the confirmation process that that is something that we, as Senate doing confirmations, really want attention paid to.

A lot of the things I was going to get to have been asked, but a couple of follow ups. And one is, Senator Eggman asked about budget, and your response was unclear because it was like, oh, we'll know in January. Do you know in January that you'll have an expenditure that you already have budgeted?

Do you know that in January that will tell you, oh, we need money for that, we don't have it budgeted. It's unclear to me what the status is of whether you have the capacity to do what you're going out to bid for.

Thank you. So thank you for the opportunity to clarify. Our fiscal team has allocated an amount for us. It's an estimate right now. Because we don't have the bids back, because we don't know who the vendor is going to be, I don't have any details on how much that is going to cost.

However, what I will say is that the CSU has prioritized this. We do have funding that is allocated, and I have a commitment from the Chancellor, from our board, and from our fiscal team that we will have a system. And if it costs more than what we've initially estimated, that we will find the funds for that system.

We have allocated this year 15.9 million. But for things that I require, like this system that we need, it will be covered.

Okay. And obviously I work with you on budget issues.

Yes, you do. So thank you very much.

I'll be curious to hear if... And then my other question. There have been lots of questions about how you sort of from the top do this. And I just, also on Rules, we do all the complaints and actions on related things.

And while it's completely confidential, I can make one observation, and that is in the places where there has sort of been multiple cases, if there is discipline applied, we have started to see the behavior change in those places in a way that we're not getting additional actions.

And so I think that following up on exactly what you said you were going to do from the top would make that happen there. And that is good. My question is that I did this for a 2700 employee county government.

I was the person that did disciplinary stuff and grievances. And then I headed in 19,000 person state agency. And the thing I observed is there was particularly egregious sexual harassment or things when you were way away from central offices or central authority.

I mean, statute of limitations have probably run, but the public works road crews were just the center of the universe for some of this stuff because they were out in the middle of nowhere. There was nobody supervising them.

And I found having 280 state parks all over the universe and water delivered 500 miles and everything else, people were all over the place in remote locations. You have all these campuses and all these different pieces of the campus.

And while you've outlined the policy that you're really going to do, clearly, how do you know it's reaching all the nooks and crannies that exist in the same kind of remote places, the same places where there's not just this closely held supervision.

So I'll begin, and then I'll turn it over to our Vice Chancellor here. I will say, first of all, there are people that supervise whatever unit you're talking about. And you have to make sure that they get their, that they're being held accountable for their units. And that they have to present a plan on how they're doing it within their units and make sure that our people that are from the Chancellor's Office are checking on all the units, not just one.

When you get together at the campus level with our new personnel, they should be checking on everything that happens on the campus, including those remote or those off campus facilities that we have. It's just not one. So that's the first thing they have to.

Meaning that the supervisor is accountable and the supervisor could be disciplined in a clear way if there's regular stuff in the remote place.

Absolutely. The supervisor, just like I hold the vice chancellors accountable for what's happening in their units and the president's whole vice presidents and deans accountable, the same thing happens with directors.

And one of the things I do is, as I did this yesterday, sit together with the unit, the vice chancellor, and everybody that reports to that vice chancellor, saying, here are my expectations and here are my goals. So they're hearing it from me, and that's what's going to happen on the campuses as well.

I would also say the CSU has been very fortunate that, for many years, we have required annual training for all of our employees, and those annual trainings are tracked by campus, and that information is included in our president evaluations. The Office of Civil Rights also helps to provide input on those evaluations every year.

The other piece is that we have to ensure that we have robust reporting. And so part of that is getting to our employees and sharing with them that, when they come forward, that they are going to have a robust process that works in the way that is intended to work. And right now, we are transforming that system.

We recently revised our non-discrimination policy to make it more user friendly for our students and employees, and we are creating new prevention, education, and training opportunities throughout the CSU for all levels, for our executives, supervisors, and managers, our employees, and our students. So it'll be consistent messaging throughout.

And then we have to make it easy for them to be able to report. When they go to our website, when they want to connect with our Title IX coordinator or DHR administrator, that they're able to find them easily. They don't have to click down 10 links to get to a form. And so we are transforming all of those things. We are looking at each of these areas of where we can be doing better to make it easier and more accessible for our students and employees.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Assembly Member Quirk-Silva.

