Senate Standing Committee on Education

The Senate Education Committee will come to order in 30 seconds. Good morning. There are 16 bills on today's agenda. Item Number One: AB 715 has been pulled and will not be heard today. In relation to the rest of the agenda, five bills are on consent. Those bills are: Item Number Five: AB 79, Item Number Six: AB 341, Item Number Nine: AB 563, Item Number 14: AB 1119, and Item Number 16: AB 1454.

Witnesses are asked to limit their testimony to two minutes to ensure the committee is able to complete today's agenda in a timely fashion. Seeing as though we have no quorum at this moment, we'll begin as a subcommittee with the first bill. We have Assembly Member Muratsuchi, who is here and ready. Assembly Member, you may begin whenever you are ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Senators. I am here to present Assembly Bill 49, the California Safe Haven Schools Act, to do everything in our power to keep ICE out of our public schools. Let me first acknowledge Senator Gonzalez. I know that she has a very similar bill, Senate Bill 48, which has been presented before this committee. And so I believe this subject matter is certainly not new to this committee.

We are working closely together to do everything in our power to keep ICE out of our schools because we know that under the United States Constitution, all students, regardless of immigration status, have a right to public education. For decades, we have had bipartisan support to keep schools as safe havens, as sensitive locations, free from immigration enforcement activities.

Unfortunately, in January of this year, the Trump administration has reversed that long-standing policy of respecting public schools as sensitive locations to start immigration enforcement activities. This is not fear-mongering or matter of speculation.

We know that a few months ago in Los Angeles Unified, there were immigration officials that attempted to enter the Los Angeles Unified School District. And to their credit, their school administrators did the right thing. They enforced the policies, asked for identification, asked for a valid judicial warrant.

When they were not able to produce them, they turned them away. This is what we are seeking to accomplish in this bill, the California Safe Haven Schools Act. Because we all know that children cannot learn when they're under the constant threat of family separation and or deportation. And here in support of this bill, CHIRLA's managing attorney, Andres Guerra, and Connie Torres, the president of the Brentwood Teachers Association.

You may begin when you're ready. You have two minutes each.

Good morning. My name is Connie Torres, and I am a fourth-grade teacher at Marsh Creek Elementary and a proud member of the California Teachers Association. I'm here today on my summer break to speak in strong support of AB 49.

In a few couple of weeks, I'll be back at work. Students have the right to attend school and learn in a safe, supportive environment. Schools should be safe havens. But that is no longer the reality for many of our children. The fear of federal agents is growing on our campuses, not just for undocumented students or children of undocumented immigrants, but even for US citizens who may not look or sound like they were born here. I ask you to imagine this. How would you feel if you were a child and masked armed adults showed up at your school?

Our students already practice lockdown drills in case of mass shootings. Now they worry that someone with a badge and a gun might come take away their friends. I've heard students whisper, "Will my friend be here tomorrow?" That kind of fear has no place in our schools. After COVID, attendance dropped, and we're still seeing the impact.

In my district, average daily attendance fell from 97.24% to in 2017-2018 to 95.56% in 2024-2025. That may sound small, but in our district, that means two million dollars lost in funding. Money we could have used for counseling, intervention programs, and academic support. And here's the hard truth.

If parents don't feel their kids are safe, attendance will drop even more. When students stay home, they miss instruction, they fall behind, they lose out on critical learning time, and our schools lose the resources. We need help to help them. Teachers continue to show up with supported students through a pandemic, natural disasters, and the trauma of lockdowns.

But our kids can't continue to carry any more fear. They deserve to feel safe, welcomed, and protected. For those reasons, on behalf of our students and educators, CTA respectfully asks for your aye vote on AB 49. Thank you.

Thank you. And one moment, please. We now have a quorum, so I'm going to go ahead and have the Assistant call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We have now established quorum. Apologies for that. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Andres Guerra. I am the managing attorney at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights' legal department's student legal services unit, serving students in removal defense and affirmative immigration services. I am based in Sacramento but serve clients throughout the state.

In June, we were contacted by the family of a California resident of 20 years, the father of two US citizen children, who was apprehended by ICE after dropping his daughter off at James Jordan Middle School in Reseda, California. He was arrested directly outside of the school by ICE agents. And we have had reports of the same situation occurring nearby several other schools. AB 49 is necessary.

These ICE detainers are actively occurring in the proximity of California schools to the family members of school children, US citizens, or those who may not have lawful status, but all of whose right to attend public school in the United States has been safeguarded by the Supreme Court in Plyler v. Doe.

The legality of AB 49 flows from the basic due process requirements already required by the Fourth Amendment that federal agents present a signed judicial warrant to make immigration arrests, adding only to that approval from a principal or superintendent if occurring on a school ground and the requirement that ICE activity occur not in the proximity of students.

This is a reasonable ask and necessary legislation, especially in light of the Department of Homeland Security vacating its sensitive locations memos, memo, which now allows for ICE arrests at or nearby courthouses and places of worship and education. And I can testify that we are seeing a chilling effect on people's willingness to participate in these necessary functions of society, such as reticence to attend hearings in courts of law.

AB 49 does not thwart the federal government but still permits execution of ICE arrests around school grounds under conditions that would not impinge on the right of the children to attend school. I respectfully ask for your aye vote for AB 49. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. Are there any other support witnesses here in room 2100? If so, please use the mic. And please only state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Kevin Bibiano with the University of California Student Association in strong support. Thank you.

Griselda Chavez with the Mesa Verde Group on behalf of the Central American Resource Center, CARECEN, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Senators. Dean Grafilo with Capitol Advocacy here on behalf of County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors in support of AB 49. Thank you.

Jessica Marquez for on behalf of State Superintendent Tony Thurmond in strong support.

Good morning. Steve Allred with the Church State Council in support of this bill.

Kasha Hunt with Nossaman on behalf of the County of Monterey Board of Supervisors in support.

Rebecca Gonzales, Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support.

Good morning. Lizzie Cootsona on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Santosh Seeram representing Chinese for Affirmative Action in strong support.

Hi. Elizabeth Oseguera with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in strong support.

Jonathan Mintzer, Jewish Community Relations Council, largest collective voice of Bay Area Jews, representing 70 organizations in strong support.

Katie Jennings on behalf of the Children's Partnership in support. Thank you.

Maclean Rozansky with the Alameda County Office of Education in support.

Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California in strong support.

Monica Madrid on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, proud co-sponsor in support.

Elise Borth on behalf of the California Community Foundation in strong support.

Andy Mason representing CleanEarth4Kids in strong support. Also supporting North County Equity and Justice, Eco Sustainability Peeps, Interfaith Coalition for Earth Justice, and Activist San Diego, all in strong support.

Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support.

Mitch Steiger with CFT, A Union of Educators and Classified Professionals, also in support.

Morning. Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, proud co-sponsor. Also providing a me too on behalf of our colleagues at Hmong Innovating Politics, EdTrust-West, and AAPIs for Civic Empowerment. Thank you.

Good morning. Thuy Do with the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Nicolena Lopez with the Jewish Law Student Association at McGeorge University, and we are in support.

Sierra Cook with San Diego Unified School District in support.

Good morning. Sam Nasher on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support. Thank you.

Morning. Amy Brown on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association in support.

Sara Bachez with Children Now in support.

Good morning. Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy in support.

Good morning. Derick Lennox on behalf of the California County Superintendents, pleased to support.

Good morning. Dubrea Sanders with Catalyst California, strong support.

Good morning. Cristina Salazar with Californians Together in strong support. But also on behalf of the California Association for Bilingual Education.

Good morning, Cooper Kenney on behalf of the Schools Employers Association of California in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Layla Alicon with San Francisco Unified School District in support.

Good morning. Sasha Horwitz, Los Angeles Unified School District, in support.

Anallely Martin with the California Immigrant Policy Center in strong support.

Good morning... Reyes on behalf of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality, Long Beach City College, the Alliance for a Better Community, Southern California College Attainment Network, and for our friends at the College For All Coalition in support.

Good morning. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support.

Good morning. Brandon Chu on behalf of SEIU California in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. Adam Keigwin on behalf of California LULAC and Alliance College-Ready Public Schools in support.

Good morning, I'm Ron Bellion. This is Messiah Bellion. We support.

My name is Tessa Hernandez, and I'm a teacher in West Sacramento, and I strongly support this.

Annie Chou with the California Teachers Association in support.

My name is Muhammad Saadiq, and I am a teacher in Brentwood, and I am in support.

Thank you. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition, if there are any. The two lead witnesses may come forward and use the microphones at the table in front of us. Seeing nobody getting up. Are there any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100?

If so, please use the microphone outside the railing. Alrighty. Thank you to all of our support witnesses. We will now bring the discussion back to Members. Do our Members have any questions or comments for the Member? Yes, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Assembly Member Muratsuchi. Great to see you. Aloha. So is your Hawaiian experiences together. So just a couple of points I just want to mention for the public is that we've seen a lot of bills on immigration expressed by a lot of concern by the public with regards to families and students feeling unsafe because of the enforcement of the federal government enforcing immigration laws, which for the record, have not been updated by either.

When we had full control by Democrats or Republicans at the federal level, neither party has actually worked on immigration reform, which is desperately needed because it has to be modernized to meet the needs of America's workforce. So, having said that, I do also want to state that this bill, I will be supporting this bill.

So let me just begin with stating the fact that I am going to be supporting this bill. And this is why I want to be supporting it. Because one, this bill essentially mirrors the Attorney General's guidance on the subject, prohibiting schools from cooperating unless they're required to do so by law, which will likely, which is basically what the state has basically said that they're going to be doing. That is current law in California.

That's what has been made possible. The other thing I wanted to ensure, once again, because it's an immigration related piece of legislation, I do want to reiterate that we have in code, in California Educational Code, the fact that schools are not able to collect any materials or documents in relation to immigration status or immigration.

So that is current law, and it's important for the public to know that. So every time an immigration bill comes through this desk, I will be emphasizing that. Because our families, our community members, our teachers, school personnel, everybody needs to be reiterating that we don't have, and we're not supposed to have any documentation that states what the immigration status is of a student in that school.

So, this notion that they can come in and require staff to say, okay, who are your undocumented students, that cannot happen because we're not allowed to do that in the State of California. So having said that, I do believe that, as with anything, and it was pointed out by my colleague from Sacramento, Senator Cabaldon previously, that for safety reasons on campuses, just the same way that we would report if police is going to be on campus, same thing with IDing anybody that comes into our campus.

We require parents, we require anybody that's entering our school to show ID, to show identification, to see who they are. So, for safety reasons on that end, I think it's quite frankly a no-brainer to just say, hey, let us know who you are, give us an identification, and give us a warrant for coming into our school district. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, except when there is a hot pursuit going on.

