Assembly Standing Committee on Higher Education

Good afternoon. The Assembly Higher Education Committee is called to order. Welcome to the first policy hearing of the Assembly Higher Education Committee. Whether you're here in person or watching virtually, I'm grateful to each and every one of you for joining us here today.

Also like to extend a warm welcome to all of the new members of this Committee. Vice Chair Carl Demaio, Jeff Gonzalez, Dr. Darshana Patel, Celeste Rodriguez, Dr. Lashae Sharp-Collins. And a warm welcome to our returning Members as well: Tasha Boerner, Bill Essayli, Dr. Corey Jackson, and Al Muratsuchi.

Again, welcome. I will now go over some key elements of the structure of today's hearing. As we proceed with the witnesses and public comment, I want to make sure that everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to maintain order and to run an efficient and fair hearing.

We apply these rules consistently to everyone who participates in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoint they express. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much as from the public, within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

We will accept—not accept—disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. As you came into the hearing room today, the Sergeants directed your attention to the Rules for Public Attendance and Participation, which are posted outside the door. The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud, loud noises from the audience.

Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place, and as permitted by the Chair. Public comment must relate to the subject or bills being discussed today. No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing.

Please aware the violations of these rules may be subject to removal or other enforcement actions. Additionally, please note that while this hearing will not have phone testimony, we are accepting written testimony through the Position Letter Portal on the Committee's website at 'Www.ahed.assembly.ca.gov,' and bills will be taken in sign in order.

However, Committee Members will typically present their bills after Non-Committee Members. Authors, you can sign into the Sergeant's desk in Room 126.

Further, please note that the guidelines for bills heard in the Committee is to allow for testimony from two lead witnesses in support and two lead witnesses in opposition to speak for no more than two minutes each.

Stakeholder groups and entities that are neither in support, nor in opposition, will be allowed to give testimony for no more than two minutes, when it called for Tweeners. If a measure has more than two entities in the Tweener category, only two will be allowed to speak, for two minutes each.

For Members of the Committee—Members, if you'd like to respond to a roll call, ask a question, or provide a comment, please be sure to activate your mic and speak into your microphone. For authors of bills up today—Authors, each member presenting today will have an opportunity to provide an opening and closing statement.

As previously stated, your two lead witnesses will each have two minutes to provide testimony, and the first order of business is the adoption of the Committee rules. Do I have a motion to adopt the Committee rules?

So moved.

Moved by Vice Chair Demaio. Do we have a second?

Second.

Second.

Second by summoner Gonzalez and uh, summoner Rodriguez. Um, Madam Secretary, roll call, please.

Adoption of the 2025-'26 Committee Rules.

[Seven Committee Members Each Expressing Verbal Agreement to Adopt Committee Rules: Mike Fong, Carl Demaio, Jeff Gonzalez, Corey A Jackson, Darshana R Patel, Celeste Rodriguez, Lashae Sharp-Collins]

Thank you so much. We have six "Ayes," and the Committee Rules are adopted. I'm sorry, we have seven Members present. Thank you. Seven votes.

Now for the Consent Calendar, we have three items of Consent, and they are as follows—File Item Number 1, AB 88 by Summoner Tah; File Item Number 3, Assembly Bill 240 by Summoner Elynese; And File Item Number 5, Assembly Bill 313 by Summoner Ortega.

Do I have a motion on the Consent Calendar?

So moved.

Moved by Vice Chair Demaio. Do we have a second?

Second.

Second by Dr. Sharp-Collins. Any discussion? Seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.

Madam Secretary, roll call, please.

The Consent Calendar consists of File Item Number 1, AB 88; the motion is "do pass" to the Appropriations Committee. File Item Number 3, AB 240; the motion is "do pass" to the Appropriations Committee. And File Item Number 5, AB 313; the motion is "do pass" to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That item has seven "Ayes." We'll keep the roll open for additional members add on.

Uh, next up we'll take up, uh, Author Rick Zbur. Welcome, uh, Assembly Bill 648, which is Item Number 14. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members. I am proud to present AB 648 which will combat housing insecurity and homelessness among community college students, staff and faculty, while also helping to address California's broader housing crisis. California community colleges are an integral part of our higher education system, as you know.

With over 2 million students attending one of California's 116 community colleges, the community college system has become a critical pathway allowing Californians from all backgrounds to access higher education and economic mobility. Unfortunately, community college students often face uncertainty about whether they will be able to provide for their basic needs.

Last year, the Legislative Analyst Office found that roughly 60% let me repeat that figure. 60% of community college students face housing insecurity and almost 25% have experienced homelessness. Let me say that again. Almost 25% of our community college students have experienced homelessness.

The state has taken multiple actions in recent years to increase student housing at community colleges and allow students to focus on their work instead of worrying about where they will sleep at night.

While CSU and the UC systems have long had the authority to build student and staff housing regardless of how a property is zoned, the community colleges have never been given the same clear authority and statute.

This has led to much needed community college housing projects being stalled for years as community college districts go through the onerous local rezoning process. AB648 will address the housing crisis and recognize the integral role of the California community colleges in our higher education system.

By giving community college districts the same authority as the CSUs and UCs to build student and staff housing, community colleges will still be required to comply with CEQA, to consult with their local planning Department and follow other relevant regulations. This Bill merely will create parity with the UCS and CSUs by removing burdensome local zoning barriers.

Not only will this provide housing security for countless community college students, staff and faculty, but it will also make available housing units around community colleges, which will increase the housing supply for community members who aren't the students or affiliated with the community college.

I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time and with me today in support of the Bill are Donald Girard, Senior Director of Government Relations and Institution Communications at Santa Monica College, and Allison Chan, Organizing Director for Student Homes, the Student Homes Coalition, the sponsor and the co sponsor of this Bill.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Just start two minutes. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Don Girard and I'm here on behalf of Santa Monica College, often referred to as SMC. Our community extends far beyond Santa Monica. We have around 25,000 students and offer more than 100 fields of study.

Housing insecurity is a crisis for California's community college students, and we've seen this firsthand at SMC. We are proud to have led the state for 34 consecutive years and the number of community college students who transfers to UC.

However this academic success comes in spite of the large number of our students who face either homelessness or housing insecurity. AB 648 is a necessary and urgent solution to this problem.

By allowing community colleges to build student and staff housing on property they own or lease without facing lengthy and expensive delays due to local zoning. This Bill removes a major hurdle standing in the way of desperately needing house needed housing. Schools like SMC are ready to fund and build housing to support our students.

This is more than just words. In 2022 Santa Monica residents voted to allocate $375 million to SMC for a bond measure that explicitly included "Provide affordable housing" in the ballot title. Our residents stand with us and we are ready to begin addressing the community college student housing crisis by building housing.

We, along with our co sponsors, including the Los Angeles Community College District, see this Bill as a necessary step to help ensure the community colleges are able to fully support our students. Thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairman Fong and Members of the Committee. My name is Allison Chan and I am here today on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition to urge your support on AB648 today. Homes is a collective of campus based student organizations and statewide advocacy groups working to end student homelessness and restore affordability of higher education.

To this end, Homes is a proud sponsor of AB 648. As a graduate of one of California's community colleges, Kenyatta College, I know firsthand that community college students are left out of the student housing conversation. According to a 2020 report from UCLA, 20% of community college students will experience homelessness in a given academic year.

This means that one in five community college students are forced to make the difficult choice between paying rent or paying tuition, staying in classes or dropping out or sleeping on their friend's couch or in their car.

Even with the incredibly high rates of homelessness in the community college system, only 12 out of the 116 campuses operated any student housing at all as of 2023. Community colleges are not choosing to build student housing because there is no demand for it, but because local policy prevents them from doing so.

Subject to discretionary review and restrictive zoning policies, community college housing developments face increased costs, delays, and outright denials. We cannot have affordable higher education without affordable housing. By giving community colleges the same land use authority as UCs and CSUs, we can take a meaningful step towards addressing the housing crisis at community colleges.

California's community college system is the backbone of California's higher education system and it Is past time that we empower them to serve their students in the same way as larger institutions. On behalf of the Student Homes Coalition, I ask you to please stand with community college students and vote aye on AB648 today. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room?

Maria Veloz, Los Angeles Community College District and support. We're also the co sponsor of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Seamus Garrity, Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, in strong support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Lizzie Cootsona. Here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there witnesses in opposition in a hearing room? Are there tweeners in a hearing room?

Good afternoon. Chair and Members, Alex Graves of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, very supportive of the -that's fine- concept being discussed. You know, we have 85, 87 Member institutions throughout the state, over two dozen in the Los Angeles region.

I think many of the issues highlighted that community colleges are looking at are also issues as it relates to building more housing for students, faculty and staff that our institutions are looking at.

And so in this vehicle and others, we hope that our institutions can also be looked at as part of that solution for building more housing, which helps with both student and retention success, but also faculty recruitment and staff recruitment and retention. Thank you.

Thank you, colleagues. Any questions or comments? CNN do we have a motion?

No, I had a.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Assembly Sharp-Collins, welcome.

I wanted to thank you so much for bringing forth the Bill. I do support this bill's effort in doing everything we can to build housing and also to ensure that our community college do receive equal treatment. So that is something that is key.

The one thing that I would like us to explore a little bit more is where we can set appropriate limits, particularly regarding some of the zoning regulations. And I'm saying that because down in San Diego, the coastal construction is limited to buildings no taller than 30ft.

And so I want us to be cautious about the blanket exemptions when it, when it's coming to zoning, you know, the zoning regulations as we're moving forward. But I do support the Bill 100% because this work has to be done.

But I want us to keep that in mind as we move forward that we can't just have a blanket.

