Senate Standing Committee on Education

The Senate Education Committee will come to order in 30 seconds. Good morning. There are 12 bills on today's agenda. Six bills are on consent. Those bills are item number one, AB 437, item number five, AB 784, item number seven, AB 1034, item number nine, AB 1155 and item number 12, AB 1412.

Witnesses are asked to limit their testimony to two minutes to ensure the committee is able to complete today's agenda in a timely fashion. Seeing as though we don't have a quorum yet, let's begin as a Subcommitee with the first bill. And I see that we have Assemblymember Garcia here to speak on AB 753.

So welcome, Assemblymember and you may begin when you are ready.

All right. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators for the opportunity to present on Assembly Bill 753. AB 753 proposes a temporary solution to the urgent staffing crisis within our childcare field. 2 million children currently are awaiting care throughout the state. Infants and toddlers are those especially in need.

And despite this demand, existing childcare programs are struggling to keep classrooms open, and some have shut down entirely since they are unable to meet the staffing ratio requirements and experienced staff are leaving the field to find better wages and benefits elsewhere, as well.

There must be at least one teacher in the room for every eight children, and associate teachers are especially hard to come by. It has been widely acknowledged that the current situation is not sustainable for providers and for families.

So, AB 753 helps address the staffing shortage by providing a pathway to associate teachers, ensuring they have the time and training they need to deliver dedicated, quality care to our children while keeping classrooms fully staffed and opened. So, with me to testify in support are Maeva Marc from Kidango and Juliet Terry from the Child Care Resource Center.

Good morning, Committee Members. Again, my name is Maeva Marc, VP of Advocacy and Policy with Kidango. I'm a former preschool teacher as well as special education teacher. Kidango serves about 5,000 children and families across the Bay Area with early care and education services and we're a proud co-sponsor of AB 753.

The early care and education workforce is experiencing a workforce shortage crisis. This Bill would create an equitable pathway and helps to mitigate barriers that hinder career progress and economic mobility.

The Bill directly supports childcare and preschool programs to grow their capacity and increase their ability to serve their local communities and reach more children during the most important years of brain development.

As a provider that receives expansion funding, Kidango has experienced, firsthand, how difficult it is to hire teachers and Kidango employs well over 800 qualified teachers, and we have had 466 vacancies between July 2023 to 2025.

Since 2023, we've had 143 associate teacher vacancies and on average, it takes 86 days to start a new position, 61 days to fill the position, and 25 days to onboard them before they can supervise children in our classrooms. Families can no longer wait to access childcare and the demand is high.

In San Jose, we have over 200 children on our wait list. In Alameda County, when it comes to accessing subsidized childcare, there is a 91% unmet need for infant and toddlers and 63% unmet need for preschool.

This isn't just happening in Alameda and in the Bay Area, it is across the state, and we need to be able to hire teachers to keep our classrooms open and AB 753 is the solution for that.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Juliet Terry. I am a Senior Government Relations Specialist with the Child Care Resource Center, or CCRC. CCRC is a family service agency based in Northern Los Angeles and all of San Bernardino Counties. We serve over 65,000 children, families, and childcare providers.

We serve over 750 children in our center-based care, and we have over 100 permanent ECE professionals in our programs. As my colleague mentioned, we are in a dire staffing crisis to meet childcare demand.

As of this week, CCRC's wait list for childcare services has grown to nearly 19,000 children and and we need qualified staff to meet this need.

This Bill provides a solution to help alleviate the burdens of the staffing crisis and create a supportive workforce pathway for ECE professionals to advance up their credentialing ladder, while also being employed during their career advancement.

Specifically, the Bill would allow individuals with at least six units of ECE courses to be employed as an interim associate teacher and allows them to be in this position for up to two years while they work towards their 12 units required for the full permit.

Associate teachers are a key part of the classroom as they are the first permit level qualified to supervise children alone. It is in the intent of this Bill to use this position during the opening and closing of classrooms and during transitions.

Under our current Bill provisions, the interim associate teacher would be allowed one interim associate teacher per classroom and the individual would not be the teacher of record. This position would be supervised by a staff with a teacher permit or higher.

This Bill does align with recent CTC recommendations and updates to the Child Development Permit Matrix where the desired first level of permitting is 12 ECE units and they would create a professional license for six unit—a provisional license for six-unit holders—to allow them to work in programs while working towards that associate teacher permit level.

It's projected that these changes will take up to five years to implement. Therefore, this bridge offers a statutory bridge so that programs can sooner meet this urgent need of keeping their classrooms open for the thousands of children waiting for access to care.

In closing, this Bill would reduce our workforce barriers, keep passionate early educators and professionals in the field while they can receive ongoing income and professional supports while working towards their permit. With this, I thank you for your time and respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote.

All right, thank you. We'll now ask if there are any witnesses in support and if so, please come to the microphone at the railing. Welcome.

Good morning, Senators. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott, here on behalf of the Early Care and Education Consortium, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Melanie Cottrell, Executive Director, Head Start California, in support.

Good morning. Patty Herrera, on behalf of Early Edge California, a proud co-sponsor of the Bill, and also here on behalf of Oakland Unified School District and Californians Together, in support.

Good morning. Jeanette Carpenter, on behalf of Child Action. We're a co-sponsor in strong support of the Bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Maclean Rozansky with Alameda County Office of Education, in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Sam Nasher, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education, in support.

Good morning. Nancy Hurwood, Emeritus Professor in Education at Cal Poly Pomona, in support.

All right. Seeing no other support witnesses, we'll now turn to witnesses in opposition. If there are any lead witnesses in opposition, please come forward to the witness table. Seeing none. Then, we'll ask if there are any other opposition witnesses that would wish to record their opposition at the microphone at the railing. Okay.

Let's then return to the Committee Members, for questions or comments. Senator Choi.

Thank you. I would be supporting this Bill because it will be temporary measure until the problem is solved, but my basic question is that why we have such a staff shortage and continuous—once this temporary measure temporarily will make up the problems—but continuous problem, shortage of the staff or licensed teacher.

Is there any reason that you may know what is causing? Is a low salary or too much educational requirement? What are the barriers for becoming a licensed teacher?

Thank you, Senator Choi, for the question. Yeah, so before joining the Legislature, I'm only six months removed from being a school administrator and I specifically think of a specific child care assistant that wants to become a teacher but can't really take the classes and work at the same time.

So, this allows it, by extending that timeline from one year to two years to be able to take those classes, making it easier to kind of juggle both and balance both. And so, I understand the concern about it being temporary.

And so, I think at that time, I think we'll be able to see what the numbers look like of how it's addressing the situation.

Yeah, your business are trying to resolve their temporary problem. But I'm asking what are the reasons we are facing this shortage of teachers to be to begin with.

Yes, I'll add my witness.

Thank you for your question. So, our childcare providers and teachers have not has—has not had—a raise in their wages for a very long time and a lot of the reimbursement have been based on metrics from 2018.

And so, what we have experienced is that a lot of teachers have been leaving the field to work at McDonald's because they pay like $20 per hour. And so, you know, depending on where you are living in the State of California, a teacher—a teacher's salary may be very low. And I know that it is something that the CCPU and other childcare advocates have been working with the Legislature and Administration around rate reform.

And so, we're hopeful that, you know, as we continue to work through that it will help with the teacher shortage crisis.

But also again, because of the low wages for our teachers who work from 6 o' clock in the morning till sometimes 7 o' clock at night, by the time college courses are available, it's either they can't afford it, because they can't get a raise because they don't have the particular permit to get that raise.

And so, we are hoping that with this Bill we are solving two issues. One, creating that pathway for them to get a raise and be able to enroll in school.

Now, what is the ongoing salary per hour in comparison to other wages that you are referring?

