Assembly Standing Committee on Higher Education

Good afternoon. The Assembly Higher Education Committee is now called to order. Welcome to the last policy hearing on Senate bills by the Assembly Higher Education Committee. Whether you are here in person or watching virtually, I extend warm greetings to each and every one of you.

I want to go over some key elements of the structure of today's hearing. As we proceed with the witnesses and public comments, want to make sure that everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure that 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 limits of our time, we will not predict—permit—conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of our legislative proceedings.

We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. As you came to 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, as permitted by the Chair. Public comments relate to the subject or those being discussed today. No engagement in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes orderly conduct of this hearing. Please aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions.

Additionally, please note, 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 and authors, thank you so much for being here and authors can also 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 lead witnesses in opposition, to speak for no more than two minutes each.

Stakeholder groups and entities that are neither in support nor in opposition will be allowed to give testimony for no more than two minutes when I 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, since the Members are—hearings are—open to the public and some travel far to be here in 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 of 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. Colleagues, additionally, if you'd like to respond to a roll call, ask a question, provide a comment, please be sure to activate your mic and speak into the mic.

For authors of bills up today, Authors, each member presenting today will provide an opening statement and closing statement. Your lead witnesses will each have two minutes to provide testimony. And before we proceed with the first author, we'll take up the consent calendar when we have quorum.

And we do have two bills on consent, and we'll take them up at that time when we have quorum. And also, additionally, please note that file item number two, SB 226, Cabaldon, has been pulled by the author and is officially a two-year Bill.

And lastly, please note that file item number nine, SB 638, Padilla, is a two-year Bill. With that, we'll begin the bill hearing. We're going to start with item number 13, SJR 4, by Senator Laird. Senator Laird, welcome and the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Member. Senate Joint Resolution 4 urges the federal government to rescind the National Institutes of Health funding cuts and reaffirms the Legislature's commitment to our academic and research institutions. This is a cornerstone of the nation's biomedical research infrastructure.

A conservative estimate suggests that proposed cuts could result in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for California universities. California students and researchers contribute to groundbreaking research that has a global impact. This is from Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease, host of other illnesses. Anything from clinical trials of new treatments to basic lab research that's the foundation for discovery—discoveries.

Reduced funding for research in higher education poses long-term threats to California's economy, to a skilled workforce, to the research production, and higher education. So, Senate Joint Resolution 4 calls on Federal Government to reaffirm its commitment to health, education, and innovation by restoring the funding. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

Mario Guerrero, on behalf of the University of California. For the statements in the resolution itself, thank you to the Senate for this Bill. We're obviously extremely concerned with the canceled funding, reduced funding that's taking place. UC, to date, has about 300 million in canceled grants, to date. And so, we are concerned.

And thank you again to the author for sponsoring this Bill.

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? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Just at the appropriate time, I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Senator Laird, for bringing this very important measure forward. So, I think it's very critical to protect our research funding for our robust institutions of higher education. And I look forward to supporting the measure today. And we'll take the item up when we have quorum. Thank you so much.

Next up, we'd like to welcome Senator Ashby presenting SB 761. Welcome. The floor is yours.

Thank you so much. See if I can keep pace with my colleague, Senator Laird. I'm here to present SB 761, which is the CalFresh for Students Act. This Bill streamlines access to CalFresh benefits by allowing students to receive a notification that they're potentially eligible for CalFresh when they complete their Cal Grant application.

Right now, these systems are totally separate, so they would have no way of knowing unless they also go down and apply for CalFresh separately. I do accept the proposed amendments from the Committee. Thank the Chair and the Committee staff for helping improve the Bill.

SB 761 expands the programs of study that increases a student's eligibility for CalFresh as well as creating the notification system. Half of California's college students experience food insecurity, encountering barriers that make it difficult to access CalFresh benefits, and they encounter barriers that make it difficult to access these programs that ultimately, just feeding themselves becomes an issue.

When I was in college, I was a young single mom, and I used food stamps to make ends meet for myself and my son. So, this Bill is modest but important. Would have helped me tremendously. One less system to navigate. So, I appreciate the Committee hearing us out today. I have a couple of witnesses with me.

I will let them introduce themselves and respectfully ask for an aye vote when a quorum is present.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Fong and Members of the Committee. I'm A.J. Johnson with California Competes: Higher Education for a Strong Economy. We're proud co-sponsors of the Bill. California faces a projected 2—shortfall of 2 million college educated workers by 2030—and prospective students name the cost of college as a major barrier.

To close this gap, California Competes has been focused on making college more affordable. Not just tuition, but the full cost of being a student. That includes food. With more than one in five Californians struggling with food insecurity, we know hunger is a real and growing barrier to college success.

Studies show that students who are food insecure are 43% less likely to graduate. And that's not unsurprising. If students are hungry, it's harder to focus, to attend class, and they're picking up more hours of work to get by.

Despite being eligible for, fewer than one in four students who qualify for CalFresh actually receive it today. According to research from the California Policy Lab, many students don't know they qualify, others give up due to complex paperwork or confusion about whether they're eligible, and this Bill is a smart, simple way to remove barriers and help students get the support that they need.

SB 761 adds a simple opt-in on the Cal Grant application so students can be connected to help with applying for food benefits.

It facilitates coordination across state and county systems, making follow up and enrollment easier, and it streamlines programs identified as improving eligibility to all 2 and 4 year public college and university programs. For this reason, we ask for your support and thank Senator Ashby for her leadership.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Awesome. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Carol Gonzalez here on behalf of Alliance for a Better Community, a proud co-sponsor of the Bill.

I have the pleasure of sharing a student's testimony today who's an advocate for ABC, Christopher Anthony, a graduate student studying for his Master of Public Health at UCLA's Fielding School of Public Health. And it reads, "I want to share my strong support for SB 761."

"As a working graduate student at UCLA, meeting and prioritizing the cost of living as a student is challenging. I received little guidance during my CalFresh enrollment and had to take an unnecessary phone call in the stairwell of—between classes."

"Although UCLA provides guidance for students to support enrollment through its Basic Needs Office, a direct linkage or outreach would have made the process a lot easier. Students who also have to face the stigma of CalFresh enrollment and many don't believe that they are worthy of the benefit, something that certainly has a negative consequence on students' health."

"Seeing other peers enroll in CalFresh in the beginning of my degree program created a wave of security and assurance that we are worthy of receiving these benefits. CalFresh has positively impacted my ability to learn, support my community, and thrive during grad school, by making food assistance accessible to students earning a degree, the burden of food security and navigating tight household budgets lifted."

"My CalFresh benefits also enabled me to consume more organic, diverse, and nutritious foods."

"Furthermore, the market match, which can be used at our local farmers market down the block in Westwood, has enabled me to utilize my benefits in supporting small businesses while receiving locally sourced fresh produce, a mutually beneficial relationship."

"I am grateful that my degree program is an approved LPI, but UCLA has over 15 programs that unfortunately aren't approved, leaving hundreds of students out of the essential food assistance. Everyone deserves access to food regardless of their degree program."

"I am proud to support SB 761, not only due to its aim of approving more campuses LPIs, but through the innovation of data sharing which will directly encourage and support thousands of higher ed students in California to thrive by removing the barrier of food insecurity. I urge the Committee to pass 761. Thank you and thank you to Senator Ashby for her leadership."

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

With the Community College League of California, in support.

Rebecca Gonzalez, with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support.

Llang Lee, on behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, in strong support.

Good afternoon. I'm Maggie White, with the California State University System, here in strong support. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Maria Morales, with Hispanas Organized Political Equality. And also, on behalf of our friends at the Southern California Attainment Network, the Cal State Student Association, and the College for All Coalition, in support.

Good afternoon. Oscar Sandoval, with the Center for Healthy Communities, in strong support.

Junior Leagues of California, sponsor, in support, and Junior League of Sacramento, in support.

Jasmine Herrera on behalf of the California State in Commission support.

Kasha Hunt with Nosman, on behalf of North Orange Community College District and Citrus College, in support.

Chair and Members, Austin Webster with W Strategies, on behalf of the Associate—the Academic Center for California Community Colleges—the California Community College Association for Occupational Education, the CCC, Association for Extended Programs and Opportunity Services, and MESA, in support.

Thank you.

Alicia MacBell, on behalf of the Student Senate for the California Community Colleges, in support.

Good afternoon. Jessica Duan, the University of California, in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Justin Selmak, on behalf of the California Community College Chancellor's Office, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kevin Mibiano, on behalf of the University of California Student Association, in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lucia Hermoso, rising senior at UCSB and transfer student, in strong support.

Good afternoon. Remo Hooper, a student at UCSB, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Martha Guerrero, representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Assembly Members. Adam Kagwan, on behalf of No Kid Hungry, 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 Tangipa.

Yeah, I just want to thank the Senator as well. When I was playing football at Fresno State, it was a walk on the first two years and there was a period where I actually ended up homeless and it was between my family's home getting red tagged or myself having insecurity on food.

