Assembly Standing Committee on Public Employment and Retirement

Good morning. In the absence of a quorum, we will start as a subcommittee. Good morning, and welcome to the Assembly Committee on Public Employment and retirement. Before we begin, I have several announcements. Assembly member Alanis is absent for this hearing.

There is no substitute. We welcome Tess Shirkenback. I take good test. Who is the new Republican caucus consultant for this committee? Welcome, Tess.

Committee staff acknowledges an error in the analysis of assembly bill seventeen twenty nine Lee and will issue a corrected version after this hearing to reflect that that the professional engineers in California government is a sponsor of this bill instead of support. For this hearing, we'll we'll be limiting substantive testimony to two primary witnesses on each side of the bill, and each will have two minutes to speak. Others may only say their name, organization of any, and position on the bill.

As a reminder, primary witnesses and support must be those accompanying the author or who has registered a support position with the committee, and the primary witnesses in opposition must have their opposition registered with the committee. All other supporting opposition can be stated at the standing microphone in the front and will, will be called upon to simply state name, affiliation, and position.

For committee members, since our hearings are public and some travel far to be heard, in respect of them and and the author, please allow the art to complete their opening remarks regarding the bill before making a motion so that the public has an idea of what the bill is about and why it's proposed. If a motion is made during the author's opening remarks, I'll simply say that the motion will be recognized after the pro at the appropriate time.

For authors and their staff, you note that our hearing is public notice as file order. Your staff should be monitoring this hearing to assist you with coming at the appropriate time to present your bill. Finally, assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to the committee and floor proceedings in the last few years because we seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process and can effectively deliberate on critical issues facing California.

So that everyone is absolutely clear conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing is prohibited. We will not accept such behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. To address any such conduct, I'll directly, ask the individual to stop and warn them that if they continue, they'll be removed from participating in this hearing or from the capital. And we temper we will temporarily recess the hearing if necessary so that the sergeants can restore order. Hopefully, it won't come to that.

Thank you for in advance for your corporation. Wow. That was a mouthful. We don't have a quorum, so we'll with the absence of a quorum, we'll start at with the subcommittee, and we'll start with assembly member Rogers AB 161.

Well, good morning, chair and members. We're here today to present AB 161. This is a bill sponsored by the county of of Sonoma County. Sonoma County is the only county in the 37 act that requires legislation to be able to consider a cost of living adjustment for its retirees. The last time that there was a cost of living adjustment was in 2008, which means that retirees in that county have lost more than 50% of their purchasing power due to inflation since that time.

This is a very narrowly tailored bill that would allow for the county to work with its retirement board as well as actuarials and its employees to make sure that we're addressing cost of living issues in that county specifically. We oftentimes in this legislature talk about the affordability crisis and how to make sure people can stay in California, and that goes especially for our retirees who are struggling to stay in a community that they spent their career serving.

With me today to talk about the bill is the former mayor of Santa Rosa, Chris Corsi, who is on the board of supervisors now. I like to call him by his highest title, mister mayor, as well as, Travis Balzerini, who is the North Coast regional vice president for SEIU local ten to one. We also have some technical experts in the the room who can answer questions about the retirement system in Sonoma County.

Although, they would like me to emphasize that it is very well funded compared to most at about 95%. And so this is not a fiscally irresponsible bill that we are presenting. Supervisor?

Thank you. Mister Rogers.

Sorry. You have two minutes, sir. Thank you.

Thank you very much for having me. Chris Corsi. I'm a member of the board of supervisors in Sonoma County and the board's designated representative to the, the board of the Sonoma County Employee Retirement Association, which is known as SARA. Appreciate you all's consideration of AB 161. This bill is aimed specifically and only at Sonoma County.

It is it is in front of you and asked for by us to fix a problem that was created sixty years ago by another board of supervisors, the Sonoma County Board, but different folks, when they made a decision, to make SARA the only county pension system in California that does not automatically grant a COLA, cost of living a judge adjustment each year. Our our retirees, we have 4,600 retirees who are eligible for COLAs. As as, Chris said, no cola since '19 2020 2008. Sorry.