Yeah. Could you say that just one more time? I just didn't hear the first sentence that you said about what you wanted to.

Oh, just for us to be mindful about the blanket regulations as. So in San Diego, for the Coastal constructions is limited to building no taller than 30ft.

Yeah.

So I just want us to be cautious about the blanket exemptions when it comes to zoning regulations as we continue to move forward. But this is absolutely needed.

Great, thank you. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Senator Muratsuchi. And followed by Assemblymember Gonzalez.

Thank you. I also am a big supporter of especially of education workforce housing as well as affordable housing for our students. Having said that, I do have some questions. So the summary that I'm reading, your Bill is proposing to exempt the construction of these housing projects from local zoning regulations. Does that include CEQA?

No, it does not include CEQA. So they would be treated in exactly the same way that the educational buildings are treated. So basically what is not clear in statute is that the educational building can include student housing and faculty housing.

So it would move it from a bucket that is not educational buildings to the bucket that is educational. So there's already a history for the community colleges to deal with their education buildings and it would just make housing in the same bucket.

And so the way that the community colleges deal with those issues would be treated the same way, but it would not include CEQA exemptions.

Okay. And also, as a former city planning commissioner, I know we spent a lot of time on traffic impacts. Is this going to affect the ability of cities to be able to work with community college districts to assess local impacts like traffic?

No. I mean, they would still have to go through land use approvals. It's just the thing that is, is different is that just like with the UC system, the use the, the Cal State system and with the educational buildings for the community colleges, if the zone, if, for example, it's zoned commercial on the build on the.

They would not have to actually have it rezoned into an educational or housing category.

Okay. So it's strictly the, the zoning.

It's strictly the zoning.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Assemblymember Gonzales.

Thank you. Appreciate my colleague across the way talking about the blanket exemptions. You know, in the area where I come from, where tons of agricultural land and my concern is, is the rezoning generational land, people working through there, people using it for other reasons with respect to helping their businesses or, or what have you.

So I have some concerns with the way it's written because gives me the sense of the state is coming in and saying, okay, all of this. I look at it from a rural area. If, if we want to change this, we could change it versus working with the local councils and so on and so forth.

So can you talk to that a little bit, please.

Well, so I think the first thing I'll say is that again, this doesn't treat these student and faculty housing projects any differently than the way educational buildings are treated under the law. So it would treat them.

So for example, if Santa Monica College wanted to build more classrooms and the zoning was inconsistent, they could actually, they wouldn't have to actually get a zoning change to do that. And so it would basically have. The housing projects would be treated in the same way.

All the other things, the building codes, the CEQA requirements, all of those would remain the same.

So as part of that, for example, if it was something that was big enough to trigger CEQA, obviously there would have to be engagement with all the local jurisdictions and looking at things like traffic patterns and all of that, if it's something that would trigger would be significant enough.

But it can override the local. Can they override the local with this? If local says we don't want it.

Would it would treat. It would treat it in the same way that other educational than other educational buildings. So if it's. If it's land owned by the, by the College and University and the zoning was inconsistent, they would be able to proceed with a land use entitlement application but not have to change the zoning classification.

Thank you so much, Vice Chair Demaio.

To create some more transparency and clarity on your question, Assemblymember Gonzalez. Right now, classrooms are treated differently. Locals have less control under state law. If it's a classroom versus housing, what this Bill would do is make it more like classroom reviews, which means local control in many respects is eviscerated.

I think most rational neighbors of these colleges would consider a classroom far different than a dormitory. And so dressing it up any other way is being disingenuous. And we have to be honest about what we're doing. Maybe that a majority of this body wants to do that.

I don't think a majority of neighbors in these neighborhoods would appreciate that. We hear a lot of gripes from local communities when Sacramento comes in and imposes their point of view and decision on a neighborhood without proper input. There's a reason why housing decisions are best made at the local level.

I want to applaud the author for your intent.

We do have a housing affordability crisis, but it's so frustrating that it seems like instead of making housing more affordable across the board, by dealing with the root cause of the problem, which are the regulations, the state building code, CEQA, we are instead saying let's empower government bureaucrats to decide and Give no local control because that's what we're doing in most of these cases.

In San Diego, we just had another problem. In Mission Valley, we had a very valuable piece of land that the City of San Diego held, the Qualcomm Stadium site.

And CSU came in and snatched it from the taxpayers and water Department ratepayers as our water rates are going up and a lot of the local control and local value were taken away from us.

So I have significant concerns while I share the author's intent and it's a very worthy intent and we've got to deal with these issues. Taking local control away, less local control I don't think is something that my constituents would would value.

Thank you so much. Dr. Patel, welcome.

I have a couple questions to ask you. Thank you for presenting this Bill today. First of all, do we have any. Data available on how this has impacted. Students in the UCS or CSUs as. Far as increasing walkability around campus, reducing traffic, because now students will be living. On campus instead of having to commute onto campus.

And the second part to that question. Is with students now hopefully being able. To live in on campus housing more readily and staff as well, does that create more availability for rental units in. The surrounding community for community members?

I mean, answer to the last question, that clearly does. Obviously, if you know, Santa Monica has a building with 500 student dormitory units. That's 500 students who are either not renting something in the community or not sleeping in their cars. So it's the latter.

I think it's just, you know, you don't need a lot of data to understand that it has a pretty big impact.

I think in terms of the other issue, I don't know if you've got any data that you are aware of in terms of the CSUs, but I think the one thing we can say is that both the UC system and the CSUs have long had this, the same right to create housing in their communities.

And in part that was due to the fact that those were considered four year institutions and there was some concept that students needed to be, were away from home and they needed housing.

And the data that I think is really compelling in this case is that we know that community college students who tend to be more vulnerable, this is a more. It's a really important part of the mobility pattern and sort of achieving a good, a good living and an education behind it.

They have tended, we know already that they are, that there's high rates of housing insecurity and high rates of homelessness. And so we know that there is a need around at least some of our community colleges to provide housing because it's not being provided anyplace else.

And I think the one thing I'll say, you know, to some of the other comments that were raised earlier is yes, this, there is a value, a set of values that are implicit in this, in this Bill.

And that is that that we should be leaning into our community colleges because they're so important and we should be providing for our students in the same way that we're providing for students in the four year colleges.

And that even though, yes, it's true, that, you know, educate that that housing is a student housing building is different than education building, it's not all that different. It's students coming in and out. And so the impacts on a neighborhood are not all that different.

And this of course is basically saying that we think that this is important enough that we're going to actually give our community colleges the ability to protect their students and provide for them and at the same time help the surrounding communities.

Thank you so much. Assemblymember Jackson.

Thank you very much. Thank you for this Bill. This Bill is only giving this authority that this Bill is only pertaining to community colleges. Correct. Are there any community colleges that exist that don't have an elected board locally attached to them?

That was exactly the point I wanted to make, is that where UC only has a statewide structure and CSU only has a statewide structure, the community colleges are locally elected and they have to be elected every four years on a two year cycle. And they're very responsible to their community.

That's why community college bonds pass overwhelmingly, because they're reflective of the community. And in my time, in 34 years at Santa Monica College, I am aware of some community colleges that got crosswise with their community and trustees did not get reelected, even long term trustees. The local relationship is so much stronger at the community college level.

And so I think that's really a very big part of the distinction of this Bill. The control is local.

Right. So this isn't some staff employee, some bureaucrat just making a decision. These are elected officials elected by their locally in their own body who are making a decision for their own communities that they represent that this is best, best for the land that's being used in their own community.

Yes.

Am I correct?

I think that's a fair statement.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you so much, Dr. Jackson. And thank you so much to Assemblymember Zbur for bringing this measure forward. As a former community college trustee, we know it's so critical to continue to amplify the opportunities for student housing, for faculty housing.

And when I served on the Community College District board in Los Angeles, we did a number of housing studies. And so this Bill is something that I really believe it aligns with our stakeholders of providing more affordable housing to our students and to our staff during these very challenging times.

Also brings parity for community colleges with that at UC and CSU who have already zoning flexibility on their student and staff housing, as you mentioned earlier. So also complements my Bill. So many Bill 893, which looks at expanding eligibility for administering approval of affordable housing developments to include developments located within the campus development zone.

So I appreciate you bringing us forward, and with that, I look forward to supporting the Bill today. Would you like to close?

I just want to thank you all for considering the Bill. I think this is important for both helping our students who are facing such high rates of housing insecurity and homelessness, and. And also addressing, you know, I think addressing our housing, the broader housing problem. There's not one silver bullet that does it.

It's basically doing many things that provide more housing in our communities. And this is one of those things. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Do we have a motion? Moved by Dr. Jackson. Do we have a second? Second by Dr. Sharp-Collins. Say no further comments. Madam Secretary. Roll call. Please.

File item number 14, AB648. The motion is do pass to the local government Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure has five "Ayes," two "No's." We'll keep the roll open for additional Members to add on.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Next up is Item Number 11—Assembly Bill 466 by Solache. Welcome.

Good afternoon, uh, Chair and Members.

Before I begin, I want to just take a quick second to acknowledge that 22 years ago, I sat in this room acknowledging this Committee as a student leader, as I led the California State Association, uh, representing over 450,000 CSU students, when Corey Jackson and I were young, uh—many years ago—as he was a student Trustee.

I object, Mr. Chair.

You guys are all young here. Thank you.

That was a personal, uh, note. But on that note, I want to, uh, again thank you all for your time today.

This is our, uh, office's first Bill we present. Uh, and I'm proud to present AB 466, which aims to save lives by increasing awareness and providing additional opportunities to, uh, to sign Californians up as an organ and tissue donors.