And in that period, there was a three-week period where I had nothing to eat but muscle milk and the staff actually brought somebody in to give a presentation to the entire team to let them know that there's a lot of us that could qualify for CalFresh.

And that was one of the periods that really helped us was when our football team actually looked at that. A lot of us actually came from disadvantaged, low-income communities and we didn't even know what was actually available to us. So, I just wanted to say thank you for that. It's near and dear to me as well.

I think there's a lot of people who are just trying to take that next step in life and there's many programs that help. The entire reason why I'm here today is because I had some people give that. So, I just want to say thank you and I look forward, when we have enough, to move in the Bill.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Assemblymember Gonzalez.

Senator, again, thank you for your leadership in this. This is a vital piece to building a better California and I thank you for that. And it just—every time you bring up a Bill, I'm always like okay, I—it's very easy to support you.

So, thank you for what you do and what you continue to do, and I look forward to, to supporting you and I, I move the Bill.

Thank you so much. We'll take the motion, we'll go quorum. Thank you so much for your comments. Any further questions or comments? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close please?

But I wish they were all this easy. I'm glad these are the ones you've seen. I have a tendency to not have them all quite land this easily but I appreciate it very much and I appreciate you sharing your personal story.

Not that far removed from mine. Though I didn't play football, did raise a little all conference nose tackle, and you all eat a lot. So, it's important. I respectfully, at the appropriate time, ask for an aye vote. Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you so much, Senator Ashby, for bringing this Bill forward and working diligently with my team to address the concerns highlighted in the analysis. We know that removing barriers and access to CalFresh is essential as it is an underutilized tool in combating student hunger.

Thank you for your leadership and attention on this matter and we look forward to supporting this Bill at the appropriate time. Thank you. Next up, we'd like to welcome Senator Caballero presenting item number seven, SB 520. Welcome.

I'll go ahead and start. Please. Welcome. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present SB 520 which would establish establish the California Nurse Midwifery Education Fund to create the California based Master's Degree Nurse Midwifery Education Program. California faces significant maternal health care challenges.

Despite our efforts, maternal and childbirth mortality rates remain high, particularly among black, indigenous and people of color. BIPOC communities, rural and low income areas of the state suffer a shortage of health care providers capable of delivering essential maternal care. And hospitals all over the state are closing their labor and delivery units due to the costs.

Nurse Midwifer Midwives play a critical role in improving maternal physical and mental health outcomes providing compassionate, culturally competent and evidence based care during pregnancy, labor and postpartum. Currently, only one nurse midwifery master's degree program is offered in California at CSU Fullerton.

The lack of educational opportunity places limitations on the workforce potential and ultimately on access to high quality reproductive health care in California. With an effective pipeline, midwives can be rapidly, efficiently and professionally prepared to provide high quality health care to both mother and child.

The new fund created by SB520 will utilize both state and private funds to support the development of the new program New Master's degree program to help address the critical need for skilled healthcare professionals who who can deliver high quality maternal care, particularly in underserved communities and in particular in rural communities.

This bill directly supports California's efforts to reduce maternal and child mortality and improve maternal physical and mental health by expanding access to these services in areas most affected by inadequately pregnancy support and healthcare provider shortages.

With me today to testify is Paris Maloof-Bury, immediate past president, California Nurse Midwives Association and Brittany Mbong, the Black Wellness and Prosperity Center in Fresno.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you. Just bring this one over. Chair Fong and esteemed Committee Members. My name is Paris Maloof-Bury and I'm here on behalf of the California Nurse Midwives Association.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of SB520 which seeks to increase access to high quality perinatal and reproductive health care for Californians through financial support of the new nurse midwifery education programs that we need.

California faces a severe shortage of essential maternity care providers compounded by the closures of maternity units statewide, over 52 in the last decade and a projected shortage of 1100 OB GYNs by 2030. The crisis is acutely felt in underserved areas, exacerbating existing inequities and leading to disparities in birth outcomes.

Midwives currently attend about 14% of all of the births in this state and we are vital to the reproductive and perinatal care of people in this state. Moreover, research shows that midwifery care is associated with improved outcomes at lower costs when patients have access and we are able to serve most reproductive aged individuals.

Yet California faces significant challenges in building a strong midwifery workforce, partly due to the upfront financial investment required to launch new education programs in accredited institutions. There's only one master's degree nurse midwifery program left in the state at this time, Cal State Fullerton, and they currently graduate small cohorts between 12 and 15 students per year.

SB 520 addresses this shortage by creating a fund within HCAI that will allow the collection of both state and private funds to support the establishment of a new master's degree program either at a UC or a Cal State University.

Funds would be prioritized for programs that serve an area of demonstrated maternity or midwifery workforce need, with a goal of retaining midwives in those areas to build local health force workforce and expand economic opportunities.

The funds would provide necessary support for the new programs to be successful, for example, to aid in recruiting and hiring faculty, purchasing simulation and training equipment, identifying clinical precepting sites, covering accreditation costs, marketing and student recruitment. SB520 builds on the 2021 Midwifery Workforce Training act, which previously funded active midwifery education programs in California.

The bill provides a more sustainable method of funding midwifery education to ensure that we have sufficient perinatal and reproductive health care providers, especially in the areas of the state that are in the greatest need and through a method of reducing cost. Thank you for your consideration and I urge your aye vote thank you so much.

Welcome.

Hi, Good afternoon Chair Fong and Committee Members. My name is Brittany Mbong and I stand here as a proud daughter, a sister, a mom, a midwife, one of two Black certified nurse midwives working in the Fresno area and I drove up here today to show my full support of SB520.

Creating a fund within HCI to establish a master's degree nurse midwifery program would be most impactful for communities like mine. Let me tell you why. We know Fresno county faces some high, high preterm birth rates, infant and maternal mortality rates with a majority of that burden on our Black families.

I'm the Clinical Manager at the Black Wellness and Prosperity center and we are a nonprofit founded in 2019 by Shantae Davies Balch and our work focuses on improving Black maternal, infant and community health outcomes through relationships, infrastructure building, research and advocacy. And our vision really has three simple lines.

No black woman will die from a preventable childbirth related death. No Black woman will deliver a preventable premature birth and no black baby will die from a preventable cause. And we see SB 520 as a way for us to move forward in this vision.

I'm very aware of the drastic need for access to midwives as our team engages through direct services and through events. You know, we hear doulas students expressing the desire to go to school and become a midwife but don't have the training resources available to stay in their community.

RNs and nurse practitioners are even often expressing frustration with the limited access to nurse midwifery programs. And we hear our partner hospitals and institutions looking and looking for more midwives to hire, but finding few. So the kind of care that midwives provide, you know, is quite unique.

It's holistic, individualized, empowering care and it is a sacred profession I'm honored to be a part of. You know, from the brave Hebrew midwives in Scripture talked about and then also through the grand midwives in the south during slavery and segregation. We, we have a history of serving our communities and advocating for them.

Support from this bill extends throughout our community. County and local officials recognize the need for nurse midwives, including Fresno County Board of Supervisor who submitted a letter recently in May of support.

We are a designated area of need and we are in a maternal health crisis and the integration of nurse midwives into our health systems is a critical part of the solution. So I believe Fresno, the Central Valley, California is worthy of this investment for a strong midwifery workforce. Thank you for your time and consideration today.

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

Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

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

Vice Chair DeMaio, thank you and I'm inclined to support the overall concept of this program. But in reading the legislation, there's reference to birthing people. We mean mothers.

So birthing people is an inclusive term that includes people with uteruses who are giving birth without gender definition because there are some people who use they, them, pronouns and others. But yes, generally speaking it does refer to mothers.

I mean, you had me at the program and then we had to engage in what I think is language that.

Marginalizes women respectfully, as a woman who cares for women, I would hope that we could move forward with saving lives without being caught up in identity politics.

I would love not to get caught up in identity politics, which is why I think you have a good idea here that you distract from by putting in politicized language. And my hope is that you might consider an amendment going forward, because I think this is something that everyone should be excited to support, particularly in the implementation.

And to ask people to vote for a bill that contains something that is offensive to many and divisive to many just distracts from the good idea. So let's not play politics on a good idea. Let's just get the good idea done.

And I would urge you to at least weigh, as the process moves forward, an amendment to that language.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez.

Senator, thank you for this, this bill. In Imperial county, we have the border of Mexico, and then my district has the border of Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, spans roughly the size of a little bit bigger than New Hampshire. There's a lot of people in a little town right off the border called Calexico.

When a woman gives birth, was ready to give birth, she's got to travel either across the international border or she's got to travel 45 minutes to the past the hospital that's closed there, OB, GYN Department or the birthing center to the next hospital that has it.

This is absolutely critical to my district, absolutely critical to my district that we can have this type of flexibility in our education so that we can answer the gap, the need. Right. We have a need in Imperial County. We have a need throughout California, frankly. And this bill answers that.

I look forward to seeing the implementation of this. I look forward to the funding of this. And I'm not a fan of using a whole bunch of money for throwing a whole bunch of money for a whole bunch of things.