So, at Kidango, because we are in the Bay Area, I would say that the Bay Area tends to have a higher salary for us. We are currently paying our most entry-level teacher at $29 per hour, whereas some other parts of the state that are based—the reimbursement is not, it's not a regional market rate.

It could be between $11 an hour, $15 an hour. So, it depends where you live.

So, if you're fully licensed, $29 an hour, but without the full license, the temporary license, what are the wage differences?

Well, I can only speak to Kidango. So, again, our most entry level is $29 an hour. And our teachers that have a higher certification can be around $32 an hour, to our master teachers who are also directors, center directors, they have a full on salary

That's much higher than a fast food restaurant chain, $21. So, that's not the excuse then why we are facing the shortage. The wages seems to be competitive.

If I may, Senator, on average, nationally, child care workers are the lowest paid profession. I think the average rate of pay in California overall is around $17 an hour for the average worker.

There are not many of those center directors and those in the higher master teacher level, of course that requires a higher level of education, bachelor's degree or even master's degree.

And so, those are also workforce barriers as that takes, as my colleague mentioned, time, additional cost, all those things that somebody who may be a working parent themselves might not be able to access. And so, we're just trying to ease the entry point to this workforce and keep it desirable.

I was a childcare provider myself and left the field due to low wages. I love being here. I'd rather be with the kids. So, as much as you know, we're looking to increase the overall pay with the state of California for our subsidized childcare providers who are not getting the cost of providing care right now.

Even within the private market, salaries cannot compete, let's say with a TK teacher's salary, which I believe is around $80,000 a year on average throughout the state. These wages don't even match up. So, there is not a lot of incentive for our professionals to stay within the field.

Thank you. I would strongly encourage Assemblymember Garcia, since you are working on this issue, maybe what the more permanent solution will be, whether pay is the issue or requirement to become a teacher for pre-K daycare, different levels of care system requires different levels of licensing or educational requirements as well.

So, I think you may want to look into more permanent solution in your next Bill.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Appreciate it.

Next, we have a question from Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I'm in support of the Bill, in part because we understand the workforce in the state of California is incredibly short when it comes to education in general.

And one of the things that we have learned and I have learned in sub one, years ago, is that when it comes to childcare and when it comes to especially child care in preschool, with child care specifically, to reference some of the questions that my colleague has mentioned, the state has actually been behind in actually being able to provide appropriate or adequate child care hourly wages.

As a matter of fact, I learned that we did, as a state, do surveys about the, what the wages were, and we were actually behind in what we were paying according to—in comparison to what the surveys said we should pay in the state. So, we've always been behind as a state.

And it was interesting to note that when they did the study, they actually stated also, well, my question was, at the time, well, how do we come to par when it comes to childcare, ensuring that they are actually paid according to the surveys in the state?

Or actually, it wasn't a survey, it was an audit that they did, and they were doing it every two years, and they said it would take actual legislative action. It's why the Women's Caucus has been pursuing the childcare increases, increases for childcare wages.

And it's been kind of a hurdle because of the cost that it would entail. So, those are some of the challenges that we're facing as far as historically—as far as the wages go with childcare. So, we're working towards that end.

But it is, when it comes to the budget, a little difficult to actually fully fund what is needed in our state, as far as the workforce goes, because we're expanding and we're expanding more opportunities in education.

The workforce has been a challenge, which is why this body, the Legislature as a whole, has been very supportive of ensuring that we have pathways to allow the workforce to grow, including this particular Bill.

So, I am in fully support of this Bill, and we hope that we, you know, we cultivate the teacher culture and ensure that they're taken care of and that it makes it very attractive for them to be able to do that. As a former teacher, I love working the little ones, and it's heaven.

So, you know, I'm grateful and hopefully we'll, we'll plant the seeds in younger generations to come into the field. So, with that, I—if there hasn't been a motion on the Bill, I'd be happy to make a motion.

Well, thank you. Before we have our motion, do you want to close, Assemblymember?

Yeah, I just want to thank all Senators for, for, for hearing the, the Bill, as well as my witnesses for testifying. And I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

Great. So, we have a motion from Senator Ochoa Bogh. Assistant, can I get a roll call, please? Oh, also, let me go ahead and I see we have a quorum, so let's go ahead and call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. And for, yeah, let's go ahead and do the, the vote now on, on AB 753. If you could call the roll. We have a motion by Senator Ochoa Bogh.

[Roll Call]

Great. And then could we go ahead and since we have a quorum vote on the cons- consent items? Motioned by Senator Choi.

Okay. On the consent calendar. [roll call].

Excellent. Okay, so thank you so much, assemblymember. And we will put that bill on. We'll put that bill on call. So next up, I see that we have Assemblymember Zbur in the office to present AB 648. Assemblymember, whenever you are ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. I'm proud today to present AB 648 which will combat housing insecurity and homelessness among community college students, staff, and faculty while also addressing - helping to address California's broader housing crisis. California's community colleges are an integral part of our higher education system.

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 they will be able to provide for their basic needs.

Last year, the Legislative Analyst Office found that roughly 60% of community college students face housing insecurity and almost 25% have experienced homelessness. Let me repeat that number. 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 where they will sleep at night. AB 648 will address the housing crisis and recognize the integral role of the California community colleges in our higher education system.

Specifically, this Bill will allow student and staff housing to be built on property that is owned or leased by a community college district and located within a half mile radius of a main campus or an existing satellite campus.

Regardless of how the lot is zoned, community colleges will still be required to comply with CEQA to consult with their local planning Department and follow other relevant regulations.

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 students or affiliated with the community college. This Bill is supported by multiple community college districts across the State of California.

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 Institutional Communications at Santa Monica College, and Kate Rogers on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition, the sponsor and co sponsors of this Bill.

Good morning Chair Perez and Members of the Committee. 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 in the number of community college students who transfer to the UCs.

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 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 our community college student housing crisis by building housing.

We, along with our cosponsors, including the Los Angeles Community College District and many colleges and supportive parties, see this Bill as a necessary step to help ensure that community colleges are able to fully support our students. Thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote and thank you for your engagement and involvement.

Good afternoon, Chair Perez, Members of the Committee. My name is Kate Rodgers. I'm the Co-Chair and Policy Director of the Student HOMES Coalition and I'm also a current UC student and former community college student. Myself and HOMES is proud to cosponsor AB 648 and we respectfully request your support today.

So Student HOMES was founded about three years ago now by students and we all have our background in higher ed advocacy and we noticed that college affordability was dominating the conversation about just higher ed in general. But housing was almost completely left out of that.

But the reality is that housing makes up a greater share of cost of attendance for almost every student at a public institution in this state. And at community colleges, it's seven times more expensive than tuition. So we just can't have affordable higher ed without affordable housing.

And there's a lot of work to be done on student homelessness in every segment. But the problem is by far most acute at our community colleges. As you heard the Member say, nearly 24% of community college students will face homelessness in a given academic year.

But despite this, just 14 out of 116 campuses operate any student housing at all. And as evidenced by the support list of AB 648, community colleges are not choosing not to build student housing because there's no demand for it or because they are so called commuter campuses or because their students have other affordable options.

They're not building student housing because they can't. Without AB 648, community college housing developments are subject to restrictive zoning policies, discretionary review delays, increased costs or sometimes outright denials.

So by giving community colleges the same land use authorities that UCs and CSUs already have, we can finally allow community colleges to meet the needs of their students and take the first major step towards solving the housing crisis at these public colleges. So thank you and I respectfully request your aye vote today.

Thank you for your presentation. Do we have anybody else here in support? If you could use the mic at the rail and state your name organization position on the Bill.

Good morning Members. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors, the California Chapter, in strong support.

Good morning. Nune Garipian on behalf of the Community College League of California representing the state's 116 colleges and 73 districts. Thank you.