And that's the only question that I had for you is that in case of a hot pursuit, where they're literally chasing someone down and they enter the school, you know, they, you know, they enter the school, what then? Because I mean, someone is entering the school without identification, they're in hot pursuit of this individual, and they're not going to have time to say, here, let me show you my ID and my warrant on what's going on. So in those cases, what is the protocol within this purview of this bill?

So the bill in current form allows for what lawyers call exigent circumstances, like if there's a hot pursuit. I am in current conversations, discussions with Senator Gonzalez as we're trying to reconcile our two bills.

You know, Senator Gonzalez is raising the concern that ICE immigration officials may manufacture exigent circumstances, saying that it's urgent that we, you know, run onto your campus to do whatever they're trying to do on the school grounds.

And so we're in discussions with stakeholders now as to whether to keep the bill in its current form, which would allow for immigration officials under exigent circumstances to enter the school grounds, or whether we would still require the valid judicial warrant with or without there any claims of exigent circumstances. I don't know if our CHIRLA attorney would have anything to add to that.

Well, I do see the language already in the bill, so I would say it doesn't really alter the Fourth Amendment law surrounding exigent circumstances, which, you know, include hot pursuit. There is a qualifying language here, which is necessitate immediate action. But again, that's not something that this bill is altering.

The other thing that I'm seeing is, you know, the other subdivision in the bill is requiring the Attorney General to update the policies regarding this. So I would say, you know, the expectation would be that the policies that are going to be updated are going to be consistent with law as it's already been. You know, I don't think that this bill does anything to alter hot pursuit or exigent circumstance law.

Okay, so in other words, for layman, in layman's terms, if ICE officials are running and chasing someone and pursuing someone, and this person runs into the school, they can pursue into that school and do the work they're supposed to be doing.

I think where I'm coming from is making sure that if they're doing the work, if they're chasing someone when it comes to the hot pursuit doctrine, that they are able to do their job. What happens when you remove the sensitive areas, of course, you know, people get really, really nervous.

But the folks that are folks not of goodwill that they're actually trying to escape are going to know that these are protected areas. And so they're going to literally use those protected areas as a sanctuary because they know they're safe on there.

And that's one thing that we don't talk about is the fact that I see both sides, I see that we want to protect these areas and say these are safe areas, you know, officials can come in. But the folks that are not acting in goodwill, the criminals per se, and I'm not talking about good working people, I'm talking about people who are literally criminals are going to know that these are safe spaces and may use those safe spaces to hide.

And so it makes it difficult for public or for public safety officials to do their job if they can't enter and pursue those folks in those areas. So there is a double edged sword here. And I think it's important to know that only good people, honorable people, follow the law. And so I think that's important to note. And that's why I want to make sure that we understand that if they're, you know, in this measure in goodwill, yes, please ask for the ID.

We want to know who's entering our schools. But if something like this happens where they're chasing a criminal, we have to ensure that they're able to do their job. And so that's the only concern. And I hope the conversations continue to kind of facilitate that, the language. Whatever that may look like. I'm not an attorney, so I don't know, but I know in essence what the ideals should be.

And so with that, I'm going to look forward to supporting the bill and then look forward to seeing the final language and hopefully reserve my right to change my vote if it doesn't actually accommodate the ability for our public safety officials to be able to, or in this case, the federal agents, if this is the case, to be able to do their job. So with that, I will be voting aye on the bill today.

Thank you. Yes. Senator Cabaldon.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to our Vice Chair for her comments on the bill. And I just wanted to pick up on the issue, this final issue that you raised, which is an appropriate one. But just to point out that this bill does not, it does not deal with existent circumstances with respect to ICE or folks impersonating officers directly. The bill only the bill is about what the, what the duties and obligations of school employees are.

The bill does not authorize or create a protected space in which officers or folks impersonating officers can or can't come. That's a different set of laws. This bill is about what the school's obligation is to do. And in that regard, I think the way the bill is crafted is the right way. Because you have to imagine, even in a hot pursuit moment, and you're the English teacher at Liberty High School in Brentwood or you're the vice principal at Westmore Oaks Elementary in West Sacramento.

And what we don't want to do is create a situation where in a moment of hot pursuit with an officer or a person impersonating an officer coming onto your school campus, you have to assess am I going to take a highly dangerous position that, as the English teacher, I am going to, because I want to comply with AB 49, I'm going to personally stop that because I don't want it to go into my personnel file that I violated AB 49.

So I think that language is important for making sure that we are setting appropriate expectations and boundaries about what we demand of our vice principals and our principals and our teachers. Because the bill does not, in no way does the exigent circumstances language in the bill do anything with respect to ICE.

It is really about what the obligation, whether or not the teacher, the vice principal, the school security office, whether they are obligated to allow access or not. And in that moment, if guns blazing or what have you, you know, there are all kinds of problems with this, obviously, and I appreciate that the bill is tackling this.

But we also have to have reasonable expectations about what the English teacher, you know, how much harm they should be putting themselves in in that moment. And I think the bill is, in that way strikes that appropriate balance.

I also very much support it along with Senator Gonzalez's bill and of course with our Chair's bill in the same topic area. This is absolutely critical to promote safety on campuses for kids that they're most vulnerable and not just the kids that are involved, but all the kids around them and the school personnel.

And what we see, you know, what we've seen in Los Angeles, it's just further evidence that identification is absolutely essential, that we cannot take for granted that folks are who they say they are all of the time. So I think this is a well constructed approach to try to grapple with that.

I appreciate the continuing work that's going to be happening with the Senate authors who are also carrying important bills in this area. But looking forward to support the bill in making the motion when at the appropriate time. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, if I may just add to or respond to Senator Cabaldon.

Go ahead, Assembly Member.

Thank you. Yes, as always, I appreciate your detailed, thoughtful scrutiny of bills that come before you. This issue actually was raised by Los Angeles Unified as well as San Diego Unified. You know, how do we provide cover for the front office secretary as she's confronted with, he or she is confronted with an armed ICE officer in the front office. So that was our intent in putting in the language. But you know, as I said, as I'm in discussions with Senator Gonzalez to try to reconcile our bills. But I really appreciate your point.

Thank you, Assembly Member. And you know, want to share. I appreciate this legislation. I think it's very common sense and straightforward. Happy that you're having conversations with Senator Gonzalez. I know you both have bills in this space that are somewhat similar and wanting to make sure that you all are coordinating together.

But I think, you know, we recognize that we need clarity, policy clarity in this space as we navigate new circumstances across the board here in the State of California. So we'll definitely be voting aye, and happy to support your bill. So thank you. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Senator. And yes, I wanted to acknowledge your leadership in making sure that all of our immigrant communities are notified, you know, when there is attempted or actual immigration enforcement activities that take place in our institutions of public education. And very much appreciate the Chair's support.

I just want to close by thanking all the comments, but especially the bipartisan support as expressed by Senator Ochoa Bogh. As I stated earlier, I mean, for decades we have had bipartisan support to keep schools as safe havens. And so your spirit of support is in that, in that tradition.

I want to close by emphasizing that, you know, while you said that it is current law to have the Attorney General model policies guiding our school employees and their dealings with immigration authorities, it's actually, those are model policies and those are not.

It's not actual law as to these requirements to produce identification, valid judicial warrant, limiting their access to areas where students are not present. And so that is the goal of this bill, to codify these policies so that all school districts have to follow the law like Los Angeles Unified did. And so with that, I thank you very much for your support and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member. And I believe we have a motion by Senator Cabaldon. Can we get roll call, please? And the motion is for a do pass to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Assistant, if you can call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Great. And we will put that bill on call. And I believe you have a second bill before us, Assembly Member. So if you wanted to head into that.

Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair. My next Bill is Assembly Bill 640.

This Bill would require members of governing boards of school districts, as well as county offices of education, members of governing bodies of charter schools, entities managing a charter school, to receive training in K-12 public education governance laws in two specific areas, public school finance and public school accountability.

This Bill comes from my personal experience as a former school board member. I know, like many school board members, when I was first elected, and I was given the very tremendous responsibility to oversee, in my case, a school district annual budget of over $200 million.

And I did not have any training or background in overseeing a budget of that magnitude.

And so, this Bill is attempting to provide a common sense proposal that all school board members, when they are entrusted with that responsibility of overseeing these multimillion dollar budgets and to understand our state accountability system, to ensure that we are working toward the student outcomes that are measured through our accountability system, that they understand, that they have the basic training to do their job.

Here with me to testify in support of the Bill is our Placer County Superintendent of Schools, Gayle Garbolino-Mojica.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Gayle Garbolino-Mojica and I've been the County Superintendent in Placer County for 20 years. AB 640 addresses a critical need in public education governance by requiring school board members to receive foundational training in key areas, including school finance and accountability laws.

As stewards of public funds and policymakers responsible for the academic success of 6 million California students, it is essential that trustees understand how to read a budget, monitor the district's financial health, and ensure legal compliance in order to make an informed decision that best serves their students and their communities.

Here in Placer County, we have first hand experience of the importance of this type of training. In 2002, we had a 50% turnover rate of new trustees up for election and in 2024, we had 40% new trustees that were elected, across our 16 districts.

While this influx of new voices brings new energy, it also highlights a significant gap in governance readiness. In response, the Placer County Office of Education developed our own Governance Institute which is a training program covering school finance, student accountability, and other areas of board responsibility, including human resources, special education, etc.

This initiative reflects our commitment to building capacity and equipping trustees with the knowledge they need to lead effectively from day one. AB 640 aligns perfectly with this work by providing statewide standard and ensuring that every board member, regardless of the size or resources, receives consistent, high-quality training.

By supporting this legislation, we strengthen public trust, improve board decision making, and ultimately, enhance educational outcomes for all students. I urge you to support AB 640 and join us in reinforcing strong, informed, and accountable governance teams across the State of California. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. Are there any other support witnesses here in room 2100? If so, please use the mic outside of the railing.

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

Doris Nguyen, with Clean Earth for Kids, in support. Also supporting for North County Equity and Justice, Eco Sustainability Peeps, Interfaith Coalition for Earth Justice, and Activist San Diego. Thank you.

Laura Kerr with the Charter School Development Center. We are support if amended. We absolutely support the intent of this law. It would apply to charter school governing board members, and we want to continue to work to make sure it's relevant and rigorous for our members too.

Morning, Chair and Members. Derek Lennox, on behalf of the California County Superintendents, pleased to support.

Tiffany Mock, on behalf of CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, in support. Thank you.

Carlos Lopez, California School Employees Association, in support.

Thank you. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition, if there are any. The two lead witnesses may come forward and use the microphones at the table in front of us. Thank you. And you will have two minutes for your testimony. You may begin whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Carlos Machado with California School Boards Association. CSBA remains in opposition to the bill. We strongly support training for our governing board members. CSBA strongly supports the goal of ensuring board members are well-trained and that the training is performed by those with appropriate experience.

