Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

All right. Committee on Governmental Organization will convene in 60 seconds or the, technically, the Subcommittee on Governmental Organization. We stand corrected, Mr. Leader. Post-Archuleta story Committee will convene. Good morning and welcome. Thank you for your patience. At this time, we'll convene the Committee on Governmental Organization. We do not have a quorum. We will proceed as a sub.

Do have an author here, Senator Wiener, to present SB 53. Just a note for participants. Each author will be allowed up to two primary witnesses, each allocated two minutes each. Additional folks who want to signal support or opposition. The same will go to primary witnesses in opposition. Those who want to add on, when you come up either in support or opposition of a bill, just state your name, affiliation, organization, and position on the bill at that. And now, Senator Wiener, welcome. And proceed when ready.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm here today to present Senate Bill 53, and I'm happy to accept the Committee's Amendments. We appreciate the Committee's work. Mr. Chair, colleagues, as you recall, last year I authored Senate Bill 1047, which enjoyed broad support in both houses, including some bipartisan support.

And although the Governor vetoed SB 1047, there were several aspects of that Bill that the Governor did not criticize in his veto message, and so we have taken those two important provisions and put them into Senate Bill 53. One is protecting whistleblowers at AI labs that are creating these incredibly powerful models.

And we want to make sure that folks in these labs have the ability and feel comfortable blowing the whistle if something unsafe is happening. And then second, creating the Cal Compute Program of Public Cloud to try to expand access to AI research and innovation.

We know that AI has strong potential to make the world a better place, to improve people's health, to help us fight climate change. In so many ways, AI can make the world better, make people's lives better.

We also know that, as with any powerful technology, and this is extremely powerful technology that's going to become more powerful, and that is moving at a pace that we have never seen before in terms of technological innovation, that that means that there are risks and we should get ahead of those risks. That's what SB 1047 was about.

But we also want to make sure that we are both embracing innovation, and Cal Compute will help us do that, and then also empowering people to step up and speak out if something bad is happening that's going to harm society.

We know that, unfortunately, the Federal Government, which has never been great on tech regulation, there is still to this day no federal data privacy law. And that has been true under Democrats, under Republicans. The Federal Government has just struggled, and I hope that changes. I really hope that that changes. But it hasn't happened.

And now, of course, this new Administration is openly hostile to any form of regulation, um, of, uh, the tech sector. He rescinded President Biden's AI Safety Executive Order. They're systematically dismantling federal infrastructure around AI innovation and safety, and so, it's really important for California to lead. So, with that, I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

And with me today to testify is Ryan Greenblatt, who's the Chief Scientist at Redwood Research, and Teri Olle, the Director of Economic Security California Action.

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Teri Olle, the Director of Economic Security California Action, a proud co-sponsor of SB 53, and I want to thank Senator Wiener for his continued leadership on this issue.

I'm going to talk for a minute about Cal Compute, which would establish a consortium to develop a publicly owned and operated cloud computing cluster to expand and democratize access to critical AI infrastructure. First, Cal Compute addresses the problem of extreme concentration of compute power. Compute is the most important factor enabling or limiting AI innovation.

It's extremely expensive and controlled by a tiny number of companies, who have an outsized say in what's developed and then whom it benefits. Meanwhile, startups, and even major academic institutions, lag behind. For example, Stanford has 300 of the specialized chips needed for AI, while Microsoft has 1.8 million.

This disparity affects career pathways too, with homegrown tech talent lured away from solving our pressing public problems, and toward much more dynamic private sector. Second, Cal Compute continues California's legacy of transformative public investment in cutting edge research institutions, such as our pioneering Stem Cell Research Center and our world class national labs.

We are the home of AI and should be leading on this too. Our counterparts in New York are already showing the way of what's possible. After investing last year, Empire AI has 200-plus researchers who are busy building climate models and improving cancer diagnostics, among other things.

California should join them, especially since Federal investment in AI is unlikely anytime soon. Third, as the Senator said, CalCompute is popular.

It received near universal support as last—part of last year's—1047, and then since then, the Little Hoover Commission's report on AI named Public Compute as its top recommendation, citing similar reasons as above, as well as ensuring accountability to ethical standards, and giving the state a degree of technological Independence.

For all of these reasons, I urge your "Aye" vote on this important legislation. Thank you.

Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony and support of SB 53. I am Ryan Greenblatt, Chief scientist at Redwood Research, a nonprofit researching assessment and mitigation of risks from advanced AI systems.

I am the lead author on "Alignment Faking in Large Language Models," which demonstrated that AI systems sometimes strategically pretend to comply with their developers' preferences during training, while pursuing different behaviors while unmonitored. Risks from AI are particularly concerning, given the rapid pace of advancement.

In just two years, AI capabilities have advanced from struggling with basic arithmetic to completing hour-long assignments. Video generation has advanced from primitive to photorealistic. And now leading companies, like OpenAI and Anthropic, warn that systems released as soon as later this year could enable novices to create biological weapons.

In the future, rapid AI progress could quickly yield systems which greatly escalate existing risks, and which create new risks, such as AIs evading human control. These developments create risks that insider knowledge is uniquely positioned to identify. When AI capabilities cross dangerous thresholds, those working closest with the systems will see it first.

This is why transparency measures, like SB 53's Whistleblower Protections, are essential. As recently confirmed by Governor Newsom's joint California Policy Working Group on AI Frontier Models, employees who observe concerning AI capabilities, or alignment failures, need legal protection to report these issues. Without these protections, critical warnings about dangerous AI development might not reach authorities until it's too late.

I urge your support for SB 53.

Thank you very much. We'll open it for add-ons in support of the Bill. Please state your name and/or affiliation.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Leanne Tratton, with Trout and Price, representing co-sponsors ENCODE and Economic Security Action.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Doug Subers, on behalf of the Secure AI Project, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill, or individuals who want to indicate opposition to the Bill? Seeing no one, and we'll bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Senator Wiener, you want to close?

Respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

Thank you. We do...thank you, we do not have a quorum as yet, but once we do, we'll take motions on the Bills and put them on call. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you very much.

We also have, I think, Senator Lairds in the audience. Are you prepared, Senator?

File Item Number 4, SB 470. Welcome.

Good morning. I was just telling the Senator that while I was sitting there I got an email from him saying he was leading the charge on something, and I replied that he's actually presenting a bill and I wish he'd get done so I could get up there and present my bill.

So I'll be anxious to hear from his team when I get back to the office. Yes, well, he could think that was AI. So I am presenting Senate Bill 5, Senate Bill 470. Senate Bill 544, which I authored in 2023, set up a new system for the open meeting laws for state boards and commissions.

It has worked, and this bill removes the sunset and allows it to continue. When the Bagley-Keene Act was adopted in 1967, no one envisioned the computer age. The Americans with Disabilities Act was a couple of decades into the future. The idea that citizens could participate in public meetings remotely was not common.

The COVID pandemic demonstrated the need to address those changes in the open meeting laws, and the state conducted meetings remotely to continue the public process and learned of the benefits and drawbacks. This bill, which continues the previous one, takes advantage of what we learned and tries to take the good pieces of it and put it in the public meeting law. The bill gives a choice.

State boards and commissions can choose to take the current system and just operate under it, or they can choose to have a majority quorum present. Allow remote participation. If you allow remote participation by members of the board or commission, you have to allow remote participation of the public. If the system goes down, you have to pause the meeting.

It requires that cameras are on for the people participating remotely. And for those that have participated remotely, it no longer requires that they have to publish their home address while they are participating remotely. So it, it protects their security in doing this. This allows for some people that have disabilities or people that are seniors to participate in a way that they might not participate if this alternative did not exist in the Bagley-Keene Act. I believe it has worked.

There are a couple of concerns that have come up with regard to advisory committees, and if those continue to be concerns through the process, I am committed to work with the stakeholders and address them. And so this really allows us to take into account the Americans for Disabilities Act what we learned in Covid.

Remote participation protect people that otherwise might not participate in our state boards and commissions, and, in the process, allow some people to participate remotely that might not be able to come to Sacramento. So overall, I think this is a good bill, and I have witnesses here that will address the points.

And at the appropriate time, I request an aye vote and would look forward to answering your questions. The witnesses are Ethan Rarick, the Executive Director of the Little Hoover Commission, and Aaron Carruthers, the Executive Director of the State Council on Developmental Disabilities.

