Assembly Standing Committee on Higher Education

I have the gavel today. Well, good afternoon. I'd like to welcome everyone to the Assembly Higher Education Committee. Time is now 1:38 and I appreciate everyone's time and patience. Thank you. Welcome everyone to the Assembly Higher Education Committee. And welcome to the first of two policy hearings on Senate bills by the Assembly Higher Education Committee.

Whether you're here in person or watching virtually, I welcome each and every one of you. 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 everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoint they express.

In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the time limits that we have. We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that cites or threatens violence.

And 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 noises from the audience.

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

Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you 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. bills will be taken up in sign in order.

Harvard Committee Members typically will present their bills after Non Committee Members authors. You can sign in at the Sergeant's desk in room 126.

Further, please note that the guideline for bills heard in this Committee is to allow for testimony from two lead witnesses in support and two leading 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 a call for tweeners if a measure has more than two entities in the tweener category, only two would be allowed to speak for two minutes each.

Colleagues, for Members of this Committee, since our meeting, our hearings are public and some travel far to be here. Respect of them and the author. Please allow the author to complete their opening remarks regarding the Bill before making a motion so that the public has an idea what the Bill is about.

If a motion is made during the author's opening remarks, I'll simply state that the motion will be recognized at the appropriate time. Additionally, Members, if you would like to respond to a roll call, ask a question or provide a comment, please be sure to activate your microphone and speak into your microphone for authors of bills up today.

Authors, each Member presenting today will have an opening and closing statement as previously stated. Your two lead witnesses will each have two minutes each to provide terroristimony. And at this time, Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Welcome to establish quorum. Thank you. Thank you, colleagues.

[Roll Call]

We have quorum. Thank you so much. Eight Members. President. Thank you so much, colleagues. And before we proceed to the first author, let's take up the consent calendar. At this time we have two bills on the consent calendar. And they are File item number two, SP67 by Senator Seyarto.

And file item number six, SB619, Senate Committee on Education omnibus Bill. Is there a motion? And then a second moved by Vice Chair demaio, second by Dr. Patel. Any comments or questions? Seeing none, Madam Secretary. Roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

That measure is eight eyes. We'll keep the ropen for additional Members Add on the consent calendar is out. Thank you so much, colleagues. First up, we'd like to welcome Senator Weber Pierson presenting item number one. Welcome Senator Weber Pierson. SB437, the floor is yours.

Well, good afternoon, Chair and Members of this Committee want to start by thanking you all so much for hearing this bill and your assistance with this bill. We will be accepting the Committee amendments.

As chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, I am here to present one of the CLBC priority bills in our 2025 Road to Repair Bill package, SB 437.

SB 437 directs the California State University system to identify a fair evidence based and community trusted method to determine whether an individual is a descendant of someone enslaved in the United States under the system of American chattel slavery.

A Little Background on How we arrived at SB437 in 2020, California passed Assembly Bill 3121 establishing the California Reparations Task Force. The Task Force was charged with the monumental and historic responsibility of studying the enduring impacts of slavery and systemic discrimination that endured afterwards.

Through public testimony, research, and historical analysis, the Task Force released a comprehensive report that laid out recommendations to remedy the structural harms still felt by Californians today, from disparities in income to education, health, home ownership, and criminal justice.

Among the many important recommendations in the Task force report was the need to establish a reliable and accessible process to verify lineage because for many because for any reparative framework to function fairly and effectively, there must be clarity on who qualifies as a descendant of those directly harmed by slavery and its aftermath.

SB 437 addresses a critical gap that remains. Following the recommendations of the California Reparation Task Force. The task force clearly identified that those who are descendants of slaves should be the ones eligible for any reparative benefits.

If and when that time comes, however, the question of how to trace lineage in a fair, accurate, and consistent way was left unanswered. SB437 begins the process of addressing that need. For many who are descendants of someone who is enslaved, tracing ancestry is incredibly difficult.

Families were separated, names were changed or lost, records were destroyed, ignored, or never created. For individuals who were adopted, placed in foster care, or who do not know their biological parents, this can feel impossible. Asking for people to navigate this process without support, structure, or guidance only adds to the injustice they have already faced.

This is why SB 437 calls on the California State University System to take the lead in determining the best practices for verifying lineage. CSU is a trusted public institution with the academic credibility, research capacity, and historical knowledge needed to carry out this work with integrity.

It is also a system deeply rooted in communities across California, making it well positioned to understand the diverse experiences of the people this process will serve. The CSU system is also encouraged to collaborate with others, including nonprofit organizations, credible genealogists, and other colleagues at universities.

The goal is to draw on the best thinking, experience, and resources available to determine practices that are accurate and efficient. SB437 also gives CSU three years to complete and the important work during that time. The system is required to report back to the California Legislative Black Caucus every year.

This ensures that this process remains transparent, accountable, and that the process is shaped with oversight and input from the communities it's intended to serve. SB437 is supported by the CSU Office of the Chancellor, the Greater Sacramento Urban League, Equality California, Members of the California Reparations Task Force, and numerous grassroots community organizations.

With me today I have Don Tomasky, a former Member of the California Reparations Task Force, and Tanisha Herring, Government Relations specialist for the NAACP, California and Hawaii.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Fong, Members of the Higher Education Committee. My name is Don Tamaki. I am an attorney with Manami Tamaki LLP in San Francisco, and I served as one of the Members of the California Reparations Task Force. I'm also part of the multiracial statewide coalition, the alliance for Reparations, Reconciliation and Truth.

As the Legislature recognized when it created the Task Force. While the enslavement of African Americans was a nation's original sin, emancipation did not bring an end to the atrocities and deprivations of brought against them through lynching, Jim Crow laws, racist policing, disenfranchisement, segregation, redlining and erasure of history. Government at all levels perpetuated the legacy of slavery.

Mass enslavement ended in 1865, but its badges and incidents have not. Descendants of those enslaved have carried the weight of these harms as trauma and loss have passed from generation to generation, resulting in huge and growing disparities in every metric that matters, from health to wealth.

With respect to two essential forms of reparations, compensation and restitution, the Task force recommended that eligibility be based upon lineage, requiring an individual to be a descendant of a chattel enslaved person or of a free black person living in the United States prior to the end of the 19th century.

SB437 will provide the missing details of this complex recommendation by enlisting the CSU and universities it partners with to establish a consistent, a vetted, a fair, a fit, credible and and an accountable process to verify lineage based upon genealogical research and grounded in scholarship and historical accuracy. We urge your support. Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. I am Tanisia Herring and on behalf of the California Hawaii State Conference and the NAACP's 50 plus branches and 23 youth units, I'm here to express our strong support for SBA.

This bill is a critical piece of legislation that builds on the on the work of the California Reparations Task Force which called for the establishment of a clear and fair process for verifying descendants of enslaved individuals.

This bill provides an accurate way of determining lineage, ensuring that those who are descendants of American slavery can access reparative benefits that they deserve. This Bill provides an equipment I'm sorry. The bill also directs the California State University System CSUs to create and implement a genealogy verification process.

This approach not only adheres to the high standards of evidence based research, but also prevents misidentification and guarantees that reparative benefits are directed to those most impacted by the long lasting effects of slavery and systemic racism. SB437 ensures that we do not leave anyone behind in this vital journey toward reparative justice.

Moreover, SB437 includes provisions for transparent oversight through annual reporting, ensuring that the public and lawmakers remain informed of the progress, progress, challenges and outcomes relating to the findings from the CSUs. The NAACP California Hawaii State Conference strongly believes that SB437 is a necessary and thoughtful next step toward addressing the historical and ongoing impacts of slavery in California.

Is a forward looking bill that acknowledges the needs of descendants while maintaining a high standard of accuracy and fairness in the verification process and I hope respectfully urge that you guys help move this along in the legislative process.

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

Good afternoon Chair, Members and staff. Debra Sanders with Callos California on behalf of the Alliance for Reparation, Reconciliation and Truth in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. Chris Morales here with the CSU Office of the Chancellor in support. Thank you.

Craig Pulser on behalf of Equality California in support. Thank you.

Monea Jennings on behalf of the Greater Sacramento Urban League in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Maxwell Drawdy, Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you. My name is Kitty Gakunga and I support thank you.

Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room?

Welcome.

Good afternoon Assembly Members. My name is Michael Willis. I'm a professional genealogist with 24 years experience and author of the published book when your ancestors choose you.

Finding Binky SB437 aims to have the SC issues develop a methodology for genealogical research because the author of the bill claims the task force report did not state how to accurately determine a person's lineage.

That's because during its hearings the task force relied on the witness testimonies of several genealogists, not CSUs who presented the same methodologies that the authors last witnessed in the last hearing. Rachel Shaw, a professional genealogist genealogist, not a CSU student, stated conforms to the Board of Certified Genealogists Genealogy proof standards.

Shaw also mentioned that Consultation and coordination with the African American Genealogical Society should be the key part of this process. Well, I'm the board chair of the African American Genealogy Society of Northern California. The task force final report called for the creation of a genealogy office that relied on expert genealogical research to confir eligibility.

Obviously they were convinced that genealogists have the expertise, not CSUs researching how to do it. How do you think that the CSUs will rely on the advice and direction of their research? And if they don't, the integrity of that research must be certainly questioned.

Additionally, the concerns raised about the difficulty of tracing enslaved ancestors is null and void when you consider the fact that the task force only required and individual's ancestors who lived in the United States prior to 1900. That means researching federal documents where African Americans are well documented. We are not researching enslaved people by then because they're free.