We appreciate the author and his staff's work in these areas, which are reflected in the current version of the bill. A key area of the bill that still needs work is in what context board members must select the method of training.

In the 35 221C1, the bill limits board members selecting a method of training only through their LEA or a consortium of LEAs. Not enabling board members to also select the method of training through their statewide association is a significant missed opportunity for many hundreds of board members who are interested in receiving the training through their association events.

The event would--or the change would ensure the greatest number of board members have access to training for while also preserving their local control to choose a method of training through their respective LEAs. Again, we appreciate the author and his staff's efforts to address our concerns and we will continue working with them on this remaining issue, but regrettably today, we remain opposed.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there any other opposition witnesses here in Room 2100? If so, please use the microphone outside the railing. Seeing nobody getting up, we will now bring the discussion back to members. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I guess we're the only two here, so we're going to facilitate the conversation, Madam Chair. Thank you for bringing this measure forward. It's funny because I actually--former school board member--I attended the CSBA--did I say all the acronyms correctly, all the letters?--training for school board members, and I found it incredibly empowering as a school board member.

And one of the things that I noticed was that I was not actually informed by my LEA about the access to the actual training by the California Association of School Boards, and it was interesting because it was actually brought up to my attention by another school board member from another school district who said, 'hey, you're a new school board member. Have you attended the classes?' And I said, 'I haven't.' He goes, 'I think you'd find it very helpful.'

And it was through my, I think through my first year, that I actually attended, you know, did not know who they were, attended, learned who they were, attended, and found it incredibly powerful, and I thought to myself, why isn't all of the local education agencies mandating that every school board member actually attend that particular training because it encompasses everything that a school board member should know when you're making decisions about budgeting, discipline.

I mean--and who's got the--what role? What is their capacity to act upon? And I was blown away by the fact that it's not required, and I thought maybe when I came into the Senate, I thought, hmm, this is a good idea.

So you are just right up the line of what I think should be done, but I am kind of curious as to why did you go directly or limited to just these two courses and why through the LEAs and not actually facilitate the training by the School Board Association which actually encompasses everything that they should know and just limiting to that and not include them as one of the actual options for them to actually get the training because, they do have an amazing program and it's incredibly empowering and eye-opening.

And the reason I also say that is because when you limit it to just the training that is, you know, facilitated through the LEAs or through, you know, without giving straight guidelines as to what exactly needs to be in there, it might not be as objective in the approach of training as it could be from a School Board Association perspective, an objective perspective of this is what your roles are, this is what you should be having, and it's more comprehensive in its training, and so, just kind of curious on why the limitations?

Yes. Again, thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh, for your question. I'm also a proud graduate of the CSBA Masters in Governance Program and that's how I learned the basics of school budgets and school finance as well as you said, all the other topics that are covered.

And so that's one of the amendments that we made to the bill to specifically allow for organizations like CSBA to provide the training. The bill allows LEAs to receive the training from a nonprofit statewide education association led by officials who govern school districts. Who does that sound like to you?

Of course, we didn't want to call out specific organizations in the Education Code because, you know, I think that's just bad practice and bad policy to try to, you know, create a monopoly for any single organization, but I think the--I would agree with you that the merits of the reputation of the CSBA Masters in Governance Program should stand on its own, and I certainly wanted to make sure that they are one of the options available to LEAs, but to again, to respect the LEA's local control to decide who ultimately would do the training.

We also provide for self-training, using the curriculum developed by THICCMAT and the CCEE, and we limited it to the two topics of the public school finance and accountability to try to address cost concerns.

So at the very least, we wanted to make sure that, in my opinion, we want to start with making sure that all school board members have the basics of overseeing these multimillion dollar school budgets, as well as to understand, you know, our state student outcome accountability system.

And I completely agree with you on, on that point, which is to say, once again, the Association for the School Boards, in the way that you framed it, the language, we get it because we've been there, but I wonder whether or not our new school board members may understand that and know about that because they're not actually called out and they may not know about who they are and what they are.

And school districts may or may not--most likely--they didn't with me--kind of mention who they were and in the class that was available to them, and that's where I--the concern that I have is that the clarity and calling them out is like, okay, this is who they are, this is what's available unless we point that out.

Having said that, Madam Chair, may I ask a question of the witness? So with the language, with the amended language that includes the description as mentioned by Assembly Member Muratsuchi, does that suffice your concern as to being accessible and being available to our school board members?

I think you raised a very good point, Madam Vice Chair. You know, for those districts that aren't as familiar with the training that is available, they may not know that is available through CSBA or an association that represents governing boards for school districts or County Boards of Education.

By specifically mentioning an association of governing boards of school districts and County Boards of Education in that very paragraph 35 221C1, by adding them in addition to LEAs and a consortium of LEAs, then that would make it available for their association to set up that training for them so that they are made aware that that is available through them, through their association, that they can make that decision as a member of their association or as a member of their LEA.

Right now it only allows them to make that decision from an LEA perspective or from a consortium of LEAs' perspective, not as a member of their association. So that's a very nuanced change that we're seeking to ensure to address the very point that you raised.

Okay, well, I can't negotiate any mandates, but I would highly recommend that those are done, and just because, as I mentioned earlier, as a school new board member coming in--you know, I was a former educator then, you know, parent involved in the, in the school, and then, you know, kind of continued on to, just evolved into the school board member--I really did not know about the organization, and you know, you--it's level, right?

We have acronyms everywhere in every space, and so when you're coming in, I think if we're going to have the direct, it should be, you know, you should spell out exactly who the, who is available to you as a school board member for training and, and actually really delineate and have clarity in language as to this is what you get if you go through this, only two classes, but this is what you get where you get a holistic--and that's the only recommendation I would make.

I'm gonna support the bill today. I'm gonna look at the final language to see whether or not there is a little bit more clarity because if we're going to expect this from our school board members, I think we need to be very, very transparent and informative in, you know, to our new school board members to really empower them to be very wise in how they make decisions and not just in finances--in everything, what their role is because some people don't know.

You know, I just learned the limitations of the Superintendent of Schools for the State of California and that was very eye-opening. So you don't know what you don't know. So our responsibility as people who are in positions of leadership and making decisions is to be as transparent as we can and have clarity in language and goals and visions and opportunities in what we're offering, so not to appear biased, but to be transparent, to say, this is what's available, and I think more information, more training, is always best.

And to the Masters in Governance--I forgot the name of it--but yes, the Masters in Governance class, that was phenomenal training, and to everyone who's hearing this as a new school member, board member, or anyone thinking of running, that is an excellent, empowering class to have. So with that, I will be supporting the language, I hope that you may consider in the future having that clarity, and we'll be happy to make a motion on the bill.

Madam Chair, may I briefly respond? I've been having ongoing conversations with CSBA. The basic, you know, question that we're facing is, you know, I would certainly agree with you that CSBA has an excellent training program.

At the same time, you know, the concern was raised, what if, say--I'm just going to pick an organization--Moms for Liberty decide that they're going to start a training division on school budgets and accountability.

So in order to avoid any legislation or putting into the Education Code, like calling out any specific organization, whether it's CSBA, whether it's Moms for Liberty, that's why we're trying to define a category rather than calling out any specific organization, but I hear what you're saying about, you know, we want to try to steer people toward the quality programs, but at the same time, not--in my opinion--I don't think it's good policy to be calling out specific private--picking winners and losers, basically.

So, Madam Chair, just one final comment, I promise. One final comment. So interestingly that you would say that because that's exactly what happens in my opinion. The way that I'm reading it, if you have an open-ended one like that, then you could have a certain organization be part of that training, but if you call out the actual association that actually pertains and represents school board members themselves, this is their association.

This is the school board association that's training. This is the official one. I said, then you don't have to worry about the mom and pops, per se, that may come in and say we're going to offer this class for school board members. So you are actually, by opening with an open definition of that nature, you could actually end up with mom and pops.

If you call it the official school board association, this is, this is the, this is the board, this is the organization that represents school board members. This is their--this is ours when we were school board members--this is our school board member association. Then you don't have to worry about mom and pops. You can actually--and it's not calling out winners or losers. They are the winner because they represent the school board members.

Again, to try to create the parameters or the requirements for the trainers rather than identifying specific organizations, some of the other amendments that we put into the bill is to require that the trainer has demonstrable experience in the applicable topic, which is providing training that has demonstrable experience supporting local educational agencies with, with the expertise. So we're trying to create the qualifications and the categories, while at the same time, trying to avoid calling out specific organizations.

Okay. I think that's where we have a difference, probably, in opinion, but that's okay. You know, we're allowed to disagree, but we agree on the objective. We agree absolutely with the objective. I just do think that, you know, this is the organization that supports and promotes and fosters good leadership in school boards, just like the CTA does for the teachers.

This is the board, and I want to make sure that they have--and our new board members who don't know what they don't know--know that they exist and that it is required by school board--school districts to let them know this is available to you and we highly recommend that you take this course because, as I said, I would have carried the bill mentioning that, but I'm grateful that you brought this measure forward and--

Happy to add you as a co-author?

Let me see the final language. Look forward to seeing that, but thank you for, for the idea and, and the intent of the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh, and thank you, Assembly Member, for your presentation. You know, I, I think I agree with some of the sentiments that Senator Ochoa Bogh shared, and wanting you to continue to work with the opposition, I think, on resolving some of those concerns.

I was actually very surprised to discover that there's not training information and requirements that are actually given to school board members. I served on a local city council for four years, and the League of Cities is the one that provides us our training.

We all are required to take a sexual harassment prevention training that's actually provided by the League of Cities and they give you credit for it, so it actually kind of incentivizes us to go through their process and encourages us to do so to really build that relationship, and I see the similar value with CSBA and the trainings that they offer. You know, you mentioned, you know, some other groups.

You know, I think part of what's useful in having an organization like CSBA is having an organization that is politically neutral to be able to provide that kind of training because we know we have school board members of all political affiliations and backgrounds that participate, and we want for them to receive that training in a space that's neutral, and I think the League has served as that for local city council members, I think CSBA has served as that for local school board members for many years now, so encourage you to continue working on them.

I think that this is a great bill, and I think that it's very common sense to make sure that we're adequately preparing folks, and I know so many school board members who tell me all the time how ill equipped they felt coming into the role, and as we know, you know, local offices--anybody can run for a local office--so making sure that we're preparing everyone, regardless of where they come from, I think, is a really important, important tool to have. So thank you, and I'll turn it over to you to close.

Thank you very much. Appreciate all the comments and the feedback and the bipartisan support, and of course, as I have been doing, I will continue to work with CSBA to address their concerns. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, and we do have a motion by Senator Ochoa Bogh, and that motion for AB 640 is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Assistant, can you call the roll?

[Roll Call].