Thank you for your presentation. And I also want to thank my colleagues for the really insightful, not only questions, but remarks, because this is two way for us as we sit here as legislators. It's not only hearing what you have to say, it's of course getting the information from the Auditor, but our colleagues weighing in on their lived experience.

I have to say this is kind of a triggering conversation for me. This is difficult because Cal State Fullerton has been the city not only that I grew up in that I attended college and have interfaced with presidents really for almost the last 20 years as a local elected. And then also coming here. And with those leaderships, I've had very different experiences.

And the triggering part of that is when you talk about role modeling, we assume that when somebody is hired, whether it's as a president of a college, as a dean, faculty, even working in food service, that they're going to be modeling the behavior. And yet we know that that's not true.

We also know for the women here on this panel, we have, including you, many women that have gone through generational behavior that was in many times seemed, well, that's just how they act. So whether it's a council colleague that used to call me, you know, honey or darling, and that was acceptable because he was 70 years old, and at that point, you kind of put up with it. But these are the experiences that women endure.

Myself not only being the only female in a Fullerton City Council, all of the city managers and staff being male, you know, starting having these experiences. And when I say it's triggering, having very different experiences with the presidents at Cal State Fullerton, and I'm going to leave it there. But I'm going to say that what my colleague mentioned here, particularly with young females who are students 18, 19, 20 years old, this intersection of a conversation of not only what happens on a campus, but what happens outside of campuses.

When we talk about sexual assault, when we talk about all these, these are all conversations. They have the youngest, brightest future, and these can be experiences that can stay with them for years. These are traumatic, but they're also traumatic for women in leadership when they have these encounters that feel very punitive, that feel that you're not respected.

So it isn't always going as far as a harassment case. It's simply being discounted, being mistreated. And sadly, I have to say, I've had that experience, and I think all of us have had, females, this. And so I really.

I see this system director for prevention, and I would really encourage, as you said, you're making remarks to clubs, to campuses, but a very intentional video that models this kind of stuff, experiences that we've all gone through, that you're like, okay, I know this isn't like an assault, but it feels really uncomfortable, and then you don't do anything with it.

I had a former, and I'm not again gonna mention name, that every time we'd be in a picture as an elected, the hug was just too much, and it was in a very weird place. And I just... The way I patterned that was just moving and not being next to that person. But that's really not acceptable.

And it's not acceptable for our young 20 year olds to go into an office meeting with a professor or so forth and feel uncomfortable, and then what do they do? So a very intentional prevention campaign, I guess, is what I would say. Because it's one thing after these things have happened, to now do what we're saying, which is you gotta report them, we gotta investigate them.

But it's another thing to build this culture of prevention and your new faculty members to understand we can't do these things that might have happened in the past. These are not acceptable. And we've continued to have these breakdowns where somebody's using a racial slur from 20 years ago, and now people call them on it.

So it needs to be the same way under this harassment and really respect of individuals. That's very intentional. And I'm pleased to see this. I have a lot of confidence, as you know, in this chancellor, and I know that she has this lived experience, because at the age we are, we have endured a lot.

Some of our male colleagues, I love you to death, but I don't think you understand how difficult it has been and to have... And it isn't. And when I say it isn't a CSU problem, this is an institution problem where some of us have been really treated incredibly disrespectful. And that's just the...

This is not talking about the sexual harassment and stuff, and some of us have endured that as well. Because a lot of it's mixed in. So I'm pleased that we have this audit. I'm pleased that there's commitment here.

But really looking at the prevention from the moment new faculty, the moment young students enter those campuses, that this is the environment that we expect, and this is what it looks like, and this is what it does not look like. Thank you.

Assemblywoman Quirk-Silva, you don't, you know how much I appreciate your comments. I think it starts, again, from the top. And we are giving our new presidents the training of what is not acceptable, not only through us here at the Chancellor's Office, but we actually have them go to the New Presidents Academy, where we talk about what it feels like to be a model president on a campus. What does that mean? What you can't do.