But this is actually something that's critical to the life and death of the mother and the baby in her womb as she's in labor. So to have people that are trained in this would be a godsend to my district. So thank you for this.

I appreciate your thoughtfulness in this and I hope we can get it over in my district, where we have Cal State, San Bernardino and San Diego State University throughout my district and get some students in there. Thank you. And with that, I will be supporting your bill.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments. And also I worked on the distressed hospital loan program for our hospital in Madera. But I know that in your district you had this similar situation. And both of them had to give up their labor and delivery units in order to economically survive.

And when we have given up on taking care of the pregnancy and the child that results from it in our community, it's, it's atrocious. So I thank you for those, those comments. Look forward to seeing this get through the Legislature and signed. We need it signed and then funded.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Yeah, just the Senator and I have overlap. We both get to honor and privilege of representing Madera County. And it's something that I often talk about that there is a county in the State of California that you cannot have a baby in because there's just nowhere to do it.

I think that should shock a lot of people. And it's not the only one, you know, and there's a lot of areas that we're talking about what we need to address here as a legislative body. I think this helps prepare for where we need to go in the future.

And I want to ask before we go down there is hopefully Fresno State again can pick up this program. I think there's a little bias that I have. Fresno State.

I'm glad you, I'm glad you said it because it relieved me of that necessity.

But I think that's something I even remember too. When I was helping out the school, there's in the nursing program, I mean they only have 65 available slots because that's how much the students can hold. But there was a program I was able to review.

They had 2134.0 students that applied for that program, but they couldn't accept all 213.

But that doesn't even count the, you know, 300 plus, 3.8 students, the 300 plus, you know, 3.5 students and all the other ones that hopefully this gives us even more of an option to have, you know, to truly solve the issues that we're seeing with Madera Community for a lot of the other hospitals in the Central Valley.

And so I always like to iterate too. You know, I do appreciate the Senator's position on always prioritizing the Valley and especially an area that is specifically disadvantaged and doesn't always get the amount of attention. So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

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

Yes, thank you very much for the robust discussion. We are a first world country, but we have third world issues as it relates to childbirth. And so it's. I really appreciate the comments that have been made. This is a critical issue and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Senator Caballerotto, for bringing this very important legislation forward. Master's level midwifery programs will help fill critical health gaps, especially here in our rural areas in California. And the fund that this bill would establish will go a long way towards incentivizing the creation of additional programs in our state.

And I look forward to supporting the measure here today when we go for them.

Thank you so much. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up, I'd like to welcome Senator Cabaldon. Thank you, Senator Cabaldon, for your patience. You have two items up today. We're going to start with item number 10, if that's okay with you, SB640.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is my favorite bill of the year. So. All right. Welcome to your favorite bill of the year.

Yeah.

So if you've ever thought about the major gap between high school and college, we often think about it here in this, in your Committee and in the State of California, how many students that are fully qualified don't go on to college or to University, given the need that the state has and also the powerful economic opportunity that's unlocked when you do.

And so we've had lots of policies and programs trying to fix that. But when you take a step back, you wonder, well, where does this gap come from in the first place? It's the whole process of going to college and applying for it, hoping, waiting for financial aid. It's not in the physics textbook.

It's not in the Bible. It's not in the Constitution. It's entirely an invention of us, the gap between 12th grade and college. And it doesn't exist. The same gap does not exist between elementary school and junior high or junior high and high school.

While you might choose a different school, you're guaranteed, and when you finish sixth grade, you're going to get into seventh grade. We don't require everybody to hold their breath. Apply a year in advance and see what happens. In California, it is possible for us to do something differently.

When I was mayor of the City of West Sacramento six years ago, we implemented the first in the entire country of any state or any city process for automatically enrolling every graduating high school, automatically admitting every graduating high school senior to our local community college in conjunction with the school district and the local college.

It was analyzed and included in a book by a couple of Nobel laureates. Harvard celebrated it as one of the most powerful equity policies in the country. A couple years later, CSU began a pilot project to automatically admit Students from Riverside County to its declining enrollment campuses.

We have the tools today in order to do this at scale.

And I want to particularly acknowledge the chair and also staff of this Committee that been working because one of the key parts of that tool has been the College to Career Data system, the California College Guidance Initiative and other tools that make it possible for us to get rid of the application process for the vast majority of graduating Californians.

Because California guarantees to graduating high school students that if you're in the top 1/3 of your class, you are entitled to go to the, to the California State University. And we've operationalized that top 1/3 in the form of the aided, the well known A to G courses and the grade point average requirement.

So what SB 640 does is it brings that home. It says that every graduating high school senior in California, if their school participates in the California Guidance Initiative, which virtually all of them do, that they will receive if they are qualified.

If they meet the eligibility standards for CSU, they will receive an automatic letter of admission to CSU identifying in particular the campuses for which they can just click and go. Campuses like Sonoma State in my own district, but many others as well.

And if they wish to go onto a competitive campus like San Diego Eastern Cal Poly, they can take the next step knowing that they are already into CSU. This is a powerful initiative because the Bill, we've discussed this a lot. It's not an email, it's not a tweet.

It is a hard letter because we want students and their families to have the experience of getting that letter from the college that you open up. Or maybe Grandma's visiting that afternoon and she opens a letter and says to you, oh, Miha, I'm so proud of you. I didn't even know you were applying to the University.

And you think to yourself, I didn't either. But now you're going. Now the family is on board. You are going. You'll be able to avail yourself of other state financial aid programs in order to make it real. So this is possible because of those data systems that students can be admitted without having to apply.

I do want to note that the Association of California School Administrators today did withdraw their opposition to the bill. They were concerned about school responsibilities. But in, in the latest version of the bill, there are no responsibilities for schools. In an early version, schools were going to be involved in this process. They don't need to be.

We have the data systems to make this completely automatic.

So the students simply receive their letter and they can go the corollary benefit is that for those campuses, the half a dozen or a dozen CSU campuses which are experiencing significant declining enrollment will provide a new pipeline of students from throughout California who will be able to take advantage of those opportunities and help to sustain those campuses into the future.

Then finally, and I know that the term is controversial, but the concept's not really the undermatch issue that there are many students in California, particularly black and brown students, who don't apply to the highest level of University to which they are fully qualified for a lot of reasons and as a result they're not able to achieve the level of a degree, the economic impact of that degree that they are entitled to do.

So this Bill solves for that by making sure that those students are fully admitted and can go to the University and pursue their dreams. And so with that I'd like to introduce Dr. Christopher Nellam, who is the head of EdTrust west as our witness and support.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon Chair Fong and esteemed Members of the Assembly Higher Ed Committee. My name is Dr. Chris Nellam. I serve as the ED of Edrust West. We are a nonprofit advocacy organization that's been in California for 25 years trying to both protect and improve the public education system.

We believe we can do that by eliminating what we know to be racial and economic barriers in embedded in the system. That brings me to SB 640 which does what we know works. It's not just a good idea.

It's proven a proven strategy that works and can help address crucial needs in our state to help more low income, more students of color, more native students, more Californians go to college. It can also make the path to college smoother which will be good for students and for California.

It can work to help reduce anxiety that students face and can make a difference and help them achieve their college dreams. Additionally, increased support with the admissions process is a need we've we and others have outlined in our reports that under underscore the importance of this Bill.

It can also help with college costs which we know are rising and one of the reasons that you all in this on your this body here instituted a universal financial aid completion policy which helps in this similar vein.

So we know the application process can be confusing and cumbersome and despite hard work students doing everything we've asked them to do, so many students reach this point and aren't able to go to college because they either missed a message or a deadline that they otherwise could have overcome. In our most recent report called Black Minds matter.

We always share a trend line of black students in California which shows that fewer students in the state. Fewer black students in this state are going to college than they were 10 years ago. A trend that this bill can help reverse.

We know college education helps to open doors for students, and that may be cliche, but it's true. I know this from my own experience. I'm from Brawley, California, and going to college changed my entire life.

Research also shows that students who go to college and graduate from college extends benefits to the state, economic benefits, public health benefits and workforce benefits. So SB640 is not only about improving equitable access to higher education, but we believe it's about strengthening California. So thank you, of course, to the Senator for authoring this important measure.

We respectfully ask for your aye vote and bring this proven strategy to all Californians.

Thank you so much. At this time, we're going to take a moment to establish quorum. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much. Colleagues, one more. We're going to take the consent calendar up. At this time we have two bills on consent and they are items file items 3 and 4. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. zero, sorry. We have a motion by Vice Chair Demaio and a second by Summer Tongipa file.

The consent calendar consists of File item. Number 3, SB244. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee and File item number four, SB271. The motion is do passed to the Human Services Committee. [Roll Call]

The measure of six eyes will keep the rope open for additional Members. Add on. Thank you so much for your testimony. At this time, we'll have witnesses in support in the hearing. Please come up to the microphone. Thank you so much.

Sarah Botches, with Children Now in support.