Welcome, gentlemen. Two minutes each. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members, I am Ethan Rarick, the Executive Director of the Little Hoover Commission. In 2021, we surveyed state agency governed by the Bagley-Keene Act about their experiences using remote technology during the pandemic. Most reported more public attendance, more attendance by members of the Commission, and cost savings.

Accordingly, we recommended that the law be changed to facilitate greater use of remote technology. And in 2023, the Legislature, as the Senator said, recognized the need for these changes by passing SB 544. By removing the sunset provision in 544, this bill continues a practice that has been working well since SB 544 took effect, our Commission has been using this technology productively.

We continue to see increased public participation and greater attendance by the members. We've had hundreds of people attending from the public, attending our meetings remotely, and making public comment, often quite extensively. Although we've not had the resources to repeat our survey of Bagley-Keene agencies, anecdotally, we've heard of other commissions using this technology productively, and we've heard of no real problems with this technology.

We also continue to believe that the technology will make state government more representative. As the Senator said, elderly people, people with child care responsibilities, senior care responsibilities, working jobs. Such people can't necessarily take a day and a half off to fly to Sacramento to attend a meeting.

They can often attend remotely and participate from their homes, and this opens up the process of serving on boards and commissions to those people. In short, we think that this continues a process that has been working and we see no problem with it. And we think that it will make California government look more like California, and therefore respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. I'm Aaron Carruthers. I'm the Executive Director of California's State Council on Developmental Disabilities. The State Council is an independent entity that's created and funded by Congress. And we exist to disrupt systems and make them work more efficient and be more agile and be more accountable to Californians with developmental disabilities and their families. The Council itself exists of 31 Governor's appointees.

A third are people with developmental disabilities. A third are close family members. And the Council has been able to operate because of the provisions of SB 544, and we would have great difficulty without them. Under the current law, the Council meets six times a year. Half of those meetings are all in person. Half use the remote option. During virtual meetings, the members are on screen.

Any other adults that are in the room with them are announced. Those adults are often caregivers or direct service providers, and the public has access to any of the meetings through physical locations. The the flexibility in current law allows us various ways to meet, conduct our business transparently, and remain available to the public.

Because of this flexibility, council members themselves are able to be the leaders the Governor has appointed them to be. This includes our Chair, who is a person with cerebral palsy who uses a large motorized wheelchair and needs a caregiver to get out of bed in the morning, to prepare for meetings, dress, and get ready for the meeting, and even turned the pages of her notes for being Chair.

It also includes our Vice Chair, who's a father of three young children. One child has autism, another child has down syndrome. The amount of things that can go wrong or unexpected in their lives in any given day is uncountable. But the flexibility under the current law really gives us the provisions we need to be able to continue to adapt and be flexible in those moments.

Additionally, during the pandemic, we saw an increase in public participation in our meetings, and that increase has stayed with SB 544 provisions. Additionally, part of our role is to train leaders to be on other boards, and because these flexibilities, they're able to exercise that leadership in other locations. So State Council on Developmental Disabilities supports SB 5, supports this legislation and asks for the law to continue. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone wish to add on and indicate support for the bill? State your name and or affiliation.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Leza Coleman. I'm with the California Commission on Aging. We are the proud sponsors of this bill. I would like to point out, since we have been using this virtual technology, the Commission has always succeeded in reaching a quorum.

Thank you.

Good morning, Senator and Members. Dan Okenfuss with the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers in support.

Thank you. Anyone else willing to indicate support on the bill? If not, thank you, gentlemen. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Please come forward. Good morning and welcome. Please state your name for the record and affiliation, and each will be limited to two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Cynthia Valencia. I am a Legislative Advocate with the ACLU California Action. With some of our coalition partners, we respectfully oppose SB 470 unless there are significant amendments taken to ensure some sufficient guardrails to protect the public interest.

This bill is proposing permanent changes to the Bagley-Keene Act, and it is prioritizing the convenience of public officials over the meaningful participation of the public. We are strongly supportive of increased remote options and teleconference options for members of the public.

We have been opposing this bill because it would remove these long standing requirements that public meetings be held in public places where the public can petition their leaders and government officials face to face. So we appreciate that the author has taken amendments from the SB 544 discussions, which are reflected in this bill.

However, there is still a path for these state bodies to meet entirely virtually from completely private locations because of the lacking of sufficient guardrails. It also creates a lesser standard of accountability for advisory bodies, which the author referenced, and we hope to keep working on that language.

I just want to name an example of the Commission on Peace Officer Standards Accountability Advisory Board, which is an advisory board. They review serious misconduct cases involving law enforcement. And if this bill were to pass, by virtue of being advisory, they could arguably hold these decertification investigations entirely virtually, entirely from private locations.

SB 470 as currently written, permits public officials to phone it in, literally, potentially meaning entirely telephonically, because it allows a member to avoid being on video when it is impracticable. We would like more specific guardrails regarding that piece. And representatives who are choosing to serve on state bodies should not be able to hide behind a phone to avoid the public. So we urge you to not move forward with SB 470 as written, and we look forward to continuing discussions.

Thank you. And I'll ask the witnesses to suspend momentarily while we establish a quorum. Consultant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Please proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Robert Moutrie for the California Chamber of Commerce. And we are respectfully opposed to SB 470. First, I'll say it's a pleasure to sit next to ACLU. And I think they said really the First Amendment concerns, as an attorney, really well.

I should say that the concerns around public access. I just want to bring on behalf of my members who are the regulated community for many of these boards and who are covered, kind of an anecdotal example of the difference here we see between personal access and kind of the remote.

Before I start, though, I do want to flag. We are sympathetic to the concerns around disabilities and members serving with those disabilities and also security concerns. Right. That's obviously understand those sensitivities. But I will say that we view kind of more remote participation as distinctly different.

And this comes from my personal example of working with Cal/OSHA throughout Covid into the present. And I'm sure the members would agree there is a difference when you are speaking personally here and members of the public can say, hey, you know, while you're walking out, can I just talk to you about this? I have concerns.

What was that about? And that can be annoying and problematic. And I certainly appreciate that from your perspective and from the boards. But that is a different level of public accessibility than if it is remote where they may call in, speak and then hang up and there is no access there. So we view that personal presence as an important difference, though we are sensitive to the concerns discussed. For those reasons, we are respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other individuals, organizations want to register opposition to the bill? Please come forward. State your name and affiliation.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Dani Kando-Kaiser in respectful opposition against amended on behalf of the First Amendment Coalition, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Society of Professional Journalists of Northern California, and the Pacific Media Workers Guild, Local 39521. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Mike Robson. I'm just here as Mike Robson. I'm representing myself today, and concur with the statements by the ACLU and the Chamber of Commerce. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to register opposition to the bill? Seeing none. I'll bring it to the Committee for questions or comments. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. And what comes to mind is our veterans who are in hospitals who have access to the computers. Veterans who are aging now that their families, along with their members and even other veterans can sit down and view exactly what's happening here and even in their local city councils. And it's an opportunity for us to communicate. Technology is evolving every single day. This is just another step forward.

But what we must not lose sight of is communicating with our constituents, communicating with those who care about what we're doing every single day, and giving them the knowledge and the ability to actually stand up as Californians and get to us, let us know how they feel, so in turn we can continue working for them. And I think it's a fine bill. I'd be honored to be a co-author, and I certainly will move it at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Jones.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. While I'm asking some questions, could I have the ACLU representative come back up? Would that be okay?

It would. Sir, if you please return to the mic. Or ma'am, forgive me.

Thank you. Senator Laird, looking through your bill, I am totally split on this. I strongly agree with you and I strongly disagree with you on this bill. I strongly agree with you on the public access. I think that that has been shown to be a very good result even here in the Legislature.

Even though some of the hearings went on very long by having phone in comments, it did allow people from across this huge state to have comments and advice into their Legislature. Where I strongly disagree with you is on the elected official side or the appointed official side.

And I understand, you know, the, you know, greater access, you know, for a greater number of people to serve. I understand that argument 100%. So I guess my first question would be in your bill, is there any limit to the number of times or on the elected official, advisory council member, whoever's on the dais, the number of... Is there any kind of limit on their participation online or remote?

Well, first, let me clarify one thing that's in your question. This doesn't really apply to elected officials except in the rare moment that an elected official is appointed to a state advisory body or commission. Because those are, that is a separate body of law. And...

