Senate Standing Committee on Education

The Senate education committee will come to order in thirty seconds. Good morning. Welcome to the Senate Education Committee hearing. There are 10 bills on today's agenda. Two bills are on consent.

Item number two, SB 1107, and item number three, SB 1188. 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 we do not have a quorum, we'll begin as a subcommittee with our first bill. And I know Senator Reyes has requested to present first. So Senator Reyes, whenever you'd like to begin.

Thank you, Madam chair. I'd like to begin with SB 1154. SB 1154 will allow community college districts to use a best value procurement method for public works projects exceeding $1,000,000 Best value procurement allows contracts to be awarded based on a combination of price, objective qualitative criteria and not simply the lowest bid. In doing so, it provides community colleges with the same flexibility already provided to K through 12 school districts, the University of California and the California State Universities.

Unfortunately, when it comes to delivering major construction projects, community colleges are held to a procurement standard that requires a selection based on the lowest bid which limits their ability to select contractors based on overall quality and long term value.

Best value procurement helps ensure that projects are completed on time, built to high standards and designed to support long term functionality. SB 11654 allows districts to evaluate contractor experience, safety records, technical expertise and life cycle costs. These projects are essential to preparing students for transfer, career pathways and participation in California's evolving workforce and will assure we are setting up our infrastructure for long term success.

Here to testify and support are doctor Diana Rodriguez, chancellor of the San Bernardino Community College District, and Jose Torres, Chief Business Officer for the San Bernardino Community College District.

Thank you. And thank you, chair and members of the Senate Education Committee. As introduced, my name is Diana Rodriguez. I'm the chancellor for the San Bernardino Community College District. And also joining me are colleagues, executive vice chancellor Jose Torres, our chief business officer, and also vice chancellor Angel Rodriguez.

I'm here in support of SB 1154. This bill gives community colleges another option for delivering major construction projects. This is not a requirement. This is an option that districts can use when they're trying to protect public dollars and get important projects done right. Community colleges continuously, routinely build complex public projects.

We build healthcare training facilities, nursing labs, STEM applied technology labs, workforce training centers, and major infrastructure projects. These are specialized facilities and districts should be able to look beyond the lowest bid. We have seen the consequences of this in our own district. At Crafton Hills College, we recently built a performing arts center with state of the art equipment with state and local dollars. It was a specialized high-tech project with complex acoustics, theater systems, and audio visual components.

Under the low bid model, problems surfaced during construction. The project was delayed two hundred and five days and had about $2,860,000 in change orders. That's $2,860,000 At San Bernardino Valley College, a softball field, project that also went to the lowest bidder, The contractor ran into fiscal trouble and couldn't finish the job. So the district had to step in and the project was completed about a year late because of that. Different projects, but the same lessons we keep learning.

The lowest price upfront doesn't always protect the public dollars in the long run. SP eleven fifty four gives community colleges another option.

If you could start wrapping up, you're over.

Thank you. It lets us take a look at price, but also at experience, safety records, financial capacity, labor compliance, and whether a contract can manage the project successfully. As mentioned, the UC, the CSU, and the K-Twelve's have this option. Community colleges should have this flexibility as well. So we we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Very good.

Alright. So we'll now have anybody come up who'd like to add their me too. Please state your name, position on the bill and organization.

Thank you. Mark McDonald on behalf of the Contra Costa Community College District in support.

Jack Werson on behalf of Citrus College in support. Madam Chair, members, Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California also in support.

Thank you. Do we have any other support witnesses? We'll now hear from those witnesses in opposition.

Well, yes.

Great. And you may begin when you're ready.

Good morning, madam chair and members of the committee. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California. We are an association of nearly a thousand contractors that build your heavy civil utility and vertical construction in the state. We absolutely appreciate the author's intent here. AGC supports the use of best value procurement when it expands flexibility and helps deliver high quality public projects.

Our concern is not with best value. It's with how this bill is structured. SB 1154 conditions participation on a mandatory skilled and trained workforce requirement applied to contractors and all subcontractors at every tier. That requirement doesn't influence who wins a project. It determines who was even allowed to compete for this project.

And the practical effect is a significant narrowing of the bitter pool. Many qualified contractors, particularly small emerging and specialty firms, simply cannot meet rigid apprenticeship thresholds, even if they have strong safety records and successful public works experience. So instead of expanding options for community college colleges, this bill limits competition at the front end. The bill also incorporates labor compliance history into scoring, which introduces subjectivity and can penalize contractors for minor or corrected issues, rather than focusing on actual project performance.

When you combine restricted eligibility, subjective scoring, and a more complex procurement process, you get fewer bidders, higher costs, and less predictability, not more.

We think best value can work, but only when it is truly open and competitive, not when it embeds mandates that excludes large portions of the industry. For those reasons, AGC of California and the San Diego chapter respectfully opposes SB 1154.

Good morning, senators. Richard Markson on behalf of the Western Electrical Contractors Association. We provide electrical and low voltage contracting services throughout the state of California and in the West. Like AGC, WECA is opposed to the measure. In particular, we're particularly pleased that a couple of the witnesses mentioned safety in their testimony.

We believe that the bill has very flawed safety language. It creates a two tiered standard. Some contractors may be deemed safe even with very high experience modifiers if they have a alternative dispute resolution system for workers compensation claims. This has nothing to do with the safety on a worksite. It has nothing to do with the safety of the contractor but creates a carve out for a handful of contractors to avoid being evaluated on their safety standards.

The second provision that we object to is the two tiered enforcement of the skilled and trained workforce mandate that mister Fuentes dis discussed. Under one scenario, a contractor is subject to tiered penalties including up to $20,000 per month in financial penalties and debarment for violating the skilled and trained workforce mandate. Another set of contractors is subject to arbitration. There's no disclosure of what penalties they may have paid, what kind of mitigation activities they have may have may have pursued.

The DLSC is not involved in any of those enforcement activities.

We suggested to the author that the safety language be modernized and be used use the equivalent language that is available to the the University of California system and that the skilled and trained workforce mandate be universally applied, either allow every contractor the alternative of arbitration or subject every contractor to enforcement by DLSE and the financial penalties associated with that. For that reason, we are opposed and thank you.

Thank you to,for your presentation. Do we have any additional opposition witnesses, here in the room that would like to speak? Seeing no one, getting up and seeing as we do have a quorum, I'm going to go ahead and establish quorum very quickly. Secretary, if you can call the roll.

Senators Perez? Here. Perez here. Ochoa Bog? Here.

Ochoa Bog here. Cabaldon? Choi?

Choi here. Cortese? Gonzales Reyes? Here. Reyes here.

Here.

Great. I will now bring the conversation back to committee if committee has any comments or questions, Senator Choi or Senator Ochoa Bogue. Senator Choi?

Thank you, Chair and Senator Reyes. Thank you for your presentation. I understand your points. At the same time, it's also very troubling to hear, the witnesses, from the opposition side. I wonder either you or, your proponents, may answer the points, that the opponent witness have brought up.

I I think that if we're looking at lowest bid, the issues are going to be very similar and that is what we have had is lowest bid. I absolutely take into account the the opposition statements, and I look forward to continuing our conversation with them.

I I know the prices are very important, but the experiences the Chancellor described that delays and the problems and eventually costing more than anticipated. That is the, I guess, ultimate objection for choosing the lowest bidders. However, from my experience as a mayor of City Of Irvine, we sent out our our piece only prescreened qualified and previously dealt with trustable companies and then we know they are all any of them could qualify and do the job, but eventually looking for lowest bidder and highest quality.

And we had very

low problem

rate for doing that kind of a procedure, choosing the qualified, prequalified people, through the public bidding and that qualifies the public agencies to do RFPs and use the best value for our lowest cost. But here is there will be no matter what process you may choose the best value, contractors you may choose, but sometimes things may happen. And so therefore, I wonder that's one point of cost saving and through the mechanism so that our way, you you can prequalify them.

Second concern that I have is that is subjectivity. Best value means to to whom whose eyes that you can determine that.

And we have board of trustees for them to do their job through their experience, and the building experience is not new to them and that they will know whom to avoid. So, using very possible the concern on the favoritism for the name of best value and highest quality, but they, eventually may end up millions of dollars more. How do you encounter that?

I I think that one thing we have to recognize is that this is an option for the school district. K twelve has best best value procurement already. US UCs have best value procurement already and so do the CSUs. It's only the community colleges that don't have that option. This bill provides that option to them.

And you're right. There there there may be times when in the end, the cost is higher, but this is something that they are looking at to get the best value for their money. They are the stewards of the money for the university, for the community college, and they're going to try to do the best they can in selecting the best contractors to do the job. But thank you for your question.

Yeah. And follow-up question is that

you you are authorizing the trustees for them to exercise this right for the best value or they can use public bidding when lowest bidder may be contracted. That's option to them. Right?

It is the option. It is the option. That is right. As just as the option.

One is that you are this bill is requiring best value entities to use skilled and trained workforce. Is that, again, limiting

the criteria? How do you define the skilled and train the workforce? I'm I'm sure they are all already trained once they are hired by the construction companies. Is this is limiting to union members?

It is a term of art that is used, and I think that it's something that has been accepted in in many of the legislation that has been passed regarding the building of infrastructure, the building of homes, the building primarily of infrastructure.

Yeah. Typically under this kind of restriction for skilled and trained union member skills only, workforce is only, will end up minimum 15% higher than market rate building cost. So this bill is requiring and the objections raised that point as well.

Again, this is an option.

No. This one says requires.

If they use the the the best value procurement process, it is going to be skilled and trained. It it it's one of the options that's available to to the to the community colleges And that is what we're providing as an option.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Choi. Senator Cho Boke?

Sorry. I missed the opposition's comments and their objections to to their positions of the bill, but I was reading your letter of of of opposition. Sorry. I had a press conference this morning, so we've got a lot going on today. So I am yes.

You're right. The state legislature has passed and allowed for the best procurement to to be applied to both elementary k 12 as well as some of our UCs or CSUs, I believe. Both. Both. And I have objected to every single one of them.

And I and I will I will be objecting as well. I get I get emotional every time this bill is produced and breath forward. I will be a hard no with the utmost respect and I think you understand why we've had conversations about this. I believe that it's absolutely fundamentally wrong to put in statue who has the ability to work in the state and who doesn't. We talk endlessly in this legislature, in this body, in this committee about opportunity for all.

Opportunity to get an education, opportunity to work. We are currently having lots of conversations about AI and ensuring that AI doesn't take away jobs and opportunity for work, for humans to be able to work. We protect people's ability to provide for themselves. This bill and every bill that has to be forwarded with regards to risk procurement has a requirement that states that it has to have skilled and trained workforce. Code words for they have to belong to a certain union, a labor group.