Thank you.

Hana Iokides, with Los Angeles Unified in Support.

Rachel Shakluna, on behalf of the El Camino Community College District in support.

David Nebin on behalf of the Los Angeles Community College District in support. Thank you. Are there witnesses in opposition in a hearing room? Are there tweeners in a hearing room?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Chris Morales, the CSU Office of the Chancellor. We do not have an official position on the Bill, but we are generally supportive of the author's efforts, especially regarding the Direct Admissions Program, which builds off a pilot program that we currently have underway, as the Senator noted.

We look forward to the continuing discussion with the Senator on the TMC section of the Bill, as we share the author's goal of enhancing the transfer process and ensuring our graduates are well prepared for careers in high opportunity fields of study. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair and Members, Austin Webster with W Strategies, on behalf of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. We just want to thank the author for his ongoing engagement with the system office and the continued conversation around the TMCs as well. We remain committed to working on the transfer process and thank you for bringing the measure forward.

Thank you so much. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Assemblymember. If we have a motion, do we have a second? Second? Assemblymember Gonzalez.

Just have a couple questions. Did you say you're from Brawley?

I am. Oh, I'm sorry. I'll get her up afterwards.

Well, seeing that you're from my district, I have a couple just clarifying questions.

So, this is a 12th grader that they get that letter or, or a notification that they get direct admission into CSU because of their—whatever their transcripts kind of categorize them in?

That's correct.

Okay. Do you foresee any—so, I'm looking at it from a couple of different perspectives. Like the, like the IEP side, right?

Individual education plan, the special needs side. How does that fit into this, in this process? How are we, how are we looking at that? Is that even a factor or do we need to think about that?

I don't know. In terms of how CSU is evaluating, other than the traditional transcript. It does require for this process to work and for it to be non-friction and also not involve any cost at the local level. It has to be sort of algorithmic.

It's not being done by AI or anything, but it has to be done by the, by the formula automatically in order to issue the letters.

And so, if there are alternative pathways, which there are, there are also students that are in dual enrollment and what have you, which may or may not be as easy to do at the first stage. But I know CSU has been working very—they've been very committed to making sure that this, this project is inclusive and standardized.

And so, even if it's not covered at the outset, I know they're committed to trying to continue to expand it to cover more and more of these more standardized situations.

You know, we talk about equity and everybody, and having a special needs son, that's always like top of mind for me. Like, how does my son, or the son and daughter of somebody in California who this program is gonna, they're gonna participate in this program.

How do they become a part of it, or how do they opt out, or how do they get, you know, special help doing it? So, just something that I'd ask that you consider going forward. I get it.

You know, it's a smaller subset of the population, but it is a vulnerable part of the population that wants to go to college, that wants to excel. And it just so happens that they have some superpowers that don't allow that, or don't align within this algorithm. The other piece of this is it's just for the CSU.

What about the community college side of things?

So, yes, it is just the CSU. The project that we launched in my own city was with the community college, which is more of a psychological nudge because you're obviously, if you graduate from high school or you turn 18, you are already legally admissible to the community college universally. So, you don't, it's—the power of the program is not as strong.

But this project applies specifically to CSU. I still continue to believe in the future or enterprising district should do exactly what we did, which they can do at the district level. We were a good example of that.

But the, this Bill only applies to CSU at this stage. Also does not apply to UC.

The, the concern I have is in rural areas, Raleigh, the closest thing we have is San Diego State University, right? But then we look at places like Needles, which is farther away, places like Blythe, there—it's a, quite a, quite a ways to get to the nearest CSU of any sort.

So, I would ask that as you, as this is moving forward, we—I don't know if it's another Bill or it's an amendment to this Bill or how it, or how we develop this, but keeping rural counties in mind, the ones that just don't—it just doesn't.

It's not practical to go down the road per se to be able to go to a CSU and you know, they can't afford going anywhere else, right? So, just some other pieces that I look at. Specifically, for my district is man, how are they going to—how does that work out? Right? I like the concept.

The other piece that I have is there is a—what I would, I would say, a cultural bridge that needs to be crossed when it comes to higher education, which is why I love being on this, on this Committee.

And what I mean by cultural is, you know, I'm getting ready to graduate and my family is working and everybody's working, and we have to pay to stay where we're at. So, it's just a little bit easier for dad to say or mom to say, hey, we need you to work versus going, right?

That's a challenge that we have. So, I like the fact that this is an immediate psychological, hey, I'm already accepted. Dual enrollment is also a piece of this puzzle that plays, I believe, a factor in that.

So, my question to that is in the dual enrollment—when you have students in a dual enrollment scenario, you know, 9th through 12th, they take classes, and they're already married up to a school. How do, how is that going to work with this program of acceptance? And now they also have college credits from somewhere else.

Is there a conflict there?

There's no conflict. So, the dual enrollment courses should generally be coded for both institutions.

And so, they should be coded in the database that the CSU will be using through the California Guidance Initiative, in order to note that you have completed, you have completed, or you are on track to complete the full A-G curriculum with whatever grade point average that you have that will meet that test.

So, dual enrollment should not—the process of then transcripting to that particular university campus, the dual enrollment courses that you take, that will still—that will be another step. Just like applying for housing and everything else will also be an additional step, but the actual process of the admission offer will, can, can—will proceed, regardless of your dual enrollment status.

Okay. And lastly, I would say that the measure of effectiveness of this program. Is there a sunset on here? I didn't see a sunset on it, but one of the things that I would say is this, this is, this is something I'm inclined to support, and I want to support.

What I'd like to know at the end of this, you know, five years or whatever, is to be able to say, man, this really worked, or we need to adjust this wording, this, whatever the case may be, so we can attract more people. I think one of the ch—one of the challenges with really good ideas that become policy is that what is our measure of effectiveness at the end of this?

And saying, hey, this really worked out. I put my, my time and effort into this. And by the way, we increased enrollment and education, and we actually impacted a community by 10%.

So, just something to think about within this Bill or maybe a follow up.

Yeah, I think—so, one encouraging thing is that what we're doing here in the Bill is actually based on exactly that process because of the, of the pilot in, in Riverside County that CSU has been undertaking. So, we're not, we are not flying blind here.

I think one of, and this gets to the, the—one of the earlier points that you made as well is that the measure here is not just how many students go from Needles to Chico State. That is, that is one of them.

But, but it's also our expectation that a student that receives a letter of acceptance to Chico State, San Francisco State, Cal State Stanislaus, whether, even if they cannot or choose not to go there, what has been primed in their brain is I am university material and I may go to Imperial Valley College, I might go to Barstow Community College, but I'm going there now with a knowledge of what I am capable of.

And so, I'm going to that community college. Sign me up for the transfer pathway or sign me up for the CTE pathway, knowing that I will pursue a business degree after. But we're open. So, so, in that case, that is a success.

If the student goes to their local community college, but with a different sense, maybe they wouldn't have gone at all before, but now, they're going and they're going with a knowledge of what they are capable of because of this program, that is also just as important as a success as if they go to San Francisco State.

I really like this Bill. I think it answers a lot of things for my community from a psychological perspective. A whole bunch of different pieces. You know, that we just show me that these, oh, I can move on to the next step. This is great. So, moving on is good and it's a great encouragement to our students.

With that, I'm inclined to support. I am not inclined to support your tie choice because normally you're bow tie, and you threw me off completely.

We love Cabaldon's ties. Thank you so much, Assemblymember. Assemblymember Tangipa.

Thank you.

Yeah, just again, want to thank the Senator. Fresno State, which, you know, I feel like I'm just going to start barking and yelling, "Go dogs," now.

But we actually have this program that's implemented, it's called Bulldog Bound, where a lot of the seniors in the local area and so we've seen the data as well, where a lot of the enrollment side of things in a lot of our campuses have declined.

We just had the largest application class and freshman class for Fresno State this past year. And I'm on the alumni board and this is a lot of the engagement. So, there's more active data that you need. I'm more than happy to share with already what's being implemented in the program, how it's showing such a large scale.

Not only that, a lot of the students are starting to go and visit Fresno State more. And again, that same ideology that you're talking about of just that initial confidence building side of things that, okay, I did do everything I needed to in high school; I do qualify for university.

And even if you want to take a different route, you at least know that your options are available and what's, what's there for you. So, I'm more than happy to share any of that with what Fresno State has already implemented with the Bulldog Bound Program. The successes that we're already seeing, the larger scale of enrollment.

Not only that, community engagement. And again, thank you for bringing this.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any further questions from colleagues? Thanks so much. I believe we have one more comment in the tweener category. Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sylvia Solis Shaw, here on behalf of the California Faculty Association, in support. Thanks.

Thank you. Seeing no further questions or comments. Senator—a motion. A second. Thank you. Senator, would you like to close, please?

I simply ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much, Senator Cabaldon, for bringing this very important measure forward. Appreciate the robust conversation from my colleagues.

We know that while the state has made significant strides in reducing barriers for our students who choose to attend college and choose to transfer a four year institution, there is much more work to be done.