AB 161 does not provide a cola.

What it does is provides the board of supervisors flexibility to grant a COLA by giving us the chance to target separate groups of those 4,600 retirees. Likely, the ones who are receiving the lowest pension dollars and who have been retired for the longest amount of time. Folks since 2008 have lost almost 60% of their purchasing power to inflation. We wanna fix that. AB 161 doesn't fix it.

It is not the solution, but it is a key to opening a path for us to work on that solution, and we ask for your support today.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Travis Balzarini. I've worked for Sonoma County for eighteen years. I've been a trustee for Sonoma County Employees Retirement Association, also known as SARA, for the last six years. I'm speaking with you as the North Coast Regional Vice President for SCIU Local ten to one on behalf of our members, retirees, and the beneficiaries who worked for County of Sonoma and Sonoma Superior Court.

Sarah is the only 1937 Act County pension system that does not offer an automatic yearly pension cost of living adjustment or COLA to retirees and beneficiaries. Therefore, Sonoma County can only grant a pension COLA using the two ad hoc options available under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 or the CIRL. The last ad hoc pension COLA granted was in 2008. Following massive losses from the two thousand eight global financial crisis, an accounting mechanism in Sarah's cola policy prevented any pension cola from being granted.

That accounting mechanism was recently removed from the cola policy.

In the eighteen years since the last coal pension cola was granted, San Francisco Bay Area inflation increased by 50%, severely eroding the purchasing power of our retirees. Meanwhile, retirees' pension payments haven't increased since 2008. Our retirees' yearly average pension payment is very modest, between 18,000 and 42,000 per year. These retirees won't receive another pay increase in their lifetimes unless Sonoma County can grant an ad hoc cola.

After eighteen years without a cola, retirees need for financial relief is dire, and the two ad hoc cola options available in the CIRTL are cost prohibitive for Sonoma County.

Cola options that cost between 30,000,000 and $366,000,000 Two of those coal options require a change in CIRTL law to target specific groups of retirees or to allow COLA funding from additional sources. AB 161 will allow Sonoma County the flexibility to target those retirees who are most in need using any funding source available.

We urge your support for AB 161, which provides a viable path forward to deliver long overdue financial support to our aging retirees who have dedicated their careers to serving the people Sonoma County. Thank you.

Thank you so much. It appears that we have a quorum that madam secretary, please call the row.

Mckinner. Here. McKenna present. Lackey. Here.

Lackey present. Alanis Berner Garcia.

Present.

Garcia present. Wynn?

Wynn

present. Rodriguez, you have a quorum.

Thank you. Are there other any other folks that would like to pledge their support? Please step up to the mic and give your name, organization, and position.

Madam Chair, members, Terry Brennan on behalf of SEIU California representing 780,000 California workers including the Sonoma County employees. Proud to coast.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. No. No.

No. Sit down. Any are there any witnesses in opposition that would like to come to the mic? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the desk. Does anyone have any questions?

No. Assembly member Lackey?

Yeah. Clearly, what you have here is a very questionable situation. But here's my my concern is when we start acting outside of negotiation, I think it's a dangerous precedent because in a favorable situation, it seems like a great idea. But how about if it's unfavorable and where the legislature starts to overstep and engage in circumstances that they feel are more appropriate and overshadow negotiation? Could somebody resolve my concern?

Yeah. I I think your concern around the negotiation assumes that the county is being told what to do, or that the retirees are dictating what that cola could look like. What we are doing with this bill is creating a path where in which you can have that negotiation, where you have actuarials working with your county governance and working with your retirees to come up with the cost of living that is appropriate, not just based on what the retirees need, but what the county can afford.

And right now, there's no ability to do that. So this bill actually strengthens that idea that this should be done through a negotiation, as opposed to right now, it's been a blanket no since 2008.