They talked about local hire. Well, let me give you an example of local hire and who this bill discriminates against. As you know, my my family name is Archoa Bogue. Bogue is my married name. Grandpa Bogue came to the Inland Empire, the early forties.

He himself was a general contractor. Has a plaque at the local library in our city, Yucaipa, that says mentions his name, Shirley S. Bogue. Our family, he was a general contractor. His son, my father-in-law, eventually went into construction, started his own company, Bogue Construction.

Our KCB towers actually. KCB towers, my father-in-law started his own company probably around the early eighties, has been in business for over forty years. Started with two partners, started as a tower company, grew up in San Bernardino, educated, graduated from Pacific High School, went to a local elementary school, has had his company for over forty years. His son, my husband, Greg Vogue, worked for his father, graduated from local schools, attended San Bernardino Valley College and graduated from San Bernardino Valley College.

He's now VP of his stats company.

Under your requirement here of skilled and trade, they don't qualify to participate in bid and to work on these projects. Local company who employs local folks, who have been educated at local schools, live locally, family members open businesses locally. But because they're not part of these required unions, they get discriminated against. You talk about skilled labor and workforce, Many of your communities, San Bruno Valley Community College buildings have been retrofitted or built by the hands, including my husband's hands.

How are those buildings working out for you?

Under this bill, you discriminated against it. You take away their opportunity to work locally. You talk about skilled and trained. It is to the best interest of every company to ensure that their employees, that their workforce is trained Because the standards in which they are working on the construction code, building codes, they are standard same for everyone, whether they have a label union or not.

The inspectors at that job site will be looking to ensure that every bolt is screwed, welded, cut, assembled by the same standards.

And for every company that does not qualify under your skilled and trade, it falls upon them to ensure that they're doing it right. Because if they don't, guess who pays for it? The very own company taking away from their own profit at the end, because they have to do the job twice, three times if they do do it correctly. So there is an incentive in there to ensure that they're doing the job right, that their workers are doing it correctly.

Labor standard construction code is the same whether you're skilled or trained or not.

It is the same. And no company is going to willfully or negligently send untrained people to do that job because it falls upon them to fix it. So I am tired of hearing every single time a bill is introduced of this sort that you have to be skilled and trained to be able to do work when the state already has a requirement to fill fulfill certain training to get license to work in the state.

The state gives you your license to work in in in in California and to have the audacity to say, sorry, you don't have it because you don't have this particular union in your job, you can't work. You're not qualified to work in the city of California.

And we're making it code. We're codifying it in the state. There is a disconnect between what the state requires you to work and be licensed under and what you qualify as skilled and trained. I'm gonna ask, and I'm not sure, sir, you've oh, through the chair. I'm sorry, madam chair.

I have a question for the opposition. I'm sorry you're representing

I represent the Western Electrical Contractors Association. We're specialty subcontractors doing electrical and low voltage work.

Okay. And AGC is who?

The Associated General Contractors of California. We're almost a thousand, members strong representing both union and union contractors.

Union and non union, you mean? Okay. In those in the training, the the facility that I attended that does the training for different construction companies in Riverside County is AGC. Is that AGC or who is it?

It's a joint facility. It had been we had been we could have been sharing space with AGC at the Riverside facility. So And

that's where they do training.

Right? We do training. Yes. For electricians, a commercial electrician, it's a five year program to graduate as a journey worker as a commercial electrician.

Who else it which other skills and trades are trained in that facility?

Well, I believe AGC has five trades that they train there. We trained both electrical and low voltage.

And those trained those those workers that are trained there are non union. And so it is a DIRs certificated apprenticeship program. There are very few of those versus the ones that are union.

Okay. And for those apprenticeship programs in that facility that's being trained, I've had the opportunity to visit that that facility. Could you, for the record, state which trades are actually trained in at that facility? Would you happen to know?

Not off of the top of my head, but we are signatory to, union contractors that perform perform carpenter, labor, or operator engineer, cement mason, and one other craft that escapes my mind right now. So I presume it's very similar to those crafts, but I can get you that exact answer.

And then the other question I have for you, do you happen to know whether or not there's steel that's being trained on there?

I'm sorry. If they're what now?

Steel construction workers.

I I don't know that. I I have to I have

a feeling that they're not. And they're not because they're not I and I don't know the the dynamics of it, but they're not they're not provided. And they're not provided. So companies such as our family, an example, and we're just one of few, would not qualify to have and participate in that in apprenticeship program because the state doesn't allow it. Being discriminated against.

One more time. So I didn't finish the statement with with regards to KCB towers as an example because the black contractors association by the way are also discriminated against bills such as these. And it's important to have those conversations, put it on record because we're discriminating against people who can actually qualify to to apply to to work on this. But on that end, most of the work that our companies have done and and fellow companies have done as well, they build schools.

They have the Elders Matter KCB Towers as in part of building the steel structures for many of the elementary schools within the Inland Empire the past forty years.

Many, many of them. My husband was one of the ones that were directing steel in many of these schools. And did it for most of his life and he still does it, but had to change to an indoor job because of skin cancer, which is prevalent in in in the boat construction, family. But this is where I went a hard no, and I speak against bills such as these every single time.

Because you talk about educating locally, hiring locally, and yet, you're advocating for bills to discriminate against your very own students and graduates and family members.

Many of our family members that our family members that work, for KCB have gone to local schools, stay in the area. We have families now, three generations working at KCB towers. You don't have to be a particular union to care for your workers and to give them what they need. And many of you have taught and walked in buildings that KCB Tower has actually built and still sent today. So I just want you to think very clearly about your what you're moving forward.

And up until 2024, I represented San Bernardino Valley College and, actually just San Bernardino Valley College from there. I still have Crafton Hills College and this hurts. This really, really hurts. On that end, I will be opposing this bill and any bill that comes before this that limits opportunities for people who have done this a lifetime and are able to do the job. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Chua Bogues. Senator Capaldi, did you have any questions or comments? Okay. Senator Gomez Reyes, would you like to close?

Thank you. I I apologize that this is so personally offensive to one of the members and to her family business. I think when we talk about discrimination, I think that we've have all, in our various capacities, suffered discrimination. Our families have suffered discrimination at the hands of others. This is not an intentional discrimination.

This is actually protection for the workers. I think when we're talking about skilled and trained, you're right. We are talking about union workers.

We're talking about the those who have been able to negotiate a contract, who have protections not only for themselves, but have have received the training they're supposed to receive at the skill level they're supposed to receive it, receiving those benefits, those, the the pay, everything else that is necessary without a community college having to check through, did you do this, did you do this. You it's it's something that is accepted.

When you talk about having to redo it two and three times and that cuts into their profits, I hope they never have to do it two and three times. I hope that that that that's true for any any of the the construction companies. They are hired to do a job and the job has to be done.

And that's why being able to pick the best value, looking at all of the factors and deciding this is the best value for our community college rather than this is the lowest bid, As doctor Choi, you've talked about not having to go by the lowest bid, going by the best procurement for that community college because they are stewards of the money of that community college, and they have to be able to to do what is best for the community college.

And I think bringing them into the same to the same level as k through 12, the University of California's and also Cal State University's, I think is the right thing to do.

And with that, I was respectfully asked for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Gomez Reyes. Do we have a motion for the bill for SB 1154? Senator Cabaldon has moved the bill and the motion is do passed. Can you call the roll?

Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogue? No.

Ochoa Bogue, no. Cabaldon? Choi? No. Choi, no.

Cortese? Gomez Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye.

Great. And we will put that bill on call. Senator Reyes, I know you have SB 1255 next if you'd like to present that. Okay. So we will actually turn it back over to Senator Nilo, who I see is here in the audience.

Senator Niello, is presenting SB 1347, and you can begin when you're ready.

Thank you, very much, madam chair, for allowing me to go out of order. I have an excellent witness who unfortunately has to leave at a time that if we went behind others, I wouldn't have a witness anymore. But I am presenting SB 1347 as you mentioned. And it is really a simple cleanup bill that clarifies existing law for the stocking of albuterol in public schools.

In 2023, the legislature passed on a bipartisan basis AB 1283 by Assemblyman Chen, which authorized stock albuterol in public schools.

This measure has helped safeguard children and has ensured our school health professionals have the necessary medication on hand at school to provide life saving treatment. According to the sponsor of this measure, the Allergy and Asthma Foundation of America, As many as one million California children suffer from asthma. In a classroom, a typical classroom of 30 students, three are likely to have asthma according to the CDC.

Albuterol is a prescribed medicine used to prevent and treat wheezing, difficulty in breathing, chest tightness, and coughing caused by lung diseases such as asthma. Since the passage of AB 1283, the state has made has made access to preschool a priority and is now expanding to universal preschool.

Since this prioritization, the tradition the traditional definitions of school hasn't always been clear in the education code. Some school districts have expressed confusion if they are supposed to be providing the stock albuterol in their preschool programs. Clarity clarity in statute is needed for schools to ensure they do not have any exposed liability for their preschool students.

This is consistent with the bipartisan passage of my bill last year, SB 568, which clarified that the stock epinephrine in school programs be applied to preschool because the same confusion existed at that time. SB 1347 clarifies that stock albuterol is authorized in all public schools, which now include preschool.

Now for my expert witness, doctor Travis Miller, who is a board certified allergist who practices in my district is here to provide testimony and any expert information if there are questions.

Good morning. Thank you, Senator Nilo, chair, and members. My name is Travis Miller. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of SB 1347 related to the stock of albuterol in schools. As the Senator said, I've been licensed in the state of California for twenty six years.

I practice allergy immunology here in the Greater Sacramento area. I've held board certifications in pediatrics, internal medicine, and allergy immunology. I've also been the past chairman of advocacy council for the American College of Allergy, which represents 6,000 allergists in Northern America. And I can say I speak on their behalf. I'm the father of three children who've gone to public schools in California.

And I can tell you I've witnessed firsthand how terrifying unexpected medical emergencies on campus can be and particularly to our communities. As Senator Nilo said, asthma is incredibly prevalent in our schools. Albuterol is a safe and easy to administer medication that children need. Some children don't have it at school because they lack resources or access to appropriate medical care or prescription coverage. This helps in those situations.

Ensuring schools, including preschool programs, have access to these medications is critical to protecting children at risk of severe medical reactions. Last year I testified for SB568 for Senator Nilo, which created a similar policy with the extension of stock epinephrine in schools eligible for preschool students. Thankfully, the legislature passed that and the governor signed it into law. SB 1347 is a simple measure, that allows stock albuterol, another safe medication in schools.

This would be an extension of the incredible platform of public health safety, which we've built in the last twenty years in California to be sure our children have access to safe medications.

I strongly encourage you to move the bill forward for further consideration. I can answer any technical or scientific questions about the medication if you have them. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other support witnesses in the room today? If so, please use the mic at the railing and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning, madam chair and members. Lee Angela Reid on behalf of the California School Nurses Organization in strong support.