Good morning. Karen Stout on behalf of PowerCA Action and support. Thank you.

Good morning Madam Chair and Members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing, a proud cosponsor, and California Gimbian, Abundant, and SPUR. All strong support. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the City of Santa Monica in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Maria Veloz, Los Angeles Community College District. We are a cosponsor and in strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Theresa Brown on behalf of the California Community College's Chancellor's Office in support of AB 648.

Good morning. David Nevin on behalf of Foothill, De Anza, Los Rios and San Diego Community College Districts in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Carol Gonzalez, on behalf of Long Beach City College in support. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. If there are any, please come forward. Seeing nobody getting up. Are there any other opposition witnesses that want to use the mic at the railing? Alrighty, I'll turn it back to the Members. Yes, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm in support of the Bill in part because we're bringing basically parity between the UCs, the CSUs, and the community colleges, which I think is incredibly important as we're considering housing and in the realm of the fact that with community colleges now the community colleges are extending their sphere of influence and admission.

So we are needing, and I am a big proponent of building on campus in order not to impact the housing numbers or availability in the local neighborhoods of the these colleges, which makes the cost of housing in those local communities go up. So I think it's an incredibly important Bill.

The only concern, and this is something that I think there should be a little more discussion and I would love to hear your feedback on, but it's the ability to build on leased land, something that is not necessarily owned by the community college and what that would entail if the, say, the property owner decides, you know, we're going to terminate the lease or we're planning on selling the property.

And so there are some complications that happen when you're building something permanent on a lease property.

So that's the only concern that I have and kind of curious as to what if there's been any concern or any conversations as to how you would proceed with building and whether or not that's even feasible to build on somebody's land that is doesn't belong to you.

So perhaps a minimum requirement of a leased agreement on properties are being built on. But I think that is probably for me the biggest concern that I have with the Bill.

So it isn't that uncommon that buildings are built on lease land. Often they're 50 year, 99 year leases. I know it's really common, for example, in the Palm Springs area where there's a lot of, a lot of land that's sort of owned by the Native American communities and they're built on long leased land.

I think the thing that I would say about that is that, you know, these are incredible investments that these colleges are making.

They're governed by elected community college boards and so they're going to, there is some assurance that you get because of the oversight that you actually have about making sure that they're investing, you know, public monies well and not doing building a property on something that is.

You know, that is going to be for some short amount of time. But I'm happy to look at that more.

I'd be most grateful if you would. That would be my biggest concern. Just because if you don't have a long term lease agreement, then that could pose some problem problems later on if the property owner...

...and then if the properties are built with state funding for the community college, then you know, if the seller decides to sell the property, then who, who benefits and who keeps those that property or you know, the logistics behind that gets a little bit complicated when we are building on leased land, especially when it comes to housing.

So I'm happy to support, I'd be happy to make a motion on the Bill, but I would like to see further discussions and maybe tightening up a little bit the requirements on that on that component. But other than that, thank you for bringing this Bill forward.

Thank you. I appreciate the support. And we'll definitely look at that and look at it in comparison to sort of what sort of for-profit housing developers look at.

We want to sort of maintain enough flexibility so we're not making it incredibly hard for the community colleges. On the other hand, I understand the concern you're having and we'll take a look at that more. So thank you.

Great, thank you. So I just want to share, I'm very supportive of this Bill. I think that we all recognize that so many of our college students, whether in community college or in university, are facing a housing crisis as is, I think, most people in the state, but our students especially feel it.

And just talking with any of our young people that are currently enrolled in college, it becomes very obvious the cost of rent has completely impacted their ability sometime even to go to school or live close by campus.

So, you know, allowing community colleges to be able to have exemptions from those local zoning rules I think makes a lot of sense, especially as we move towards the trajectory. I know local colleges in my district, Pasadena City College, have already begun to make efforts to buy, you know, property around their location to begin housing students.

But it's nowhere near the size of the capacity that they need to actually meet the demand of students that want to attend their campus. So doing this would allow for them to be able to do that. I know Los Angeles Community College District has expressed, expressed interest in this as well.

So we know that this is the direction that that we need to move. And it just makes sense for us to build that housing as close as we can to campus to make sure that it's a walkable community, which is, I think, is something that we all dream of.

And especially for young students who might not have a driver's license, it is something that they're especially interested in. So very supportive of this building Bill and appreciate you bringing this forward, Assemblymember, and would love to have you, to have you close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote and really thank all the Members for their comments today. So thank you.

Excellent. So we have a motion by Senator Ochoa Bogh, and the motion is a do pass to the Senate Local Government Committee.

[ROLL CALL]

Great. So we will put that Bill on call. Thank you so much, Assemblymember.

Thank you very much.

Alrighty, so next up, I will bring up Assemblymember Davies, who will be presenting AB 586. And the Assemblywoman can present when she's ready.

Good morning. Thank you, honorable chair, and good morning, Senators. I'm here today to talk about AB 587, which makes one change to the California Student Aid Commission Board makeup. AB 587 will, upon the next vacancy, replace one of the three general public representatives appointed by the Governor with a veteran committee representative.

This Bill will help to expand veterans representation in the state while also leveraging their lived experiences to further improve the services we offer through CSAC. The Student Aid Commission does great work, but by expanding the perspective on the board, we can serve a greater population of students.

The Bill was passed by Assembly Higher Education Appropriations and off the floor without a vote in opposition. Members I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember. Do you have anyone here in support? Any witnesses?

Nope, I think it's just us.

Okay, thank you. All right. Anyone who would like to share their support, please use the mic at the railing. Seeing nobody getting up. Anybody that would like to share their opposition, please use the mic at the railing. Alrighty. I will turn it back over to Members if there's any comments or questions. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Assemblymember Davies. Welcome. You look fabulous. And we were just commenting that we're loving those shoes, so welcome. We're happy to have you in education. I just want to say that I'm grateful for this Bill.

I think it's a great, great idea, especially as we advocate to have more veterans take advantage of the educational opportunities in higher ed and everything that we can do to support our veterans and our military. I think it's incredibly important. So thank you for bringing this measure forward. I'm happy to move the Bill when appropriate.

Thank you so much. Senator Ochoa Bogh. Again, yes, this is a great legislation. And California Student Aid Commission is obviously incredibly important. And having representation of our veteran community as a part of that Commission is obviously, you know, incredibly helpful and will add valuable insight to the work that they do. Assemblymember, if you would like to close.

Respectfully, as for an aye vote.

Thank you. So we have a motion by Senator Ochoa Bogh, and the motion is due pass to the Senate Military and Veterans Affairs Committee.

Senator Perez? Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Ochoa Bogh, aye. Cabaldon? Choi? Cortese? Cortese, aye. Laird? Limon?

Thank you. All righty. We will now move on next to. We will now move on next to Assembly Member Muratsuchi, who will be presenting AB 1123. Assembly Member, whenever you're ready.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, senators, thank you for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 1123. This is a hopefully a simple and common sense proposal. As we are expanding universal Transitional kindergarten, working on expanding universal access to preschool, we need representation on Commission on Teacher Credentialing for the Early Childhood Educators.

We know that teaching preschoolers and four year old's is not the same as teaching kids at other and I see Senator Ochoa Bogh speaking from experience, recognizing from experience the need for early childhood education representation on the Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

And so let me turn it over to our witnesses in support of this measure, Professor Nancy Hurlbut, Professor Emeritus from Cal Poly Pomona, and Veronica Garcia, Director of Child and Family Services, Stanislaus County Office of Education.

Can you- Good, it's on. Hi, I'm Nancy Hurlbut and hello Chair Perez and the committee members. I have served as the Dean of education at two CSUs and many roles in early childhood. Presently I'm a co lead of PEACH, an ECE faculty Higher Ed Collaborative.

