Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good morning and welcome to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. In order for us to complete our agenda, allowing everyone equal time, rules for witness testimony are that each side will be allowed two main witnesses. Witnesses will have up to two minutes to testify in support of, or opposition to the Bill.

Additional witnesses should state only their names, organization, if any, other position on the bill. And as we proceed with witness and public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands Committee has rules, to ensure a fair and efficient hearing in order to facilitate the goal of the hearing as much the goal of hearing as much in the public within the limits of our time.

The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time. Must be limited to your name, organization and support or opposition of a bill before the Committee. Comments on other issues will be ruled out of order and microphone may be disconnected.

And there are other rules like don't engage in conduct that disrupts to serves and so on. But I think everyone's going to be very well-behaved today. And so let's go ahead and start as a subcommitee as we await quorum, since we do have an author that came here on time and we appreciate that.

File item two, AB 316, Assemblymember Krell. And you can begin whenever you're ready and whenever your witnesses are set up, you can feel free and go ahead and begin again. This is AB316.

Hi, good morning, everyone. First of all, I just want to say thanks to the chair and to the Committee staff for doing such a thorough analysis on this Bill. This is a very simple, straightforward Bill. AB 316.

It's a modest proposal that by providing guidance to our courts, will help both artificial intelligence fulfill its potential for being a positive force in our state and also prevent unnecessary litigation. As the analysis affirms, this Bill doesn't in any way shape or form change--you know, it doesn't change current law in any way.

It doesn't change what the burden of proof would be for a plaintiff, doesn't create any new theories of liability, doesn't create any new defenses. It's simply a rail guard to prevent to prevent a user or a company that creates AI from then being able to blame the AI for autonomously causing harm.

While the Legislature has tried to do more to regulate AI, and perhaps we should, this proposal is just a basic minimum guardrail that would govern future cases. As the Brookings Institute observed, if companies want to reap the benefits of intelligent algorithms, they also need to be willing to accept the attendant risks. That's all this Bill does.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And I'd like to introduce you to the expert witnesses we have here today. Marc Berman, who is the CEO from the Organization for Social Media Safety, an organization that I've had the pleasure of serving on the advisory board for in the past.

And then also Leora Gershenzon, who some of you know who's a Policy Director for the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. My name is Marc Berkman. I am the CEO of the Organization for Social Media Safety, a national consumer protection organization focused exclusively on social media. We're proud to co-sponsor Assemblymember Krell's AB 316. Part of our mission has always been pre-empting, emerging, and evolving social media related harms.

We testified in this chamber nearly seven years ago warning about the potential harms of AI produced malicious, pornographic deep fakes. Today, even more risks from AI technology continue to reveal themselves. This danger is especially apparent in the form of so called chatbots that enable conversations between users and an AI-powered program.

For example, in 2024, Character AI's chatbot encouraged a 14 year old boy to take his own life. The boy subsequently did. Big Social has eagerly adopted AI technology, quickly providing new features to users, including children. Here's what a Washington Post reporter relayed after Snapchat released, "My AI" its own version of a chatbot.

"After I told My AI I was 15 and wanted to have an epic birthday party, it gave me advice on how to mask the smell of alcohol in pot." In another conversation with a supposed 13 year old, My AI even offered advice about having sex for the first time with a partner who is 31.

I think we can all agree this is dangerous. That's why responsible policymaking to protect families is imperative. AB 316 is a simple bill stating that no company can rely on an AI-powered features, alleged autonomy or independent decision making as a defense in a civil case.

As the Committee analysis correctly observes, nothing in AB 316 addresses whether strict liability should apply. That issue remains to be decided by the courts. In fact, nothing in AB 316 changes anything at all in California's current jurisprudence. Again, it simply states what we all know to be basic common sense.

If you build an AI-powered feature, if you deploy an AI-powered feature and it causes harm, you should not be able to claim that AI caused the harm, not you. If we learned one thing about social media safety over the last few years is that we need to get ahead of the risks.

Let's not spend years enabling Big Social to litigate a novel legal theory that all of us know makes no policy sense and would leave California families with no protection. Big Social needs to put be put on notice now that moving fast and breaking things with AI should no longer include our children. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Chair and Members. Leora Gershinson with CITED, the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, a project of California Common Cause. We are proud to support AB 316, which seeks to do one rather small thing, which is to stop developers and deployers of AI that actually cause harm from turning around and saying, the AI autonomously did this, this wasn't our fault.

Imagine, for those of you old enough to remember, when Ford Pinto blew up because of faulty gas tanks. Imagine if Ford had said, "Whoa, the gas tank did that; we didn't do that." Of course that didn't happen.

Of course Ford was held responsible and the federal government changed how it oversaw auto safety as a result.

There's no difference if it's Tesla driving on autopilot that crashes into a wall, or as the very sad case mentioned, or if it's a chatbot that tells an impressionable and depressed child to kill themselves and then tells them exactly how to do it. The AI didn't do these things.

The AI was created, was deployed, was used by an entity responsible for that harm. And all this Bill does is one very small thing which says you can't hide behind the AI and say, "Whoa. We don't know how that happened; we had nothing to do with it," to those that are responsible for the causing of the harm.

As the analysis points out. As the author stated very clearly, this Bill does not change the plaintiff's case in chief at all. The plaintiff still has the exact same burden of proof, whether it's strict liability or negligence, foreseeability, breach of a duty, causation, foreseeability, all of that remains the same.

And it will be up to a court or future legislation to deal with that. We think much more needs to be done because more needs to be done to protect us from harms that AI may cause. But this is a great first step and we urge your support.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 316? Name, organization, and position on the Bill, please?

Good morning. Excuse me. Nancy Peverini, on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ed Howard, Senior Counsel at the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law, please to co-sponsor this important measure and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Ivan Fernandez with the California Federation of Labor Unions, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jennifer Tovar of 3Strands Global Foundation. We are a co-sponsor, and we support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. JP Hanna with the California Nurses Association in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 316?

Good morning, Chairman, Members. Robert Boykin with TechNet currently in respectful opposition to AB 316 due to our concerns with the strict liability that this Bill may cause. We're in conversation with the author's office, and we hope you know to continue that discussion as the bills move forward today. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anyone else here in opposition to AB 316?

Katherine Charles, on behalf of the Chamber of Progress and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Back to Committee. Any questions? Assemblymember Stefani?

Thank you Chair. I just want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward into the witnesses for your testimony today.

I mean, this is a common sense Bill, in my opinion, and I am in full support as a mother of two children, especially a 15 year old teenage girl, to see the effects of social media on her and her friends and the damage that can be done.

I think this Bill, like I said, is straightforward and common sense and I would like to move the Bill.

Yeah, we'll have to wait until we have a quorum, but I'll note that when we do go to quorum. Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do agree this is a common sense Bill, not only to be overly simplified, but as we move forward, particularly in other committees like the Privacy and Consumer Affairs Committee, I think this is important foundational work to establish the liability and who's responsible for creating unfortunate outcomes, especially with children. So thank you for doing this. I appreciate it. Thanks.

I agree. I think although AI may be complicated, is a pretty simple proposition to create a foundation that we can build upon as we delve into the more complicated issues of AI. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And when we get a quorum, we can take up a vote on that.

Assembly Bill 251, Mr. Kalra, please proceed.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

AB 251 gives a judge discretion to apply the preponderance of the evidence standard, as the burden of proof, if the court finds intentional destruction of evidence by a defendant, skilled nursing facility, or residential care facility, or for the elderly, also known as RCFEs, in relation to a civil case under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Protection Act.

This narrow, but important, issue will allow access to justice for victims of elder abuse and will deter against spoliation of evidence. The Bill also addresses the Governor's veto, by allowing judges to apply the lower standard, or not, after determination that spoliation of material evidence occurred.

Additionally, most recent amendments were worked out with the California Association of Health Facilities to clarify what would be considered spoliation, if part of a record retention policy and subject to a litigation hold, and as a result are neutral on the Bill.

For those that have been around, you will note that CAHF has been the primary opposition on this Bill, over the years, and opposed it last year all the way to the Governor's desk.

And so, for them to go neutral, I'm very grateful for their work on this with us, and I think that's a really incredible breakthrough on this legislation. Often, elder abuse victims are unable to provide testimony, due to sickness or death, and the unusually high burden of proof in the act can make it nearly impossible to justify a claim.

This difficulty is compounded when there is intentional and willful destruction of evidence relevant to the case. With me to provide support testimony is Tony Chicotel, Staff Attorney with California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, and Nancy Peverini, Legislative Director with the Consumer Attorneys of California.

Good morning. Thanks for the opportunity to testify on behalf of AB 251. For over 40 years, my organization, CANHR, California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, has operated a state bar-certified lawyer referral service for victims of abuse and neglect in long-term care facilities.

And we get calls, pretty much every day, describing abuse and neglect in these facilities, but we only refer a very low percentage of these cases, mainly because of the burden of proof. It's just so difficult to, to have one of these cases. You can't take a tweener case. It's got to be pretty much a slam dunk.

And in elder abuse cases, the quality of the evidence is really important, obviously, but very vulnerable to spoliation, because the victims could be dead or have cognitive impairment; eyewitnesses are few and far between. Spoliation, we think is on the rise because of the advance of electronic health records.

It's really easy to alter records in the electronic health record, and very difficult and expensive to prove that that spoliation happened. So, we need better deterrence, and AB 251 provides it. There are sanctions for spoliation, but none of them is tailored specifically for elder abuse cases.

