Assembly Standing Committee on Higher Education

Good afternoon, everyone. The Assembly Higher Education Committee is now called to order, and happy Saint Patrick's Day. Welcome to the second policy hearing of the Assembly Higher Education Committee in 2026. This hearing is the first of several hearings for 2026 measures. Whether you're here in person or watching virtually, I'm grateful you have joined us.

Please note that Assemlby Member Celeste Rodriguez is out on maternity leave. Congratulations to Celeste Rodriguez and her family. Celeste Oskarra will be the replacement for Celeste Rodriguez for today's hearing, and we'll welcome him, Celeste Oskarra when he gets here. And, additionally, I'm pleased to welcome Nicole Willis, who's pinched heading for our committee secretary today. Thank you, Nicole, and welcome.

I wanna go over some key elements of today's hearing. As we proceed with the witnesses and public comments, I wanna make sure that everyone understands that the assembly has rules to ensure that we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings regardless of the viewpoint they express. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not predict permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings, will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that sites with dense violence. As you came into the meeting room today, the sergeant's directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation, which are posted outside the door.

The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place as permitted by the Chair. Public comment must relate to the subject or bills being discussed today, and no engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes our late conduct of this hearing. Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. Additionally, please note that while this hearing will not have phone testimony, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the committee's website at Www.ahed.assembly.ca.gov, and those will be taken up in sign in order.

Now, however, committee members typically will present their bills after non committee members. And authors, you can sign into the sergeant's desk in Room 126. Further, please note that the guideline for bills heard in this committee is to allow for testimony from two lead witnesses in support and two lead witnesses in opposition to speak for no more than two minutes each. Stakeholder groups and entities that are neither in support nor in opposition will be allowed to give testimony for no more than two minutes when I call for tweeters. If a measure has more than two entities in the Tweener category, only two would be allowed to speak for two minutes each.

For members of the committee, members since our hearings are public and some travel far to be here, respect of them and the author, please allow the author to complete their opening remarks regarding the bill before making a motion so the public has an idea and see what the bill is about. As a motion is made during the author's opening remarks, I'll simply state that the motion will be recognized at the appropriate time. Additionally, colleagues, members, if you have like to respond to a roll call, ask a question, provide a comment, please be sure to activate your microphone to speak into the mic. For authors of bills up today, each member presenting today will provide an opening statement and a closing statement. Your two lead witnesses will each have two minutes to provide testimony, and we'll take up the consent calendar at the time when we have quorum.

And we'll start off as a subcommittee. So thank you so much, everyone, for being here today, and we'll start off as a subcommittee. And please note that a similar errands will also present assembly bill 1534 by Assembly Member Jackie Irwin at the appointment time.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much. We'd like to invite up the Assembly Member Patrick Ahrens presenting item number six, Assembly Bill 1831. Welcome, Assembly Members Ahrens.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I'm actually presenting AB1534 first, miss Irwin's bill.

Okay. Alright. We'll have take up for the record, we'll have taken up item number one, a summary Irwin's bill. Assembly of 1534 student financial aid and federal workforce Pell Grant program. Welcome.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. I'm proud to present AB 1534 on behalf of assembly member Erwin who will be accepting the committee met amendments on page six of the committee analysis. Last year's federal reconciliation budget bill, h r one, expanded the types of educational programs that are eligible for Pell grants to include short term workforce training programs lasting between eight and fifteen weeks. Maybe 1534 will create the necessary state process for California to approve high quality short term programs aligned with the with the requirements of HR one. To be eligible for workforce Pell grant funds, HR one requires short term programs to offer participants skills based and stackable credentials in high demand fields.

Additionally, mid career adults will be empowered to seek new training that aligns with the needs of their local and economies or upscale so they can advance with their careers. HR one and this will back will and this bill will unlock Pell grants that have historically been reserved for undergraduate students that have not yet earned a bachelor's degree. This could not come at a better time as there are gaps in the workforce between the needs of employers and the skills of workers that are not best addressed by the traditional undergraduate degree. The guardrails in a b 1534 will ensure only the highest quality programs that will deliver real results for both workers and employers, but and they will be able to access this historic expansion of federal financial aid. With me to testify in support is Manny Rodriguez, the senior California policy director for the Institute for College Access and Success.

Thank you so much, mister Aaron. So we're gonna pause for a moment, and we're gonna establish quorum. And, mister secretary, roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much. Six members present, we have a quorum. And before we proceed to the testimony, we'll take up the consent calendar. We have two bills on consent today. They are as follows. File item number four, Assembly Bill 1728 by Assembly Alanisas amended, and file item number seven, AB 81871 by Assembly Member Fong. Do we have a motion in. A motion on the consent calendar? Do we have a second? Second Assembly Member Muratsuchi.

Motion by Vice Chair Demaio. Any discussion or comments? Yes. Assembly Gonzales.

166 item number 41636.

I'm sorry. Item number four, I believe, is 1728. And then file item number 71871. Thank you. Any questions or comments? Seeing none, madam secretary, roll call, please.

On the consent calendar, so we have item number four recommended consent. Do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee and item number seven. Also, do pass to the assembly education committee. [Roll Call]

That measure of six eyes will keep the row open for additional members add on for the consent calendar. Thank you so much for your patience, mister Ahrens, and we'll proceed with your lead witness there as someone. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members. My name is Manny from TCAS. I'd like to begin by thanking the author in their office for taking on this issue as well as Assemblymember Ahrens for presenting today. As mentioned previously, the goal of this bill is to create the necessary process for California to approve high quality short term programs aligned with HR one. Expanding Pell Grants to these programs has real potential to meet workforce needs by training working adults, career changers, and students to ultimately move into jobs faster.

But these short term programs do have a mixed result. While some lead to meaningful job opportunities, others leave students with little economic benefit. In fact, research shows that some workers with short term certificates earn $30,000 a year or less, and outcomes can be far worse for black and Latino students. Federal law sets bare minimum standards around program eligibility and outlines that schools must seek approval from the governor's office in consultation with labor workforce development agencies. This discretion allows California to ensure that federal Pell dollars are invested in high quality programs that deliver meaningful education and employment outcomes.

The state framework in this bill builds on those minimum standards and includes critical consumer protections and guardrails for students and taxpayers. For example, the bill prevents schools from outsourcing instruction to unaccredited companies. It protects students from predatory financing, for private loans and ISAs, income shared agreements, and it sets a tuition ceiling. These safeguards are especially important because workforce Pell Grants count towards a student's lifetime eligibility, and we do not want students to spend those limited resources on programs that are overpriced and low quality. This bill ensures that California takes a responsible and intentional approach to build this process, and it's for these reasons we ask for your support.

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

Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now in support.

Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon. Jesse VanZadeh is on behalf of the Campaign for College Opportunity in support.

Thank you.

Stephanie Clark on behalf of Young Invincibles. Happy to support.

Thank you.

My name is Joe Terrace from Young Invincibles, and I support. Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in the opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room?

Good afternoon, Mister Chair, members. Parshan with USPIRE. We are a a tweener working towards a support on this bill, and we support the intention and work of of, what this bill is trying to do. And we think we should do more as a state with this upcoming effort that is going to be implemented. There's a lot more that needs to be done, be through the ledge or the budget cycle to address all of the questions that comes in with the implementation side.