And and by no fault of the employees, by by no fault of the legislature, but but literally as the supervisor said, based on a decision that was made by a board of supervisors fifty years ago, this gives that option for that negotiation to take place. And as I mentioned, it also gives them the ability to tailor it to the lowest paid workers or other metrics that they negotiate with those employees. Not everybody who is a retiree of the county is hurting the same way.

But this would allow for those voices that are to be heard and to try to keep them in Sonoma County.

Let me ask you this question. Why can't the current board of supervisors make this decision?

Would you like to end? Yeah.

Yes. Thanks. Nice to see you today. The rules around the COLA in Sonoma County right now only allow a COLA to come from excess earnings from the the pension plan. In 2008 and and the subsequent years, the great recession blew a $600,000,000 hole into our pension plan. Excess earnings do not exist. We have not recovered from that.

This allows the board of supervisors to look at other solutions, to look for money elsewhere, in in our budget. We have a pension bond, that's expiring in 2030 that we're we're pairing paying into now that we won't be paying into in 2030. That may be a source. There are other sources that we can look at. Without 16 o one though, we are limited to excess earnings.

So what you're telling me is you need state money?

I understand what what you just said then.

Nope. Not at all.

Let me repeat what I said in my opening statement is this this does not provide any money at all. It provides us, as the board of supervisors, with some flexibility to look at other solutions that aren't available to us. That could be other budget. It could I I don't know what all the solutions are because we haven't studied that to the point where we we have an answer.

What we're trying to do is get to the point where we can start studying other options besides excess earnings because we're not going to make back that $600,000,000.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other members with questions? Would you like to close?

No. I just I wanna thank the board of supervisors. I wanna thank SEIU 10 to one and all of our retirees for bringing this issue forward. We oftentimes talk in our district about making sure that there's no district issue that's too small. This is a big deal for thousands of people in our district.

And I know it doesn't mean a whole lot to everybody else in Sacramento who represents other areas, but I can guarantee that your support on this bill will mean the world to these retirees.

Well, I'd like to thank you for bringing the bill forward. This is exactly what we should be doing. We should be watching out for our citizens, our retirees, so that they can retire in dignity. And if this gives you the flexibility to give them a raise, a cola, I'm all for it. And so with that, I recommend an aye vote.

Madam secretary, can you call the roll? Motion. Oh, I

need a motion. A motion from Assemblymember Wynne. Second. A second from Assemblymember Garcia. Madam secretary, can you call the roll?

Item number one, AB 161. The motion is do pass. Mckinner. Aye. Mckinner, aye.

Lackey, Alanis, Burner.

Do you want my vote?

Yes. Aye.

Lackey, aye. Burner, Garcia.

Aye.

Garcia, aye. Win Win, aye. We have sufficient votes. We'll place it on

Thank you so much.

Thank you all very much. You.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we'll have assembly member Colosa, AB 1630.

Step out.

Okay. We'll go down. Is assembly member Lee here? Next, we'll have a B1729. Item number four, assembly member Lee.

Alright. Alright. Good morning, madam chair and colleagues. I am presenting 801729 to update the telework policy for state agencies. This policy has not been amended or updated in over thirty years and does not reflect the technological opportunities or workplace realities of 2026.

According to the state auditor report last year, if state workers telework three or more days weekly, the state could reduce office space by roughly 30% and save upwards of $225,000,000 annually. Now since we are, of course, in a deficit situation, $225,000,000 is nothing to joke about. It is real health care money. It is real school money, money that could be spent more efficiently. And I really truly believe that telework preserves efficiency and output of our state workers while also netting real cost savings.

Working in office four days a week costs the state worker over $6,000 annually to in commute costs, assuming that they only travel in a private car based in Elk Grove. Telework and hybrid schedules are the norm in many state departments, and return to the office RTO requires planning. And according to Sacramento Bee's own reporting, more than 70 state offices could not accommodate state workers ahead of Newsom's RTO order for July 2025.