Where the scales of justice have been tipped by falsified evidence, AB 251 allows a judge to tip them back, by lowering the standard of proof. We think it's a good Bill. We've satisfied the Governor's concern, and we ask that you please vote "Yes" today. Thank you.

Okay. Would you like to speak, please?

Yes. Good—excuse me—good morning. Nancy Peverini, on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California, a co-sponsor of the Bill. This Bill is extremely narrow, but extremely important, and we urge your "Aye" vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other speakers in support? Please come forward to the microphone.

Madam Chair and Members. Pat Moran with Aaron Read and Associates, representing the Retired Public Employees Association, in support. Thank you.

David Feinberg, representing AARP. We are in support of the Bill.

Any other speakers in support? Speakers in opposition, would you like to come forward?

Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris McCauley, on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, in respectful opposition. Sorry to have my back to some of the Members. We appreciate, as always, Assemblymember Kalra and his staff's engagement on important issues such as this.

CJAC has a fundamental concern with allowing a lower standard of preponderance of the evidence, in these types of cases, for two fundamental reasons, rather than sole solely the clear and convincing evidence standard.

The first is we believe it'll result in likely increased litigation, which will result in costs, not only to these types of facilities, but also our state court system. Ultimately, those costs could be borne by the elderly and in reduced services, or increased costs.

The second reason we have that concern is we believe that there are adequate remedies at law. The code of Civil Procedure allows monetary sanctions and penalties to be assessed. Our jury instructions allow juries to take into consideration this type of conduct.

And, of course, judges have significant discretion to assess all kinds of penalties, including terminating sanctions and even directed verdicts. So for those reasons, we respectfully oppose the measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments in opposition, please come forward. Seeing none, I'll bring it back up to the dais. Any comments or questions, or do you want to go for the quorum right now?

Okay, we're going to halt, just for a moment, while we address the quorum.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. Questions from the dais? Any questions?

I have a question. Mr. Kalra, to address comments from the witness in opposition, the existing sanctions and the creation of more suits and potential damage, but that there are existing sanctions and existing law, and it would increase litigation. What are your comments in response to that?

I, I, I don't believe that would be the case. And we have to remember this is very narrow in situations where there's intentional destruction of evidence. I believe, first of all, it will reduce the incidence of intentional destruction of evidence, because those facilities will now adjust the law, with the risk of having a lower standard.

Secondly, it may facilitate settling in situations where these facilities may have engaged in such conduct. And third, we have to remember that the ruling is on, whether there's spoliation, doesn't even occur until post filing. It doesn't happen until much later in the case. So, these cases are already being filed.

What this will do is help facilitate a settlement, before their conclusion, by once a judge, again, giving judges discretion, if a judge, judge is determined that spoliation did occur, now that can help facilitate a settlement.

So, it actually could have the result of cases either not being brought and being settled, prior to coming to court, or in the midst of the proceedings, to have a settlement. Once there's a determination there'll be a lower standard.

So, I think it'll have the opposite effect, honestly, in terms of the amount of cases being brought, as well as how long those cases are going to last in the process.

Okay, thank you. Any comments? Mr. Zbur?

I just want to thank Mr. Chairman for bringing this Bill. I, um, just went through a period of time taking care of an elderly parent, who passed away in November.

And part of that at one point was really looking at—it was during COVID—when she was an assisted living facility and actually moving into, potentially, was told by the assisted living facility that she needed to be in a nursing home. I ultimately brought her into my home instead.

But I remember looking at nursing care facilities throughout the state, and one of the things that was, I think, just really salient to me, is how many people are in nursing care facilities—many cases without families to look after them. And sometimes the only things that are out there are the records that the facilities have themselves.

So, if there is abuse taking place in in the facilities, and people are not being cared for, the only evidence that's out there is, is actually the evidence that the facility has, and they have incentives to not either produce it, or to get rid of it. And that's why this Bill is so important.

And just want to thank you for bringing it. I think it's really, this is about caring for our most vulnerable people, and so just want to thank you. I'm in full support of the Bill.

Any other comments? Yes?

I would just like to concur. While this is unusual—to be lowering the burden of proof—the particular vulnerability of the plaintiffs, I think, really necessitates it. I know you've been at it a long time. I thank you for being reasonable. Let's get it done.

Any other comments? Seeing none. Closing statement?

I will take my colleagues' comments as my close. Respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

[Roll Call]

Oh, uh, the vote will stay on call. Need one more. Thank you. And the Chair is coming back.

If we can have a motion on the consent calendar. And so we have a motion second. That's. Yeah. Okay, so we'll go ahead and list it out and then take the vote on that consent.

Includes AB418 Wilson to Appropriations, AB498 Michelle Rodriguez, AB540 Connolly, AB561 Cork Civil to Appropriations, AB565 Dixon as amended, AB708 Valencia as amended, AB1170 Dixon and AB1297 Stephanie.

[ROLL CALL]

Alright, consent calendar is out. Do we have a motion on item two? AB316 Krell. Okay.

Okay, seconded.

So some member Stephanie is moving in the Krell Bill. Correct? And then some Member Harabedian is the second. So can we get a roll call vote on that, please?

Motion is due. Passed to Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. [ROLL CALL]

All right, that bill is out. Okay. Okay, Assembly Member Ward is here. File Item Five: AB 474. So whenever you're ready, Mr. Ward, you can go ahead and proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. I'll ask my support witnesses to come up. And good morning. Here to present AB 474. This bill really truly seeks to expand some housing opportunities for low-income Californians, particularly older adults, and it helps to simplify and incentivize the process of renting out your room for available bedrooms through a non-profit home share program model that already exists.

AB 474 incentivizes non-profit home sharing by a few ways: one: exempting rental income earned by low-income owners from state income tax and by ensuring that that additional income earned through any home sharing does not disqualify them from other essential social welfare programs for which they already qualify.

Second, as was well-stated in the committee analysis--thank you--AB 474 extends an existing common sense exemption to State Housing Law in which a person renting a room in an owner-occupied home can legally choose whom they rent to, despite state discrimination law.

And finally, AB 474 improves some tenant protections by removing the lodger law, albeit I know that this has received some points of opposition and this is an area I want to continue to work on right now, because the lodger law, we recognize in practice, while well-intended, has been vague and inconsistently enforced. Law enforcement typically refuses to even remove residents without an official court order, despite the law's intent.

And so when successfully used as--its--we see it actually is serving a loophole for property owners to circumvent some of California's strong tenant protection laws, and in fact, the intention of including it in this bill is to make sure that tenants who otherwise would want to be able to take advantage of this new home sharing opportunity would be able to have better assurances that their tenancy would be secured by using more traditional lease model examples.

It's an area I do want to continue to work on because I know a number of committee members do have concerns about this as well. Chair and members, we know that we have a housing crisis and our older adult population is disproportionately affected.

This bill, AB 474, will help to alleviate some of the burden of the housing crisis on our older population by incentivizing increasing access to non-profit home sharing programs. We believe it's well-suited for particularly older adults as many live alone in large, single-family homes, but they struggle to pay their mortgage, property taxes, and other basic living expenses, and so this actually serves multiple purposes, multiple wins.

For witnesses in support, I have Luke Barnesmoore, the Director of Strategy with Home Match Front Porch Community Services, and Dr. Angie Perone, the Director of Center for Advanced Study of Aging Services School of Social Welfare at UC Berkeley. We also have with us, Harrison Linder, the Assistant Director of Housing Policy with LeadingAge to answer any technical questions.

Great. Good morning, members of the Judiciary Committee. I am Dr. Angela Perone, Director of the Center for Advanced Study of Aging Services and Assistant Professor at the University of California, Berkeley School of Social Welfare. My comments made today are in my personal capacity and do not represent the views of the University of California.

I'm here today to provide expert testimony on AB 474. Older adults comprise the fastest growing group of people experiencing homelessness in the United States, representing half of the people who are unhoused. Among unhoused adults 50 and older in California, about 41% experienced homelessness for the first time at the age of 50.

First-time homelessness is not limited to older renters. Low-income older adults who own their home may be one mortgage payment, one tax bill, or one health care bill away from losing their homes. Non-profit home share programs help to mitigate some of these challenges. I'm co-leading a study on home sharing programs in California with Dr. Molly Calhoun from Cal State Chico and Dr. Susanna Curry from Cal State Sacramento.

Our research builds on prior studies highlighting potential benefits of home sharing for home providers and home-seekers, including a stronger sense of safety and security, help with tasks to age in place, and reduced loneliness and social isolation.

For example, Mary--these are pseudonyms, of course--Mary, a 76-year-old widowed home provider, told us this: 'I was lonely. It was eerie. I always liked the tenants for company.' Carmen, a 68-year-old home-seeker, told us that her home provider struggles with her mortgage and Carmen's rent helps. Both of them are older adults.

Tannet, an older divorced woman, told us that she was two steps away from sleeping in her car before the home share program, again an older adult. In regions affected by wildfires, home share programs have offered innovative solutions for older adults and others who have lost their homes, including older adults.

Ultimately, AB 474 can help curb rising rates of homelessness, particularly among low-income older adults. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Luke Barnesmoore, and I'm the Director of Strategy for Front Porch's Home Match Program. Front Porch is a 50 plus year non-profit that provides housing and services for older people across the State of California.