Good morning, chair and members. Jennifer Tannehill with Erin Reed and Associates on behalf of the California Society for Respiratory Care, also in support.

Great. Anybody else? Alrighty. Do we have any opposition witnesses here in the room today that would like to offer their testimony? If so, please come forward. Seeing nobody getting up, are there any other opposition witnesses that would like to offer me twos?

Sorry. Not opposition, but also in strong support. The Small School Districts Association is in strong support as well. Lee Angela Reid. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing as we have no opposition witnesses, I'll now turn it back to the committee. Do we have any committee members with questions or comments? Senator Chobok?

Just grateful for the bill to move brought forward Senator Niello and I am happy to make a motion to move the bill forward.

Great. So we have a motion by Senator Ochoa Bogh. Seeing no other comments, Senator Niello, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. And the motion for SB 1347 is do passed to the floor. Secretary, if you can call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Great. And we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much, Senator Niello.

And thank you so much for allowing me to go in the sequence that I did. Appreciate it very much.

Yeah. Happy to do so. I don't think we have Senator Archuleta. Senator Senator Choi or Senator Ochoa Bogh, would you like to go? Or Senator Choi, would you like to present either one of you?

So next up, we'll have Senator Choi presenting SB 1222.

Good morning, committee members in this chair. And, I'm so happy today that I

would like to, present the Senate bill 1222, which would designate the experienced lead agency to assist the regions struggling with the career technical education implementation and provide tools and the best practices to better serve all student populations. Improving and expanding career tech education has been a priority of this legislature, especially for students who have been historically underserved. However, the reality is that too many young people are still falling through the cracks.

Today, according to the to a report released in 2024 by New Ways to Work, youth workforce development in California

excuse me.

More than half a million youth in California are disconnected from both the school and the workforce. Among those who are working nearly, one in two earn low wages with the limited opportunities for advancement. At the same time, sixty one percent of the high school students are socioeconomically disadvantaged with the additional barriers faced by students experiencing homelessness or in foster care. Despite the significant state investment, access to high quality career tech education programs remain uneven across regions and districts.

In fact, over the past five years, nearly 120,000,000 yen in state approved Korea Tech education funding has gone unallocated.

This is not due to a lack of commitment or demand, but a lack of regional capacity. More local education agencies do not have the staffing, technical experience, or coordination needed to fully implement and sustain strong CTE programs and because CTE programs must continuously align with the developing local labor markets that the capacity gap only grows over time. When done well, CTE provides students with the direct pathway into workforce.

It allows them to graduate high school with the skills needed to step into high wage careers and helps address workforce shortages while also breaking cycles of generational poverty. SB 1222 offers a targeted and practical solution.

The bill would require the superintendent of public instruction to designate a state lead agency and establish a pilot program in two regions. The lead agency would support the local education agencies by developing inclusive career tech education pathway models and strengthen industry and workforce partnerships while expanding work based learning opportunities, including apprenticeships. The goal is to build the, to build sustainable regional capacity so that more students, especially those underserved, can access high quality career pathway.

To support this effort, I have submitted a modest 4,000,000 one time budget request for three year pilot program, and and the lead agency would also provide annual reports to ensure accountability and measurable outcomes. Representing the sponsor of this of this bill with me, I have Kathy Boyd, executive director of career education and workforce development education service, educational services division at the Orange County Department of Education.

Kathy, thank you for being here.

Go ahead.

And you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you. So good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Kathy Boyd. I'm the executive director at Orange County Department of Education, and the unit I work for is called Career Education and Workforce Development. Thank you again, Senator Troy for your leadership on this.

I appreciate it. The bill is built based on basically a decade of experience in developing career technical education across Orange County. It's uniting our PK or TK 12 districts along with our community college districts and schools. There's nine of them. University systems as well as a handful of private independent colleges.

And finally our workforce including non profit and for profit. We know CTE pathways transforms lives by helping students build core foundations, securing meaningful jobs even right out of high school, not just after college. Yet, there's a lot of systemic challenges that still remain. And we know that, like, students, including English learners, foster youth, students with disabilities, they're still very much underrepresented in a lot of the CTE courses and pathways.

One major barrier to expanding access is the complexity of systems and processes and of building the sustainable partnerships between educators and industry partners.

So SB1222 addresses this by establishing a three year pilot program where an experienced lead county office provides targeted technical assistance. And when I say target, I mean meeting other county offices at the climate and culture that they have and personalizing supports. And that county office would provide targeted assistance to these maybe an urban and a rural region selected by this separate superintendent of public instruction. The goal is simple to share proven strategies so our other county offices can accelerate their own local programs.

For example, instead of regions struggling to navigate complex data sharing agreements between their community colleges for instance in their K12, we can share a streamlined framework that has already been successful.

By aligning complex funding streams and forging these stronger industry partnerships, this pilot builds systemic capacity. The outcomes will report will be reported back to the legislator and the executive branch to inform the state's continued efforts. Ultimately, SB 1222 ensures more students can develop an entrepreneurial mindset and access CTE pathways leading to robust high wage careers. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And thank you for your time.

Thank you for your presentation. Do we have any other support witnesses in the room? Please state your name, org, and position on the bill.

Sure. Tiffany Mox, CFTA, Union of Educators and Classified Professionals. We wanna thank the author for this important bill and also for the testifying witness for both her work and her day to day job and also for making the important statements here today. Thank you so much.

McClain Rozanski with the Alameda County Office of Education in support.

Hi there. Genevieve Koenig Chauffer with GENUP, a student led educational advocacy organization in support.

Xavier Maltese with the California Charter Schools Association in support.

Great. Seeing as we have, no other support witnesses, we'll see if you have any opposition witnesses that would like to register their testimony. Are there any opposition witnesses that would like to offer me too? Seeing no one getting up, we'll turn it back to the committee for questions or comments. Senator Cabaldon?

Yeah. Thank you, madam chair. And first, I wanna applaud the author for leading on the issue. This is we, it's very well established, the importance of career technical education, particularly when it's well integrated with other options that young people need to have. And so we need to continue the space.

A little over a decade ago, the entire California State Senate in the only time in its history left this building and traveled to Long Beach for the sole purpose of learning more about link learning, career technical education, college and career pathways. And I was a facilitator of that session trying to focus on examples of what works, the powerful impact, especially when these when CT is linked with college preparation as well. And it followed and resulted in further dramatic policy changes and investments.

And the CT pathways program at that time was created as essentially as the same concept but statewide operated by CDE with a billion dollars, like a substantial investment, the most substantial investment of any state in the country ever in these pathways. A couple of years later, the state created another CTE pilot program this time with a couple $100,000,000.

Then as the analysis points out, Mr. Johnson is a little younger than me, so the analysis starts a little earlier in history. Then we ended up with an additional couple of programs called the Safe Pathways, Strong Workforce Program, CTEIG, the Innovation Grant Program. I've been the chair of the National Workforce Development Council and the and the mayor's educational workforce committee and and we've done a lot of work in this space.

And the one thing I'm convinced we don't need in this space is additional bespoke pilot programs.

We, there's none of the counties in my district are looking to for more technical assistance. They need they need some, assistance with training and liability issues for work based learning. They need actual money to pay for the equipment that many of these programs demand so the students are being trained in on the equipment that they need in the workforce. They need help with curriculum alignment. They need, public private partnerships.

But they what they don't need is more assistance from either CDE or from another county office. And, so I'm, I, you know, having been around this for enough time, every couple of years, we pass another pilot and then we come back a couple years later and say, hey, anybody ever hear about CTE? It's really great. We should we should do something about it.

And so I, I appreciate the intent here very, very much, but I don't think we need yet another program.

And in particular, in this case, sort of assigning a single county to do that. We haven't done a competitive bid process. We don't even know from the rest of the state that there's demand for this, for this service and so I can't support it today.

But as again, I appreciate the intention here, but what we, what we really need to do is to make the further investments in the lessons from the pilots that we've already been doing for the last twenty years and make some of the legal changes so that the workforce, direct workforce, and work based learning opportunities in particular can be accomplished and then really focus our resources on CTE teachers and equipment and business partnerships that will make the promise of all these pilots a reality for even more California young people.

Thanks.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your comments. However, I'll be happy to make this one as just a statewide program rather than making it a the pilot program. The reason we are starting with a pilot program is as I stated in my opening statement is that we, the need is there and everybody recognizes, but there are a lot of gaps in implementing in the program implementation is not followed up.

So, therefore, Board of Education in Orange County would like to partner with another district to pilot programs. So we'll demonstrate how it can be carried out and other counties can look up to that model, and they can provide the necessary skills and the program implementation experiences from their successes.

So I would like to invite Kathy if you can add more concerns that Senator Cobalt is expressing.

Yeah. Thank you very much, by the way, for that comment. I, I'm unique in the Orange County area because I sit on the board for the Orange County workforce Development Board and we forged very strong ties between the three workforce development boards in our region.

And when I did that, I was, I think, it's been about five years I've been a commissioner on that board and it took me a couple years to learn by the way, what that board was and how it had possible ties to the work we did in the office of education, county office of education. And since then, we've actually forged very close connections.

We have a contract with our local workforce board now doing similar services as a contract provider, service provider with the local Orange County Workforce Development Board. Additionally, we were the lead agency for the K-sixteen in our region, which came out in 2021. And when we became the lead agency and started working a lot more with the businesses and the private for profit, non profit businesses and then obviously the Cal State and the UC system as well as the community colleges in a very purposeful way.

We actually sent funding out to every agency through the 18,000,000 ish that we received in our region and that really set a new tone for what a county office of education could be and we just realized that along with last three years. I think the final step, there's a lot of other little details but not to bore you with details too much.

One of them was getting that data agreement between our data sharing agreement between our community colleges. That has allowed us to connect or collect dual enrollment data at every end of their completion of every term.

And with that, we've been able to actually put together a quantitative data report of all the dual enrollment that is happening across any college in Orange County and then analyzing that data and sending it back to our school districts so they can report it for college and career indicator purposes at the end of every year. That data sharing agreement has also led to us being included in our regional, it's called the 2026 Orange County Economic Opportunity Report.

And they left a whole subsection just for k twelve, seven through 12 data because we're measuring work based learning at the very kernel, like anybody who's going through a job shadowing, anybody who's going through an internship or a non traditional youth apprenticeship.

So details like that are just successes that we almost stumbled upon very humbly. And I just felt as we go out to conferences across the state in CTE, we often get other people asking us, does somebody like you exist in our region too? And so it just it leads to the spirit of why we thought we'd at least promote this because we'd be happy to share this.

The things that we are doing are kind of out of the box for a county office, but they're also just yielding these amazing results and opportunities for kids are growing. And so we have that measurable result and we'd love to see if we could spread that across the state.

