Assembly Standing Committee on Business and Professions

Good morning, everyone. This chair is super high. Welcome to this morning's meeting of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee. Today we will be hearing 10 bills on our agenda, more than half of which are authored, by Senator, by Chair Ashby.

With the following two bills proposed for consent, SB 389 by Senator Ochoa Bogh, and SB 861 by the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development. Before we begin today's agenda, I would like to once again remind everyone that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing.

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

For each measure being presented today, we will be allowing primary witnesses here in the room to speak for up to two minutes each, with up to two primary witnesses per side. Any additional witnesses will be limited to name, position on the bill, and the organization they represent, if any.

For those wishing to provide further comments, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. And with that, we will begin today's hearing. I see zero Senators. I see zero Senators.

And we're at the point in the year where we're hearing Senate bills, so if we don't have Senators, it's hard to have a hearing. So if Senate staff. I don't. I passed that opportunity. Mr. Flora, you got. You got some jokes, stories. Vice Chair? No, nothing, Nothing. So I know you're watching, Senate staff. Go find your Senator.

Not a lot of options today, to be honest. We've got Senator Menjivar, Chair Ashby, Senator Richardson, and Senator Cabaldon. So if you work for any of those Senators, if you know any of those Senators, please go find them so we can have our hearing.

In the meantime, we'll take a brief pause while we text people angrily to get them to come to the hearing.

There we go. Sergeants, go find the Senators. We got one. Senator Menjivar with agenda item number two. Ironically, the first bill that we're hearing, because the first one's on consent, so that worked out well. SB 418, we're ready when you are.

All right. Good morning,

Morning.

Mr. Chair, Committee Members, some have already heard this bill in a previous Assembly Committee. I will be taking the amendments previously agreed upon in Health Committee. SB 418 takes two critical steps to ensure continued access to essential healthcare in California.

First, it codifies Section 1557 of the ACA into state law, ensuring basic protections from discrimination in any health program or activity that receives government funding, given that one of the Executive orders in the past six months by the President have called in question this very section. Second, this bill would require pharmacists to dispense up to a 12 month supply of prescriptive hormone therapy.

Looking to just replicate what we've done in this legislative body with SB 999 and doing 12 months of contraception. And this for hormone therapy only when medically approved, only when the provider has allowed 12 months worth of dispensement and have it be covered by the health plans with the sunset date of January 2035.

There's been a lot of misleading and false information coming down on gender affirming care that has had some grave consequences here in California. And we all know or should know that gender affirming care impacts a lot of different individuals.

People on HRT or those who are undergoing cancer treatment, transgender individuals, individuals experiencing menopause or those with hormone deficiencies needing treatment for conditions like hyperthyroidism. People, because of the impacts, are stockpiling hormones and rationing their hormones.

So bringing a sense of assurance that you could get a supply of 12 months will alleviate the fear that at the very moment you, your prescription can be cut off. Mr. Chair I'd now like to turn over to two witnesses part of this bill.

Great. You have two minutes each.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Shayna Kirk and I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak on SB 418 as the parent of a transgender child, as well as a representative of Rainbow Families Action, an organization dedicated to serving the needs of of Trans and gender expansive youth.

I'm also a mental health professional who has worked in multiple settings, interacting directly with youth I know could be positively impacted by a Bill like this. The past several months has felt heavy for advocates and parents like me as critical health care has been under scrutiny and attack by our current federal administration.

I've seen gender clinics stopping services and closing down altogether. Yes, even in California, I struggle with feelings of fear and turmoil regarding what's next as we ponder the impact of losing access to these healthcare needs.

Like what happens if you're only able to access 30 days of medication, while frantically searching for a new provider, let alone somebody who might be covered by insurance. As you can imagine, most of us don't have the luxury of paying for these things out of pocket.

We've done the best that we can to navigate these murky waters, by planning carefully and as parents providing stable physical and mental health support. I do hate to think what could be in store next.

Feeling forced to seek out less than reliable alternatives as a desperate attempt to protect our children's continuity of care or watch the potential suffering that comes with stopping treatments prematurely.

The ability to access a much more robust supply of doctor approved medications in the event something was to come up could make a huge difference in their well being emotionally and physically. Assuring we wouldn't have to scramble to find solutions would ease a tremendous burden.

Parents and caregivers absolutely support this as a way to safeguard Trans and gender diverse youth with respect to the safe and effective care they are already receiving so they can continue their treatments uninterrupted.

If you wrap up, go ahead. If you could wrap up, that'd be great.

Oh, yes. Yeah, absolutely. I hope anyone who's a parent or caregiver in any capacity understands this is an incredible opportunity for us to affirm and uplift an aspect of health care not yet being protected the way it deserves.

I truly thank the Senator for helping this bill come to life and the State of California for continued support of the health and well being of youth in California to thrive and live authentically for themselves free from discrimination. And today, I urge the enthusiastic support of the Committee for us before 18 and this important healthcare policy.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Hello. Good morning. My name is Denise Taylor. I'm a board certified family physician. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to support my transgender patients by providing testimony on this bill.

I have been providing gender affirming care in San Luis Obispo for more than two decades and I have trained many local physicians to assist in serving our transgender community.

Since the election in 2024, I've been having distressing conversations with my patients who express high levels of concern and anxiety regarding the fear that they will lose access to life saving gender affirming care that is currently being prescribed to treat their gender dysphoria.

This is important to pay attention to since the 2015 US Trans survey shows that respondents who received the gender affirming treatment they needed had lower prevalence of past year suicide attempts than those who had not received the care they needed.

My patients are also reporting that they are cutting back on their currently prescribed treatment in order to create a stockpile of medication in case they lose access to care. The Endocrine Society recommends monitoring transgender patients for bone health, cardiovascular risk factors and cancer screening, which is made more difficult when patients are on inadequate hormone treatment.

Other important cooccurring chronic medical conditions may also be neglected when patients don't feel well, mentally or physically. The bill before you will allow patients to not only have access to appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria, but will also assist in alleviating symptoms of anxiety and depression.

Allowing physicians to provide at their discretion a full 12 month supply of estrogen or 6 months supply of testosterone will allow patients to feel secure in meeting their health care needs, even while other aspects of their lives may feel less supported in this political climate.

Currently, patients risk the potential for discriminatory encounters with pharmacy staff on a monthly basis simply by picking up prescribed treatment. I know this bill will help me reassure my patients that their supply of medication is secure, will allow me to focus on other aspects of their health care that may need attention.

I found that patients who feel seen, respected, and listened to about their core concerns will be more amenable to engaging in their overall health. Decreasing barriers to access to care literally saves lives and this bill will help achieve this goal for one of the most vulnerable groups of Californians. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any additional witnesses who want to add on and support? Please provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the Bill.

Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California, Alliance for Trans Youth Rights, and Trans Family Support Services. All cosponsors in strong support.

Good morning. Angela Pontes on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California as a cosponsor in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Whitney Francis with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support.

Thank you.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Children's Partnership, in support.

Thank you.

Christine Smith, Health Access California, in support.

Thank you.

Chloe King with Political Solutions on behalf of the California Dental Association, in support.

Thank you.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the American College of OBGYN's District 9, in support.