Home Match connects older people with an extra room in their home or apartment or an additional unit on their property like an ADU, with community members seeking more affordable housing options, all at no cost to participants. At present, Home Match operates in four Bay Area counties with plans to expand in the coming years.

We provide support with room readiness, vetting of participants, introductions based on compatibility, facilitated agreements on shared use of space, and ongoing support throughout the time that participants are living together.

Shared housing programs leverage existing housing stock to meet a range of needs, from increased access to truly affordable housing options for tenants through increased financial and social support for our older home providers. Our providers are a diverse group of people, but the average provider is 70-years-old, female identifying, living at home alone, and seeking a blend of financial and social support through participation in the program.

Financial support comes via rent paid by the tenant and social support comes in the form of companionship and in some cases a task exchange where the tenant provides up to ten hours a week of support with household tasks or errands in exchange for reduced rent.

We work with an even more diverse range of home-seekers, but there are two primary groups. First, other older people, often between 55 and 70, who are living on low fixed income and left with renting a bedroom as the only alternative to displacement or homelessness.

Second, younger people between 25 and 35 who work in local restaurants, schools, and the like. In another generation, these younger people would have been able to afford a studio or one bedroom, but given the affordability houses--the affordability crisis in the Bay Area, they're left with the choice between renting a bedroom and a commute of two or three hours or more.

AB 474 will incentivize providers to participate in the program and ensure basic tenant protections for our home-seekers, who again, are very often at risk of homelessness and/or displacement if they are kicked out of their homes in a short period of time.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 474?

Hello. Harrison Linder with LeadingAge California. We're proud to be sponsoring this bill.

Thank you.

Catherine Charles, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 474?

Stairs and docks.

You can take your pick. You can stay up there, come here, wherever it feels comfortable.

I'll just stand here if that's okay. First of all, I want to thank the author for agreeing to work with us on the lodger language and I want to thank the supporters. You do great work. I think our--the California Apartment Association--and I'm Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association--still has concerns about striking the lodger language. That language was written to help the individuals who bring in somebody into their home without--and the seniors who agree to bring somebody into their home.

It would be really unfortunate if they had to go through the very long eviction process, sometimes takes six months or longer. Under the current statute, they can call local enforcement to help them remove somebody who is threatening to them or making them feel uncomfortable in their home.

Granted, some local enforcement officers won't do it, but some will, and so we would like to work with the Assembly Member to continue to clarify that statute and make sure that the seniors feel safe in their home when they invite somebody to live in a room. So thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition or with concerns on AB 474? Bring it back to the dais. Assembly Member Connolly.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone. Really appreciate the author bringing this bill forward. Fully understand the intent. It's great to have groups like Home Match doing the good work out there and certainly looking at creative solutions to our housing crisis, matching folks who may have room in their homes with those who need a place to live, including our homeless population.

I do have concerns though about the lodger language. I think opposition kind of stated those, but just to reiterate, my understanding, if I'm correct, is you're completely eliminating that language in the current draft. You cite the goal of that we want tenants to take advantage of this law.

I would submit the other side of the coin is we want folks who may be debating whether to allow a stranger into their homes may also be thinking about whether it's worth their while. If it's going to be way more of a burden if the tenant turns out to be a problem to correct that issue, they're not going to do it.

I think there's probably a balance here, it sounds like, and maybe you can reaffirm you'd be willing to continue to work through that issue, I think--but I think completely eliminating that protection is probably not the way to go. I'm willing to support it today with an understanding that conversations are continuing in that regard.

Thank you, Senator Connolly. Yes, the commitment is there for everybody else interested that we will continue those conversations. I do--I just wanted to say I have one of the rare privileges of having a triple referred bill, so this will receive, should it move forward, plenty of conversations and opportunities to check the work that we are doing and how those conversations are going.

It sounds like the bill needs a lodger law in the Legislature.

Yeah, it's--we're going to be looking at things through multiple lenses. I think again, like if I can reiterate, there are a lot of good reasons that Ms. Carlton with the Apartment Association and you and others are raising as well about the intention of the lodger law and what we want to do from the homeowner's perspective.

We also recognize that as clunky as its implementation has been in practice, that it might otherwise be serving as a barrier to some of these match opportunities, and I would only highlight that in situations like this under application of this bill, it's for those that are working through a home profit--a non-profit home sharing model program that really seeks to make sure that there are good matches. So there's a little bit of check in place.

This isn't just like Craigslist ads that are going up and like that's not going to work out, but I see your point very strongly and sincerely and I want to continue to work on it.

And I, as well, I see yours around the ambiguity of the current situation, so it could be tightened up one way or the other. So appreciate that.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Zbur.

I think Assembly Member Connolly pretty much said what I articulated, the concerns I had, and I appreciated the conversation that we had yesterday and I know that Assembly Member Ward committed to continue working on this issue.

I think just adding a little bit, you know, when I look at sort of the equities here and just, I think just, sort of being in the realm of having so many members of my family now in sort of really elderly ages, I think expecting when you look at the equities out there, expecting someone who is a senior to sort of go through a complicated eviction process is something that I think is both going to prevent folks from doing this if they understand it, and if they don't understand it, I just, you know, it sort of breaks my heart to sort of see someone where they actually are in their own home.

I think it's a different circumstance then when you actually have a tenancy in an apartment where you're living alone, but in their own home, they're feeling unsafe. They, it just isn't working and then they have to go through a very long process out there. So I would encourage you to, you know, address this issue. I think it really is an important one. And with that said, I think this bill is great, and so we'll be supporting it today. Thanks.

Appreciate the consideration.

Thank you. Assembly Member Harabedian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Want to thank the author as well for bringing the bill. I think it's really innovative and appreciate the conversation we had and your ability to kind of work through the lodger law concerns which I share with my colleagues.

My question--and it really is a question that I hope we can address--why are we limiting this to lower income households? So to me, I think it's a great idea because I think it does incentivize more people to get housing and I think it does match a lot of kind of demand with supply.

I would hate to limit it to only households under a certain income in certain areas. I mean this could be a great opportunity for anyone. So why, why limit it to only lower income households?

Thank you for the question. A couple of things. One: you know, this bill would apply to those that are utilizing a non-profit home sharing model and a lot of the, I guess, clients that are served right now are focused on some of the more vulnerable populations that we have and that is our low-income seniors. So by, by reference--by deference there, that is sort of the client base that we are working on.

Secondly, you know the--although it's not the jurisdiction of this committee, the tax benefits that we propose through this model here are geared towards lower income Californians to one: make sure that we're not, you know, burdening them with extra, the tax implications of extra income, and more importantly, they're not disqualifying them for benefits that they're already obtaining right now should they qualify for say, CalFresh or some government program. That's a false choice, renting out your room or falling off the rolls, right?

We want to make sure that these false choices aren't creating a barrier, so these sort of, you know, more directly affect low-income Californians just because of the specific application of this bill.

Yeah, if I could--?

Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you. Harrison Linder with LeadingAge California. We're sponsoring the bill. Just to clarify, the only piece of the bill that is limited to low-income people is the tax exemption, the income exemption. So anyone can participate in a non-profit home sharing program for the most part.

The only piece of the bill that we're putting this low-income sort of guardrail in is on the tax exemption because we don't necessarily believe that someone who's got a high income needs a tax exemption.

Yeah, appreciate that. Appreciate the responses. I just think we're leaving a lot on the table and I think that you will incentivize more people to do it by actually giving the tax benefit to any household. And I'm thinking about the tenants.

I'm thinking about folks who--especially in my district now with so many people being displaced who are just looking for a room. And I will tell you, most people will be, I think, hesitant to do this. You know, it's hard just to bring someone into your house, share a kitchen and everything else unless you have some, some incentive.

So I think that we can think bigger. I think this is a great bill. I'm going to support it with the lodger law issue being worked out, but I'm not sure why we're limiting it to lower income households. So I will move the bill, but something to think about. Thank you.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, and thank you, Mr. Ward, for our conversation as well. I had a couple questions. You said that the lodger law was only being repealed for people in this program. As I read the bill, it's repealing the lodger law writ large. So I want to clarify that.

That is accurate. It would clarify, but again, these are the areas that we want to work out. It could be one outcome of this, again, with, you know, meeting the interests of some of the opposing views is that there could be a narrow exemption. I want to leave everything on it--

Okay, got it.

But it would--you're right. For this to be signed into law, it would fully repeal the lodger law.

Right. So I just--when you did your opening remarks--and I know I wasn't here, but I was listening online--you said that your intent, and I think you said it again, was to make it harder to remove someone who is in the room. I mean, I think that's what I heard you say because you do want to protect those individuals that are renting. I guess that's my concern with the lodger law is that I do think it is different than someone who is living in an independent unit, than someone who is living in your home.

One of--my mom's best friend, when her spouse died, rented her room for a lot of reasons; one: to bring in the income, one--it also, to make her feel safer, to be honest, to not be alone. So there's actually going to be benefits that make someone feel safer.

On the other hand, I know that as a senior woman living alone, if that person would have become a threat or she would have felt threatened by that person, the last thing I would have wanted was for her to have to go through the very, very lengthy and difficult eviction process because it is a different situation than if someone is in a unit by themselves.

There is no safety risk. You know, if someone is harassing someone, I just--so I think I'm concerned that we have a difference of opinion. I actually don't want it to be as hard to evict these individuals. So I guess I want to understand from you, as you say you're working on this, I know we don't have the language, but I want to understand what your goal that you're going to get to in the lodger law is. Like, what are you trying to achieve?