Great. Are there any other comments or questions? Alrighty. Seeing as we don't, Senator Choi, would you like to close?

Thank you.

At this core, SB 1222 is about making sure that opportunities are not determined by geography. It is about ensuring that every student, regardless of a background or ZIP code, has access to a pathway that leads to a stable, well paying career. This bill will help connect thousands of students to real opportunities and the strongest future I will respectfully ask for your eye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Choi. Do we have a motion for SB 1222? We have a motion by Senator Ochoa Bogue and the motion is do passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Secretary, can you call the roll?

Senators Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogue. Aye.

Ochoa Bogue, aye. Cabaldon. Choi.

Aye.

Choi, aye. Cortese Gonzalez Reyes.

Thank you.

Welcome, Senator Perez. You may proceed when ready, ma'am.

Alright. Alright. Good morning, madam vice chair and members. SB 111, the Higher Education Data Sharing Transparency Act, establishes consistent statewide standards requiring higher education institutions to inform students, faculty, or staff when their personal information is shared with federal agencies. The Office for Civil Rights within the U.

S. Department of Education is tasked with enforcing Federal Civil Rights Law in Education and may request personal information about students, faculty, and staff during investigations. However, recent federal inquiries have raised concerns about transparency and how universities disclose such information, especially as the nature of investigations has shifted. While OCR investigations were once prompted by complaints from students or families alleging discrimination, the Federal Government is increasingly launching directed investigations without a formal complaint.

These inquiries have focused on issues such as transgender athletes, gender neutral bathrooms, and initiatives it views as discriminatory.

They have also included investigations, such as the California State University Systems Association with a project that promotes diversity amongst students and broader allegations of antisemitism, including at the University of California campuses. In several cases, federal authorities have issued subpoenas seeking employee information, including personal contact details, which has prompted privacy concerns amongst faculty and students. For example, UC Berkeley faced backlash after sharing the names of students, faculty, and staff with the Federal Government, and only after it notified the campus community that information had been disclosed.

A similar issue arose within the CSU after it disclosed employee data in response to a federal subpoena, leading to a recent settlement between the system and the California Faculty Association, as well as other unions. Under the settlement, CSU must now notify employees before complying with subpoenas, requesting personal information, and extend similar notification requirements to other federal investigations, including those conducted by OCR.

Together, these examples show that notification requirements can be implemented in practice and offer a model for expanding transparency standards across the higher education segments. SB 1101 establishes a clear transparency framework governing how institutions share personal information with OCR. It requires the CSU, community colleges, independent colleges, and requests the UC to notify individuals when their personal information is disclosed, including advanced notice when responding to subpoenas, specifies the categories of information shared, and limits disclosure to circumstances required by law.

Joining me to testify in support of the bill is Julie Vofun, Assistant Professor of Asian and Asian American Studies at Cal State LA, and Aditi Hariharan, President of the UC Student Association.

You may proceed when you're ready.

Okay. Good morning, honorable state senators and madam chair. My name is doctor Julie Fun, a first generation student and now an educator at Cal State LA. I hail from San Gabriel Valley or 626 as we affectionately call it. I come here today on behalf of the California Faculty Association to ask you all to support Senate Bill one one zero one and to protect our students and educators, sadly, from the very institutions where we teach, learn, and are meant to be safe.

The Federal Government is distorting and weaponizing the legal system. It is also not safeguarding us against hate. They are politicizing it. I do not want to mince my words here. This is not about justice, but about political revenge and racism.

Never in the history of The United States has turning in the names of people of color resulted in positive outcomes. In living memory within my own community, when my elders had their names on a roster, it was to put them in holding cells at the Santa Anita Racetrack and send them into concentration camps during World War II. Their names were called from neighbors, employers, and schools and recorded by the US government.

Aye, along with other activists, educators, union members, and students were placed on rosters and given up to the Federal Government. There has been no inquiry about hate speech, but deliberate attempts to intimidate educators and defund higher education.

This is about silencing words from those that condemn state violence and squashing questions about whether or not our basic civil rights have been achieved. And in these times, have we been living up to our democratic dreams? While I've heard that this is unprecedented, the truth of the matter is in my community, being turned into the Federal Government is a well rehearsed pattern.

My elders have fought so hard so that the next generation like me would not have to experience the violence, the surveillance, and the racism that they endured. But here we are.

So I urge you to pass this bill because the minimum we can do is to require the university systems to inform their employees that they are about to share their personal information with the Federal Government. Thank you.

Good

morning, everyone. My name is Aditi Hariharan, and I'm a student at UC Davis majoring in political science and nutrition science, and and I'm currently serving as the president of the UC Student Association, which serves as the official representative of all of the UC undergraduate students.

UCSA is in strong support and proud to be a cosponsor of SB 111, the Higher Education Data Sharing Transparency Act, which requires colleges and universities to notify students, faculty, and staff when their data is shared with the US Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights or OCR, as well as specifying the information that has been shared.

Over the past year, UC students, staff, and faculty have been facing immense impacts and fear, not only for the safety from the current federal administration's attacks, but also the potential for our university administration to aid the Federal Government in their punitive crackdown of free speech. I have done campus visits to all of the nine UCs and the impact is clearly felt across campuses.

Students, staff, and faculty are more scared to speak, protest, or even be civically engaged. In the 2025, over 160 student faculty and staff names and their connection to alleged antisemitism were shared with the Federal Government at UC Berkeley. Students, faculty, and staff were only told their name was shared but they had no idea what information the university had documented about them or what information was sent to this combative federal institution and that is only one recent example.

At the directive of the UC for years every campus has sent student faculty and staff information requested by the Federal Government it just hasn't been notified. SB 1101 will address this gap and center student data privacy as a right.

It affirms that we should know both what data the university is collecting about us and when that data is shared. Additionally, SB 111 limits the information being disclosed by

our

administration to only what is required by federal law and specifies the type of information that is released. California lawmakers should urgently ensure the privacy of students' sensitive information and limit any disclosures that could cause university staff, faculty, and workforce harm to their rights and their career prospects. It is an unfortunate reality that university police and administrators replicate harmful behaviors of more strictly policing BIPOC students, Muslim students, disabled students, immigrant students, and other marginalized identities.

And these are the students that end up being punished the most for being civically engaged and speaking out, which leads to a chilling campus environment silencing rhetoric from diverse voices. Colleges are supposed to be institutions of learning and varied academic discourse, but how can students be civically engaged when there is a tangible threat to their safety and their educational journey just by disagreeing with the Federal Government's actions?

These are reasons why UCSA is proud to cosponsor SB 111, and I please ask for your yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much, to both of you. We'll now continue with any witnesses in support for SB 111. Please come to the microphone and name, organization, and position, please.

Tiffany Mox, CFT, proud to cosponsor the bill. Apologies for a late letter. Also on behalf of AFSCME in support. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Jonathan Franco. I am a student, UC Berkeley, but also here on behalf of UC UCSA and strong support.

Thank you very much. We'll now continue to any witnesses in opposition to SB 111. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions, comments? Okay.

So I will facilitate some conversation on the bill. Thank you for bringing this measure forward. I so couple of questions and just your thoughts on how and whether or not there's been conversations on on the on this matter within this, particular subject. Do we know whether or not it's appropriate or wise to notify parties involved in an investigative compliance or enforcement action prior to OCR individual? And why should institutions of higher education get involved?

So I I do think it's entirely appropriate to make sure that we are providing some sort of notice requirement when a student or faculty or staff member's information is being requested. You know, I think, unfortunately, we've seen over the past year several cases where the Federal Government has requested information of students, faculty, and staff at our institutions of higher education, not just here in California, but across the country.

And, oftentimes, they are not being informed of what information is being shared, why that information is being shared, and, frankly, the justification for why they're requesting that information, unfortunately, has oftentimes seemed more like a witch hunt to target students and faculty and staff members who are expressing views that the Federal Administration disagrees with.

I think in some of the worst and most troubling cases, you know, there's a case of a student located on I'm forgetting the name of the university right now that was targeted for writing an op ed and was taken by immigration enforcement agents. You know, I think it's incredibly important as we talk about student safety and making sure that our students feel comfortable in campus exercising their First Amendment rights, which I really see as a process.

And one of the many ways that students learn on campus is for them to know that they are going to be able to do so safely, and that if their information is requested for some reason, that they are going to know what information is being requested. I was a very, very active student on campus, Senator Ochoa Boke, as you could probably imagine, and I was vocal on a number of very controversial issues.

And it breaks my heart to talk to students at our UCs and our CSUs and our community colleges who are scared to attend and participate in protests, who are scared to express their viewpoints because they worry that they're going to be unfairly targeted or that their family members might be unfairly targeted. And that is a very real and valid fear. So, we are having this conversation because of what's happened.

Things have vastly changed over the last sixteen months. And I want to emphasize that I understand that in the past, maybe there could be some reasoning or some justification for us to not share that information. I don't think that we're playing in that same field anymore. I think things have vastly changed, and therefore, policies need to vastly change.

Thank you, madam chair. The other question I have for you is, so why is alerting someone that they are under investigation being prioritized over ensuring that an individual who is subject to a complaint is properly investigated?

So I I wanna emphasize what I mentioned earlier in my talking points, which is, you know, previously how OCR handled investigations is those investigations were initiated by the Federal Government receiving a formal complaint, either from a student, a family, or somebody else on campus. That is no longer the case, and the Federal Government is increasingly launching what they refer to as directed investigations without a formal complaint.

And so, this case that you're describing that we're concerned about would involve somebody that, has potentially, experienced a wrong, experienced racism, or something of that sort. What I am most concerned about is the Federal Government launching their own directed investigations without any sort of formal complaint, without any victim.

The third question that I have is, is it is it legal to disclose information during active investigations?

Yes. I mean, that's absolutely something that we can request and have done. We saw that in the case when UC Berkeley, when UC Berkeley's, president chose to, communicate to, both students as well as faculty members that the Federal Government was requesting information, from them that would include their names and were just requesting that that information not be redacted, and so, therefore, their personal information was going to be shared. So, the university president took it upon himself to communicate that.

As I mentioned before, the CSU recently reached a settlement with faculty members over a situation very similar to this in which they are now going to be required to communicate this information in advance.

And so what we're trying to do here is create a uniform policy and make sure that our students or faculty and our staff members know that if this situation arises, that they will be provided with communication that their information, personal information is being shared and what personal information is being shared.

Okay. And just for the record, when the university is the information that you folks are targeting right now that you would like to be informed about as far as when your personal information is. That that that request and you're referencing the Federal Government, is that information that's being requested or required through a subpoena that's being given by the Federal Government to the to the university? Is that it's a subpoena, which is a formal court order.

Yes. So and I wanna speak to that really quick because

See, this is where I'm facilitating conversation. Aren't you glad?