What is it that you are President 24/7. It's not only while you're on the university site, but when you go off and you're shopping in the supermarket or you're at the bar, wherever you are, you are the president and you are representing that university and you're representing the CSU. And you are absolutely right.

For women in our age group, this is triggering. It's happened to all of us. And so it's not that we understand the young people. We know that we've gone through it. And the other role modeling is sharing our stories because sometimes they think that we haven't gone through this, but we have.

And so kind of doing that orientation for new presidents, making sure that we are orienting our faculty and staff, and that will be talked about with, I guarantee you, we will talk to all the presidents and our executive leadership team about this. So I appreciate your comments.

I also wanted to share that I appreciate your comments. I agree wholeheartedly. And sexual harassment knows no gender. We also know that sexual harassment expands across the disability spectrum, across the racial and ethnic spectrum.

It particularly impacts our undocumented students and employees, our documented students and employees, those who don't feel that they have a voice who can come forward. And even where we have a student or an employee who is impacted by these cases off campus, we have solutions on campus to support them. We have supportive measures available.

This is part of our messaging and our training that even where it didn't happen within the CSU system, we can still support our students and employees while they are there living, learning, and working. So I just wanted to share that as well.

Thank you very much, Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I answered one of my questions myself with just reading the different platforms, but I do I do have, I have a question with regards to the investigative portion of the, of the complaints. Would you mind clarifying how you folks, who does the investigations? I understand...

I remember you mentioned earlier that there's difficulty and inconsistency with regards to the investigations and that you're, you're trying to see how you can facilitate the in house or investigations of the complaints. Would you mind clarifying a little bit more on that aspect? And some questions I had will follow once we hear from you.

Absolutely. So each of our university campuses, they have investigators on staff. So we have staff investigators who are specially trained to investigate complaints as they come in. We also, because of workload, hire external investigators sometimes depending on the complaint that comes in.

If it requires a specific type of expertise that maybe our investigator doesn't have, then we will also hire externally. And so we have a listen of investigators that is maintained by our Office of General Counsel of approved investigators for the CSU. And all of our investigators, whether they are internal or external, they are required to go through specialized training on the CSU's non-discrimination policy and our expectations.

Thank you. I think the only concern I think I have is the notion of having internal investigators. Just because of the potential conflict of interest that might occur of having the investigators within the same system that they are currently investigating.

And the only concern I, the only reason I share that with you is the concern or the observation that I have even here within the Legislature, in that it's my understanding, and through the Chair, I believe Senator Laird could clarify for me, since he sits on Rules, the Legislature actually has investigators outside of the Legislature that come in and investigate some of those complaints in order to ensure that there's integrity in the process and no conflict of interest or intimidation that might occur when those investigations or those complaints are being filed and investigated.

So that's the only red flag that actually brought, came to my mind as you were mentioning the investigations, inconsistencies, and so forth. That might be something you might want to consider within that process, as perhaps maybe it'd be best suited if an outside entity was hired or fully hired to do those investigations.

So, as in the future, there isn't that potential conflict of interest or intimidation within the same system, and it becomes very objective. And I, you know, within the Legislature, I thought it was one of the very, very wise decisions to ensure that, you know, there's integrity and consistency and honesty within that system.

And I respect the manner in which the Legislature has proceeded with this, with these type of investigations. And I just thought I'd just plant that seed for consideration in the future as you folks move forward in implementing your processes within the scope.

Thank you. And I will share that part of the internal assessment that the CSU did with the Cozen O'Connor law firm, that was also one of their recommendations and one of the things that we are discussing with leadership for how to move forward more systematically for the CSU system. So thank you.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Assembly Member Muratsuchi.

Thank you very much. Thank you for this very important discussion. And thank you, Dr. Garcia, for committing yourself to, you know, send the message from the very top. And, you know, I have no doubt that you are going to do what you're saying today, that you're going to fight to change that culture system wide.

You know, I speak obviously as a male legislator, not only having seen a lot of those discussions about trying to change the culture right here in the state legislature, where we went through the me too movement, we went through the workplace conduct unit effort that is ongoing. I've personally experienced a lot of those difficult discussions, and I've learned a lot. I've learned a lot from all of those discussions.