Thank you.

Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now, in support.

Thank you.

Tim Madden representing the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, in support.

Thanks.

Dr. Katie Brown Johnson on behalf of Rainbow Families Action, in support.

Thank you.

Arne Johnson on behalf of Rainbow Families Action, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Megan Bates on behalf of Rainbow Families Action, in support.

Thank you.

Vanessa Cajina on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians here in support.

Thank you.

Astin Dordreau Williams on behalf of the California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network, in strong support.

Thank you. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition who wants to add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Going to bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments. Seeing no questions or comments and not yet seeing a quorum.

Senator, would you like to close?

I appreciate the robust discussion on the bill. When appropriate, I appreciate an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Thank you for authoring this Bill. As. As the federal Administrator. Thank you for authoring the, the Vice Chair is trying to sabotage me, thank you for authoring this bill, Senator.

As the Federal Administration continues its attack on Americans who identify as transgender or gender non conforming, it's crucial that we protect the rights of our Trans community and their access to essential health care.

I understand that you stated that you've accepted the amendments that were agreed to when the bill was heard in Health Committee and I'm happy to support the bill with those amendments in Committee today. And we'll have a vote when the time is right. Thank you. So I see Senator Ashby and Senator Richardson. Technically Senator Ashby is.

But Senator Richardson, come on up. I love it. Teamwork makes the dream work. Senator Richardson will be presenting agenda item number eight, SB 777, which is also a fantastic bill number. I hope to have one day for one of my bills. Seven, my favorite number.

We can make that happen, you know,

Let's do it. Let's do it. That's right.

Well, first of all, good morning to the chair and members and also to staff who've worked really hard on this bill and, I think, done their best, and so I want to thank all of you this morning.

First of all, I'd like to start off by talking about the bill, SB 777, in its current form, which would require the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau to notify the applicable city, county, or city and county with jurisdiction over the cemeteries that become abandoned and have endowment care cemeteries as a result of that.

This bill also is required because, with the bureau, we needed to establish really a program of how to be able to fund and assist these abandoned cemeteries. With that in mind, we created the Abandonment Grant Funding Program, which would be funded by increases to all fees under the bureau's authority by 150%.

In May, we had a situation where the bureau actually had a report and talked about they are currently deficient in their ability to be able to perform all of their functions. So 100% of the fees would go to the bureau's operations and 50% would go to the actual endowment program.

Nevertheless, after consultation with the chair, I've accepted the committee's amendments that we have before us today. A little bit of our background: members, I want to convey to you the thought and the work that I've taken to help solve this problem that's growing in the State of California. There are 187 private cemeteries, and when a cemetery gets full, it's no longer profitable, and so what happens is individuals who own private cemeteries have the ability to walk away.

And even though individuals who've been buried, they've paid endowment fees, sometimes endowment fees that were paid in the 60s, 70s, and 80s are no longer adequate to be able to care for a cemetery, and so when a private individual walks away from a cemetery, what that means is the gates are locked, no one can come in and see their loved ones, grass grows higher than this table, the actual markers are removed to be able to sell as metal, and crypts are beginning to be open to take jewelry and to cause harm to individuals. In my particular district, I have one of those.

It's Lincoln Memorial Park in the City of Carson, which was founded in 1934. It was abandoned by the owner back in 2023. This is 2025. So you can imagine what happens if a house is abandoned in a neighborhood for two years. You know what that looks like: the same thing with the cemetery.

Currently, the bureau manages the endowment fund and the accounts associated with it. Typically, what happens, the principal cannot be used, and the interest is then used to be able to maintain the the cemetery. In the case of Lincoln, that's only $3,000 a month. That doesn't pay for irrigation, that doesn't pay for mowing the lawn, that doesn't pay for any of the major services that are required.

As a result, activities necessary for the care of the cemetery grounds often fall to loved ones who are coming there really simply to see their loved ones, not to maintain the grounds. Lastly, abandoned endowment care cemeteries can become public nuisances and challenging and really dismaying for family members.

Prior to my arrival in the Legislature in December of last year, it's my understanding Governor Newsom signed AB 3254, which was authored by your chairman, Mr. Berman, which required the bureau to convene a working group that involves representatives from all impacted stakeholders by July 1, 2027 and for that working group to provide a report to the Legislature with its recommendations on how to deal with abandoned cemeteries.

SB 777, as proposed to be amended, speeds up that process by stating that on or before March 1, 2026, the bureau shall convene a working group comprised of interested stakeholders, including but not limited to, the California Local Agency Formation Commission, the League of Cities, the California State Association of Counties, the Urban Counties, and Rural County Representatives.

All these people need to be at the table because someone needs to be responsible so it gives them an opportunity to provide public input and for us to move forward to care for these abandoned cemeteries. In closing, members, it's imperative that we adopt a solution to this problem now; not next year, not two years from now, but now.

Imagine it's your grandmother, your grandfather, your child that's in that cemetery that's now abandoned. With that, I have to help me here, battling cleanup, Carrie West, who's going to assist in her testimony.

Great. Thanks so much. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair Berman and members of the committee. My name is Carrie West. I'm here today on behalf of the City of Compton to voice strong support for Senate Bill 777 by Senator Richardson.

Compton is home to multiple aging, privately-owned cemeteries, including Woodlawn Memorial Park, that have historically served our residents, particularly Black residents, that have been excluded from burial at public or religious sites for decades. Today, some of these cemeteries face chronic underinvestment and in the worst cases, outright abandonment.

These conditions create health and safety risks, diminish community trust, and shift the burden of stewardship to families or local volunteers with no legal authority or financial means to intervene. Senate Bill 777 establishes a clear statutory process for transferring responsibility of abandonment--I'm sorry--of abandoned endowment care cemeteries to local agencies backed by regulatory oversight and financial assistance.

The bill defines abandonment based on licensure lapse, lack of ownership transfer, ensuring clarity, and enforceability. It empowers a cemetery and funeral bureau to notify cities like Compton when an abandoned facility exists within their jurisdiction and initiates a structured LAFCO application process to form or reorganize a public cemetery.

Crucially, the June 16th amendment strengthened the bill's viabilities for requiring CFB to fund CEQA compliance, LAFCO fees, and associate administrative costs, ensuring public entities have access to both endowment fund principal and income, establishing the Abandonment Grant Funding Program supported by 150% increase in licensing fees and with 50% dedicated specifically to cemetery rehabilitation and long-term viability.

This bill does not place an unfunded mandate on local governments. Instead, it provides a framework for public agencies to assume responsibility when paired with regulatory, legal, and financial tools needed to do so responsibly. The City of Compton thanks Senator Richardson for advancing a thoughtful solution to a longstanding problem, and we respectfully urge an aye vote on Senate Bill 777.

Thank you, thank you for your your witness testimony, and just to be clear for members of the committee, I think a lot of those details were about the prior version of the bill that may be discussed in future years, but the bill as amended is a little different than that.

Any additional witnesses who want to add on in support of the bill? Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? We have two primary witnesses that get two minutes each, and then everyone else can add on afterwards. Come on in. And just hit the mic button.