Yes. I know. Absolutely. And I'm I'm happy to talk about this. You know, I think this is where we get into some of these constitutionality issues, and I've had to explore this a lot because of bills that I passed last year related to the Federal Government.

We are not limiting a university, either the CSU or the UC, or a community college's ability to be able to respond to a subpoena. That is a legal document coming from the Federal government. There's only so much that we can do in that situation. I recognize that our Constitution limits us in our ability to be able to dictate what happens there.

But what our bill is doing is it's limiting voluntary disclosures and also making sure that we provide timely notification to those faculty, those staff members, those students that are going to be having their information released to the Federal Government in these situations.

Okay. And for the record, I think it's important to also note publicly, do you have in order for the Federal Government to issue a subpoena, what are the requirements for a subpoena to be issued?

I think that there's both a weather currently and how the Federal Government currently approaches that versus how they were approaching it maybe sixteen months ago. Right? So, I think sixteen months ago, we would have seen an investigation. There would have been serious cause for concern in order for them to issue a subpoena, demand documents, right? And that would be justified based off maybe student complaints, faculty complaints, other concerns on a campus.

Now, what I've seen and what I've heard students and faculty is really a lack of investigation and a lack of those complaints and justifications. And I think what I find most troubling is that there appears to be a desire to utilize subpoenas as a tool for political retribution and to target people who have viewpoints that some disagree with. And I think that is my greatest concern in seeing our legal process be weaponized in that way.

Okay. And then the last comment, Yeah. The last comment that we have here is, so the bill includes a severability clause.

This is legal. I'm not a legal expert, so bear with me. Which means that if any provision or its application towards this bill is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. So by including this language, are you anticipating legal challenges, to this bill?

Yes.

I think that we have to be prepared for legal challenges with any of the legislation that we pass. There are bills that I worked on last year that I am now we are now in the second round, of litigation over. So, you know, I can anticipate what may or may not be taken to court, but I think that I've learned through my process of being here in the legislature that it is always, most important for us to be prepared for any scenario.

I want my legislation to be effective, regardless of what may happen. And so, I think my, chief, as well as my team, is constantly taking that into account because that is the directive that I give them, is to make sure that the policies that we're passing are implementable, but they're also enforceable.

So, so I'm gonna just end my my comments with the fact that I completely hear the the fear that you folks have and expressing your in your in the ability to express your opinions and your perspectives. I think the first amendment is one of the most sacred members that we have that we I mean, I cherish them and absolutely value them.

And I wanna just put it back because we kept referencing current administration and we keep referencing you know, sixty months ago which is the current administration and the fear that people have this. And as much as I respect and I and I appreciate you folks coming here and protecting that right, I wanna also liken it to the fear that many parents had in the previous administration when speaking at school Board Meetings who felt that they were being prosecuted for expressing their opinion at school Board Meetings.

Many were arrested, threatened because of how they felt in expressing their opinion.

In the previous administration, we also had speakers at universities where we are, you know, we're supposed to have and facilitate conversation, facilitate the ideas, facilitate communication of ideas. And yet, we had canceled speakers at various universities because they did not align with the current at the time thought process. So you talk about unprecedented it hasn't been unprecedented. It has happened in World War II.

It has happened in the previous administration where parents felt completely, and there was a list that the government, the Federal Government had against these parents because they were considered, what were they considered?

They were considered, threats to, I forget, there was a legal term that they had it, but basically criminalizing them, considered threats. So I wanna I wanna just liken it to what has been in the previous administration. We had conservative folks that failed prosecuted for expressing their opinions. And so I am a huge advocate of anyone and everyone speaking their mind, their opinion. Right?

As ugly as it may seem to me or to anyone, it is your right to express. Facilitating conversations of ideas, expressing yourself without violence is incredibly important. Right? As these subpoenas are going through it, I just want to make sure that you know as you carry I won't be supporting the bill today because I am kind of concerned about the concerns that you have which you obviously also have about whether or not this is legal or not to be able to do that.

So I'm gonna be abstaining on the bill.

But I do wanna put on record that I believe that everyone, conservative, liberal, wherever it may be, you have a right. But as much as you're advocating for your own ability to express yourselves and protect yourselves now, everyone has the right to do that under any administration.

Democrat, Republican, independent, across political spectrums, whoever it is, we have to ensure that we have systems that protect the ability for people to facilitate and not cancel someone because they believe differently, not not penalize someone because they believe different than the current administration, not not to, criminalize someone because they believe or express differently. That is different than bringing violence forward. That I do not I mean, I condone completely.

But expressing verbally the deliberation of ideas, everyone has a right to be able to do that on campus. So with that, I just wanted to make sure because I I truly, truly respect the effort that you're putting forward here. I'm just concerned about the potential legalities of it.

So I'm gonna be abstaining on the bill, but I did wanna put on record that both you and the preview I mean, both you and and other folks that are on the opposite side of the spectrum felt exactly the same way that you're feeling here today. And today, I wanna speak on their behalf because nobody carried a bill.

And if they had carried a bill, it wouldn't probably have passed the legislature during the previous administration. That's how sad it is. And that's why I wanted I thought it was important to express the opinion that we should all, in leadership, respect everyone's ability to express themselves without violence. So with that, Senator Kovalman.

Thank you. And and and thanks for this discussion, but also to the author who's no one no one has worked harder on the issue of responding to these threats to to individuals and people in many, many forms than than than our chair and very much appreciate her leader her continued leadership in this.

And I I only had a cup a brief comment because this bill, if if it passes today, we'll move on to the privacy, digital technologies, and consumer protection committee where, where we'll definitely be exploring some of these some of these questions around subpoenas and constitutional issues and what have you. Although, I will signal right now I'm not personally not deeply concerned about any of their that that that there's flaws in this bill.

But that really is the the right venue to to to take a look at those those balances.

And, you know, I I I I I just want for our vice chair, I I I agreed with your assessment sixteen months ago of that of that of that issue. I continue to do so, but I do also I I just wanna note that there's a difference between feeling prosecuted and feeling criminalized and actually being prosecuted and jailed or deported. And that's the situation that we're in at the moment that that and and that is at least in, you know, modern times that that is unprecedented.

And for most of our since the since OCR was created in in in the Federal Government, for most of our history, it's been a important critical positive force for which this these datasets are have been important to identify systemic discrimination in in Georgia or or here somewhere here in California to be able to follow-up on claims to identify victims.

So that that it it it this is a tool that I I'm I'm hoping that we'll be all three of us will be jointly carrying a bill in in in a few years to put put put to put some of the system back to allow us to make sure that our civil rights enforcement and protections, have the tools that they need, but that isn't what's happening, today.

And so action in this space really is critical. I I wanna flag just just just briefly. I think one of the one of the issues that we all have to think about and I know as the chair of this committee that the author is is and and we've heard about a couple of the examples of how the Federal Government's been approaching this with the, you know, for lack of a better term, the extortion threats that UCLA and San Jose State and others have received.

And they are a a challenge, obviously, and they're they're thoroughly unconstitutional and wrong, and in every possible way. And also, we're asking those institutions to grapple with how to how to respond whether and how to negotiate.

And I know there's been a vigorous debate within those institutions, especially both CSU and UC part and UC in particular among the various parts of the college community that when you get to a point where behind door number one is a $1,000,000,000 extortion demand, behind door number two is a data request, behind door number three is a commitment to eliminate ethnic studies and kick out all immigrant students.

Again, those are the three choices that you have that some grace to the institutions, not just the president or the chancellor, but the campus community to grapple with those is in this in these like ridiculously absurd

is necessary. And so, I think this is the right direction. In that vein, I'm trying to be careful about how many tools do you take, how many doors do you take off the table so that the only ones left in those negotiations are the absolute worst ones.

times is

So if the, you know, if OCR said we we want we want the we want a list of your entire water polo team or you have to eliminate ethnic studies and kick out all immigrant students, I know which one I would pick. So I just I I the I I'm grappling with this.

We all are grappling with the campus communities are grappling with this. It doesn't obviate the need for the bill, but that's the times that we're in at the moment. So I'm I'm supportive of the bill here. Obviously, we'll have different kinds of questions for us to explore in the in the privacy committee, but but thank the author for what is a a a crisp, legally appropriate, but absolutely necessary built in order to protect protect students, faculty, and staff, and others on our campuses. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. And, we do sit together on that privacy. So we'll be viewing reviewing the the, the, the bill once again. But I did wanna just finalize that. So I left my phone at home, so I couldn't do my research.

So I feel a little perturbed right now, but thank you to the consoler who's lend me her her phone. But I just wanted to kind of finalize the last thought on on just to plant the seeds on especially for our youth leadership to understand and put themselves in thinking about the others, the other side of and how they were feeling in the previous administration because I think it's important.

So we had a under the previous administration, the Department of Justice shed a new shed light behind the scenes discussions on controversial directives at the time with then attorney general Merrick Garland. And there was a document that was in there that looked at these parents that were labeled domestic terrorist. So the previous administration labeled parents who were voicing strong opposition to their local school boards as domestic terrorists and had a list.

And it was, and this list was created with, you know, local school boards and the Federal Government identifying these people, labeling labeling them, investigating them. So, you know, going back to your comment earlier, it's not unprecedented. It happens under different administrations when people are called out because they think differently than what is currently.

So that's why I'm an advocate and that's why I can't oppose the bill today because I I truly believe that we need to ensure that we're protecting the first amendment regardless of who is speaking their their their truth, or the truth as it may be, relevant.

But, I just wanted to make sure that we have that on on record and that we have those discussions because I do look forward to seeing, you know, and looking at with the legalities of of the of the bill, on how to move forward.

But Aye, I do think it's important to to understand that under any administration, it's not okay to go after any group because they think differently. Acting in violence is definitely not not something that we should be accepting. But to speak, deliberate, we shouldn't cancel anyone and everyone should be allowed to speak. So with that, doctor Tory, any comments or? No.

We're good. Okay. Senator Perez, would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you. And appreciate the robust discussion. You know, as I mentioned before, this has become a very important issue for me, as I have heard from students, faculty, staff from all across the state.

And, as I mentioned before, I think about my time as a student activist when I was at Cal State LA and what formative years those were for me, to apply what I was learning in the classroom, to the real world and how that influenced now my time here and my ability to be elected to this Office.

And so, I think it's of utmost importance to ensure that our students, our faculty, our staff, you know, feel protected as they are exercising their viewpoints, as they are engaging and educating students, and they're having difficult discussions in the classroom, which is where those conversations should be happening.

You know, in addition to that, I totally hear Senator Cabaldon's, just point around all of the kind of challenges that our institutions are navigating right now, as it just feels like there's constantly just new new things being thrown at them, and them having to pivot at every turn. I mean, we saw that so much last year.

You know, my hope with passing this is to make it a little bit easier for them to say, This is what we have to do because it's state law, rather than somebody having to kind of stick out like a sore thumb for trying to do the right thing.