Excellent, and we'll put that bill on call. Thank you so much, Assembly Member Muratsuchi. Great. And next up, I see we have Assembly Member Kalra as well as Assembly Member Patel here to present AB 268, so you may begin whenever you are ready.

Thank you. Thank you so much Madam Chair. In line with other recently added historically and culturally significant holidays, AB 268 as Diwali as an official state holiday in California and also allows for public schools to elect to close in recognition of Diwali.

Diwali is worthy of the state holiday destination given its broad appeal amongst Indian Americans, the greater South Asian diaspora and Hindu, Sikhs Buddhists and Jains of all ethnic backgrounds. And in recent years, everyone in our community, across many ethnicities and generations have enjoyed Diwali celebrations in their very own communities.

As the analysis points out, AB268 only authorizes schools, not require them to observe and model exercises about Diwali. If school districts choose to create exercises and General teachings around Diwali, it will be done consistent with existing law and in a manner that does not promote any one or discriminate against any one religion.

State workers are already allowed to use their personal holidays for Diwali and other cultural, religious and heritage days. By giving public schools the option to also observe Diwali, it can raise positive awareness around its celebrated festivals and the cultural significance it holds throughout the state.

And I would like to note that California would not be the first state to specifically recognize Diwali. Last year, Pennsylvania became the first state to officially recognize Di Valley as a state holiday. New York requires public schools in the City of New York to be closed on Diwali as a school holiday.

Other states are also considering Diwali holiday recognitions this year as well. And you know, just personally speaking, certainly have many memories growing up with my family and celebrating with other families. Diwali.

And I gotta say, over the decades, it's been quite remarkable to see how much more education there is about the valley, how much larger the celebrations are, how much of a cross section of our community joins in in those celebrations, not just the South Asian community.

And I think this is one more step in that direction, ensuring that Diwali education and knowledge about the Valley is spread and celebrations can continue throughout the years to come. And I would like to hand it over to my joint Author, Assembly Member Dr. Patel.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Happy to be here today to present along with my colleague, Assemblymember Kalra on AB268. I'm honored actually to be here as the first Hindu woman representing the State of California in Sacramento and representing my community as well.

California is one of the most diverse, is the most diverse state in the nation. A place where people of all backgrounds come together to contribute to the economy and our fabric, to thrive and to frankly call home. But diversity without recognition is not inclusion, and inclusion without celebration misses the spirit of who we are.

I'd like to share that. As the daughter of Hindu immigrants from the 1960s, growing up in rural communities throughout the US and in California, I was not able to recognize or acknowledge my own holidays in school and was often looked at as unusual when I wore a bindi on my head or wore Mindy on my hands.

And interestingly, the children that I'm raising, my three daughters that I'm raising now in California, in more suburban communities where there is a little more diversity, they still get sought out for questions on how they dress on certain days or what kinds of designs they may have on their hands or hairstyles they may have.

And by bringing in Diwali as a holiday, we start to break that open and show how universal some of our traditions are and the values behind Diwali, which are that light can overcome darkness in these difficult times. This kind of messaging can be so inspirational for all of our communities. AB268 acknowledges what's already true.

California is home to the most large, the largest and most vibrant South Asian communities in the nation. For millions of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists, Diwali is cherished. And as a celebration with knowledge over ignorance, hope over despair, and light over darkness.

Despite this deep cultural and spiritual significance, Diwali is not formally recognized as one of the holidays here in California. And we would like to change that with 268. It simply affirms that our communities and our celebrations belong in California. Recognition matters. It tells our kids that their traditions matter, and it tells families that they're seen.

It tells our communities that the state acknowledges and does represent them and include them. And with that in mind, I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Do we have any support witnesses here in room 2100?

Namaste. Hello. I am Sangeeta Shankar and I serve as a California Regional Director for the Hindu American Foundation, we are a 501c3 bipartisan nonprofit that educates and advocates for the rights and representation of Hindu Americans.

I'm here as a resident of Sacramento county and also a proud Indian American and Hindu American representing my family, friends and community Members across Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh church, Jain and Jewish communities who celebrate Diwali.

I'm also very proud to represent 55 interfaith and non religious organizations from across California who reached out to us, the Hindu American foundation, expressing their strong support of AB268. I wholeheartedly support this bill that celebrates Diwali as a state holiday in California and also support learning about it in schools.

Diwali's lessons are significant for all our students, irrespective of their backgrounds or ethnicities. And once again, a thank you, Assemblyman Ash Kalra and Assemblywoman Darshana Patel, for your leadership in introducing this bill. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Shruti Kirti Shankar. I'm a freshman at Sierra College and I strongly support Bill 268. Thank you.

Are there any other support witnesses here in room 2100? All righty. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition, if there are any. And you will have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Steve Allred with the Chairman, Church Day Council, and we represent the Seventh Day Adventist Church in the Western United States. While we very much appreciate the intent behind this bill, we respectfully oppose AB 2:68.

Seventh Day Adventist Christians believe that the God given right of religious liberty is best exercised when church and state are separate. History shows that a government that neither opposes nor AIDS religion is the best for religious freedom, as we know. Unfortunately, religious nationalism is on the rise.

And in America, Christian nationalism has infected some states and our Federal Government with laws and proposed policies that favor Christianity above other faiths. Earlier this year, for example, in the State of Utah, we opposed recognizing Easter Sunday, which is obviously a Christian holy day, as a state holiday there.

For precisely the same reasons we're opposing AB268, which would recognize Diwali, a religious holy day, as a California State holiday. Now, to be clear, we do not oppose this bill out of any animus toward adherents of any faith, the Hindu faith or any other religion.

In fact, we believe that all people should be able to celebrate and worship according to the dictates of their conscience in our pluralistic society. In fact, our attorneys at the Church State Council represent people of all faiths. [Unintelligible], Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish and more in workplace, school and prison. Religious discrimination matters.

We also believe that employers and schools should allow employees and students time off to practice their religious holy days as the law currently provides, and that schools should provide education regarding different faiths and beliefs and practices, including those that would celebrate Diwali.

But as we see Christian nationalism sweeping the United States, with some, like President Trump's solicitor of labor nominee arguing for the reinstatement of Sunday rest laws, which we've had in our history, we believe that AB268, if passed, would set a wrong precedent that could be used to promote religious nationalism elsewhere.

We believe there are better ways to promote cultural and religious literacy and tolerance. And making any religious holy day a state holiday is not the solution to that, in our opinion. It would set the wrong precedent and be a violation of the wall of separation between church and state created by the First Amendment.

And for these reasons and more, we respectfully ask that you would vote no on advancing AB268. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. Are there any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100? If so, so please use the mic at the railing. All right. Seeing as nobody is getting up. Thank you to everyone for your testimony.

I'm currently a Committee of one right now, so Assembly Members, I guess I've since it is just me, I'll just ask if there's anything that you'd like to respond just to the what the opposition has shared and any, any comments that you would like to make.

You know, as I indicated in my opening statement, this legislation and as indicated in the analysis would have to abide by current existing law in that no religion would be promoted or discriminated against.

And we do learn about faith in our schools in a historical perspective that I went to school here, I grew up here, I learned a whole lot about the Christian faith growing up, about Catholicism, about the missions and having to build missions. When I was in elementary school, we celebrated Christmas pretty much every year in our schools.

We celebrated Easter pretty much every year in our schools. And we didn't learn it in a way that was promoted to us like you have to abide by this. But we certainly learned about faith as it applied to our history and culture as a nation.

And that's what this seeks to do, is to give the option for schools to be able to teach lessons as it applies to Diwali, as relevant to the history and culture of our state, given that we are part of this state.

And I don't think that those that have come here more relatively More recently, although South Asians have been here since the 19th century, the increase in the population has happened relatively over the last five to six decades.

I don't think that should discriminate or disadvantage us and in having our cultures, culture or aspects of our faith that are relevant to our culture, again, not promoting it but educating about it. We shouldn't be disadvantaged because we just happened to come here more recently. We're just as American as anyone else.

And I agree with the opposition that no faith should be promoted in public institution. And that's not the goal what this is about here. And again, this does not require any paid holidays and what have you.

It just allows those that want to be able to take the holiday unpaid, they can do it and it will be recognized as an official holiday day.

Thank you, Assemblymember. And it's helpful to hear that feedback. You know, in reading through your bill and preparing for today's Committee hearing, you know, I did see that the Bill just allows and permits the for school districts to be able to one to close if they would like to, if they so choose to do that.

Or to also offer time off. Right. To those employees that would like to take time off, which I think makes sense. And still obviously protecting the separation between church and state I do think is something that's very important.

But do also want to note, I think we have had Christmas, a holiday that I celebrate as a proud Catholic. Had Christmas really be integrated into so much of our kind of regular school cycle. Right. We typically have that time period off for almost all school districts in the entire state.

It's very commonplace, you know, for us to have those kinds of schools celebrations in our classrooms. And it is done in a way that is not to promote or to try to encourage any one student to become a Member of that religion, but to inform and also to celebrate culture. Right.

And I do think that that is the purpose of your bill and I do think that it's an important one. I know that we've had similar conversations around Lunar New Year.

For me, that was a cultural celebration I became very familiar with because I represent one of the largest Chinese populations in the State of California in the San Gabriel Valley.

And that was part of that cultural sharing and learning that I had growing up in my community that was highly valuable for me to really understand so much about the area that I was growing up in that it was really valuable.

So appreciate your bill and we'll be voting yes and think that this what you've shared adequately addresses. I think what the opposition has raised. Senator Ochoa Bogh, I just wanted to see if you had any comments or questions.

No, I think the bill NGO. So I expressed my concerns on NGO, and I respectfully abstained on that measure only because of the. And I know it's not expressed my concerns with regards to.

There was a religious component to Diwali, which made me a little nervous on that end, and because I have supported past bills that had to do with, as noted in my notes, Juneteenth, Genocide, Remembrance Day, Lunar New Year, which are secular holidays. And I guess the only.

I guess the only question I would ask right now is when it comes to holiday, is there one that is not. Would not have a religious component in it, but would just be absolutely secular? Is there another holiday per se that is secular in nature without a religious component in there?

Senator, I would liken this to. As the chair was referencing Christmas, I would liken this more to Christmas in the sense that it has religious and cultural components. We celebrated Christmas, at least I did. I think my colleague did as well.

Being Hindu, being Indian American, we celebrated Christmas growing up, we celebrated it as a cultural festival, not so much as religious. And I had friends that would go to church on Christmas or Christmas Eve as well, and they would celebrate it in both ways, both culturally and in a religious manner.

Similarly, Diwali is celebrated by many faiths, not necessarily as a religious holiday, though. So for some, yes, it'll involve going to temple or doing prayers, what have you, in addition to the cultural celebration. And for others, it's simply a cultural celebration. And so in that sense, it really is the quintessential cultural celebration in South Asia.