The goal there is to make sure that there are rules of understanding so that if somebody wants to take advantage of a home sharing program right now, that they know that they will also be secure, and I get that the--there's two parties here as well: the owner and the renter.

We do want to continue to work on that, and I might actually turn this maybe to our witnesses about their experience running these models and why this would be of interest to the tenants that don't necessarily undercut the interests of the homeowner.

So I just want to start by saying that we support all of the reasonable exemptions that exist for someone who's renting a bedroom in a single-family owner-occupied home. For example, you don't need to provide just cause to terminate a lease. In all of the counties where we run our program, lodger law is not enforceable.

Please.

And we do have older folks coming to us saying, well, an attorney told me that this is on the books and I can just use a licensing agreement and then I won't have to go through an eviction process. And the reality is that as presently enforced in Marin, San Francisco, Alameda, and most parts of Contra Costa County, if they were to try and call law enforcement and have someone removed as a trespasser because they had reclassified them as a lodger rather than a tenant, they wouldn't be able to.

So I think we're having a conversation here about a protection that's not actually in place for our home providers, and we believe that a shared housing program, which vets participants, which ensures that there are expectations on the table before move in, and which provides ongoing support. We've only had one unlawful detainer filed over hundreds of matches in the last five years and that was only in San Francisco, where the landlord-tenant policies are unique compared to other jurisdictions in terms of how they're enforced.

She would agree with you, I'm sure. So, I guess--

So we agree that there should be reasonable exemptions for older people who are renting a bedroom in their home, but we don't think that the proper remedy is to say to a tenant who has a landlord that's trying to illegally raise their rent and they push back on that illegal raise of the rent and then the landlord issues notice that there should be some sort of recourse for a tenant.

And we believe that without the ability to go through an eviction process, you're putting older people who are living also on a low fixed income, the 70, 80-year-old home-seeker, in a position where they could be removed in seven days and become homeless.

So I think there should be a remedy here and I think that free legal services for low income older landlords, that home sharing programs that provide ongoing support to folks who are in these matches, real ways of mitigating the risk, are more important than a statute that's not actually enforced that gives people a false sense of the kind of recourse they might have and actually might lead someone who would otherwise be uncomfortable with entering into shared housing to create a match under false pretenses.

So I guess that what I'm thrown off by is that the landlords do think it's working. So they, I mean, their representative is here saying that they believe--and I mean, I think she did say not every jurisdiction. I know it's hard for her to move, so I don't want her to have to come up again, but I try not to misspeak.

So I guess they are feeling like it is working in some circumstances, and part of my hesitation here--and I actually want to say I completely agree with my colleague that the carrots in this bill are fantastic. I think the CalWORKs piece in and of itself is brilliant.

I think what you are doing here is incentivizing people to share their homes in a state where we know that would be a real solution for people and for people who are suffering homelessness, but I also agree with the other side that if I'm a vulnerable person and I don't think there's a way out, then I'm not going to do it, and I need to make sure those folks are safe. So both of those things are true for me, and what I'm hearing from you is you don't agree with me.

So you're continuing--you're willing to continue working on the lodger exemption, but the outcome of that, in your eyes, is to provide them with free legal counsel, which does not feel like an outcome that would feel sufficient to me.

So I guess that's what I'm trying to understand is, I mean, you don't want to make any commitments, and I--I understand that, but I'm hearing, you know, in this situation, non-profits are involved. I actually think that is significant. I agree with you. The problem is that's not what the bill does.

The bill doesn't limit losing the lodger exemption to just those that are working non-profits. So, and I don't really hear from you where you feel like the lodger exemption is appropriate, and I do feel like it's appropriate in a lot of circumstances. So I'm struggling.

Apologies, Ms. Bauer-Kahan. So I have made a commitment to continue to work on this strongly and recognize that we are interested in making sure that through the outcome of this bill, that there are improvements in the ability for home sharing models to work and for more people to be housed through this model.

So if that means that, you know, the conversation that needs to happen around the impact and effectiveness of the lodger law is bogging down the other benefits that are in this bill, then that will be the outcome and it could be removed, but I think it's an area of study that needs to continue to work on because in some case, again, in the world of the perfect, the lodger law has a hopeful intended outcome that's actually not working well in practice in some areas right now.

So my point, and that I hope we can all appreciate, is that this is opening up a conversation where we understand and agree on the outcomes that we want to have to make sure that awkward matches or worse are immediately--as close to immediately as resolved as possible for the benefit of that homeowner. We agree.

And so we want to figure out if there are modifications to the lodger law, if there are other models through tenant legal services or tenants rights that are better applied here. Just lay everything on the table and so we can try to be able to make sure all parties' interests are satisfied.

Okay, I appreciate that because now what I'm hearing you say is that you do want to make sure that the person who is renting out the room is protected and is able to remove someone faster than in an eviction if it's not safe or otherwise, which is what I kind of needed to know today. So, okay. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Ward.

Madam Vice Chair. Sure.

Just a kind of a out-of-the-box thought. In this industry, which I agree has a noble purpose to help anybody have a bedroom or a roof over their head, is private industry involved in this? I mean I'm just hearing the protections for the renter or the landlord, both sides of the deal.

If it were through Airbnb or one of those, I mean the competitive pricing, the landlord, the owner of the property would still get their low-income tax credit, but the protections for the landlord would be that if the person becomes a problem, then the landlord goes to Airbnb or Vrbo or any one of these many, many now in the marketplace, private renters, vacation renters, or long-term renters, you can have a long-term contract, and then you get local governments involved because of--it's presumably a longer term contract which is typically after 30 days, then you do have enforcement opportunities through local law enforcement because there needs to be a permit or a license to rent for a long-term arrangement.

So I just wonder if private industry is--I don't know the answer to this question and I'm not so challenging, but did you see this in this discovery of your work instead of the complications of how to--and I do support the larger protections, frankly, but I'm thinking can they be avoided if it is through an Airbnb where the Airbnb or the service provider platform would take care of that problem tenant.

I'm attempting to follow your question, but if I understand, can I re-paraphrase? Are you asking if a platform like an Airbnb is a model to be able to facilitate these kinds of matches? I mean we have--

Or if it doesn't happen now in the existing model.

To my knowledge at the moment, no, but we, that's why we enlist the help of organizations whose mission it is to really cut through to be able to study a lot of the information and make sure that a match is healthy.

Well, I do know of cases individually, one-off.

And I would acknowledge they are a private non-profit corporation.

And I would just say that if you were to do a rental through Airbnb, you would get no support with getting your room ready to rent. There'd be no vetting of the two sides through in-depth interviews. There wouldn't be matching of the two parties based on shared communication styles.

There wouldn't be a facilitated agreement about how the space is going to be shared to get all of the expectations on the table beforehand, and there surely wouldn't be any degree of case management ongoing to provide housing support services for both the low-income landlord and the low-income tenant. So what the non-profit is doing is really mitigating the risk of these negative outcomes by actually supporting vulnerable people through the process.

What we've seen from for-profit attempts at shared housing is to remove all of the human services side and any of that ongoing support that happens, which I think would put both our older home providers and our older tenants in a very tough situation in terms of maintaining housing stability, if things come up, the fact that we're there to call APS if need be, to call the police if need be, but also usually just to do some simple problem solving and say, 'hey, here's a really practical solution to this problem that we've seen before' to dissolve a practical issue before it becomes the kind of emotionally invested issue that typically then devolves into the kind of troubling situations that we're trying to avoid here.

Okay, just one other semi-related. So in local government, many communities have or share senior community centers with other communities or they have a sufficient population, elder population, that they have a senior community center, and I'm aware that in many cities in Orange County that these kinds of remedy-finding opportunities that somebody could be calling their senior community center and say 'help, I've got this problem. Can you help remove this tenant?' And he's a problem and there are services to do that.

Maybe you're involved with those community centers and you provide those services. I just wonder if that's available to the property owner as well as the tenant.

So this is another problem that I think is a real gap in our system. In most jurisdictions, if you were to call the legal aid provider or you were to call the senior legal aid provider, they would almost always tell you, we don't serve landlords, we only serve tenants.

And this is a very serious problem that we have where if you're making $30,000 a year on a fixed income and you're a landlord, you don't have a right to the same kind of legal defense as someone who's making a few $100,000 a year and working at a tech company simply because they're a tenant and you're a landlord.

So this isn't the bill to address that problem, but I would say in most cases, no. Without a non-profit shared housing program there to provide some degree of support, a low-income landlord would have very little to no recourse from any of the relevant legal services providers in the community.

Okay, thank you very much for that extended response. I appreciate it.

Well, thanks--thank you everyone for the robust conversation. I do think that we have to have all options on the table. This is a very creative one that I think is an excellent opportunity for all Californians as the--not just colleagues but the analysis does dive into the lodger law and is to its inclusion in this.

And so I know with the author as well as a cooperative opposition that's willing to come to the table and continue to talk about it, that we'll find some way of either narrowing it or finding some path forward on it, and very grateful to the non-profits. Both the financial, social, and other benefits are definitely extraordinary. So appreciate your work in this space. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know you have a busy agenda this morning and so I appreciate the extra consideration. I want to thank staff as well for the very helpful and thorough analysis that I think is helping to open up this conversation so that we get this right because at the end of the day, it's about making sure that we're making these matches happen.