And I worry that if we don't do something to make it more of a standard response issue, that that's what we do when we have good actors that are trying to do their best for their students, for their faculty.

So I'd urge an aye vote. And thank you all.

Thank you, Senator Perez. With that, madam secretary, please call oh.

I'll move it

out. So we have sorry. That's right. We have a motion by Senator Kavaldin, and the motion is do passed to the Senate privacy digital technologies and consumer protection committee.

Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bog? Not voting.

Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi?

Left state.

Cortese? Gonzalez Reyes?

And we'll leave that on call for our absent members. Thank you.

Great. Senator Archuleta, I see that you are here to present SB 1262. You may begin when you are ready.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. I'm so proud to be here to present Senate Bill 1262, and I'd like to thank the Chair and the committee members who are working with me. And, so, yes, I'm submitting the bill, 1262, which establishes that a community college district cannot hold an unrestricted financial reserve over 50% of its annual operating budget unless three goals are achieved by the district. One, they participate in the part time community college faculty health insurance program.

Two, they participate in the community college part-time office hours program.

And three, 75% of its teaching hours are taught by full-time faculty. If the school complies with these three goals, it would be exempt from the cap. If a district does not use unallocated funds for these programs to benefit students, learning, and faculty stability, the funds would be distributed to non-supervisory staff to encourage stability for staff members who may currently provide some of these services, uncompensated.

In the past decade, California has provided significant financial support for community college districts to provide part-time faculty health insurance, compensation for office hours, and to ensure that most teaching hours are being performed by full-time faculty.

Despite hundreds of millions of dollars in investments by the state, the programs which provide community college districts these financial resources and reimbursements, are undersubscribed and underutilized. Only around half of the California 73 community college districts participate in the part time community college faculty health insurance program, despite partial or full reimbursement from the state. The community college part time office hour program similarly provides up to 50% of reimbursement to community college districts who compensate their part time faculty for office hours.

However, over 20 school districts continue to not participate in the program, despite state funding. Consequently, there are many adjunct or part time faculty community college—colleges—throughout California who are still not providing access to health care and students who still need—who still do not have access to office hours for their courses or a stable faculty, in spite of California's investments.

We are providing the money. We are providing the dollars. They are not providing the service. More than thirty years ago, California established the district should have 75% of all hours of instruction dropped by full time faculty and has contributed significantly in the resource keep coming to them from California. They are not using the resources and that's why we're here.

Despite this, recently—recent years have actually seen a decline in the number of teaching hours taught by full time faculty, with only a handful of district currently at 75%. Senate Bill six—Senate Bill 1262—promotes financial accountability and responsibility within the community college districts, while only directly benefiting faculty and students.

By setting a reasonable time limit on unrestricted general funds balances, this bill ensures that community college districts do not hold access funds unless they first ensure a baseline level of support for their staff and their students. That was the money allocated for from the state of California. With me today, I have Tiffany Mok with the California Federation of Teachers and Casey Mancini with the California School Employees Association.

And with that, madam chair, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Tiffany Mok with CFT, Union of Educators and Classified Professionals. I just wanna be here today that we are so proud to sponsor 1262 and thank the author for this extremely balanced approach. This allows districts to have over a six months operating reserve, as long as they ensure community college students have access to office hours and access for educators to health insurance. In this decade, we know how important health insurance has been for everyone in our community.

Further, CFT represents community college faculty. They continuously note the importance of office hours for students. As a professor noted to me, the math, engineering, and physics concepts I teach can be explained in multiple ways. While I explain a concept that works for a majority of the students in class, an alternative explanation might be best done in office hours. These lessons and office hours are often critical to a student passing or failing a class, which is an essential foundation to their educational journey and goals.

Full time faculty currently receive compensation for student office hours, while part time faculty often are not. Fortunately, the state has invested in a reimbursement program for part time faculty officers, which is fortunately popular but still undersubscribed.

In other words, this bill provides a balanced approach allowing districts to keep over a six months operating reserve unless they provide districts—unless the districts participate in these undersubscribed state programs and follow the current law that provides 75% of all teaching hours must be done by full time faculty before they keep their reserves over 50%. Additionally, though, the reality is that none of the colleges have met this low threshold. And for more on that, we'll turn to my colleague in testifying, Cassie.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. My name is Cassie Mancini, and I'm here representing the California School Employees Association. CSEA represents more than a quarter million classified school employees across the state, including classified staff at our California community colleges. Classified staff at our community colleges serve as financial aid specialists, IT coordinators, athletic trainers, lab techs, interpreters, public safety officers, custodians, caseworkers, EOPS advisors, and, and so many other roles that are critical to student success and the functioning of our colleges.

CSEA supports SB 1262 because it allows districts to build, build a robust reserve, but ensures that districts put a—that put away large excesses of money are not doing so at the expense of their campus community.

This phenomenon of community college districts holding massive reserves is new. In the past six years, the number of community college districts with unrestricted reserve balances exceeding 50% has grown from three to fifteen, and six community college districts have unreserved—unrestricted—reserves exceeding 80%.

It's frustrating, to say the least, for classified employees to hear from campus administrators that their district can simply not afford to increase wages to keep pace with inflation or that classified jobs or hours must be cut due to the expiration of federal funds, all while the district is maintaining a massive reserve. If there was ever a rainy day, it's now, and districts should not prioritize increasing their rainy day fund while it's actually raining.

The point of our community colleges is to serve students, and workers, classified employees, and faculty are the people doing that.

The money this legislature appropriates for our community colleges should benefit students today. Thank you. NCSEA respectfully urges your aye vote on SB 1262, and I'm also here to register support on behalf of AFSCME California.

Great. Thank you for your presentation. Do we have anybody else that is a support witness that would like to offer Me Too? Please use the mic at the railing. Seeing nobody else, do we have any opposition witnesses?

If so, please come forward and use the mics here. You may begin when you're ready.

Good morning, chair and members. I'm Dr. Darren Otten, the Superintendent President of Copper Mountain College in Joshua Tree, California, located in San Bernardino County. I'd like to begin with a brief reminder that locally elected college boards govern on behalf of their communities under Education Code Section 70902 with the responsibility to ensure fiscal health and stability to be determined locally. SB 1262 compromises that local authority and reaches into areas that are locally negotiated with our labor partners.

I also wanna clarify an important point.

Unrestricted fund balance is not the same as available reserves. Much of what is reported as unrestricted is already committed to capital projects, long term obligations, or planned future needs. Treating this as excess can create a misleading picture of a district's financial position. At Copper Mountain College, we serve approximately 1,500 full time equivalent students, which is about 3,500 individual head counts. We're located in a geographically isolated region.

We're one of the smallest California community colleges in the state, located in the largest county in the state, next to the largest marine corps base in the country, directly across from Joshua Tree National Park. Roughly one third of our students are military affiliated. Small rural colleges offer very differently than large urban partners and systems. Our students are predominantly part-time working adults who rely on us as their primary access point to higher education and workforce training.

While our budgets are small, the needs of our communities are not. Our funding formula lags enrollment through multi year averaging. That means when demand increases, we must offer classes before that growth is fully funded. At Copper Mountain College, we are currently experiencing unfunded growth and we use our unrestricted fund balances to provide access and sections. Without that flexibility, we cannot even grow to meet the demand of our students.

We also rely on these funds to stabilize programs that don't always receive consistent cost of living adjustments and to bridge, bridge disruptions in federal fundings. Over the past year, many colleges, including ours, have used fund balance to sustain programs during uncertainty at the Department of Ed. Because of prudent fiscal management, we realized cost savings during the pandemic, received employee retention funds, which are now reflected in our fund balance, and are being used for long term obligation.

We also continue to pay for STRS and PERS obligations, as a pay as we go basis, which are currently reflected in that, that balance. At our college, unrestricted funds are currently supporting a library modernization project, construction lab, trade spaces, shade structures, and planning efforts for a community room in partnership with a local military base.

These types of projects are critical and especially in rural areas where funding opportunities often require shovel-ready plans and local bond measures are difficult to pass. Under SB 1262, districts could be limited in their ability to hold the very funds needed to qualify for these opportunities. In this context, the fund balance is not excess; it's essential. It allows us to maintain operation.

Can you wrap up your comments?

Yes. Retained staff serve students and responsibly grow towards long term sustainability. A one size fits all cap does not account for these realities. And for these reason reasons, I respectfully, respect, respectfully urge a no vote on 1262.

Good morning. Andrew Martinez on behalf of the Chief Executive Officers of the California Community Colleges. We respectfully must be opposed to the measure. We appreciate the conversations with the author's office and the sponsors on this measure over the year. We recognize that this is a different bill than what the author previously presented two years ago.

And we also acknowledge that there is a reserves audit will be coming forward this summer as well, in this space. And I would just wanna echo that unrestricted reserves—unrestricted funds—found in the 311 report do not necessarily reflect reserves. Again, it is cash on hand and is a one time use. So, if you use those dollars in one time, they are gone. You cannot pay for ongoing investments in that space.

On the health care benefits, we are seeing that districts are negotiating in real time to participate in that program. That is a locally determined issue and they're negotiating with their union groups in real time. So, for example, there was money available last year to buy down deferrals. The amount of money that was actually available in the end was less because more districts were participating in the program than what the Chancellor's Office acknowledged in that space.

So I'm hearing more and more of the colleges looking to do that, but it does take time to do that in an effort.

But I do wanna acknowledge again that all of our districts, all 73 districts, are unique and have locally elected boards, and they're looking to address the specific needs of their communities, whether it be rural access, workforce demands, or facilities. This one size fit of SB 1262 hampers their abilities to manage their districts. And I want to give an example of one of our districts that does have significant unrestricted funds and why they, they share with me why those funds are so high.

About 60% of the unrestricted funds are being put aside to a local match for proposition two, the statewide school college facilities bond approved by the voters. They're looking to build three facilities on their campus in the next three to five years.

And so, they're looking to build a student success center, a career technical education facility, and a performing arts center over the next five to ten years, actually. This is long term responsible planning that needs to be done in and leveraging that voter approved funding that could be significantly constrained because they cannot do a local bond in that district. This is how they're choosing to support those projects that are important to support their students in their community.

I also wanna highlight the realities of this as well that this is a fund balance, this too as well.

Districts are managed cash flows, not just budgets. We've seen firsthand and that there have been a number of deferrals put on us in the last six years. First of all, there's the $1,450,000,000 deferral in 2020. Last year in 2025, there's a $408,000,000 deferral as well. Ultimately, those were resolved, but colleges still needed to operate in the meantime. They needed to meet.

Would you mind wrapping up your comments?

Keep classes open and serve students without those funds at hand. Maintaining those funds is critically important to ensure that they are successful in that endeavor. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your presentation. Do we have any other opposition witnesses in the room?