Thank you for that clarification.

And it could be that that one particular member or two particular members choose, for the reasons that have been stated, to participate remotely regularly. If you're a person with a disability that lives 200 miles away, the odds are are you do not participate. But I think I want to make one thing clear.

This still requires a physical quorum in public present. That's not remote, that is physically present. That your question is about do people regularly participate remotely? I suspect there are some, but for the reasons that some of the witnesses testify.

And I do appreciate that, you know, you're requiring a quorum. I think that's an important balance you're trying to strike. But, you know, as we've seen in a lot of these commissions and advisory boards, you know, occasionally there's a very controversial person on those commissions and committees. And for whatever reason, you know, you know, the reasons vary.

I'm just concerned about them being able to avoid the public that they are appointed to serve and continue to be controversial. Which is fine. I mean, if you want to be controversial, be controversial. But you should also be willing to face the heat of being controversial, so to speak. So you want to address that? I do have a question for the ACLU.

Let me say, I obviously agree with that. And one of the initial premises of this bill that I stated at the outset is that a board or commission can choose to use the old process without this as the default process. So to be honest, usually when there's somebody that's that controversial, they're at odds with the rest of the commission. And so the rest of the commission could decide, we're not putting up with this. We're going to go for the old system and we're going to require everybody to be present.

So once the decision is made, it can change, it can be altered?

Yes.

Okay. The question of the ACLU. You know, one of the concerns I have is, you know, one of the foundational principles of our democracy is public access to the officials that are making decisions that affect their life. Do you...

I am concerned that if this passed that eventually down the road there could be, the state could be subjecting itself to lawsuits. And I'm just wondering if you have an opinion on that, you know, from your perspective.

Yes. And I want to name one thing, and this is why we look forward to speaking with the author's office more on the language. But the way that we read the current bill, there isn't an in person quorum. There's flexibility for advisory bodies, which is an issue that we've been flagging.

And also the way that we're currently reading the language is that there's a piece that allows a carve out that it says one member to be physically present. But if they fall under the exceptions, they could also join remotely, meaning that there is no in person quorum.

And we do support a lot of the pieces regarding accessibility and just cause reasons that some other legislators have introduced in their bills. But yes, we do have concerns about these bodies. Just going back to why the Bagley-Keene Act was created was because of public officials, including those that were appointed to bodies, having these negotiations in private without the public having access to these decision makers.

That's why we think it's so important while, you know, including accommodations and using new technology, but still maintaining the public having access in person to these officials. You know, most of the time these meetings are very procedural and it's not the most controversial thing where people need to organize. But there are many instances. That's why these bodies, you know, ostensibly were created to have the public access to these officials. That's why we're so insistent on holding true to the intent of the Bagley-Keene Act.

Thank you. As she was speaking. I just thought of another concern that I have on these remote meetings because we experienced it here as well. When you're on the remote meetings and you've got two or three members of the commission and or of the public able to text message offline from the conversations taking case in the public, I'm actually concerned about that being a backroom negotiation. You know, when it's, when it's a text message going back and forth. So if you want to address that. I'm sharing my concerns on the bill.

I'll comment on all three things and, of course, I'm so tempted in the last one to say get your own bill. Yeah. Unhappy about people texting during meetings. More power to you. But on the other two issues, on the advisory. The reason advisory committees were exempted is because they're advisory. They advise to a public body that meets.

The one exception is the one that has been identified, and we're committed to address that if it turn. Because in that case, if it is a life and death decision in an advisory body, even though it's advisory, we're willing to address that as this bill moves along. On the last issue about the in present quorum. Yes.

If somebody's disabled or has a reason they can be part of that quorum remotely. What we have found is that that's the exception. This is working. The in person quorums are there. I appreciate it's the ACLU's job to look at every possible thing that could go wrong. I appreciate Senator Jones fishing to see if they would sue. But...

Everybody to be on notice.

Yes. But, but this is working. Those things haven't happened. If there is truly an abuse we would be willing to address it as this bill moves on.

Mr. Chair, I'm finished. But I will say I'm not going to vote for the bill today, but I will watch to see how it proceeds with the opposition and maybe get to an aye at some point in time. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Jones. Senator Richardson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the author, I intend upon supporting the bill. However, I just have one comment or question. I've noticed for myself when I participated in video meetings the challenge sometimes is in the question part. So like a person has to raise their hand in the chat to get acknowledged to ask the question.

Oftentimes people will say, oh we're going to put the information in the chat. Well once the meeting is over how does the person access the information? So I would just encourage additional thought maybe of, in having this, making sure that the public still has a very clear ability to be able to ask their questions. Potentially maybe on a website it would post what those questions are and what the answers are. Because sometimes not everyone is able to easily navigate, including myself, from the chat.

You didn't need to bust yourself.

Oh, I don't mind. I don't mind. Truth is always good. It's just sometimes navigating between the chat and back and forth can be challenging. So I would just encourage for a better experience for the end user to make sure there's some sort of mechanism to be able to capture their questions and to provide the answers. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, is it okay if I address that while it's ripe?

You can do it here or in your close, Senator.

I'll do it while everybody's thinking about it. Thank you. And we have attempted to address the technological things as best we can, such as not being able to turn off your camera. If the system goes down, the meeting pauses. If people participate remotely, as a board member, you then have to take remote testimony.

I understand because I chaired meetings here when that was happening and had to look at the zoom and had to look at the hand up. And it works if people are sitting on it. And I'm willing to look at this over the time to see if there's any other technological improvements that could be made.

Thank you. Senator Wahab.

So I just want to be clear for the public, this is intended for who to participate?

State boards and commission. Oh, this is about only state boards and commissions. This allows the witnesses were really the Commission on Aging, people with disabilities because they believe that it balanced better participation among their stakeholder groups.

Definitely. And then this is also applying to witnesses to be able to testify?

It doesn't require it. But if somebody's remote participating as a member, then they would have to allow remote witnesses.

Okay. So I fully support this bill primarily just because we are a very large state and often these commissions rotate throughout the state. It is extremely costly to be able to travel up north or south or in the Bay Area, let alone do a hotel or any travel expenses and so forth.

And also you potentially want subject matter experts that can only stay for an hour or two. Right. So I fully support this. I think that we have to adopt technology. A lot of the concerns and fears that many people shared I will say is completely available right now. Whether that's texting, whether that's communications in other ways.

And let's not pretend like it hasn't happened even pre-Covid. And I want to be very frank about that. But I also think that we have to take the best of both worlds, and I think that this bill balances that. So I appreciate this. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Bring it back to Senator Archuleta for a motion. Senator. Oh, I'm sorry. Forgive me, Senator. Getting ahead of you. Would you like to have additional close?

Let me just say I really appreciate the questions and the robust conversation because this is complicated in certain ways. But the proof is is that it's worked the last two years. Some of the biggest concerns that were stated have not materialized. And so if there is an outstanding one, and there is one with the one advisory committee issue, I pledge to work with them. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the adaptability in the bill and that work. And I'm not entirely convinced that this isn't, in the aggregate, you know, continuing a net increase in the opportunity for people to participate in the public process. And with that, Senator Archuleta moves the bill. The motion is do pass to Judiciary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We'll place that on call. We'll go back to the top of the docket to dispose of the consent calendar. Is there a motion? Consent calendar is moved. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We'll place that item on call. We'll go back to File item number one. SB53. Wiener. Is there a motion?

Motion?

I was moved by Archuletta. The motion is do pass as amended to Judiciary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Alright, thank you. Place that item on call. Do have another author patiently waiting in the audience. Senator Niello, with respect to file item number six, SB688. Welcome, Senator. Please proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With apologies to my caucus leader for my back being toward him. I am here to present SB688, which would establish the Office of Regulatory Council to serve as a centralized entity that will draft regulations for the executive branch. Very similar in manner to the Office of Legislative Counsel that drafts legislation for the Legislature.

Currently, each agency drafts their own regulations and this really is no easy task for staff that may not be trained to do so, especially considering that there are 600 to 700 proposed regulations annually.

Also currently, the number one reason why the Office of Administrative Law rejects proposed regulations when they are is because of a lack of clarity. This is largely due to the fact that most staff of state agencies are not trained specifically in drafting regulations.