This measure will require each campus of the California Community College and each campus of the California State University to provide incoming students with the educational materials, and Donate Life California and Donate Life California Organ and Tissue Donor Registry, as part of the student orientation process.

It would be also requesting each, Cali—University of California—campus to do so.

Donate Life California is a state-authorized nonprofit organization responsible for managing the state's organ, eye, and tissue donor registry. Over 20,000 Californians, on the registry, are waiting for life-saving organs. Unfortunately, California is below the national average for registered donors.

While the California Department of Motor Vehicles continues to be the largest format for registration, there has been a notable decline, or postponing, of young Americans applying for their driver's license. This is significant loss with potential registrants.

By providing college students information on Donate Life California and opportunities to register as Organ and Tissue Donors, we hope to increase awareness and help each, uh, wider net of life-saving donors.

Before I introduce my colleagues here, I just want to also acknowledge, as a former Student Body President of Dominguez Hills, I spoke at so many new student orientations and when we saw the young students coming as a new student, as a transfer student, with so much excitement to be a student at the CSU, for example, you know, what a perfect opportunity to gather those students and encourage them to register for Donate Life.

A perfect way to, eh, uh, to start their journey in higher education and save potential lives.

With that, it is my honor to introduce Lacey Felder, Program Manager at Donate Life. And to my right, Maria Jimenez, from the City of Lakewood—which is part of my district—um, and they'll speak next. Ms. Felder.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Lacey Felder, Program Manager at Donate Life California, here before you to testify in support, and as a sponsor, of AB 466, authored by Assembly Member Solache.

A way of background, Donate Life California is the state-authorized nonprofit organization that manages the Organ, Eye, and Tissue Donor Registry.

My ties to Donate Life California and organ donation reach far beyond my professional life. Um, when I was 10 months old, I caught a virus that attacked my heart, and heart transplant was my only option to live. We waited eight months before we got that soul-conflicting, heart-wrenching, and miracle of a phone call. His name was James.

He is my hero, and he was a 22-month-old boy who fell from a three-story building, right here in downtown Sacramento. He is forever my guiding light in life. This October, I will celebrate 35 years with baby James's heart. I live every day, for him and his family.

My journey hasn't been an easy one. It became even harder when I was diagnosed with kidney failure in high school. I'm so lucky that my brother Tyson, my other hero, stepped up and donated his kidney to me in 2006.

Because of Tyson and because of baby James, I'm able to be the first person in my family to graduate college, and my husband and I are hopeful this year that we will be able to become parents, through surrogacy.

Organ donation doesn't just save lives, it transforms them. It creates memories, experiences, and milestones that we didn't even know were possible. By passing AB 466, you're giving hope to over 20,000 Californians waiting for a life-saving organ.

Understanding that higher education institutions will have to incorporate new information, through the student orientation process, Donate Life California stands ready to be a partner, and has numerous resources already available that can be easily tailored to different universities or—uh, sorry—different campuses.

By supporting AB 466, you support more, more Californians having the opportunity to say yes to transforming and saving lives, just like mine. I respectfully request your "Aye" vote on AB 466.

Thank you so much for your time. I'm now honored and privileged to introduce to you Maria Jimenez, to share her testimony in support of AB 466.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Maria Jimenez, and my son's sudden death—at the age of 22—to meningitis, placed me on the path that I continue today. I never thought I would be a donor mom. I never thought that I would be sharing my son's path to organ donating.

On this path, I continue to be his voice. Adrian was a strong advocate of organ, eye, and tissue donations. As a high school student and then as a college student, he spoke with friends and classmates of the impact of saying yes to being an organ donor and how many lives one donor can save.

Adrian had an amazing personality. He was thoughtful, funny, charismatic, a hard worker, and with an enthusiasm for life that shined in everything that he did. He was in college with hopes of pursuing a career as a chemical engineer.

My son was generous while on this journey, and he definitely gave the gift of life, when he left, to three moms. One of those moms is Linda Jensen. She was at the end stage of cystic fibrosis when she received Adrian's lungs, and two families became one.

She continues to make memories with her family, with her friends, and now, with our family, also making a difference in her community, bringing awareness to organ, eye, and tissue donation.

Organ donation does not just change the life of the recipient; it changes the lives of all around them and their community.

I strongly believe that by passing AB 466, we'll help decrease the number of Californians waiting for a life-saving transplant. Organ donation is rare, and the need is great. With a significant portion of Californians supporting donation, only about 45% are registered. We can work together to make a difference. We can work together to bridge that gap.

Adrian, my son, is also my hero—is Linda's hero—and is a hero to two others. A college student that saved three lives and changed the lives of many.

By educating college students and giving them the opportunity to say yes to organ donation, we are saying yes to bringing hope to thousands on the waiting list, and their families, and their communities. I respectfully request your "Aye" vote on AB 466 and thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room? Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room?

Colleagues, any questions or comments? Assembly Member Muratsuchi.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Solache, for bringing this very important measure, and uh, I would like to have the honor of making the motion to support your very first bill presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Muratsuchi.

Assembly Member Gonzalez.

Congratulations to my colleague. This Bill, uh, particularly touches home with my—two of my—brothers. Uh, one giving, uh, his kidney to the other, uh, so that way the other kid could stay alive. So, it absolutely, um, hits home and it, it reminds me of that day.

My question is on the required in orientation. I just, my, I have one of my sons who just went through orientation. So it was a, a whirlwind of information, and we were having trouble capturing everything that was going on. A couple pieces that I would, I would ask for you to consider is the part, whether it's required in orientation.

I would say encouraged. Maybe there's another opportunity throughout. Right. Because they're freshmen. They just got there. 3 million miles a minute. It's a fire hose. How are they going to remember that? Right. We didn't even remember that, all the important stuff that was going on. So that's my first piece.

I would ask that you consider that portion of it, orientation or maybe it's at another piece or however that might look. The other thing that I would ask you to consider, and from a religious perspective, have you heard from any groups or faith based organizations talking about this or not encouraging an opposition for, against.

That's a great question. Thank you for that. All major religions support organ donation, and we can have statements from all those different, different religions to support that.

Thank you. I'm sorry, and if I may just, Mr. Gonzalez, thank you for sharing your personal story. I think what we bring to this Capitol is our lived experiences, and I think I want to really thank you for those words. More specifically, one of the great things that I'm excited about this bill that, you know, we are requiring the spaces to provide an opportunity at new student orientation. But the beautiful part, we don't believe in a cookie cutter approach. We believe in every campus having their own approach.

Again, I speaking at a news story myself as a student body president, I saw how my campus did it. I went to other campuses throughout my student government days and saw how other campuses did it. So the beautiful part, we're not forcing anyone to do it in a specific way.

It's in the way they feel it's appropriate for their campus, for their students. I mean, it could be an outdoor event, it could be an indoor event. It's whatever the campus wants. So we want to make sure that that part is not required, but more necessarily, you know, just to offer an opportunity so that students have the opportunity to sign up to donate life. Thank you.

Thank you. Vice Chair DeMaio.

So I'm looking here. First, I want to commend you for tackling an important issue, trying to raise awareness on this issue. It's commendable. I have a problem similar to Assembly Member Gonzalez of the mandates and the information overload, where if you add so much that you overwhelm students and then nothing seems to get through because they're just like oh, okay, this is too much.

I'm looking at a memo from California Community Colleges from 2023 in June just giving a summary of the various requirements that this body has placed on our colleges and universities in statute. There are, let's see here, nine requirements that are mandated. Academic expectations, maintaining registration priority pursuant to Section 58108, and that's clear as mud. Goes through all these requirements. Registration and college fees, academic calendar. These are pretty good things to cover during orientation.

We also have Assembly Bill 2881, which requires a full briefing on CalFresh, Earned Income Tax Credit, the Young Child Tax Credit, California Supplemental Special Food Program under WIC. The description of any other basic service or need or resource. The location of where basic services are. I don't know if that's code for certain other services.

Point of contact for the basic need service or resource, eligibility restrictions on accessing basic needs. So those are five elements there. Then there's a sexual violence and harassment training class, Assembly Bill 2683, that's mandatory. These are all important topics. What's not mandatory but encouraged.

Programs for foster youth, programs for justice impacted students, programs for veterans, programs for students living with disabilities, programs for students experiencing homelessness, and programs for illegal immigrants. These are encouraged but not required. I'm willing to support this, moving the process forward, because it's a good outcome.

Your intention is wonderful, but I share my colleagues concern about the weight of mandates, and so maybe we can look at the list of things that we require and see if we can pare some things back and substitute this for that. Or maybe we can talk. Because I know we have some support today, but I'd like to hear more from the college administrators and people who do the orientation programs.

I just want to make sure that we don't overload these students and maybe more of an encouraging program would be something to test drive for the initial phase and then come back and look at whether a mandate would be required. So I'm just passing it on. I will support the bill today to move it through the process, but I am very concerned about the information overload.

Thank you, Mr. DeMaio, for your comments. I think, you know, we are definitely engaging all stakeholders. I think this is definitely a win win situation. And anytime we could save lives and bring that humanity to everyone's life, I think we're doing a good part to society. And I appreciate your comments today.

Thank you so much. Assembly Member Sharp-Collins.

Thank you. They've already kind of pretty much said what I was going to say, Assembly Member Solache. But thank you so much for bringing forth the bill. It's something that is, it is needed. My only suggestion was going to be utilizing the health services department's to be able to push out the information.

Having worked in the EOP department through our CSU system and having actually coordinated the new student orientations, I just think that for information to be distributed such as this, utilizing the health services department, that way when they're going over there, they're getting the pamphlets, they're getting whatever they need versus the new student orientation. So just a thought process and maybe, maybe adding that to the bill as far as trying to identify an entity where information can be provided separate from the new student orientation. That was my only, my only comment for that. Otherwise, I love the bill.