What kind of advising will have to happen as a result of the workforce Pell coming in? What kind of conversations do we need to have with students? What do how do we make sure that we are not unintentionally sending students who should be continuing to go through higher ed pathways outside into technical programs and draw upon their eligibility for financial aid for programs that doesn't end up being successful? And how do we target these programs in ways that closes the equity gaps? Because we know there's a lot of students who are left out.

So this bill is a great first step. There's a lot more that needs to go into those discussions and debates, so we support the organizations that are supporting this effort. We thank TCAS and the the assembly member for introducing this bill, and we look forward to continue to engage and work with you all on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Vice ChairDeMio.

Thank you. In your in the legislation, there is a cap of $4,000 per year on tuition. Anything above that, any degree or any program above that would be not eligible for the program. Program. Why why are we establishing a cap?

Happy to take this one. For us, when it comes to the cap, it's gonna be challenging for students to know which programs are fairly priced and which are overcharging with limited wage growth on the back end. Right? So the goal of this safeguard is to discourage institutions from raising prices just because now there are new federal dollars funding flowing into these programs. Additionally, again, to the point, we we know that the students who are enrolling in these programs and receiving a Pell cannot access other forms of financial aid, including, federal loans.

So the only results, the only way they can bridge that cost is private loans. So we're trying to get at something that federal conversations during negotiated rule making already got at, that we wanna keep the cost low. They did that through the value added earnings calculation. This bill is just doing that in a more direct way so that the return of investment is there, and they're not kind of starting in a deeper hole.

This is obviously a national program. Are other states establishing the silver cap?

From our experience, we are working with Maryland on something similar to this. Other states have other administrative bodies working on, this process, but I'm not a 100% sure on the cap.

So we don't know if other states are establishing caps. So the presumption is other states are not. And it's probably because the concern that has been raised in my office, and I I, actually agree with the concern, is that we're gonna be cutting out a variety of degrees and programs with this cap that students might want to pursue. That might you know, when when kids are looking at, you know, careers, it's about their passion. It's about what would they like to do.

And not all of those degrees are gonna be priced under your $4,000 cap. And so my concern is that we are punishing students who might wanna pursue some of those degrees. And I understand you talk about price inflation, and that's certainly a a valid concern. But there I think there are other ways for us to address that other than cutting out a whole swath of degree programs that students legitimately would benefit from and would want like to pursue. So in its current form, while well intended, I cannot support the the legislation before me with the cap.

Thank you. Any further questions or comments? Yes. Assemblymember Stitcher followed by Assembly Gonzales.

Thank you. I am trying to find my answer in the committee analysis, but are programs offered by private for profit institutions eligible for these workforce pilgrims?

Yes. There's nothing that would ban them outright.

Okay. Alright. Yeah. I I I just want to I just remember the first time I I visited a private for profit you know, workforce education program. And and I quickly realized that the biggest department in the school was their financial aid department where they're trying to, like, draw down Federal State Dollars for revenues.

That's when I ever since then, I've I've always, you know, really emphasized and and really try to look for ways to protect students that so that they're not taken advantage of. And and so it appears that this is part of that effort. And so be happy to support this measure. Thank you. In fact, I'll I'll I'll move to to to to this this bill.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second by doctor Patel. Thank you so much. Asimara Gonzalez. One of

the things that as I'm looking at this bill, very well intended. Right? I I think I talk about this with several folks all the time is I want more opportunities for more people across the board. I think we all probably feel the same way here. We put up enough roadblocks in the world for for our students or future students, and I don't wanna see more roadblocks. My question is with regards to amendments. Is the author willing to take up some amendments? Do you know?

Yeah. My understanding is that, mister Owens office is willing to continue conversations with stakeholders on this issue.

If you have any suggestions, I'd be happy to work with you.

Okay.

Yeah. There are some suggestions. I think there's an opportunity to to fine tune this. Like I said, well intentioned there, but I I do believe there's an opportunity so that more people can can access. Right?

That that's that's where I'm I I I'm a little bit worried about is the fact that that there might be some challenges here. So if the author is willing to take up some amendments, then I would be willing to support this this piece of legislation. My challenge is if the author would not be willing to to do that, then I would I would not be in in favor of this.

Well, I think that without being able to speak entirely for miss Erwin, I will say that we always try to operate with positive intents and can't make any guarantees about specific amendments, but I can guarantee that the author's office is always willing to sit down with anyone who would like to provide input.

Okay.

Thank you so much. Thank you for the context, miss Sarens, as well that the other's office is open as well. Ready for the questions or comments? Seeing none. Mister Owens, would you like to close on that?

We ask for your eyeball.

Thank you so much. Sure and sweet. Madam secretary, roll call, please. Actually, I'm sorry. Thank you so much to some of our ones representing this measure on behalf of Assembly Member Irwin.

This is a tremendous unique opportunity for us to ensure that workforce power regulations are still being finalized, that our state is prepared and equipped to ensure that our students can benefit from workforce power come July 1,2026. The workforce power has opportunity and potential to assist many of our students and allow for necessary growth in the workforce. And grateful to Miss Irwin and the committee for as they continue to work with our committee as this bill moves through the legislative process. And with that, look for supporting the bill today. Chancellor, thank you.

Madam Secretary, roll call, please.

On file item one, AB 1534 Irwin. That motion is due pass as amended to Labor and Employment Committee with the adoption of an urgency clause. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much. That measure is five Ayes. One no. We'll keep that roll open for additional members to add on. Thank you so much. Next up, we'll move on to item number six by Assembly Member Ahrens, Assembly Bill 1831. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Members. I am here today to present my bill, AB 1831 to set reasonable parameters on the compensation of administrators, managers, and other nonrepresentative employees in the California State University system. Specifically, it caps compensation of those employees at a 125% of the governor's salary, prevents salary increases during any fiscal year student tuition is raised, and repeals the November 2025 resolution authorizing significant pay raises for CSU executives. In November 2025, the CSU Board of Trustees approved a resolution that paved the way for significant salary increases for top executives ranging from five to 20% in addition to many other bonuses. This occurred in the immediate aftermath of a period in which the CSU denied promised salary step increases to CSU workers citing budget conditions.

In addition, the CSU implemented a policy raising tuition annually at all campuses. By 2028 to 2029 academic year, tuition will be 30% higher than it was in 2023. The state of California has provided the CSU budget increases nearly every single year for the past decade between 100,000,000 and $400,000,000 each year, increasing state support by nearly $2,000,000,000 annually ongoing. The CSU board of trustees has proven that they are not able to adequately manage their finances and appropriately prioritize the core mission to support California student access to affordable quality higher education. AB 1831 is necessary to nudge the board of trustees to refocus their efforts on student access and affordability.

I appreciate the concerns brought up forward by this committee and the committee consultants and the committee members. I am committed to working on this bill to address your issues. I have spoken to most of my colleagues who are on here today and shared with you how much I deeply care about student affordability. I am committed based on those conversations to amend this bill to address the issues that we discussed. Specifically, I commit to amend this bill to remove provisions requiring retroactive repeal of the November 2025 resolution, tightening definitions on compensation to reflect that the bill is referring to base salary and narrowing the scope to those in managerial, executive, or administrative positions not represented by an employee organization.

With me today to provide testimony is Margarita Berta-Ávila, the president of the California Faculty Association, and Michael Lee Chang, a student at Sacramento State.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Fong and Members of the committee. I also wanna thank Assembly Member Ahrens for authoring this bill. As shared, my name is Margarita Berta-Ávila. I am President of the California Faculty Association, a union of 29,000 professors, lecturers, librarians, counselors, and coaches who teach and provide services to the California State University system of 485,000 students in all campuses.