Establishing a centralized entity to write proposed regulations for state departments would reduce misinterpretation and errors while providing easier compliance and streamlined enforcement. A good example of where this office would be more effective is in the promulgation of artificial intelligence regulations. Both the California Consumer Protection Agency and the Department of Civil Rights are developing regulations involving AI.

Having a centralized entity to do this would ensure consistency and clarity in definitions, rules and requirements for this new and very complicated public policy area. Having such an office will improve clarity and understanding of California's regulations, which will bring better understanding and outcomes for Californians striving to comply with state laws and rules.

At the appropriate time, I respectfully request an aye vote and I have two witnesses joining me in support. Well known lobbyist and law Professor, Chris Micheli as well as Chris Walker with the California Association of Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chris Micheli here on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in support of the bill. What's the problem that is attempted to be addressed here? It is. there are six statutory standards by which the Office of Administrative Law reviews promulgated regulations.

Two of them, clarity and consistency are the two most often cited bases for rejecting or disapproving regulations. As Senator Niello mentioned, we think that having a centralized attorneys drafting those regulations will help address those points. I think the most recent example was last month's disapproval by OAL of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard regulations.

OAL identified 26 individual sections that lacked clarity. The hope is that this bill, I know it heads, if it's successful here, would go to appropriations.

Our hope is that it actually wouldn't increase cost to the state because you could utilize in that centralized office existing attorneys that are already out there, just like legislation benefits from having consistent drafting. We think that regulations having consistent drafting will benefit as well. So thank you. Mr. Chair and members.

Mr. Chair, members, Chris Walker, on behalf of the California Association of Sheet Metal Air Conditioning contractors, representing 300 union contractors statewide. We have encountered dozens of regulations over the last 20 years that we've had to weigh in on.

And in observing what is going on with the Administrative Procedures Act, it really is centered on ensuring the public has access to the program, to the regulation, to the rulemaking. And that coming back to Mr.

Micheli's comments, that they're consistent and what I would say clear or understandable for people to implement and for the agency to later enforce when they are not clear, when they are not understandable, that impacts all businesses. But I want to let you know it impacts small businesses disproportionately.

And that's what we've seen over the years in California, is that small businesses continue to get hammered and hammered and hammered by whether it's statutory changes or regulatory changes, while large businesses that have the resources have in house legal, have in house human resources are able to weather the storm and able to overcome unclear regulations.

Small businesses do not and the burden falls upon them. So on behalf of small businesses, on behalf of equity amongst business owners, we would ask that there be some consistency when it comes to the regulatory formation. And for that reason, we're in support of senators bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wish to indicate support on the bill? Please step forward. State your name and or affiliation for the record, please.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and members. Annalee Augustine here on behalf of the Family Business Association of California, in support.

Good morning. Sabrina Lockhart on behalf of the California Attractions and Parks Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to indicate support for the bill? Seeing none. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill or individuals wishing to indicate opposition to the bill? Seeing none, bring it back to the committee for discussion or deliberation. Bill is moved by Senator Wahab. The motion is due. Pass to appropriations.

Please call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry, Senator. I keep doing this, I'm in a hurry. Would you like to add any closing comments?

One of the concepts of salesmanship is when you sense that the deal is closed, you just shut up.

Very well said, Senator. Thank you. Please call the roll.

Pavia.

Aye.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you. Place that on call.

Thank you.

Know that we have any other authors pending?

No. Not at the moment.

I could suppose I could do that. Be respectful of my colleague's time. They're all giving me the look. We'll transfer the gavel to our esteemed Vice Chair and give me a moment, I'll present.

Here we go. Members, we'll now move to File Item 10, SB 388, authored by our wonderful chair, Senator Padilla. Feel free to begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present SB 388, Latino Commission. It seeks to establish the California Latino Commission to serve as a powerful tool for policy change in research and advocacy, that improves the economic well-being and social mobility of Latinos across our state.

One in every four Latino Americans in this country lives in California, and within the state, we make up 40% of the population. Consistent research shows that Latinos face widespread challenges in California, across key issues including education, housing, health, and economic mobility.

In a study conducted by the UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Institute, Latinos were found to have lower levels of educational attainment, compared to the state and national averages. 17% of California Latino families live below the poverty line, which is 4% higher than the state average.

And more than half of California's workers who are at high risk of being impacted by automation are Latino. Addressing these systemic issues requires the development of a cohesive 21st century agenda for Latino social mobility and economic development.

This proposal mirrors existing commissions that we have in California, such as the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, and the Commission on Asian and Pacific Islanders. The Commission will be tasked with making recommendations to the Governor and to the Legislature, developing initiatives, monitoring progress, and tackling disparities.

Importantly, it will empower subject matter experts who will have a direct role in shaping the Commission's agenda. The issues Latinos face in California vary across the state, some with more urban challenges and those more commonly found only in rural areas.

The Commission will act as a focal point for experts to address the community's diverse needs, across the state, through its ability to conduct research, develop strategies, and outline recommendations across key issues. Will consist of nine appointed Members, three from the Governor, three from the Assembly, and three from the Senate.

The individuals appointed must demonstrate expertise in areas where Latinos are facing disparities, including, but not limited to, housing, education, stem, labor rights, public health, and workforce opportunities. Uh, where are my witnesses? Come on up. Sorry, I should have invited you up earlier. Forgive me, Madam Chair.

With me Today, I have Dr. Amada Armenta, Faculty Director, UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Institute, and Silvia Gonzalez, Director of Research for LPPI. Following their testimony, I would respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

Remember, you have two minutes.

Yes, thank you. Good morning. Thank you. My name is Dr. Amada Armenta. I'm a Faculty Member at UCLA and the Faculty Director of UCLA LPPI. Here to share why SB 388 is so important.

You know, California has successfully created commissions to elevate the needs of other marginalized communities and address disparities, including commissions on Women and Girls, AAPI Affairs, amongst others. Yet Latinos, who make up nearly 40% of our state population, lack this sort of focused infrastructure.

At LPPI, in a state where Latinos comprise the plurality of the state, we think that every issue is a Latino issue, and that a Latino Commission could help address disparities, because Latinos in California are still being left behind.

For example, Latinos make up over half of students, K-12 students in California, yet face persistent achievement gaps, as well as access—gaps in access—to resources, funding, and college pathways. If we think about Latino students and community college, who want to go on to four-year universities, only 2% are able to transfer within two years.

Fewer than 1/3 are able to transfer within six years. When we think about Californians with a bachelor's degree, only 14% of all Californians with bachelor's degrees are Latinos. This has tremendous downstream effects, in terms of economic mobility, the ability to accumulate wealth and pass it on to your children, the ability to own a home.

So, when Latinos in California face these kinds of barriers, when they can't achieve their full potential and achieve the California dream that we all strive for, our state suffers.

That's why we support SB 388, to establish California's First Latino Commission, to ensure that the state keeps Latinos front and center, because they are so important to the state's future. Thank you.

Right on. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair Padilla and Members of the Committee. My name is Silvia Gonzalez. I am Director of Research at the Latino Policy and Politics Institute. Also here to support SB 388. LPPI is California's top research center focused on providing data to inform policy for the state's 15.7 million Latinos.

Our support for SB 388 is rooted in the historic opportunity, that you're creating here, to better understand and to respond to the diverse needs of Latino communities. A Latino Commission would bring together experts to develop targeted solutions to long-standing disparities in our community. LPPI's research has identified persistent disparities that a Latino Commission could help tackle.

For example, our data in the recent wildfires in Los Angeles show that Latino jobs were hard hit. Yet, Latinos will be central to recovery, because we make up 84% of construction workers in Los Angeles County. Many of these workers are all self-employed. They're small businesses that have access to few resources.

These workers are already experiencing unsafe working conditions, during cleanup and rebuilding efforts, that are exposing them to toxic chemicals. So, these risks are also made worse by the pre-existing health and environmental disparities in the places where we live, not just where we work.

For example, in Latino neighborhoods in Los Angeles, 14% of residents are uninsured, compared to just 3% in white neighborhoods. People are exposed to two times the amount of diesel pollution, and asthma-related ER visits are also twice as high. These inequities harm Latino communities not only at work, but again, at home.

We need intentional policies, and we need an intentional space to be able to address these deep disparities. A Latino Commission will ensure these urgent issues aren't overlooked, and that our communities have the support they need before the next health, economic, or natural disaster hits home. For these reasons, LPPI strongly supports SB 388 and urges your vote today.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses here in support that would like to state your name, your organization, and your position, please?