PEACH is one of the co sponsors of 1123 which seeks to add early childhood content expertise as voting members to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing or CTC. The need for this update is critical as CTC is a governing body that makes decisions on the Child Development Permit, the new PK3 credential and workforce training requirement.

And presently there are no ECE professionals on the commission, no voting professionals. In the past 10 years, CTC's scope of work has increased significantly into the ECE system, highlighted by the continual expansion expansion of Universal TK and PK, the revisions of the Child Development Permit and the new Teacher Performance Expectations Assessment and Credential.

Last year CTC issued 6,503 permits and with the addition of the new PK3 credential, the number of permits and credentials will increase in ECE. Comparing these numbers to the multiple subjects credential, 9,405 of those last year underscores the importance importance of adding an ECE content expert.

As CTC's decisions around the critical aspects of the ECE field have increased, the commission's engagement with ECE experts has not. This is worrisome as their decisions are felt throughout the ECE field. The research is clear. A well educated, appropriately early childhood workforce will set the foundation for successful life and education for children.

We are confident that adding these ECE voting positions to the commission will strengthen the relationship between ECE and the K12 system, allowing California to create the best possible education system for our children and Families, I thank you for your time and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good morning chair and committee members. My name is Veronica Garcia and I serve as a Director of Stanislaus County Office of Education Family Services where we proudly provide early childhood education programs to over 9,300 children and 7,200 families across eight counties in Central California.

I'm here today to express my strong support for AB 1123 and to emphasize their urgent need for early childhood ECE representation on the CTC.

As a program leader and practitioner responsible for building and sustaining a strong workforce through career pathway development, I witness daily how the commission's decisions impact recruitment, retention and the quality of care and education for the families we serve in our region.

With over 25 years in the ECE field, I can say that this is one of the most challenging times for us to recruit and retain qualified staff despite the demand that we have truly children on wait lists. Simply because we can't find qualified staff is really sad. Very, very sad

for us to tell the families on the wait list, sorry, we're still looking for staff. Our workforce is being lost to industries like we've mentioned before, like fast food that don't require all these qualifications and continued professional development where wages are often higher and the path is less complex than what we make people go through.

We are at risk of losing dedicated, passionate educators because our systems do not sustainable long term careers. Specifically in early childhood education. Adding a voting EC representative to the CTC would bring critical expertise to the table that is truly needed.

We understand not only the pedagogy of early learning, but also the systems needed to build that quality workforce with the folks that we work with.

Without EC voting representation on the CTC, we do have a significant gap in perspective that exists right now which can lead to decisions that ultimately undermine the very workforce that we are trying to build and sustain in the ECE field. So just to give one example, the Commission's recent proposal.

You're about 15 seconds, if you could wrap up?

Yes. So just for example, the commission just did an overhaul on the child development permit structure that affected our workforce and is going to continue to do that. So with that, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the children, families and educators in our region and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great, thank you. If there are any other witnesses and support in the room, please use the mic at the railing and state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Good morning, Maeva Marc with Kidango in strong support of AB 1123.

Good morning. Jeanette Carpenter, on behalf of Child Action, in strong support of the bill. Thank you.

Good morning. McLane Rosanski with the Alameda County Office. Of Education, in support.

Hello. Sam Nasher on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education, in support.

Juliette Terry on behalf of Child Care Resource Center, proud co sponsor of the bill. In support.

Melanie Cottrell with Head Start California, also a proud co sponsor in strong support of the bill.

Thank you. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. If there are any, please come forward and use the mic here if you'd like to.

I'll just make a quick comment. Thank you. To the assemblymember and the sponsors for their hard work working with CTO. Annie Chow with the California Teachers Association, as well as Tanya, the staff that was working on the bill because of most recent amendments, we are neutral on the bill now, or I'm processing a neutral position. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Seeing nobody getting up. I will turn it back to members of the committee. Do we have any comments or questions? All righty. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Just want to thank the author for bringing this measure forward.

I think it's incredibly important once again, as I mentioned earlier today, that we do everything that we can to ensure that we have representation, that the needs are being met so that we can have the workforce that is desperately, desperately needed, especially prepare teachers with their little ones, which are just absolutely precious and very unique in their learning experiences.

So happy to move the bill.

Okay, assemblymember, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. I appreciate all of the comments and respectfully ask for a vote.

Thank you. Alright, we have a motion by Senator Ochoa Bogh, and the motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

[roll call]

Aye. Laird Limon. Great. Thank you so much. Assembly Member. We'll put that bill on call. Next up, we have AB 1369 by Assembly Member Ramos. Assemblymember Ramos, I see that you're here, and you can begin when you're ready.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Senators, I would like to begin by accepting the Committee's amendments and appreciate the Committee working on this with me. For a number of years, Native American communities have received complaints from students and families that they have been denied the ability to wear cultural regalia during graduation ceremonies.

The Legislature has been engaged with this issue for a number of years. However, after many bills aimed at legislating this issue, we still find that districts are not adhering to the law.

As you will hear from today's witnesses for the bill, there are still denials of students request to wear traditional regalia and tribal regalia celebrating their rich culture such as an eagle feather and beaded caps.

What is supposed to be a joyous time celebrating the achievement of students turns into a complicated fight where time is spent fighting to assert their constitutional right. AB 1369 seeks to add a reasonable provision that gives greater leeway to students and their families in deciding what truly is traditional regalia.

It would also prohibit a pre approval process for a student to exercise their rights by which is a common complaint we have heard that also serves as a barrier leading to the denials. A pre approval process from the local LEA has remnants of boarding schools assimilation of telling Native American students what is their culture.

It's time that the voices from the tribal communities and the family themselves determine what truly is appropriate and and cultural significance.

It's time that we continue to share in that voice moving forward Today with me to testify of AB 1369 is Chairman Shai Neto on behalf of the Tule River Indian Tribal Government and Bella Garcia who is Mono and a Member of the North Fork Rancheria.

Manahu everyone. Bella Garcia. Hello. My name is Bella Garcia. I'm an enrolled citizen of North Fork Rancheria. Like Assemblymember Ramos just mentioned, I'm also a recent graduate of Clovis Unified class of 2025.

And for the past two years of my life, starting my junior year and all of my senior year, I have been fighting and advocate to even one wear one tribal regalia during my graduation.

And because Assemblymember Ramos and because Chairman Nita from Tule river and California Indian Legal Services, I was able to wear tribal regalia at my graduation. But if I was this bill would have been in place by the time I graduated. It would have definitely helped me and kids like me.

And I received constant retaliation and pushback and a tremendous amount of racism since from Clovis High School, which is my school as well as Clovis Unified from admin.

Simply just being uneducated themselves about California Indian people and denying the existence of Native American people, but especially our people in California, and then also denying me my right to wear tribal regalia and making me fight for it. And so I'm here today in support of Assemblymember Ramos' bill.

And I hope that you guys continue to look out for our Native American students and the original people of this land. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Shawn Nito. I'm the Chairman of Tule River Tribe in Central California. I come to support the AB 1369 also, and also Bella Garcia and students like her that are coming in the future.

I mean, I think it's pretty sad that, you know, my grandma and Ramos grandma and Bella's great grandmas got taken away in boarding schools in, like, 1819. And. And this is still a form of genocides to our people, where we can't be ourselves and we can't wear a regalia. We can't do this and that.

When someone like Bella Garcia. The reason why I stepped in to help her is because she's. She represents me. I mean, she represents everybody in our valley. Everybody in California, Any Native American that knows what that feather means, anybody that knows what a ceremony means.

So for a graduation, it's a ceremony for our people, because most of our people didn't make it even home from the boarding schools. So when we have someone that makes it, we're proud of them, no matter what tribe they're from.

So when I seen her struggling, that's why I reached out to her and I reached out to Ramos and Tony Thurman. So these people that are like this are uneducated, and they're supposed to be our educators.