We're doing a better job of using existing empty bedrooms that are out there without even building a whole new unit of housing, which we also need to do creative solutions to address this problem, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Motion's do pass to Human Services. [Roll Call].

Okay, and so we'll place that on call. There's one more vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we have Assembly Member Jackson, AB 449.

If I could just remind the committee, we have about two and a half hours. We have 15 more bills to go through. So just a reminder to folks.

And. I will do my part for the speedy.

Whenever you're ready.

Presenting AB449, which would empower the California Civil Rights Department to create and carry out statewide media campaigns to discourage discrimination against individuals or groups based on immutable characteristics. I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here in support of AB449?

Craig Pulsipher, on behalf of Equality California, in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB449? Bring it back to the committee. Yep. A motion and a second. Any other comments or questions? Thank you for bringing this forward. Assembly member, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

That's fantastic. All right, here we go.

Let's do a roll call vote on.

[ROLL CALL]

Alright, that bill is out. And item 16, AB1201, whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you and committee staff for working on off these amendments in which I will be accepting today.

The Reunity act serves as an essential tool in the judicial system to ensure that family reunification services are available for more individuals who have been shut out of the court system for too long. Currently, if a parent is convicted of a violent felony, they are ineligible for family reunification services.

This is a blanket ruling regardless of whether the parent currently poses a danger to their children- their child or children. AB1201 just simply gives the court the opportunity to make individualized decisions and assessments on whether a family can be reunited. Parents, however, would not be eligible if both of the following are true about their conviction.

Number one, the parent or guardian personally used a force of used a weapon. Or two, the child or another child was the victim. I really urge the support of the Reunity Act. It's practical, it's data driven, and it makes our court engines of healing and not just separation.

With me today is Vonia Quarles and Fidel Chagoya with Starting Over Strong. To tell the committee about their lived experiences with this issue. And we'll start off with Fidel.

Good morning, honorable Chair and members. My name is Fidel Chagoya and I'm currently an organizer with Riverside, all of us or none, at Starting Over Inc.. Starting Over Inc. is a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping formerly incarcerated individuals secure housing, employment and record expungements. I hold a Certificate of Rehabilitation.

And a master's degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling from the University of Redlands. I am speaking to you today because I am a formerly incarcerated parent who lost my rights as a parent. My daughter Zoe, my first and only child, was born in 2016 when I was 39 years old.

By then, I had been out of prison for six years and on parole for four. I had worked tirelessly to create a stable life, securing steady employment, stable housing and reliable transportation. During childbirth, Zoe's mother tested positive for opiates because of Tylenol with codeine that was prescribed by a dentist.

And having previously lost parental rights to her other children, this triggered the involvement of San Bernardino's County's Children and Family Services and looked at my past criminal record and said I should not have an opportunity to even reunify with my child,

due to Welfare institution code section 361.5 B12, the bypass provision, my parental rights were terminated and in 2019, Zoe was adopted out with 119 children in San Bernardino County.

Even though my prior criminal history had no bearing on whether I would be a good parent or not, if this change in law proposed by AB1201 existed at the time of my case, I would have had a fair chance of reunifying with my daughter.

I am here for you to consider making sure that parents like me who have felonies unrelated to their ability to be a parent and in many cases have paid their debt to society, a fair chance of getting their children back. For these reasons, I express my support for AB1201. Thank you, Chair Members.

Thank you. Thank you for sharing. I commend you on turning your life around and sorry for the experience you went through with your daughter.

Greetings, honorable Members of the California State Legislature and the Judiciary Committee. My name is Vonya Quarles and I'm the cofounder and Director of Starting Over Inc. We provide reentry services to the reentering population. We've been doing that for about 16 years.

About seven years ago, this issue surfaced where many of our participants were facing permanent family separation and no access to family reunification services. Because of our reentry work,

we witnessed firsthand the devastating impact of the automatic bypass of family reunification services under Welfare Institutions Code 361.5 Section 12, for parents with past violent convictions, convictions that are often unrelated to harming a child. This policy needlessly keeps children in foster care longer, sometimes until they age out of the system.

It inflicts lasting psychological and emotional harm on both parents and children. I speak from personal experiences as well as a child, I was removed from my family and placed in foster care for several years later. Some of my own children were removed from my custody.

They were adopted out and years later I had to fight to bring two of my own grandchildren out of the system. I'm a practicing attorney today. I have a pardon from the State of California and it took me almost a year to navigate the CPS system because of 25 year old felony convictions that weren't even violent.

So when we got the opportunity to create the Family Reunification Equity and Empowerment Project, we felt that we were obligated to do so. This doesn't give parents a free, a free shot at getting their children. It just gives them to Fidel's point, a fair chance.

A fair chance and investment to say that the State of California believes in family reunification. Thank you.

I also want to thank you for sharing and for your incredible story, perseverance and accomplishment. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB1201?

John Vasquez, on behalf of Communities United for Youth justice, strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Annie Thomas, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

Thank you.

Zachariah Oquenda, senior policy attorney with the Alliance for Children's Rights, in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB1201? We'll bring it back to the dais for any question, comments or motions. Assemblymember Bryan?

I just want to thank you both for your testimony and I want to thank the author for bringing this measure forward. We've been fighting to get this through for some years now. In fact, I would, I would actually be okay with switching the presumption. But I think this is a more than measured approach and like to move the bill.

Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you Mr. Jackson and thank you both for being here. And I think this is such an important bill. And as someone who represented individuals who were convicted of felonies, who were incredible parents and their convictions had nothing to do with their children and they never in a million years would have harmed their child in any way.

I knew these humans and so I do think this is so incredibly important because we know that reunification is the best thing for everybody in those cases.

I did have one question and it may be addressed already by the- the question that is posed about the harm to the child and endangering them if they're reunified, which I think is important you put in here. Because I do think that the protecting kids, and I know we all agree on this, is always

should be first and foremost. And we're talking about the vast majority of situations where that's not even a question. But there are the small times when there is, and you did include in the bill that when the child was the victim, that there can be a presumption against reunification.

I wanted to ask about domestic violence felonies writ large because I guess I am concerned that where someone has, you know, done serious harm to their spouse, that that is a situation where the kid might be in danger. And that's not included in the bill. And again, maybe it's-

It would be fall under B, where the, you know, they look at whether the child is at risk and that would be covered. But I just wanted. I felt like that was missing here and I wanted to talk about it.

Absolutely. Would you like to cover that?

Yes, we see a lot of that. So the Family Reunification Equity and Empowerment Project, they meet weekly. We have club meetings with system impacted families. Oftentimes it is mothers who have lost their children because of failure to protect. And so those are sometimes issues around domestic violence. For, for several reasons,

we have decided not to include domestic violence in this because the parents tell us how harmful the incarceration process, the lack of treatment, and that domestic violence is better eradicated and addressed the way we address other social and mental health problems, and that is through therapy services.

So because a mother has experienced or their family has experienced domestic violence doesn't necess- necessitate removal of access to family reunification services, nor do we believe that it should.

Wait. I think you're talking about the spouse being the survivor of domestic violence. Am I hearing you correctly? I think that's what you're talking about.

Spouse or the parent, either one. When it comes to domestic violence, it's a family issue. The way that we hear it and see it, it's a family issue. And when. When someone is arrested and oftentimes they'll both be arrested or they say the wrong person was arrested. So- so we don't know.

And so that's another reason why we didn't include it in this bill. We are simply asking with this bill that family reunification services do not be denied because of a violent felony conviction. Nor do we think if a person has a domestic violence, that they should be precluded from receiving those services for the benefit of the child.

The child can't make a determination about who's right or who's wrong in a domestic violence situation. According to the science, they blame themselves for much of what happens to them and around them. So family reunification is a way to address those kinds of concerns. And I'm not looking at a carve out. I don't want-

we haven't talked to the member about this, so I'm not sure if the author would be. But as far as our work, we're not trying to add an additional carve out to deny family reunification services. We're trying to ensure that more families get them, especially vulnerable families.

Got it. So, I mean, I have to say there's no question that the survivor of domestic violence should always be. I don't even think this should apply to them in any way, shape, or form. So let me just start there. I do think that, first and foremost, we should be making sure kids are in safe environments always.

And so I don't know that data. I'd be interested to see that data.

You know, and maybe, and I'm not somebody who studied this by any stretch of the imagination, but in my understanding, a house with domestic violence is somewhere that isn't safe for any of the survivors, the children, or the spouse who's been the subject of that.

And we need to make sure that we're not putting people into a situation where they will be endangered again.

I feel better by, you know, this question that is posed to the court about reunification and whether it's likely to endanger, cause, harm or trauma to the child, because I think that I hope judges will take domestic violence into account there when deciding whether the child will be traumatized or harmed.

I think it is really relevant to the question of whether they are safe and it's appropriate place for them to be. But I do think it is something we should look at, because the last thing we want is to put children into situations where they are unsafe.

Thank you. And also. Assemblymember. I think also the question to me on that issue is if domestic violence is a part of that criminal history, does that mean that they should not even be considered or not? You see what I'm saying? The idea is, is that if we

If we add it, then that means that you can't dive deeper into. Well, it's happened over a certain amount of time right now. If it was just last week, we got some. We got some issues we still need to work out.

Myself have grown up in a domestic violence situation before, and I still have those triggers, which is why my school was my safe place. Thus the glasses. And so I think that causal, relational right? I'll let you decide that. But I think the idea is that how do we.