SB437 in its current form does not serve the purpose that the task force set out to achieve. It is performative at best, installs a proven process to reparations. Our ancestors deserve better and depend on us to get this right. Thank you. Thank you.

Welcome. Welcome up. Thank you for the welcome. Good morning. Good afternoon. Chair Members. My name is Chris Lotson. I'm here on behalf of the Coalition for Just and Equitable California, the state's original grassroots reparations advocacy organization.

And we strongly oppose SB437 and urge you to vote no or abstain from voting on this seriously flawed and misguided proposal. On its face, SB 437 would allocate millions of taxpayer dollars to the California State University system to study genealogy. While this may sound helpful, in reality, genealogy study is unnecessary.

In addition, this proposal misinterprets and even contradicts the very recommendations of California's own reparations task force. And in all likelihood SB437 will create serious implementation delays and and other problems. Let me elaborate first. Genealogy is not a mystery that needs to be studied before it can be applied.

Genealogy, specifically how to trace lineage back to us chattel slavery, is a well known process practiced by professionals every day. You just heard from one of the most respected genealogists from one of the leading genealogy organizations in the state tell you that this genealogy study is unnecessary. Need I say more? Well, I will.

Because not only is this study unnecessary, California's own reparations task force was clear. The state working with genealogists must provide residents with genealogy research services directly. SB437 does not do this.

Instead, it slows that process down by funding a vague academic exploration of how such genealogy services might work with no requirement to deliver anything to the people and no requirement for the results of the study to even be used at all.

Thirdly, SB437 not only delays residents from getting direct genealogy services for at least three to five years, but it also potentially delays any and every state policy or program now or in the future for descendants, whether they are related to reparations or not.

Moreover, the study proposed in SB 437 directly conflicts with what is proposed in its companion Bill SB518, another Bill that allows for a separate genealogy criteria and a separate genealogy process to be created, one that is different from what is being proposed in SB437, introducing redundancy confusion, inefficiency, morbid bureaucracy and quite frankly, Members wasting taxpayer money.

California doesn't need more reparations studies. It's time to act. Vote no or don't vote on SB437 thank you.

Thank you. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room.

My name is Jamir Washington. I urge you to vote no, in strong opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Molly Ly, and I urge you to vote no on this proposition.

Thank you.

Good, good afternoon. My name is Rashad and I'm in strong opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Bernice Singh with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. I'm in opposition.

Thank you.

Rose LaValle, in strong opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kim Mims, Coalition for Adjusting Equitable California, ARC Sacramento, and ETM Media. In opposition to SB 437. Vote no.

Thank you.

Yesenia Thomas, with the Anti Recidivism Coalition, in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Yes. Good afternoon. Darlene Cromarty, Member of CJEC, as well as the Coalition for California ARC Bay Area. I am actually begging you to vote no on this, as well as the Lineage Equity and Advancement Project and the California Black Leading Society CLBC. We respectfully ask you to vote no.

Thank you.

Carmen Munoz, with the Anti Recidivism Coalition, strongly opposing. No.

Thank you. Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Seeing none, do we have—oh, I'm sorry. Dr. Sharp-Collins.

Hello. I would like to thank the author for bringing forth the Bill. As a proud co-author of this Bill, I am in strong support of providing up to 6 million to the CSU to carry out critical research that is tied to the California Reparations Task Force.

What I want to do is I want us to be clear that the work of the Reparation Task Force, yes, it was historic, but it was only the beginning of the work that we still have to continue to do.

One of the most urgent next steps is to build a fair, transparent, and accurate system for conforming—well, actually, for actually confirming who qualifies as a descendant of those that were enslaved here within the US—and that work hasn't been done, and it hasn't been done by most states at all, and certainly not at a scale that's necessary to really support policy that is rooted in true justice.

So, this work will lay the foundation for how we can confirm the true descendant status but also guide statewide implementation and ensure the promise of reparation is built on true data, but also justice.

So, the reality is that many of our black families truly cannot trace their lineage due to generations of stolen records, frustrated histories, fractured history, honestly, but also systemic system that was really error, sure. Meaning that it hasn't been truly accurate.

So, if we fail to create a process grounded in rigorous genealogy research, then we truly risk the undermining of the very goals of reparation and trying to do true restorative justice based on the historical truth, which is what we're asking for. So, I'm sitting here saying that I will be...up supporting the Bill today.

And I'm saying that we need to fund the research so we can uplift the truth and move closer to the equity that our communities truly deserve, and this Bill, it is a start. And so, I will be supporting the Bill today.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Sharp-Collins. Assemblymember Rodriguez.

If I could just ask—and feel free, the coauthors that are on this Committee, or the author to respond to some of the statements by the opposition regarding there already being an established process in genealogy, as well as any delays this might cause for the other efforts.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you so much for that question. You know, I, I wish it was that simple. We have been trying to change to trace my lineage for years and we have been unsuccessful. It may be easier for some than it is for others, but we still haven't found my lineage, right.

It is extremely difficult because of the way in which chattel slavery was done here in America, where you had individuals who were torn from their families, sent to different plantations, individuals were used as breeders, so you may have never even been around your family before. We were forced to take the names of those who enslaved us.

And those records, as I stated in the beginning, are fractured if they were ever there. Some were burned. It's not as easy of a process as some would like to make it seem. This is not another study bill. This is not looking to determine if this is an important process.

This is ensuring that whatever process is in place is accurate and works for everyone, whether you can trace your ancestors back or whether you only know who your parents are, or maybe not even that at all. And so, you know, this is extremely important.

I wish that the task force had had time to really dig deep to find out the methodology that we should use. Additionally, if people actually read the Bill, it does also grant the CSU the ability to work with genealogists to determine the best methodology and once that methodology is determined, then that can be used by the agency, once that is in place now.

The question of whether or not this Bill must go forward for any of the other priority bills that we have or any of the other reparation bills is a false statement and is untrue.

We have not linked our Bill to any other Bill and none of the other authors have linked their bills specifically to us. In regards to SB 518, we have actually submitted clarifying language through amendments to ensure that it is known that there is no linkage. You do not have to necessarily pass this one.

However, when you start talking about reparative work per the task force, you have to ensure that you are a descendant of American chattel slavery. And so, there needs to be a process in place to determine if you truly are.

Thank you so much. Any further questions or comments? Assemblymember Tangipa.

Yeah, I just want to say thank you all for being here, first and foremost. So, as the genealogist, just wanted to ask, what areas, because it seemed like your argument was argument of duplicity on already redundant studies. So, what processes are in place? What have you done as a professional genealogist? And I mean, in your general response.

Thank you. First, I brought this book to show you. This is—this book has been around for almost 30 years. This is the professional proof standards that, as I stated, the Board of Certified Professional Genealogists have defined in this book proven genealogical, you know, proof standards that have been around. So, we've been teaching these methodologies for decades.

That's number one. Number two, me personally, like I said, I've been a genealogist for 24 years. I have taken on several clients. I have trained and given presentations and seminars to hundreds of people showing them how this can be done.

I'm sorry that Senator Weber Pierson is unable to trace her particular ancestry, but there are hundreds of people who are tracing their ancestors every day.

And might I add that, again, the task force community of eligibility was defined as any living person in the United States who descends from a chattel enslaved person or a free person of color living anywhere in the United States prior to 1900.

So, if you have an ancestor who is, let's say, you find them on a 1900 census and they're 59 years old, they're obviously born before slavery. Where do you get it? She keeps mentioning slave records and not being able—and things are unavailable, and the names of the slaves got changed.

None of that applies in this situation because we are literally researching free people, not enslaved. We're not digging into courthouse records. We're not looking at probates and wills—last wills—and testaments where you're seeing hundreds of people enslaved with values behind their names. We're not looking at that. We don't have to go that far.

The burden of proof is a lot less than that. So, if that's the case, I don't understand how we get to this point where we have to rely on the CSUs to do the basics that genealogists have been teaching for decades. I hope that answers your question.

Does she have more to add?

Yeah. So I just want to underscore, this is what your study is going to end up with. We have the answers to your study right here.

You're going to spend millions of taxpayer dollars if you pass this Bill today, if you send this Bill forward, millions of taxpayer dollars, three to five years, to do what we already know the answer to. That's the first point.

Second point is, with respect to the Chair, and with respect to your question, also, Member, behind me here, let's take the Senator at her word that these bills, what this Bill wants to do is not going to stop any other Bill that any of you want to do. Let's take her at her word for that.

So, let's say, Members, that you want to do a Bill next year for people who are descendants of those who are enslaved in this country. In your district, there are a group of residents who are descendants of those who were enslaved in this country. Let's say you want to do something for that group of people.

How are you going to determine and find out who those people are? If your Bill is not connected to Senator Weber's Bill, then you could, in theory, create your own process for figuring out who is a descendant of someone who was enslaved in this country.

And then, you, Member, you could have your own Bill with your own process, and you, and you, and we could go on and on. If it is true that this Bill is not linked to the other bills, that's even worse. It's even worse.

If it is true that this Bill is linked to the other bills, bills which a clear and common sense reading of that makes that clear, then everything you want to do for this group of residents will have to wait for this three to five year study. And guess what?

At the end of the three to five year study, when you end up with this, what we already know, there's no requirement at all for the results of the study to be used. The bureau that picks this work up, the agency that picks this work up, could say, thanks for your 5 years.

No thanks, we're going to do our own thing. So, it is either the Bill is linked, and it stops and slows down what you want to do, or it's not linked and it's even worse.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I think I had one more thing to add. In the methodology that we teach, like we're talking about tracing ancestors back through just the federal records, just the Federal Census records right, back in, I think it was 2018, 2019, about 20, 25, genealogists.