CFA is a sponsor of AB 1831 which would limit executive compensation to a 125% of the California governor's salary, which is 307,411 a year, and prohibit executive salary increases in years when student tuition increases and would undo the 2025 executive compensation increases by 2027. I'm outraged. Our union members are outraged. Assembly member Aaron shares this outrage, and we think you should be outraged too. In 2024, chancellor Garcia and the CSUBOT adopted a five year tuition increase plan, increasing tuition annually by 6% for all students.

And in 2025, in a year when the state flat funded the CSU, the chancellor and the BOT adopted an executive compensation policy where campus presidents received up to 20% compensation increase. They adopted a compensation policy that removed a 10% compensation increase cap. To add insult to injury, we have faculty that are food and housing insecure. I have faculty at Cal State LA that are living out of their cars. And the BOT is offering a one time bonus of 3% to most union employees.

We talk about the growing gap between the rich and the poor. We are literally watching this happen in the CSU. The lowest paid full time lecture makes just over $66,000 a year, but most lecturers are not full time and make less than half that that amount.

In comparison, the lowest paid CSU campus president makes $370,000 a year. The highest paid president makes $611,203 a year, and the CND CSU's chancellor base pay is $750,000.

And all three usually receiving a housing allowance and or car allowance on top of that base pay. Some presidents are eligible to receive up to 15% additional pay for at risk performance. Yes. There is a CSU board that makes decisions for the CSU. However, the legislature serves at the ultimate accountability for the CSU.

If you agree with students, with staff, and faculty that their executive compensation increases are outrageous, then we need you to do something about it. Send a strong message to CSU that they should fund the classroom and not the boardroom. We urge you to vote aye on a b 1831.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Oops. Sorry.

Good afternoon, Chair Fong and assembly members. My name is Michael Lee Chang, and I'm a political science student at Sacramento State. And I'm here in strong support of AB 1831. In my first year at Sac State, I worked five jobs while taking on a full course load of five classes, working about 35 hours a week at odd hours. And I think in my first semester, I lost about 10 pounds, eating about three meals a week.

But I'm not an exception. That's what college looks like for a lot of CSU students. We piece it together. We work exhausting hours. We sacrifice sleep, stability, family, and time just to stay enrolled and keep moving toward a degree.

And that's what makes what the CSU has done and has been doing so despicable. Students are constantly being asked to pay more. Workers are being told to do more and more and the raised tuition by 34% over five years despite student opposition. On my campus at Sacramento State, student fees were raised by 50% Then Then how and why at the same time did the board of trustees approve major raises, and we're talking like 20% raises, for their top executives along with bonuses like car and housing allowances? And what makes it worse is that the CSU knows exactly who its students are.

In its own financial aid report, CSU says more than 379,000 students receive financial assistance. It says 76% of students receive need based aid. It says the system still had nearly $2,600,000,000 in outstanding unmet need in 2022, and projected that unmet need would rise to near $3,400,000,000 by 2025. So while students are juggling work and school, while families are stretched thin, while unmet needs keep growing, CSU leadership looked at that reality and decided the real priority was executive compensation. That is exactly why a b 1831 is needed.

The CSU may tell you executives need these big salaries to bring in good candidates. Then why isn't the same true about pay for our professors, our counselors, our staff and student assistants? It is baffling that as a student assistant working on campus, I don't even have paid sick leave, which is a state law. In fact, the CSU doesn't even follow local minimum wage. The CSU belongs to the people of California.

It does not belong to a handful of highly paid administrators treating public higher education like a private boardroom. AB 1831 is about accountability. It is about fairness. And it is about telling students, workers, and taxpayers that in California, public higher education still means something. I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

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

Hello. My name is Sofia Calderon. I am a third year student at San Jose State University. I represent CFA and SQE chapter at San Jose State, and I urge you to vote Aye.

Thank you.

Hello, everybody. My name is Kenya Juarez. I'm a CSU East Bay student my last semester, and I urge you to vote yes on AB 1831 please.

Thank you.

Michelle Ramon Felicia, professor at Cal State San Marcos. And on behalf of the California Faculty Association, I'm strongly support of this bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Christina Seifel, associate faculty of communications at California State University, Fullerton, and I'm the chapter president of the California Faculty Association at Fullerton. And I strongly urge your support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. I'm Jessie Pisig, and I'm a professor at Cal State Fullerton. And I'm the vice president of CFA on our campus, and I strongly urge you to vote Aye on this bill.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Holly Clausen. I'm an open educational resources librarian and affordable learning solutions coordinator at Cal State Dominguez Hills, and a member of CFA, and I also strongly urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. I'm Ryan Witt. I'm with Students for Quality Education under the CFA, and I strongly urge you to vote yes on this bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Connor Gusman on behalf of Teamsters California and our 1,100 skilled trades workers at all 22 CSU campuses in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is professor Julie Elizabeth Mumma. I am one teacher of the year at Sacramento State. I'm a former lawyer, and I don't think this bill goes far enough. And I've provided a letter in in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support.

Good afternoon, mister chair members. Doug Subers on behalf of the California State University Employees Union in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Melina Abdulham, professor of Pan African studies at Cal State LA and Political Action Chair for the California Faculty Association in strong support.

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

Thank you. Thank you.

Go ahead. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Greg Sachs, and I serve as the Vice Chancellor for external relations and communications at the CSU office of the chancellor here in respectful opposition to AB 1831. At a time of federal chaos, budget volatility, heightened budget heightened public scrutiny, our university leaders are guiding institutions that operate like small cities, serving tens of thousands of students and employees every single day. They manage crises, protect campus safety, steward public resources, manage research enterprises, ensure academic quality, and are deeply, deeply engaged in their communities.

Our leaders are also and the CSU are making major advancements, enrollment and student success, while keeping the c x CSU accessible and affordable. 54% of all of our students don't pay any tuition at all. This work is dependent on dynamic and innovative staff and faculty, which we care deeply about. As well as, of course, leaders who center their work on improving student outcomes, for, of course, all of our students. And these are 24 hour roles.

In this environment, experienced leadership is not a luxury. It is critical to ensuring stability for students and the communities we serve. Over the last two years, nearly 50% of our long serving CSU presidents have retired. As the board sought new presidents, it became clear that our compensation structures and policies were not in line with other public university systems across the country. An independent study found that the salaries of all 22 presidents were below were below market when compared to peers.

Therefore, after much deliberation and consideration, the board acted to move compensation towards the market medium, not above the market medium. Our concern with a b 1831 is that it would place the CSU at a clear and lasting disadvantage in recruiting and retaining the leadership necessary to serve our students. As an example, 60% of community college district presidents and all the University of California presidents make more than the salary cap proposed in this bill. By imposing rigid statutory salary caps and restrictions that do not apply to the other states to the other states, other public universities, community colleges, and k 12 systems, this bill creates an uneven playing field that weakens the CSU's competitiveness to seek out and retain leaders. This proposal will accelerate presidential and staff turnover and constrain recruitment.

The result will not be cost savings, but lost institutional momentum and and potential replacement costs that will seriously impede student success. For these reasons, the CSU respectfully urges a no vote on 1831. Adrian Gonzalez will share a bit more about the deal.