Got it. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator. If you would like to close, Assembly Members.

I just want to thank the chair and thank the comments from our colleague. And just so you know, I think Samir Patel made a reference to this of kind of growing up and feeling a little bit left out.

And although I really enjoyed, you know, the Christmas celebrations and Easter and learned a lot, I think it really helped me to understand my classmates a lot more and the culture around me a lot more. I did feel kind of left out in the sense that we didn't get the opportunity to really share what we were about.

If we wanted to take a day off at Diwali, it wasn't excused and things of that nature.

I really look forward to the opportunity to be able to have the next generation, the younger generation of South Asian Americans, feel proud of who they are, be able to share who they are with their classmates celebrate together, just as they celebrate Christmas, celebrate Diwali together. I think that's what makes this state an amazing place to live.

And this is one more step forward in that positive direction.

Well, thank you. Thank you for your presentation. I'd ask for a motion. I know the, like, my Vice Chair just stepped away. So instead, we will, we will continue to, to put that bill on call and just have to revisit it once we get another Committee Member here. But thank you. Thank you for taking the time.

Thank you. Okay, great.

Alrighty. I see that we have an author here, Assemblymember Fong, who's going to be presenting AB 1028. Assemblymember, you may begin when you are ready.

Thank you so much. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Assembly Bill 1028 requires California community college districts to comply with provisions pertaining to termination of part time faculty and collective bargaining agreements. Part time faculty are dedicated professionals who are the backbone of our community college workforce.

Due to the operating realities of our community college districts, these faculty are often at the mercy of employment instability. Under current law, districts have the discretion and authority to terminate a part time employee without judicial review or explanation. Our educators deserve more.

This Bill helps clarify that our part time faculty can negotiate the terms of termination in their bargaining agreements with community college districts and requires compliance with these agreements. AB 1028 is a narrowly crafted measure that does not create new avenues of judicial review or change districts current statutory powers to terminate temporary employees.

Here to testify in support is Toni Triguero, with the California Teachers Association, and Trevor Kraft, part time faculty at Yuba Community College. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Toni Triguero, on behalf of the California Teachers Association. First of all, we want to thank the Committee consultant for the analysis, which simply states that issues that are before us under current law, community college districts are required to provide notice to full time employees of their decision to renew or to terminate the employee's contract.

But unlike full time faculty, part time faculty have much less support from their districts and may be terminated without notice. This results in part time faculty having little job security and being more likely to be laid off by the community colleges without explanation.

AB 1028 clarifies when terminating a part time faculty member or governing board, a community college district must comply with the provisions of the district's collective bargaining agreement, pertaining to the termination of a temporary employee.

This clarification not only treats part time faculty fairly, but it will also bring attention to the districts without provisions in their collective bargaining contracts addressing part time faculty employment termination procedures. This is significant, given that part time faculty make up more than 50% of the current faculty employees at most community colleges. CTA respectfully requests an aye vote.

Good morning, Chairwoman and Members of the Committee. My name is Trevor Kraft and I'm a part time political science faculty and the President of Yuba College Federation of Teachers. I'm here today to speak in support of AB 1028, which addresses an important gap in the employment protections for part time temporary faculty in California community colleges.

We have already taken an important step forward at Yuba College through our collective bargaining agreement. We negotiated clear procedures for addressing the evaluation improvement and, if necessary, the termination of temporary faculty members.

Our contract ensures that any decision to terminate is not made casually or arbitrarily, but is based on objective evaluations, performance improvement plans, and opportunities for the faculty member to be heard. AB 1028 would extend that basic fairness to all temporary employees across the California community college system. It doesn't prevent colleges from making personnel decisions.

It simply ensures that those decisions follow the protections negotiated in local contracts. Where no procedures exist, it provides a basic safeguard, the right to a written explanation, upon request. This Bill is an important, reasonable step to promote accountability, transparency, and respect for the professionals who serve our students.

We have shown at Yuba that it is entirely workable and it strengthens trust across our campuses. I urge your support of AB 1028 to help other colleges follow this proven model. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. Are there any other support witnesses here in room 2100? If so, please use the mic at the railing.

Tiffany Mock, on behalf of CFT, proud to sponsor the Bill. Thank you so much.

Great. Anybody else? Alrighty. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition, if there are any. The two lead witnesses may come forward and use the microphones at the table in front of us.

Good morning. Andrew Martinez, Community College League of California. First of all, I want to thank the author and the sponsor for the amendments to the Bill. We recognize that this Bill is significantly different than when it was introduced, and we want to thank them for their engagement.

Regrettably, though, our League has asked me to retain our position of opposition to the measure.

Primarily, we think that the piece of legislation from 2016, AB 1690 with Mr. Medina, already covers collective bargaining and allows our employees to negotiate with the districts and the trustees and we don't see this Bill as being particularly necessary to be enacted into law. And for those reasons, we oppose the measure.

Kyle Hyland, on behalf of the Association of California Community College Administrators. Like to echo our thanks to the author for accepting the amendments and then, the sponsors as well.

I would like to align my comments with my colleague from the League and just add that the crux of our opposition is that this could already be done in the collective bargaining process, and we see the legislation as redundant, and this could already be done between community college districts and their unions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100? If so, please use the mic at the railing. Seeing nobody getting up or moving forward. I will move it back to Members. Seeing as we only have one Member, Senator Ochoa Bogh, do you have any comments or questions?

Because I know the audience is bored, we're just going to facilitate the conversation to keep you guys engaged. Member Fong, thank you for bringing this measure forward.

I would like to give you an opportunity to respond to the opposition's comments, with regards to the fact that we already have a 2016 piece of legislation, SB 1379, which would require the community college district to begin negotiations and the rights of part time faculty and requires that the CCC's districts and the faculty's representatives negotiate in good faith the terms of re-employment preference for part time temporary faculty policies for termination, as well as a regular evaluation process for these faculty members.

And it stated that legislative intent, that the community colleges districts shall establish minimum standards of terms of reemployment preference for part time temporary faculty through negotiation process. So, we already had that, that passed in 2016. That basically encompasses what you're trying to do. You have one component.

This Bill has that particular component amongst other areas that they're addressing in there. So, give you an opportunity to address why this Bill is needed at this time, with this particular policy already in place.

Thank you so much, Senator, for that question. I really appreciate the opportunity to address those issues. The intent of this is to provide further clarity that part time faculty have collective bargaining rights to determine procedures for termination as agreed upon by the district and the employees, but also, maintains the district statutory authority as well.

This does not contradict existing law that gives districts the discretion to terminate temporary employees. That does not create any additional judicial revenue avenues of appeals for termination. This just simply clarifies that part time faculty have collective bargaining rights that determine procedures for termination.

Okay, so is that not the language in, in this particular Bill, in the 2016, that says that the faculty's representative negotiate in good faith the terms of re-employment and policies for termination? Is that not read in that particular part of the 2016?

So, in terms of this Bill, there's a number of collective bargaining grievances that don't have provisions for part time faculty termination. What this Bill simply do is just simply clarify that collective bargaining agreements can include such provisions and that they must be honored.

Okay, so Madam Chair, I believe that there's—we have CFT.

Yes. Do you want to provide technical?

Okay, thank you, Senator, for that question. I just wanted to add that part of the confusion is that many of our unions engage in something called due process bargaining, which means that before they start the actual bargaining, they decide what the law is, right.

Like what provisions they're going to go through and what they believe is the legal rights of what they can negotiate. In these discussions, we found often that there's confusion about whether termination rights can be negotiated—precisely why we created this clarity in the law.

And in those discussions, that confusion has caused us to bring this because it, it is a barrier to preventing the actual bargaining to go forward, because they're just fighting over what the current state of the law is. And so, this provides that clarity so that they can actually get to the actual bargaining.

Because that's the premise of due process is like you decide, here's all the laws, this is what we agree on, and then, we move towards the actual policies, if that helps.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is one of the reasons why, you know, in the previous bills, you know, when I talk about the importance of having clarity in language is so important, the intent could be there, it would be great. But the clarity of language in bills is so important.

This is why in previous bills, you know, unless, you know, sometimes depending on the author, you know, and when they've shown goodwill in trying to work on those bills to bring that clarity in for language, I will support a bill so the process can get continue and that language can be clarified.

In this space, you know, in 2016, with SB 1379, it says there that this can be done, you know, you can negotiate that. But it's interesting that when it's actually in practice, you actually have to define and bring in further language to clarify what exactly that constitutes. So, just, you know, lesson learned.

And I think something that we can continue as we continue on looking at other legislation. I think this is a great lesson as to why we need to have very specific, detailed language or clarity in language and what the objectives have.

So, I will be supporting the Bill today because I do believe that it's already part of the previous Bill. It's already in there. And if it's only going to clarify what the responsibilities and the rules are, I think it's supportable. So, with that, I would be happy to make a motion on the Bill.

Thank you.

Great. And Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Thank you so much, Senators, Madam Chair and the Senators, for the robust conversation. As you mentioned, this provides much needed clarity regarding the negotiation of the provisions and the local bargain agreements. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have a motion by Senator Ochoa Bogh and the motion for AB 1028 is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Committee Assistant, can you call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. And we'll put that Bill on call, Assemblymember. Thank you so much. Thank you. Do we have—oh, I see Davies. Okay, great, and I see we have Assemblymember Davies in the audience to present AB 1005. Assemblymember, you may begin in when you are ready. Excellent. I love that dress, Assemblymember.

Thank you.

She's one of the best dressed Assembly Members in the Assembly, let me tell you.

My mother would be very proud.

And the best shoes ever as well. Important stuff.

I ask for an Aye vote.

On style. Absolutely.

Very good. All right. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and esteemed Committee Members. I want to say thank you to the Committee staff for working so hard on this bill. We are happy to accept the Committee's amendments. Ladies and gentlemen, drowning is 100% preventable. Numbers don't lie.

The statistics clearly show unintentional drowning is the leading cause of death in children aged 1 through 4 and the second in children age 5 through 14. Drowning impacts African Americans and Native American children more than any other group, with drowning rates as high as 3.6 times more than the General population.

For every child under 18 who dies from a drowning incident, seven more children will experience a non fatal drowning incident. Sadly, many will experience permanent brain damage as a result. These heartbreaking statistics have motivated me to pursue a statewide water safety education policy. AB105. Sorry, AB1005.

Will help to ensure that children and their guardians are able to receive drowning prevention education at no cost to them or their school. 79% of children in households with income less than 50,000 have little, if any, swimming abilities. This bill will establish a swim lesson voucher program for California's underserved communities.

This bill will increase access to swim lessons. Here with me today to testify and answer any technical questions is Steve Barrow, one of our state's Emergency Medical Service Commissioners. Steve has been the state program Director of the California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health for more than two decades.