We came here to the Capitol during one of the events, I think it was for Juneteenth, and we researched the California Assembly Members and the California Legislative Black Caucus Members. They came down, I think it was in the basement. And we traced their ancestries back.

So, those that we were able to find on a 1900 census or an 1800 census, we, by the definitions defined by the task force, they all qualify for reparations. So, why do we need the CSUs to do that? Thank you.

Just want to say something. Someone in my lineage was a part of the Assembly at that time and like I said before, we still don't have our lineage. So, not everyone was able to be traced. If that happened, I believe.

Thank you, Senator. Dr.—Assemblymember, Dr. Corey Jackson.

Mr. Tamaki, you are a part of the reparations task force and obviously you sat through an enormous amount of time discussing this and hearing from the public.

In your estimation, when it comes to this particular Bill, do you believe that it is a logical step to take for the state to have a process so that members can then be able to be certified for their lineage so then they can be access—have access—to the repair that the state has available at that time?

The task force took their role very seriously, knowing that the documentation processes, the analysis, the scholarship, was something that had to be established for all time, not only for the present, but for posterity.

So, it ended in an 1100-page report, 30 days of hearing testimony, hundreds of witnesses testified, and every fact that matters in that report is footnoted and it's authorized. But we did not have the time to take a deep dive into this and frankly, many other areas.

In some of these things, you know, we had 13 chapters just tracing the history from enslavement, to racial terror, to segregation, to health care, to the wealth gap, and so on.

Any one of those topics, in terms of coming up with the details and the processes and the structure to ameliorate those harms, it would have been impossible to do in a two year period, and the determination of eligibility and more to the point, setting up the processes so it would be fair, it would be credible, it would be based in scholarship.

The task force did not have time to do it. We were moving through these areas very, very rapidly. Still, it took two years and, and so we think that 437 fills in a missing processes, missing details, to get this done. And it also has to stand up to public scrutiny, to attack to criticisms.

It will be looked upon by other states. California is doing this for the first time, folks. In 1968, there was a Presidential Commission, called the Kerner Commission, that began to trace the dots between the harm of enslavement to its present day outcomes. That tracing took all of 40 pages. This is an 1100 page deep dive tome.

We call it the book of truth in some ways because it reveals facts that have been long forgotten or buried. And everybody on the task force considered themselves very well read in American history.

But I have to say, we learned, everybody learned, something new, especially in California, where things occurred here that you'd only expect to have occurred in the South. And so, the details of a processes, when you implement it and operationalize it and make it fair and make it standardized and uniform, is needed.

And so, I think the process will welcome the input of genealogists. But to have the scholarship and the credibility of Cal State University and the other university systems behind it is very important to build credibility.

Thank you very much for that. And I want to thank our Caucus Chair for authoring one of our flagship priority bills this year.

And certainly, know the painstaking work it has taken to work on this language, to kind of think about it from, from a process standpoint, how do we set up the state as a whole to be able to go from identification, to access, to repair, and.

So, I want to thank you for the work that you've done, and I would like to move this Bill, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much. We have a motion. Do we have a second?

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. Okay, thank you. So, we have a motion, second. I want to recognize my colleagues. First, Vice Chair DeMaio.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Full disclosure, I am absolutely dead set against reparations. I don't think that they're fair. I don't think that they're legal. That's what we're talking about here, right? We're setting the stage for determining who eventually would be eligible for reparations, right? That's why we're doing this research. You're funding the research? Okay.

So, we're spending $6 million to figure out who would get reparations. So, I think we should probably first figure out some research on whether it is legal to give reparations. The member from the task force said you studied history. I hope you also studied constitutional decisions.

This issue of reparations was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1988 when President Ronald Reagan signed into law federal legislation providing reparations for individuals who were forcibly placed in two camps during World War II, Japanese Americans, by President Roosevelt. The legislation was challenged as unconstitutional. On one side, that it wasn't permissible.

The other side were individuals who were descendants of, of individuals who were put in the camps who said that they were left out and that they should be provided with funds because they descended from Japanese Americans in the camps.

The U.S. Supreme Court, established in 1988—and by the way, this court decision was not from a conservative court, it was from quite a balanced court, some would say a moderate Supreme Court—that reparations can be provided only to an individual who directly suffered the harm at the hands of the government. In this case, being forced into a camp is a decision of the US Federal government, shamefully.

The Supreme Court and lower courts also rejected claims by descendants for compensation because the descendants were not directly forced into the camps—their ancestors were. How do you overcome clear Supreme Court case law that would prohibit reparations for descendants of slaves from the 1860s? And how would you respond to the argument some might be saying that this is all political theater, that you're getting people's hopes up that they're going to get money?

And then, when you're smacked with the law, the case law, the constitutional law, you get to blame a conservative Supreme Court. Is this all just like an expensive setup to that?

Because I'd rather let people know, like up front, you're not getting reparations, you're not getting the money because it's not lawful under federal anti-discrimination laws. So, how would you respond to that argument? I understand the opposition's argument, as to it not going far enough.

I actually think we should not even go down the road at this point. But how would you respond to those issues?

Yeah, thank you so much, Assemblymember DeMaio, for that question. You know, and I believe that that is actually a question, a debate for another Bill at another time, because that's not necessarily what this Bill is about.

But if you are interested in understanding what the task force was actually tasked to do and what their recommendations basically were focused around, last year, and we talked about it, I always recommend for the Members to actually read the report, or at least the Executive Summary, to really understand the scope of their work.

And so, it's not just about repairing the harms of slavery, it's about repairing the harms of slavery and also the systemic discrimination that came afterwards, which was actually at the hands of the State of California. But again, that's not what this Bill is about.

And I know we are debating this Bill, but I strongly, strongly would hope, if you haven't, that you at least read the Executive Summary of the reparations task force. We have a member of the task force here. It was lots of hours and years and, and time put in, and it's actually a really, really good read.

And I do know that you enjoy reading. I would strongly recommend that you read that and then we can have that conversation about the merits of actually giving out money at another time.

But I think once you read it, you'll understand that repairing the harm of slavery and systemic discrimination that has occurred afterwards is not just about giving out money. It touches every aspect of society, legislation that we here in California passed, and also the things that we continue to, to do today. So, it's more than just cash.

And that's something that I have stated. That is something that the California Legislative Black Caucus has stated. I understand that you are not for reparations, and I respect that opinion of yours. That's not necessarily what we're discussing today.

So, I will let you know I did read the report in full because I've actually been very critical of the report, the various elements that it said that we needed to pay out, various costs to taxpayers.

Well, it was much more than just that.

Understood. Yeah. But your Bill actually does relate to reparations. It's not about the systemic racism because you're dealing with genealogy going all the way back to people who are actually enslaved. So, you're actually confirming my point.

No, what this Bill does is if there are, in the future, restorative things specific for those, whether it's funding, educational things, whatever it is, and you're stating that you deserve this or that you need this because of the harms that you and your ancestors have encountered, how can you prove that you are truly a descendant of American chattel slavery?

Right. And again, that's why I'm raising this constitutional question of why spend $6 million on something to develop a methodology to identify people who the Supreme Court will not allow you to do an education program or to give cash payments because it would be discriminatory.

You would have to set up a program that would be available to all, not based upon a special class. That's what the Supreme Court has ruled. That's the whole notion of the 14th Amendment, which was equal protection under the law.

And that's so important that we not spend $6 million on a methodology to implement a program that on its face is flying in direct contrast to very clear constitutional case law. I'd also say on systemic racism, the Supreme Court has also weighed in on these arguments people have made about, well, there's institutionalized racism, it's systemic.

Again, the Supreme Court has been very clear. The government has an obligation to identify an individual, a specific individual, a specific government action against the individual, and a specific level of damage for compensation. I'm not sure that there are many cases that could meet that standard, even if you do the systemic racism side.

I raise this important little fact and this challenge, this legal burden, because whether you like a decision of the Supreme Court or not, or whether you like the application of the 14th amendment or not, it exists for equal protection under the law.

There's a reason why we have this standard because it's about fairness and equity for all. And I am concerned, to those of you who support reparations, I am concerned that you are a victim of fraud. I'm concerned that you're being told something by elected officials that's not true, that's not going to happen.

And I think that you need to understand the constitutional case law that these ideas are up against. You may not like the constitutional case law, but it is there. And so, I would really encourage perhaps before we see something like this—I've seen bills, I'm right now arguing with leg. counsel on one of my bills.

They say, well, there's a federal law that we have a little issue with. I'd like to see our legislative counsel do its job as it relates to clearly articulated case law from the Supreme Court saying this is probably not going to fly.

Thank you, Mr. DeMaio.

Before advancing it. So, again, to the author of the Bill, those are the reasons why I oppose.

Thank you.

And if we can go, if we can bring forward programs that are more income based, there are a number of ways to structure programs, but the concept of reparations on these issues seem to fly in the face of that constitutional decision.

All right, thank you, Mr. DeMaio. And I think some of these discussions can be also held in Judiciary Committee as well. I know that's where it's going to go next—gets out. Senator, did you want to add to that?

Oh, well.

You know, I do know something about the 1988 Civil Liberties Act. I'm the son of—my mother and father were incarcerated in Topaz Concentration Camp in Utah. And their—the case that you're referring to as a US Supreme Court case, you've misstated it. That was a class action for damages.