Thank you. Good afternoon.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Members. I'm Adriana Gomez with legislative advocate with, the CSU office of the chancellor. While much of the discussion has focused on executive compensation presidents, I'd like to add that this bill goes beyond that. The bill limits the bill's limits on raises would apply to more than 6,400 non represented professional staff.

And these are folks who many serve support students directly every day. These include these positions may include some like directors of basic needs centers, cultural and identity center managers, financial aid administrators, nursing clinic managers, to name a few. These employees would be prohibited from receiving raises even if represented employees receive negotiated raises. As the committee analysis notes, the CSU falls within the median range of salaries. Legislative restrictions on raises to non represented staff would set the CSU at a disadvantage to other public universities and in its ability to deliver on its core mission and student services.

For these reasons, we respectfully request a no vote.

Thank you so much. Are there any just no witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Vice chairman?

Thank you. I noticed in your remarks, Assemblymember, Aaron's, that you mentioned that you're accepting an amendment so that your bill would not apply to union workers?

Correct.

What why did you accept that amendment?

Because the heart of what I'm getting at is the astronomically high increases in senior level administrator pay, and that is the heart of what I'm getting at. So virtually everything that the CSU mentioned is inaccurate in my bill. If they were paying attention to my opening statements, they would know that I have agreed to make amendments to that. So it wouldn't apply to any of the, employees that they mentioned.

So do you think that a 106 sergeants in the CSU system should be receiving an average compensation package annually of $242,382.69 according to Transparent California data from the payroll office of the the comptroller?

I think our public safety officials work very hard to keep, our campuses safe as they are the targets of violence as we've seen in the past few years and, they deserve that compensation.

Should 22 grant related specially funded instructional faculty members who are unionized receive average compensation of $244,110.76 and get raises if students are seeing their fees go up, which your bill would exempt. Do you think that's defensible?

I think it's absolutely defensible. What's not defensible is the $100,000 pay increases that the CSU is approved and without much transparency at all.

You you have a good point when you say if students are seeing their fees go up, that there shouldn't be pay raises for people earning 6 figure compensation packages. I think that's a very good point to make. I'm sorry that some students have been, you know, misled that the bill somehow is going to apply to more than just a handful of folks. This actually seems more shameful than thoughtful. You're hijacking, it seems, the notion of students paying higher fees should not be going to salary increases, which I think is a very valid point, and I would support across the board, no salary increases, in terms of the pay schedule, the the the, classifications, during a time when students are being asked to pay more.

I think that's a valid policy that we should explore. That's not what you're doing. You're basically saying, well, we're gonna do some window dressing in my opinion for some high executives, while exempting everyone else. And the the main driver of the costs are labor costs in the colleges, that you're you're you're trying to address. That's where the fee increases are coming from.

And we're certainly not getting a a head start on deferred maintenance. It's it's labor costs. That's the main part of our budget that, we're usually looking to increase fees for on students. So I I find this frankly appalling, to have organized labor show up here and try to very cleverly, pit students against all faculty, and use students and fee increases as a way of kinda carving out certain positions and claiming that certain people are not gonna get salary increases when in fact, you're negotiating presently increases, and you will continue to do so as students have to pay more. I and I'm not gonna allow that misrepresentation to be made through this bill.

So I'm I'm disappointed that the author has gone down this road. I know that you're genuinely interested in thoughtful policy on many fronts, particularly as it relates to the youth. But this seems like a grotesque level of window dressing. It's a masquerade bill, and I I simply cannot support it with this massive carve out.

I appreciate those comments, vice chair de Maio, but I wanna be clear that no union asked me to do this bill. I saw the conduct of the CSU to be shameful in how they're operating. And if we wanna get real in Sacramento about affordability, we have to hold our own accountable as much as we are holding the Federal Government accountable. And this is no one asked me to do this bill. This is a bill that I felt important.

This is a values bill. This is what we value in the state of California, and we should not be giving massive compensation to high level administrators in the same budget where they cut classes, where they cut faculty, and they raise student tuition.

And thank you so much, for the comments there, some errands, and thank you in your remarks that stated that you'd be open to taking future amendments. Just as a policy, just for clarification, there's no amendments on the floor at this at today because we don't take amendments during the hearing, but I really appreciate your comments about taking, future amendments. Thank you. Mister Marisucci.

Thank you. So first of all, mister Aarons, I wanna make it clear that I will be voting to support your bill.

Thank you.

I at the same time, I want to make sure that we're, you know, not unnecessarily hurting our our California State University campuses. And so I wanna ask my my questions to the the CSU. You know, I mean, first of all I mean, I as a as a former school board member.

I know that that, you know, a lot of times, people complain about how much local superintendents get paid. And and the the argument the response is always that the the the market. This is this is where the market is at to attract and retain qualified quality leadership.

And, you know, while I think we we can all appreciate, you know, the the basic concept. At at at some point, you know, when when we hear the I mean, it's it's just too easy of a target, you know, when when I mean.

The committee analysis highlights the presidents and their salaries, you know, most of them over half a million which I imagine for CSU presidents or or those that occupy or aspire to those positions.

I mean, that that may not seem that that extraordinary. But I think for most people, including, you know, legislators who get a mere fraction of those salaries, you know, I think it's, yeah, it certainly makes us think, you know, wouldn't it be nice?

And so first of all, I mean, you know, you talked about how CSU campuses are like small cities. They have complex operations of of of dealing with multiple competing, you know, agendas, requirements, needs, interests.

What what what would you say are the the the the three most important functions of a CSU campus president? And and how would capping the the the salaries, you know, based on what the bill is proposing going to impact those three most important tasks or responsibilities of a CSU president?

Thank you very much for that. Yeah. I think it's on. Thank you very much for that question. I think that when thinking about the the three most important items like you mentioned, as well as kind of the issues and impact, it might be important to think about kind of how we got to this place.

As the as the CSU had a 50% turnover over the last two years of of of their presidents. And as we were going through recruitment processes, we recognized that the the current structure for salaries were actually very problematic. They we were having difficulty attracting and and worry about retaining leadership. And so through the work of an outside consultant, we went through a process where we recognized kind of where our campuses are and where our university presidents are and where we need to go. And some of the things that came out of that include the absolute complex nature of individuals that they interact with.

You know, one day you're you're talking to faculty, the next day you're talking to community members, next day you're talking to donors, the next day you're talking to students, and on and on and on.

And so that complexity, as well as the experience that is required, we're very fortunate that over the last little bit, we've been able to hire presidents who were previously presidents. And that level of experience, especially when dealing with the federal chaos and everything else that goes with it, has just been absolutely incredibly important.

The last thing I'll mention is just when thinking about experience as well as the ability to interact with so many different people, is also understanding the academic enterprise.

And the importance of the academic enterprise when thinking about the research enterprise, which is really something that is unique to the CSU. Our work with applied research and how we're working with our community members is absolutely important.

The focus on workforce development and understanding that we need to create curriculum that's tied to that. And having the kind of experience that comes from being able to hire the right folks is absolutely critical. So those are three things.

So well, you know, I won't belabor the point. I just think that, you know, again, while we may conceptually agree that, you know, generally speaking, you need to pay a competitive salary to attract and retain quality people.

It just seems that the there's no check on university executive compensation. And and, you know, because it's such a small pool of of people and and and, you know, universities are competing for that relatively small pool of people that have PhDs or that, you know, that have the experience that you're talking about.