Thank you. Chair and members, Jerry Desmond with the Cemetery and Mortuary Association of California, first to state that as the bill is being amended today, accepting the committee's amendments, we are removing our opposition to the bill and just would like to take another couple seconds to make some clarification points in regard to the crux issue of abandoned cemeteries.

And we certainly appreciate the efforts of the author, the Senator, to address abandoned cemeteries and to note that we are engaged and we care as the cemetery industry. An example would be that we have supported and sponsored legislation enacted into law to require the bureau, the Licensing Bureau, to actually adopt and inspect for maintenance standards to identify those cemeteries that are no longer being kept up.

The Cemetery Bureau currently has authority if it determines in its annual audit of an endowment care fund cemetery that the funds are inadequate, that those funds shall be increased. We have supported legislation to increase the endowment care fund contributions that cemeteries have to be made and there is authority under current law for local agencies to take over an abandoned cemetery when that occurs in their area, but they refused to do so. We support a stakeholder process as set forth in the bill as amended.

We will continue, as always, to be involved as stakeholders to try to develop mechanisms to prevent the abandonment of cemeteries in the first place, to identify them before it occurs, take action so that we don't have this awful situation when it does occur, and so we appreciate the amendments and the efforts of the Senator and the proponents to move this forward. Thank you.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Chair Berman and members. Talia Smith, Director of Legislative Affairs, on behalf of the County of Marin. Let's start by saying we appreciate Senate Bill 777 has been amended to a study bill and the local government takeover mandate has been removed, which was the basis of our opposition, but I am here today because the larger issue remains: how do we prevent private cemetery abandonment in the first place, and if it happens, who should assume responsibility?

When a private bank fails, regulatory agencies help another private bank step in to take it over. When a private cemetery fails, the bureau should be empowered to facilitate the takeover by another private operation. Counties are not in the cemetery business. We aren't set up to absorb the long-term financial, legal, or emotional costs. In Marin, we are living through exactly what this bill is trying to address.

Mt. Tamalpais Cemetery, named in the bill, is a 150-year-old private site in San Rafael, and the owner egregiously mismanaged endowment care funds for personal gain--classic cars, personal real estate--and the site is now overgrown, headstones are hard to locate, and it's really become a wildfire hazard in the center of our county.

And the bureau finally did revoke the license this spring, but only after more than five years of misfilings. So, Senator Richardson, we are absolutely with you. This never should have happened, and when our Board President Mary Sackett and I met with the bureau earlier this year, they agreed this is a growing problem.

And that's why we urge this committee and the author to consider real reforms beyond this study, which include in our June 25th letter, requiring endowment care funds are placed in secure, low-risk assets, time per plot contributions to inflation, equip the bureau and AG's Office with tools and staffing to intervene early when mismanagement is suspected, require a transition plan to maintain operations during enforcement--revoking a license should not mean leaving grieving families without options--and facilitate the takeover of failed private cemeteries to other private operators. Again, counties are not in the cemetery business.

And if you'd wrap up, that'd be great.

Great. And I will just close with a brief personal note. My grandfather is buried at Mt. Tamalpais Cemetery, and my grandmother who has the plot next to him and other members of my family are truly uncertain whether they'll be able to be interred beside him. So thank you. We look forward to being a partner in these needed reforms.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses want to add on in opposition or tweener or removing opposition to the bill? Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Gene Hurst, here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California as well as my colleagues at the California State Association of Counties. We also appreciate the work of the committee and are committed to working with the working group going forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California and the League of California Cities. Thank you for the amendments. We look forward to working with the author and the committee moving forward. We'll be removing our opposition and going neutral. Thank you.

Great. Thanks.

Good morning. Marcus Cijero, on behalf of Los Angeles County. Want to thank the Senator and her staff for her continued dialogue with us, and we are a neutral position. Thank you.

Great. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Karrie Lange, on behalf of the County of Butte, in opposition to the previous version and look forward to the work being done by the amendments. Thank you.

Great, thanks.

Terry McHale with Aaron Read and Associates, representing the California Funeral Directors Association. Appreciate the work being done and just want to note that when I started working with the funeral industry 30 years ago, cremation rates were 15%. This year, this month, there's 70%. It's going to have a serious impact. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses, bring it back to the, to the committee for questions or comments. Any questions or comments? We still don't have a quorum. Senator, would you like to close?

Well, Mr. Chair, members, and staff, you've had an opportunity not only to hear from myself, but from witnesses as well. What I would say to you is that I'm going to be back, I'm going to be back here next year, and my only request of you is that we take an action.

We can have working groups, which I support. I support the amendments today, but we've also, we've heard from working groups, and the bottom line is, we've got abandoned cemeteries that are not being cared for, and an action needs to happen, and it's not right.

And personally, I can't live with myself or the people in my district looking people in the face when we know what's happening and we're not doing the right thing. So I look forward to your leadership, your involvement, and that individuals participate and participate seriously, and I like some of the initial comments that were said.

One that I would also add that wasn't indicated that we've shared is that, currently, when, when an audit is done, the individuals who own the cemetery send a recording to the recording office, like the LA Recorder. The problem is they only send the plot numbers.

They don't say who's there. So if markers are removed, which is what's happening, that record means absolutely nothing. So there are quite a few things that we look to add. If you'd like to work with me, Mr. Chair, or any members on this committee, to begin working now--we don't have to wait till next year--we can begin working now, getting language together, incorporating some of the things that people have said, and then add these comments and get this done. But that would be my only ask, besides asking for a motion and your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Richardson, and thank you for your hard work and dedication to this important issue that, that we know is only going to be a growing issue in the coming months and years ahead, and we're in full agreement that action to address the problem of abandoned cemeteries is urgently needed.

And, you know, it's also important for all stakeholders--local government, cemetery licensees, and community leaders--to come to the table to identify a sustainable solution, and like you said, I too, am expecting that people come and engage in this process seriously and earnestly with the complete intention of finding a solution to this problem, and we'll be watching it and tracking it.

I know Chair Ashby and her team will be watching it and tracking it as well to make sure that everybody takes this process seriously, and I'll say that to everybody in the room that if you don't, I'm going to be really mad.

And so, you know, we need to find a solution to this problem before it gets any worse and before more families and loved ones are impacted by what's happening. I'm confident that we'll be able to do that and that the work group and the report they submit to us next year will valuably inform that solution, and look forward to continuing to work with you, Senator, on this topic, and I'm happy to support the bill today. And when we get a quorum, we'll have a motion and a second and a vote. Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Appreciate it. Chair Ashby, the bulk of the hearing is yours. The vice chair has moved all of your bills. It's been seconded. We don't have a quorum. It's a technicality. Yeah, yeah.

Do you want to take it in numerical order? Dealer's preference. Yeah.

Let's start then with 456.

Sounds perfect.

It's a good Bill.

Yeah. Thank you.

Yeah, I like murals.

I do, too. What's your favorite Sacramento mural?

I think the Bear. The kind of golden bear that's got a little spiky spine. Maybe on 19th or 20th street, somewhere around there. Yeah.

That's Raphael Delgado's.

There we go. There we go.

You like Johnny Cash?

The koi fish are pretty amazing.

Beautiful.

Yeah. I brag about Sacramento's murals. I'll talk about that later.

Yeah, well, you should.