Ultimately, it was dismissed out for two reasons, sovereign immunity and being beyond the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court did not rule that descendants are not eligible for reparations. That was not the issue before it. The other thing, Member DeMaio, is there are precedents where there have been reparations provided to descendants.

1922, the town of Rosewood was wiped out and they called it a race riot at the time. It was a massacre, and anywhere between 27 to 150 people were killed. The State of Florida not only at least provided some recompense to the surviving victims, a few of them, but they also provided benefits to descendants.

9/11 is also an example where the government recognized that it was not just enough to provide compensation to surviving first responders, but also to descendants. And so, this idea that it cannot be done is, is a misstatement. I would say, finally, in terms of what Senator Weber Pierson has stated, the harm is continuing.

You've given basically kind of a species of the argument it's too late. And this is all about slavery. It is not. It is about the continuing and cascading consequences that have haunted American society from 1865 right up to the 40s, the 50s, and into the 60s, where people were still struggling to have the right to vote.

So, I just wanted to say it is a continuing harm. It's not just about Sundance. It's about people experiencing these real—very real—disparities today.

Thank you so much. Any further questions or comments? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close, please?

Thank you. Really want to thank, again, the Committee for hearing this Bill. Want to thank all of those who came to speak in support and those who came to speak in opposition, and, you know, the robust conversations that we have had around this very, very, very important Bill. You know, I will not belabor the point.

This Bill is not a study bill. It is not something that has already been determined. It is not something that the task force gave us a pathway to do. You know, California, the CSU system, is one of the best in the country.

They are very well equipped and also based within the community with the relationships that we need to ensure that this will be done fair, just with transparency and in a timely fashion. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 437. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Senator Dr. Weber Pierson, for bringing this important measure forward and for accepting the Committee's amendments as outlined in page five of the analysis. As we heard, the task force report has provided several policy proposals.

And I believe this measure is a step in the right direction as it seeks to fully understand and determine lineage, which we know is a very complex issue. Thank you so much, Senator Weber Pierson, for your leadership and efforts, and I'm pleased to support this measure today.

The motion before us is do pass, as amended, to the Judiciary Committee. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

That measure's 3 ayes, 3 noes, and we'll keep the roll open for additional Members to add on. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. Next up is item number nine by Senator Cabaldon, SB 790. Welcome, Senator Cabaldon.

Thank you so much. Mr. Chair and Members. It's good to be home. This is the Committee I used to work for as a kid in Ms. Washington's, in Ms. Warden's seat. It's great to be here. We're with an issue that has been going on almost that long. So I'm here to present SB790.

SB790 was motivated and actually let me first say by that I'm accepting the amendments by the Committee. Appreciate the Committee's work on the bill. All of the amendments make sense and accepting that, accepting them as author's amendments. For the past several years, we've seen nationwide a large uptick in students taking coursework online.

A majority of students now in the United States take at least some of their coursework online. Interestingly, a large proportion of those students are taking at least one online course based in a state in which they don't live.

And so it has become increasingly common for students in California and every other state to take at least part of their higher education program on an online basis from institutions out of their home state.

Now, a dozen years ago, the White House issued regulations or the Department of Education issued regulations that required any online education provider in the post secondary domain to secure approval and authorization from any state in which they are providing online education to that state students.

So, for example, if Cal State Northridge is offering a course online and any of its students might be enrolled that live in North Carolina or Alaska or Guam, then Cal State Northridge is required to receive author to secure authorization from North Carolina, Alaska and Guam in order to offer that course. Now, that's for every single program.

And so if you're Cal State Northridge, it's hundreds and hundreds of authorizations that you would have to secure, obviously, that is completely unworkable for each institution in every state to go through that process.

And so 10 years ago, various states, led actually by California, created an Interstate Reciprocity Agreement by which the states all collectively agreed to a high level of standards that online education would have to meet. And then second, agreed to an enforcement rubric and requirements for how each state would enforce.

And then third, each state would agree to respect each other's enforcement of the common rules. So that if your institution, online institution, was approved in South Carolina and South Carolina went through the procedures and did all the reviews that are required and handled student complaints in the required manner, that Alaska would accept South Carolina's determination.

Since that time, 49 states and the District of Colombia and Puerto Rico have all signed up to the Interstate Reciprocity Agreement. You can guess I'm here because the one remaining state in the United States and its overseas territories is California. Now, this has two implications for California.

Number one, California students don't have the same level of protections that students in every other state has. So if you're in Alaska and you take that course from a North Carolina institution, you are fully protected by the Interstate Reciprocity Agreement. North Carolina is required to hear your complaints and to resolve your complaints.

If you are a California student taking a course that's offered by a North Carolina institution, you do not have access to those protections or those review and complaint procedures. All you have is that California requires the North Carolina institution to register with the state, with the State of California, with the Bureau for Private Post Secondary Education.

But there is no significant regulatory regime or oversight or enforcement. So for this, for Californians who are enrolled in out of state institutions, they don't get the same level of protections that they deserve for consumer protections from other states.

Then secondarily California institutions, you see CSU, community colleges, independent institutions of all kinds, they are at a severe competitive disadvantage because Arizona State University, NC State and every other institution, proprietary and otherwise, is able to sign up for the reciprocity agreement. Whereas Northridge. Northridge is a well known nationally recognized institution.

Even Northridge says we cannot comply with that. But imagine if your Cal State Stanislaus or your UC Davis extension and you're trying to comply with these laws or your Concordia University in Orange County. It is just so difficult that many of these positions don't offer their courses to students outside of California.

That means, number one, California is not providing the same higher education leadership that we always have. But it also means, and as a former faculty Member, I can attest to this and Dr. Jackson may have the same experience.

You know, when you're offering a course and you've got 14 students and the dean says you need 16, otherwise this course goes away. And it's an online class. Those two students from South Carolina can make the difference between the course making or not.

And that's important obviously for the faculty Member teaching it, but Also for the 14 students who want and may need that course in order to proceed.

So SB790 allows the Governor to join this interstate reciprocity agreement or an alternative agreement if a better deal comes along, but would be required to meet a series of standards and make a series of findings to protect California and advance our own values and legislative and consumer protection framework in order to do so.

The bgill originally also included language about a successor agency for post secondary education. The author amendments that I just accepted remove all of that. So now it's focused on this reciprocity agreement. We've been working with the opposition on the bill and there have been two sources of opposition, one on each end of the spectrum.

One were some of the consumer production and higher education groups who were concerned that we could have, we could have stronger productions in California. They have now removed their opposition and we're working with closely with them.

At the other end of the spectrum, the University of Phoenix I'm sure you will hear from has also been opposed because they believe, they're concerned that if we don't join this national reciprocity Agreement and we join an alternative agreement, that that agreement may not include institutions of every type of it may not include proprietary institutions or maybe it doesn't include any non public institutions.

That is the case because we need to have every option that's open to us. If we cannot, if we can't get an entry into the national Reciprocity Agreement. But that is not the intent of the Bill.

The intent of the Bill is to make it as possible, as likely as possible that California can enter into the family of nations and the rest of America in the rest of prostitute agreement in order to protect students.

The last thing I will note is that with the announced changes and the intended direction of the Administration in D.C.

with respect to the Department of Education, it's actually more important than ever that California continue to partner with Utah and Georgia and Florida and Oregon and Washington too around these kinds of procedures to make sure that we are advancing consumer protections and quality assurance for our students and for students across America.

So with that, I would ask for an aye vote. I'd like to introduce our witness on SB790. Dr. Julie Greenwood, who is the Dean of Continuing and Professional Education at the University of California, Davis in my district. Thank you so much. Welcome.

Great. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Julie Greenwood, the Dean of Continuing and Professional Education at UC Davis and formerly Vice Dean at Arizona State University where I worked very closely with ASU Online. I'm here to share a campus perspective on why California should join the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement.

At Arizona State, we could offer online programs to California residents without navigating separate state approval processes. In contrast, California institutions like UC Davis, which we're facing right now, must apply for authorization in each state individually for each program. A burdensome and costly process you can imagine for just five online programs.

This can cost over 250,000 annually per institution across the state. Funds that could be used to support students, faculty and innovation. Joining Sara would lower cost and reduce administrative complexity, allowing California's public universities to expand access to high quality online education both in state and nationally.

This is vital for working adults, caregivers, military personnel, and the over 6 million Californians with some college but no degree who rely on flexible online options to complete their education and contribute to the workforce. Participation in Sara would also boost out of state enrollments, generating new revenue to support the financial sustainability of our programs.

This includes low enrollment programs that might otherwise face elimination, especially critical during times of budget constraints. California's public universities have world class faculty and instructional expertise. Sara provides a framework to extend this excellence beyond our state borders, enhance diversity in our classrooms, and build inclusive high quality digital learning ecosystems. Thank you for your time and consideration.

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

All right, let me try again. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, Chris Morales for the CSU Office of the Chancellor in strong support. I want to thank the Senator for authoring the measure. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jessica Duong, University of California in support.

Thank you

Michelle Short on behalf of Loma Linda University Health in support.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Alex Grace, the Association of Independent California. Colleges, Universities in strong school support. Thank you.

Tommy Mitling on behalf of USC in strong support.

Thank you.

Chair Member is Nick Romo on behalf of Stanford University in strong support.

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

Scott Governor here for University of Phoenix. Were this Bill to say that the state shall develop a controlling agency for purposes of joining Sarah, opposition is removed. But there seems to be a bit of a disconnect here. California is the only state that doesn't participate in Sarah because California won't abide by Sarah's rules.