So I think that, you know, them trying to be open and educate themselves on who we are as people, you know, we're just trying to be human beings. They. They try to colonize us.

And here we are trying to be educated and colonized like they wanted us to, and they're still stopping us, you know, so this ain't 1819. And in 1969, the boarding school stopped, but some of our people didn't come home. You know, some of our.

Some of our people are still in those schools, buried in the ground in mass Graves. You know, so it's. It's like, when does this stop? When do we get to be human beings? When do we get to be who we are? When do we get to be free? You know what I mean?

We walk on this land of California, which is all our lands. We share it with you guys. We don't bother you guys. We don't bother nobody. We just try to educate ourselves and keep moving and we got other fights. We want to fight. We don't want to fight with the educators.

We're trying to get educated so we can come in here and get what we need on our reservations and our rancherias. But we always have to fight something else. It's always hoop after hoop after hoop. And I think that, you know, this Bill that Mr. Ramos is doing is a good thing.

And I think that people need to abide by the law because it's already a law for this to happen. But, you know, it's.

You're a little bit over time, so if you could wrap up.

Yeah, I'm just saying, like, you know, if I go outside and I punch someone in the face, I'm going to get arrested. These guys break the law for this Bill and nothing ever happens to them. I mean, so I just think people should get educated if they're the educators. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other support witnesses here in room 2100? If so, please use the microphone outside the railing.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. Alex Alanis on behalf of the Hoboma to Pomo of Upper Lake and the Cahuilla Tribe in strong support.

Sam Nasher representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Support.

Mitch Steiger with CFT - A Union of Educators and Classified Professionals. Also in support.

Heather Hostler, Executive Director of California Indian Legal Services, citizen of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, co-sponsor of AB 1369. Strong support.

Zena Iaya with ACLU California Action in support.

Sequoia Coleman with the California Native Vote Project, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Mvskoke Creek in strong support.

Madam Chair, Members Frank Molina on behalf of the Yahav Tribe of Salmon Well Nation and the San and Hispanish Human in strong support.

Pam Lopez on behalf of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokuts Tribe in support.

Good morning, Mike DeLyons on Behalf of Table Mountain Rancheria in strong support.

Thank you. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition if there are any. If the two lead witnesses will come forward. Okay, looks like we have no lead witnesses in opposition, so we will move on then.

Sorry. Carlos Machado with California School Board Association. We're not in opposition. We co have concerns with the bill. We've had a very appreciate the author taking the time to meet with us this week to address those concerns and discuss them.

It's clear from the discussions that we both want to ensure that Native American students can celebrate graduation with cultural and religiously significant adornments. Some clarifying amendments will help our Members better implement the bill. And we look forward to working with the author as the bill moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now bring it back here to Members. Do we have any comments, questions? Senator Chobok.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So let me begin with the fact that I am supporting the bill today, but I am curious.

I do want to know a little bit more because I can't imagine a school board or any local education agency saying, you know, no to your Native American regalia as a means to, you know, to use it as a graduation.

So exactly what was the objection that you received from the school district as far as your ability to wear your regalia? What exactly were they objecting?

So I started this my junior year. And so I only started it because one of the learning directors at my school, she had told me to not even think about wearing triple regalia because she knew for a fact I wouldn't have gotten approved.

And it was then that she had told me that I had started my work and stuff. And so they had told me multiple times everything was about uniform and I would stand out and I would ruin the whole graduation ceremony.

They told me I couldn't have read beadwork because they would have to clarify or not if I was in a gang or if I was gang affiliated. And I was 16 at the time. I'm now 18. But when I was a junior, I was 16 when I started.

The principal of my school told me that a long time ago that Native American students when they graduated didn't have beaded caps, therefore I would never get mine beaded.

They wanted measurements of my feathers, even though I wasn't going to get gifted them until the day of which I didn't get gifted them until about 30 minutes before I went downstage. And they wanted pictures and measurements of everything. Told me I couldn't have red beadwork.

Told me I would be such a distraction I would ruin the whole graduation ceremony.

And this came directly from the school board. From the this came.

I started at my school. So I talked to the principal, the vice principal of my school, the learning directors at my school, the activities Director of my school. I talked to my teachers and then I got referred the vice principal.

And the principal brought me into their office December of last year and told me that I could no longer meet with them, that this was getting too out of hand and I had to go to their higher ups. And the learning Director had told me that everything I was talking to her about was above her pay grade.

And so I did exactly that. I went to my principal's Boss. So I went to the assistant Superintendent of Clovis Unified and then they referred me to the Clovis, the Superintendent of Clovis Unified, Karene Fulmer. And I was going to all these people and emailing all these people and every.

There was nobody had a direct contact of who's doing the approving is Bella Garcia gonna get approved. And so it wasn't until all of my senior year of advocating and social media posts and reaching out to so many native organizations, my tribe wrote a letter. California Indian legal services stepped in also.

It wasn't until closer and closer to graduation, Assemblymember Ramos was informed shy nito from Tule River. And so it wasn't until then where we had a zoom meeting with clues unified and the Superintendent and the Members of the school board. And closer to graduation in May, I did have a couple.

There was about four or five tribal people from my area who had went to the board meeting and did speak up on this issue. And that actually had. It was the same day in the evening time that we had met with them.

So we had our zoom meeting in the morning with them, and then they heard again from us later in the evening. And after, I mean, almost two years of constantly being threatened to be denied, it wasn't until that zoom meeting where they. They promised assemblymember Ramos to provide him documentation that I had gotten approved. And I did.

And I did get approved. But I truly think if it wasn't for them, I wouldn't have.

Yeah. So question for the author, Madam Chair, so help the audience and the public understand, what is the current statute with regards to regalia in California and the ability for students to be able to wear it in their graduation ceremonies?

Well, first of all, we're California's first people, this nation's first people. And we're the only ones that have to run several pieces of legislation to reassert our right to wear regalia and tribal regalia here in the State of California.

There's been several pieces of legislation moved through this Legislature to give that right to the Native American students every step of the way. Like Chairman Shine Nieto from Tilly Rivers said, there's always another hurdle.

This hurdle is actually the pre approval process, the preapproval process that the school with remnants of assimilation boarding schools is telling Native Americans what is appropriate and what is not. This bill clarifies that what is appropriate and what is cultural should be on the voices of California's first people and this nation's first people hearing this story.

Measuring eagle feathers. You're gifted eagle feathers. When you accomplish something great, like in this graduation, and then to be told they want a measurement of that, that is disrespectful. And that doesn't happen to anybody else in this country, only to Native Americans. And the frustration.

If you heard Bella, she started this process in her junior year trying to get ahead of the process and complying, only to run into hurdles and be denied until we stepped in. The voices, the voices of California's first people and this nation's first people should be the ones that determine what is appropriate and what is not.

Not the alias and not the government that has a horrid past against California Indian people.

Thank you, Assemblymember Ramos. And the reason I wanted him to state the history is because I think it's important to. This is why it's so important to be prepared. Right. We have so many laws in the state, and not everybody is currently informed about what those laws are and those rights are.

And I think this is why your story is so important. That's why I wanted to get a little more into the details as to what actually happened and how, what the objections were so that everybody that's watching today, the public and the administrators across our state will understand, hey, this was not appropriate.

And so hence we have the need for this particular bill. So your story is very powerful. And I think literally explaining it detail by detail, as you did today just did, I think that's incredibly powerful to really empower you and all our Native Americans in California with that. Thank you for bringing this measure forward.

I'm sorry that this is actually was needed and that you had to go through that experience, but it was a learning experience and it's only made you stronger and something positive is moving forward. So it's. It's been. It can be turning around to do something that's actually positive for all our Native American graduates.

So on that, I'm happy to move the. The bill when appropriate.