You and me both.

Yeah.

I don't represent here.

And Assemblymember Krell as well. Yeah.

Is this a Chair romance thing going on here? What's going on?

It is an admiration for murals, Dr. Jackson. Madam Chair, I apologize. Can we?

Yeah, quorum.

Yeah, appreciate you. Yeah. Let's establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum.

Yay. All right, let's see if we can move through these quick. All right. SB 456. This is a community beautification act, which, as we have already discussed, is really about muralists. 456 allows an exemption for muralists to continue to engage in commissioned work without having to obtain a contractor's license.

This has been a standard practice for many years, but there was a new interpretation of law that led to some confusion. This seeks to clarify. In 2023, public notices began being issued to cities indicating that muralists fall within a definition of professional contractor. We believe that to be inaccurate and not the intent. Prior to those notices, state regulators interpreted the law to not require muralists to meet these licensing standards.

So, muralists provide a fundamental service to our community. We know that. We, we love the murals—place making, defining for our communities.

I've worked with the Contractor State License Board to identify the difference between the muralists and those who do require a professional contractor's license, so that we can clarify that SB 456 only applies to authorized works of fine art, does not waive any safety regulations, nor does it apply to painted wall signs. Murals are powerful for transforming our communities.

This is actually a simple bill, but a very important one, because muralists maintain their livelihood and beautify our communities, and we want to keep that piece going in California. It's part of our creative economy, an important part of being able to show the world exactly who we are, city by city, county by county, and region by region.

I have with me a couple of good friends, actually. Donald Gensler, who I worked with the City of Sacramento. He's the City of Sacramento's Arts Manager, which means he does all the Art in Public Places projects for the City of Sacramento, who can answer your questions here today and will be a good witness.

And then, you guys are very lucky to meet an artist, Jaya King. She is a renowned Sacramento based artist and I'm hoping she'll tell you a little bit about her artwork today and her profession.

Great. You have two minutes each.

Thank you, Senator Ashby. Good morning, Chair Berman and Assembly Members. My name is Donald Gensler and I'm here as the Art in Public Places Manager for the City of Sacramento. I am here in support of SB 456, the muralist exception, adding Section 750 to the Business and Professions Code.

Our internationally recognized Art in Public Places Program was established in 1977 and we hire many visual artists of different disciplines, including muralists. Many of these artists paint murals only as part of their larger artistic practice, while some are fortunate enough to line up multiple commissions to support themselves through mural making.

Artists do this work because they have to, because they are the culture bearers of the communities they live in, and they feel a deep need to share these dreams and visions with those around them. We are all the beneficiaries of this. As beneficiaries, our cities and communities see images of beauty, empowerment, and thoughtful expression.

Often, murals help define a neighborhood's identity or allow an artist to share a new perspective that is then experienced by citizens and visitors alike. Cities across California have mural festivals, as we do. They've become part of the city's vital economic development.

Murals are a steppingstone, a teaching center, a first opportunity, often, for artists to share their work outside in the public space. Murals are art available to everyone, but the recent state interpretation of the Business Professions Code definition of contractor and subsequent licensing requirements for murals has chilled these venues.

City of Stockton, for example, recently canceled its contracts with artists for selected murals. Palo Alto has seen over $60,000 in planned mural projects halted due to concerns that muralists would be violating the law.

In Sacramento, additionally, we have halted our Community Mural Sacramento Program and other mural commissions, and artists who live here have shared with me that they have either had their request for qualifications pulled back or cancelled entirely. This Bill gives muralists an opportunity to contribute to the state while being acknowledged for their work as professionals, painting fine art on walls.

If you could wrap up, that'd be great.

Yes sir. Muralists still need to comply with all city permit requirements, safety standards set out by Cal Osha, the individual contracts they enter into for doing this work.

But with this muralist exception, they can do this work as law abiding citizens of this state or visitors of this state, helping to grow and support creative expression, jobs, beautification, community voice, throughout California cities and towns. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you very much. Go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Jaya King and I'm an artist and muralist based here in Sacramento. My work includes creating original art on walls. Murals that are not only a vital source of income, but also how I express myself, connect with community, and contribute to the public landscape.

One example is a 2024 Clean California underpass mural I completed in partnership with Caltrans, the City of Sacramento, and the local PBID. The project involved months of community engagement, design, and coordination with multiple agencies. I secured permits, followed traffic control plans, and met all city protocols.

Like many muralists, I carry General Liability insurance and have completed OSHA safety training. This project was celebrated by a Community Paint Day that brought out over 500 neighbors, families, and kids who helped bring this mural to life. What we created wasn't construction, it was culture, a collective expression rooted in storytelling and creativity.

And 456 supports artists like me. The existing law forces us into a system that was never meant for us. Mural work is irregular and licensing costs create financial barriers that could push artists and out of public art.

Requiring contactor classification shrinks the pool of who can legally paint murals and our creative landscape in California risks becoming homogenized with fewer artists and fewer perspectives on our walls. I am fortunate to be a full-time artist in California and I don't want my contribution to be misclassified or criminalized.

As a child growing up in Palo Alto, I loved seeing the murals around town.

My first mural was commissioned by my mom on the hallway wall next to our washer and dryer when I was 12 years old, and I am proud to be sitting here 32 years later in support of SB 456, in support of my fellow artists and for the next generation of muralists who deserve the freedom to create in a system that supports and values their contributions.

I respectfully request the Committee's aye vote for SB 456 and thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in support of the Bill?

Mr. Chair and Members, Amy Brown, on behalf of the City of Riverside, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kira Ross, on behalf of the cities of Glendale and Stockton, in strong support.

Thank you.

Caroline Grinder, on behalf of the League of California Cities, proud co-sponsor.

Thanks.

Gene Hurst, here today on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Thank you.

Martha Guerrero, representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Thank you.

Chloe King with Political Solutions, on behalf of the California Travel Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Patrick Foy, with the City of Escondido, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ethan Nagler, here on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, and the cities of Mountain View, Redwood City, Thousand Oaks, Belmont, El Cerrito, and Foster City, all in support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Jason Schmelzer, on behalf of California Arts Advocates, proud co sponsor of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Sylvia Solis Shaw, here on behalf of the cities of Santa Monica and West Hollywood, in strong support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Any witnesses who want to add on in opposition to the Bill?

Hello, Mr. Chair and Members. Bob Drew, on behalf of the Painters and Allied Trades. I'd like to say that initially, when the Bill was introduced, we expressed some concerns regarding safety, OSHA, a bunch of the standards that I think the witnesses have expressed that they comply with.

So, after some fruitful conversations with Senator Ashby and her staff, our, our problems have been mitigated. So, a little bit of a tweener.

That's—we'll take it. We'll take it. Thank you very much.

Any—bring it back to colleagues—any questions or comments from colleagues? Dr. Jackson.

This is a good bill. Now, I understand what all that was about. You know, I mean, obviously, obviously, in a time where the narratives and that communities and its residents create for themselves, it's important. It's a part of being healthy.

It's a part of understanding your place in the world and the history in which you find yourself in. And so, certainly I know my largest cities, Riverside and Moreno Valley, are huge proponents and very active in murals. And I, I think this is important in so many other ways as well. So, well done.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Appreciate it.