That's evident in the Bill. What California wants is for the 49 other states to say we're going to live by California's rules moving forward. My understanding so far is that only one state, Washington, has expressed any interest in that.

Now, where I get this from is if you look at the Bill, it conflicts with Sarah in multiple locations. Under the Bill, California can unilaterally place out of state schools under the authority of the Bureau for Private Post Secondary Education. Not just talking about for profit schools, any school. Those schools would be subject to revocation.

That runs counter to Sarah. Bill provides that the reciprocity agreement may not permit other states to take legal actions except for consumer protection actions against California schools. But again, if you're an out of state school operating in California, you can go under the bureau and have your authority revoked.

Bill provides that California can unilaterally amend the agreement and the complaints must go before the state before the institution. Again, both of which run counter to Sarah.

And then of course, finally the Bill says that the Bureau for Private Post Secondary shall develop rules for public and nonprofit schools to join the reciprocity and for profit schools are omitted.

So what we're going to get here is a Bill that creates a reciprocity agreement by itself, perhaps with Washington, because my clients have spoken to Sarah and they've said we're not so interested in this.

Which raises one other issue which the analysis, which is very thorough by the way, does a good job of pointing out this isn't cheap. The Governor had $5 million in his January budget for this creation of a new entity, albeit a Different one, but the same General purpose. That was removed in May.

The measure also imposes new obligations on the Bureau for Private Post Secondary, which I believe is seven and a half $1.0 million underwater right now, rising to 11 million by 28. So we're going to have a costly Bill that likely won't allow California to join Sarah. So for these reasons we are opposed. But thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there tweeners in the hearing?

Matt Back representing the California Association of Private Post Secondary Schools. We apologize. We did send a letter in over the weekend so we missed a deadline. But my client is opposed. We look forward to seeing the amendments. And working with the author. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Rachel Shakluna, on behalf of the Institute for College Access and Success, while tickets respectfully remains opposed unless amended. We appreciate the conversation with the Senator and how we can address some of the concerns as this process can continues.

While we appreciate this innovative approach to reciprocity, we still believe the inclusion of key protections like the Student Tuition Recovery Fund or the INC in. I'm sorry, inclusion of a process by which to validate or ensure that a nonprofit entity is bona fide true nonprofit. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any questions or comments? Vice Chair Demaio.

Thank you. I have two questions. One, I understand that the legislation authorizes the the charge of a new state fee. It mentions that the fee that would be charged for this new entity would replace the existing $1,500 fee that out of state institutions are currently required to pay for the Bureau of Private Post Secondary Education.

Is this going to be budget neutral? Is the fee going to be basically get rid of one fee and then charge the same fee for the new entity or are we potentially going to get a higher fee in this process?

And then secondly, the opposition's argument that the other states don't want to change their rules to accommodate California is pretty persuasive. Have you thought through what why would there be a likelihood that they're going to play ball?

Yeah. Okay. First, on the first part of the equation, the fee issue. So participation in the reciprocity agreement is voluntary for all institutions. And so they would an institution that is, that is out of state and is currently paying the registration fee. It's not an, it's not an enforcement or an oversight fee. It's really a registration fee.

Only were they to join Sarah, then they would pay the fee associated with Sara oversight, which includes complaint processing and what have you in addition, which is more than registration, but it will be budget neutral. That said, the bureau, the Bureau is financially in some pretty difficult straits right now. I know this.

I Chair the budget Subcommitee that oversees the Bureau. So we're going to have to take a look at the overall financing of the Bureau. It's not sustainable at the moment, but this Bill is not anticipating. There's no change in the fee structure.

It simply says that if you choose and you're out of state, instead to be regulated in the reciprocity framework, you, you will still have to pay, just like every institution in the reciprocity agreement will pay, but it's a different fee.

If you decide not to join Sarah, the reciprocity, then you can continue to pay the out of state registration fee. On the second question, what you've heard in opposition is exactly the, that's exactly the razor's edge that we are having to skate on, because the answer is no, we don't really know.

So half the opponents will tell you. The problem here is that California is the best. You know our rules and our procedures and our criteria. They're the only way to go. And everybody else is wrong. The other 49 states, they don't, they don't have it right. We need to impose our requirements.

And then the other side will say, you know, the rest of the country is right and we don't, you know, we don't want to, we don't want to upset them. And if we do, then they won't let us join. And I used to chair the Committee at the Western Regional Commission that oversaw Sarah for the West.

And so I'm very familiar with this tension. I can't tell you what the exact answer is. We're trying to figure that out. And as we go forward and achieve that balance of pushing the California framework as far as we can without pushing so far that we cannot join the agreement.

So that the tension that you're hearing is exactly what we've been grappling with the whole way through. We are meeting with the Western. The way Sarah works, it's divided into several regions around the country. We're meeting with the head of the Western region within the next week to start that negotiation process in more in earnest.

So there is very much interest in California joining. So in that I would say the University of Phoenix is not correct. There isn't overwhelming interest like we want you no matter what. So I would say the other side is also incorrect in this, where this is a negotiation that the Governor will have to lead. And we're.

And our task has been to craft a Bill that pushes, pushes as far as we can without getting to a point where we don't have. Where we cannot be admitted to the agreement. Thank you so much.

Any further questions or comments from colleagues? Seeing none. Do we have a motion. Motion A second. Thank you so much, colleagues. Senator, would you like to close, please?

Only to say thank you to the. To the Committee and to the Members. I mean this is. It is an important. It is an important issue. It will ultimately have to be a negotiated agreement with the. With the other states. But we're setting this up in a proper way.

I will also note because I chaired the Committee that oversaw oversees this before I entered the Senate. The other states, their. Their fiscal. Their expenditures for implementing Sarah have been as low as $75,000 a year. So we're not. This is not a budget buster. And I would also just correct the record that although the may revi.

In the May revise, the Governor withdrew the proposal for the coordinating entity. The budget proposal that has been. That wasn't. That was put in print today. Restores money for that entity. That would be the portal entity for Sarah in the Bill. So there is a.

There will be a home, there will be administrative structure in order to implement this. And I'd ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Senator Cabaldon, for bringing this Bill forward and for accepting the Committee's amendments. I believe this Bill strikes in a very important balance, recognizes the potential advantages of entering into interstate reciprocity agreement while also ensuring that our state can take the necessary steps to protect and advocate for our students.

I certainly at words and I vote and would like to be considered being added as a co author for this. Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. Thank you, sir. Madam Secretary, roll call. Please.

File item number 9. SB790. The motion is do pass as amended to the Business and Professions Committee.[Roll Call]

That measures three ayes, one no. We'll keep the roll open for additional Members. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Next up, we'd like to invite Senator Laird presenting item number five, Senate Bill 391. Welcome.

Thank you. Sorry, I just ran over from the swing space after running over from the. Capitol, so...

Take your time.

I want to start by accepting the Committee amendments on SB 391. I want to thank the Committee staff for working on this. This Bill provides the authority to the California Community College Chancellor's office to impose reasonable fees or charges upon research partners who are seeking access to data from the Chancellor's Office.

Now, either people can't afford to get it, or if it is able to be developed, it is not being paid for and it either causes delays or it not to happen. It's already common practice for research entities seeking data compilation from state entities to be charged a fee.

For example, the California Department of Education and Cradle to Career have the authority to charge fees for data requests. For this reason, research entities often have funding set aside for the acquisition of data from state entities. However, as a state agency, the Chancellor's Office is not permitted to charge fees without legislative approval.

There have been some requests for amendments which are really broad exemptions that aren't present in current authorizations with other agencies and would weaken the ability of the Chancellor's Office to recover research. I would continue to work if there are concerns, but I believe this Bill is together with the amendments taken here.

And with me to testify is Dr. Linda Vasquez, the Assistant Vice Chancellor for State and Federal Relations for the California Community College Chancellor's Office. At the appropriate time, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you Senator Laird. Good afternoon Chair Fong and Members of the Assembly Higher Education Committee. I'm pleased to testify on behalf of the California Community College's Chancellor's Office in support of SB 391. The Chancellor's Office is a state agency of about 200 staff that administers over 100 programs to our 116 community colleges.

Since 2010, the number of community college categorical programs has increased from 35 to 105, but our staff capacity has only increased by 8%. That context is really important. Our research team is only made up of eight staff. Two months ago we testified and said it it was six staff staff and the Chancellor's office is facing an 8% budget cut.

We regularly receive data requests from researchers seeking complex information to answer highly specific research questions such as how does dual enrollment fair in different parts of the state? Or what does faculty and staff diversity look like in the California Community Colleges?

These requests result in substantive extraction and compilation of data. To proceed, we generally enter into a formal MOU with a requestor organization that outline data use and require secure data destruction.

While we value the research that these requests result in, these are unfunded workload that we absorb. We currently manage an average of 25 to 40 different MOUs annually, engaging in at least seven to eight different staff per project, pooling resources from core responsibilities like legislative reports and program evaluations.

However, without the ability to charge a fee for these independent research requests, we may need to determine which requests we can accept and which ones will need to decline. The Chancellor's office provides publicly extensive data through various dashboards and this Bill does not change that.

The revenue generated by this fee policy is not in the millions of dollars. It is in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars when we calculate staff time dedicated in current projects. And the money would be reinvested into the Chancellor's office team.

In closing, I would like to thank those who have reached out to us about the Bill and amendments as mentioned by Senator Laird.

Although the primary parties impacted by this fee policy would be large research organizations like the Community College Research center at Teachers College, Columbia University or the Public Policy Institute of California, the Chancellor's Office is committed to developing a fee policy that ensures open access for everyone.