The RTO order did not acknowledge realities about office space, office leases, office equipment, or parking. The r t the RTO order did not acknowledge employees that had been hired as remote workers and may not have been able to relocate over the last six years.

Teleworkers telework led to cumulative savings of nearly three hundred nine three hundred ninety three thousand metric tons of CO2 emissions across a 121 state departments between 2021 and 2023.

And how do we know this? The state auditor's report found that over two thirds of state employees reported that productivity was improved or unchanged when employees were teleworking three or more days per week. And in many private industries, telework is still standard. Google estimates 20% fully remote and with up to 60% of its workers on a hybrid schedule. Approximately three fourths of local governments offer hybrid schedules.

And even looking at indeed.com, the following companies offer remote jobs like Aetna, Amazon, Cisco, Salesforce, UnitedHealth Group, Wells Fargo. Remote and hybrid workplaces are becoming the standard for a wide range of jobs. So this bill updates state the state telework policy to require state departments to have a written, thought out telework policy. And when the department wants to implement a return to the office plan, the department needs to identify the operational needs to spend the time and money to do so.

From 2020 to 2024, the state proudly displayed a dashboard of the savings and benefits of telework.

The bill would bring that dashboard back so that the public could see whether telework is working for the state. With me today is Annika Wells, the president of SEIU Local one thousand, and Ted Toppin representing the professional engineers in California government.

Good morning. Good morning. Good morning, chair McKenner, and committee members. My name is Anica Walls. I'm the proud president of SEIU Local one thousand and a state worker.

Local one thousand is proud to cosponsor AB 1729, and we would love to thank assembly member Lee for his leadership on this issue. I began my career in civil service in 2006 as a disability valuation analyst with social services. Over the course of my career, I have seen how state work and the needs of Californians we serve have changed.

Telework has helped state workers do our job more efficiently, stay focused, and better meet the public's expectations while still delivering essential services every single day. We saw this most clearly during the during and after the pandemic.

State workers showed that telework allows government to remain responsive, productive, and resilient, all while running new programs and filling critical vacancies. Our members continue to process claims, answer questions, support vulnerable Californians, and deliver critical services, often more efficiently while reducing costs and cutting down on unnecessary commutes. AB 1729 is about modernizing how state government operates and how it delivers services to California.

Current telework law dates back to 1990, long before secure networks, Zoom, Microsoft Teams, mobile technology, and modern service delivery models were part of everyday government operations. This bill updates state policy to reflect how government actually works today and ensures telework decisions are based on evidence, productivity, and service outcomes, not outdated assumptions.

Modern government modern government should work better for workers, for taxpayers, and for the Californians that rely on the services that we provide. Telework helps make that possible. For these reasons, SCIU Local one thousand respectfully urges an aye vote on AB 1729. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair, members. Ted Toppin for the Professional Engineers in California government and the Association of California State Supervisors, sponsors of the bill. I will be very brief. First, thank you to assembly member Lee for taking up this mantle. It is incredibly important not just for state employees, I think, but for all workers in California.

And, you know, just to the point of productivity, I'd I'd wanna emphasize that the state of California has delivered at higher levels than ever before with telework, and that is not my opinion. That is the conclusion of the state auditors report from last summer. It was very clear, this administration's leadership self reported to the auditor that telework had improved or met previous standards of service. And that is important for all Californians and all California taxpayers. The budget savings that, we talk about, this is real money.

A quarter of $1,000,000,000, that could be directed given our budget challenges to deficit reduction, but perhaps more importantly, to services that actually help real people, schools, health care, housing, child care. That's important. And the environmental benefits and the congestion relief and benefits, those are real. We have a statewide policy to reduce vehicle miles traveled and get emissions below certain levels by twenty twenty twenty forty five, carbon neutral by 2045. We're not gonna do that without adopting innovative approaches to work like telework.

So in conclusion, I would say this is a win win for Californians. We would love your support on behalf of ACSS and PEG members and all state employees. We would urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any others any other witnesses that would like to give theirs give their their position? If so, please come up to the mic and give your name, organization, and position.