By establishing a statewide direct admissions program, this Bill has the potential to change the trajectory for many students who may not have thought that college was attainable. Greatly appreciate your leadership in the space and proud to support this measure here today. Madam Secretary, roll call please.

[Roll Call]

That measure has six ayes and it's out. We'll keep the roll open for additional members to add on. Thank you. Next up we'll have Senator Cabaldon presenting item number 11, Senate Bill 744. Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm going to try, if I can, to turn down the volume on SB 744. It is a very naturally, it's a hotly Contested issue. But this bill is not about the national debate. This bill is about the consequences for California students and the institutions that we depend upon.

So earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Education issued a directive that we anticipate will lead to substantial changes in the national accrediting framework for post secondary education, including issues around diversity, equity and inclusion, but not only in that domain.

In part, the department's objective is to tackle, I think, the sense that the higher education accreditation is too cozy with one another. It's not open enough to innovation and to new practices. And these are all parts of the national debate that have gone on for some time.

There have obviously been lots of news stories nationally about threats to individual institutions on accreditation. That's not what this bill is. This bill is specifically about the accrediting associations themselves.

Because what we're trying to avoid is a situation where students at Fresno State or Imperial Valley College on a Thursday learn that they that their institution is no longer legally authorized to grant their degrees and that they can no longer have a Cal grant.

California law requires that every one of our public institutions be accredited by a USDE recognized accrediting agency, so they cannot legally operate in California without that accreditation. And we have been through this challenge before when individual campuses, principally in the community colleges, have lost or have had their accreditation threatened. So they cannot operate without accreditation.

But it is not clear given what's been proposed by uste, there is a non trivial possibility that the approval of the two main accrediting agencies for California, both of which are WASC one for the senior institutions, which in our case is UC and CSU and many independent colleges, and WASC Junior.

I can't remember what their name, but their actual name is ACCJC for all of the community colleges. If either of those accrediting agencies lose their federal approval, then under state law, every institution that they accredit in California is no longer accredited.

That means that those students at Imperial Valley or Fresno State or San Diego State or Sonoma State can no longer receive a Cal Grant and that their institutions are no longer allowed to grant degrees or operate in California.

And so what all this Bill does is to say whatever's happening at the national level, we need to have some safe harbor so that if a crediting agency loses its authority to operate, but it still continues to do this, to implement the same standards, including on sexual harassment and everything else, that if they do that for California purposes only, we will continue to treat that institution as accredited.

It does not. It's not a direct fight with the federal Government, although that should be had. But this is simply to say that the student should not pay a price if there is a battle going on between the state, the accrediting agencies and the Federal Government and all this Bill, this Bill does not protect the institutions individually.

If a student, if a campus loses its accreditation, it loses its accreditation. That's not covered by this bill.

It simply says that WASC, the two WASCs, that if their approval to accredit is jeopardized or withdrawn, that the institutions and therefore their students can continue to be enrolled, earn degrees and have access to the Cal Grant and other state financial aid programs.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses and support in the hearing room? Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? A motion, a second. Thank you colleagues. See no further questions or comments. Senator, we'd like to close, please.

I was waiting for the love from my two colleagues here, but it's not coming on this one. But very much appreciates the Committee's consideration of the Bill. This was a later development, but that's because of the situation in Washington. And I personally have long believed that accreditation needs some modernization and a fresh look.

And I hope, I hope against hope that that's part of what comes out of this. That's not what this is about. This is about making sure that if something happens with the accrediting agencies that our colleges don't lose the next day their ability to operate and their students don't lose all of their financial aid within 24 hours.

And so with that I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Senator Cabalon for bringing this measure forward. Be proactive as to how our state can respond when something as foundation as higher education and accreditation process. We know we need to do more in this space and I look forward to working with you on these efforts.

I respectfully urgent I vote and look forward to supporting the measure today.

Madam Secretary Rokol, please File item number 11SB744. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure has four ayes, two no's. We'll keep the rope in for additional measure Members. Adam, thank you. Thank you, Senator Cabaldo. Next up we'd like to welcome Senator Cortese presenting items number six and a eight. We'll start with number six. If that works for you. Senator SB 494, please welcome.

That'd be excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. And before I go any further, I want to thank the Chair and the Committee staff for working with me and with my office on this Bill, SB4 94. We appreciate all the assistance with our work this year.

And I also want to say that I accept the Committee's proposed amendments and I have them here. If there's any need for me to confirm that further, please just let me know. SB 494 provides parity to classified employees in schools by guaranteeing that their disciplinary appeals are heard by an administrative law judge.

Under current law, teachers already have that right. If a K-12 teacher chooses to appeal a disciplinary decision made by their district, it's overseen by the Commission on Professional Competence. Community college faculty are also guaranteed a third party arbitrator paid for by the district. Classified employees, however, are not guaranteed the same right under current law.

This system is not equitable and it denies many employees a fair hearing. While classified employees represented by a union can collectively bargain for a third party hearing officer, the vast majority have not done so or have not been able to do so.

SB 494 provides classified employees with the same right as K-12 teachers, community college faculty, and many other public employees. So it's a parity bill. And this bill is cosponsored, I want to mention, by the California School Employees Association, CSEA and AFSCME before we move on with testimony.

It's also supported, as you can see from the analysis, by several other California unions. With us to testify today is Navnit Puryear with CSEA and at the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good morning, Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Navnit Puryear and I'm here on behalf of the California School Employees Association, a union representing more than 250,000 classified public school employees across the state. We're proud cosponsors of SB 494. At its heart, SB 494 is a parity bill.

It would provide classified school employees with the same disciplinary appeal rights as teachers and community college faculty. Currently, a classified employee who is suspended or terminated and wants to exercise their right to an appeal hearing must have that hearing conducted by the school board.

This deprives many classified school employees of a fair appeal because school boards typically vote to take the initial disciplinary action. It's unfair for the same board that voted to terminate or suspend an employee to also be the appellate body. I like to share the stories of two members who cannot be here today.

One district terminated a maintenance employee over vague allegations of incompetence and insubordination. An arbitrator found that the district did not have enough evidence to support the termination and that the employee should be reinstated. Another district terminated a member shortly after she became chapter President and raised concerns at a school board meeting.

She appealed it to an attorney representing the school board. The attorney refused to reinstate her. She was denied a fair discipline hearing. Classified school employees deserve the same disciplinary appeal rights as teachers, college faculty, and other public school employees. For these reasons and many more, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

Hello, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Bryant Miramontes with AFSCME California, in support.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members. Elmer Lizardi here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

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

You have two minutes. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Andrew Martinez, Community College League of California. We must be respectfully opposed to the measure, as we were to the previous measure the last year. We believe that this measure and we recognize that the authors has accepted amendments that we're proposing.

Do you mind pulling the microphone just a little closer? Thank you.

Of course. Recognize that there are amendments proposed in the analysis and that the authors agreed to accept those amendments.

But we still have concerns about the bill and its scope, changing the number of days that can be filed from five to thirty, establishing taking away some of our ability to manage the employees through collective bargaining, and that we would have to wait for the administrative law judge process to take place.

And whether or not there's enough administrative law judges across the state to manage this issue. We do have concerns about the one size fit approach to this proposal and have concerns about the impact we'll have on our managing our employees going forward. And with that, I must oppose the measure.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and members. Chris Reefe, on behalf of the California School Boards Association; first want to extend our gratitude and thanks to the Senator as well as the sponsors and meeting with us on this bill.

This, as you know, is a reintroduction of another bill that passed by this committee two years ago that was ultimately vetoed by Governor Newsom. You know, we work strongly with our labor partners and like to say that we agree with them 90 to 95% of the time. Unfortunately, here we are in that 5%, if you will.

Although much of the issue for us is on the K-12 side, it is unique in terms of very similar to the concerns raised by my colleague to my right here. This one size fits all applies to 944 school districts in California. Many - almost 60% of our school districts are small and located in rural districts.

This bill would mandate essentially the hiring and the retention of an administrative law judge, a pseudo judicial officer.

That would be extraordinarily costly to a district at a time when we're facing any number of uncertain times and pressures when it comes to the fiscal pressures that we're facing, not just at the state level, but at the federal level, as many of you know.

Additionally, the issue of parity, I would exercise some caution if I could recommend that to the committee as the codes are constructed differently for different classifications of employees. We have teachers who go through and get credentials.

It requires them to go through a credentialing program or a graduate school program, 600 hours of clinical service to be able to acquire that credential. It takes them two years to get permanency for a school district comparative to a classified school employee; it takes 90 days to reach permanency.

So, where you are trying to address issues of parity, this is actually pulling certain codes from one side of the education code and applying it to classifieds.

When you're not doing a holistic review of what is true parity, when we're comparing classified staff and credential staff, there is a long educational policy here that needs to be looked at and respected, all due respect to the committee; but we highlight that because this will cause fairly serious implementation concerns down road.

And so, for those reasons, and in full respect to the author and to the sponsors of the bill, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Apologies.