Thank you for your time and consideration and we respectfully request your support.

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

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Fong, Members of the Committee. My name is Eric Kaljumagi. I'm the immediate past President of the California Teachers Association Community College Association. Existing law permits the Department of Ed to impose fees upon researchers, and it's now the interest of the Community Colleges Chancellor's Office to have a somewhat similar authority.

CTA has an opposed position on this Bill. As stated in today's analysis, the Chancellor's Office manages 25 to 40 MOUs and the fees would result in the savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Simple division reveals the intended fees will be somewhere in the thousands of dollars range.

While many well known and well funded external advocacy groups can absorb such a cost, lesser funded groups, including faculty groups and individual faculty researchers, will find such fees a significant barrier. As Senator Laird notes, there is significant interest in data sharing with the community college system to explore critical topics.

But shall the only voices in these explorations be those who can afford multiple thousands of dollars? CTA understands that providing information takes resources. We're actually sympathetic to the Chancellor's Office's funding challenges. Unfortunately, when we ask that community college faculty and their organizations be at least partially exempted from the fees, we were rebuffed.

Even though in truth, requests from these groups are actually quite rare. Fees make sense when one receives a service that primarily benefits the fee payer, but that's not the case here. Community college faculty do not do research simply to enrich themselves. It's not part of how we get paid.

Instead, we're attempting to contribute to the political discourse surrounding the community college system. I will note that SB391 has no language requiring that the fees simply equal the actual costs incurred. And that is something that's in the existing ed code for K-12.

We look forward to continuing to work with the author and the Chancellor's Office for a viable solution. But as currently written, this can harm our interests and we urge you to vote now. Thank you so much.

Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Assemblymember Rodriguez. Or sorry, Assemblymember Jackson.

Thank you very much. My, my question what do we anticipate the average cost per page to be?

Well, I don't want to get ahead of our Board of Governors before presenting them with the proposal, but we can consider basic, moderate, complex requests based on what we currently manage. And so you think about how many people are involved in reviewing that. We calculate their hourly wages into the time dedicated to those projects.

Basic, moderate and complex. On the low end, we're talking about low thousands of dollars on the high end for a project that can take better part of a year or years is in the tens of thousands of dollars, most likely based on the hours that are invested in managing the project.

So if I am a researcher and I'm asking for data and of course research in the public good to be able to have access to accurate information and be able to do whatever they decide to do with it, do you believe that it would be cost prohibitive to some of these folks?

I mean, because obviously not every researcher has a huge grant that they can put into their budgets and those type of things.

And so, you know, if I'm a nonprofit and I engage with a researcher and I'm trying to do, you know, community, community-based participatory research in some way, obviously I have a very small budget in most cases.

How are you plan, how do you plan on balancing who would probably access this? Because if it's going to be in the thousands of dollars, that might actually be quite an issue. Right.

Just before she answers, let me be clear that the Bill currently exempt students doing their own studies in state agencies and that we're open to considering an exemption for faculty members doing their own research.

I think the question was an exemption for larger collections of people or organizations and that is the way the exemption works for other programs.

I mean, I intend to support the Bill and move the Bill, but I'm just going to say very honestly that number one if you're going to present a Bill to be able to do this but not really have what it would actually cost, I think it's also a red flag that I want to make sure that I state.

But also, obviously, if we believe as a Legislature that this becomes exorbitant and outside of the bounds of just covering the cost, I mean, I can anticipate some issues in the future as well. So I would just be cognizant of that.

Those are fair questions. This Bill is only requesting permission that we present a fee proposal to our Board of Governors. And so at that time, we would present the actual proposal.

And it would include, as we've - we actually did discuss this with CTA - could we explore a fee waiver for those nonprofit organizations or small organizations where it would bring undue harm or like they can't afford it? So that would be presented as part of the fee proposal to our Board of Governors.

And under Education Code 70901, the California Community Colleges is mandated before it adopts any policy, it is mandated to go through a consultation process. And so we've got 18 different stakeholder groups represented in consultation. CTA is one of them.

So when we propose a fee structure, it will go through the process again through consultation Council, before it's actually adopted by the Board of Governors.

Let me say that a little more simply, and that would be right now there's no authority. There's absolutely no authority. Unless this Bill passes, there's not authority to do this. Once the authority is there, then you then you have a process to do it. And I share your exact concern.

I wouldn't be doing this if it was gonna lead to prohibitive costs that actually are counter to the very reason that we're doing this Bill. But I also know as a former community college trustee, that if our staff committed something without consulting us, I would jam that staff. And I don't want them to get ahead of their own Board of Trustees.

It was one of the first questions that Senator Laird asked us when we talked to him about authoring. And we have a concepts that we would be ready to present to the board should this Bill pass and be sent by the Governor.

Well, Senator, as being a victim of your jamming, I'm sure that that is something that will definitely happen. I move the Bill.

And just for the record, I'm not done jamming.

All right, thank you, everyone. We have a motion by Dr. Jackson. Do we have a second? I'll second the motion. I'm sorry. We have Dr. Sharp-Collins second the motion. Dr. Patel?

It's nice to see you twice in one day, Senator Laird. I do have a question. I'm envisioning how this would be implemented because that's where my head always goes, how we would move towards implementation and thinking about if there was a fee for a study that was incurred, who then owns the data?

In a typical business model, that organization that's soliciting that study would then own the data and could then do what they want with that. Is that what you envision?

No. So this is why an MOU is required. The MOU outlines how they intend to use the data and how they intend to destroy it. They have to destroy it. So they don't own the data. That's why every attorney reviews every single MOU to make sure that they have a plan to destroy the data.

And again, an MOU is important to understand how do you intend to use this information and for public good?

Okay, so we're still working on what that might look like in a case by case basis, or would it be.

Yes. So step one in this, in developing the fee policy, is to give us permission to even pursue this to our board. The next step would be to develop this and then it would be presented to our consultation council and our Board of Governors.

And so those are the factors that we will be bringing to our Board of Governors for consideration.

Okay.

Does that answer your question?

Yes, that is the question. And I express some similar concerns to my colleague across from me here. Just in general, how it would be implemented and what this would create for organizations that could not afford the fees, and yet their research might be crucial towards them being able to effectively deliver services to the community or their constituency that they serve.

And want to make sure that we're not charging for something that we would hope that universities would engage in anyway.

Yeah. And if I can give additional context of why this Bill is being brought to you today. We are one of the actually the only segment that does not have this permission to do this. But we're not talking about small community based organizations.

We're talking about the Community College Research center at Teachers College at Columbia, the Public Policy Institute, the TICAS, the big organizations that actually get private money through philanthropy, who have received money for this particular project, and to complete this project they're reaching out to us for the data to answer that particular research question.

So if a small community based organization is reaching out to us, they likely wouldn't fall within that same category of your PPIC.

So thank you for that clarification, that really helps. And my final question is, say this data would then get published somewhere in a report, in a finding. Would the institution get credit for that in those kinds of reports? That would be part of an evidence...

They would. And you probably don't know it, but there are lots of reports that we've helped support that actually has resulted in statewide policy legislation. Their name is associated with it, but they do give credit to the Community College Chancellor's office.

And in many instances, we are asked to co-present with them at conferences. But we incur those costs on our own too. So this is why the policy would help us. Thank you.

If we vote on this Bill, can we get credit for it too?

Sounds like Dr. Jackson would like to be out as a coauthor here. Thank you Doctor...Thank you so much. Thank you, Dr. Patel. Thank you, Dr. Jackson. Any further questions or comments? Seeing none, Senator, would you like to close?

I just, I appreciate the discussion. And I also note the backdrop is, is that we have been spending the day in caucus hearing about the budget being briefed.

We'll be voting on the budget and as Chair of the Education Budget Subcommitee in the Senate, one of our challenges with community colleges is, you know, we all work together to reverse a retroactive cut that the Governor proposed for this budget.

And I think it's our job to make sure that every tool is available so that we can have as much money as possible that goes directly to the classroom. And while this is small, this is really there.

And then also with regard to Assemblymember Patel's question, one of the letters of support was from the RAND Corporation. And you can tell that they're somebody that has resources, wants research, that just wants this to work and brings money to the table in a significant way. With all that, I just appreciate the discussion. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Laird. And we've had conversations on this Bill as well. Appreciate you accepting the Committee's amendments to address privacy concerns, but also ensuring that our Chancellor's office and the community colleges has the support necessary to comply with data requests, timely and often time consuming data requests while also fulfilling statutory obligated reports is imperative.

So look forward to supporting the measure here today. And thank you so much again for bringing this forward. With that, Madam Secretary, roll call please.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you so much. That measure has five ayes. We'll keep the row open for additional members at all. Thank you. Next up, we'd like to welcome Senator Cortese presenting SB 685. Welcome Senator Cortese.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'd first like to thank the Committee staff for working with our office on this Bill and I will be accepting the Committee amendments. Appreciate those very much. Appreciate the good staff here which as you know, Mr. Chair, I've had the opportunity to work with on a couple of occasions. Thank you.

I'm here to present this Bill which establishes a cost of assist a cost of attendance assistance pilot program at four CSU campuses. The Bill provides critical financial support to students who've experienced homelessness during high school, ensuring that they can not only access higher education, but also remain enrolled and succeed from a financial standpoint.

Many unhoused students face challenges after CSU acceptance with costs reaching $35,000 annually for on campus students compounded by unmet needs for housing, transportation and food. While California has made its made significant progress with supports like Cal Grant and other state financial aid programs, many students still face an unmet need of about $10,000 for basic living costs annually.