Good morning, Vice Chair and Members. Alejandro Solis, on behalf of First Day Foundation, California Human Development, Central Valley Opportunity Center, Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, La Cooperativa Campesina de California, and Los Amigos De La Comunidad, all in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Cynthia Gomez, on behalf of CHIRLA, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, in strong support.

Good morning. Maria Morales on behalf of Hispanas Organizers of Political Equality, in strong support.

Thank you. We'll now move to any witnesses we have in opposition. Seeing none. We'll now bring the discussion back to our Members. We have a motion. Any discussion? Senator Bogh.

Hi, good morning. So, it's very interesting.

Question, when we look at the data for, for the academic achievement—I sit on the...I'm the Vice Chair for the Committee on Education here in the Senate—there's been a lot of efforts targeted towards ensuring that we have programs that, especially, for first time generation college-bound students, there's been a lot of effort, funding, and programs, to ensure that these students actually have a shot at attending higher ed, or college degrees, whether it's community college, career tech, or UC/CSU.

So, there's been a lot of efforts in achieving that.

My question to you, one of the questions that I have, is when we're looking at the 14% bachelor's degrees for the Latino community, and we look at the fact that they're not succeeding academically here in California, we see similar kind of data when it comes to our black students also not being able to achieve academic success to a degree.

So, we're seeing that quite a bit with communities of color. My question to you, when it comes to the Latino population, is, how many of them are actually students that have just migrated to the United States?

The reason I ask is because many of the economic opportunities, education, and job opportunities, may be impacted by the fact that there's a language barrier.

And so, when we're looking at the Latino population, as far as achieving financial—I don't know—definition of success, or higher income wage jobs, or educational opportunities, how many of them are literally just immigrated, or migrated to the state, or to the U.S.? Are we keeping track of that?

Because, and the other question I ask, when they're assessing them as far as academic success, per, say, standardized testing, are they being tested in their primary language, or are they being tested in the secondary language, which is English, before they have actually been reclassified to English language proficiency?

Madam Chair. Just briefly, and then I'll defer to Dr. Armenta, because it seems like a data subset question based on her testimony. But I'll say, I'm not certain the relevance to the framework of the Bill, would be my answer. And I'm not sure, I'm not sure what immigration status.

I mean, the, the statistic that was quoted by Dr. Amenta dealt with the percentage of Latinas holding undergraduate degrees. But I'll defer to the—my witness.

Madam Chair, if I may, if I may address the concern of the question. The data was presented as part of the witness justifying the Commission, so I'm just trying to act, and actually get clarification for the data that was presented, in testimony.

Yes, please.

So, I will say, I don't have exact numbers on the question that you're asking, as far as how many of the proportion of students, Latino students, are recent migrants. I will say, just generally, when we think about Latino disparities in socioeconomic mobility, research shows that actually there is a third generation decline amongst Latinos.

So, in other words, for the second generation, they tend to do better than their parents—the first generation who are immigrants. In the third generation, that's not true. The third generation actually does worse than the second generation.

So, cultural, societal factors may be posing there. The reason I'm asking is that, as Legislator, it's truly my opinion that we should be working for all Californians. And this is coming from a Latina.

This is coming from a Latina Republican who literally believes that I was elected to represent all of my constituents regardless of race, ethnicity, or economic status. I have an open-door policy, and I have reservations that, that we continue to advocate for certain ethnic groups based on— because of—economic factors.

I think the underlying economic factor where people, people in general, are not successful, should be looked at, not necessarily be focused on ethnicity based.

And so, that's, that's the point that I—the concern—that I have right now with creating more commissions based on color of skin or ethnicity, rather than trying to address issues systemically, that are based on economic demographics.

If we can access or address issues economically, in systems that impact people economically, I think all Californians would benefit from that, because we have folks from a variety of different cultural backgrounds, ethnicities.

But to have, I mean, I can't imagine how many commissions we would have addressing every single ethnicity in our state, rather than just focusing on all Californians, every resident here, regardless of ethnicity, and focus on their, on their economic ability to, to thrive. It's one of the reasons why I have a reservation on this particular Bill.

I find it essentially potentially discriminatory to any other ethnic group, in our state, that we, as elected, are required to represent. So, based on that, I just wanted to get clarification on that, because I do think that we should have that dialogue and that conversation based on data.

But also, but having a Commission based, specifically in that, would be a concern for me.

Madam Chair, I can handle and close, if I can.

Yes, we have—Senator Archuleta has a question.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. And I think there is a need for the Commission. Why is it that these disparities are there? How do we ever bring it to the surface, to bring our dirty laundry, in essence, to the surface? Because California has failed so many, and we have to bring recognition to that failure.

And the best way to do it is to investigate. This Commission will investigate. It will find out why. And if it's there in our grammar schools or junior high schools, or elementary schools, I think it'll expose that.

If it's in the fact that we don't have enough medical doctors that speak the language, or the nurses, or the PAs, we don't have librarians that are able to welcome these children to come in and say, "I'd like to learn more," because of the disparity.

And I think with the numbers that we have, I think we heard 45% across the State of California are Latinos. Granted, there's a lot who don't speak the language as well as they can, but we can do that educationally.

But if we don't have the stats, if we can't investigate, if we can't put it on the governor's desk, then we're failing these young men and women who want to achieve, to be the professional, to sit on this dais, because it won't happen, because of the fact that I will look across the room.

And I had—I said—Senator Padilla there. You have Senator Archuleta here. And then we have a third Senator. Only three males in the Senate, and my colleague from, gosh, where's...Oakland. Yes. And only three males. With the number of people, we are family fathers, we are family grandfathers, and brothers, and so on. Why are there only three?

We have, I believe, seven women that are Latinas, that are here. Yes, Republican and Democrat. Well, we need to find out what we can do to improve and balance the scale. And I think this is what it's all about. Balancing the scale, reach down and helping those who need help.

Because the higher we raise the bar, the higher, the better the educational standards, the more people will be served. So this Commission, I think, is needed, and I applaud the Senator for bringing it forward, and I will move the Bill at appropriate time. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Senator Weber.

Good morning, Senator, thank, and to your witnesses, thank you so much for coming today. Was not originally planning on speaking on this, but, you know, I want to highlight the fact that, you know, we are elected to represent all of our constituents in our district and every single one of our residents here in California.

And in doing so, we have to look to see if certain individuals, certain groups, may need something a little different. Looking at everyone and treating everyone the same has not worked.

When we look at African American children, for example, and I am a strong advocate for African American children, California is 39th out of 42, in terms of our third and fourth graders being able to read at their grade level. That's not a language issue. It's not even an economic issue.

And unfortunately, when you look at states, like red states, who have taken this on and realized that they need to focus on this group, they need to do something called cultural competency within their education level, they are now doing better than we are, because they recognize that a little bit more, or something different, needs to be done for a group of individuals, for whatever reason, to improve their overall outcomes.

And so, when we have something like this, it recognizes the fact that, in order to get everyone on the same playing field, and to provide the same opportunities, that certain groups may need a little bit more, or a little different. And for that, I strongly support this Bill.

And in doing so, recognize that I am doing it, as I'm representing all Californians.

Because if we have groups that continue to be at the bottom, if we have groups that continue to not be able to succeed, then we, as a state, whether you're black, white, female, Asian, male, whatever, we will all ultimately end up suffering from that. And so, I will be supporting this, and thank you for bringing it forward.

Thank you, and I just want to say that I deeply respect the intent of this Bill, and I am, too, very passionate about improving outcomes across the board for Latinos and all Californians. I'm going to support this Bill, but I do have some reservations, and I do have, unfortunately, a long list of questions for you.

First, you had both mentioned, and were well aware of, the lack of outcomes for students in California and specifically, Latino students. And I noticed in your recommendations for the Participation and the Commission, that there's no mention of charter schools.

And Latino students make up a significant portion of students in California, as I think you said, it was 54%. And in charter schools, they're about 52.4%. Given that, and given that charter schools have shown strong academic outcomes for Latino students, there are studies showing improvements in graduation rates, and math performance, and UC and CSU eligibility.

Shouldn't we include charter school representatives in this Commission, to ensure that their success and challenges are a part of the conversation? And would you be open to adding this representation to the Commission?