It there's there's no check on those executive compensation. It's just escalating unless bills like this come along. And and so yeah. I just think, you know, while while I'm sympathetic to the argument that that you need to have a competitive compensation to attract and retain good people.

I just think that the the market for university leadership has has gotten so skewed that that is the message that I wanna send in supporting this bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mister Muratsuchi. Any further questions or comments? Mister Gonzales.

Thank you. To the author, like we talked about earlier, I'm in this place of trying to understand which which way I wanna be able to to to go on this. So I'll be asking questions to help me further clarify my position. I'm still a little I heard what Chair said, but I'm a little

unclear on what's been discussed here as far as amendments go. Are you able to share exactly what amendments you have committed to take or who you've conveyed this to and when can we expect amendments to be processed?

Sure. As I mentioned earlier in my opening statement, I'm committed to amend the bill to remove the provision requiring retroactive repeal of the November 2025 resolution. So not making the cuts retro not removing the increases that were already

improved, the nearly 20% increases, some amounting to over $100,000, tightening definitions on compensation to reflect that the bill is referring to the base salary only and narrowing the scope to those in managerial, executive, or administrative positions not

represented by an employee organization. So contrary to what the CSU is claiming.

Okay. And those were those commit committee amendments? Or were those your your amendments?

I know that the committee analysis provided recommendations, but they did not provide any suggested amendments as noted by the Chair.

So those proposed amendments are on page 12. And so I believe I speak for Mister Ahrens, but you said you'd be open to some of those

I would be open to all of them, Mister Chair.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. So as I was listening to both sides and understanding, right, as a business owner, I look at secondary and tertiary effects of anything. Right? So with this if if this bill passes, right, do you anticipate nonrepresented frontline staff will leave creating vacancies if this bill were signed off into law?

I don't believe that the CSU has an issue with hiring well compensated senior level administrators. There's there hasn't been any indication in my professional opinion. Additionally, the CSU meant testimony mentioned how this would affect community college administrators.

The very study that the that the the independent study that the CSU hired to determine where they fell in the in the median range to increase, didn't actually didn't even include any community college administrators.

If they actually included community college administrators in their compensation study, their recommendations would be more online and I doubt I would even be recommending this bill. The heart of what I'm trying to get at, Assembly Member, is reasonable accommodations to know, you know, when is enough enough.

Every few years, they're gonna keep increasing, increasing, and the gap between senior level administrators and our professors who are literally sleeping in their cars is going to keep widening. I'm open to any of, members of the committee or in our legislative body on amendments that would seek guardrails for this. I am not wedded to any one individual number. This is about meaningful guardrails.

This is not meant to to punish the CSU or cap them in any way from being able to recruit and retain talented individuals. But when, you know, we talk about the fact that they run small cities, they're getting paid way more than city managers who have cities much

larger than the constituencies that they proclaim to, want to serve. And so, again, I'm open to suggestions from you and other members of the committee as well as ongoing conversations with the Chair and the committee consultants to provide reasonable accommodations,

reasonable amendments that would put reasonable guardrails on what I see as not just a problem with this compensation, but when is enough enough? This is not the private sector. This is the Public Taxpayer Dollars and we should be not allowing a handful of folks in the public system to get rich on the backs of our taxpayers.

You know, as I as I look at this and I keep hearing CSUs CSU, I think of UCs, community colleges, so on and so forth. Right? Does do you think this creates a disadvantage to for the CSUs when the UC and community colleges are not under the same salary cap? And why not why didn't you think of

Well, constitute thank you, Assembly Member. But constitutionally, we we do not control the competence. We're not able to pass laws because of the independent board of regents based on our constitution in California.

Again, the community colleges don't have the disparity of comp compensation that we're talking about. In fact, the CSU didn't even include the compensation study of community colleges in their own compensation study.

If they had, it would have been much more, in online and and on par with reasonable increases. This is not a reasonable increase. This is huge salary increases. This is also building in so they don't have to go back to the public. They don't have to go back to the CSU board of trustees.

Their bonus performance pay and this is includes on top of in some cases an $80,000 a year housing allowance. Now most people in my district that I represent, most people in your district that you represent, normally, we spend majority of our money on housing.

They wouldn't even have to touch the compensation when they're given an $80,000 a year housing allowance on top of this compensation.

You know, I'm looking at this problem set, and this is this is a problem that has been created. Right? And from whenever beginning, it should have been managed. Right? There's we look at federal state government. I served in in the military.

There are steps. Right? We know what we're gonna get at the twenty year mark, at the thirty year mark. So there's an expectation. Right? So you're not serving definitely not serving to to become rich. Right?

That being said, the if we look at the if we also answer with when it comes to the market, the need, I agree. You know, you wanna get the best train, the the right person in in the right spot. But we've also created the problem of the market.

And we've created the problem of California is not affordable. I I've I'm I've heard you speak on this several times, and you talked about this in in your state. If we're gonna talk about affordability, then we gotta do something about affordability.

So I appreciate that you say that and and that you're looking at that specifically, and this is a way that you can try and tackle that. I think it's a much more complex issue that this is a a a piece of the puzzle. Right?

The puzzle is much more complex, right? When when it comes to this problem that that you're you're referring to. I think when we look at students that go to schools in our UC, CSU, so on and so forth, can we afford to feed every single student? Right?

Absolutely.

That's a thing that we have to look at. Should we? Should we not? Can we afford it? Like, these are all questions that should be a part of the conversation. In a in a deficit, man, that's that's that's a hard thing to do. Right?

But at the same token, we also have high paid executives, and we have a a California that we can't afford. This so it's not just a simple solution of one thing. This is a this is a complex solution that this body has to tackle across the board on all scopes, not just this piece of the puzzle. So off of my soapbox there for a second, as we're we're listening to this, those who are listening and here in in committee, I think we have to look at this not only in its in its current form, but what does it mean for our future as well? Cost of living, cost of living increases.

How do we really, you know, retain quality talent? Because I want the best leaders, the best professors, the best adjunct, the bet across the board all the way. Right? But I also want them to be afford California, and that's not matching up.

And where one is trying to keep the best, but we're also trying to make it a California that's not affordable. Like, you you can't we can't compete because it's just gonna keep on going and going and going. So I I applaud your efforts to try and make California

much more affordable. But I think this conversation requires we need to bake this some more because, honestly, the answer is there. And. But the question is, do we have the political will to make those desired and necessary cuts to make that happen? I have another question brewing, but I'm gonna pause for now.

Well and I'll just close my remarks by saying Assembly Member, Gonzales, if you allow me the courtesy of your vote out of committee, I'd committed to meeting with you to hear more about your amendments and accepting them.

Thank you so much. Do you have a comment?

I do have a quick comment. One thing that's important to also recall, for all of us is that the CSU has recently adopted the the CSU strategic plan. And in that strategic plan, goal three is employer of choice. And basically, fundamentally, as part of this entire process, an employee compensation philosophy was adopted. And basically, what that says is it is our goal to make sure that every single member of the CSU community is paid at mark and rate.

So while this work was done related to executive compensation, which does come back to the board annually every November, is the goal is to be able to do this across the board. And, of course, remember, there's collective bargaining and things like that, which, of course, we deeply respect.

Thank you so much. Assembly Member Gonzalez.

Sorry. I remembered my question. Senior moment. Does the cap is it a blanket regardless of how many students, programs, staff, budget?