He also serves as Vice Chair of the Drowning Prevention Foundation. Thank you all so much. And I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. And Members of the Committee, thank you for allowing me to testify today. Been working on this issue for 35 years with a huge community of affected family Members who have lost children to drowning. And a lot of organizations have done the evidence based research.

What do we need to do to get drowning off its pedestal as being the leading cause of death for 1 to 4 year olds and the second leading cause of death of 5 to 15 year olds and the third leading cause of death of 15 to 24 year olds. Since during 1991 and 2023. 13,000 Californians have drowned.

This is a huge public health issue. We've been doing a really good job as a state. Our trend line is going down. We're 2% lower than any other state as far as a rate of drowning because of everything the Legislature and the drowning prevention community and the affected families have done. But we have a lot to do.

This is an incredibly important step. It might seem a lot very simple thing to a lot of people. Educating parents, working with schools or educating the children and then getting them in swimming lessons. We've done a really good job on pool, residential pool safety barriers. We've done a really good job on lifeguard stuff on cpr.

But this, we don't have our parents educated enough to have them be part of the team to stop drowning. And this bill will do that.

The reason we can do it with no cost to schools is because there's so many national and statewide organizations that for 30 years have been planning and doing evidence based research on the curriculum that you bring to one first grade, to 12th graders or to parents.

And that stuff is all available for free and it's paid for by foundations, families who have lost children. And we can bring that to the schools on individual school levels. So this bill is structured very nicely that this is very important to me personally.

I was a paramedic in the field and once you've held dozens of little children and other people in your arms as you're trying to resuscitate them, it's something that sticks with you. I've always worked hard on this issue because it's one of the ones I have the most nightmares about.

And so I would just respectfully ask for your. I can answer most technical questions. You know, none of us are a complete encyclopedia on this issue, but I can answer most of everything you want to know about it.

Thank you. And thank you for your presentation. Do we have any other support witnesses in the room? If so, please use the mic at the railing.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the. Committee, John Moffatt on behalf of the Orange County Fire Authority in support.

Madam Chair, Members, John Norwood on behalf of the California Pool and Spa Association and and the Pool and Hot Tub alliance nationally. And if I may just want to indicate, children that have had early childhood swim lessons are 88% less likely to drown. So it's a huge and very important topic.

We're pleased to support the bill. Thank you.

Hi, my name's Andy Hook. I'm a teacher who has lost a student to drowning. And so I strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now move on to opposition. Do we have any opposition witnesses here in room 2100 seeing nobody getting up? Do we have anybody else that would like to speak in opposition using the mic at the railing? Alrighty. We'll turn it back here to Committee. Senator Choa Bogue, any questions or comments?

Just a comment. Thank you for bringing this measure forward. I think when it comes to information and safety of the children, you can't go wrong. And I think more is always best on that end. So I look forward to supporting the Bill and make a motion to move the measure forward.

Thank you. And Assemblymember Davies, I just want to thank you as well. I had an opportunity with my staff as I was preparing and reading through your Bill and appreciated the component around the swim lesson vouchers. One of my father's best friends actually lost a child in the late 90s because they drowned accidentally.

And it was very devastating for the entire family because of that. My parents were very adamant about me learning to swim when I was very small. And I have actually memories of my dad tossing me into the pool.

That's something we used to learn.

Yes. Without me being prepared to make sure that I was ready to swim literally at any moment. Because we grew up with a pool in the backyard in Glendora. So. And I would get very annoyed and frustrated, but I realized now he was preparing me in case something happened.

Happened and he wasn't home or they weren't nearby to see. And it makes a difference, right? I mean, I'm happy that I'm able to know how to swim and know unfortunately these accidents happen and they can be so devastating to families. So appreciate you bringing this forward and happy to support your bill.

I'll turn it to you to close.

Just, you know, thank you so much. This is very personal to me as well. I think we all probably know families that have lost their children, especially young children, children, and it's devastating to the families. It breaks them apart because of the guilt when, you know, they're just a quick and it happens.

So greatly appreciate and Aye vote. Great.

And the motion for AB1005 is do pass to the Senate Health Committee. And we have a motion from Senator Ochoa bogh. Assistant, can you call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. An Assembly woman. We'll put that on call. Thank you. Appreciate it. All righty. I see that we have Assembly Member Brian here in the room to present AB7. Assembly Member Bryan, you may begin when you are ready.

Thank you. Madam Chair and colleagues, I'm proud to present AB7 the legacy of harm and Exclusion Consideration Act. This bill allows for California's public and private colleges and universities to consider providing admissions preferences to applicants who are descendants of American slavery. For generations, descendants of enslaved people have faced systemic barriers to accessing higher education.

California is increasingly recognizing its role in perpetuating these inequalities and is committed to taking reparative actions. In 2020, the President of the University of California Student Association described a crisis of systemic exclusion where seven out of nine UC undergraduate campuses received a D or F grade concerning access for underrepresented students.

Despite statewide efforts to increase equity, disparities in admissions persist and reflect deeply rooted structural inequalities, including the afterlives of slavery. In addition, California had a long history of legacy admissions up until last year that favored students who came from wealthy and well connected family situations.

Students who come from historically excluded backgrounds, especially those who are descended from enslaved people in this country, continue to face compounded disadvantages without any mechanisms for proper redress.

AB7 clarifies a pathway for California institutions of higher learning to consider the legacy of harm associated with slavery and its afterlives of exclusion as one of the factors during their admissions process. It empowers universities with the option, not a mandate, to acknowledge and respond to this historical context when evaluating applicants.

To provide testimony, I'm joined by Brandon Green, the Director of policy advocacy for the Weston center on Law and Poverty, and and Justin Ward, a constitutional attorney from the California Association of Black Lawyers.

Good morning Committee Members. My name is Brandon Green. I'm the Director of Policy Advocacy for the Western Center on Law and Poverty, one of the proud co-sponsors of AB7. Previously I was the Director of the Racial and Economic Justice Program at the ACLU of Northern California.

In that role I was honored to testify twice before the Reparations Task Force, Once on homelessness and again on the importance of establishment the California Freedmen Affairs Agency. It is a privilege to be here today to testify in support of AB7, a much needed step in the movement for repair in California.

As was well documented via the task force, California had an explicit role in perpetrating decades of harm on the descendants of chattel slaves despite it being a free state. The consequences of that legacy of harm are clearly seen in housing disparities, racialized wealth gaps and criminal legal system involvement, to name a few.

Repair, justice and equity demand that the cures for these ill center that same legacy.

At this moment in history and as our country barrels towards a reckoning not only with its past but with the present, ways in which nativism and white supremacy are further entrenching themselves in our day to day lives is vital to California paved the way for how truth, reconciliation and repair can look.

AB7 does this by permitting California universities consider provide consider providing the preference and admissions to an applicant who is a descendant of slavery. Importantly, this bill does not force universities to do so.

As you consider your support for this bill, it is vital that we understand that this bill is not about is about lineage, not race as the opposition suggests, neither explicitly nor by proxy.

Justice Thomas made this clear in Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard in which he explained that the intent and reach of the 1866 Freedmen Bureau act was to authorize the Bureau to care for all loyal refugees and freedmen, a formerly race neutral category, not blacks writ large.

Because not all black folks in the United States were former slaves, freedmen was a decidedly under inclusive proxy for race. The same would hold true for their descendants. The story of our country is such that people who look like me and people who do not look like me could be descendants of American chattel slavery.

While different for various reasons, this is also clear through the prism of indigeneity and the existence of the UC Native American Opportunity Plan. This program does not utilize race, but is one that relies on the historic political sovereign lineage of our indigenous family. California has led on this issue and it's time to continue the work.

I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Justin Ward and I'm here on behalf of the California Association of Black Lawyers. I've been an attorney for over 22 years, practicing criminal and civil law, including civil rights.

CABL, which is the acronym for the California Association of Black Lawyers, was formed in 1977 by black judges and attorneys to confront racism in the legal system and increase black representation in the profession. Today, CABL represents more than 6,000 black attorneys, judges, law professors and law students across California.

Our mission includes increasing black representation in the legal profession, and we know that begins with access to education. California has a long history of slavery that includes the enslavement of indigenous peoples, African Americans and other individuals from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Though California entered into the Union in 1850 as a free state, slavery was practiced here.

Many enslaved people were brought to California by their southern owners during the Gold Rush and forced to work in California. California also enacted fugitive slave laws, the Fugitive slave law of 1852, to support the return of slaves to their owners and in fact encouraged southern slave owners to come to California during that time for the Gold Rush.

The California Supreme Court even upheld the return of slaves to their owners on multiple occasions. Long after slavery was abolished, descendants of slaves were forced to live in the redline neighborhoods in California, excluded from public schools and denied opportunities for advancement.

These historical injustices are all rooted in slavery and created generational harm, the consequences consequences of which remain visible today in educational attainment, income, health and representation in professions like law. AB7 is framed as part of California's commitment to restorative justice, aiming to right historical wrongs against descendants of American chattel slavery.

It's carefully crafted to comply with the law. It's targeted based on lineage, the not on race and their broader educational goals are in line with the Equity and Higher Education act ed code 66252, which mandates institutions to combat racism and pro provide equal educational opportunity. For these reasons, CABL asked for your aye vote.

Thank you for your thank you for your presentation. Do we have anybody else here in room 2100 to speak in support of AB7? If so, please use the mic at the railing and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning. Danisha Lugo, Professor at Concemnes River College in strong support.

Good morning. Thank you for having us. Thank you for being here. Committee Members. My name is Dr. Rege Akambasi and I am in support of AB7. This is a crime against humanity. Slavery is a crime against humanity. It's lineage based and I hope that you give it the proper and reasonable consideration that it so deserves. Thank you.

Again. Please keep your comments to name, organization and position on the bill. These are for our support witnesses.

Thank you. My name is Dara Shung and I'm representing the Bay Area Regional Health and Equities Initiative and our coalition, the Black Housing Advisory Task Force, which were sponsors of this bill. And I'm giving a yes for this bill.

I'm in support and I'm also giving a yes in support of for the Black Leadership Council, who are also sponsors of this bill. Thank you.

Hi. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support and proud co-sponsor. Thank you.

Namdi Osborne, founder of Dad to Dad, a support group for black fathers, and I support the bill. Thank you.

Jalen Adams, SAC State grad, in support of this bill.

I'm Brandon Hunter, local realtor and investor, and I support this bill.

I'm Zelon Harrison. I am a mother of eight children. I have seven high school diplomas and five college degrees. I am also a Member of the NAACP and I also am a parent, active parent in West Contra Costa School District, and I support this bill. And I'm with Black Hat also and I support this bill.

My turn.

My name is Ron Belon. This is Messiah Bellon, and we support this bill.

My name is Aran Adam Chova. I'm a Spanish teacher in a public school in the San Mateo Union High School District, and I support this bill. Thank you.