Madam Chair, I reject the premise of the question. I think the language in the Bill, as drafted, points to an area of subject matter expertise, makes no reference to the composition of the type of district from which they come. The intent of the Bill is to make sure that you consolidate appropriate expertise in one place.

Okay, so then, so then my question. So you wouldn't be open to specifically adding a charter school representation to the Commission?

Madam Chair, I did not say that. I said that the Bill's language talks about concentrating specific areas of professional expertise, in composition here, which is appropriate. It does not address, nor in my opinion, should it, from which—what—construct they come.

In other words, the work of this Commission, in my view, would be too important to get ensnared in those political battles.

Okay. So, the other thing that I think there is some concern about, when it comes to the Commission and establishing this Commission, is that it could potentially conflict with Proposition 209, which prohibits race and gender-based discrimination in state programs.

And specifically, are there safeguards, in terms of the recommendations that the Commission will offer, to ensure that they're not violating Proposition 209?

Well, I think both in the intent phase and the dialogue with ledge counsel, certainly when they look at drafting language, that's part of that legal analysis, and that has not been flagged, that wouldn't be my position that that would be a concern here.

And do you have any concerns about that, in terms of the recommendations of the Commission, either of the witnesses? Okay. So are we—and then my last question is really around accountability. You know, I am a bit nervous that it's going to take some time for the Commission to get up and running.

It's going to take some time for recommendations to be presented to the Legislature. And Latinos, families, and Californians need solutions now.

And I would hope that our policy recommendations, whether it's the monies that we invest in UCLA, as a think tank on Latino policy, whether it is our own work here in the Legislature, that we take action now on recommendations that we know already exist from UCLA, from our constituencies.

And I'm just, I do want to ask if you think that this is going to stall our work, our immediate work needed, by waiting for recommendations versus moving forward recommendations today?

Madam Chair, my view is that this actually improves and focuses what needs to be done, which is the point of consolidating, in one place, many different areas of expertise, to focus on a problem.

Thank you. And so, I have no further questions.

Madam Chair, if I may.

Yes.

So, I just wanted to speak up, given that I am a co-author, as well, on this Bill we have before us today.

You know, I believe that, what has been stated already, the contributions that Latinos have made, whether it's in California's economy, culture, or workforce, we still do face a lot of disparities, especially in my region, when it comes to health care needs.

And I do believe that a Commission could provide a much-needed platform to further influence state policy, as well as addressing further inequities that exist, in order to advance all of our social and economic prosperity and opportunities for all families.

And so, I certainly look forward to supporting the Bill, as it moves through the legislative process, and want to thank the witnesses today for your work on this item. Thank you. Mr. Chair.

Senator Richardson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to, uh, support of the comments of colleagues that have been made today, regarding SB 388. And actually, I want to commend the author for the idea of doing it as a Commission.

As you stated, actually, the Women's Commission has been one of the most successful commissions I think the State of California has had over the years.

When you look at all of the work that they've done, and the fact that you've mirrored it after something that has such a tremendous record, I think is actually quite smart and will hopefully save time, as the Chair had asked the question on.

One of the things I see is that there's so many different groups sometimes that are coming together to do different things. And so, to have a Commission, as I'm reading the Legislation, that would collectively pull everybody together, I just actually think is, is a great idea.

So, I plan on supporting the Bill. I will say that in my district, I actually represent a minority-majority district, and certainly we do need venues where individuals can come and collectively work on those issues to address them, so we don't have them going forward.

So, I'll be joining the author in support of the Bill and look forward to the work of the Commission. Thank you for bringing it forward.

Senator Wahab.

Thank you. I did move this Bill. I just want to flag that, as I always say, a minority amongst minorities, you know, and largely an invisible community, you know, I understand why so many people get frustrated when there are organizations created to specifically support one specific community. Right?

I think it is the right thing to do, in the sense that, it highlights what are those disparities. And I think you and I have had plenty of conversations where—when—this Commission does their work, it all comes back down to economic issues. Right?

And I stress this enough because it may be, you know, to Senator Ochoa Bogh's comments of, you know, English as a second language, and to being more culturally competent, and much more.

But, if parents are working two or three jobs, if they are moving from rental to rental just because they can't afford to stay in one community, disrupting the child's educational learning at one particular school and moving to another school, and another school, and another school, we are going to see the outcomes we see today. Right?

And when we're talking about some of the lowest paid individuals, the lowest on the socioeconomic, you know, let's say, poll, it is largely black and brown communities. Right?

And then it is also communities like mine that come from a refugee background, that when they come to this country, they may not speak English, they may come with a lack of education, they may come with a lot of other traumas from war, from escaping a number of different things.

So, I, I state that because, yes, creating a Commission may take some monetary funds. It may take time before we actually get anything substantial that we can, you know, potentially work on from a legislative perspective, but it also highlights the need of these communities—elevates their voices—and again, I respectfully move the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Padilla, you're welcome to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. I appreciate the dialogue and the input and the questions. And I would just emphasize that this approach is common and effective across all sectors. It is utilize—consolidation—of expertise in one place to work an identified problem.

To collate resources, and give clarity to those resources, is common in the private sector. It is certainly common in medicine and the professions. It's common in academia.

As my good colleague, the Senator, Dr. Weber, knows, in a clinical setting, if a group of physicians identify a subset of patients that have a unique presentation of problems, or issues, or syndromes, or disease, they will create a consultation panel, a group of other physicians from various expertise that will come together to work that subset, to work that particular presentation of issues, to collate, to focus, and to put all that information in one place, in order to work that subset of patients, and to provide better outcomes.

This is common in those settings. It's very effective. And it is the same theory at work here that then that does not mean, for example, in a clinical setting that those physicians are not treating all their patients. It means that they're utilizing a tool, and an approach, a systemic approach, to working a problem.

And that's what this Bill proposes here. From a policy, social standpoint, we have clear evidence that shows a subset of our population, a large one, are experiencing a set of issues, and this is a vital potential tool to collate and to combine that expertise in one place, to be able to facilitate good policy to that end.

And with that, Madam Chair, I would respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

Thank you. This Bill has been moved by Senator Wahab. The motion is "Do Pass" to Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Item number 11579.

We are move-

My, Senator Limon and I are looking. Yes, thank you. Limon and I are looking to literally switch. I'm going to go to her committee and present and I think I'm going to allow her to do so here and then come back and close with my, my bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a busy morning in the Senate, y'all.

We'll be moving to item number seven, SB702. Senator Limon, you're welcome to be start.

Thank you, chair and colleagues. SB702 requires an annual report by the governor's office and the legislature on the aggregate demographic information of individuals appointed to statewide boards and commissions. The bill requires the report include legislative appointments created by statute. Criticism clarifies data, involuntary data is voluntarily collected and exclude ex officio legislative Members.

This definition of demographic information is reflective of the data that is currently collected by the legislature in their appointment process. Collection and reporting of demographic information of gubernatorial and legislative appointees is a crucial step towards ensuring transparency and embedding good governance principles within our statewide appointment process. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. We'll now move to any lead witnesses you have. You have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. My name is Maria Morales. I'm the policy Director for Hispanas Organized for Political Equality. HOPE is a proud sponsor of SB702. For the past four years, HOPE has partnered with Senator Limon on this critical issue to advance transparency in our statewide appointments.

This includes sponsoring SB782 last year which you supported in this committee and was unfortunately vetoed. We continue this work despite the outcome over the past four years because we acknowledge the public value of providing visibility to the makeup of these statewide boards and commissions and also to the appointment entities that create them.

That is why this year we're expanding on past efforts by also including legislative appointments, further strengthening our call for transparency. This is in line with the Governor's latest veto message which outlined his commitment to signing legislation that called for transparency at every level.

The governor and legislature collectively appoint leaders to more than 580 boards and commissions filling thousands of seats that influence resource allocation, infrastructure and oversight of critical programs. Despite their large impact, there's no existing mechanism to track who is missing from these decision making bodies.

The reporting required in SB702 is not only about ensuring outreach to communities or regions that might not be represented in these spaces, but it is also critical to instilling faith in our communities that California's government is accountable to the people that it serves.

This measure will advance good governance principles for the benefit of the communities who are impacted by decisions made by these statewide boards and commissions. For all of these reasons, we're proud to sponsor SB702 and ask for your aye vote on this measure.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else here in support?

Good morning, Senators and members. My apologies for the late add on, Karen Stadt on Support of Unitis US for SB388.