Yes, Senator Cortese, thank you.

Madam Chair, just a comment, and let me start the comment by saying I appreciate, I'll be supporting the bill, and I appreciate the author's, you know, almost legalistic arguments about, you know, the sequence of events in this, what is now this country that led us to this point, really, when you look back on it.

But I wanted to just emphasize in my comments that this is something that we should be celebrating. It really shouldn't be a matter of the law one way or the other.

And I learned that kind of the hard way because I used to be the liaison for Santa Clara County to Florence, Italy, and on a trip out there, meeting with their entire government, I made the stupid comment.

I'll admit that here publicly, that America is such a young country and, you know, in North America, to go to a place like Florence and to meet people in the Medici palace and to be able to go there and celebrate The RHNAissance was something that we really didn't have the opportunity to do here because we only had 200 years of history.

And the magistrate there, the equivalent of the mayor, turned to me and he said, I hate to correct you. He said, we have over 200 sister relationships with communities all over the world, but our favorite one is the Native Americans from North America, because it's the most ancient culture. It predates everything here, including Roman culture.

And it's something that we celebrate in the streets. And that community comes here in full regalia and it's one of the most popular days in Florence.

And, you know, I felt a little embarrassed as I said that somehow, you know, as an educated person here who's lived in California all my life and grew up with Native American friends, literally amongst my best friends, that somehow, you know, I had blocked that out, I guess, and we can't be blocking it out anymore.

And we should be celebrating, you know, Native American or American Indian history and culture here, really beyond what our European neighbors do. And really they're doing a better job than we are right now.

So, again, I'll be supporting the bill, but I just want to kind of make that added point, if that's okay, and appreciate the author and all your efforts in this regard. Thank you.

Yeah, just, I. I 'd Like to add some comments. First of all, I just want to thank you, Bella, for your powerful testimony today and for coming here and for all of the work that you've done for other students across the state to help and bring this forward. Bringing this issue to Assemblymember Ramos.

I'm frankly shocked and dismayed that Clovis Unified even put you through such stress and that you, as a 16 year old student, had to advocate for yourself for something that in my opinion, should have been very plain and simple. Celebrating one's culture during a time of graduation, celebrating your culture as a Native American student and.

And having that moment with your family is an incredibly special day. It's one of the things that we cherish most in the education community is graduation. And to hear that they attempted to rob you of that just makes me incredibly furious, to be quite honest.

And I'm so proud of our Assembly Member, Assemblymember Ramos, for getting involved and speaking out. Because to just do that is completely unacceptable. And to just hear you talk about the layers of administrators that you had to speak to in order to get this resolved is just shocking to me.

But I also just want to highlight the power in what you've done here. I mean, we now have an Assembly Bill to clarify this for all students across the state. And this is such an excellent example of what we're supposed to do with state legislation is clarify these sorts of very things.

So there's so much power in what you're doing and sharing your story to make a change for all students so that you don't have someone else having to go through this situation on their special day. And so, you know, as.

As much as it's been, I'm sure, incredibly challenging and also so frustrating to have gone through something like that after graduating, you've also done something really incredible with that moment. And I really just want to highlight and honor that because it is really so impressive. So thank you for all of your work to bring this forward.

It is very disappointing to hear that amongst a group of adults at Clovis Unified that you had to be the adult and the leader in the room. But sometimes that's what's necessary, is for somebody to step in and bring common sense when there is none.

And so I really appreciate you and all the tremendous work that you've done, as well as you, Assembly Member Ramos, for being such a powerful advocate on this issue. This is very straightforward. So we'll definitely be supporting and just appreciate all of your work on this effort. So thank you.

Thank you so much.

And if you would like to close.

Well, thank you so much, Senators, and the testimony. And it truly is to Bella's character to continue to stand for all Indian people here in the State of California across the nation.

Being that voice, everything that she went through, to walk down that aisle in graduation and wearing her regalia and now pursuing her higher education, shows the resiliency of not only her, but the ancestors that walk with you and with all of us making this voice be heard. I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Ochoa Bogue and the motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[Roll call]

Thank you. And we will put that Bill on call. Thank you so much. So I see we have Assembly Member Salache here to present AB 1390. Assembly Member Salachi, whenever you are ready.

Good morning Chair and Members of the Committee I first represent on behalf of the Assembly from my office to the Senate. So it's exciting to be here today.

I am proud to present AB 1390 which will make a long overdue updates to monthly compensation thresholds to local and county to school districts, ensuring opportunities to serve on school boards remain accessible.

Existing law authorizes members to county boards of education and school districts to receive a compensation not to exceed a specified amount between $60 and 1500 per month based on an average daily attendance for the prior school year. These compensation thresholds have not been adjusted in the last 40 years.

Not even to take into account inflation or the fact that the responsibility of our school boards has grown in recent years. Having served as a school board for Lynwood for 10 years, I can attest that serving as a school board trustee is a demanding role that requires great deal of time, research, training, public engagement and commitment.

In many districts, the level compensation makes it harder for individuals who are supporting themselves and their families to consider serving on the school board. I was actually 23 when I was elected to the school board for the first time in 2003.

So imagine that being 23 years old elected to school board and so I want to put that into context of my personal story and serving there for 10 years from 23 to 33 years old. AB 1390 will help boards with the required financial capacity to moderately and responsibly increase their compensation to keep pace with inflation.

Importantly, AB 1390 preserves a public process that a board of education votes to adjust its composition levels. Opportunities to serve on school boards remain accessible to those of diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. To ensure that our students and their families are represented in key decisions. With me to support, I would like to introduce two folks.

First, Brad Crihfield, Board Member of the Bellflower School District representing my home school Assembly District and where I was born, Bellflower, California. Secondly, Deborah Bautista Zavala, Board President for the Woodland Joint Unified School District just in our backyard here in Sacramento and Vice President of the California Latino School Board Association. Please.

Hello and thank you Madam Chair. My name is Brad Crihfield and I'm the Board Clerk for the Bellflower Unified School District. I'm also a parent of two daughters in the district and sole income earner. I'm a Lakewood resident and just for context, Bellflower Unified Services are residents in Bellflower, Lakewood and Cerritos down Southeast LA.

I'm fortunate to have a great job and an amazing wife who help take care for care for our children which allows me to spend significant time advocating for better public education. But this Bill isn't about me. It's about fairness, access, and the health of our school system statewide.

I'm here in strong support of AB 1390 because if we want more people to serve in public education, we need your help to fix the outdated compensation rules that that really shut them out. In Bellflower, board pay hasn't increased over 40 years and in fact, it actually dropped.

When I joined three years ago, our enrollment was just over 10,000, which is that threshold. And board members earned $500 a month. A 2% decline in our district's enrollment triggered a 50% pay cut. Today we earn $240 a month, less than I make at my full time job in a single day, for the time I put in.

And I put in a lot, reading packets, reviewing budgets, attending meetings and engaging with families. My compensation breaks down to roughly $3.30 an hour. And yet we help manage a $190 million budget and create policies that shape and impact an entire generation. So let's be clear. It would be unwise to do this job for the money.

But we also shouldn't make it to where people can't afford to serve their communities. There are many working class folks who would bring valuable voices to this work, but can't take the financial burden like others may be able to. That's a loss for our schools and really a loss for our democracy.

AB 1390 is a simple, meaningful step to make public service more accessible and inclusive to everyone. I urge your support. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Good morning Madam Chair and Members. My name is Deborah Bautista Zavala and I have the privilege of serving as the President of the Woodland Joint Unified School District. I am here today to voice my strong support for AB 1390, a measure that ensures fair and reasonable compensation for school board members across California.

As Board President, I spend at least 15 hours per week fulfilling my school duties. And each of us on the board earns only $240 a month, the same stipend board members received 40 years ago. During the time I have served, we have had to fill three vacancies on our board.