Thank you, Ms. Sharp-Collins. You know what's beautiful about this is that I have a great staff in my office. Our leg team, we were talking this morning about this bill getting ready for, you know, this first presentation. We're like first, you know, kids have first day of kindergarten.

We're super excited about today's presentation. And talking to my team about this, I volunteered to go to my home campus and go to the next student orientation and present this maybe at a table meeting. Whatever the campus is going to do, to the point of our Republican friends, whatever the campus is going to do individually, whatever they're going to do, we're going to make sure that we comply with their approach and we're going to participate.

We're going to have a table out there so that AB 66 is not only having donate life advocates and champions, but also the member that is sponsoring this bill. So I look forward to share with you a nice reel on social media and how that's going to look and participate and ensure that we were walking the talk.

And thank you. I also want to say thank you guys for sharing your story. Similar to my colleague Gonzalez as well. My grandmother donated her corneas, and so having the relationship with them as well, knowing that she's been able to give someone else the ability to see is extremely important, and it's meaningful to me. So making sure people are educated in this avenue, it's another important cause. So thank you for bringing it forward.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any further comments or questions? We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? Second by Dr. Jackson. Assembly Member, would like to close?

I would like to close, Mr. Chair, just by acknowledging again that, when you look at your California ID, we all have a pink dot. At least I have a pink dot. I'm kind of covering my weight, so I don't want that to be on camera, but at least the pink dot, I want it to be on camera. Because besides our years of, Dr. Jackson, you know, I still have a little bit of weight issue right now. But again, this pink is going to save lives.

And I just want to thank those that have publicly taken the courage to put that pink dot. And so now I'm super excited that our young folks are going to have more opportunities through our bill. And I want to thank our Members today for giving us their time and the opportunity to share Maria's stories and your stories and the many Californians that are part of this process. And when I heard your story in Lakewood, as a former Chamber President, sitting in the audience, it just moved me, and it just.

It was very impactful. So the more we could celebrate those moments, and especially for those of us that have lost a loved one in our lives, it's just, it hits home differently. And again, showing our humanity matters sometimes. Muchas gracias. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member Solache, for your leadership and efforts on this issue and for bringing forward this powerful presentation and this measure here today. And thank you to our witnesses, also for the lead witnesses, for your powerful testimony. I look forward to supporting this bill today and for a lot of powerful comments from colleagues as well. With that, Madam Secretary, roll call please.

File item number 11, AB 466. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure have seven ayes. We'll keep the roll open for additional Members to add on.

Thank you for the bipartisan support and for the Member who made the motion as well. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Next up is item number seven by Assembly Member Ash Kalra, Assembly Bill 326. Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. This is not my first bill presentation. It's actually not the first time I've presented this bill. But AB 326 would require the California State University system to conduct an external audit of each of its campuses every three years.

Additionally, the bill requires all audits of the CSU system or its campuses to be made available to the public. Currently, the CSU system conducts an external system wide audit each year. It also conducts smaller irregular audits of various programs operated by individual campuses. However, it does not currently conduct regular external audits of each of its 23 campuses.

Without publicly accessible data disaggregated by campus, the state cannot fully determine each campus's specific financial needs. The lack of data also makes it more difficult for stakeholders to have a full picture of available resources, whether that's the Legislature, unions participating in fair collective bargaining, or students discerning how their fees are spent.

AB 326 will complement existing law by holding up a microscope to clarify the financial data in the CSU system's annual audit. By requiring regular audits of each of the 23 CSU campuses, this bill will help us make better financial decisions that will positively impact faculty, students, and the CSU system alike. With me to provide supporting testimony are Dr. Thomas Norman, professor at CSU Dominguez Hills, and Michael Lee-Chang, a student at Sacramento State University.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Fong and Members of the Committee. My name is Dr. Thomas Norman. I'm a management professor at Cal State University, Dominguez Hills. So you get two of us in a row. Proud member of the California Faculty Association, I'm here today to speak in strong support of more accountability in the Cal State University.

Currently, the CSU conducts a system wide audit once every five years. It's a long time. While this is somewhat helpful, it fails to paint a clear picture of each individual CSU campus in terms of its fiscal decisions, of which much can change in a five year period of time. Much can change in one year.

CSU campuses across the state are continuing to announce layoffs, which have affected us at Dominguez Hills. I've had 32 colleagues laid off in the past few months and eliminate programs. These campuses note financial hardships despite ongoing investments from the state General Fund and student fees.

We must take action to improve the financial oversight and improve accountability of the system. AB 326 proposes to require an external financial audit of each CSU campus at least once every three years, significantly increasing the current audit frequency. Moreover, this requirement is to make all CSU audits public. Right.

This is the biggest deal for me, public. Including those conducted internally. It's a commendable move towards enhancing transparency and fostering trust among the students, the faculty, staff, and our broader communities. Think of the situation at Sonoma State that was not handled as transparently as it could be. Just something to keep in mind as we think of this.

The California State University system is a cornerstone of higher education throughout our state, from rural to urban areas. We are a beacon of learning, research, and public service. It's imperative that our operations are conducted with the utmost integrity, accountability, and openness.

Regular external audits will provide an independent review of financial practices, ensuring that public funds are being used most effectively and appropriately. CFA is a proud sponsor of AB 326. We believe this bill will lead to significant improvements in the financial oversight and accountability mechanisms within the CSU system. In turn, this will contribute to the overall health and success of our institutions of higher learning, helping us to better support students. I urge each of you to please vote in favor of AB 326. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Fong and Members of the Committee. This is my first time doing this, so apologies. But my name is Michael Lee-Chang, and I'm a student at California State University, Sacramento, majoring in political science with a minor in Asian Studies. I'm here to urge you to support AB 326 because CSU students deserve financial transparency and accountability for how our tuition and fees are spent. Right now, we don't have that.

CSU claims it already undergoes external financial audits, but those audits only produce a single system wide report, leaving students, faculty, and lawmakers in the dark about how money is allocated at each individual campus. And the results are clear. On my campus at Sacramento State, we are witnessing reckless spending on one side and severe neglect on the other.

Some of you may be familiar with the CapRadio scandal. The university ignored years of lavish and fraudulent spending at its public radio station, allowing over $450,000 in undocumented expenses, including $145,000 on luxury travel to Dubai and Fiji, $27,000 at restaurants, and $17,000 on golf memberships.

Sac State even floated an $8 million loan to the station, which it failed to pay back. Meanwhile, university leaders covered up key details, hiding financial records from the public until the Sacramento Bee forced its release. At Sacramento State, students cover one third of athletic costs, a higher share than most schools and comparable conferences.

Yet we weren't consulted when fees were raised 50% last year, on top of the 34% tuition increase. And at the same time, the university isn't disclosing how much of our dollars are going toward their proposed football stadium, which some media outlets report can cost up to $250 million.

And at the same time, our classrooms are covered in asbestos. And the university made it clear they have no clear plan for removal. And as a survivor myself, the university is currently spending 50 cents per student on sexual violence prevention. That includes programming, outreach, education. It is unacceptable that we are just using money, our dollars however the university wants.

Students should not have to file public records requests, protest, or pressure investigative journalists just to find out where our money is going. If CSU has nothing to hide, it should have no issue with campus specific audits being conducted every three years and made fully accessible to the public. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room?

Hello, Members. Thank... Thank you. Hello, my name is Betsy Boyd. I'm the Chair of the Academic Senate of the California State University System, and we are in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Welcome.

Thank you. Hello, everyone. I'm Adriana Gomez, Legislative Advocate with the CSU Chancellor's Office. As noted in our letter and the analysis, the CSU already undergoes annual external financial audits, and these include all 23 universities and the Chancellor's Office. The audit reviews each university's financial statements and produces a single report.

And these reports are available on our Transparency and Accountability website. While we appreciate the author's priority for transparency and accountability, we do not think that requiring an external financial audit of each campus at a different frequency will lead to any additional information or public benefit. And we also published... The other thing I wanted to note was all of our internal audits are on our website on the Transparency and Accountability website. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much. Are there tweeners in the hearing room? All right, colleagues, any questions or comments? Assembly Member Gonzalez, followed by Vice Chair DeMaio, followed by Assembly Member Sharp-Collins.

I'm interested in the comments that the young man had just made, the allegations. How did he find these? Is the CSU aware of these? That's my first, my first question. It would be the how did you find these? And then the follow up from the CSU perspective is, are you aware of them?

Yeah. So these numbers were publicly reported, so you're free to look them up, but they were, they're based on an audit that came from, that came from an external investigation. And so internal investigations had been done previously to that audit, but those internal investigations yielded nothing.

You're using the word investigation, right? So external investigation. Why was there an external investigation versus audit?

Yeah, it was in response to a CSU audit that had come out. And so that CSU audit, if it had come out earlier, we would have known about this earlier.

And who initiated this investigation, do you know? Or CSU, are you aware of this?

I'm not aware of the specific internal audit. I would have to follow up.

But the investigation specifically that he's referring to.

I think Mr. Kalra was going to...

Mr. Chair, we have Bryan Ha here for technical support, if he may answer the question.

So, Bryan Ha with the California Faculty Association. About seven or eight years ago, there was an audit conducted because CSU and UC were founded that they were hiding some money. And that audit was led by Phil Ting and Kevin McCarty. And I believe that was the audit that identified these spendings.

And my follow on question is, I agree with the author. Right. Yes. We need full transparency and accountability. Absolutely, 100%. I'm with you. Why three years versus five? I was in the nonprofit world, and I know why the three in the nonprofit side. Why not do the same thing on the five year? What's the rationale behind that, so I can know?