It's a blanket cap, but again, I'm committed to working on amendments if you have any suggestions. This is I'm not wedded to the specific number of this bill. I'm wedding for some sort of meaningful reasonable guardrails.

I appreciate your your willingness to work together because that's honestly, we need more of that here in in Sacramento. So thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Assemblymember Fong, can I make a comment?

Oh, yes, please.

Thank you. Just a couple of comments quickly, and I I think, Michael might wanna say something as well. But I wanted to share that this is definitely for us a value question. And as stated earlier, we want to ensure that public dollars are funding the CSU classrooms and not the boardrooms. The arguments made for the executive pays are the same arguments that we're making for the quality of education that we want our students to make.

Who are the ones that are teaching the students? Who are the professors? Who are the staff that are working with the students? We are on the ground with the students. They talk about the CSU talks about these compensations in the context of equity, but we are also talking about this in the context of equity.

And this is not about pitting students against faculty. To the contrary, this is about ensuring that our students, as you were sharing, Jeff Assembly Member Gonzales, that our students have a future to be able to count on. They cannot count on a future when you have faculty that are being dismissed, laid off, when you have departments that are being closed down, when you have students that can as shared not being able to afford the campuses in which they are on. But yet but yet, for example, at Cal State Bakersfield, there has been an 11% increase in their enrollment, 6% last year, 6% the year before, but yet they're still cutting programs and cutting professors and then not making it accessible for students. So there is there is no sense with what is happening here at all.

And so I wanted to just share that and have Michael speak quickly.

Yeah. Thank you.

Assembly Members, all I wanna say is, especially if you've been you know, if you graduated from a CSU, it's that you graduated because of your professors and your staff. And, I mean, in what world a million dollars a year? In what world is that uncompetitive in the market? In what world is half a million you're unable to find candidates?

I seriously doubt that, assembly members. And, again, these jobs, as we mentioned, the represented jobs, it includes jobs like mine, like student assistants who make $16 an hour on campus, and we don't get paid sick leave. We don't have any scheduled raises, and we keep the CSU running. And, yeah, I love my professors. They're the reason I'm able to stay in school.

They're the reason I'm able to you know, graduation is in reach. And if we're talking about good candidates, why aren't we talking about what we can do for our professors, our staff, and our students? So thank you.

Thank you so much. Any further questions or comments from colleagues? Seeing none, mister Adams, would you like to close, please?

Thank you. I wanna appreciate the conversation and the feedback by this committee to improve this really important accountability measure in this bill. Advancing this bill will help refocus CSU management and administrators on California students and families' ability to access affordable quality public higher education. I wanna state again for the record, I'm willing to meet with any member, any stakeholder, committee consultant, students, the CSU, to improve reasonable accommodations for this bill as long as it gets to the heart of providing guardrails so that we truly make sure that this remains the public mission that we are striving to do here in the state legislature. Respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member Ahrens. Do we have a motion? I'll move. Motion and a second. Motion by Mister Muratsuchi, Second by Mister Kalra.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member Ahrens and for bringing this measure forward. And thank you so much for colleagues, for everyone, for robust conversation on this very important issue. And thank you to our presenters here as well from the CFA and from CSU and our students. And really appreciate the ongoing conversation that we'll be having on this issue going forward as well. These are very important conversations as we look and continue to to work on affordability challenge here in California.

And we will look at different issues that whether it's the board of trustees, that they've been empowered to make decisions for the system, but also when the decisions may seem in conflict with the values of California and our students as well. So look forward to future conversations there as well. And on the committee's analysis of pages eleven and twelve, thank you for your commitment to to work it on some of the recommendations there as well. Absolutely. And so with that, and appreciate the context in terms of accountability measures you mentioned in your remarks as well.

So with that, we have a motion and a second, and and I look forward to supporting a measure today. Madam secretary, roll call, please.

On file item six, AB1831 errands. Motion is due passed to appropriations committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much, colleagues. That measure has four Ayes, one no, and three not voting. I will keep the role open for this number sat on.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your patience. Welcome, Asomir Hadwick, presenting Asilomir Bill 1555 item number three. Welcome.

You have to talk to it.

Okay. Okay. Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you, Mister Chair and members. I would like to first thank the Chair and committee staff for working with me on this critical issue. I accept the committee's amendments. I the College of Siskiyou sits right on the California Oregon border and serves community college students from across the region.

Many of these students live in one state and work in the other. Communities in Northern Siskiyou interact daily with neighboring Oregon towns for work, health care, and education. I myself grew up in a small town called Doris that's three miles from the border.

This would have been my closest community college as well. For many residents, the state line does not define their community.

They see themselves not as Californians or Oregonians, but as one interconnected cross border community. Students are bound in place by community, and research shows that 90% of community college students go to college within 50 miles of their home.

Denying their access to College of the Siskiyous simply because the state boundary cuts through the region, punishes our community for geography that they do not control. AB1555 addresses this by allowing up to 200 students to qualify for in state tuition at the College of the Siskiyous.

The college provides career technical education and workforce programs such as fire and wild land, EMS and paramedicine, law enforcement, and LVN and nursing programs that nearby colleges, including Southern Oregon University, do not offer.

My district is facing critical work workforce shortages in health care, public safety, and natural resources. This bill helps address those shortages by allowing nearby students to access training programs that already exist at the College of the Siskiyous.

I respectfully ask for your Aye vote, and I am joined today by Andrew Martinez representing the Community College League of California and Chris Ferguson representing the California Community College Chancellor's Office.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Andrew Martinez with the Community College League of California. The league has not taken official position on this measure just because of timing. We're taking positions tomorrow. But the Chair elect of the CEO board is Charles Perlis, the president of

College of the Siskiyous, who I'm channeling today, because she could not make it in this space. And I wanna, on her behalf, thank the author and the committee for the amendments in which they accept. We are deeply appreciative of this measure.

It addresses the needs of the of this college and the community that they serve. The boundaries of Oregon and California are very limited and recognize the fact that these students are most community college students will go to the community college that's 50 miles

closest to the ones that serves them, Giving us the additional flexibility for this college to take up to 200 students per year from three specific counties addresses the concerns and addresses the service needs for these for these communities. With that, we humbly request your support in this measure and ask for your eye vote.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Chair, Executive Vice Chancellor of Finance and Strategic Initiatives, Chris Ferguson. I too am here in support of superintendent president Charles Perlas, who could not be here today. Certainly, this bill will assist the campus in maintaining services to a broad range of

students. It will provide a similar opportunity that is available to other campuses in the state region or in the state. And would just note that it does help address workforce needs in Siskiyou County and near the residential boundary of the college.

Certainly, I would also add just a a big thank you for the legislature support in the past of student housing for our community and the College of the Siskiyous. This continues that trend of enabling our campus to serve students and serve students well.

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

Hello, Chair and Members. Awesome. Hello, Chair and Members. Keshav Kumar, not on behalf of any interest right now. Actually, just on behalf of myself, I took about 42 units at College of the Siskiyous.

I grew up in the Siskiyous. I just wanted to give a little bit of context for the three counties that have been included, Jackson, Josephine, and Klamath. As someone who grew up there for eighteen years, this really is one contiguous area. We had track meets in Ashland. We would go to Oregon Institute of Tech for certain classes, and we would probably go shopping in Bedford as often we as we went shopping in Redding because that is where the big stores are.