Thank you so much. Is there additional witnesses and oppositions in the hearing room?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, in respectful opposition. And also, on behalf of my colleagues from the California Association of School Business Officials and the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Andrea Ball, on behalf of the Orange County Department of Education, in opposition.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Caitlin Jung, on behalf of the Small School District Association, as well as the School Employers Association of California, in opposition.

Thank you.

Lucy Salcido Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Sam Nasher on behalf of the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Debra Duardo, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Rachel Shakluna on behalf of CAROCP, the California Association of Career and College Readiness Organizations, in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Dr. Patel?

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward. I too will lean into the mic to make sure everyone can hear me. I appreciate you bringing this bill forward.

As a former school board trustee in a fairly large school district in California, the wellbeing of our school employees is something of a great concern to me. I do have a few questions that have given me pause on this.

One of them is it's my understanding that the process for appeal on a termination is a locally negotiated process. It gives our local union some autonomy on how they approach what they want to do with their employment status should they need to appeal, and then this would supersede that.

I have concerns around local control and want to maintain some local control for our members. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Yeah, thank you. It's a great question. It does not supersede a collective bargaining agreement. And whereas the union Say CSEA, for example, may want unilaterally to have a administrative law judge like this bill provides because of the nature of collective bargaining. Of course, there would have to be agreement.

And I think what the concern is in part of what has brought for the - some of the energy behind the bill is that although that's been put on the table in a lot of districts, the idea of having a neutral court just on the appeal side, it's not been successfully bargained. So, it can be bargained still.

The, an arrangement can be bargained. But once, once a decision is made, you know, to go with an ALJ, regardless of whether there's a collective bargaining agreement in place that covers this issue, this statute would require the ALJ.

So that's, it's not superseding, but it's - I prefer to think of it as augmenting what you could do with a collective bargaining agreement without being able to successfully bargain it.

Okay, and then another follow up question I have is many of our school districts are in have a personnel commission. I think it's about a tenth that still work with a personnel commission. How would this interact with the appellate process through the personnel commission?

It doesn't impact skelly hearings or, you know, any, you know, any personnel process of that nature. I don't know if there's boards and I'll be - I'll acknowledge that. I'm sure there's probably people in the room that know whether or not there are actually boards that have set up commissions.

And if so, maybe my witness can answer that question.

So, this is specifically around the personnel commission, which is an appellate body in the hiring and termination process. I believe you have insight.

So, this bill does not apply to personnel commissions.

Okay, thank you. That, that is helpful because they have their own individual process. And then on the bigger picture, when we look at budgets, all of our school districts are struggling, frankly. And I, and it's difficult to say that it's a big budget perspective versus an individual employee and their grievances. Right.

It's hard to put one against the other. But the reality also is that there's a higher, significantly higher turnover in the classified employee staff. Have you done an estimate around what that cost would be looking at typical termination appeals in a district?

Yeah. If CSEA has done that much work and data, I'll defer to them.

What would that additional cost be per year?

Thank you. So, our records show us that roughly 590 classified school employees are terminated every year. So, if all 590 of those

Is that across the state?

Yes. So, there's not very many. So, if all 590 of those employee's appeal to an ALJ, the cost will be roughly 4.26 million.

And we don't anticipate all of those employees appealing. And since this bill allows for districts and labor unions to negotiate alternative forms of agreements, we don't - we think that cost will actually be even lower.

Okay. Okay. Thank you for that.

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

Just to clarify, that's 4.2, roughly, give or take, which comes out to be about $7,000 per instance, is that correct?

Yes.

So, $7,000 per instance consuming 590 students. That's pretty steep. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions or comments?

Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close, please.

Thank you very much. I just want to emphasize that the current situation, aside from where it's collectively bargained to have a neutral in place, requires the appeal to go right back to the school board that made the initial decision in the first place.

And while I think it's important to look at the appropriation or downstream costs, those are great questions that were just asked and answered. Ultimately, this comes down to the fairness of due process.

And it's not just parity because we want to be like the teachers or we want to be like the community college, but it's parity in the sense of justice in the due process so that people ultimately feel they got a fair disposition on their appeal. And I think that's what's important here.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Senator Cortese, for bringing this measure forward and for working with my staff on the amendments. We know that providing classified staff the opportunity to have fair and neutral discipline proceedings is important. And I look forward to supporting the measure here today. Do we have a motion? A motion by Jackson.

Do we have a second? I'll second the bill. Madam Secretary, roll call. Please.

File item number six, AB 494. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

That measures three ayes, two no's and one not voting. We'll keep the roll, but for additional numbers, add on. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we'd like to welcome Senator Cortese back for SB550. Item number eight. Welcome, Senator.

Every time I wanted to say it, thank you. Again and again I really want to thank the Committee, the Committee staff, the chair, of course, all of you for giving me the opportunity to present the bill today. But the Committee staff has been absolutely instrumental in getting us to where we are today.

I'm extremely grateful and extremely impressed with the work. The amendments that have been provided by this Committee I've read multiple times. I've been more impressed each time I've read them and I'm certainly in agreement with them. So thank you.

This bill addresses a long standing gap in California's legal education system by creating a proposed pathway for public legal education programs in San Jose. So I want to and specifically in San Jose, I want to thank the Committee and its staff for their their thoughtful work.

Again, I'm happy to accept the Committee amendments as I just said, but the idea, especially upon amendment, is to create a legal education pilot program in partnership with a nonprofit state accredited law school and San Jose State University.

I'll note for the Committee that we will be crossing these amends and Assembly Judiciary Committee that the bill is next headed to. I'm committed to that. That Committee's been working with us on these amendments as well.

San Jose, as many of you know, is the third largest city in the State of California, the largest city in the Bay Area, and one of the largest cities in the United States without a public law school. Santa Clara County is home to nearly 2 million residents, yet the region lacks an affordable, accessible option for legal education.

In Santa Clara County, over 65% of the population identifies as Asian American or Latino. Both groups remain severely underrepresented among licensed attorneys. Statewide, the average debt for law graduates now exceeds $130,000.

The 2024 study conducted by the American Bar Association found that 67% of all young lawyers, including those with and without loans, reported feeling stress about their finances. And those numbers are directly tied to private law school tuition. Again wanting to distinguish and emphasize why a public option is important.

This cost barrier drives talent away from public service careers and prevents first generation and underrepresented students from entering the legal profession. A 2024 study from the Equal Justice from the organization Equal Justice Works found that 79% of recent law school graduates cite low salary as a reason they would not pursue public interest law.

In 2023, only 9.7% of law graduates secured public interest jobs. This amounts to only 3,095 positions, 92% of low income Americans.

Civil legal needs went unmet in 2022, 92% unmet and an estimated 150 million legal problems go unresolved annually in the United States by authorizing a partnership of the sort that has been outlined in the bill with the amendments between San Jose State and a nonprofit state accredited law school.

This bill, SB550, through this pilot program, will help close those gaps and establish that they can be further closed in the future. The bill would allow San Jose State and the non profit law school to jointly award JD Degrees as well as undergraduate legal education certificates.

Both the CSU Board of Trustees and the governing board of the nonprofit law school must approve the pilot program. Lest there be any doubt about that, that is now a part of this bill. With us today is Magnus Herlin. He's the former President of the San Jose State University Pre Law Society.

I'd like to hear from him and in the meanwhile I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Good afternoon Chair Fong and Members of the Committee. My name is Magnus Herlin and I am a proud recent graduate of San Jose State University. To highlight the importance of SB550, I want to first briefly tell you a little bit about my story.

In high school I had a semester where I had a 2.7 GPA and I felt pretty lost. But coming to SYESU was the best decision that I ever made. I ended up turning that 2.7 into a 3.97 and San Jose State was the place that really made me flourish.

I worked hard every day and this coming fall I will attend law school at UC Law San Francisco. But my story is not unique. It is the SYesU story and one story that I've heard countless times from my peers.

The story of San Jose State is about giving people a chance at success and that is why SB550 matters. By creating the first public law school in the CSU system, students like me and students who will come after me will be given a chance at a legal education.

According to the State Bar, about 75% of attorneys changed their initial career plans and this was largely due to the high cost of a legal education. Many of those changes came from a public interest role into a private sector role. Simply put, California is losing out on many public interest lawyers due to the cost of education.

The CSU system was created to serve the people of California and that should include providing access to an attainable quality legal education. Thank you for your consideration and I humbly ask for your support of this bill.

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

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Jessica Dwell at the University of California here in respectful opposition to SB550. I want to start by thanking the Chair and the Committee staff for their thoughtful work in trying to thread the needle on this issue. However, we remain opposed even with the amendments.

We appreciate the author's intent in providing a public law school option in this district. However, the Master Plan of Higher Education maintains that UC has the exclusive authority to offer doctoral degrees for the public higher education segments.

We do understand that since the Master Plan was adopted in 1960, Education and Labor workforce needs have changed significantly in the state. That's why in 2023 we came to an agreement with CSU to authorize CSU to offer doctoral degrees. And this law includes a review process that would ensure non duplication of existing UC degree programs.