I have proudly served on my board for nearly seven years and I was first elected to my school board in 2018 while working for the California State Assembly. I'm an active Member of the California School Board Association where I serve as a delegate and I also serve as Vice President of the California Latino School Board Association.

And I'm a mother of two school age daughters, which gives me A deep understanding of the challenges facing students, families and educators. Serving on a school board is an honor, but is also a significant responsibility.

Board Members devote countless hours to preparing for meetings, analyzing budgets, reviewing policies, engaging with students and families, negotiating labor contracts and agreements, visiting schools, responding to crisis, etc.

This civic duty requires deep commitment, yet it also comes with the personal and financial costs. School boards are composed of individuals from all walks of life.

Many of us are former students of the very districts we now serve in. And we are often parents, educators, spouses of educators, classified staff, retirees, union Members, small business owners, and long standing community advocates.

This diversity of experience makes school boards stronger, but only if we ensure that all voices, not just those who can afford to serve, are represented in this leadership. It's important to state that school board duties are not our full time jobs. We have full time jobs aside from our elected duties.

However, many employers hesitate to hire or promote individuals who serve on your board.

Just over 15 seconds over the two minutes and we're going to have to ask you to wrap.

Sure. I just want to clarify that AB 1390 will not fully address our concerns, but it will bring us closer to ensuring that school board service is accessible to all and not just those with financial privilege. I urge and respectfully ask for your support on AB 1390.

Thank you, ma'am. Do we have any other witnesses in support of this of AB 1390?

Good morning. Carlos Machado with the California School Board Association. CSBA is a proud sponsor of the Bill and we ask that you support the Bill today. Thank you.

Good morning. Bella Kern on behalf of San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools in support.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Okay, now we'll continue with any witnesses in opposition to AB 1369. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Back to the Chair.

Thank you. We will turn it back to our Members for any comments and questions. Senator Cortese.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Unfortunately, I'm going to be recusing on this item, I suppose in an abundance of caution, but to avoid any perception of financial conflict of interest due to my wife standing as an active school board member in this state. Thank you.

Thank you Senator Cortese. Senator Choi.

Thank you. Initially I was a little bit concerned about this Bill. Its impression increasing up to 500, 500% of the current. But reading the analysis and then also I have served in the Irvine Unified School District Board for six years and obviously none of us served for compensation at that time.

I believe still is their compensation was $400 after deductions, this and that, everything else, sometimes I saw like four-something dollars net pay. I think this is not right.

If we allow them to review their salaries like in five years or six years or 10 years, it wouldn't have been this high number at one time increasing, but not necessarily. This is up to 500%, but this is not mandating. Local government will decide whether they will increase, if so, how much.

So I think this is in line with the inflation and for the sacrifice of their personal time and dedication, how much they faced all the difficult, you know, both community members reactions to many important issues in the last 2, 3 years.

I think they deserve a better consideration in being compensated. So therefore I changed my position in support of this Bill. I would like to make a motion with that.

Seeing as there's no other comments or questions. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to first and foremost thank the Senators for their time today. You know, as we deal with bills on the Assembly side and then come to the Senate, obviously it's a new experience for a freshman like myself.

But I can tell you without a doubt that you know those $400 that I made those 10 years, Senator Choi, just like you on Lingua Unified, I clearly didn't do it for the money. I just like you and many of our Board Members, we have full time jobs.

My last job I ran the Chamber of Commerce in Lakewood in the district and you know, I was able to have the two hats of a public office and then having a daytime. So I've been working since 13 years old and so I've not once ever stopped working.

But obviously serving in public office has been a great experience in my career. I served local government 21 years before coming to the state Legislature and I want to make sure that more younger folks, folks that are not as privileged that they can serve. And I want to really clarify that just to the Senator's point.

School boards locally will still have to have a local process to agendize this, to have a public process, and then vote on this publicly so that their community knows any adjustments that they'll be making to their local governing board. And so with that I'm just proud to have this Bill.

I'm happy that the School Board Association who I also served with for many years when I was involved will bring some, you know, some equity back to this conversation and hopefully open the door for more folks to be involved, engaged.

Because in the times we're when we need representation in local communities we need like parents that are hired today. Not only are they board members or parents that have kids in their school district, I actually know Brad's kids and they're two wonderful students.

And you know, and just good to know that we have these spaces that are going to be representing our school districts and local communities. So this would just enhance and better the process. And I thank you all for your support today. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Choi. Assistant, if you could please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

Excellent. And we will put that Bill on call. Thank you so much. Assemblymember.

Thank you Senator. Thank you everyone.

Great. Next up, we have Assemblymember Hoover presenting AB 922. And I see that Assemblymember Hoover is here. Assemblymember, you can get started whenever you are ready. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Pleased to be with you all again this morning to present AB 922. I will keep this as brief as possible. AB 922 would simply grant necessary statutory authority to the University of California to maintain access to the federal information system for hiring purposes.

What this will do is prevent the UC from spending excessive time and resources to access information—the same information through third party vendors. They've been using this practice already but just need statutory, statutory authority, to continue to do so. With me today is Mario Guerrero from the University of California to give some more comments. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair. Mario Guerrero with the University of California, here in support of AB 922. Thank you to Assemblymember Hoover for authoring this Bill. The University of California currently obtains fingerprint images and related information from prospective employees who have accepted a conditional offer of employment to a critical position.

Candidates hired into critical positions have sensitive administrative, programmatic, and/or managerial duties and responsibilities that could potentially cause human or financial property loss or other significant risk. The University of California currently has access to the federal background check history.

However, the California Department of Justice alerted the University of California that it would no longer have access to federal background check information for state employees, as of December 2026, and advised that agencies wishing to retain access must pursue statutory authority. Through this Bill, the University of California is requesting this statutory authority.

Not having access to prospective employees' federal background check information impacts safety, asset security, and hiring, with the potential to increase the University's financial costs, operational liabilities, and reputational risk in providing services to the community. For these reasons, we urge you to vote "Aye" on AB 922 and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you for your presentation. Do we have any other witnesses in support? If so, please use the mic at the railing. Seeing nobody getting up. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing no one getting up. I'll turn it back to the Members. Questions, comments? Senator Cortese.

Thank you, and I think this is probably a question for the witness, but I understand the issue of the Federal Government no longer providing background checks, you know, through their process and also through their database.

And so, there being a need to do this, the question I have is, are we going to, as a result of this Bill or any other policy at the University itself, put up a firewall so that the Federal Government cannot access our personnel records, your personnel records?

So, I think it's important to note that the way the Bill is structured, first, well, first, the University is already doing—engaging—in this process. We would be doing nothing new, nothing different. Second, the communication process is one way. When the University requests—the University first would have to request the background check. Again, very limited number of employees.

The information is one way. We check to see if the Federal Government has any information on the individuals that we request information from. If there's no information, then there's nothing that comes back. You know, if this question is—there's a lot of sensitivity, rightly so, on exposing folks, in particular, folks that might be undocumented.

I would just note that this Bill and our current process in no way, shape, or form is intended to support the Federal Government from tracking undocumented immigrants. Just to be clear about that.

Also, currently, when we have any prospective employees, again, you know, asking for these critical positions, we do ask in the questionnaire, upon hire, will you be able to provide proof of eligibility to work in the United States of America? Federal law requires every employee in the United States complete the I-9 process—employment eligibility verification.

Finally, I have to say, to our knowledge, no undocumented person has been identified by the Federal Government through the UC's use of this federal background check. So, that's how I would answer your question.

How about DACA?

So, I can't speak to DACA. This is about federal background checks for employees. So, anyone, there was a question, does this impact students?

This only impacts students to the extent that they apply for a job with a UC, and again, for a critical position. Again, to our knowledge, this process has not been used to identify those.