Sure. Well, currently there is a requirement for the CSU to do a system wide audit every five years. They currently voluntarily do one every year. Initially, in the initial draftings of the bill a couple years ago, we were looking at asking every campus to do it.

But instead of, because of the number of campuses, almost two dozen, we felt every three years will give the opportunity for the CSU to space it out and stagger it out. So it'll still be every three years. I think you'll still get a good outlook of each campus while ensuring the CSU can stagger it to reduce their overall cost as they're doing these individual campus audits.

And so that's where we arrived at three years was to give that time for the staggering of campuses as they're doing their annual system wide audit, which is, which is, to their credit, beyond what they're required to do. But that being said, as was mentioned by the representative from the CSU, when they do a system wide audit, they do get financial records from each campus. It's just not a full campus audit.

And so rather than require them to do a full campus audit every year, staggering it for every three years, we felt would be enough information to the individual campuses for the students and for other stakeholders to have a good snapshot every three years of the campus financials.

And lastly, I'm all for what you're talking about. Right. Money should go... Wherever you're putting the money in, it should go, it should end up in the right place. My concern with the way it is written is it doesn't go deep enough. I feel like it would just superficially audit.

And I've seen this personally. You know, hey, we're going to audit. And doesn't, it just doesn't go far enough to, to get down to the, to the, to the paperclip and the sticky. Right. So that would be my recommendation to the author is ,100%, I'm with you. We need accountability, we need transparency.

Specifically, when we have young leaders like this saying, I just want to know where the money's going. But I want to reinforce what you're saying by saying, well, let's make sure we know where everything is going all the way down versus, you know, a million went to this department. But okay, but where did it really land? So that's my concern.

And Mr. Chair, I think that by, by doing a full external audit of each campus, I believe that some of the abuse referred to would have been exposed or at least some of the money to being directed to the station, what have you. And that would have allowed the further inquiry. Without a campus audit, you can't even get to the point of asking the next follow up question. But your point is well taken.

Thank you so much. Vice Chair DeMaio.

So when you talk about audits and public disclosure and transparency, you excite a budget geek like me. Okay. These are just awesome. Very exciting words. And I'm always for investing more money in audits because audits do pay back a substantial return on investment, but only if decision makers read the audits and act on the audits. And that's my challenge here with this bill is I don't think we need more audits because it looks like CSU, they're doing audits. In fact, my office has been very eager to get our hands on audits.

As I mentioned in our first meeting, looking at the waste and inefficiency in the CSU and the UC system is a top priority of mine because we are in a tight budget environment and we are looking at audits that have great recommendations that haven't been acted on. There's a couple audits here. May 2020.

CSU mandatory fees its campuses charge receive little oversight, yet they represent increasing financial burden. Almost no attention here in the Capitol to really light a fire to get implementation. Here's another audit. June 2019. This is six years ago. Chancellor's Office did not fully inform legislators and students about CSU's $1.5 billion surplus.

There are a number of things that I think we can improve upon in auditing, and I think that the deficit really is in this building. If we don't pay attention, if we don't require implementation of auditor recommendations, then it's like a tree falling in a forest. No one's there to hear it.

My other concern is the intent behind this bill. We know that sometimes labor negotiations get contentious and sometimes our labor union partners like to get different requirements imposed on management to give them a leg up in those negotiations. I don't think that taxpayers or students are always served by that leverage. You're representing the California Faculty Association and you back the bill?

Yeah. To speak to that...

I just wanted to clarify. You represent that, correct? Okay, great. Because I was wondering, how much do you collect in member dues each year? Each year for your organization? For your, the Faculty Association.

Mr. Chair, if the Mr. Ha may be able to...

The numbers fluctuate on an annual basis. I'd be happy to give you a latest.

So the California Faculty Association has, can you give me a ballpark? How much are you collecting from your members?

I couldn't say. I'm not...

So we don't know. That sounds like you need an audit. When was the last time you underwent an audit and made that publicly available?

We haven't had an audit.

We haven't had an audit. Well, since we're talking about audits today, I would love to see an audit bill that looks at the California Faculty Association because I think the teachers, the professors, the workers deserve to know what's going on with the dues that they are forced to pay. And more importantly, I mean, I was going to ask for a copy of your audit, but apparently your audit's not even done.

We don't need one.

You don't need an audit? How much money do you collect?

Again, I don't have that number.

I think you need an audit. Maybe we can find out. I mean, here's the point I'm making. We already have a CSU audit investment. And again, I'm not against audits. I love audits, you know, love it. But when an audit's done and we don't act upon the recommendations because there's a management response to every audit.

And sometimes managers don't agree with the audit. And that's okay. The auditors propose, management responds. Where there's overlay, where they say, yes, we agree, that's like the low hanging fruit that decision makers like us legislators should demand.

Where there was an agreement, there should be a timetable and implementation. Let's get those reforms done. Let's get whatever remediation is necessary. I would like to see legislation or at least a commitment by Members to focus on that and that's legislative oversight. But more to the point, if we're talking about people needing audits, and you collect a lot of money from your members and you haven't done an audit, I think you need to look within your own house.

Thank you. Assembly Member Sharp-Collins.

So I want to thank you for bringing forth the bill, and thank you to CFA for being a sponsor of this bill. We know that public dollars, we definitely need to do everything we can to follow the money and make sure that our students, our taxpayers, everybody know where all the money is going. So thank you guys so much for doing this work. Having been a faculty at a CSU as well, I do understand.

And being a student as well, former student also, I do understand when it comes down to the question of fees coming in and fees that I didn't even vote on, that I'm paying for three years later because someone else did that and then, et cetera. But looking at this from a faculty stance in the audit, how would this bill help the faculty salary transparency?

And I'm asking that question because when we talk about the shortage that we have with our professors, our teachers and stuff coming in and trying to recruit people to come in as well, we want to make sure that people understand that there is a gap that's there in regards to how our faculty is being paid. And so I'm hoping that this audit can also shed some light on that. So I'm wondering, have you thought about that? And will this be something that's also addressed?

It would definitely address that. Thank you very much.

To add to that, you know, I'm a professor. I'm a member of the Executive Board for the California Faculty Association, Dominguez Hills. Reason we don't need an audit is the books are open. Every member is going to be able to see how much my plane ticket costs going here today. I've looked before. I know, Jocelyn, our treasurer.

So when everything's open and freely available. Audit might be good. As a business professor, take your advice there. But anyone who wants to look at the expenses, we can make that available very quickly, at least at my campus level. To your issue, that's a really important issue.

I've worked with a faculty member, Laura Talamante, who's trying to work on equality for women versus male professors. There's a big difference. And because of having to, and the key thing to listen to in this is the fact that everything needs to be public.

We shouldn't have to beg and ask presidents or go to the trustees or get elected officials to tell folks in the Chancellor's Office to give us information to opine and to try to make things better. Because there's been very little done on our task force to reduce the gender inequality in salaries over the 10 years since Dr. Talamante worked on that.

So with your support, that would give faculty like us, that want to move us forward in these things, it'll make it more equitable for faculty, and that actually ends up helping students. The better works, the better our learning conditions are for students. Thank you for the question.

And on that same issue of salary as well. And I would be remiss if I didn't refer to my own jurisdiction having San Jose State University that has at times had the highest number of homeless students and also has had trouble recruiting faculty because it's the highest cost of living in the nation.

And so I think it also gives an opportunity on a campus. But if you can do that campus by campus about evaluation, it opens up the conversation and say, you know, how do we ensure that each campus has the ability to attract the top talent and support their students?

Thank you so much.

Could I say something? Apologies if this is out of line, Assembly Members, but I think the focus is being shifted here. I mentioned all those things to you because I'm the one paying for those things. I'm the one paying for it now. And the, you know, millions of students who have come before me.

And I tell you there have been internal audits, the universities have oversight of their auxiliaries, but this wasn't caught before. And this was only caught when the state intervened and said, hey, where's your money going. Because we clearly don't know and you clearly don't know. And so really, from me as a student, we're paying so much in fees and tuition and we don't know where our dollars are going. So just wanted to add that.

Thank you. Assembly Member Jackson, and we'll have Assembly Member Gonzalez.

Thank you. I think my question is for CSU. I'm trying to make sure I understand the reason for your opposition. And it seems as though that your opposition is that you already conduct an audit every five years. Right? And that you don't believe additional audits need to be done based upon what's already that you're already doing. Is that your argument?

If I may add. So we do, we undergo, voluntarily undergo external financial audits annually. The difference between our practice and what the bill outlines is that it's a consolidated audit. So it, it gets all of the financial statements from all of the campuses and produces one consolidated audit for the entire system. And that's annual.

And so the reason that we're opposed to the measure is we already voluntarily do that on an annual basis and doing it at the campus level every three years will place significant cost pressures on the university at a time where we're facing a significant budget cut.

And we do not think that the additional frequency will provide more public benefit. And another point I want to add is our annual external audits are conducted by a well known audit organization. I don't remember what the acronym stands for off the top of my head, but it's KPMG, and they follow federal standards. And in their findings every year, we'll note results. And in our last audit we got, we received favorable results and there were no questioned costs.

Yeah. Let me just say this from more of a even macro than this, and that is there are many of us in the Legislature, and many of us are CSU alumni. I was a CSU trustee. Who are working very hard to save a lot of the cuts that you're making.

But your opposition to something like this makes that difficult. And I'm sorry your bosses sent you instead of them. But we have to make it better. The more the public has confidence in our institutions, the more they're willing to invest.