This gap remains a major barrier for students who have already been struggling to stabilize their living situation. At CSU, 50% of students reporting report experiencing housing insecurity and 40% experience food insecurity. I know many of these statistics you're very familiar with as members of this Committee.

For first generation college students, these issues are even more pronounced with 65% reporting food insecurity and 20% experiencing homelessness. Without adequate financial support, these students face an increased risk of dropping out and lower academic performance, perpetuating the cycle of poverty. SB 685 ensures CSU campuses provide extra support to cover unmet costs for housing, food and transportation.

This targeted financial help allows students to focus on their studies without worrying about their basic needs, which greatly boosts their chances of graduation long term success. With us here today is Kate Rogers with the Student Homes Coalition. They are sponsors of SB685 and she's here to speak in support of the Bill. Thank you.

And I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon Chair Fong and Members of the Committee. My name is Kate Rogers. I'm the current co chair of the Student Homes Coalition. I'm also a UC student and also former community college student myself. And Student Homes is proud to sponsor SB685 and we respectfully request your support today.

So the Student Homes Coalition was founded about three years ago now in direct response to to the college affordability crisis. And all the founders are students. We had our background in higher ed, so we're very well acquainted with the conversation around financial aid. And we noticed that it focuses pretty primarily on tuition assistance.

And non-tuition costs of attendance are often left out completely. And existing financial aid programs like Cal Grant, Pell Grant are absolutely necessary to make college affordable in California, but they're not sufficient so at all three of our public higher ed systems here in California, tuition is less than half the cost of of attendance.

And at CSUs alone, housing is double the cost of tuition. So this means that even when students have 100% of their tuition covered by scholarships and aid, they are still at high risk of becoming homeless.

Across the CSU students, 11% of students will experience homelessness each year, meaning that they come into school after having slept in their cars, in a shelter or on the street. For California's most at risk students, last dollar financial assistance is the best way to prevent homelessness.

SB 685 will fill in that gap between existing financial aid and cost of attendance for formerly homeless students, allowing them to focus more on their education rather than fighting housing insecurity.

And this Bill, of course, is only a pilot program, but we see this as the first step towards expanding this type of program to other campuses, other systems, because the rates of homelessness that we're dealing with are just so high. And that's because of high housing costs, which is not covered by aid.

So with all of that, I respectfully request your aye vote today. Thank you.

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

Thank you Chair and Members. JP Hanna with the California Nurses Association in support.

Thank you. Are the witnesses in opposition in a hearing room? Are there tweeners in a hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Dr. Sharp-Collins.

Thank you so much for bringing forth this Bill. I do hope to see this program to be expanded and in the future to include vulnerable students even more so, including those that are experiencing homelessness while enrolled at the CSU. Foster youth, food insecurity students and others in need.

I do have a couple of questions in regards to the Bill itself because the way that that is written, or at least the way that I interpret it, that is targeting right now those that have been identified homeless while in high school. Correct?

And, and upon enrollment there is...

And upon enrollment.

Right.

Okay. All right. So while there have been important efforts to support college students that are currently experiencing homelessness, I was just trying to understand that why does this Bill prioritize students who have experienced homelessness during high school rather than addressing the needs of currency issue students facing housing insecurity?

And I'm asking that because we know that housing is not a part of of the tuition itself. So once again, some of them could be going in homelessness, but also while they are enrolled, they become homeless because they still cannot afford to pay for tuition.

So I'm wondering, first question is why is the Bill prioritizing those that have been identified homeless prior to entering into the system? School system?

Yeah, if I'm understanding the question right, we purposely, although you heard a lot, you heard some testimony today and emphasis on the need for housing itself. And obviously the Bill is focused on the homeless population.

And I want to clarify my earlier answer just indicating that through the enrollment process the student will have this opportunity to indicate on a verified basis their homeless condition. Certifying that they've been homeless. I would imagine maybe not, obviously not impossible and certainly easy to project enough for a student.

But to say I'm going to be homeless, you know, six months or during my entire year, we didn't feel that was necessary. It would be better just to assume they're in this extremely low income situation, even for a college student where they've been homeless and come out of that background. Back to your current question.

I don't want to conflate things here, but a lot of my background in working with these kind of situations where we have multiple needs foster youth who are at times way overrepresented in our homeless population, pregnant women in certain categories in urban areas have been way over represented in that area, is that it's Better to leave the flexibility of giving them the dollars they need to start making decisions from student to student to student what they need at that point in time.

For some it will be a few $100 or whatever the amount is to augment or fill the gap on the room they're trying to rent. For some, it might be a warm coat in the wintertime, so to speak.

For some it's going to be the cost of education, of course, books, anc- things ancillary to what they need for the classroom. And it's just, I think been part of my philosophy around this is that the more prescriptive we get, the more we're kind of ideologically saying we know better than you what you need.

And I actually feel that that's been an extraordinarily conservative attitude that we've had as a society governmentally for decades that have helped get us into this situation that we're more than ready to give a voucher of some kind to a student that's so regimented and so specific to a particular need. Food, for example.

But it's not fungible, it's not something they can use for anything else. So the idea that there's some flexibility in these dollars was purposeful.

Thank you for that. And I was asking as a college professor as well. I've lost a number of students who were there one semester and were no longer there the next semester because they could not afford the housing.

And then so some of them did end up living in their cars or did couch surf to still try to continue on. But once again, when you look at the data and the research, we know that it does change behaviors, it does change a whole number of factors when you are obviously displaced.

So that's why I was asking, you know, why is there a priority? Because it does happen. We know that it happens for those that are currently enroll within a system. But as we're looking forward to pushing the pilot program, what actual metrics or criteria are you considering using to determine the eligibility for the program?

I know we're saying, yes, you were homeless prior to that, but what, what other requirements are we considering to determine the eligibility besides it's from the. Is it coming from referrals from their high schools or what are, what are the requirements?

So the McKinney, McKinney-Vento designation, McKinney-Vento Act, Federal Act, which requires K through 12 to identify their homeless student population based on criteria which I think is agreeable. I mean, it's the lack of having a stable roof over their head.

And there's a particular definition to that, which means that there's liaisons on those K through 12 campuses that are charged with the responsibility of identifying who those students are.

So much like with the foster population, it happens to be a population where we know, maybe I don't as I sit here today, but we know the system knows exactly where those kids are, what class they're in, which ones are graduating.

We graduated this year according to data that we put together ahead of this Bill, just over the last month, 24,000 high school students who were McKinney-Vento designated while seniors in high school added to our, in effect added to our street homeless population.

Certainly added to at best, if they can survive the summer and get into school, into the school they've been accepted in, we're still essentially creating a pipeline from high school directly into college. Homelessness, or if you want to say it in more crude terms, street homelessness, living in their cars, couch surfing, whatever.

So it seems to me that we want to intercept that population as early as we can. Obviously even earlier would be great because there's more like approximately 240,000 in the entire K12 system. So we could start housing them even younger. Of course, that would be the objective. But this gives us hopefully two excellent outcomes.

One, enough assistance that it's displacing some of their other education costs and freeing up if they have a part time job or they're freeing up that income for housing, for clothing.

So it serves that purpose. But it also serves the purpose of getting them getting young people into schools that they've been accepted to, that they're qualified for, but they're otherwise falling victim to the summer melt issue where they just can't make it from today to fall enrollment because of these financial barriers that they're incurring right now.

So when they walk across that stage, they lose those federal benefits. That's really the heart of the problem here. And so great, they got their diploma, but they just lost the federal McKinney-Vento act benefits that they were getting while they were in school.

And so now they have to figure out without those benefits, can I make it to San Jose State or whichever CSU they're going to or community college or whatever.

In this case, we're, we're trying to pilot and prove that if we do this at the CSU that will be chosen as a result of this Bill - that in effect will have demonstration sites. I am pretty confident, I hope you are, as somebody, as an educator and pretty confident that the outcomes will be Stellar. And then we can try to talk our colleagues into investing more into this.

Thank you. My last question is just confirming the minimum duration, you know, because someone could be homeless for two days or could be homeless for a week. I'm just wondering, is there an actual homeless requirement, meaning the minimum duration?

So you had to be homeless for six months, had to be homeless for three months during the time you were in high school, or it's just the fact that you had experienced homeless in general overall, no matter how long the actual, the length of time just wanted to.

Per this Bill, they will, the financial aid office will have to verify. I can't swear under oath today that that verification will always be perfect. But if we had McKinney-Vento status and they demonstrated that, then we knew they were at least formerly homeless.

It's not likely that they got that designation with only a couple days of being homeless. And now they're, you know, trying to verify that they've been homeless with, you know, the financial, financial aid office, with the financial office at the, at the CSU.

Presumably there's an opportunity there before they put their stamp of approval on it to, to make sure they're not being defrauded in some way. We also, you know, there's limited liabilities, so to speak, for hopefully we have zero cases of, you know, imposter or something like that. But obviously, obviously the liability is limited.

This Bill is not, you know, putting millions or billions of dollars out into the system. It's. It's a pilot at this point. And those are some of the things hopefully the pilot will teach us, you know, how to, you know, how to lock down the program even better so that we don't have those kind of problems in the future.

Thank you. I just wanted to say I really do appreciate your, your intent of this Bill and I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions. For point of clarification, I will be supporting the Bill today.

Wanted to make sure that I was clear on some of the aspects of the Bill as we continue to move forward. So thank you so much for presenting and once again, I do appreciate you intent and I turn it back over to you.