This is a. Thank you. Assemblymember, you may start.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair and Committee Members, for the opportunity to present AB1630, worker representation for all. Thank you to the committee consultants and staff for all their hard work on this bill. AB1630 is a thoughtful and balanced measure that strengthens transparency, trust, and engagement in the collective bargaining process while maintaining the integrity of negotiations and respecting the realities faced by public employers.

AB1630 would authorize the union representative to invite members of the bargaining unit to observe, meet, and confer sessions.

This, at its core, is a bill about trusting the process. For many workers, collective bargaining can feel out of reach, something that happens behind closed doors without deeply affecting their livelihoods, without direct visibility into how those decisions are being made. Allowing members to observe negotiations opens the door to greater understanding and transparency. Workers gain firsthand insight into the complexity of bargaining, the trade offs involved, and the good faith efforts made on their behalf.

This transparency strengthens confidence in union leadership, fosters unity within bargaining units, and ultimately leads to more informed and engaged workplaces.

Participation is limited and controlled, extended only at the discretion of the exclusive representative who is best positioned to determine when and how observation is appropriate. This ensures that negotiations remain focused, productive, and respectful of the sensitive nature of discussions, a critical component, of the balance we are striking. It ensures that public resources are used responsibly and that employers are not required to bear additional costs for observational participation. It also preserves preserves flexibility.

If both parties see value in allowing compensated observation in certain circumstances, they retain the ability to come to that agreement.

With me to testify in support of the bill, are Sandra Barreiro with SEIU California and Alana Oshray, family medicine and psychiatry resident physician at UC Davis Health.

Thank you, ladies. We have two.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Medical residents are isolated by exceptionally long hours and the mental and physical demands of their jobs. They're often placed in areas where they're socially isolated, without a support network, and fifty to seventy percent of residents experience depression and burnout. The union is a support network. It provides a sense of belonging and control over their working conditions, both of which improve mental health.

But residents' opportunities to engage in the union are limited by their inflexible schedules. This bill would make union engagement more accessible by allowing residents to listen to bargaining sessions remotely such their schedule allows. It wouldn't change the role of the bargaining team, which would still be the only union members that are actively engaged in negotiations. CIR represents residents in five other states where they allow this practice of having remote observation.

And in California, the current law allows the UC and the CSU to do the same, but the CSU and UC can refuse those requests.

The CSU and UC allow in person observers, but they have refused to provide remote access to observers. This bill could disrupt bargaining. However, disrupting bargaining is already prohibited under existing law, and any disruptions could subject the union to an unfair practice charge. Providing remote access is the simplest way that the UC and CSU can recognize the work of all their employees, but especially the medical residents who sacrifice their mental and physical well-being to take care of patients.

It's a simple way to help make them feel more connected with their union, especially compared to the larger structural changes that would be needed to reduce the number of twenty four hour shifts.

Thank you.

Good morning, and thank you for, like, giving me the opportunity to speak with the Committee today. My name is Doctor Alana Oshray, and I'm a combined family medicine and psychiatry resident at UC Davis and a proud member of the union, the committee of interns and residents. We represent over 6,000 residents and fellows across the UC system, and I'm testifying today in support of AB 1630, which grants unions the right to invite member observers to bargaining sessions.

I chose my residency program to work with patients who are unhoused have serious mental illness and chronic health conditions. I average a work week of seventy eight hours.

As a resident in family medicine psychiatry, I work in pediatrics, OBGYN, and I'm treating people with serious mental illness, including those who are incarcerated. Passing AB 1630 is crucial to ensuring that workers have a seat at the table to negotiate their working conditions and receive resources they need from their employer. Again, I average seventy eight hours per week. Currently, UC resident physicians are negotiating their first statewide contract.

The UC refuses to allow remote observer access, which is disrespectful to residents who work sixty to eighty hours per week on top of nights, twenty four hour call shifts, and weekends.