In addition, the recently passed state budget includes funding for intersegmental coordination of higher education. Discussions around revisiting the Master Plan or state workforce needs may be best discussed within this coordinating entity instead of piecemeal approaches. For these reasons, we must continue to respectfully oppose SB550. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome. Good afternoon Chair, Members. Alex Graves with the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities representing 87 private nonprofit colleges and universities in the state. Also here in respectful opposition to the bill. Want to echo my my colleague's comments and that we appreciate the the work of the Committee to make amendments to the bill.

But I think fundamentally we do still remain in an opposed position. Appreciate the interest in thinking about how to provide affordable, accessible access to law degrees, law professions and other high need fields that we see in the workforce and in certain regions of the state.

Whether that's the health professions, law, teaching, those are again critical professions and important discussions to have.

We similarly believe that the $1.5 million allocated in the state budget to form a higher ed workforce and coordinating body would be the appropriate forum to have this type of robust discussion, analysis and kind of needs assessment to think about both the problems and solutions for how we move forward.

You know, we again absolutely share the goals around accessible, affordable access to these types of high need professions. The need for these types of discussions is going to be compounded by the recent action by Congress to eliminate graduate plus LO. And we're very concerned about that.

Welcome those discussions to how we ensure we have this pipeline for the law professions and others.

And while we appreciate the Committee amendments to move towards a joint pilot degree model, we do remain concerned fundamentally that by authorizing a joint degree pilot with the CSU that we are kind of continuing this piecemeal approach of straying from the existing framework that is in place regarding degree, authority for the different segments and so forth.

Those reasons we remain opposed at this time.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses and opposition in the hearing room? Are there any tweeners in the hearing room? Some Members. Any questions or comments? Senator Gonzalez?

Senator, thank you for bringing this bill. I just have a few few questions as I have California Desert Trial Academy School of Law is in my district, the only law school in Riverside County. So I'm trying to understand the implications here obviously for my own district and then the California implications across the board.

What is the motivation for this specific bill? What was the initial motivation?

The motivation for this specific bill is the fact that we don't have a public law school in a county. It's actually a little smaller than Riverside County to a little over 2 million people by recent count. The 1960 Master Plan, as some remember, was 65 years ago. I was 4 years old at the time.

In the meantime, I continued my own education.

I graduated from the nonprofit law school, the state accredited law school myself in this area, as did one of our former police chiefs, numerous judges, the first independent police Auditor, the first Latina independent police Auditor in the State of California in the City of San Jose, who later became a sitting judge, and numerous other folks who look for a public option to go to law school couldn't find one and ended up going to a non profit accredited law School in 1960.

When the mass venom bring this up as relevant because this is what the opposition is talking about. They're hanging their hat on a 1960 master plan. San Jose had 95,000 population at that time, as we know by census, 95,000. It has 1.1 million today.

It was an area of prune orchards and pears and apricots and open fields, dairies. There was no way the master plan devised at that time could have possibly contemplated that there would be the need for a law school in the middle of Silicon Valley, in a city that calls itself the capital of Silicon Valley.

Whether you agree with that or not, the third largest city in the State of California, the largest city in the Bay Area with one of the most diverse populations in the world. There's no way a 1960 master plan could account for that.

And when you look at it more closely, the, frankly, the absence and willingness to take into account these kind of needs year after year, decade after decade, I think constitutes De facto redlining.

Because the answer, when we asked in terms of authored amendments if UC would be willing to take a look at this and be at the table with an option for first right of refusal in case this is really simply just a jurisdictional issue between them and CSU is he said no, flat out no.

And I think you could question the witnesses today and they would still say no. Well, if it's no, and we're unwilling to be at the table, we're also unwilling to account in our master plan for changes that have occurred over 65 years in one of the most changed areas of the world.

Then there's, there's something else going on here. But, but the real motivation is for the students themselves. You know, the students that attend this school now are much like the students that attended decades ago when I went. In some ways, you know, they're typically working. It's a four year evening program.

There are private schools, for example, that have four year evening programs. It's a four year evening program that's not as expensive but by any account as UC or certainly a Santa Clara University or Stanford or a Bolt Hall. And those students are oftentimes single moms. Case in 0.1 of my. A.

Former Member of my staff when I was a county supervisor who worked in my office for about a year later advised me that she was attending, most recently attending the state accredited school in San Jose with three children. Again, single mom, you know, borrowing and working her way through that program. She is now a 3L.

She has essentially a year and a half left to go to be sitting for the bar.

There's just no way an individual like that who had freed herself from gang affiliation as a young lady, worked and worked to gain a job as a legal secretary and a paralegal can find any other option for moving forward with her dream, her dream to be a lawyer, to sit for the bar and then be a lawyer in the State of California.

Many of these students choose immigration law, public service law. Not all. I certainly didn't. Some of the other examples are of folks who chose other professions. We're just trying to create opportunity in an area that's, that's been bottlenecked intentionally or or otherwise by, you know, whatever reason in the legislation is intended.

Now, a little different than what we first put in print to really create an opportunity for the schools, the subjects of the legislation, to not only have dialogue, but see if there's a possibility of them during the time frames and the guardrails that are listed now in the bill and the amendments, to come up with some kind of an integration, some kind of an integration plan.

Where they can do work together. The physical location of the two schools in question here are back to back physically and San Jose State, if you're not aware, I won't go into all that.

We don't have the time but has very much been in an expansionist posture taking over from the city the repertory theater, sharing the construction of the Martin Luther King library with model library in the area and so on, taking over the state building where our offices used to be.

So it seems like the time is ripe to look at this. But we don't want to waste people's time. We want to tell them go look at this. Knowing that you have some pretty restrictive legislation in place that enables you to do that. But yeah, go ahead and do it. That's the idea.

So to the opposition, I'll afford you to rebut on that. But also I want to ask you as a follow on couldn't there be a UC satellite program that addresses this same piece or a fully online option that addresses the same piece. So number first question was what do you believe the motivation is behind this bill?

Number two is couldn't you create a satellite program in that area and. Or a fully online option. To the. Yeah. To you guys? Yeah.

When it comes to a fully online option, that is not something that we have explored. There are other online law schools. For example, Purdue is an online program that is a state accredited as well. As far as having like a localized program. We do have several, three Northern California law schools.

So then College of Law, San Francisco and the one at Berkeley is about an hour drive absent traffic of course, because traffic is terrible in the Bay Area and then but it's also accessible by public transit. So then we haven't really explored that as an option.

But then those law schools are not too far away from San Jose as well.

So it kind of reinforces his, his argument then of, of accessibility for that region. Right. But because of traffic, time, distance, direction, it reinforces the fact that there's a need for this program in that area. Would at least that's what I, I just heard you say.

I mean my response to that argument would be we do have two programs, pretty close options. It's not ideal of course for if you're living at home from San Jose and of course traffic is pretty inconvenient as well.

But then it's, it's commutable and also like opening up a new UC law school in San, in San Jose, for example would be very expensive to do and we don't have the funding to do that at this point.

So because of that. I get that. Piece of being of the Senator's argument of proximity. Right. I get Magnus, great name, by the way. Thank you. I get how San Jose has been the right fit for you. We never know what the right fit is until we get into that. So I get those pieces.

I also understand the UC's position on this and I'm trying to maybe create a bridge where, where is that bridge? But I don't hear a bridge there for that community that's in need. My only, my pause, I have two pauses to this and I'll, you know, hand this off is number one.

And I won't name this the school, but it's in the, it's in the notes. Here is their exam pass rate, which is pretty low. And how would that change with the merger? Would those professors be let go? And now we have new professors under this new school.

So that's one piece of the puzzle or the curriculum, or how do you increase it from 30.9 to something a little bit better? Because then all we were doing is just moving the problem over. Right. And my, the, the second piece to this puzzle is, is the, the funding mechanism associated with this.

Those are my two, my two biggest concerns. And I don't know if you have an answer to the first one.

The, the bar pass rate. Most recent bar pass rate was 49.0 something percent I. That's on the record that was just celebrated at the school in California State Bar. Essentially the accreditation is. It's not based on one criteria, bar pass rate.

There's a number of criteria the state bar looks at, but it's their accreditation process and bar pass rate is most important. This school, like I think a lot of schools started running into problems during COVID and their bar pass rate. And what you may be looking at is where it went down post pandemic.

And the school is, is accredited now and it has to maintain its bar pass rate. This bill requires the school to maintain its bar pass rate for five consecutive years.

Not the exact bar pass rate, but to maintain its accreditation, which would include its bar pass rate for five consecutive years to even be eligible for any, any further, any further work under this bill.

So we've in effect taken the word merger out of this bill, created a pilot where if they can stand up a, a cooperative relationship as described here, they'll have the ability to operate that for six years.