I take that as a motion since the Vice Chair moved it before he had a quorum. There we go. We got a second. Any additional questions or comments from colleagues? Mr. Haney.

I, I want to thank the Senator for supporting artists. This is an art. This is so important.

Particularly, as you know, I've been working a lot on downtown recovery and our cities and some of the challenges that our cities are facing and bringing people back in every way, whether that's visitors, tourists, some neighborhoods that I think often don't get the attention or support that they need.

The way that people are first introduced to them, not only to come and visit and experience what's there now, but to understand their history, understand the culture, understand the identity of a place, is through their murals. That's really how we, I think, connect to a place in a way that maybe reflects something deeper.

And it's through the creative expression of the people often who are there and their ability to share that with us. So, this is so important that we reduce some of these barriers to be able to allow that to happen, ensure that it can happen.

And I think this is a very, very powerful way that we can support not only art, art and artists, but our cities and their recovery and their economic development and their identity. So, I'm very, very happy to support this and grateful for your leadership on this.

Thank you, Assemblymember. As you know, you know, one of the reasons why you see so many cities and counties lined up here in support is because they need us to give them the clarification so they can continue doing what all of you have described. And isn't that just so often the truth?

We just have to give them the permission and the route, and they'll find the creative energy themselves.

Any additional questions or comments? I have a question for your witness. You mentioned you grew up in Palo Alto. Where did you go to school?

Yes, sir. I went to Fairmeadow Elementary School. My kindergarten teacher was Mrs. Au. We celebrated Chinese New Year. I went to JL Stanford Middle School, and I went to Henry and Gunn High School before going to Middle College at Foothill College.

Awesome. We were on different tracks. I was juvenile Jordan Pally, so.

Rivals.

The rivals. Rivals is a relative term.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the Foothill College shout out as well.

Mr. Ahrens, before he was elected to the Assembly, served on the Board of the Foothill...as a community college district.

I would say that the Foothill. I'm sorry for interrupting.

No, please. By all means.

The be able to transition from a traditional high school to Foothill Middle College was a definite watershed moment for me and allowed me to really explore my own creativity in a way that I had a tough time before.

We need to pass this Bill. I think Mr. Ahrens wants to be a joint author. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Senator, would you like to close?

Well, thank you all so much for the dialogue and for recognizing the value and importance of the artists and our creative economy in California. Really proud to have name on this Bill and honored to have any of you on it with me who would like to join. Just let us know.

Be happy to add you and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator. And I meant it before when I said I love this Bill. And it's safe to say, Ms. King, that Palo Alto's loss was Sacramento's gain in the work that you do here. And my consultant sent me some texts of some of your murals, that I don't think I've seen.

So, I'm gonna have to go find them throughout town. But honestly, I didn't know anything about Sacramento when I got elected to this job. And one of the first things you see when you drive around are all the murals. And one of the first things I thought is I wish Palo Alto had more murals.

And so, you know, it really is something that leaves a big impression, I think, on people who come into Sacramento. We definitely want to get that money flowing back to artists and get that art back up on walls throughout our communities. So, I'm more than happy to support the Bill.

Would love to be added as a co-author and Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Great. That Bill is out.

All right. Thank you so much.

Congratulations.

Thank you. Have a good day. Where you want to go next, Chairman?

Wherever, wherever you take us.

641.

Perfect.

All right. These are in order.

We got a motion. We got a bipartisan motion and a second.

All right. This one's easy. Consumer Protection and Business Recovery Act. Let's see if I can. How quick I can make this. This is actually part of the Senate's wildfire response package.

It does several things to, within the scope of business, professions and economic development to streamline things for wildfire victims in Los Angeles. In including dealing with baseline standards around removal of debris and cleanup and also protecting folks against predatory practices, both with contractors and with real property. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any witnesses in support?

I'm not sure if we. I don't think we brought anybody with us on this one.

I see one coming up. Go ahead. Come on up.

Good morning. Tracy Brazil with Contractor State License Board, in support.

Great. Thank you so much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in support?

Jerry Desmond with the California Association of Licensed Investigators, in support.

Thank you. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments. Seeing none. What's that? No.

Chair Ashby, if you'd like to close.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote, please.

We are happy to give you the aye vote. I better flip to my talking points. Thank you, Senator Ashby for authoring this bill to ensure our state licensing authorities are equipped to support licensees impacted by future disasters. Happy to support this bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

[ROLL CALL]

That bill is out. On to the next one.

All right, 774; this is the first of the sunset bills being presented today.

Our favorites.

So fun. This is the Department of Real Estate and Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers sunset bill. The bill extends sunset date provisions for these programs to ensure their continued effective operations and proper future legislative oversight. Happy to accept the amendments outlined in the analysis.

Thank you, Chairman and your team for always working so collaboratively with the Senate team. Happy to do so. These amendments will require the Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers to conduct a study on the feasibility of extending licensure requirements to appraisals that are not federally related transactions.

They will also require the Bureau to report the status of its recovery account on an annual basis and to educate complainants about eligibility criteria to file a claim against the recovery account.

My team and I will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that all the issues within the department and bureau are addressed, including those mentioned in the committee analysis. We do have a couple of witnesses with us. I think we have Robert Simpson is the Legislative Specialist for the Department of Real Estate.

And Angela Jemmott, who you all know, Executive Officer of the Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers. They'll answer any technical questions with some brief comments.

Great. You have two minutes each. If you want to take it. You don't have to.

I just need one speaker briefly and the other one's here for technical questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Robert Simpson. I'm Legislative Specialist with the Department of Real Estate. I'd like to start by thanking Senator Ashby for authoring the Department sunset legislation.

And thank you, Chair Berman and members of the committee, as well as Chair Ashby and members of the senate committee for your leadership on our sunset review this year. I'd also like to thank Assembly and Senate Committee Staff Consultants Yeaphana LaMarr and Eddie Franco for diligently working with us throughout the sunset review process.

The Department of Real Estate's mission is to safeguard and promote interest in real estate matters through licensure, regulation, education and enforcement. Our role is to ensure that licensees as fiduciaries follow the law as they guide consumers through real estate transactions. We currently license around 430,000 real estate brokers and salespersons.

And if a new if a property is a home in a new subdivision, it's our role to ensure that the consumer has information about that subdivision through a public report that provides disclosures on the property. Last year we received over 3,000 applications for public reports.

Public reports are particularly important, as often these homes have not been constructed yet. Overall, the department's approach to consumer protection is to engage in preventative and proactive measures and then pursue enforcement actions in the most egregious matters.

SB 774 will let us continue our consumer protection work expending extending our sunset to January 1, 2030, as well as making technical and statutory improvements. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak in support of the bill and for all your work through the sunset review process. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Happy to answer any questions.

Great. Would you like to make any additional comments or here for technical questions?

Yes. Thank you so much. Chair, I am here just for the technical questions you may have, but truly we're grateful for all the support. The staff and this committee has been looking at this particular issues for appraisers in California, and we're very grateful for this opportunity to continue our great work.

Great. Thank you. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in support of the bill? Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Any witnesses want to add on in opposition to the bill? Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments or motions or seconds. Got a motion? Got a second?