I still want to go through this further with you because I think, you know, as we continue to comb through the research and the data relating to it. Because you're right, there are some traumatic things that can have lasting effects that could start cycles. However, we want to make sure that also we eliminate as many just blanket.

Right. There's no discussions to be had. There's no help to be had. And how do we create a system in which it's not just responsible for separation, but responsible for reuniting and creating healthy and stable environments.

Yeah, I appreciate that. And I know that our hearts are absolutely in the same place making sure kids are in safe and healthy environments and that they thrive. And then we end.

Oh, absolutely.

Cycles of violence.

But you have my commitment to continue to run.

I do think that this analysis should cover it. But I just wanted to raise it because I think it is important. Thank you.

Oh absolutely. Absolutely.

Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Just want to clarify on existing laws. So does the court have discretion to make the decision whether the unification should. So there still is discretion involved by the judge in- in matters such as this.

From the laws that we are changing right here? No, there is no discretion. It's just a blanket. Courts can't even decide.

Well I'm just reading the bill, the legislative council. The existing law provides that reunification services do not need to be provided to a parent or guardian. Guardian when the court finds. So that seems to me there's some discretion there.

Yeah, you can.

There are 58 counties in California and it varies from county to county. We are the only state, as far as I know in the country that has an automatic bypass of family reunification for violent convictions. And so they might not have to. But it happens every day in court, ma'am.

They bypass family reunification services for people with felony convictions.

You know, just listening to your discussion and the gentleman's personal experience and yours as well, my heart goes out to you and I am appreciative of the services you provide for San Bernardino/Riverside County. I think that is exemplary to your point about 58 counties. I have no idea what if this.

If your kinds of organization operate statewide. But I think you do bring certainly a level of scrutiny to make that determination and vouch for the rehabilitation of formerly violent incarcerated individual. But it gives me great pause that your case has merit and your experience gives me merit. It gives merit to this situation.

But the law was created to protect children. I'm sure you all read the horrific story that occurred in Orange County and within eyesight of Disneyland last week. That a mother murdered her nine year old son after spending three days at Disneyland and in a custody dispute. And violence part of the family dynamic.

That young boy is not alive. He was stabbed by his mother. Killed. That's going on right now. A live case in Orange County. And the family circumstances, I don't know if they're identical. Certainly I can't make that statement. But it gives me great pause when the court is involved in adjudicating, considering analyzing the safety of a child.

That to me is a critical component of our law. So I won't be able to support this. I'm so grateful for what you're doing. It's important and I understand. I remember you from last year. You were here. My heart bleeds for you and your family. I believe you are a good person.

But I can't make that statement for others that come before the court. So I appreciate your- your statement today. So thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we are in agreement though that existing law does provide the court's discretion to provide reunification services. Is that.

That's not correct. The existing law is an automatic bypass if someone has a felony conviction. That's why this is actually providing discretion with, with, with the. With the guardrails in there. As noted in the analysis, the author's amendments. That not only is the Department that's responsible for unification has many opportunities to demonstrate why it wouldn't be appropriate.

Ultimately the court, by the low standard preponderance of evidence, can make a determination that it's not in the best interest of the child.

Okay, well I would support giving the judge's discretion. If there's a blanket bar, I would support giving the judges discretion. I guess what I'm worried about here is are we going too far the other way? Where we're basically ordering reunification. Unless specific conditions are met. One, that the crime involved force or a weapon against this child.

Or two, based on preponderance of the admissible evidence, the reunification service is likely to endanger or cause additional harm or trauma to the child. So my question to you is, if a man murders his wife, is the court required to provide reunification services to him?

No, actually Assemblymember. This is why I think this is a balanced approach. Because current law says you have to do one thing. And so we're not trying to replace it with another mandate to do the opposite thing. Right.

It puts the discretion within the court's hands to make an assessment, to ask for any information that they may need to make a educated assessment about it. So, no, it does not force it one way or another. It gives the discretion to the courts.

So in my hypothetical, would that fall into the second? I mean, why would the court not be required to provide reunification services? Because the crime wasn't against the child.

But what would the judge do?

There are two other there, so it could. Yeah, there's two other items listed below that one.

So even if it doesn't involve a child, even if the person didn't use force themselves, which is a prong, so if they use force to kill a spouse or anyone else that would meet one of those prongs, and then there's two other items below that, which is almost like a catch all, that would give the courts, you know, what they needed to exercise discretion.

So just with my hypothetical, which prong would the judge use to deny reunification services?

I don't have the bill language in front of me. I don't know if you do or not.

I do. It says the only one I could see is whether, based on preponderance of admissible evidence, reunification services is likely to endanger or cause additional harm or trauma to the child. So would the crime in of itself be enough to deny reunification services?

That would be up to the judge. And I would probably say. The judge is probably going to say no in that case.

I'm just trying to understand. So, yeah, just based on the crime itself, the judge could exercise his discretion that, you know, a particular crime was so violent or so bad that it's too dangerous to keep the child there. That's still. The judge is going to be able to do that.

The judge is finally going to be able to do that. Because according to current California State law, the judges don't have the discretion to make decisions based upon the totality of the circumstances.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions? Oh, anybody have questions? Assembly woman did- did you have another question? Any other questions?

Madam Co Chair, I just wanted to say that this bill doesn't have anything to do with placing or returning the child to the custody of a parent or guardian. It only has to say, you will now be given family reunification services.

The family still have to take the steps to satisfy the family reunification and recommendations of the court.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Should we call the vote or do we. Oh, do you want to make your closing statement?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Let's call the vote. Do we have a motion?

[MOTION CALL]

It's out. Thank you.

Thank you all.

Let me get to my AB464. If you would come forward, please.

Good morning. You may proceed when you're ready. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Chair and Members. I would like to thank the Chair and the Committee staff for their thoughtful work on this Bill. Members, we have a crisis taking place in our prisons. In California State prisons, there is supposed to be zero tolerance, excuse me, zero tolerance policy for rape and sexual assault.

However, there continues to be reports of sexual abuse by prison staff. This is absolutely unacceptable. And to make matters worse, survivors who report abuse often face retaliation, including increased strip searches, solitary confinement, forced transfers and additional duties.

In 2023, the Legislature empowered the community-based organizations, including sponsors of this Bill, to do research, communicate with survivors and produce recommendations of how we should address sexual assaults in our prisons. AB 464 will codify recommendations coming from that research and the extensive work done by the Women's Caucus.

AB 464 is an accountability and anti-retaliation Bill that has four main parts. First, this Bill gives survivors who have been assaulted by CDCR staff more time to report the assault, specifically up to four years after they have been released.

Second, it provides enhanced monitoring of incarcerated individuals who report or experience an assault for 90 days to prevent retaliation against whistleblowers and survivors. Third, AB 464 makes sure that CDCR staff who were terminated, for confirmed, let's say confirmed, sexual abuse cannot be rehired in the prison system.

And finally, this Bill requires more robust reporting requirements and anti-retaliation measures to protect those who experience sexual assault and whistleblowers. My lead witnesses today are Keiana Aldrich, who is a survivor, and April Grayson, who will be reading written testimony from Nikki Carroll, who is also a survivor.

Excuse me, Ms. Assemblywoman, have you accepted the amendments?

Yes, we did.

Okay, very good. Thank you. Go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Keiana Aldrich and I'm sharing my experience in support of AB 464, in the hopes that it will help prevent what happened to me when I reported sexual abuse by staff while I was incarcerated. As a child, I was molested by my dad and testified against him when I was five, resulting in his conviction.

My mom was in a series of abusive relationships which led me to the life on the streets and eventually into the hands of sex traffickers. I spent my teenage years forced into prostitution, and at 17 years old, I was prosecuted as an adult for a crime that was directly related to my sexual exploitation.

Meanwhile, the two men who solicited sex from me as 18 were never prosecuted. In prison, I knew that I was targeted for sexual abuse by predatory staff because they always seemed to know about my criminal history in the sex industry.

Over a period of one and a half years, I was sexually abused by four different prison staff at CIW. I was terrified to report the abuse because it is a known fact that anyone who reports staff for sexual abuse will face retaliation that will extend your time in prison and result in more suffering.

For example, survivors who report staff sexual abuse will typically get locked up in solitary confinement, lose their visiting privileges and ability to program and rehabilitate, and subject themselves to harassing cell searches and confiscation of their property.

In 2018, I reported to CIW that I was being sexually abused by by my work supervisors at my job working in the prison hospital. Although I earned only 45 cents an hour, that was money that I relied on to buy myself basic needs such as water, food and hygiene.

After I reported, I was immediately fired from my job and was not allowed to work anywhere else. Meanwhile, one of the supervisors who sexually abused me was allowed to return back to his job, where he continued to supervise incarcerated workers.

In 2019, a correctional officer at CIW was bringing me food and jewelry in exchange for sexual acts when he knew he was about to get caught. CEO Sanchez turned himself in for sexual misconduct, but claimed that he was the victim even though he held all the power. Once again, I was treated as the aggressor.

CIW charged me with a disciplinary violation for extortion, recommended referred me to the DA's office for prosecution of criminal charges, locked me up in solitary confinement and isolated me from the outside world, including my attorneys. Meanwhile, CDCR took a year to investigate Sanchez, who received his full salary while on administrative leave.

After the investigation found that Sanchez sexually abused me, he was allowed to resign from CDCR. He was never criminally charged for his admitted sexual abuse of me, and he remains eligible to work for CDCR. At the same time, CDCR found me guilty of extortion with Sanchez as the victim.