Morning. Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, we're in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Cynthia Gomez on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, in strong support.

Good morning. I'm Amada Armenta from LPPI, in strong support.

Sylvia Gonzalez from LPPI in strong support.

Thank you. We'll now move to any witnesses in opposition. Seeing none. Do we have any discussion?

So, Senator, you run this bill every year, correct?

That's right. Year five.

Okay. And it moves through the legislature pretty quickly, right?

It does.

And it gets vetoed. Right.

It's gotten vetoed four times and every single time I've had a different veto message.

So this version of it is responding to the latest veto message.

Okay.

Okay. Does it include all the other previous veto messages too?

Every year it's slightly different, yes. Okay.

Do you have a lot of faith in this one?

I. You know what? As long as there is a public need, I got to do the process of representing the community. So faith in the bill, absolutely.

You know, this is one of the few bills that both republicans and democrats largely agree with. This is one that we've even said that we'd be willing to challenge a veto on. So I'm happy to move the bill. I wish you well in this effort as well.

Thank you.

Senator Archuleta.

Well, I think that this time might be it. And I was honored to be co-author on the few last time and I asked to be a co-author again.

Absolutely.

And I'm happy to bring it forward. And I think it's time so we can look at everyone. Where are we getting our commissioners?

What is it that they're looking for, how we can include everyone across the state. And I appreciate your presenting it once again. Thank you. I'd be honored to be a co-author.

I'd love that. Thank you, Senator Wahab.

I would also just like to mention that I would love to add this to all of, for example, the PUC and way where they belong in territory, as well as the CEC and many of the others, because I also know that there's a little problem there too. Right.

So yes. This is part of all of the appointments for all boards and all commissions.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Senator Jones.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm a little cranky.

Oh, go ahead.

Legislature.

Go ahead.

All of us, our colleagues, as I appreciate Senator Wahab's line of questioning, because that's right in line with my line of questioning.

The frustration is that the governor, over and over has vetoed bills during his course of his career here, which shares the same time frame as mine and others. Some of those bills are passed on a partisan manner. All democrats, no republicans. But some of those bills are passed in a bipartisan manner.

It takes a two thirds vote of both houses to override a governor's veto. He's got dozens of vetoes every year that this legislature, the senate has passed unanimously, the assembly has passed unanimously. We have said over and over and over that this is an important issue.

The legislature, who is representative of the entire State of California, has said this is an important issue. Amongst other issues that we have all agreed on. And I think, you know, the press tries to at times show the dysfunction of the legislature and show the disagreement between the two parties or disagreement within the parties.

And you know, which I understand they've got a. But this is an issue where we all agree, and this is a simple issue. And what I- what I can't get my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to agree with is overriding a veto.

We are either a coequal branch of government or we are not a coequal branch of government. I'm not yelling at you. I'm frustrated with all 120 of us, that we won't do that on the simplest of issues that we all agree on.

We're letting this governor lead us around by the nose and tell us how we're going to represent our constituents, the million constituents that each one of us represents. Now, I had a no on this today. I was going to vote no because I'm done. I'm fed up. I'm frustrated. I'm over it. But I like you.

Thank you.

I know you're being. You're trying, but this is the last time. And if we don't do a veto override next time on something, I don't care what if it's a unanimous bill. We've got to hold this governor accountable. We are a coequal branch of government.

Our constituents expect us to do our job when they elect us to come up here and represent them in each one of our individual districts. And if we're not willing to do that, stay home and don't run for reelection. So I'm going to vote aye again because I like you, it's a good idea.

But I'm really encouraging my colleagues on this dais and the rest of the 40 of us. If the assembly is not going to do it, let's start it in the senate and let's get it done and show this governor that we're a coequal branch of government. Thank you.

And for the record, I too, I'm going to be supporting this bill. I'm also willing to support a veto override if that helps in your decision down the road. And I just want to clarify, do you accept the amendments?

I do.

Thank you. Senator you're welcome to close.

You know, I appreciate the robust discussion and just want to express that, you know, as someone who is running a bill and knowing that we are actually limited on the number of bills that we can run, I also think that it should not be lost on my colleagues that there is a deep frustration on my part, too.

I think this has been very bipartisan effort. I think that the state wants to know where, you know, the people of the state want to know who are our representatives. That's all they're asking, who are our representatives? Show us. And so I just want folks to know that that is a deep frustration.

But I continue to bring this forward because there is a need, if there is a public policy need, independent of whether a bill gets signed or doesn't get signed, I believe it is our ability and also an appropriate response to continue to bring this forward. Absent a need, then that's a different question, but the need remains.

And so for those reason, reasons, I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you. This bill has been moved by Senator Wahab. The motion is do pass as amended to Judiciary Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

The vote is ayes 8. Noes 0, we'll put that on call.

The vote is ayes eight, no zero. We'll put that on call.

We're going to open the roll for consent calendar.

Consent calendar. Absent Members: Ashby, Blakespear. Blakespear, aye. Cervantes. Cervantes, aye. Dahle. Hurtado. Rubio. Smallwood-Cuevas. That's 10. Keep it open.

The vote is 10 ayes. We're going to keep that on call. Now move to File item number one. Please open the roll.

SB53, motion is due passes amended to Judiciary. Absent Members. Ashby, Blakespear. Blakespear, aye. Cervantes. Cervantes, aye. Dahle, Hurtado, Rubio, SmallWood-Cuevas.

Seven to one.

The vote is ten, and that is on- ten, zero. That is on call. Now we're going to move to file item number four. Secretary, please call the roll.

That is not-

Ten.

SB470, motions do pass to Judiciary Committee. Absent Members. Ashby. I'm sorry. Valladares.

Uh, Aye.

Valladares. *mumbles*, no, sorry.

Hold on.

Move.

*Unintelligible whispering*

No.

Okay.

Blakespear, aye. Cervantes. Cervantes, aye. Dahle, Hurtado, Ochoa Bogh, Ru- Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas.

Ashby, Blakespear,

Aye

The vote is seven to- seven ayes, one no. We'll put that on call. Now moving to File item number six. Secretary, please call the roll.

SB688, do pass to Appropriations Committee. Ashby, Blakespear. SB688. Blakespear, aye. Dahle, Hurtado, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas. That's 10 to zero.

That vote is 10 ayes, zero no's, and we'll put that on call. Now moving to File item number 7. SB702, Limon, please call the roll.

Absent Members. Padilla, Ashby, Dahle, Hurtado, Rubio, Smallbod, Cuevas, Weber, Pearson. Okay, that's still eight, zero.

...ten. Ten.

The ayes are eight, the no's are zero. We will put that on call. And now move to file item number nine

Got it.

Now, we're now moving to File item number 10. SB388. Padilla, Secretary, please call the roll.

Absent Members. Ashby, Dahle. Dahle aye?

No, no, no,

I'm sorry. Excuse me. Excuse me. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Dahle. Hurtado, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas. That's nine to two. Right.

Now the vote is ayes nine, no's, two. And we will put that on call. Yeah. We are going to go to recess for five minutes.

We'll be returning from recess in 30 seconds.

Thank you. We are back. And we will now move to File item number nine, SB844, Rubio, being presented by Senator Archuleta. Senator, feel free to begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm proud to present Senate Bill 844 on behalf of Senator Rubio. An important Bill that will support California jobs in the horse racing industry and the sport of horse racing.

California law limits the number of out of state horse races allowed to be imported by associations or fares for waging, depending on the number of races taking place in the state on a particular day and particular day.

This Bill adjusts that limit upward by 5, for a total of 80 in order to put associations and fares on a better competitive footing, to accept wages, wagers and to give customers more choices. The Bill has no stakeholder opposition and I respectfully ask for an aye vote on behalf of Senator Rubio.

Thank you, Senator. We'll now move to any lead witnesses and support. Seeing none. Is there anyone here in support? Seeing none will now move to any witnesses in opposition. Seeing none. Will now bring the discussion back to the Members. Senator Jones,

Senator Archuleta This is interesting and I think I supported last year's Bill. Why is there even a cap in the first place?

Well, I think what. What it is. And again, not knowing the Bill as I should, only the author knows the Bill in its entirety. But I will tell you this. In my district, we don't have the horse racing, but right outside we have San Anita racetrack. And the constituents do participate as much as they can.

But what's happening is when you put a limiter on doesn't make us competitive to the race the rest of the country. And I think that's the gist of the Bill. So we can be competitive.