We are all a great big community up there. You. And so I would just say, please support this bill. It is one giant community.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? No. So we have a motion and a second. Motion by vice mayor de Maio, second by mister Gonzales. Any further questions or comments? Seeing none, Asami Haddick, would you like to close, please?

Yes. Thank you so much. I just want to express my appreciation again. Oregon also has a good neighbor policy for us when we want to go to school there as a as a I grew up on a border town and now live in another county that is a border town. So thank you for your consideration.

Thank you so much, Assembly Hedrick, for your leadership and efforts here and really for bringing this measure forward. And I'm prepared to support the measure here today. I believe there was some northernmost portion of the state of California with additional student talent and educational opportunities to enhance our workforce in the region.

And with that, I look forward to supporting the measure here today. Madam secretary, roll call, please.

On file item three AB 1555 Hadwick. Motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much. That measure has seven Ayes, and it's out. We'll keep the rope open for additional members to add on. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next up, we'd like to welcome doctor Jackson presenting item number two, Assembly Bill 1552. Welcome, Doctor Jackson.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair. I wanna thank you and your staff for their feedback on this bill, which I'll be accepting the amendments as proposed. AB 1558 requires the California Community Colleges and the California State University and request the University of California to report

recommendations to the legislature on how to foster a greater knowledge of American democracy and meaningful civic engagement to ensure our graduates are prepared to assume their roles as what Alexander Hamilton describes as the natural guardians of our democracy in Federalist Paper number 16. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

I can move the bill. Second.

We have a motion by Doctor Patel, a second by Assembly Kalra.

Is that a support position? Please welcome.

Good afternoon. Stephanie Clark on behalf of Young Invincibles in support of AB1552. And we are a sponsor of this bill with a core coalition as well and sponsor of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeters in the hearing room? Colleagues, any I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Tony Triero on behalf of California Teachers Association. We wanna acknowledge the two sets of amendments that the author has taken. We go to state council the end of the month, and we hope we can come to a positive conclusion on this bill. Appreciate it. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. Chris Morales with the CSU Office of the Chancellor. We do not have an official position on the bill. However, we would like to thank the committee and the author for the amendments as they address many of our concerns. We look forward to continuing to work with the author on the bill moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Colleagues, any questions or comments?

Thank you. Ordinarily, I would support a bill like this to encourage civic participation, but let's be candid. We have a problem. A lot of these programs are not about, an unbiased neutral, program to encourage civic participation. They're about funding partisan politics.

We've seen too many violations, too many instances of one-sided programming. When I see groups like the Coalition for Human Rights, Human Immigrant Rights, CHRLA, which has been the source of great controversy with the use of taxpayer funds or even Equality California. These are not organizations that have demonstrated that they are nonpartisan, or balanced. And so I I am hesitant to support this program today, particularly as we enter a constrained budget environment. We need to make sure that our state agencies are focused on mission critical programs.

And, engaging in in political activity, seems to be a distraction, not only potentially inappropriate, but perhaps, not an effective use of funds in a limited budget, period. So I will not be supporting the bill today.

Thank you so much. Any further questions or comments? Seeing none, do we have a motion? Oh, we have a motion second. Thank you so much, colleagues. Mister Jackson, we'd like to close, please.

Thank you very much, mister chair. I believe our founding fathers and some of our many of the people we recognize of being protectors of our democracy throughout this nation's history would say that democracy democracy is not self sustaining. It must be understood, practiced, and protected by every generation. Students must be equipped with the tools to meaningfully engage with our democratic process in order to become not only members of the workforce, but protectors of our democracy. So with that, mister chair, respectfully ask for your I your aye vote.

Thank you so much, miss Summer Jackson, for bringing this very important measure forward. We know that college campuses are bedrocks of our democracy. Public squares where we can learn, share ideas, and engage in spirited debate. Appreciate the amendments that you are taking here today. I look forward to recommendations that will come from our public higher education segments. And with that, I look forward to supporting measure here today. Madam secretary, roll call, please.

On file item two, a b 1552 Jackson. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure is five Ayes, two noes, and we'll keep the rope in for additional members to add on. Thank you. No. No. One more bill.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon, mister chair and members. First, I would like to accept the suggested committee amendments. Assembly bill 1829 strengthens financial support for low income student parents participating in the California Community Colleges CalWORKs recipient education program. The CalWORKs REP assists community college students receiving CalWORKs cash aid to prepare for employment by providing opportunities and services such as work study, job placement, childcare, skills training, and case manager support.

During the 2024-25 academic year, approximately 25,000 students participated statewide. Currently, CalWORKs REP funding has limited flexibility to provide students with direct financial support through aid payments, vouchers, or reimbursements. In addition, CalWORKs REP requires employers that offer work study to recipients to provide a 25% match for work study wages. This requirement off often serves as a disincentive for employers to participate in a work study program, particularly our off campus employers. AB 1829 would allow the use of existing CalWORKS REP funding for direct aid to students for basic needs defined as, but not limited to, housing, food, clothing, diapers, technology, childcare services, and mental health services.

And it would also allow community college CalWORKs programs to waive the 25% employer match for CalWORKS work study jobs at their discretion and to incentivize off campus employers to hire students. Here to testify in support of AB 1829 are Reynold Garcia, the president of the CalWORKS Association, and Roshanda Henson, a Coworks student at Saddleback College, or certainly ask for an aye vote.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is, Reynold Garcia. I serve as president of the CalWORKs Association. I'm also the director of CalWORKs over at Los Angeles City College. I represent a 116 programs across the California serving 30,000 parenting students.

And as his extension, tens of thousands of children and families. I'm here in strong support for AB 1829. Every day, we we serve students that are doing the impossible, balancing school, work, childcare, and financial financial hardships, all while fighting for a better future for their families. They're asking only for a fair shot. What they need from us is an opportunity and and and remove the unnecessary barriers that we have.

AB 1829 does exactly that. By eliminating 25 mask requirement for CalWORKs work study, the bill expands access to employment, opportunities, and too many students are now currently being denied. Not because, it's not needed or isn't there, but because the structures makes it unsustainable at this time. Work study is not just a paycheck. It is a it is it is a lifeline.

It keeps students enrolled, builds workforce skills, and prevents them from having to choose between providing from their families and completing their education. At the same time, CalWORKs programs are restricted to using just tenant funds for direct direct aid, which is 11% or less at some campuses of of our budget. If we were allowed to also leverage proposition 98 funds like other categorical programs in our system, we can meet students' basic needs more effectively and remove barriers and continue to stand in their way. But we invest when we invest in parents and students, we are investing in families. When we support families, we strengthen our communities.

And when we strengthen our communities, we build a more equitable and prosperous California. At a b 29 moves us towards a system grounded in access, flexibility, and student success. On the behalf of the Cowards Association and the families we serve, I respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 1829. Joining me today are Cindy Duran, a former CalWORKs student, now a counselor here to support, her student, Rishanda Henson.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the committee. My name is Rashanda Henson, and I am a CalWORKs work study student at Saddleback College. I'm a single mother of two children. I'm here to take today to respectfully urge your support for AB 1829. Balancing school work and parenting is not easy.