I lost six months of credit off my sentence and was locked in solitary confinement for seven months, during which time I twice attempted suicide.

This Bill would protect survivors from suffering severe retaliation. Like what happened to me when I was forced to report prison staff for sexual abuse while I was still incarcerated and subject to to their authority and control. To ensure that survivors of prison sexual abuse can safely report their abuses, I respectfully ask that you support AB 464. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Committee. My name is April Grayson. I'm the Political Director for Sister Warriors. Also, proud co-sponsor of this Bill, I will be reading the testimony of a survivor of sexual assault and a survivor of retaliation of CDCR staff.

I'm Nikki Carroll, and at the age of 17, I was sentenced to prison and served 20 years. As a scared and naive teenager, I believed officers were there to help us. But I quickly learned how wrong that was. An officer I trusted groomed me, and his kindness turned into repeated sexual assaults.

When the abuse came to light, I wasn't helped; I was blamed. The staff interrogated me, recorded me on camera, and offered no support. It was all male staff, and I wasn't given any mental health counseling. No matter what I did, cooperate or not, I knew I would face retaliation. And that's exactly what happened.

I was isolated, shipped farther from my family and silenced. Worse, they allowed my abuser to continue working, putting many more women in danger. They treated me like the problem, not him. The cycle, abuse, blame and retaliation is built in the CDCR's culture. I have no trust in their investigation process because it protects abusers, not victims.

Wardens have the final say on investigations, which means there's no real accountability, only self-preservation. Even when the victims appeal to CDCR Sacramento, the same broken system investigates itself. Victims are dehumanized, told us our fault, and left terrified to speak out. Meanwhile, our abusers face no real consequences.

AB 464 addresses some of the critical failures victims like me experience. Its protections are desperately needed. This Bill will make it impossible for confirmed abusers to remain employed by CDCR or start working there again, a safeguard long overdue. Right now, staff responsible for sexual abuse can keep their jobs like my abuser did. Survivors deserve better.

AB464 also aims to eliminate retaliation and support victims during investigations. This is essential. If this law had been in place during my abuse, I wouldn't have been sent farther from my family or left in terror of every move I made being punished. With this Bill, survivors will be monitored for 90 days to prevent retaliation.

It also mandates supportive steps like notifying families or advocates that survivors requested. Victims need people in their corner. We can't do this alone. Another critical aspect of 464 is its tolling provision for legal claims. Survivors, like me often need years to process what happened, let alone navigate the legal system.

This Bill gives us that time by tolling the statute of limitations for sexual assault throughout incarceration for four years after release. It's a recognition of the immense barriers we face in seeking justice while inside. It also prohibits transferring victims to other facilities without their consent unless their safety is at risk.

Forcing me to leave my support system only deepened my trauma. This Bill ensures survivors can stay close to loved ones and access action, advocacy or counseling, which are critical to healing. The changes outlined in AB 464 are not just necessary, they're urgent. Nothing about CDCR's current system protects victims. In fact, it does the opposite.

It silences us while enabling abusers to victimize others. These new protections would make a real difference in the life of survivors and hold CDCR accountable for the safety and dignity of those in its custody. I respectfully urge your support for AB 464.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 464?

John Vasquez, on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice. Strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sadia Khan with Family Violence Law Center in strong support.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for Prosecutors Alliance Action. Proud co-sponsor. Thank you.

Good morning. Grace Glaser, on behalf of VALOR US — proud co-sponsor in support — and also would like to register the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, ACLU, California Action, and the Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kapri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice and Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 464?

Bring it back to the Committee. Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan?

I just want to thank the witnesses for being here. It is never easy as a survivor to tell your story to this many strangers.

But the power of the story you guys are telling is so important because I know that you both know there are people being silenced inside right now, and you are the voices for them and the change that needs to happen.

And it is an honor to be here to bear witness to what you're saying, but also to help fix it for others. So with that, I'll move the Bill.

Yeah, we have a motion, so you'll be the third. Madam Vice Chair?

I just echo that. That's such important proposed legislation, and I'm sorry that you even have to go through this. But you're courageous and brave to bring your personal experiences and those you represent forward. A quick question.

I think this Bill encompasses and covers all the various issues that inmates in this situation encounter. I do have a specific question about the 90 days. Is three months enough to provide supervision? I mean, I just. I mean that's going to go fast. I just wonder.

Thank you. It's based on pre-federal guidelines--the 90 days.

I see. Well--however, is there some remedy that--but, I guess they can continue to report if after 90 days circumstances change again. There is a method to do that.

That's the plan of this Bill, absolutely.

Okay. Well, thank you for taking this Bill. It's very important. Thank you very much.

Assemblymember Bryan.

Yeah. No, I really want to thank the author for coming forward with this and, just want to be clear: Sexual assaults happen in all prisons. They're violent and traumatic and terrible. But, specifically, for the women who came and testified, thank you.

And thank you, Ms. Grayson, for bringing another voice into the room who physically can't be in the room. We know about the reporting, I don't know, less than 10 days ago, 159 women in a single housing unit in Chowchilla. We hear you, unit 513. And we're doing this work, and you, Madam Majority Leader, are doing this work. I would love to be added as a co-author, if you'll have me.

I would love that.

There's another one. Any other comments or questions? Assemblymember Stefani?

Thank you, Chair. And thank you to the author for bringing this Bill forward. So important. And thank you to the witnesses for your bravery and sharing your stories with us and representing another voice. I had the opportunity to travel to Chowchilla with some Members when I was running for this job and listened to a lot of stories.

And what my colleague Assembly Member Bryan said just is absolutely so shocking to me that it continues in the volumes that it does. And I think this is a Bill that will help put an end to it. And again, I think the author and the witnesses for being here and for bringing this forward.

Thank you. Yeah, I'll just agree with some of the sentiments my colleagues, the courage that's shown by those that are stepping forward and also speaking behalf on behalf of other survivors. I mean, talk about a constituency that needs a voice.

And I really appreciate our majority leader for being that voice for this constituency that is suffered for far too long and so grateful for your work on this. I would also like to be added as a co-author. Would you like to close?

I want to thank both of you for being here today because I know it was really difficult. And I'm really proud that you've lended the voices to my colleagues here to know how important this Bill is. But for all the men and women that are in our prison system right now, this needs to be taken care of.

We need to stop this, we have to lift all of you up because you have not been lifted up when you should have been lifted up. So, with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Motions due; passes as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you very much. Thank you colleagues.

We have file item 6, AB 614 Lee.

Move the Bill.

We have a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Motion and a second. Assemblymember Lee may begin whenever you're ready.

All right, thank you Mr. Chair and committee members. I'd like to thank the committee for their work and thoughtful analysis of the bill. And I would accept the committee amendments for AB614.

AB614 aligns the statute of limitations for all cases under the Government Claims Act to one year, ensuring that everyone has adequate time to file their claim and has equal access to justice. Currently, the Government Claims Act gives different deadlines for filing these claims depending on the type of harm suffered.

Unfortunately, it is those who suffer the worst because of a government action that are subject to the shortest deadline. Victims of personal injury, wrongful death or property damage or damage to their crops must file within six months, while other claims such as breach of contract have a full year.

For example, a person who is injured by a police officer or loses a loved one due to misconduct by the government only has six months to figure out what the government claims process is, obtain a lawyer and gather the evidence.

Meanwhile, if a contractor is suing for contract violation or landlord is trying to obtain reimbursement for damage to the rental property, they have one full year. In summary, when the victims are individuals, they only have six months of file. But if victim is usually business, they have one year to file.

The six month period is often too short for individuals. Navigate the legal complexities of filing government claim and as pointed out in the committee analysis, this rush timeline also affects the quality of the claims being brought, resulting in claims that are poorly drafted or filed without a full understanding of relevant evidence.

This results in denied claims, lost legal rights, lack of accountability for government entities. By setting a uniform one year deadline for all claims, this brings consistency fairness to the Government Claims Act.

I'm going to respectfully ask for your support on this important legislation and with me in support, I have Ty Clarke, an attorney representing people going through the claims process and his client, Leslie Overfield.

Thank you. Good morning Mr. Chair and assemblymembers. My name is Ty Clarke. I'm a civil rights attorney at Pointer and Buelna, Lawyers for the People. I want to thank you for allowing me the privilege to testify in front of you today.

In my work, I've represented dozens of individuals who are harmed by government misconduct and family members have lost loved ones to it. I can tell you the vast majority of my clients, including Mrs. Overfield, who you'll hear from, had no idea that this statute of limitations exists.

And while the law currently does allow a application process for leave to file a late claim. That process is insufficient and fundamentally flawed, primarily because of the bases on which it excludes people from bringing these late claims.

I can tell you from personal experience, for example, individuals who are grieving the loss of a loved one and who have not had time to think about the legal ramifications, within six months, they are denied to be the opportunity to present a late claim.

Individuals who are grievously injured and are not able to obtain a lawyer within six months, they are similarly denied. And moreover, while this is really important and necessary for these victims, it's also not radical or unprecedented.

If you look across the country. Through my work, I can tell you, working with civil rights attorneys, for example, in Mississippi, the statute of limitations is one year. In North Carolina, it's two years. In Florida, for wrongful death, it's two years and for other bodily injury, it's three years.

So while this change is absolutely necessary, it's not unprecedented nationwide. Our office has had approximately 1,700 intakes this calendar year alone. I would estimate approximately 30-40% of those come to us after the six months.