My name is Tessa Hernandez and I'm a teacher in West Sacramento, and I support this bill.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Tristan Brown of CFT, Union of Educators and Classified Professionals here in support.

Thank you. Anybody else? All right, we will now turn it over to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses here in room 2100? If so, please confirm board. Seeing nobody getting up. Is there anybody else that would like to share their opposition at the mic at the railing? Seeing nobody getting up?

We will turn it back to Members here in the Committee. Senator Ochoa Bogh, do you have comments or questions?

Good to see you here. Always smiling. So I. I do have concerns. I actually appreciate the perspective that both the witnesses have expressed today. Gave me a little bit of more context as to where you're coming from. Would like to and further have conversations with you folks with regards to the historical context in which you're working with.

How would you respond? And I'm glad you folks have a legal expert, legal expertise behind you, because I wish I had. I wish I was an attorney, actually, but I don't have. So I have notes and people that do my research.

So on that end, how do you folks respond with the notion that when you have the language of descendants of slaves, it becomes a proxy for race. That is the equivalent of a proxy for race on that.

And you're not using race, but it is a proxy because it's implied in the language that they are usually the black slaves that you are, you're referencing. So how do you, how do you acknowledge that, that it might be used for that?

I would disagree that it's in that it's implied. The implication is clear on the language. Descendant of slave. And because of the history of our country, descendants of slaves could look like anybody in this.

Just like if I took a DNA test today, I would likely have some European DNA that is also based upon the history of our country. So while it might be true that disproportionately it might be people identify as black, it is not true that it's a proxy for race.

In the same way that if we use income and zip code, it not necessarily a proxy for race, but in this case it's directly lineage based. So you have to be a descendant of somebody who is enslaved in this country to be able to take advantage of this.

And that person can look like you, that person could look like me, and that person could look like other people in this room. So I disagree strongly with the, with the characterization that is a proxy for race because not it's defined as lineage. And that is very, very different than how we conceptualize race.

And if I can, Senator, it is unfortunate that our socially construction notion of race, which is something we did construct socially and hasn't been applicable consistently throughout time. Right. There are folks who we would now consider white who were previously not considered white when they first arrived to this country.

When we think about immigrant status, I know who we think of in our minds, but we know that, that a proxy for folks from our southern border or even just the Latine diaspora, it could be folks from all over the world, which is why it is not a proxy for race.

Our construction of race doesn't fit neatly with history. And the history of enslavement is perhaps probably the strongest history that drove our social construction of race.

But now, some 170 years post emancipation, we're running into challenges as we grapple with what repair and redress means in light of 209 and in light of the affirmative action rulings.

But I think as my witnesses stated very clearly, even the Supreme Court justices, the only, well, not the only, there's two black Supreme Court justices now, but Clarence Thomas, who I have had little agreement with throughout my entire life. Even he was very clear that when you're talking about a specific harm to a specific people, that.

That it is not a defined proxy for race. And we've talked about this in previous committees. Not all black folks would benefit from repair and redress for the harms of slavery. Not all black folks are descendants from that harm.

The only black President we've had, for example, is not a descendant of American slavery, despite being a black man. And so it is not a nice and neat alignment. It is more complex than that. And I think it's that complexity that we're required to legislate through.

Okay, so I finally found my notes and my questions. So indulge me just a bit. I'm going to facilitate the conversation because I'm the only one here. So let me ask this question. So, because I know you referenced the Supreme Court ruling.

So in light of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admission Vers, Harvard, the court declared preferred admissions based on race as unconstitutional, understanding that your bill states that this is a preference based on ancestry. How would this bill not fall into violating that spirit of the Supreme Court ruling?

And how would this not fall under that umbrella spirit?

So what I would say is that the spirit is that you should not receive preferential treatment because of your race. Right. That's what it is. But anybody could be a descendant of slavery. It just so happens that in the United States, the vast. The overwhelming majority of slaves were from Africa, but Native Americans were enslaved here. Right.

There were many Native American slaves initially. And we don't know what other. I mean, historically, I haven't seen all the history of all the slaves, but we do know that that's another group that was enslaved. So it's not a proxy or the spirit because it's based on a specific action of the United States against a group. Right.

Against slaves, for instance, Native Americans or people who had their land taken, had received land, they received reparations from the government, and that hasn't been deemed to be illegal. Native Americans, as well as the Japanese who were interned have received things that because. And it wasn't because they were Japanese.

It was because what was the specific actions as opposed to their race? And I think that's what my witness is getting at, is that the spirit of that Supreme Court ruling was to promote this idea of a meritocracy and an equal playing field for all people, where your skills, your talents, your hard work determine your outcomes.

What we are talking about is specific structural disadvantages. That were created for people who were not even considered people for the better part of 13 generations in this country. Right. Black Americans who were enslaved were decisively considered property by these same courts via the Dred Scott case and others.

That is not what we are not talking about is breaking the idea of meritocracy. We are talking about the idea of proper repair and redress to level, to re level a playing field that was decisively created to be a disadvantage for a specific class of people and their descendants.

And that is the work that the reparations task force tasked us with. That is the work that I think our country has been grappling with since emancipation. And I'm grateful that a super majority of my colleagues in the State Assembly agreed that this is a necessary and proper way to seek repair and redress for that harm.

And just as a side note to add, as Assemblymember Bryan mentioned, even Clarence Thomas in his ruling stated that lineage would be allowed. Even he said that.

Okay, thank you both for your answers. And then my next question. What specifically is going to be given to applicants to verify their direct lineage? Will this be indicated via checkbox documents through lineage proof or expressed in a written declaration?

I don't believe that it's our responsibility to over subscribe to the universities how they should complete their admissions process just to make clear the bounds by which they can operate from. The state doesn't put in any additional mandates to verify many of the markers of an applicant's application.

If we did, I think a number of personal statements might be overly fact checked. This is something that the universities I believe currently have the legal authority to do. The state is just clarifying that. How they choose to do that I think we leave to them.

Okay. So number three, will this application include a mechanism to clearly highlight the specific priority such as a rating scale, prominent priority marker or a tier designation?

I think my previous answer answers that one as well.

Okay. All right. And then one final question. And I know you folks have made try to put a place forward a fact that it's not race based. It's not, you know, it's. It's descendant. It's no, I'm sorry, lineage based. Right? Is that correct? Lineage pays. And you folks have spoken against the proxy.

There is a. I believe and I did not go into my details here, but there is an investigation going on right now against the CSUs for a certain program that they have advocating or prioritizing people of color for their doctorate programs. I believe.

Has there been any concerns about how that implication of that study is being, is going to be how that particular investigation is that's going on currently might impact this particular bill and intent for this bill.

I don't think it will impact this bill at all. That's not to say, and we will talk about this when we go to the Judiciary Committee that we don't expect the potential threat of litigation. We have a President of the United States who's authorized an all out assault on higher education, period.

And at 1.0 talked about reparations for white students because there were too many students of color who have been admitted to these universities despite the fact that his son in law is a clear legacy admit to Harvard University solely because of his wealth and wealth connections to Harvard alumni.

This bill is an attempt to provide clear guidelines for our universities seeking to provide reparative pathways to address the gaps in education that were created by the enslavement of African people in this country for over 13 generations that were then perpetuated and codified through state laws that were passed in these very same halls throughout the years of California's history.

Do I expect that should this be signed into law by the Governor that it won't be to some degree challenged? But I expect that it will and I think that's what meaningful, that's what happens whenever you make meaningful progress. And we're looking forward to that conversation should we hit that.

But I don't think any lawsuits that are happening anywhere in the country impact what we're trying to do here. Because what we're trying to do here is path and trailblazing. Nowhere in the country has legislation this ambitious ever been introduced. And I'm looking forward to seeing it put on the governor's desk.

Thank you very much. Thank you Madam Chair.

Thank you. And thank you for bringing this bill forward. Assemblymember Bryan and appreciated the testimony of both of your witnesses as well. You know, I think that these are incredibly important conversations to have. I know for a very long time I think we've avoided having this discussion because of Prop 209 and frankly that's felt like an excuse.

I think you've really laid out very well that the premise of this bill and who would be receiving, you know, this program would be based off of the action of who is a descendant of slavery. Right. And that lineage and that history rather than than race, which is what Prop 209 addresses.

You know, I think there, there's been so much discussion either this year around reparations and the importance of that. And you know, over time we have seen Reparations for different, you know, communities. And we've seen the benefits of those things.

Those are good things, you know, following, you know, the Japanese being placed into internment camps and, you know, resources and investments that were made there to apologize and acknowledge what had happened. And unfortunately, we have not seen the same type of investments, you know, placed towards.

Placed towards those that are descendants of slavery and black Americans across the country, including here in California. And so I think that this bill absolutely takes the right approach. And in trying to address some of those historical inequities that have existed for so long, you just brought up, you know, what happens typically in legacy admissions.

Something that we've known has existed for so long, and we see it continues to perpetuate inequities when we have wealthy families, you know, continue to gain access to some of our most prestigious universities in the country based simply off of their last name.

And I know that there's been efforts here in the Legislature, you know, to deal with and to try to focus on that. But we know that that's existed for a very long time. And I think your bill does an excellent job of trying to balance the scales in the right direction.

So I appreciate you for bringing this forward. I think this is an incredibly important bill in the racial equity space and something that's been long overdue for a very long time. Would love to be a co author of this bill as well, in addition to supporting it, and just appreciate all of your work in this space.

This is a very, very important bill in our movement to address reparations for black descendants of slavery. So thank you so much, and I will turn it over to you to close.

No, I just want to thank you, Madam Chair. We'd be happy to have you as a co author. As I said earlier, there's no Legislature in the country that is putting forth policy this ambitious.

And that is because in California, we lead and communities across California and the 2 million black folks who live in California and the millions of folks who are descendants of American slavery who are still trying to figure out their place in this country that they have helped build, deserve to see a Legislature that is fighting for that consideration to be made.

That is what AB7 is trying to do. It is about legacy. Not just legacies of wealth and affluence and privilege and, well, connection, but legacies of harm and enslavement and exclusion. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Do we have a motion?

I don't know if I pass the blank alternative. Yeah.

Somebody called John Laird real fast.

I'll be happy to make a courtesy motion.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Chobo. So we have a motion, and the motion for AB7 by Assembly Member Bryant is do pass to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[Roll call]

I see we have Assemblymember Addis in the audience to present AB 560. Assemblymember, you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, committee members. Today I'm here to present Assembly Bill 560, the Supporting Special Educators Act. And as you know, I've spent much of my professional life serving students with disabilities. As a special education teacher, we know the profound difference that individualized attention can make in a student's progress.

And we have state and federal law that reaffirms this. We also know that every student deserves a classroom designed to meet their needs. And we know that class size is an important part of this. However, too often decisions about class size are not based on what's best for students or not student centered.