And you know, with the sunset that ties all of that, all of those dates together, basically the, the number of years that they have to be consistently bar accredited the number of years that they can operate under this bill. And then, you know, as, as I said, a sunset. That's one of your questions.

But will San Jose State absorb the fiscal challenges that this current school is having or will it be independent of San Jose State?

That's up to them to negotiate. If they don't, if they aren't unable to negotiate an operating agreement amongst themselves, all of this is, is moot.

This, all this hinges is one of the very specific guardrails listed in the bill, listed in the amendments is that that both of the entities themselves separate from the CSU trustees, but the entities themselves have to sign off on a final operating agreement before anything can go forward. So that'll be a business negotiation.

I'm not sure if it'll be successful or not. At the end of the day, I'd certainly do anything I could to help facilitate it. It's presumed from an author standpoint that the affiliation with San Jose State, a more formal affiliation can, any kind of sharing can help. Library would be top of mind. Instantly.

Students have access to a library that's literally walking distance across campus from 2nd street over to 3rd street to walk right into San Jose State Library, actually 4th, 4th street, so it's two blocks. You know, there's any number of.

As we all know, I think most every one of us at some point came out of a four year undergrad environment. There are going to be so many supports for students just on the natural that are available that wouldn't be available to neighboring students, you know, coming in and out. So.

You know, it could range from mental health services to, like I said, the immediate access to law books and things that drop in centers for computer use and so forth. So, you know, all of that is exciting to think about. We don't think it's exclusive to CSU.

You know that there are other kinds of arrangements in the world that could lead to that same kind of synergy. But here, the natural synergy, use word proximity. I think the proximity of these two schools alone jumps out at you as why aren't they working more closely together for the benefit of students and prospective students?

Can I just say, Leslie, you mentioned access. You all know, because you serve on this Committee. I've never served on a Higher Education Committee, only an education Committee in the Senate. But access and affordability are two significant components of the master plan.

So what then remains is this issue of jurisdiction, I think, you know, and whether we're going to get stuck there or not.

Thank you. So much. Senator Jackson.

Thank you very much, Senator. I certainly understand the need and I think that unfortunately we know that the master plan is really outdated and it's not anyone's fault except the Legislature's fault. And because we failed to create a process where this master plan is updated periodically, we are found ourselves in these type of situations.

So I don't really find arguments utilizing the master plan of why we can't do something because I don't think it's valid because it's just outdated. Again, it's no one's fault. I mean this is the position we've put systems in. We need to.

And what we've done in the past when we've gone outside of the master plan, we've said that a particular region, a particular community really needs this. And you shouldn't have to venture outside of your own communities or your own region to be able to receive the type of education services that you need.

And so I look forward to. Would love to work with you. I would love to work with you. Mr. Chair. It's time for us to get this master plan updated and set it on a routine updating every decade something. I mean hell, we do the census every 10 years. Can I say that? My bad.

But the idea is that we do the census every year. Why can't we do, I mean, every year, the census every 10 years. Why can't we do something like that for the master plan? And so I prefer the original version that you had before the Committee amendments because it's what your community needs.

And it's because of this outdated master plan that we're trying that we go through these things again, no one's fault but the Legislature's fault and we just need to fix it. And so you know what your community needs. And I know if I needed something that for my community, I hope you take my word for it too.

So with that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to move the bill.

Thank you so much. Senator Jackson we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second by Dr. Sharpe Collins any further questions or comments? CNN Senator, would you like to close please? I respectfully asked for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Senator Cortese for working closely with our Committee and our office and just really, we believe a pilot that encourages collaboration and thoughtful planning and evaluation is a big step forward and appreciate my colleagues comments as well.

And thank you for your work and efforts and working with our Committee again and for your leadership on this. With that, I look forward to supporting the Bill today. Madam Secretary, roll call.

[Roll call]

That measures three ayes, three nos, and we'll keep the rope in for additional Members. Thank you so much. Next up, I'd like to welcome Senator Perez. Thank you so much for your patience. I'm presenting Item number one, SB98, followed by SB323. Welcome, Senator Perez.

Thank you.

We're doing SB 323 first. Correct?

Would you prefer to do 323 first?

Oh, no, I'll do 98 first.

We'll start with 98 if that works for you. Item number one, SB 98, by Senator Perez. Thank you. Welcome.

Great. Thank you, Chair and Members. SB 98, the Safe Act, requires K through 12 schools and higher education institutions to notify students, staff, and other campus community members when immigration enforcement agents are present on campus. Ensuring access to education in a safe space for all students is largely a state responsibility.

Unfortunately, school campuses have begun to see an increased presence of immigration enforcement entities on campuses. The presence of immigration enforcement officers can have detrimental effects on the student body and staff, especially for those who may be undocumented or otherwise without permanent status.

Although schools and higher education institutions in California have guidelines for individuals on their rights and how to engage with immigration enforcement agents when they are present on campus or nearby campus, there are no requirements for school or campus administration to inform the campus community of their presence.

SB 98 addresses the aforementioned gap by requiring the students and the school are notified of immigration enforcement agents on campus. These timely notifications are imperative for schools to be able to prevent panic, promote a sense of security, and maintain an environment where all students, regardless of immigration status, feel safe and supported.

This Bill will give students and educators peace of mind in the classroom, while also maintaining the state's commitment that educational institutions are safe places where students can learn, teachers can educate, and schools can be a place exclusively dedicated to teaching and uplifting the next generation.

Today with me, I have Alicia Macal, a student at Balsam Lake College, and Lucia Hermosa, a student at UC Santa Barbara. At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Fong and Committee Members. My name is Alicia Macal, and I'm here on behalf of the Student Senate for the California Community Colleges, the official voice of 2.1 million students, in strong support of SB 98.

This Bill matters because undocumented students from kindergarten through college deserve a safe and stable educational environment, and right now, they don't have that.

In just the past month, principals and district staff from two elementary schools in Los Angeles reported that immigration enforcement agents showed up without federal warrants, attempting to question students as young as first through fifth grade.

Currently, there is no law requiring notification to parents at the K through 12 level or to students in higher education when immigration officials are present on or near a school campus. This lack of communication fosters fear, confusion, and silence, especially among mixed status families, undocumented students, and student parents. We're already seeing the real impacts of this.

Professors report a sharp decline in attendance, especially in ESL classes. Some have even moved instruction back to Zoom, not for convenience, but out of concern for the safety of their students. SB 98 is a critical step toward protecting our students and upholding the basic right to education.

It would require schools to notify parents at the K-12 level and students in higher education if immigration officials are present on campus. By ensuring transparency, this Bill would help alleviate fear, protect our undocumented student population, and reinforce that every student, regardless of status, deserves to have access to their education without intimidation or uncertainty.

Undocumented students are vital members of our schools and communities, many having grown up here, yet they remain excluded from not only essential support systems like financial aid, campus jobs, and work study programs, but also from critical information that directly impacts their safety.

Access to timely, transparent communication about potential risks on campus is fundamental to protecting their wellbeing and allowing them to fully participate in their education without fear. SB 98 is not just a policy, it's protection. We respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 98. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good evening, Chair Fong and Members of the Committee. My name is Lucia Hermoso. I'm a rising senior at UC Santa Barbara and on behalf of the UC Student Association, we are proud sponsors of SB 98.

At a time when immigrant communities face increasing attacks and uncertainty across the country, it is more important than ever that we ensure our schools and colleges serve as places of learning where students can feel safe without fear of ICE trying to enter campus.

SB 98, the Safe Act, makes it clear that when ICE is present on a school or campus, students, parents, faculty, and staff are immediately notified of their activity. Similar to emergency warnings or fire drills or lockdowns, students in school communities should be equally informed of immigration enforcement on school grounds.

This Bill prioritizes transparency, communication, and preparedness for all Members of a school community, especially parents and school staff who want our kids to be safe. For students who are undocumented or come from mixed size families, the presence of immigration enforcement can be deeply traumatizing. This can negatively impact academic performance and affect long term mental health.

Increased ICE raids across Los Angeles and the state, as well as hospitals, churches, and schools no longer being off limits mean that California must find ways to protect our most vulnerable. SB 98 fills a critical gap in our current protocols.

While there are guidelines on how schools should respond to immigration enforcement, there is no legal obligation to inform the campus community. That silence leaves students and their families vulnerable to panic and misinformation. With the Safe Act, we can affirm that all students, regardless of immigration status, have a safe and stable environment where they can learn without fear.

I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon. Trevor Nelson with the California Alliance of Childhood Family Services, in support.

Navneet Puryear, on behalf of the California School Employees Association, also in support.

Chair and Members, Austin Webster with W Strategies, on behalf of the Anaheim Union High School District, the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, and Unidos US, in support.

Llang Lee, on behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California and also, the Undocu Spartan Student Resource Center at San Jose State University, in strong support.

Chin Wenberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support.

Elmer Lizardi, on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions, in support. Thank you.

Sylvia Solis Shaw, on behalf of the California Faculty Association, proud to be a co-sponsor, and I'd also like to voice support for the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Thank you.