Jason Henderson on behalf of the Faculty Association for California Community Colleges, in respectful opposition to SB 1262. We've had an opportunity to speak with a sponsor, the author, and author staff around our concerns, mainly that the 50% threshold is too high. Any risk

Just name and position on the bill is enough. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kyle Hyland, on behalf of the Association of California Community College Administrators, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

We will now turn, the conversation back to the committee. Do we have any questions or comments in regards to the bill? Senator Ochoa Bogh?

I do. Thank you, Madam chair. So I I think it's I'm grateful for the opposition's explanation as far as the differentiating between unrestricted and what was the other? Reserves. And reserve.

So, unrestricted versus the reserve funding that we have in our school. I do have a couple of questions with regards to how the community colleges usually determine, the reserve amount. And I appreciate the fact that we note or you noted that, you have to have some funds that are aimed towards matching qualified funding that you're you're you're moving forward for. And, there was another one that you mentioned. But let's begin with that one.

How does it, how does a college determine the the reserve amount that you should have in place? Because I thought it was interesting just full disclosure. Doctor Otten here today is actually in my district with Mount San Jacinto, and they have according to the the information that I have before me, there let's see. This is obtained by the California Community College Chancellor's Office website.

It shows the community college districts with reserves of over 50% as a percent of expenditure for 2425. And the reason I'm asking is I have two in my district. I have Mount San Jacinto and Copper Mountain. Mount San Jacinto is at sixty seven four three, and I reached out to one of the school board trustees to kind of kind of give an ex an explanation on there. But once again, I forgot my phone.

So the information is on my phone somewhere. And, and so I have doctor Otten here that, is also in my district at 50.3. And just so you all know, San Jacinto is the third highest reserve that we have in our district. So I'm trying to be fair here in in in collaborating or in having this conversation. And Copper Mountain is, I think, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve.

I think you're the twelfth highest in the community college. So how do you folks determine the reserve amount?

So again, I just wanna be very clear. But the difference between district and board established reserves and unrestricted fund balance. I believe it is 71 or two of the 73 districts in the state during the pandemic all signed on for some funding that ultimately changed our reserves to a minimum reserve to roughly two months or 17.3% was a minimum. So that's the floor that all districts currently operate under all but one or two operate under.

And that was established to receive some pandemic related stability funds during that era.

And so that is a a board minimum to have that. Dollars above that reserve rate of roughly 17.2, we all consider this unrestricted fund balance. And for our district, as a small district, that equates to roughly $14,000,000. Now $14,000,000 is a lot of money, but $14,000,000 is not a lot of money in the big picture of of higher education in the state of California.

In particular, when we're looking at self funding out of those dollars, the specific money that's needed for library, for construction trades, for some of the other renovations that we're doing.

And our board established those those kind of targets that we needed to figure out how to fund. And then the second part that I'll just comment on this is where they established, they wanted to have additional resources in play, was to be able to ensure we could grow and meet our enrollment that was not being funded. And so that was a critical thing that they wanted to continue the initial access of community colleges was to preserve access for all students.

Without those unrestricted fund balances, we would not be able to offer sections, in areas that, we just didn't have money to do it. And so we are funding that growth essentially until the growth gets there.

And I do wanna highlight that information because I just had a conversation with our community colleges leadership yesterday in my office in with regards to the fact that the state has not been really fully funding. You've had deferrals happening. How many years now in a row would you say?

At least three years ago, we didn't have two in the last six years, three in the last six years, something like that?

Two or three in the last six years. So when the state is not fully funding our community colleges, our CSUs, or UCs, they're in trouble. They have to be able to to actually, be able to meet that need.

And one of the things that I've advocated for is that, when we have these referrals happen and our school districts have to borrow the money to make ends meet when they don't have the reserves, make sure that they actually have, you know, that when the state does repay them or fulfill their their obligations that it does include the interest for for those, measures that are being borrowed.

On that end, also because I've also said it in budget one for now my sixth year, it's also important to note that it when you are not being fully funded for your your, enrollment, then the community college are picking up the tab and still enrolling students without actually being paid by the state.

And so and and I was reading the, you know, the the the requirements for this bill that, hey, you can keep 50% in in your reserves if you provide full health care coverage, for the part time faculty and so forth. So I'm not a financial adviser.

I don't have, you know, I have basic financial literacy skills to manage my own budget, but it would be incredibly difficult to ask a community college with reserves looking forward and and considering everything that they have to plan for to do ongoing expenses on something that is not actually on on funding that is not actually that they can depend on every single year, especially when there's deferrals. And so it's especially when you have to meet matching funds for different projects moving forward.

That's why it's so incredibly important that we as a state prioritize education and meet with our local electives to see what it is that they need.

And right now, unfortunately, we have not been fully funding our community college, which is really hard. The other thing I wanna make a point out is that there's currently a state audit that is happening with regards to the reserve fund for community colleges. That is the the findings are supposed to be coming out this summer. And based on those findings, I am actually really and we knew that this was coming. We've been I mean, I like audits.

I'm not a financial, but I when it comes to the state as a as a member of the legislature with our the importance of being an oversight for many of our state agencies and so forth, Audits help us be informed about the realities of what's going on in a non partial non partial or impartial perspective. And so to the to the author, my question would be, do you believe you might not believe or not.

I don't know if you were aware or not of the audit happening. But, knowing that the audit is coming out that's studying the reserves for our community colleges, Do you think that this might be a little premature to have this bill be

at all. Not at all. With all due respect. Not at all. Because the audits in the past have shown, and the money's allocated for remember what we're talking about.

We're talking about working with the students. Without the teachers, students can't learn. So let's take care of those teachers, number one. Number two, those teachers that have no insurance, this provides to make sure they get health insurance. So we have what's called freeway flyer instructors.

I don't know if you've ever heard the term, but these are instructors at our community colleges that will fly from Los Angeles County, LA County, to Orange County in a course of a day just to meet the financial needs that they have because they're not being paid at full time even though they've been with the college for ten, twelve years. And they don't have health insurance, so they have to do that.

So the monies that the state of California has allocated, it's not for this bill is not for remodeling the building or the auditorium or the football field, it's specifically for what this bill says that we have to make sure that the part time teachers are compensated, they have insurance, and that 75% of the teachers that are full time are full time. That's it. And the monies that the state of California has put on the table is specifically for that.

Millions of dollars across the state. We're talking 73 community colleges. Each one of them, they get their monies and that's what they're supposed to use it for. And we've discovered through the audit that there are community colleges districts that up to 97 of reserves. What did they do with 97% reserves when we just heard that the law was 17%?

Okay. So we squeeze, we push, and now we realize, oh my god, we need more. And the bill says, okay. We'll negotiate. We'll let you cap it at 50 so you could do what you need to do.

But my God, take care of these teachers, take care of the so they can take care of the students, give them the health insurance they need, and make sure that the faculty is 75% full time. That's what this bill is about. So let's not talk about other elements, it's about this. So we gotta keep it in that box with all due respect. So when the bill passes, it is for that.

Our budget committee, when it's education, we'll look at other things because that's what we're doing at, you know, because we are getting requests for maintenance and additions and construction and that's a different thing. But this is for the teachers, for the students in essence, and for their health insurance, and also, to make sure that those teachers are at 75%. Showing the respect. Earlier today, we showed respect for our veterans and now we need to show respect for those hardworking teachers that are in our community colleges.

And that's why it is that little block that says the funding that we give is allocated for that purpose and let's keep it that way.

And you were also advocating for families who have lost their child through accident, not accidents, but acts of homicide. So you were there as well. So thank you, Senator, for your passion. And then one last, one last note on my end. So much of this let's see if I have my notes here.

So much of this, happens when it comes to negotiating. Maybe this is maybe not for for you, Senator, but maybe for the for the, for the witnesses here today. But what's what's prohibiting this? Because this is a matter of of negotiations, bargaining at the bargaining unit at the table.

These are things that could be bargained at the table at the university, at the local level, which rather than having a one state one size fits all for the state, this could be dealt with locally on the bargaining with the bargaining table at the bargaining table.

So what's prohibiting right now negotiating this at the bargaining table?

If I may, remember the excess. We're talking about the excess. That is what's used at the bargaining table, not the mandated law that says the funds that we give the state are for the teachers, for the health insurance, and for that 75%. If there's an excess, then they can negotiate that for other services. So you're right.

It's for for that but not for this. And that's why the chair and and the committee and and and so on, we've negotiated to keep it at at that 50%, but no greater, up to 50% because some of the colleges already adhere to 3040%. And in in LA County, we've got a lot of them that are at fifty, fifty five that they're gonna make some adjustments to get right under the 50.

So they're looking forward to this because we didn't wanna bring them all the way down. So we've listened to both the teachers and the students and everyone else.

When you said you had people come into your office, I've had them come into my office for the last few years trying to establish this and now we're at the threshold of actually taking care of everybody, working with the districts, and with the faculties. So that's why this bill is so important.

Thank you. And one last question for the community college that's here for Sciences. So kind of curious, this Copper Mountain, you're at 50.3%.

Yes,ma'am.

So when it comes to the reserves versus the unrestricted funds, when we're looking at these, are these all just solely reserves or are they including the unrestricted commitments already or money's already committed to something else?

That it's the reserves. But remember, anything above, they can do what they they want and they'll negotiate it out. So we're not saying you can't use the excess for something else, but you have to maintain thisbecause No.

And I understand that. I'm just I'm just kinda curious why this is not negotiated at the table.

I believe there's language restricting how much money can be moved from amount per the bill. There's restrictions on on limits on how much money you can move to another fund in the bill language of 33%. Is that right?

Yeah. You know, any business when we at the state of California allocate money for school lunches as an example, that money is for school lunches, not to paint the auditorium, for school lunches. And with those school lunches, obviously, it probably under umbrella of staff, food, and everything else, but not painting the auditorium. You see, and and or or the football field.

We have allocated thing in education specifically to always protect the students and the students that we're talking about are young men and women who are preparing their careers to go on to the Cal States and the Berkeley's of the world, but we've got to make sure that they're well trained and that's protecting the teachers.

That's what this bill is all about. And and I can't emphasize enough, earlier today, we talked about keeping jobs in California. Well, we need to teach our keep our teachers in California as well so they can have the insurance they need and the stability to know that one day they can be part of the faculty and be part of that 75%. And why? Because it's been wrong in the past.

We're just trying to make it right.

Thank you. Thank you, better chair.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Boag. Senator Eloise Gomez Reyes?

Thank you, madam chair. There was a representative from the Faculty Association.

We have two here. Yes.

Oh. Who's in opposition? You started to say it isn't that you oppose, but you oppose the number, the percentage. I'd like to hear what you have to say through the chair.