My day is filled with attending classes, completing assignments, working, cooking dinner, helping with homework, taxing children to and from extracurricular activities, and administrating basic care for my children. Like many student parents, I am working hard to build a better future, not just for myself or for my family, but as a citizen of the world as a whole. Financial support has been essential to my success. Grants and direct aid help me cover basic needs such as housing, food, transportation, extra curriculars, childcare. Without this support, staying in school would be extremely difficult.

The CalWORKs work study program has been especially important because it allows me to earn an income without affecting my cash aid benefits. This gives me the opportunity to earn a living and complete my educational goals while still maintaining the support my children rely on. With the rising cost of living, student parents face impossible choices every day. A b 1829 is important because it helps remove barriers and strengthens the support system that allows us to stay enrolled and complete our education. It recognizes the realities we face and ensures that pursuing a degree does not put our families at risk.

Programs like how works work study direct and direct aid are not just helpful, they are essential. They give students like me the chance to succeed and move towards long term self sufficiency. I ask for your support of a b 1829 so that student parents like myself can continue our education and create a better future for our children and ultimately impact the world around us in a positive sustainable way. Thank you for your time and listening to my concerns.

Okay. So we've heard from witnesses in support. Are there any additional witnesses in support that would like to register your name and your organization in support?

Sorry.

Sir, go ahead. Sir, good afternoon. Justin Selmick on behalf of the California Community College Chancellor's Office, sponsor of AB 1829 and also here to take any technical questions. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Jake Sook. I'm an intern at USpire. I'm a student at Davis in USpire sports disability concept.

K.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair, Members. Parshall with USPIRE. We're working on a support letter and a support position in supporting concept. Thank you for introducing this, mister chair. And looking forward to continuing this work with CalWORKs, and especially getting to a place of CalWORKs associations in the near future. So thank you.

Good afternoon. Cindy Duran as a former CalWORKs recipient and now current CalWORKs counselor and coordinator for Saddleback College. I support 1829. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Any tweeners? Let's return to the committee members. The bill. We have a motion to move the bill by miss Patel and the second by mister Carlra. Any other comments? I'll I'll make a remark before handing it over to the chair and then we'll call the the role. I am very supportive of work study programs. When I was orphaned as a child, I made it through Georgetown Prep with no worries.

I ended up to have a job. But I landed at Georgetown University with $36 in my pocket, a beat up Toyota Corolla, couple boxes in a bag. And when I showed up, my first appointment was with the cap the work study program. And I got two work study jobs. And those jobs were crucial to me.

$36 cash in my pocket wasn't gonna last very long. And so I am a big believer in these programs. It also compliments and adds on to the the classroom experience when you have a job that you can, you know, test drive a career. It's not just a little money in your pocket, but it's also a good learning opportunity. However, there's a reason why there's a 25% match, and that is to ensure that the jobs are legitimate and that we don't have, fraudulent, expenditures.

I am concerned by removing the 25% matching, requirement here that, this will cost taxpayers more money. I know that there is a provision in the bill to mandate that you you would have to make sure that a certain number of students are, served and that that does not decrease. But there's simple math. If there's a 25% match that's removed, who makes up the difference? Are we cutting the wages of work study students even if we're not cutting the number of students?

Or are we shouldering more of the burden as taxpayers for those jobs? We also know that our, universities and colleges have, been dinged in the last several years for phantom students. It's a new version of fraud. Students who enroll, who are not real, they enroll in our our our programs. They take up a valuable slot in some of the degree programs, and they, presumably get some sort of financial, aid, for the fraudsters, but they're not real students.

And we still do not have a handle on this problem. We still haven't gotten a a reasonable solution. My concern is it's kinda hard for a business to justify paying 25% for a no show employee. Whereas if it's just in the government sector with no match, my concern is that there would be, without internal controls, a an opportunity for fraud. So I would like to see the bill, strengthened at some point.

I cannot support it today, mister chairman. I very much support these programs. I actually think that students have an opportunity to learn more from work study jobs sometimes than they can in the classroom. I certainly did. But in its present form, I'm concerned about the potential for fraud, and I will not be able to support it today. I did not support a similar bill last year. With that, mister chairman, if you'd like to close make a closing statement.

Yes. Thank you so much. Appreciate the comments, and thank you so much for all of your questions and comments. In terms of the 25% employer match that's intended to align with federal work study that requires 25% of the work study to be paid with non federal funds.

However, we've also seen that the match is a barrier to students seeking off campus work opportunities. Over the past few years, on campus work study has outnumbered off campus work study by eight to one.

We also have many anecdotal examples from programs of employers declining to participate due to the 25% match, and we are amending the bill to clarify that programs may waive the 25% requirement rather than totally removing it, and that could be a win win for our employers.

But any things in terms of wages, we wanna make sure that all the students are getting paid a fair wage as well, so we're not intending for any wages to be cut. And these are really to bright opportunities for our next generation of leaders such as Rosonda Henson and students

throughout our higher education system who are trying to get by, who are trying to continue their educational journeys and to have that additional direct aid for benefits, for employment opportunities. We know that having employment opportunities are critical to connecting, to networking,

and to providing future job growth and opportunities in your future growth. We know that folks change their careers an average of seven or eight times over their lifetime, And so any opportunities for our students that continue to have additional, work study programs is critical

and then something that we wanna continue to uplift and support. And, obviously, we don't want any fraud in any of our programs as well. So with that, I ask for an Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

May I excuse me. May I add something? I honestly

Briefly, please.

And I understand the the the fraud situation, and that usually happens with financial aid. With CalWORKs, students are certified every semester. And so they need a verification of benefits to come into the program that we we get from students as well as, enrollment. And so there we we have real students that are part of our program.

Thank you very much. We have a motion before us by miss Patel, seconded by mister Kalra, and it is due pass as amended and re refer to the human services committee. Let's go ahead, madam secretary, and call the roll.

On file item five, AB 1829 Fong. Motion is due pass as amended to human services committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you. We will leave the bill at least for a few moments on call for absent members. Thank you.

Thank you so much. At this time, we'll do add ons. Should we just go through the you consent calendar first? Alright. We'll start with the consent calendar, madam secretary.

[Roll Call]

That measures out 10. Thank you so much, colleagues. Now we'll have the madam secretary go through each of the remaining items. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much, colleagues. That measure is out eight to two. Thank you. Next item, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much. That measure is out seven to two. We'll keep the rope in for additional members. Thank you. Next item, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much. That is out 9-0. Keep the rope open for additional members. Next item, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much, colleagues. That measure is out eight to one. We'll keep the rope open for additional members. Thank you. I think that's it. Right? Alright. Thank you so much colleagues for a robust hearing. Thank you to everyone involved with today's hearing. We're gonna keep we're gonna keep the rope open for additional members add on for another five minutes, but thank you so much colleagues for a robust hearing.

Thank you to the Assembly Higher Education Committee and to everyone involved with today's meeting. Thank you, Mister Kalra, for pinching as well today. I appreciate you, and thank you with that. Office of stakeholders, please make sure you're engaging early with our committee staff on your measures, and we'll keep the open addition oh, roll open for an additional five minutes for anybody to add on. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much again for everyone, for your working efforts with today's hearing. Appreciation to our Assembly Higher Education Committee staff, to everyone involved. Our next hearing is gonna be on Tuesday, April 7 at 01:30PM in State Capital Hearing Room 126. Authors and stakeholders, please make sure you're engaging with my committee staff early on on your measures, and we look forward to the dialogue there. So assembly with that, the Assembly Higher Education Committee meeting is adjourned. Thank you.