And I think having gone through that experience as a Member of this Legislature in terms of trying to change the history and the culture of this institution, you know, I can only imagine how much more difficult it would be, you know, for your 23 campuses and, you know, all of the employees and all of the students.

But, you know, I do believe that, you know, obviously, we, this is going to be like an ongoing effort. It's not going to, you know, end with your fight to change the culture, but I'm optimistic that you are going to help, you know, push the ball forward.

And I just want to say, you know, not only am I fully supportive of your efforts to crack down on sexual harassment to protect all students in the Cal State University system, but, you know, I also speak as a father of a daughter who's in high school who may be attending the California State University campus in the near future. And so not only as a Legislator, but as a father of a daughter, I truly hope that you move the ball forward to change the culture in the California State University system.

I thank you so much for those comments. I will say that when students come on our campus, families are entrusting them to us, and that is a huge responsibility that we have to take very, very seriously. And as my goddaughter niece begins college this year, I'm also making sure that she understands and worried about her the way you are too.

Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Muratsuchi. And thank you both for answering these questions and being available to hear the concerns and issues that my colleagues have raised. I do have one quick little question that I'm not clear about still. One of the audit recommendations regarded accumulating data and then looking at trends. And I wasn't certain from your answer whether that is actually happening now, and has any trends or patterns emerged from that data collection?

Thank you. So our data collection is currently underway from all 23 campuses and the Chancellor's Office, because the Chancellor's Office is also treated as a campus, that will be for our data from the 2023 to 2024 year.

So July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024. That information is required to be reported to the Chancellor's Office by October 1. That information will then be reviewed and translated for patterns and trends and also reported to this legislative body by December 1.

We look forward to getting that information. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you both very much. Our next panel are stakeholders of the CSU system, and we have Ms. Al-Rehani representing the California State Student Association.

Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. Good morning, chairs and Committee Members. My name is Tara Al Rahani. I am the Vice President of system wide affairs with the Cal State Student Association, and I am currently pursuing my education at San Jose State University.

Over the last several years, our students have been engaged in the various reports conducted on the State of title ix and discrimination in the CSU system. This includes the CSU's own Cozen O'Connor report, the State Auditor's report, and the call to Action report published by the Assembly Higher Education Committee.

As students, we are grateful for the attention and the work that has been done to identify and acknowledge how the systems that had been in place were failing us, and we have been supportive of all the recommendations that were made at the legislative level.

We've been proud to work with the Assembly Higher Education Committee and many other offices on legislation that comes directly for many of the recommendations made by the State Auditor.

There are eight bills that we have a support position on, AB 810 by Assemblymember Friedman AB 1905 by Assemblymember Addis AB 2047 by assemblymember Fong AB 2326 by Assembly Member Alvarez AB 2407 by Assembly Member Hart AB 2492 by Assembly Member Irwin AB 2987 by Assemblymember Ortega and SB 1166 by Senator Dodd.

We hope that this legislative session comes to an end and we can see that each of these bills are signed into law, that the implementation of these policies can happen swiftly. When my predecessor came to testify before this Committee a year ago, she shared many of the title ix concerns that we as CSU students had included.

They were that campus grievance procedures for sexual assault, or SA, are often seen as unfair and inequitable by our students, with outcomes varying significantly by case.

She also mentioned common issues, including dismissal of cases due to the perpetrator status, Low priority or inadequate investigation leading to a lack of discipline and ongoing contact between survivors and perpetrators, which is a very high safety concern for our students, and that overall, all of these problems eroded the trust in the title ix grievance process, causing many student survivors to avoid filing formal complaints.

However, we are happy to see that since she has shared these concerns, there has been progress made by the chancellor's office to address many of them. We are glad that 11 recommendations have been fully implemented thus far to address many of the inequities within the title ix process.

As CSU students, we are especially grateful for recommendations 8 and 10 which ensure the fair treatment of survivors of sexual assault. These recommendations make certain that universities have adequate resources and the best practices for handling formal investigations. This includes having dedicated external investigators to ensure impartiality and clear guidance on how to initiate, conduct, and document disciplinary actions.