Yeah. The faculty association respects the author's intent on the reserve cap, but 50% is a little too high. It risks normalizing excessive reserves. We ask that we look at the chancellor's office guidance as well as the government officials of finance associations guidance, and that's it.

Thank you. I I because I when you said you were opposed, I I I thought it was because you thought it should be lower, but I wanted to be sure.

And and if I misunderstood, if I may, you said there was he he's it's too high. Well Yes. We've negotiated at that level.

I I understand and I understand there is an audit as as the Senator said, and that's something that I'm sure that you all will be looking at. I appreciate the fact that in this bill, you you're not saying no reserves or no reserves over 50. You're saying if you have a reserve over 50, you better be sure you took care of part timers with their health care.

You better be sure that you're paying part time faculty for office hours, and you better be sure that 75% are full time.

If you have that, then go for it.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes, ma'am.

And I appreciate that so much because that goes to the very heart of what your bill is. Is making sure just as you have continuously said, it is to protect the faculty, protect the the the the students which is what the community college is here to to serve.

And I with with a reserve, I Aye, you know, I I don't wanna put you on the spot and I'm not gonna ask you directly, but that would be my question that if, are your part time part timers, do they have health care? Do are you paying your your part time faculty for office hours and are 75% of your faculty 7575% full time? Because if those are true, then you are protected at your 50%, 50.3%.

But if it isn't true, then there's something that is lacking somewhere else that the money can be used. And I I do appreciate so much that you brought this bill forward. Now I understand that the state requires a minimum reserve, and that is two months. Is that correct? So that is across the board for every community college.

For everyone who signed on during the pandemic era, stability funding that that came in, that is correct. And I believe that is roughly 71 or 72 of the 73 districts.

And that is still true to today? Correct. Alright. So we we are requiring or or the the chancellor is requiring a a minimum reserve and that's healthy to have a reserve because this is a reserve a percentage of your annual operating budget. It isn't some other number.

It's your annual operating budget. And, yes, it is good to plan for new buildings and I I I appreciate that because you may not be in my district but if you were, I would want you to have lots of good buildings because that makes for for for a better environment for the students that are coming in as we have at San Bernardino Community College District.

They have invested so much in in new buildings and have worked very hard in trying to to make sure they get the right funding from all the sources. But making sure that we take care of faculty and student has to be number one, especially if the state is requesting that. With that I would move the bill, madam chair, at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator Gomez Rios. Senator Choi.

I wish you, Senator Svelera, introduced this bill twenty twenty five years ago when I was a part time adjunct faculty member among several community colleges, especially Coastline College. Yeah. I was adjunct faculty for seventeen years, one school alone. And you are right. Your bill is emphasizing to take care of adjunct faculty members.

And we are just a miserable pay. I think that's $45 an hour at that time. You were

a freer flyer then.

Yeah. I I was. So I think that this is among many other arguments taking care of a good majority of the community colleges. I don't know exact number or percentage, but heavily to my understanding was about 70% of college operation is depending upon the part time adjunct faculty members, and then we need to take care of them. So even though my consultant says this is against the local control issue, college Board Members are there for them to manage their fiscal stability and funds, etcetera.

But I think we gave that the right, and still they are not taking care of the adjunct faculty members. So for that, I'm gonna divide the recommendation and the support of it today.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator.

Great. Any other comments or questions? Alright. I just wanna note,

Senator Archulet, I recognize this is

I you know, I think we all wanna ensure that our faculty and staff, the the people that are working to serve our students and our institutions are top priority and that we should be investing as much as we can into them and making sure that they are being paid, not just livable wages, but that they have the benefits and everything else that we want that just not just makes them successful, but also makes that job attractive so that we have a strong pipeline of folks entering into the education workforce.

the second time that you're introducing this bill.

At the same time, I also wanna ensure that our institutions are planning for the future. And so things like capital improvement projects, things like infrastructure is something that our institutions need to take into account as well. And I know that sometimes, some of those reserves might be higher than usual if they are preparing for those types of developments.

And so I think that that nuance needs to be better built into this, and we need to take some of those pieces into account. I know that my staff, I think, has reached out to you as well as your sponsors to express some of that. And so I think that there's some refining to do here. So I'm happy to support the bill today to let it out of committee.

But this is something that I'd like to see you work on so that we can figure out how to make sure that this is balanced.

are supposed to do, not just investing, great institutions, the people that are doing the work to educate and support our students, but that they are also planning for the future and making real investments into capital improvement and infrastructure costs that are really critical, not just for purposes of safety, but in some cases for purposes of expanding our universities or colleges when we know that we have increasing student enrollment. Correct. Okay. Alright. So we have a motion by Senator Gomez Reyes.

Right? And that our institutions are doing what they

Oh, apologies. Senator Archuleta, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, madam chair and committee members. I I wanna thank you and and those who work in our community colleges. Thank you. Thank you for educating myself, my children, because three of my five children have all gone to our community colleges and gone gone to SCs and Pepperdine and Chapman and that sort of thing and obviously, it set up my career.

And I will tell you this, the foundation of the community colleges is exactly that, community where people, young men and women can walk in and feel at home and realize that they're gonna be treated with dignity and pride and what's happening in the world, that's out there but in the community colleges, that's the doorstep to the next level.

And we have to adhere to rules and regulations and this rule and regulation is that we have to provide insurance, provide a wherewithal for these professors to have a future and to be a part of the community as well. So I I thank you for the ability for us to negotiate that we have, and I will continue working with the committee and so we can achieve our goal to adhere to the law. And I will thank you all once again, and I urge an aye vote.

Great. Thank you so much, Senator Archuleta. So we have a motion, and that motion is do passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee for SB 1262. Secretary, can you call the roll?

Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Voting.

Cabaldon? Choi?

Aye.

Choi, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzales?

Aye. Gonzales, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye.

Great. And we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much, Senator Archuleta.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Senator Reyes present presenting our final bill of the day, and that is SB 1255. And, Senator Reyes, I will, have you, begin whenever you're ready. Oh, yes. We'll go ahead and do the consent calendar. I understand Senator Choi needs to leave.

I may make a Oh,

Secretary, can you

Can we make a motion for the consent calendar.

So Senator Choi's motioning for the consent calendar. Secretary, can you call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Great. And we will put that on call. Senator Reyes, you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members for the opportunity to present SB1255. SB1255 would establish a state level Hispanic serving institution or HSI designation to recognize institutions of higher education that excel in educating and serving Latino students. The HSI designation was first created under the federal higher education act of 1992 to provide support and improve access to higher quality education for Latino and other low income students.

In order to receive this designation, campuses must meet an eligibility requirement of enrolling at least 25% Hispanic undergraduate students. But let me be clear, this designation does not only benefit Hispanic students.

The designation is for the institution. Once the institution receives the designation, all students, every single student is eligible to apply for the benefits provided to that HSI. As one of the most diverse states in the nation, nearly 171 campuses in California hold this federal designation and leverage that funding to develop STEM curriculum, facility improvement, and other student support services, expanding educational opportunities to all students on each of those campuses.

Despite the benefit of this designation, federal clawbacks of HSI funding threatened the program made in closing educational equity gaps, educational equity gaps for all students on HSI campuses. Establishing an HSI designation in California serves as a first step towards strengthening accountability and encouraging sustained institutional commitment to serving our most vulnerable students.

SB1255 is similar to the framework used for black serving institutions or BSIs, which has been voted on by this body and implemented across our higher education institutions. I want to thank the chair and the committee staff for their work on this bill and for the many institutions, sectors, and students that have expressed their support for the legislation. The work on this bill continues, and I appreciate the committee's flexibility in allowing me to continue exploring the eligibility requirements.

I intend to amend that this metric to ensure consistency with a successful BSI model and the h HSI federal designation. Here to testify in support are doctor Gina Garcia, professor at Berkeley School of Education and HSI expert, and doctor Alberto Roman, chancellor at the Los Angeles Community College District.

Chair Perez and honorable Members of the Committee, good afternoon. Again, I'm Doctor Alberto Roman, Chancellor of the Los Angeles Community College District. Today, I'm here representing our students, staff, faculty, and the Board of Trustees of the Los Angeles Community College District. I'm here to express our support, strong support, I would say, for Bill, Senate Bill 1255, authored by Senator Eloise Reyes.

Again, I wanna thank Senator Reyes for her leadership and really being able to advance this important measure and her continued advocacy on behalf of California's community colleges and Hispanic serving institutions. As an immigrant, I know firsthand the impact that HSI funding has on students like me who are the first in their family to attend college. Today, I stand before you as the chancellor of the largest community college district in the nation, serving one of the most ethnically and socioeconomically diverse populations in the state.

Approximately 58% of our students are Latina Latino students and the district serves nearly 10%, 10% of the state's entire community college population. To give a sense of this number, we serve approximately 122,000 students across our nine campuses who identify as LatinaLatino students.

There are approximately 171 Hispanic serving institutions in California. Currently, all of our colleges meet the criteria to be federally designated as HSIs using the criteria as I mentioned of 25% enrollment rate. This designation though is beyond symbolic. It's really enabling expanding counseling services, academic support, transfer pathways, dual enrollment programs, student success programs for all students on our campuses regardless of race. As a result of these investments through HSI, we have seen measurable gains including increases in transfers, completions, student persistence and other measures.

For example, at LACCD, our colleges have seen a 25, 25% increase in Hispanic students completion rates over the last five years. That is truly a remarkable number. We are concerned that this federal designation and the critical funding that comes with it is increasingly uncertain during the current federal landscape. Today, our district faces potentially about $5,600,000 of lost funding annually and over $24,000,000 for all recently awarded grants in this vital source of funding.

Hispanic serving institutions are central to California's economic future given the populations of the students that we serve and especially in regions like Los Angeles.

They are key drivers in high demand sectors such as healthcare, technology, education, clean energy, and advanced

Which you are wrapping up your comments.

And advanced manufacturing. Senate Bill 1255 provides California with an opportunity to establish a state level designation, ensuring stability, alignment with workforce priorities, and a strong return on public investment. For the reasons above, the Los Angeles Community College District respectfully urges your support and enable. Thank you so much.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. I'm a scholar advocate who has spent my career researching what it means to be a Hispanic serving institution and have have advanced the idea of servingness, which is a multidimensional way to assess how well campuses are serving Latino students. With the state being home to 170 HSIs, it's time to establish an HSI designation in California. HSIs have received bipartisan support with a steady increase of federal appropriations over the years. To be clear, HSI funding is capacity building funding.

So institutions have historically used funds to make the campus better for all students. While many HSIs enroll over 50% Latino students, including a majority of the Cal States and the California community colleges, research shows that HSIs enroll AAPI, native, and black students at even higher rates than MSIs designated for these communities. HSIs have also done the hard work of educating some of the most marginalized populations, including first generation, low income, transfer, and formerly incarcerated students.