We also work across the state from Sacramento down to San Diego. So many of us are not able able to attend bargaining sessions that are held in person due to our incredible work hours and distance. It's just not realistic. Please vote in favor of AB1630, and thank you for your time.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come to the mic. Give your name, organization, and position. Seeing seeing no other witnesses, are there any witnesses in opposition?

Please come forward. You have two minutes each.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Tyler Aguilar on behalf of the University of California. While the university

fully supports the goals of increased transparency in this bill, we respectfully oppose AB1630 because we believe observation protocols are still most effectively handled at the bargaining table. As noted in the analysis in our letter, historically, PERB has maintained and ruled that the presence of observers should be settled through mutually agreed upon ground rules for observation. This flexibility allows the university and our labor partners to tailor a process that works for each specific unit. At UC, 18 system wide units, 270,000 employees.

We wanna make sure we're tailoring, approach that works for each unit.

Again, we appreciate and share the author's goal of increased transparency, but we continue to believe that the best way to reach timely agreements is to keep these decisions within the existing, bargaining process. Thank you, and I'll pass it to my colleague at CSU.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. I'm Adriana Gomez with the CSU office of the chancellor. We appreciate the conversations we've had with the author's office and sponsors. However, we do remain concerned about the potential impacts of the bill.

I echo my colleague's comments from UC and would just like to additionally know that there is significant ambiguity in the bill at the moment. For example, the bill stipulates one or more observers may attend collective bargaining meetings at the exclusive representative's discretion without any defined parameters around that attendance, and passive observation and ground rules are also not defined. So without clear limits as noted in the analysis, this language could be interpreted to permit an unlimited number of observers and create logistical and security challenges.

We're worried about this potentially undermining the candid dialogue that's necessary at the bargaining table to reach agreements. And employer employers and unions can already come to mutual agreements at the bargaining table, as my colleague noted, that consider the different needs for different employee groups and that set the necessary ground rules.

We feel that a this bill overrides the necessary ability to come to these mutually agreed to frameworks and can significantly alter the dynamics of collective bargaining in a manner that might delay agreements or further complicate bargaining sessions. So we respectfully request a no vote. Thank you.

Are there any other folks that want to give their position? Please come to the mic, give your name, organization, and position. Seeing none, I'd like to bring it back to the dais. Assembly member Lackey.

Yeah. I just have a a question. Listening to the opposition, how is this not making these delicate discussions from being public?

Okay. Thank you for the question, Assemblymember Lackey. I mean, the intent would be to make the conversations public. And according to our unions at the UC and CSU, you know, the intent is to limit it to just the bargaining unit members. I'm sorry.

Let me clarify. The intent is to limit of observation to only bargaining unit members. So they wouldn't necessarily be public, but currently, the bill does not settle a number on the number of, union members that can attend and observe remotely.

Yeah. I I do believe that negotiations are a very delicate part of the process and need to be respected and limited within access. And this is a scary move from, keeping it private to expanding that, and I think it's it's a little bit dangerous. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other members?

Move the bill.

The bill was moved by Assemblymember Boerner and seconded by Assemblymember Nguyen. Assemblymember Caloza, would you like to close?

Thank you, Chair and Members, for your consideration. As we heard from the witness testimony, some of our workers across the state and even from the prior bill are working excruciating hours and aren't able to participate in a meaningful way. I think our bill moves in the right direction of allowing more meaningful participation given the demands of the work schedule of all of our workers across the state. So thank you. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And I now I can't ask any questions because I let you close first, but I did have some, but it's okay. I think this bill is needed. I think that it's great if folks can watch in online. That way, you're controlling the questions or noise or they're not there in person. They're online, and they're able to see what's happening and how the negotiations are going when it's pertaining to them.

It's their job. And so with that, I recommend an aye vote. Madam Secretary?

Item number two, AB1630. The motion is do passed, and we refer to the committee on appropriations. [Roll call]

Five to zero.