And so, we do need a solid research-based guideline set of guidelines to ensure students with disabilities receive the quality instruction and support they deserve. What this bill would do is direct the superintendent of public instruction to establish recommended class size ratios for special day classes.

These guidelines will help ensure meaningful instruction, individualized support, and safe and effective learning environments. We also know that when class sizes are too large, it's not just students who struggle, but teachers who face burnout and families who lose confidence in our system.

So, AB 560 will help ensure that California's teachers can provide adequate individualized student-centered instruction to those who need it most. And with me today to testify in support are Mitch Steiger, Legislative Advocate for CFT, and Michelle Warshaw, Legislative Advocate for the California Teachers Association.

Good morning, Vice Chair. My name is Michelle Warshaw with the California Teachers Association and on behalf of over 310,000 educators, we are proud to co-sponsor this bill. AB 560 does two important things for special education.

One, requires local educational agencies to take reasonable steps to distribute initial an assessment workload across all resource specialists unless otherwise collectively bargained. And two, requires state superintendent to establish a recommendation for a maximum adult to pupil staffing ratio for special day classes by July 2027.

Research has consistently shown that smaller class sizes lead to more academic success, fewer behavioral issues and happier students. And yet in a recent CTA survey, more than three quarters of educators say that overcrowded classrooms is a serious issue at their school.

This bill requires the staffing ratio recommendation to be developed in consultation with interest holders, including special day class teachers, and to consider a variety of factors including student needs and school settings. I'd like to share a quote from one of our members.

She's a middle school special day class teacher in Oakland and says a recommended staffing ratio is more than just a number. And this bill considers the unique needs of students. This bill will also support resource specialists; conducting initial assessments is critical work and is also very time consuming.

Equally distributing workload across resource specialists will help manage this important work to better support students and teachers. AB 560 will positively affect special education California, and we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair and Staff.

Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals proud to co-sponsor this bill along with CTA for all the reasons stated so well by the author and by CTA and also by our members who came to us early in the session essentially in desperation, coming to us and saying, "we love our work, we love the students, we want to keep doing this, but this can't go on," that the staffing levels are too low, they are stretched too thin, they are too overworked, and they can't give the students the attention that they deserve.

And so, it's why we're in such strong support of this bill. And the bill started life as a very clear, explicit list of staffing ratios that were put directly into statute. The legislative process happened and now we have a bill that creates a conversation around advisory staffing ratios.

And due to some very helpful feedback from early opponents, the bill includes a variety of employer perspectives. It explicitly includes the perspective of small and rural districts and many other changes that we think will help produce even better staffing ratios, advisory staffing ratios.

When it's all done, we think having that robust discussion is the exact opposite of a one size fits all approach. It should cover every potential situation that would be at hand here. And the bill also doesn't, we think, reinvent the wheel in any way.

There is language similar to this in CBAs across the state, including very big districts. And so, this is not a new concept for a lot of folks in this area. They're aware of it, they know how to work around it. And these will all be considered in the discussion.

The bill also includes some language around developing a more equitable distribution of work around initial IEP assessments. And that will also happen in a way that that responds to some of the feedback that we received that creates all sorts of, I guess you could call it, wiggle room or latitude to include different circumstances.

It just requires that they take all reasonable efforts, doesn't do anything beyond that. It allows for CBAs to be included. And we think what we have is still a very big step forward towards solving this problem. And we strongly urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you to both the lead witnesses here in. We're now going to continue with any witnesses in support of AB 560. Please come up to the microphone. State your name, your position and the organization that you are representing.

My name is Arienne Adamcikova. I'm a 23-year veteran teacher, high school teacher in San Mateo. I'm part of CTA and I am in strong support of this bill. We teachers are desperate for more support. We're working too hard and too many long hours. Thank you.

My name is Andy Mason. I'm representing Clean Earth for Kids in support of the bill. Also representing partner organizations in support: North County Equity and Justice, Eco Sustainability Peeps, Interfaith Coalition for Earth Justice, and Activists San Diego all in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Brandon Chu on behalf of SEIU California, in support.

Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association, in support.

Madison Mercado on behalf of the San Francisco Unified School District, in support.

Maya Steinhart. I'm an SDC autism teacher who's worked in a class with too many kids. And not enough adults in strong support.

Barbara Walker, mom of three, in support.

Thank you very much. I love the mom of three designation.

When I was a young mom, when I had my first child, I was reading all of these books about parenting and I always - you know, because I was instilling all of these things to ensure that my child, my baby was learning, I was encouraged to use the label of I'm a professional parent. So, all right.

So having no other witnesses support, we'll now continue with any lead witnesses in opposition to AB 560.

Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Just quick comment from the Small School District Association. So, Nick Romley here on behalf of the State Small School Districts Association; just very quickly want to address. We appreciate what the proponents of the bill are trying to do. Our concerns center around even being involved in those conversations.

Once we establish kind of a formal recommended ratio, that often will become a de facto starting point for local bargaining. As mentioned by the proponents, we're concerned that in our small and super small school districts where these positions are already difficult to find applicants for, this could hinder the hiring process locally for us.

But really want to also thank the author. She's her and her staff have been great. They're willing to work with us, receptive to our concerns, but just wanted to address that. So, thank you.

So, I'm sorry. So, are you folks neutral on the bill or are you folks at the time?

Right now, we are opposed but we're, again, happy to continue working. We hope we can get to a place where the bill works for everybody.

Okay, thank you. Perfect. Thank you very much. We'll now continue with any other witnesses in opposition to AB 560 hear room 2100. Seeing none. We're bringing it back to me, to the dais. I'm the only one, so I'll help facilitate some of the conversation on your bill.

So, I think my one and only comment slash concern, slash question, it would be the continued conversations with the small school districts, and I think part of it. I love the fact that you're bringing this bill because I think I've worked with several bills addressing issues with our special needs students in our district.

I've actually carried a couple of bills and I'm very passionate about this space and I wholeheartedly believe that there are not enough resources and funding and workforce to be able to meet that need as of right now in special needs.

So, the other concern I have, because I do have small school districts, is the concerns that when we pass these well intended bills with, they're well intentioned, they don't fit the mold, and it puts them in a pickle because it's really hard. I'll give you an example.

I have the mountain community, so Big Bear, Big Bear Lake, Crestline, Lake, Arrowhead, and all of the surrounding communities up in the mountains.

And it's so difficult to hire enough personnel in the school district right now in those areas because the first winter comes in and they realize that they don't want to commute with all that snow in those roads and they'll end up not showing up for work or they'll quit.

And so, when it comes to our, you know, we consider rural, we think, you know, big open spaces, but we also have our small mountain communities such as my area that are very difficult. And I also sit in budget one, which is the educational funding committee.

And in that when we have our reports, when we have the presentations going in, let's acknowledge first and foremost that California just doesn't have enough teachers right now. We're not producing enough teachers as the need.

And that also poses a problem on our school districts because they want to hire, but there aren't enough qualified teachers to be able to teach. And so, as the legislature, we've been trying to allocate more funding, create incentives, and try to just literally open up the pipeline for the workforce to be increased.

So, I just wanted to place that on the record because I will be supporting your bill today, but I do want to make sure that when we're having those conversations with our small rural school districts, when we're thinking about what we want and the intent, yes, it's great.

We want more student to teacher ratios, but we also have to consider in those conversations the fact that the workforce is not there yet. And so, I am concerned that, you know, as we move forward with this particular bill, that we do have some language that gives opportunities and doesn't penalize our school districts for not being able to be able to hire the personnel as intended. So, I just want to make sure that we have clarity on that. And with that, would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you so much, Senator. I think you bring up a lot of really important points. I, too, represent a district that has 15 cities, three counties. Some of my school districts have 50 kids, less than 50 kids, and then they go up to, you know, somewhat larger school districts.

I have one school district that, for a while, the student population was split in half by a landslide. I have worked very, very closely with the small school districts and their representatives, particularly this year on some other initiatives that I have. So, this opposition came in incredibly late.

I think they even have my personal cell phone and decided not to use it, decided not to use it before submitting their letter of opposition. So, it actually came as a complete surprise to me that they were coming with an opposed position. And just, of course, we want to take care of every student across California.

When it comes to recruiting and retaining teachers, one thing that would say is it is about money but it's not just about money. It's also about working conditions. And for many years, the attrition rate for teachers of special education students was incredibly high.

So, teachers would leave the profession after three years or five years maximum, because the working conditions are so difficult. And one of the things that plays into those working conditions is the expectation that teachers are going to come in, they're going to be able to individualize for their students, which they want to do.

And then they're handed dozens and dozens of kids well past what they should be having, because they'll have both their caseload, and this is what I encountered as a teacher: you have your caseload, but you're also teaching dozens and dozens of children throughout the day that actually aren't on your caseload.

And so, the numbers don't really bear out what's actually happening. That's why this study of class size and creating guidelines around class size becomes so important because we know that what we're saying teachers are doing is not the same as what they're actually expected to do in the classroom.

And so, we do need these guidelines if we want teachers in this profession. We have to address the work quality, the employment quality conditions. And so, the bill, as our witness has said, the bill, you know, started out as a requirement bill. It is now looking at creating guidelines, and there are very important guidelines.

And I do actually hope that they will be used in bargaining. That is the goal of this, that they will be used by school districts to create jobs that people actually do want to stay in. So, with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Happy to move the bill when appropriate.

Yeah. Thank you. Assemblymember Addis. I appreciate you bringing this forward. I think it's a really important conversation for us to have, particularly making sure that our students that receive, you know, special education, that they have the proper support that they need, and talking about some of those staffing ratios, I do think is really critical.

I know I've also heard from some of my, you know, smaller districts. I actually represent all smaller districts and in my area that have shared just cost concerns.

I think they're very eager to try to move the needle on some of those ratios, but are also, frankly, really concerned about some of the cuts they're seeing from the federal government and have real questions about how to go about doing that in a climate where we're facing financial constraints.

So, I recognize that that is going to continue to be a question that comes up as we explore these issues and know that, you know, you'll continue working with the opposition to have some of those meaningful discussions.

But I think we all recognize that as we have created more systems to better identify our students that have special needs, we've also seen the population of students in special education grow quite rapidly, which means that we also need more teachers, more experts trained in those fields to be able to serve that same population.

So, there is a - there is a balancing that needs to happen that we've not quite figured out yet. So, I think your bill puts us on that right trajectory and also sets a timeline for us to begin really having that honesty assessment, given the changes that we've seen in the needs within our school districts.

So, we'll be supporting your bill today and recommending an aye vote and appreciate you bringing this forward. I'll turn it over to you to close.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And I'll just sort of reiterate the point. I really want to appreciate all the comments that you've brought up and the importance of the small school districts and of course, we're committed to working with the small school districts.