These measures help guarantee fair and effective responses to sexual harassment, supporting survivors through a transparent and just process, all of which is of the utmost importance to us as CSU students, as many survivors are students themselves.

Another major concern we have had since the original audit was released was a process for CSU campuses to be able to address other forms of misconduct that may not fall within the parameters of title ix.

Although there has not been a process implemented to address this, we are glad that it is included in the CSU chancellor's office title ix update to be completed by January 2025.

As students, we believe these other forms of misconduct can still create a hostile and unsafe environment for many of our students, so we are once again happy to see this will be eventually fully implemented.

I would also like to take a moment to thank the chancellor's office for the progress that they have made for ensuring that there is student representation on every campus title ix implementation team we firmly believe students should always be considered as equal stakeholders throughout this entire process, and we look forward to seeing how all of these implementations affect the daily lives of our students once we begin our upcoming academic year, especially our student survivors.

We hope that these new and improved processes ensure the fair treatment, support, and safety of survivors while also ensuring institutional accountability. In conclusion, I would also like to thank this Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the Senate Education Committee, and the Assembly Higher Education Committee for having me here today and for continuing to elevate this issue.

It is imperative that our universities are safe and supportive for us all, and we look forward to continuing this work with you all and the CSU to ensure that it is in the years to come. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Al-Rehani. Appreciate your testimony. Next we have Terry Wilson, Vice President of Finance for CSUEA.

Good morning, chairs and Members of the Committee my name is Terry Wilson and I'm the Vice President for finance for the California State University Employees Union. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today on this incredibly important issue. CSUE represents 35,000 non faculty, staff, and students across seven bargaining units.

Our representation of the diverse set of CSUE employees provides our organization a unique perspective on the title IX system. At the outset, I would like to applaud this Committee, the Assembly Higher Education Committee, and the Senate Education Committee for your work on responding to and addressing the failures of the title IX system at the CSU.

As you know, the audit report on CSU's title ix procedures confirmed problems that our Members have been observing and experiencing for years, including outrageous case delays, lack of discipline for those who violate title ix policies, and refusal to investigate allegations without providing any rationale.

The audit also noted how the lack of standardized data collection and analysis across campuses prevents the CSU from identifying and addressing problematic trends.

The recommendations presented in the audit, such as providing clear guidelines to ensure consistent interpretation of sexual harassment and establishing consistent methods for addressing sexual harassment, are steps we must take if we hope to foster a safe environment on our campuses.

Your hearing last year in the work on a call to action legislative package will ensure that these issues are corrected in a sustainable fashion. While the Coco is moot, move to correct some of these identified in the audit.

I firmly believe that the measures in the call to action legislative package are critical to fixing these problems in the long term. In addition to legislative action, it will be critical that the Legislature continue to provide oversight on the higher education segments so we do not have these issues.

Again, that oversight should come in partnership with those representing employees and students in higher education. Partnerships between all stakeholders are critical in achieving an inclusive environment to our higher education institutions. Over the coming weeks, we urge a Legislator to pass to pass the bills and a call to action package.

This package will provide fundamental change and allow the Legislator to receive the information it needs for further oversight. We look forward to working with you to address these systemic issues to build a better, safer CSU for students and employees alike. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mister Wilson. Next we have Doctor Anne Luna Gordinier, the Capital Chapter President of the California Faculty Association.

Good morning, chairs and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to return this year to share our feedback on the progress made in implementing these audit recommendations. We also want to express our gratitude for your leadership in this critical issue that affects so many lives daily. My name is Anne Luna Gordonier.

I'm an associate Professor at Sacramento State and one of the tri chairs of the CFA Women's Caucus, and I'm a survivor of sexual assault. CFA represents 29,000 professors, lecturers, counselors, coaches and librarians who have been on the front lines of Title IX process for many years.

When we surveyed our 23 campuses on this year's changes, they reported that the updated forms and checklists were a step in the right direction. We also heard that the outside group that was hired to handle one particular investigation for our Member was professional and empathetic. That is a stark improvement.