The more that we have confidence and our constituents have confidence in the institution, the more we're willing to fight for and to invest. So I think this is counterintuitive to the things that right now we're trying to fight for for the CSU.

And so I think we need to reestablish our strategy here because access to a publicly funded institution that state representatives are debating on an annual basis on your very existence is better in the long term than to fight transparency.

This is bad because, number one, number one, my family would have never gotten out of poverty if it wasn't for higher education. Number one. Number two, universities are very important to the preservation of our democracy. And then number three, we already know the type of outputs and the type of leverage that a higher education degree can have.

But even young people are losing confidence in the value of a four year institution, which is why you have the type of shrinkage that you also are seeing today. And so I would encourage you all to re-evaluate your stances before us because this is not very helpful right now. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member Jackson. Assembly Member Gonzalez.

Like to commend my colleague, Assembly Member Jackson and Sharp-Collins. Well stated, and in total agreement. Three, three things for, for the, for the author that I would ask that, that you would, you would potentially add. Number one is a, a deep dive, a deeper dive. Right.

Because we don't need the, the audit that misses the big issues. We want, we want to find it. Right. That's number one. Number two would be a timeline from the end of the audit for you to receive the results of the audit. I know sometimes conducting a ton of audits, you get them a year later.

And we've wasted so much time, on the nonprofit side, you've wasted so much time and energy and it could be very challenging to make those adjustments. So I would say let's cut, let's add a timeline to that. And then lastly, my final comments, which I just put on my notes, give me one second.

And then the final one is an action by management from the audit. So if 10 points can't come up that we're missing X, Y, and Z, the management needs to take action on those things because an audit without action is a waste of money. So thank you.

Thank you so much. Dr. Patel, did you have a comment?

I appreciate the witnesses that are here and Member Kalra, for your presentation of this bill. A couple of questions, maybe more comments. First of all, I'll start with a comment. Coming from public education, the K through 12 system is required to perform an external audit annually with parameters on when the audit is received by management, as well as when management has to respond to the audit questions.

And in public education, we have found that those audits actually help us find money or find ways to tighten our system so that we can be more effective with those taxpayer dollars. Yes, sometimes it's painful to hear the feedback from the auditor, but it's often helpful in us as a public board in managing effectively those taxpayer dollars that are coming to us. So I also want to acknowledge that that will increase the cost to the CSUs.

And I do understand that, but hope that in conducting these audits we are able to create some efficiencies that ultimately may fund itself long term. I appreciate from the author that you here are asking for every three years to try to stagger those audits. What I'm hearing though is that you perform an annual consolidated audit.

So there is some already incremental cost in receiving the financials from every institution on an annual basis. So it would just be that delta in digging a little bit deeper is my understanding. Do you have an understanding of what that might cost?

Off the top of... Last year, so since the bill went through the Legislature last year, I recall the cost was in the low millions, and it is because there would be required, at this moment, there is a streamlined kind of process that the campus is doing do where they provide the statements.

It's all structured so that the auditor can quickly produce a consolidated, easily formatted, understandable audit. So all of that processes would have to change. The Chancellor's Office would have to provide support to the campuses to figure out what that looks like.

And then at the moment, and then every campus would would now be required to pay a fee to the auditor for each of them to have their own audits. And that, off the top of my head, I know was around like 35,000 per campus.

Okay, thank you for that. Do you have any comments to add?

Yes, thank you, Assembly Member. The reality is that there already is, to your point, financial records that are being requested from each campus every year and then consolidated to make one audit, which I don't think is entirely helpful or useful if it's not disaggregated.

If we don't have a campus by campus detail, we're not getting all the information that we need. The students aren't getting all the information they need. And so I think it's critically important that we do that deeper dive on each campus, to Assembly Member Gonzalez's, point. That's part of the deeper dive is doing the campus by campus audit.

The estimates that CSU had put forward that was in the low millions accounted for all the audits having to be done at one time on every campus. There's a reason why we're staggering it, so that wouldn't be the case. Plus, to your and others points, we imagine there will be cost savings and efficiencies that would ultimately come from these audits.

And one more point or a couple more points kind of to collectively answer some of the questions. In terms of the timeline from the end of audit, this is something I'm happy to talk with CSU about, to have conversations. I'm totally open to engagement.

Hopefully now after hearing from the Members, CSU will come to the table and engage on how this will actually play out. So we can be sensitive to cost, we could be sensitive to staffing, and sensitive to a timeline that makes sense for them and for the Legislature to make sure that these aren't drawn out. But the last point is, in terms of the action items, as some of it also served on nonprofit boards, we get audited. There's a response to the audit that's done by the accountant of the nonprofit or by the board of the nonprofit.

Similarly, we would expect that, like any other audit, that the management, in this case the CSU management, would respond to the outcomes of the audits. Not just the system wide audit, but the campus by campus audit. So there'll be a response to whatever might be highlighted, good, bad or ugly.

So then there's an opportunity then to have follow up by the Legislature. If something's identified that's out of whack by students, by faculty, or any other stakeholders in the community can look at that audit and see, okay, well we see what was identified.

We don't agree or we do agree or with what the management response to it is. Here are ways that we can move forward together in a more effective manner. Or if there's something that that is fraudulent or something that is showing something more egregious, there can be follow up, deeper dive audits or investigations done based upon a campus by campus overview, which is something that I think would be desperately needed.

35,000 in perspective. At Dominguez Hills, we found out by pressuring and insisting we get a contract with Huron Consulting, in spite of having a $12 million deficit due to some tough times at Dominguez Hills, we were able to find $440,000 to engage a consultant for 15 weeks to help us figure out how to lay off the next round of folks. So 35,000 seems like a pretty good deal. If we would have had that audit, perhaps we wouldn't have had to hire an external group to help us figure out how to better manage our budget.

Thank you. Mr. Ha.

Just want to update, and for our Assembly Member DeMaio's comments. I was just corrected that we get audited every year as part of being a nonprofit, and it's part of tax form 990. And I'm happy to share that with you.

Thank you so much. Thank you, colleagues, for your comments, and we know... Oh, Mr. Muratsuchi.

Thank you. I just want to welcome my two constituents, and happy to move this bill.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second by Assembly Member Gonzalez. Assembly Member, would you like to close?.

Well, I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, and your staff for your work on this and the analysis. Thank my colleagues for the great conversation, as well as thanking Mr. Ha for his technical support, Dr. Norman for being here today. And to Michael, if this is your first time testifying, I'm going to find other bills for you to testify on to help me out in the future. But ultimately, I think, as all have agreed on, transparency is important.

Having the right information, not just information every year, having the right information is what's more important than just having a broad audit done. And so I think with this legislation and with your support, we can make this a reality. And I think to Dr. Jackson's point, ultimately partner with the CSU to have that transparency ensure that people have more and more confidence in this extraordinary system that we all love. With that, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member Kalra, for bringing this measure forward today. Thank you, colleagues, for the robust discussion, and to all the witnesses and all the comments here today and to the CSU system for your comments as well.

We know that when we look at transparency, when we look at efficiencies, there's an opportunity here through the audit process to continue to find those efficiencies. And so really appreciate the author bringing this forward today. And with that, I look forward to supporting the bill. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.

File item number seven, AB 326. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure has six ayes, one no. It's out. And we'll keep the roll open for additional Members to add on. Thank you. Next up is item number eight by Assembly Member Gipson, Assembly Bill 335. Welcome.

Welcome Assembly Member Gipson.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members. Thank you very much for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 335, the designation of a California Black-Serving Institution Grant Program. This Bill seeks to establish, uh, this program for Black-serving institutions, to apply for the advance—for the advancement—and equity for underserved students.

For context, um, the genesis of this Bill was from our former state Senator, Steven Bradford, who authored, uh, Senate Bill 1348 in 2024, which laid the foundation for this Bill—335—that established the first, the first official Black-Serving Institution Designation in the country.

As most of us know, um, specifically, Black students in California and the United States, has historically, um, under—been underrepresented— in higher education, and these are students who face a lack of academic resources and support from their college.

In fact, the Campaign for the College Opportunity reports that only one third—and I want to underscore one third of Black community, um, colleges—students receive a certificate or degree within six years.

Additionally, according to the survey administered by the California Student Aid Commission, 78% of Black, um, college students in California were food insecure, uh, and 65% were housing insecure in 2023. These are the high—are the highest rates—of these basic needs challenging, um—experienced—by any group.

That is why this piece of legislation is critical, uh, for our most underserved, um, students and for higher education institutions that serve those students. This Bill, that is a representative of California taking a bold approach in supporting communities of color—especially when it feels like their resources are being threatened—um, not only all around. Just all around.

Finally, I want to say thank you very much to this Committee and the Committee Staff for working extremely hard, um, with my team, in order to strengthen this Bill, and also giving me the amendments and suggestions, um, that the Amendments are printed in the Analysis.

I want to say thank you, and some of those amendments are as follows: setting a base grant for each, um, application—or each applicant—and the supplemental grant portion, um, to be determined by the governing board; strengthening the criteria for grants awarded to recipients, including a 25% match for the base grant awardee, um, and also adding—or editing—um, a bill language, to remove any obstacles or any—in any part—that would be concerning, regarding Proposition 209.

So, I want to again thank the staff for working very closely with us, so we won't have any issues moving forward, Proposition 209. It gives me great pleasure to introduce Dr. Keith Curry, the President of Comps Community College, which lies within my district, and also, Dr. Teresa Aldridge with the Cosumnes River College, who act as my witnesses.

So thank them for coming here in support of Assembly Bill 335.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Welcome.

Thank you. Uh, thank you, Assembly Member Gipson, for authoring this, uh, Assembly Bill 335 - Black Servant Institution Grant Program, and I encourage the Assembly Higher Education Committee to approve this important legislation with the amendments.