My point through the Chair is that we have employees in the state of California who are DACA. They've completed their education. They're here through a DACA program, which is a temporary program, as we all know, could be handed by the Federal Government at any time.

And my concern is I want to make sure that your, your records, if those employees are through the application process indicating that their status to work, that they're eligible to work because of DACA status and eligibility, that that information is not provided to the Federal Government. That's what I'm concerned about.

And I've raised this over the years that I've been here on several other issues, ranging from garment workers to whomever and voted on the bills, regardless of whether or not that issue was addressed.

And this time, you know, I'd be happy to support the Bill coming out of Committee today, but I won't support it on the Floor unless I know that issue is addressed.

I don't think we can go on maintaining registries that are wide open to the Federal Government, you know, to our employees who, in the state of California or related entities that are, that are vulnerable, you know, to any change in federal law that might, you know, cause that information to be used against them.

Appreciate your question. I actually do have a call with the Department of Justice later today on this particular issue, and I will ask them specifically about DACA students because they, of course, have the ability to work.

And so, I will ask them specifically how that information is kept, which I don't have an answer to you today, but it's something that we are absolutely—we've heard is a concern and we will follow up.

I just want to make a clarifying point. Isn't it—is it not true that the UC students, the UC actually does not employ any undocumented students currently, even if they do have DACA? I know this is a discussion that happened before my time here, but I'm very familiar with it. I have my own opinions on that, is that you should.

But I mean, you do not. And the UC does not employ undocumented students, is that not correct?

I believe, and I will have to verify that there are two different types of undocumented students—DACA, which are given the ability to work, to be employed, and then undocumented students that are not DACA. For undocumented students that are not DACA, there—currently, we do not employ those students.

And we have alternatives like experiential fellowships, which is not employment. It's as close as we can get that continues to support them. And I think there's been bills to that effect that have not moved in the Legislature. But DACA students are, it's my understanding, able to apply for and get a job.

And so, here is, I think, a very specific question, right? If you're able to work and you apply for a job and it's a critical position which keeps winnowing down the number of students, right, that would potentially apply and you've been offered conditional employment, then in those, I think, limited cases, what happens with fingerprinting?

So, that is a question—that is a very technical question, very limited scope, that I have a call specifically to try to get information.

Okay, thank you for, for clarifying. I think Senator Ochoa Bogh had.

Actually, he addressed the question, but I have my comment.

Okay. Alrighty. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Yes. So, thank you. So, I appreciate the discussion. You know, I do obviously want to just clarify a couple things. So, obviously, the UC operates under a lot of these federal rules, right? So, a lot of the stuff that we're talking about is federally required.

What I would want to make very clear is that my Bill in no way, shape, or form is intending to, you know, create the concerns that the Senator raised. In fact, this Bill specifically, is simply trying to allow the UC to continue checking someone's background. Again, a one-way transaction, as was expressed, for the purposes of employment.

It is not a Bill that will open a door to sharing any sort of additional information. It is simply for the UC to receive information from the federal database. So, I just want to make that very clear.

And finally, you know, I do also want to point out that this practice will continue in some way, shape, or form, whether or not we pass this Bill or not. It simply will be more costly for the University. So, this statutory authority will allow the University to maintain direct access to this database.

If they don't receive that authority, they will simply be accessing this database through a third-party vendor instead. And so, it would—this Bill simply will save cost for the UC. Really appreciate the discussion and would respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have a motion on this Bill?

Okay. Moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh. And the motion is do pass to the Senate Public Safety Committee.

[Roll Call]

Great. And we will put that bill on call for the time being. Thank you so much, Assembly Member.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let's go ahead and. Okay, let's go ahead and lift the. Lift the calls.

Okay. We will start with file item 2, AB 587 Davies. The motion is do pass to the Military and Veterans Affairs Committee. Current vote is three I's and no no's with the Chair and Vice Chair voting I.

[roll call]

And we'll put that bill back on call.

File item 3. AB 648 Zabur. Motion is do pass to the senate local government committee. The current vote is three I's and no no's with the Chair and Vice Chair voting I.

[roll call]

And we will put that bill back on a call.

File item 4, AB 753, Garcia. Motion is do passed to the Senate Human Services Committee. Current vote is five I's and no no's with the Chair and Vice Chair voting I.

[roll call]

Okay, we will skip down to follow item 8. AB 1123 Muratsuchi. Motion is do passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is three I's and no nos with the Chair and Vice Chair voting I.

[roll call]

Great. And we will put that back on call.

File item 10, AB 1369, Ramos.

Motion is do pass to do pass as amended to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Current vote is four I's and no no's with the Chair and Vice Chair voting I.

[roll call]

We will put that bill back on call.

Okay, file item 11 AB 1390 Solache. Motion is do passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Current vote is two I's and no no's with the chair voting I.

[roll call]

Okay. Senator Laird has just entered into the building.

Okay, let's lift the calls for Senator. Laird.

On the consent calendar. On the consent calendar, Senator Laird. Laird, I. Limon. Okay. File item 2, AB 587, Davies. Motion is do passed to the Military and Veterans Affairs Committee. Current vote is four I's, no no's, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting I. Cabaldon. Laird. Laird, I. Limon. File item 3. AB 648, Zbur.

Motion is do pass to the senate local government committee. Current vote is four I's and one no with the Chair and Vice Chair voting I. Laird, Laird, I. Limon. Okay, file item 4. AB 753, Garcia. The motion is do passed to the Senate Human Services Committee.

Current vote is five I's and no no's with the Chair and Vice Chair voting I. Laird. Laird, I. Limon. File item 6, AB 922, Hoover. Motion is do pass to the Senate Public Safety Committee. Current vote is five I's and no no's with the chair and vice chair voting I. Laird. Laird, I. Limon.

File item 8, AB 1123 Muratsuchi. Motion is do passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is four I's and no no's with the Chair and Vice Chair voting I. Cabaldon. Laird. Laird, I. Limon. Okay. File item 10, AB 1369, Ramos. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Current vote is five I's and no no's. With the Chair and Vice Chair voting I. Laird. Laird, I. Limon. Okay. File item 11, AB 1390 Solache. Motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is three I's and no no's, with the Chair voting I.

[roll call]

Great. All of those bills will be back on call as we wait for Senator Limon.

So we will go ahead and lift the call for Senator Limon.

On the consent calendar. Limon. Limon, I.

That bill is out. 7-0.

File item two, AB 587, Davies. Motions do pass to Military and Veterans Affairs. Current vote is five I's. No no's. With the Chair and Vice Chair voting I. Cabaldon. Limon. Limon, I.

File item 10, AB 1369, Ramos. Motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

That bill is out. 6-0.

File item 3, AB 648, Zbur. Motions do pass to the Senate Local Government Committee. Current vote is five I's and one no. With the Chair and Vice Chair voting I. Limon. Limon, I.

That bill is out. 6:1.

File item 4, AB 753, Garcia. Motion is do pass to the Senate Human Services Committee. Current vote is six I's no no's, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting I. Limon. Limon, I.

That bill is out. 7:0.

File item 6, AB 922, Hoover. Motions do pass to Senate Public Safety Committee. Current vote is six I's no no's, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting I. Limon. Limon I.

That bill is out. 7:0.

File item 8, AB 1123, Muratsuchi. Motions do passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is five I's no no's. With the Chair and Vice Chair voting I. Cabaldon. Limon. Limon, I.

That bill is out. 6:0.

Current vote is six I's no no's, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting I. Limon. Limon, I.

That bill is out. 7:0.

File item 11, AB 1390, Solache. Motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is four I's and no no's. With the chair voting I. Ochoa Bogh. Cortese. Limon. Limon, I.

That bill is out. 5:0. That bill is.

Thank you. The committee is adjourned.