However, we also received feedback that this year, people are still withdrawing their grievances because the process is dysfunctional and takes way too long. In a recent case, a Member had to wait 27 months for a result that prevented them from getting another job when their contract was up just to have the case thrown out.

So, unfortunately, we also see a revolving door of inadequate staffing and a need to follow up at each stage. We also found out that although new processes have been implemented, many of our faculty, even those on official committees on the subject, do not feel adequately engaged. There's a significant gap in communication, leaving campus communities uninformed and skeptical.

It is essential that the campus community be able to provide feedback on how to reach and impact faculty, staff and students. We seek to be productive partners. While we acknowledge the CSU's efforts to create a structure that addresses these Title IX issues, we must critically ask whether these offices are truly functional and effective.

We have learned that adding more administrators at the top does not solve the problem. The CSU needs to move from being simply compliance driven to a real commitment to innovative Title IX policy and practice. We need to work to minimize and eliminate the problem rather than merely ensuring that investigations are processed and tracked.

We want to appreciate the Legislature for the call to action legislative package. Several of these bills support survivors and promote the necessary independent oversight. However, we must ensure that additional resources from an anti racist and social justice lens are provided for title IX offices and do not perpetuate these flawed systems that are already in place.

While the call for more streamlined data is also a positive step, we're deeply concerned about how this data is being tracked and communicated. The CSU's track record on implementation is poor and, without clear evidence and documentation remain doubtful of their effectiveness. Any data collection needs to track who is impacted.

The focus must be on capturing patterns of discrimination with an intersectional approach that recognizes racial, gender, sexual orientation, and disability biases. We must remember to ground ourselves in the core purpose of these discussions. Preventing sexual assault and harassment. The current reliance on punitive measures has not proven effective in preventing harm.

Instead, we need to focus on prevention and creating new norms and systems of accountability. The CSU's approach must evolve beyond mere compliance with legal requirements and address a true cultural change needed to create a safer environment for all. In closing, we appreciate the CSU's follow up actions and their plans for ongoing adjustments.

However, the Legislature must continue to hold the CSU accountable, not just for policy and legal compliance, but for real cultural change that addresses these systemic issues through an anti racism and social justice lens.

We look forward to a continued partnership and thank you for your commitment to the CSU system, the thoughtful reforms that we're embarking on, can be a model for a state and country. Thank you, and I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Doctor Luna Gordoniere. Appreciate your testimony. Are there questions for Members of the panel? Assembly Member Frong?

Thank you so much, Chair Hart. And thank you to each and every one of you for providing your testimony on behalf of your organizations today.

And as we heard from some of the speakers during our last hearing, there was a trust gap that was created between students, faculty, staff on campuses, as we heard earlier, the system wide level changes. So a couple questions. How have the changes on the system wide level affected the trust gap?

And then secondly, as mentioned by our speakers here, in addition to the 12 Bill package, the call to action Bill package, what more can the Legislature do to help prevent and address sexual harassment campuses at the CSU system?

Yeah. So for the first point, for the trust gap, these implementations, we haven't seen them fully enacted yet because our academic session hasn't begun yet. So it's a little too hard to tell just yet.

However, I know with my work with the system wide affairs Committee, I am fully ready to employ my Committee Members to reach out to their title IX offices, work with them closely, and get on the ground feedback so that I can then report that to both the CSU civil rights implementation oversight Committee that I sit on, and also, then again, to anyone in the CEO who's willing to take that.

And then also, hopefully, to this Committee. Students, I think, need to hear a direct apology for how they were treated from the institution they want to hear. It's different coming from student leaders who are sitting here, you know, as opposed to those who have made the legislation and the changes.

So, yeah, as far as seeing that trust gap change, we do have to wait for the school year, for the student side and the student perspective.

Thank you.

With regards to the trust gap, I think there has been a problem, again, with communication, and that a lot of folks are not feeling like they're being informed in a timely manner about the things and the changes that are coming.

Just to give an example, at our campus, something came down from our President's office saying, zero, our title IX office is now going to be under the President's office in a restructuring. They were like, wait, hold up.