As co-founder of Black Student Success Week for California Community Colleges, in addition to serving as a National Chair for Black Student Enrollment, uh, since 2011, we have seen an enrollment incline in Black students throughout the nation, but also in higher education in California.

And the concern he brought us to enrollment is not just about enrolling our Black students on our campuses, it's also about retention, also persistence, and also completion of their degree or certificate from a community college, or from a four-year college or university.

This Bill allows colleges to address the root cause, through funding, um, uh—through funding—to address, to address the root cause through funding that will impact all students, including Black students, at California community colleges and also California State University campuses.

Thank you. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Chair Fong and Members of the Committee, I am Teresa Aldridge and I'm a proud graduate of Palomar College in North San Diego County. I bring you greetings on behalf of thousands of underserved students at our colleges, that I have personally served during my 32 years service as a counselor in a community college system.

I am a mother, educator, student advocate, and faculty leader, for over two decades of leadership experience in higher education, including my service as Counseling Department Chair, Academic Senate President, and College union President.

Throughout my career, I have worked to ensure that all students—particularly those from historically underrepresented backgrounds, and our most vulnerable students—receive the resources and support they need to succeed. I'm here today to express my strong support of AB 335, which in—establishes—the designation of California Black-Serving Institutions Grant Program.

This Bill represents a vital step in ensuring that, that institutions, that serve underserved Black and African American students, have the resources to close persistent equity gaps and improve student outcomes. The data speaks for itself. You've already heard some of that already.

Black student enrollment is, um—in—higher education declined by 22% between 2010 and 2020, and Black students face some of the lowest college completion rates in our state. As an educational leader, I have witnessed, firsthand, how systemic barriers, including inadequate academic support, financial hardship, and a lack of culturally-responsive services, hinder our student success, especially from underserved populations.

AB 335 directly addresses these challenges by providing targeted academic resources, mentorship, counseling, and support programs that benefit all underserved students.

Let's be clear about what this Bill does and what it does not do. The language of AB 335 explicitly states that the Grant aims to provide academic resources and support for underserved students and Black and African American students.

This inclusive phrasing ensures that the benefits of the program are not limited to a single racial group, but extend to all students who are underserved, regard—regardless—of their race or ethnicity. AB 335 aligns with existing educational policy, upholds constitutional requirements and ensures that its state funding is used equitably to enhance student success.

This is not an exclusion; it is an inclusion for California as it's—as it—leads the Nation in expanding educational opportunity, and this Bill is a continuation of that legacy. We cannot ignore the data. We cannot afford inaction.

By passing AB 335, we invest in the future of our workforce, economic stability, and educational success of all Californians. I respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote on AB 335. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room?

Good afternoon. Cristina Salazar with Californians Together, in support.

Thank you.

Anna Matthews, with the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, in strong support. Thank you.

Karen Stout, on behalf of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges, co-sponsor of the Bill, in strong support.

Alex Sarkissian, on behalf of the Associated Students of Sacramento City College, in support.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Mark Mac Donald, on behalf of the Los Rios, Antelope Valley, Contra Costa, Foothill-De Anza, Kern, San Diego, Southwestern Victor Valley, and San Bernardino colleges—all community colleges—all in support. Thank you.

Always hard to go after Mark. Hi, Carol Gonzalez, on behalf of Long Beach City College and EdTrust-West, in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Hello...for the Greater Sacrament of Urban League, in strong support.

Good afternoon. Noona Ghariepian, on behalf of the Chief Executive Officers of California Community Colleges Board, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Brian Howe with the California Faculty Association. We just missed the deadline, but we have a co-sponsorship recommendation on this Bill. Thank you.

Hi, Kasia Hunt here with Nosman, on behalf of Mount San Antonio College, in support, as well as North Orange County Community College District, in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Valerie Johnson with The Campaign for College Opportunity, in support.

Good afternoon. Elizabeth Betsy Boyd, as the Chair of the California State University Academic Senate, uh, we have this as a high-priority support. Thank you.

Maria Veloz, Los Angeles Community College District, in strong support of this Bill.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room?

You have two minutes. Welcome.

Chairman Fong, honorable Members of this Committee, thank you for your time. My name is Andrew Quino. I'm an attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation. Pacific Legal foundation, or P.L.F., is the nation's leading public interest law foundation that's dedicated to advocating for equality and opportunity for all and fighting against government overreach and abuse.

Uh, I'm here to discuss what appears to be the unconstitutional expenditure of grant funds on the basis of race, in AB 335, that is required of colleges and universities receiving this Grant.

California has long been opposed to racial discrimination and racial preferences, as demonstrated by its consistent support for Proposition 209—and upholding Proposition 209—in efforts to defeat it or repeal it.

Uh, as you know, Proposition 209 enshrines, in our state Constitution, a prohibition on government discriminating, or granting preferential treatment, on the basis of race, sex, skin color, ethnicity, or national origin, in public employment, education, and contracting.

Meanwhile, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution does not permit racial classifications, unless they withstand strict scrutiny in court.

Section 2 of AB 335 violates—or appears to violate—Prop 209 and the 14th Amendment, because it states the following: "Colleges and universities, in receipt of a Grant, shall expend 100% of the Grant to provide academic resources and support to underserved Black and African American students, and other underserved students."

Allocating educational resources and support, on the basis of race—the way that AB 335 currently does—is a direct violation of Proposition 209 and its prohibition on discrimination and preferential treatment, on the basis of race and ethnicity, in public education.

The amendment that has been suggested, in which I understand the author of the Bill has agreed to, would now provide that colleges and universities shall expend 100% of the Grant funds on academic resources and student support services to underserved students, including, but not limited to, Black and African American students.

This is a less objectionable and less offensive to Proposition 209 in the U.S. Constitution. Though, if we are serious about providing additional educational resources to all students, regardless of race, AB 335 should not target any particular racial group, and leave it at just serving underserved students.

It should not leave colleges with the impression that any one racial group should be singled out and preferred, especially at the expense of others. No college should prioritize any student over another, based on race. And there are further opportunities to make AB 335 align with Proposition 209 in the U.S. Constitution.

AB 335 should define specifically what an underserved student is, and importantly, that the definition of an underserved student does not depend on an individual student's race or ethnicity. Grant recipients should also confirm that they will not use—and have not used Grant funds—to provide academic resources and student support services on a racially discriminatory basis, and that all underserved students, again, regardless of race or ethnicity, were eligible for these resources and support.

The Legislature should support and encourage our colleges and universities in expanding opportunities for all California students, regardless of skin color and ancestry. That is in, keeping with Proposition 209, the U.S. constitution, and our tradition of equal, not separate, education. I thank you for your time.

Thank you. Are there tweeners in the Hearing Room?

Good afternoon. Jessica Duong with the University of California. We have a supportive amended position. We just would like to be included in the Bill, and we'll take a look at the Committee's Amendments. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Alex Graves with the I.C.C.U, would just echo the comments of my colleague from U.C. Thank you.

Thank you. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Vice Chair Demaio.

I, uh, greatly appreciate the very logical and precise, uh, uh, walkthrough of Proposition 209 that we received from the opponent. Um, there's no shortage of programs to serve underserved students in the State of California. Uh, we provide a variety of financial aid packages, a variety of funds, but all those funds look at need, not skin color.

Here, we have a very clever—but thinly veiled attempt—to get around Proposition 209. Um, voters just recently reaffirmed Proposition 209. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down racial preferences in, uh, the allocation of government funds. This is fraught with all sorts of legal peril. You don't put the institutions that you claim to serve in good light.

Frankly, I've heard that, um, we still have to figure out which institutions would be eligible, um, for the, for the program. But here you have a, a Bill, um, that is entitled "California Black-Serving Institutions Grant Programs."

The original intent, the clear intent—the unmistakable intent—if we're being candid, is to earmark funds to students based on their skin color.

To say that we're going to be giving grants, but they have discretion, um, I would venture to guess that if they did not give their grant money to people based on the preferred skin color, you wouldn't give them money the following year, and there would be all sorts of people who'd be raising all sorts of criticism. So, let's not kid ourselves.

Let's respect the vote of the, uh, California voters in affirming Prop 209. Let's comply with the law. Let's comply with our State Constitution. Let's comply with the U.S. Supreme Court Case Law, as it relates to racial preferences.

Um, I urge the, the, author—while well intended in trying to help students—I would urge the author to perhaps come up with alternative programs, uh, to helping the students, not based upon the color of their skin.

Thank you. Any further comments? Assembly Member Essayli.

I have some questions. Um, I'm looking at the Amendments, um, because you know, I agree with the concerns of the opposition—that we cannot have programs based on race. But reading the Amendments, it changes the language substantially.

It says, um, it's going to provide support services to basically undeserved—I'm sorry—underserved students, including, but not limited to, Black and African American students. Does that satisfy your legal concerns?

It, it gets there. It is a step in the right direction. I think, as the name itself of the Grant Program would suggest to colleges receiving this, that there is a specific racial category that is targeted and prioritized.

Even if a Bill permits a college or University to spend the funds in a race-neutral way, if it appears that the target—or the intent—is to benefit a specific racial category, that would, that would face, uh, some serious scrutiny by the courts and by individuals that may not be, uh, benefiting from those grant funds.

So, the, the language is a step in the right direction, but I think with an amendment that would clarify—and make very clear—that this is not intended to benefit, uh, or disadvantage a specific racial category, and that an underserved student is not defined based on race. That would go even further and assuage those legal concerns.