Thank you so much Senator Sharp-Collins. Any further questions or comments? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close, please?

I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you so much Senator Cortes, for accepting the Committee's amendments and for your leadership and efforts on this Bill.

And thank you for accepting the Committee amendments as outlined on page six of the analysis. We know that our unhoused students face additional burdens and barriers that their peers do not.

And a pilot study to study of additional funds assist and the total cost of attendance could reveal how the state can continue to assist our in house students and the student population and prepare to support the measure today especially in these challenging budget times. I really appreciate your leadership and efforts on this.

With that. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. I'm sorry. Can we have a motion, please? We have a motion by Dr. Sharp-Collins. Do you have a second?

Second.

Second by Dr. Jackson. Seeing no further comment. Madam Secretary, roll call please.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you so much colleagues. That measure has five ayes. We'll keep the roll open for additional Members to add on. Thank you.

Thank you all. Appreciate it.

Next up, we'd like to welcome Senator Cervantes presenting item 34 and 7. We'll start with number three, SB 241. Welcome, Senator Cervantes.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Committee Members for allowing me to present SB 241 today that provides additional guardrails by expanding the list of instructor and faculty positions that meet minimum requirements.

I want to start by thanking your Committee staff and Mr. Chair for working with my team and I and addressing the intent of the Bill. I do want to accept the Committee amendments that preserve the ability for the community colleges to use artificial intelligence in their operations.

As you may know, artificial intelligence has seen incredible advancements in recent years, but it's still a resource that is still very much in development.

Nonetheless, many institutions of higher education are exploring options to integrate AI into their courses and curriculum. Unfortunately, in many instances, this is being done without any boundaries or guardrails.

One of the most pressing issues faced by the growing use of AI is possible the possible effect on human workers, particularly the threat that human workers could be replaced wholesale by artificial intelligence.

The growing use of this new technology in educational settings has left many faculty members concerned about the impact on them in their classrooms.

In May of 2023, the Digital Futures newsletter put out by the California community colleges published an article entitled "Transforming Education the Rise of AI in the California Community Colleges."

This article contained a lengthy discussion about how AI could be integrated into community colleges in California, including individualized instruction and tutoring. SB241 will help continue providing guardrails on the integration of AI tools into community college classrooms and campuses.

The Bill will add and explicitly requires that librarian, counselor, student personal worker, supervisor, administrator, Chief Administrative Officer, Extended Opportunity Programs and service workers, disabled student programs and service workers, apprenticeship instructors, or Supervisor of Health Positions must be held by an individual who meets all minimum qualifications to teach and serve as determined by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges.

This would continue to apply to faculty Members who teach both credit and non credit courses. Again, while AI technology offers valuable opportunities, they also create the need to protect the roles of human faculty and other educational workforce positions.

With me to testify are sponsors of the bills who could self identify. Respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Hello Chair Fong and Members of the Committee. My name is Libby Cook, Faculty Coordinator for EOPS, CARE, and NextUp at Folsom Lake College and past President of the California Community Colleges EOPS Association. And with me is Anna Matthews with FAC here to answer any questions.

SB 241 places minimum qualifications on non instructional faculty and student services staff to safeguard human connection with students and ensure that they have access to qualified professionals to support them in their journeys.

College is not just about academics. It's a transformative time where students grow intellectually, emotionally, and socially. One of the most critical factors in their success is the support they receive from faculty and staff who build these essential connections.

These relationships can shape their experiences and outcomes in profound ways. At our community colleges, many of our students are non traditional, reentry, first generation student parents and more.

A strong support system within the academic framework helps students manage stress, stay motivated and maintain mental well being. As an EOPS, CARE, and NextUp Coordinator, I witness daily how our counselors and student services faculty make a meaningful difference in students lives.

EOPS students interact with their counselors and support staff multiple times each semester to address challenges both academic and personal. These connections are invaluable. This is our secret sauce.

Every meeting with the student is an opportunity to address personal classroom struggles, larger systemic barriers and form positive relationships that aid in their success. Ask any EOPS student.

It is the human connections that have the greatest impact on their success. Counselors, librarians, student services faculty and programs like EOPS, CARE, NextUp, DSPS, CalWORKS, Veterans, MESA are critical to our student success.

Prioritizing relationships and meaningful interactions enhances learning and sets students up for long term success. I respectfully request your aye vote on SB 241.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

I was just here for questions.

Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. Other witnesses and support in the hearing room?

Thank you. Teresa Brown on behalf of the California Community College's Chancellor's Office and support.

Thank you.

Chair and Members. Austin Webster with W Strategies on behalf of the California Community Colleges Association for Occupational Education and strong support.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments?

I don't have questions.

We have a motion by Dr. Jackson. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Second by Dr. Sharp-Collins.

And I don't have a question. I just have a comment at the timing of this Bill. At least hearing the Bill. I just held my Education Advisory Committee meeting and this topic was brought up in the Advisory Committee meeting in regards to the overall concerns to protecting the integrity of higher ed.

And so I just wanted to thank the author for bringing forth this Bill was timely and I'll be happy to report back to my constituents in regards to the status of this moving forward. So just want to to say that.

Thank you so much, Dr. Sharp-Collins. Any further questions or comments? C. Senator, would you like to close please?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Again, we want to optimize our outcomes for our students, faculty, and all support staff and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Senator Cervantes, for your leadership and work and efforts on this issue regarding the appropriate use of artificial intelligence at our community colleges. I appreciate the work of the Chancellor's AI Council in addressing the fears that AI could replace faculty.

The report recenters the narrative that AI is a human use tool and not a replacement tool. Thank you so much for taking the Committee's amendment to clarify. The measure does not impede the use of AI to help with the day to day operations of the California community colleges.

With that, I look forward to supporting the measure here today as amended. And thank you, Senator Cervantes, for your leadership on this. Madam Secretary, roll call please.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you so much colleagues. That measure actually...Senator Boerner?

Aye.

All right, thank you. That measure Six Eyes is out and we'll keep the rope. And for additional Members to add on. Thank you so much. Next up we'll have Senator Cervantes presenting item number four, SB 307. Welcome, Senator Cervantes.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair and Committee Members for the Opportunity to present Senate Bill 307. As noted on page six of the analysis, I've worked with Assembly Higher Education and Assembly Judiciary to accept amendments. This Bill today is a critical measure to protect the educational future of undocumented students in California.

This Bill ensures that no student is forced to abandon their education simply because of shifting federal immigration policy.

It mandates that the California State University system must include protections for student grades, re-enrollment rights, academic standing if they are forced to withdraw due to immigration action, and respectfully urges the University of California Regents to do the same.

If a student is detained, deported or otherwise prevented from fulfilling their academic responsibilities due to a Federal Immigration Order, SB307 ensures that designated Dreamer resource liaisons and staff at CSU and UC campuses provide comprehensive support including assistance with financial aid, academic advising, and access to all available student resources.

The student's eligibility for in-state tuition is preserved regardless of their immigration status as long as they meet the requirement already set forth in state law. It also establishes a uniform statewide policy.

California is home to the largest number of undocumented students enrolled in higher education at 87,000 students in our state. These students are hardworking, ambitious and deeply invested in their futures. Yet they live under the constant shadow of deportation, many without the protections of DACA.

These young people are future engineers, educator, doctors and entrepreneurs. Our public institutions have a responsibility to provide them with with stability and support. Not just a designated office or liaison, but real enforceable policies that protect their academic continuity in times of crisis.

With me to testify and support are our sponsors of the Bill, the California Faculty Association that will self identify and respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

I want to thank Senator Cervantes for authoring this very important legislation. CFA is proud to be a sponsor of this Bill. Given the time that we are in, we need legislation like SB 307 which would enhance protections for our undocumented students in our public four year universities.

Hi, good afternoon Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Eric Paredes and I have the honor of serving as Legislative Director for the California Faculty Association, a union that represents over 29,000 faculty Members who work in the California State University system.

CFA is committed to protecting our students and we hope that you support this Bill today. I want to pass it over to Dr. Theresa Montano, Professor at CSU Northridge and a CFA Member. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Theresa Montano and I'm a Professor of Chicana and Chicano Studies and a proud member of the California Faculty Association.

While California is home to the largest number of undocumented students in higher education, CSUN is home to the largest number of undocumented students in the CSU.

The current attacks on our immigrant communities put our college students at risk, raising the likelihood that our hard working students may encounter actions such as detention or deportation.

Given the moment that we live in, it is imperative that we come up with ways to enhance the protection for these undocumented students in our public four year universities. SB 307 does just that.

As a Professor, I interact with my students and their families daily. I witness how hard their parents have worked, how much they have sacrificed to meet the day when those students go on to college and how pleased and happy they are when they actually walk across the stage having achieved their degrees.

But my undocumented students, many who work full time jobs and attend the university, are worried today. They are fearful, they are concerned and they are wondering what might happen to them and their education if they are suddenly detained or deported and they're unable to finish their college education.

We must ensure here in the State of California, not just for our students, but for our economy, for our livelihoods and for our future, that our students find a way to complete their college education by enhancing the protections for these students.

CFA is proud to sponsor SB 307 because we believe in our students and we urge you to please support SB 307. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon Chair and Members, Brandon Chu on behalf of SEIU California in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Valerie Johnson with the California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Adam Keigwin on behalf of California Charter Schools Association and Ednovate in support.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Assemblymember Rodriguez.

I just want to thank the author for bringing this very important Bill forward and the witnesses for joining us today. And I'd like to move the Bill.