Does that seem like a good idea, knowing the history that we've had in this broad CSU, to be putting title IX directly under the campus President? And there wasn't really any consultation. And I know that Doctor Garcia Chancellor Garcia mentioned that the campuses are all implementing things differently.

And I know that that is a space for innovation, but it also creates problems. We're getting a thorough idea of what should should be done with respect to that.

And I think that what you could work on and what we're trying to envision is not just a punitive approach in terms of resolutions, but thinking about restorative justice, thinking about a non carceral approach, thinking about ways to engage folks who have been affected by this.

Survivors in consultation with developing how we do the training and actually doing peer based training, for example, as opposed to just having these kind of one size fits all online trainings, bringing it in and actually doing something that's more like a workshop with survivors who can actually speak to the real experiences has a lot more impact than clicking through a bunch of illustrations.

And I think that that could be something that could be very, very impactful.

Thank you for your comments. Appreciate it.

Yeah, I think we're early in the process with the call to action Bill package for that trust gap.

So as that rolls out the Bill package and then we start getting feedback from all the state coolers involved, we'll be able to get a better gauge of our understanding of where we need to be and how to move forward.

Well, thank you so much for all your comments and insights here, as we can continue the implementation of these reforms and really appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Thank you, Mister chair. Thank you so many.

Member Fong, are there any other questions from Members of the Committee? Well, thank you very much for your wonderful comments. I think those are very helpful and instructive. Each of you had a unique thing to add to the conversation. I know that the leadership CSU is listening very carefully and will hopefully incorporate your comments into their process.

So thank you. Is there anyone from the public who'd like to provide a brief comment? And I'd ask that you please keep your comments to no more than two minutes so we can hear from everyone. All right, I guess we are ready to adjourn.

Assemblymember Fong or Assembly Member Quirksville, do you have any closing remarks that you'd like to make?

Assembly Member Frank, thank you so much, chair Hart. And thank you so much to my colleagues to chair Hart, to chair Newman, to everyone who's participated in the robust discussions here today.

As chair of the Assembly Higher Education Committee, we know there's more work to be done to remove barriers that negatively impact the students ability to attend higher education institutions. And the work and efforts around title IX reform is so critical.

I'm so grateful for the Auditor for providing the updates and the work and efforts going forward to continue the implementation of these reforms at the CSU system. And to the chancellor and to all our organizational representatives. Thank you for your testimony here today.

We know that California cannot succeed if a large percent of college students do not feel safe on our campuses. We cannot succeed if there's untold human costs and loss of potential because students, faculty and staff are walking with invisible wounds due to the trauma that they have suffered at the hands of others.

It is my hope that the hearing today, coupled with my colleagues, we have the 12 Bill. A call to action Bill package, will serve as a crucial step in creating a system of compliance and oversight for how sexual harassment complaints are handled by colleges and universities within our state.

We cannot continue to ignore this issue, and I hope that today demonstrates the resolve that this Legislature has in dedicating ourselves a commitment to ensuring that all survivors feel seen, heard and restored.

Should anyone, whether they are Members of the public or Members of the Legislature, wish to officer, counsel, or perspective on how to best address sexual harassment, please contact the Assembly Higher Education Committee staff. We want to give a special shout out to Ellen for her tremendous leadership and efforts on Title IX reform as well.

We welcome your feedback and suggestions and thank you so much again to chair Hart and to all my colleagues for your leadership and efforts on this. Thank you. Thank you, chair Fong.

Appreciate that. Thank you all for engaging in a productive discussion today.

I appreciate the urgent actions that CSU leadership has taken to implement the recommended changes that were carefully crafted by the State Auditor while it has fully implemented 10 of the 16 recommendations, which is a very notable feat and something we're, I think, justifiably proud about, many still agree that there's a lot of work to do do that needs to be done in order to create a safer campus environment for everyone.

CSU leadership must remain steadfast in their efforts to implement all the reports. Recommended changes as chair of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, I can assure you that the Committee will continue to monitor CSU's efforts to fix the problems identified in this audit.

I am personally dedicated to advocating for the necessary changes to ensure that students, faculty and staff can learn and work in a safe, respectful and supportive environment. Thank you to everyone for your attendance today. This Committee is adjourned.