So I strongly support this bill because I believe it will further enable victims of government misconduct to access the claims that they are legally entitled to.

Thank you. The other witness.

My name's Les- Thank you. My name is Leslie Overfield. I'm from South Lake Tahoe. My son was Nicholas Overfield. My son Nick got sick.

If I can ask Members to keep it down a little bit so we can hear the witness. Thank you. Sorry. Continue, ma'am.

My son Nick got sick in jail. The jail transported him to Barton Hospital on April 23rd, 2022 in critical condition. He was then transferred to a hospital that treats HIV. Sutter Medical in San Francisco. Nick passed away on June 22nd, 2022 from HIV complications. He was 42 years old. I obviously had many questions that needed answers.

Well past the medical facility. Had so much paperwork and hoops to jump through, I never got the medical records that I requested. I went to the jail to talk to Lt. Kowalski, who was at the jail. I went by several times, called, left messages. I had absolutely no response. I went to the sheriff's office again.

I called, I went in person. I left messages. A friend and former South Lake Tahoe City Council Member, he wrote a letter to the sheriff stating my situation and asking if he could help me obtain Nick's medical records. I had absolutely no response from the sheriff's office.

I was not advised of any statute of limitations during my search for answers of what happened to Nick and have never heard from the jail or the sheriff's office since that. That's been almost three years. So I decided to request Nick's medical records from Barton at South Lake Tahoe. I picked them up within three days.

That's when I learned that Nick did not receive his HIV medicine from mid February to April 23rd when he was incarcerated. The journey getting information was difficult. I was by myself. Nick was my only family. I was still grieving and not knowing which way to go and how to handle it.

And this was just me trying to get justice and get the information out about my son. And also I work full time and have Sunday and Monday off.

So the only day I had to work on it was Mondays and I did this all by myself until I was able to get an attorney to bring it to court and get justice for my son because he should. He should still be here today. Thank you.

Thank you, thank you for sharing and so sorry for your loss. Is there anyone else here in support of AB614?

John Vasquez, on behalf of Communities United For Justice, Proud co-sponsor of AB614, strong support and also on behalf of ACLU, California Action, Courage California Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, and Asian Prisoner Support Committee, strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Saveena Takhar with the Consumer Attorneys of California in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB614?

Good morning Chair, members, Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, along with the Coalition of Local Government Organizations, opposed to AB614 extending the tort claim process timeline from six months to a year. Claim statutes have two principal purposes. First, they give the government entity an opportunity to settle just claims before suit is brought.

Second, they permit the entity to make an early investigation of the facts on which a claim is based, thus enabling it to defend itself against unjust claims and correct the conditions or practices which give a rise to the claim.

The need for prompt corrective action is critical in tort matters where dangerous practices or property conditions may continue to injure others unless quickly remedied.

The tort claims process exists in part to provide public entities with notice of a potential claim and lawsuit so they may conduct their own internal investigation, collect and preserve evidence, and resolve claims and suits more quickly and efficiently.

Delaying the start of the claim process puts evidence that is necessary to defend a potential claim or suit at risk of becoming stale. Just as importantly, delaying the initial claim filing hinders the prompt correction of dangerous conditions.

To address the late claims, to address late claims, the Government Claims act outlines a process to file late claims within a year of the date of injury.

These provisions allow more liberal time allowances for minors or persons who file late due to physical or mental disabilities and for any claimants in cases where the late filing of a claim is due to mistake, inadvertent surprise or excusable neglect. And we are happy to have further conversations on that process.

The existing structures of the Claim Act have effectively effectively balanced the need for prompt notice and action on tort claims with the need to provide some relief for persons who could not reasonably have been expected to present a claim for over 60 years.

We are concerned that the data and case for dramatically destabilizing the well settled balance at the at this present time and for these reasons we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee, Dylan Hoffman on behalf of Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management, also known as PRISM or Joint Powers Authority, represented about 2,000 public entities. Our members include counties, cities, school districts and many, many more.

Just adding to my colleague's comments, the other thing to consider with these types of claims is that the more legal risk that public entities are facing and increasing the cost of litigations is going to increase their liability insurance premiums.

A number of factors impact the liability insurance premiums, including the time it takes to resolve these claims, the ultimate cost of retaining legal counsel as well as well as settlements.

Liability insurers are already facing pretty significant cost pressures to continuing offer coverage in the state of California and these premiums are directly impacting many local jurisdictions ability to fund direct services. And by extending the claim timeline, this bill only increases that measure. So appreciate your no vote on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB614?

Good morning. I'm Eric Lawyer speaking on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, the Urban Counties of California and the League of California Cities, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Bring it back to committee. Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan.

I have to say in all my years of practicing law, I never saw a six month statute of limitation. This is the first I've ever heard of that. Are there other examples where we give someone less than a year? I mean maybe there are. I only litigated for seven years, so maybe I didn't.

I know I didn't see it all, but that seems incredibly short.

I would agree.

I mean one year was always the shortest I ever saw. And so to say that you can't have a full year and to say that's not prompt administration of justice, I think is a gross exaggeration.

This bill is incredibly modest in that it only extends it from six months to a year. And I don't know, the author isn't known for his modest legislation. So I find this, I find just the opposition kind of shocking. I'll be frank with you. I don't know if you want to address that.

But I want, I mean, this witness, I think is the perfect example of someone who was wronged by an entity and deserves justice and was doing everything in her power to be as efficient as possible. But six months from the day of her grieving is not.

In Judaism, we say it takes at least a year to, to get back to normal. So a year wouldn't even be enough in my faith. But. And we don't even say it gets back to normal. It never does when you lose a child. Let me just be clear about that.

So I'm so sorry for your loss and for, I mean, there's just no excuse for what happened to you. And the ask here feels incredibly modest.

And so to sit here and say we don't want our liability insurance to go up because we're going to give six months to someone to file a claim feels like, I don't know. I'm just. This conversation has perplexed me.

Thank you. Assemblymember Harabedian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate the author bringing this bill. I have a question, I guess for the panel, whoever can answer it. If you miss the six month statute of limitations, if you miss the one year, can you still bring 1983 claims for the same underlying violations, which I believe the statute of limitations there is two years.

You are correct, it is two years and you can still bring them. But there are crucial differences for qualified immunity in the context of civil rights does not apply to state law claims.

Also negligence specifically, again in this context of civil rights allows you to bring in pre use of force officer tactics, whereas the excessive force inquiry under 1983 does not allow you to do that. So there are specific legal inquiries that are necessary parts of the state law. Claims that are not permissible under 1983 claims.

And am I correct, that's a two year statute of limitations for 1983.

You are correct.

So I think it, I think that's a good data point that to the extent, you know, you have more committees, you should talk about that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Assembly Member Essayli?

Yes, I have a question, by the way. I just, I first, I didn't know which bill I was seconding for the opposition like what I didn't hear you say is that.

That, you know you're gonna have more frivolous claims or that, you know, my concern is your opposition is this, that people are going to be more successful in bringing claims against government entities which is going to cost more money. But that's only if they have merit, right?

And it's only if the claims are valid and have merit that it will cost these entities more money. So why, why shouldn't people be able to have more time to bring their case forward against the government entity if they've been harmed?

And let's keep in mind, no other plaintiffs have this benefit where you have to do this very draconian paperwork thing within six months or you're barred from bringing a lawsuit. I don't have that. So someone wants to sue me or one of us here. So why, why shouldn't we extend it to a year? What is the harm?

So I'll try to answer your question as best.

My microphone is off. My question for the record is what is the harm? What is the harm of going from six months to a year to an entity? Are you saying you're not going to be able to competently conduct an investigation within a year?

There are certain. There are certain challenges regarding the investigation, especially now. This could be personal injury can be a lot of different things.

And looking back at kind of the history of the development of the claims process and the initial recommendation by the legislature for six months, the 12 year was actually kind of a weird history and request of the auditors way back when. But we talked to a number of our counsel as well of our risk managers.

And first, the costs will go up regardless if they're valid claims or not. The way that you do it, the way that the formulas are worked for insurance. So there will be a cost regardless if the claim is valid or not.

We also talk to a lot of our risk managers, trying to ask them for information about the extension process, if it's difficult, if there's been problems. And so far, we, we just don't have any, any data or studies or, or information saying that there is this great need or the current process is not working.

And so without some of those additional items, we're concerned about essentially that extra six months, of course, in the investigation, things going stale. The cost of that, regardless of the claim is valid or not.

We're happy to have additional conversations around the process for an extension, but based on the information we're receiving from the risk managers, there just didn't. And from our end, there hasn't seen, there hasn't been data or information that the current process to ask for an extension is not working.

I just don't think it's a good look when insurance people come in and just say, this is going to cost more money. But what we're talking about is people being compensated for being harmed by wrongdoing, especially by a government entity who has the ability to do the most harm.

So, I mean, as an attorney who's actually filed one of these, I did think six months is ridiculous.

I mean, just to get a lawyer, first of all, just to comprehend what happened, get your thoughts in order, hire and retain a lawyer and put a, you know, a decent argument together and evaluate and decide which claims you're going to bring, because you have to identify the claims in the, in the initial paperwork.

It's really not long time. So I don't know. I just think this is a very nice, clever benefit that government entities have to protect themselves from claims to bar them and that most plaintiffs don't have, that there's still statute of limitations. Years is not that much time. So I will be supporting this.