Chair, would you like to close, respectfully.

Ask for an aye vote.

We will hopefully respectfully give it. Thank you to Chair Ashby for working with me and my team on this sunset review process. I'm confident that the changes in this bill and today's amendments will help protect consumers and give us insight on the best path forward, best path toward regulating appraisal in the future.

And I'm happy to support the bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On SB 774, [Roll Call].

Okay, we've lost a couple of members, so that bills on call. We'll leave it open for absent members. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we're at the halfway point, Chairman.

All right, we can do it.

All right, next up, this is the second of the sunset review bills presenting today; various issues raised during the recent joint sunset review oversight that you all participated in with us on the Board of Behavioral Sciences and the Board of Psychology.

The bill makes numerous changes to the functions of these programs, and the various practice acts they administer, most notably extending their operation for four years until January 1, 2030. Happy to accept the amendments outlined in the analysis. And as is the case with all of these sunset bills, we'll continue working with the boards, licensees and other stakeholders.

And also, just want to thank your staff. Again, these bills are hard, and our staff work really hard on them all year long so that it can be this easy when we get to this point. And I really appreciate that, both on the Senate side and the Assembly side.

Important to note that without this bill, these boards would cease to exist.

It's not good.

Yeah, that would be not great. So, our witnesses today, as we have, I think, Steve Sodergren, there's way too many vowels in there for me, Board of Behavioral Sciences Executive Officer.

We have Rosanne Helms from the Board of Behavioral Sciences, Legislative Deputy, here to answer any technical questions. I think we have a couple of technical witnesses and then one testifying.

Great. And two of you have two minutes each. I'll let you pick.

Hi, I'm Steve Sodergren. I'm the Executive Officer of the Board of Behavioral Sciences. And first of all, thank you for the committee for really working the committee staff working on us with all the amendments that are bringing to you today. There are several amendments that are very important for our Practice Act.

These include making the supervision via video conferencing allowance permanent, allowing the board the option of accepting the national clinical examination for marriage and family therapists and clarifying experience requirements for licensed educational psychologists. The board is also very much in support of extending our sunset date to January 1, 2030.

And we are here to answer any questions that you may have. And once again, thank you, Senator Ashby, for working on this and authoring this bill. Thank you for your time today and I'll pass the mic. Great.

I'm John Burke. I'm the Executive Officer of the California Board of Psychology. The bill contains several amendments which we support.

The reinsertion of the change of supervisor fee for psychological testing technicians, the expanding of the allowable degrees to qualify for a psychological testing technician, the conforming educational changes and continuing professional education changes related to research psychoanalysts, and the clarification surrounding the 30-day temporary practice provision.

The board is also in support of the extension of its sunset date. Really appreciate the work of Senator Ashby and the staff and I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Great.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses want to add on in support of the bill?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Andrea Ball on behalf of the California Association of School Psychologists, including licensed educational psychologists, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Tyler Rinde, on behalf of the California Psychological Association; just want to say thank you for working with us to the author and also to the committee. And we're proud to be in support of the bill. Thank you. Great.

Thank you.

Chloe King with Political Solutions again on behalf of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Anyone who wants to add on in opposition to the bill? Still seeing none. Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments or motions or seconds. Got a motion and a second. No questions or comments. Chair Ashby, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much and thank you, thank you, Chair Ashby. And thank you to the Board of Psychology and Board of Behavioral Sciences and their staffs for working with all of us to craft this important bill. As Chair Ashby mentioned, a lot of work goes into these sunset bills. More than happy to support it today.

Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On SB 775, [Roll Call].

That bill is out there.

Saving the best for last.

All right, let's do 776, shall we?

Let's.

All right. This is the Board of Optometry sunset extension Bill.

I just realized I insulted everyone else that came before this Bill, so apologies for that. Just kidding. They're all our favorites, every single one.

This Bill extends the operations of the board and its authority to appoint an Executive Officer by force four years to January 2030. Requires applicants and licensees to provide the board with their email address for better and more timely communication.

It permits the Board to issue a probationary registration for dispensing opticians similar to the optometrist applicants Bill Will allow the Board to hold a Reserve of 24 months instead of six months, which is consistent with the majority of the other board's that are similar to them.

This Bill also eliminates a cap on the number of mobile optometric offices. This was a big issue over the last couple years that the Chairman and I faced. And thankful to the industry for being willing to work with us inside of the sunset Bill because it's very helpful when we, when we do that.

And the changes in this Bill aim to improve the overall operations of the board. And of course, as is always the primary focus for all of us, making sure that California has access to optometric services. My primary witness in support is actually a friend person I've known for a very long time, Greg Pruden. And I know he has a couple of other folks with him. We only need two of them to speak and then one here for obviously technical support.

Great. You have two minutes each for two of you.

Thank you, Senator Ashby, for those comments. Chair Berman and Members, thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Gregory Pruden. I have the honor of serving as the Executive Officer for the California State Board of Optometry.

On behalf of the Board, we are very grateful to the author and Committee staff for the inclusion of the amendments which should improve the Board's functions and ability to protect consumers, especially including the recent amendments pertaining to optical companies.

The Board has taken a support position on the prior versions of this Bill and I anticipate the Board will reaffirm. Will reaffirm that support of the July 2nd version this Friday at our regular board meeting. Thank you to the staff and author for working with us during this process. I'm available to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Thank you.

Terry McHale with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the California Optometric Association. Mr. Chairman, the optometrists are really the workhorses of the healthcare profession. 81% of MediCal is taken for eye care is taken by optometry. They're in every single county. They do a brilliant job. Also want to mention these hearings used to go for hours.

It's good to note that we are now working more collaboratively and more cooperatively with the ophthalmologists and with CMA. Our thanks to Joe Lang and on Nice to remember and just mention today the memory of Craig Kliger. Want to take a moment to acknowledge the impressive progress made by the Board of Optometry over the past few years.

One of the most impactful changes we've seen is that licenses that used to take three months can now be done in three days. And so doctors who sometimes could not take a job because they couldn't get the license in time now receive that service immediately.

We've worked in optometry for over 30 years and it is easy to say without hesitation that we've never seen a board function more effectively with a stronger commitment to problem solving than what we have now.

I have with me today Dr. David Redmond, an optometrist from Hollister and the advocacy team and chair of the California Optometric Association to answer any technical questions.

Great. Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in support of the Bill?

Good morning. Lindsey Galoren, on behalf of Vision to Learn in strong support. Thanks.

Thank you.

Good morning. Megan Allred, on behalf of National Vision in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Christy Weiss with Capital Advocacy on behalf of 1800 contacts with the recent amendments and the Bill we moved to support. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Anyone who wants to add on in opposition to the Bill? Still seeing none. Can I bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments or motions or seconds? Thank. Thank you. We got a couple motions and a second.

Chair Ashby, would you like to close? Ask for an aye vote. Great. Well, I appreciate the comments. I love to hear that government, when we're improving our services and making things better and making it easier for people to practice and get out there and help all of us, especially all of us who can't see.

So, you know, that's great feedback for us to get. Thank you, Chair Ashby, for you and your staff's partnership throughout this sunset review process this year. And happy to support the Bill today.