Thank you. The next item three, AB 1750, Caloza.

Thank you, chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to present AB 1750, which is a bill about making sure that we fully support our teachers. Thank you as well to the committee consultants and staff for all your hard work on this bill. AB 1750 is built on a principle that we must stand for, that teachers, the people who show up our children every single day, should not have to pay the price for things outside of their control.

This bill ensures that when certified and classified school employees exhaust, their sick leave and are absent due to illness or accident, that they will continue to receive their full salary for an additional five months. It is a policy grounded in dignity, stability, and respect for the essential workforce that keeps our schools running every single day.

Our teachers, from our bus drivers, custodians, school staff, are more than just employees, are the backbone of our education system. They show up for students in moments big and small and are often going above and beyond their job descriptions. But when life takes an unexpected turn, when a serious illness, a surgery, or an injury occurs, too many of these dedicated professionals are forced to choose between their health and their financial security.

And in some of the most staggering, polls recently show that one in five teachers, struggle financially, and over thirty three percent of them have a second job just to make ends meet. And nearly half of our teachers in California plan to leave the workforce in the next ten years.

And so, AB 1750 is making a step towards really looking at our teacher workforce and figuring out how can we do more to retain, the current workforce that we have by making sure that they are more secure in their most dire moments of need. We also know that teacher salaries are not where they should be. They are one of the most underpaid, professions, and the salaries that they received often do not reflect the value of their work or the cost of living in our state.

On top of that, we know that many teachers routinely spend their own money on classroom supplies, covering everything from the most basic necessities to books, to learning resources, and pretty much anything that students need to learn. We know that many teachers pay out of pocket.

And so providing a full salary for teachers is a critical bridge when they're in dire need. This is a really important safety net that I think will help with retention, so that they can fully heal and return in the classroom. And this will make our students more successful and our schools more successful and our communities more successful. With that, I am proud to welcome Raul Gonzalez, a TK teacher with Visalia Unified as my witness.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Good morning. My name is Raul Gonzalez, and I'm a transitional kindergarten excuse me. Transitional kindergarten teacher in Visalia Unified, also a member of Visalia Unified Teachers Association. And I'm here speaking on behalf of California Teachers Association in support of AB 1750. CTA believes that all educational employees should have access to paid short term disability benefits.

Currently, our differential pay system forces school employees to bear unkept cost to our own substitutes after exhausting sick leave. When we exhaust sick leave, we're still injured and aren't able to return to work, our bills don't go away, our bills don't change.

And so having having to pay us up a sub out of pocket for five months can be financially, ruining, particularly for our new employees like my two sons who would would be dead in the water if if they if they had to give up most of their paycheck in order to to cover these costs.

In extreme cases like cancer, in the case of my sister, or heart attacks, severe injuries, this bill would deliver that stability that the workers would need and when they need it the most. I wanna share a story about my one of our members who was out riding her bike, was bumped by a car, hit by a car, bumped, hit her head.

Her brain essentially rebooted. She'd she suffered a traumatic brain injury, had to relearn everything all over again. And she had to not only learn that that her bodily function, but also her curriculum, but at the same time dealt with the stress of having to deal with with the pay cut. No person should have to be penalized for not being too well to work. This bill allows employers and employees that that that ability to dedicate themselves to just being well before they get back to work.

I think it's all about community. When our employees are at most need is when we need to be there for them. So for those reasons, I respectfully urge your yes support on AB 1750.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come to the mic.

Give your name, your organization, and position.

Good morning.

Sandra Barreiro on behalf of SEIU California and the California Faculty Association in support.

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

Seeing no other witnesses, are there any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. You have two minutes each. Thank you.

Good morning. I am Michael Evans, director of Labor and Employee Relations at the Alameda County Office of Education or ACOE. I have been in education for over eighteen years and have played several roles including as a teacher, budget analyst, and now as an HR professional. ACEU's mission is to equip the most vulnerable students and the people who serve them with the tools to thrive. We work closely with the 18 school districts in our county who serve more than 200,000 students.