So the cap is limiting competition from outside the state or encouraging. It's encouraging to compete against the rest of that.

We can go out and. And be part of it all. Gotcha. Okay, thank you. Okay.

Yes. I appreciate you filling in for the author. I don't know if you'll be able to answer it, but why just go up five races from 75 per day to 80?

Well, I think the statistics will show you the number of fans that have increased in the participation with the horses and the industry itself. And of course, more races, more. More people, more jobs. And there you go. And that's why it's so important to support this Bill.

Okay. So because the horse racing industry has actually been waning for the last 40 years. So this is an effort to allow the ones that are existing to be broadcast to more places. So. But the question of 75 to 80, which is similar to Senator Jones, why is there a cap at all? I mean, I don't know if.

Well, as you mentioned, if we don't increase the notoriety of. Of the industry and bring in more people, then it's going to be stagnant. So this is an opportunity. Open it up.

And again, as I meant, for jobs, employment and so on, especially in her district, because it is where Santa Anita racetrack is, which is one of the largest in the State of California.

Senator Archuletta let about seven. Technical questions about the Bill. Just kidding.

Well, there is a weight limit on the horses and the jockeys and so.

Got all of that?

Yeah.

Good for you. Thanks for pinch hitting. I'm happy to move the Bill.

Thank you.

Senator, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And. And again, next time in Southern California, visit Santa Anita Race Track. Thank you. Or Del Mar.

Thank you.

San Diego. County. Del Mar. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator. This Bill has been moved by Senator Ashby. The motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee Secretary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote is ayes 10, noes 0 and we will put that on call. We're now going to be moving to file item number 11SB579 by Senator Padilla. Senator Padilla, you are recognized and welcome.

Hello again. Madam Chair and colleagues. Pleased to present SB579. I will begin by accepting committee amendments. As the reach of artificial intelligence technology continues to expand, industries of all kinds are grappling with how and whether to effectively and safely incorporate it into their work. Field of mental health treatment is no exception.

And treatment AI has provided many possible beneficial uses. Can help with clerical work, medical records, administrative tasks and even help screen for anything a provider may have missed. However, also it is being utilized in the field in concerning ways. Artificial intelligence

chatbot therapists have begun to hit the market offering 24 hour "low cost" treatment for individuals in place of a licensed clinician or therapist. Researchers and clinicians alike worry that these bots could do more harm than good if they're able to take the place of a human therapist.

Chatbots cannot be regulated in the same way that a clinician can. Do not hold in the same level of liability or maintain an appropriate discourse with patients. AI does not hold the capacity for basic human empathy, crucial component of responding to signals of distress in a sensitive matter.

There's certainly work to be done to ensure safe and ethical use of AI as it is to be utilized in the mental health field. This bill would require the Secretary of GovOps to convene a mental health and artificial intelligence working group.

Experts on mental health treatment, AI technology, patient advocacy, ethics and public health would come together to discuss and report on potential uses, risks and benefits of AI in mental health treatment and provide recommendations to mitigate the risks and develop training for mental health professionals.

By proactively assessing both benefits and challenges, California has the opportunity to take the initiative on a growing international concern and ensure AI technology can enhance mental health outcomes while safeguarding patients rights and professional integrity. Here today to testify is Tyler Rinde from the California Psychological Association and Sumaya Nahar from the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists.

Thank you, Senator. We'll now move to your lead witnesses. You have two minutes.

All right. Good morning Madam Chair and Members. Tyler Rinde on behalf of the California Psychological Association. The California Psychological Association represents nearly 3,000 licensed psychologists across the state. We're proud cosponsors of SB579 and thank you Senator Padilla for his leadership in introducing the bill.

SB579 would establish a state led workgroup to examine the positives, negatives of AI and implications on the mental health profession and mental health services. We believe that this work group is timely and needed given the complexities of AI, its potentials and what could be reasonable state regulations to grapple with the emerging issue of AI.

I'd like to share an example of where a state led workgroup could be helpful to tackle a complex challenge that is brought forward that Senator Padilla did mention. First, we do know that there are AI chatbots that are purporting to be licensed therapists and harm is being caused today. And it's also mentioned in the analysis.

In one such case, a 14 year old in Florida died by suicide after talking to a character on character.AI where the thera- the licensed therapist, the AI responded inappropriately when the youth was exhibiting signs of suicidality.

In another case, a 17 year old boy with autism in Texas grew hostile and violent towards his parents during a period where he corresponded with a chatbot that was claiming to be a licensed psychologist. While there's myriad of bills that are trying to tackle these issues.

We believe that the state led workgroup would be important important to discuss certain questions such as what algorithm is AI being trained on? How is this data being collected? If you're using any patient information to end up tackling or being training the AI, how is patient consent being given?

Do they understand what is being utilized in these interactions? Should there be regulations on what AI companies could should use private health information for? Are there inherent biases being built into the AIs, as we know that humans are flawed and carry our own biases. How do we know what is effective therapy?

Is talking to a chatbot the same as talking to a human therapist? And should there be regulations on chatbots uses that they can only be used in conjunction with a mental health professional or can they be used as a substitute for licensed professionals?

We know that the character AI is the gross-

Wrap up your comment.

Okay, thank you. For these reasons, we respectfully request your AI vote on SB579. Thank you.

Good Morning. Chair and members, Sumaya Nahar representing the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists. CAMFT represents over 38,000 mental health providers throughout the state.

We are one of the proud cosponsors of SB579 and thank Senator Padilla for his foresight in seeing the complexity of this issue and the need to sit down with a group of stakeholders and come to a unified common sense approach to the ethical, legal and sound integration of health care and the use of AI.

Such issues before the work group would be things such as, providers record keeping. AI could assist therapists with their note taking practices by using an AI enhanced device that would record and transcribe therapy sessions. This could reduce administrative burden for therapists and allow them to use and focus more on patient care.

However, through this practice it also brings up a number of ethical considerations such as where is this data going? What is the data being used for? Does the patient fully understand and consent to their data being shared?

Additionally, what are the long term implications for a therapist that relies on using AI, note taking and writing reports and their skills going forward? Does AI have the underlying understanding of complex mental health diagnosis and subtle variations to aid in the usage versus harm? Does there need to be any regulation or state guidance in this area?

As always, California is on the forefront of new technologies and we want to embrace the value of that giant step, but it must be done in collaboration and in a way that ensures patient protections as well as protection for the providers. For these reasons we respectfully request your support and your aye vote on SB579. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of the bill? Please state your name, your position and your organization.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association, in support of SB579. Also just want to share our appreciation to the author's office as well as the cosponsors for the thoughtful committee amendments today. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists. In support. Thank you.

We'll now move to any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring the discussion back to members. Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

We have a motion by Senator Richardson to- this bill has been moved. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

The vote is ayes 10, noes 0 and we will put that on call.

Mr. Chair, for those. Mr. Chair, for those of us have been here the whole time. That was the last Bill, right?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

It was the last Bill.

Yeah, we can go ahead and lift on all of these. All right, so for the benefit of Members who've joined, we'll go ahead and lift calls starting with the consent calendar. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

All right, consent calendar is adopted. File it. zero, I'm sorry. Still on call. We're still waiting on. Okay. File item number one.

[Roll Call]

The ayes are 12. Replace it on call file item number four.

[Roll Call]

Ayes are nine. Noes are one. We'll place that on call. File item six.

[Roll Call]

Eyes are 12. Noser, zero. Place that on call. File item seven.

[Roll Call]

Ayes are 10, noser 0. Place that item on call. File item number 10.

[Roll Call]

Iser 10, noser 2. Placet item on call. File item number 11.

[Roll Call]

Iser 10, Noser 0. Place that item on call. Okay. We're still waiting on a few Members, Senator. Rubio, Wahab and Weber Pearson. If they could make their way back to lift these the call on these final votes. And in the meantime, the Committee will stand in brief recess, reconvene to lift calls, starting with file item 7.

[Roll Call]

Ayes are 12. Nos are zero. We'll leave that on call. File item number 9.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 11. Nos are 0. Place that item on call. File item number 11.

[Roll Call]

11. Noser 0. Place that item on call. Thank you, Senator. Those are the only one.

Those are the only ones you were missing. Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

Good. Are you still ready?

Waiting on one more?

The Committee remains in session. We will lift calls starting with the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]