Well, let me ask the supporters, because, I mean, what it sounds like it's coming down to is the intent. So, what, what is the intent here? What are we doing? What's, what's the purpose and how will these grants be decided? Who, who receives it?

If it's not based on race, how will we decide who to award these to?

Whoever wants to.

As written in the Bill and also Amendment, there's an application process where you have a, uh, the Governing Committee, where we review on the applications and make a decision based off the grants that were submitted.

They also have the linkage to their strategic plan, as it relates to how they want to improve those institutions and also looking at their data.

At the end of the day, we want to change outcomes—looking at data—and that's one of the categories that will be involved in the Grant is looking at the data for institutions: when they start as a Black-Serving Institution, to where they want to be in the next five years.

But look at the data and have a conversation about the data, uplifting the program to service through the Grant program, to improve the outcomes of all students, including Black and African American students.

So is the money—just want to make sure I understand it—so is the money going to the school, or is the money going to the school and then the school is then going to hand out money to specific students?

It depends on the grant, the way, the way the Grant Program is written. But the goal for us, when we look at the, uh, legislation, is that the governing board will be able to—the managing entity—will be able to, uh, allocate funds for certain types of grants—that's included in the Bill—certain areas that they could, uh, call out for grants.

And the institution submits a grant proposal to the managing entity and to the governing board for approval for funding.

Okay, so, are you assuring us that skin color will not be used as a factor in awarding grants to recipients?

What I can assure you on is that we're trying to do what's best for all students, including Black and African American students at our institutions, but it's about all students receiving programs and services, and that's what's going to be included in the grant application.

And it won't be based on race?

We can't have it based on race, based off of Proposition 209.

Correct.

So we're trying to follow the law.

I just want to make sure the intent is there. So, um, and uh, did you—sorry—did you...?

Yeah, I was. I just want to say something.

I'm not being disrespectful, regards to these comments, but at the end of the day, if you look at the data—which Assembly Member Gipson, um, outlined very great today—regards to student success, and you look at all groups as well, but if you look at the numbers for African American and Black students, and what have been happening historically in higher education, our goal is to try to fix the problem—the root cause of the problem, and try to provide more support to our institutions, to service all students and also African American and Black students.

And so at the end of the day, we're trying to do what's best for California, but more importantly, trying to do what's best for students. So we want to do what's best for students and we utilize data to do that.

By the way, I'm, I'm not against you on that. I'm with you on that. And you know, in fact, as President Trump, that secured the funding for historically Black colleges, throughout the United States, he's recognized the value those colleges have, and that they have not received equal treatment or equal funding. So, I, I appreciate this issue.

But in California, we do have a specific law on this. I just want to make sure we comply. By the way, I'm going to ask you—since I have you here—um, if the Bill was based on lineage, for example, if someone was a direct descendant of slaves, would that be constitutional, under California Federal Constitution?

I've, um, interest in a Bill that would recognize freedmen based on actual lineage. So, it's not based on skin color, it's based on, uh, whether you descended from slavery or not. Would that whole constitutional challenge.

That's a great question, and it depends on a lot of things. The context, the intent of the use of lineage as a criteria. The Supreme Court has said that ancestry is race; that it can be a proxy, oftentimes for race. So again, it depends on the context of, of...

But not ancestry. It's, it's whether or not you're, you're a direct descendant of an American slave.

Yeah. To me, ancestry and lineage, in the use of that, in terms of reparations, would be synonymous. So, you'd have to look at if, if the purpose is specifically to benefit, uh, a particular racial category, and then, using lineage—really as the proxy—then you're just going to race, and that would receive strict scrutiny.

But you agree, not all Black people are descendants of slaves?

That's correct, yes.

So it—it would be—let's just put it this way. It would have a greater chance of surviving constitutional scrutiny than something directly based on race.

Right. And I would refer you again to the Supreme Court case of Rice v. Cayetano. There, the Supreme Court said even if you have only a subset of a racial category benefiting or having the advantage, that could still come under strict scrutiny.

But it hasn't been tested.

I said it has not been tested.

What's that?

It has not been tested. I don't know if California is going to be the testing ground for that. We would welcome that discussion.

All right. Um. Well, I mean, if we have, uh, this is a Committee, this is official record, and we have their intent on record that it's not based on race. Um, you know, I, I, I, I'm more comfortable with the Amendment language as written. So, um, with that, I don't have any more questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Gonzalez.

Just to clarify, uh, I just learned of H.S.I.'s—Hispanic-Serving Institutions. Federally recognized because of the population says that they, they become an H.S.I., and then there's, you know, they're open to such things. My question, because I don't know the answer, I need clarity on this. B.S.I.'s, are they, uh, is, are the, is—in California—are B.S.I.'s federally recognized?

Yeah, so, I've done extensive research on this, and it's a very interesting topic, so thank you very much for asking the question. If you look at the, uh, the minority designations from the Federal Government, um, you have several of them. Right?

So, if you look at the, there's a primary—primarily—Black-Serving Institution, which is 40% of your population is African American—Black or African American. You have the H.S.I., Hispanic-Serving Institution, which is about 25%. You have A.A.N.A.P.I.S.I.'s—Asian American, Pacific Islander—which is about 10%. And so, the, the numbers vary, regardless of the percentage.

And there's also grant programs that are available through the Federal Government, to support those institutions. And so, with the Black-Serving Institution designation at 10% or 1500, this is similar to the federal, but it's only the State of California, which, where's the 10%?

So, and, and forgive me, I'm just going to kind of go through the process, right? So, yes, they are federally recognized, and so then in California, is there a list of B.S.I.'s?

No, not at this moment because there—we—have an application process.

Okay.

That is happening this Spring, for institutions to apply.

And in that—in the spring—let's kind of push, push forward. Is there a committee that needs to be formed in order to identify and validate these B.S.I.'s?

Yes. So if—as outlined—inside by the Governor on September 27, the Senate Bill 1348, which is authored by Steven Bradford, outlines the committee that is responsible for, uh granting the 'Black-Serving Institution' designation. And so that Committee was, was established in, in that Bill and they're going to be starting meeting this spring to begin that process.

And have they been appointed?

I don't think so.

So, the reason I asked that question is, I, I appreciate where, where we're going. The—and like I said—learning about H.S.I.'s today, I was like, eh, you know, that's okay, I get that. But if there is Senator Bradford put something and we're supposed to act on it, I guess my question is, why haven't we acted on it?

This is not on you, by the way. [laughs] Uh, I'm looking for more clarity as, if we're looking for grant money, or to establish this, and to kind of understand who gets what and so on, so forth, this Committee that's supposed to be formed, according to law, has yet to be appointed.

Is there a reason why it has not been appointed, that you know of?

Because then, this would be a, a moot point if they—there's—no Committee to say, you get the money, you know what I mean? We're missing a piece in the puzzle, I think.

I, I think because this Bill just went into effect January 1st of 2025, right, and upon the governor's signature, January 1st, 2025, I think that the process is being formed, and the people have yet to be appointed, but will be appointed, and this acts as support for Senate Bill 1348 moving forward.

Okay, so you, you have...

It's in a process.

Got it. And I'm, I'm looking at this from a, from a process perspective. Right? Not so much of, you know, where it's going, who's, who it's going to. But have all the steps been accomplished so that action can be taken, whatever that action might be? Right. Has action been taken?

And it seems to me that there's still action to be taken in this, which is that committee that needs to be formed. Because I see it from the H.S.I. perspective that, you know, they have the committee and everything and there's already a process.

So, I'm concerned with the missing link in this and how, how, when—because we know there's some appointments that need to be filled, not only in this, but across the board—when and where. So, I'm, I'm concerned with that process.

Sure. And I would just simply say, um, Mr. Gonzalez, is that I will, um, do the research and come back with that question directly to your office, as relates to that particular piece, when those people will be, um, appointed, and when their first responsibilities are going to take place.

Because we know if this Bill passed and the Governor signs it, it doesn't go into effect, of course, until January 1, 2026, because it doesn't have an urgency clause. So, I think there's, there's a window, there's a time, um, that, um, Assembly—Senate—Bill 1348 is still in the process of being completed.

Um, and by the time that this Bill hopefully gets across and into effect by the governor's signature, January 1st, 2026, that would already be completed, and this just rolls right into there.

That would be, that would be the ideal situation, right? That would be the ideal situation.

And I, I, guess I'm saying this, on record, that in order for, uh, laws to be put into place and things to be successful, such as what you're asking for, we have to take the step back to say, okay, but this hasn't been done yet.

Kind of what we were talking about before. Make sure that everything gets done so that you can be successful. And I hope that, that those who are listening out there can, can help make it successful by appointing those folks, so that we can continue on with the process. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Assembly Member Jackson.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mike, my questions are for the, um, opposition here. It seems as though, um, your total opposition is just based upon Prop 209. Is that correct?

That, based upon that constitutional amendment, basically, basically, according to law, you're just, your argument is in opposition, because the law says you can't do it. Is that correct?

Not only does Proposition 209 say that, but the U.S. Constitution and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Okay, so the 14th Amendment of the Constitution was passed when?

Uh, that was, uh, right after the Civil War.

Right after the Civil War. And so right after the Civil War, we did have, we had many laws to atone for, uh, enslaved individuals. Correct? That was strictly for Black people, um, even after the 14th Amendment was passed.

You could even make an argument that many of those, those that were, uh, crafting the 14th amendment were also ones that also knew that there needed to be atonement to be done, right?

And so, you had the Freedmen's Bureau, that was enacted right after the Civil War, that was specifically made, uh, for Black people, uh, because of what the country did to enslave them, to atone for that. And so, um, maybe because of the way courts have evolved, uh, that now you would say that—or many would say that—that that would be unconstitutional.