Madam Secretary, please call a vote on SB 776. Ashby. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That bill is out. Thank you, Chair Ashby. Thank you again to your team. Looking forward to doing it all again next year.

Thank you all so much for your help and support on those bills and for working really hard all year long so we can get to this point. Appreciate you.

Thank you. Senator Cabaldon, come on up. While you're coming up, could I get a motion in a second on the consent calendar? Got a motion and a second on the consent calendar. Madam Secretary, please call the vote on the consent calendar.

On the consent calendar, file item 1, SB 389 Ochoa Bogh. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations and file item 10, SB 861 the Senate Committee on Business, Professions, and Economic Development. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Great. Consent calendar's out. Senator Cabaldon with agenda item number nine, SB 790.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and members. First, I want to accept the amendments in the committee analysis. And thanks to the committee staff for their hard work on this bill. Let me start by emphasizing one thing about this, because I know this committee has a lot of experience in reciprocity and in compacts, that this is an area -

Where is Chair Ashby? Where's Chair Ashby? Get her back. Yeah.

But she signed off on this bill. That this is an area of law where California does not currently regulate the scope and the focus of this bill. And I'll get to that in just a moment.

So, over the last several years, we've seen a sea change in the use of online education by students throughout California and the country during but not subsided since the pandemic. Most college students now take at least some of their coursework online.

And interestingly, online, a large number of those, more than 40%, take at least one of their online courses from an institution in another state different from where they live 10 years ago. The Obama Administration promulgated regulations that required each online education provider in the post-secondary space to receive state authorization from the state in which they are enrolling students, which given the online space, could be anywhere in the entire country.

The states, all the states agreed this was not workable for every single state to regulate every single online provider. And so, a national compact led in part by California was developed called the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement, where online out-of-state education providers only are regulated through this compact and the reciprocity framework. California helped lead the way.

California is now the only state though that didn't join the compact. And that is in part because of some folks in California have been hoping that someday we would directly regulate every single online provider in every other state. That's never turned out to be feasible.

We instead, this committee knows, we instead adopted a registration requirement a couple year back. So out-of-state colleges and universities that offer online instruction to students in California must register with the Bureau for Private Post Secondary Education. But there is no substantial regulatory framework or enforcement and they're paying only a nominal fee for registration.

In every other state, students are protected by this reciprocity framework. They file complaints and get them resolved and get justice when their institution closes or defrauds them. But not here in California. So, SB 790 authorizes the Governor to enter into an interstate compact for this purpose.

There is the one compact that exists today that includes the other 49 states, plus D.C. and Puerto Rico. But the bill also provides a path if other states, California-like states, wanted to form a different compact, that that door would also be open.

Excuse me, by joining that compact, the institution would still be required to register as they are today. And we have assured in the legislation that California can continue to enforce its own consumer protection laws independent of the reciprocity agreement. So, this bill is motivated by an attempt to do two things.

One is to protect Californians who are enrolled at out of state online institutions; give them the same protections that students in every other state have.

Number two is one consequence of this whole framework has been the California institutions of higher education have been at a massive disadvantage because they are required to apply, fill out the paperwork, pay fees for every single academic program, in which they might have a student, and in every other state, and so many California institutions are not in the online space.

We are losing dramatic ground to Arizona State University, Northern New Hampshire, and other states that are in this area. California is losing its position as the national leader in educational innovation and in educational access and so this bill would allow California institutions to compete and to be able to serve students in other states.

And by the way, as a former professor, I can also note there are many instances whereas a faculty member, you have a course that only 13 students sign up for here in California.

The difference between having three students from South Carolina, North Dakota and Arizona sign up for that class can determine whether or not your course makes whether or not it actually gets offered and whether or not those 13 students in California who need it actually get the chance to take that course.

And so, this bill is a benefit to California students that are enrolled in our institutions. It's a benefit to benefit to the institutions themselves. And it's a substantial step forward in consumer protections and educational protections for Californians taking courses from institutions in other states. I would ask for an aye vote.

I'm joined today by Dr. O'Connor, President of Palo Alto University, one of the state's premier independent colleges and universities. I know well known to the Chair and she's here to provide testimony in support of the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Great. Thank you. President O'Connor, you got two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Chair. Thank you so much, Senator, for inviting me to join today. And thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of SB 790. Palo Alto University is a private, nonprofit, graduate focused institution with about 1200 students dedicated to training the mental and behavioral health workforce.

As the fourth largest producer of behavioral health practitioners in California in our sector, we play a critical role in addressing the state's mental health workforce crisis.

To expand access even before COVID we embraced an innovative synchronous online learning model with the majority of courses in our master's programs in social work, clinical mental health counseling, psychology, and our plus two undergraduate degree in psychology offered primarily online.

Our online programs meet rigorous standards of professional accreditation, ensuring that students receive high quality education that prepares them for license and practice. As you are aware, California is the only state not part of NC-SARA; this creates barriers to our effectiveness and to our long-term sustainability in multiple ways.

First, seeking individual authorization in each state for a small school like ours is exceedingly burdensome. Each state has unique and complex requirements that must be researched and tracked. Requirements frequently change. Our website must be accurate and compliant at all times, including state specific disclaimers that change constantly.

Second, the costs in money and staff time for obtaining and maintaining individual state authorizations are high. In addition to state fees, we pay outside legal counsel to review our documentation. We pay for access to national consulting service to keep us up to date.

And we dedicate part of a senior staffer's time to simply managing this function which could be put to much better use. And third, and most concerningly, students suffer. Today's students simply do not stay in one place. Of our nearly 600 students in our online programs, only around 90 are from out of state.

But even our California students are affected by our non-participation at NC-SARA; here are a couple of quick examples. One student's partner in our counseling program was transferred to New York unexpectedly. She could not continue in our program as it is virtually impossible to become authorized in New York State.

We had a Northern California student whose preferred clinical placement for her training was across the Oregon border. She could not complete her clinical training and could not graduate.

Thank you, President. If you wrap up, I will wrap up. Thank you.

I will wrap up. And I just want to mention our military students who can be moving at any time. Because of all this, we lose access to top students in California and outside the non-CA institutions. In today's higher-ed environment, we need SB 790 to remain competitive and to survive. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses want to add on in support of the bill? Come on up. Provide your name, organization you're with, if any in position on the bill.

Good morning. Jessica Duong with the University of California, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Sophia Quach on behalf of Samuel Merritt University in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Mr. Chair and members. Chris Morales of the CSU Office of the Chancellor, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and members, Alex Grace of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, and strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Tyler Aguilar on behalf of the University of Southern California, in support.

Thank you.

Chair and members, Nick Rummel on behalf of Stanford University, in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Come on up. You have two minutes.

Mr. Chair and members. Scott Governor on behalf of the University of Phoenix, we support state reciprocity. But there seems to be a bit of a disconnect here. Were this bill to say California may enter into a reciprocity agreement, we support it today. But that's not what the bill does.

What the bill does is say that we're going to allow reciprocity, but only if the 49 other states agree to California's terms. The reason why California hasn't joined or signed the agreement is because California wants specific items and that's up for discussion and negotiation.

But this bill limits our opportunity to join that agreement and instead sets up a scenario whereby the state would have to find willing participants and remove them from NC-SARA. I know Washington State has expressed interest. I know the author has said he's going to meet with NC-SARA to discuss this.

But note that this bill does conflict with SARA. As it is written today for Phoenix. It prevents for profit institutions from participating. That's permitted under NC-SARA. It provides that California can unilaterally modify the agreement. That's not allowed under NC-SARA. It provides that California can place institutions under the bureau. Again, that contradicts what the purpose of reciprocity.

It dictates that programs on military bases don't comply. That's again runs counter to NC-SARA. So again, were the bill to simply say let's do this, we think that's great, but as it stands today, we must oppose the bill. But thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses want to add on in opposition to the bill?

Matt Back representing California Association of Private Post Secondary Schools, opposed to the bill.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Sabrina Means, on behalf of the Institute for College Access and Success; at this we appreciate the work and steps taken by the author's office to address many of our concerns. But at this time, we remain opposed unless amended with a few outstanding concerns.

And we look forward to continuing our work with the Senator to find common ground. Thank you.

Thank you. Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments or motions or seconds. Mr. Ahrens.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank the author and the expert testimony that I've heard here today and was just really, really proud to see Palo Alto University flourish the way it has. I know they originally were actually housed at Foothill De Anza for a period.

Of time before your campus opening in Mountain View. And I totally see what you're trying to do here and would like to move the bill.

Great. We have a motion. We got a second. Senator Krell, please. By all means.

Hi. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill. I did want to ask about the opposition's concerns, especially just in terms of student protection. Can you talk a little bit about kind of - can you elaborate on efforts within the bill to ensure proper safeguards for students?

Yes. Thank you. Thanks. And thanks for the question. And I think that you've heard both, both edges of the opposition here. And so, you can get some sense of the, of the knife edge that we're trying to, trying to walk in the bill.

And so first on the consumer protection side, and this is where the opposition from the University of Phoenix and some of the others on the, on the, on the - from the sector is focused, which is that we do say in the bill that that California's consumer protection standards can still be enforced by California, that we're deferring on the education standards for the most part to SARA, but that our consumer protections can be enforced by California, by the Attorney General, and the bureau.

That is unusual in the country, but it is not unique. Massachusetts and other states have also have also pushed successfully for the same sort of carve out. And so that exists in the building that's actually stronger than what we have today because there is no other than registration, which serves a useful purpose.

Because if an institution flames out, at least we know where to find them. But that's it. There's no other enforcement. And so, the bill does advance that area. We can only take this so far because as the University of Phoenix has noted, the other 49 states have to agree.

But I'm confident - I served as the State's Commissioner for this compact for the last 12 years and reviewed every state's application. I'm confident that we will be able to persuade NC-SARA to allow us to enforce in that regard.

So, the balance that we're facing is that for caps and for others, they are concerned about this issue of the sort of the secondary option, which as I noted at the outset, the bill provides two paths.

One is we could either join the existing reciprocity agreement that all the other states are in, or we, we could join a different reciprocity agreement. And that's partly because there are plenty of folks in California who think it would be better off in a reciprocity agreement that did not include the proprietary and private schools.

This bill has nothing to do with that. But the bill says if there is such a reciprocity agreement, the Governor could consider that as an alternative. There is no central alternative agreement at this time. Even the State of Washington, one Senator, has introduced a bill to create such a thing, but even Washington has not done it yet.

So, I don't think it's not a live concern. And this bill is not intended to force us into an agreement that does not include the proprietary schools on that side. For the concerns and also the National Consumer Law Center, the Consumer Law Center provided us with dozens and dozens and dozens of amendments.

We've accepted 80% of them and we're continuing to work on the remainder. Make sure we get that balance right, where we can maximize our California exceptional view about some of these issues, while also making sure that we actually will be admitted to the reciprocity agreement because we are agreeing to its terms as well.

Thanks so much, Senator.

So, give me one second. You're good, Mr. Haney.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for your leadership, Senator. I know this is one of the benefits we have of someone who has such deep subject matter expertise and direct knowledge of these issues on from a policy basis and also from working directly with students.

I know that, of course, the way that people receive education has changed, is changing, changed even more so during the pandemic.

And for us to be able to balance this need to provide access to our students here in California and in other places, but also to do so in a way that protects their rights, to ensure that they're getting a high-quality education, and that we're not putting all of these additional barriers for our incredible educational institutions here.

Additional costs, additional challenges for them to be able to provide access to their students in some cases, who are moving around, who are starting here, who are going other places, who are doing distance learning. So, I really appreciate that. I also wanted to take the opportunity to welcome Dr. O'Connor.

I know this is your last year as President of Palo Alto University. I wanted to thank you for your service, and I know that you're going to continue to contribute to our ability to serve students at Palo Alto University and beyond. From the way that you've really done such a tremendous job in growing Palo Alto University.

I don't know if many of you know this or even, Mr. Chair, that my grandfather was the President of Palo Alto University for over 30 years, her immediate predecessor. So, the campus is named her after him.

And I know that the way that the university has grown and evolved to serve students more effectively on the campus and beyond will continue. So, congratulations and thank you for your service. And thank you, Senator.

Any additional questions or comments? No. Did we have a motion and a second already? We've got a motion in a second. Chair Cabaldon, would you like to close?

Simply ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. And I'd love to second the comments by my colleagues in praise of President O'Connor for all the great work that she's done for Palo Alto University. And it's great to see you here today. It's always fun to see friends from back home in this context.

Senator, as you know, and as I've said before, we first got to know each other through work that I had done in higher education and organizations that you were very involved with and served on the board of in regards to higher education.

And I have a great deal of respect for your experience, and I recognize that you're attempting to accomplish. I recognize that what you're attempting to accomplish with this bill is no easy feat, as I've said to you.

And as the other organizations know, I also have a lot of respect and appreciation for a lot of the other organizations that have concerns and a little bit of discomfort with the bill as it stands today and are very focused on and concerned about the need to maximize those consumer protections for California students.

And so, I believe you've made the commitment to continuing to work with stakeholders. I appreciate that, and I'm happy to support the bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On SB 790 Cabaldon, the motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That bill is out. Congratulations. All right, so we've got some new colleagues who have added us. You add on to some bills. We'll give the secretary a second to get settled. If you haven't, if your boss is on this Committee and they haven't shown up yet, go find them and Assembly Member Macedo says shame on them.

That's further than I was going to go, but I support it. But get your Member here because we don't want to hang out forever and I have to go present some bills. Madam Secretary, please take it from the top.

[ROLL CALL]

Could we get a motion and a second for agenda item number two, SB 418 by Senator Menjivar? Got a motion and a second. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, please call the vote on SB 418.

[ROLL CALL]

That bill is out.

[ROLL CALL]

That bill is out.

Senator Richardson, SB 777. Got a motion? Got a second? Madam Secretary, please call a vote.

[ROLL CALL]

That bill's out.

Can we? Can you? We'll do it at the end. Is that okay? Yeah. Yeah.

[ROLL CALL]

Welcome. Thank you for joining us. Madam, no, you're good, Madam Secretary, please take it from the top.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you very much. Appreciate you. The hearing is adjourned.