We do not impose support to employees facing long term illness. In fact, we already provide employees who exhaust their leave with up to five months at at least 50% of their regular salary or the difference between their salary and what we must pay to a substitute. However, we respectfully oppose to AB 1750 for several reasons. The bill may create incentives for employees to remain out of work to the detriment of students and staff.

Filling long term teacher vacancies can mean a revolving door of substitutes for students, which reduces classroom stability and hampers the relationship between teachers and students so vital for successful learning.

The lack of stability and consistency is particularly difficult for students with disabilities. Long term absences also create challenges for existing staff covering their own workload as well as the workload of their absent colleagues. Finally, we do have cost concerns. The bill would increase costs without increased funding at a time when districts are laying off staff to balance budgets. Differential pay allows previously budgeted funds to be used for qualified substitute coverage.

To remove LEA's ability to use differential pay without adding additional funding would require budget cuts to other programs or services. For these reasons, I ask for a no vote on AB 1750. Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair members. Dorothy Johnson on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, also respectfully opposed to AB 1750, really focusing on staffing challenges and the increased costs.

We think a change is significant as proposed in AB 1750 really needs to take in the full universe of existing leave time allowances, pay disability benefits, the return rights, the thirty nine month rehire practices for those who exhausted their sick leave, and all of the other considerations, set for school based positions, teachers and classifieds, compared to other public sector employment.

So as, my, counterpart from Alameda County Office of Education mentioned, the staffing challenges are real and they're getting worse because, as you may know, the, extended period for substitutes from sixty days was, no longer in effect. So now we have that thirty day revolving door.

And making matters worse, our retired annuitants who have supported staffing needs will lose their extended abilities as of July 1. We are particularly concerned again for our special education students who do require and thrive when there's greater stability in their in their classroom settings. And then quickly speaking about cost, this would dramatically increase cost outside of Prop 98's current structure. So we're looking at dollars already committed to students and staff that would be drained.

Another bill, that would have provided three months of leave was estimated to cost about $500,000,000 annually.

So less time, significant costs. And I do wanna reemphasize that end of the day, this would create incentives for staff to remain out longer and could create unpaid off ramp as individuals seek other positions either with different districts or outside education. So remain opposed thank you.

Are there any other witnesses and opposition? Please step forward and give me your name, organization, and support.

Good morning. Lucy Salcido Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education. I am, representing in respectful opposition Dublin Unified, Hayward Unified, Livermore Joint Valley Unified, Newark Unified, Pleasanton Unified, Sunol Glen Unified School Districts, as well as California County Superintendents, California Suburban School Districts Association, Central Valley Education Coalition, and Kern County Superintendent of Schools.

Good morning, madam chair and committee members. Mishall Gill on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials in opposition.

Caitlin Jung on behalf of the San Bernardino County District Advocates of Better Schools and the School Employers Association of California in opposition. Thank you.

Madam chair members, Nick Romley on behalf of the Small School Districts Association, technically opposed unless amended, wanna thank the committee for noting our concerns in the analysis. Thank you.

Cristal Padilla with the Chief Executive Officers of California Community Colleges. We wanna thank the author for working on us with amendments to address our concerns. Thank you.

Yeah. I would just like to say a couple things. First of all, there's no one that thinks that teachers are overpaid. I I would tell you, I started my career as as a teacher knowing fully that I was never going to get the compensation that I felt I deserved. But and I I believe that the majority of teachers know that.

They're not happy about that, but they find a way to to survive through that. And I think that this bill is very noble and and worthy in its intent. But, I mean, there's a reason Prop 98 passed with such overwhelming support. People want to fund education, but there's limited funds. There are limited funds as we're finding within our own budget within as legislators, we see there are limited funds available, and there's incredible competition for the money.

So what we have is a a finite amount of dollars, and and we have to figure out the most equitable way to spread that money. As a former school board member, it was a huge challenge to even understand the budget process becomes very, very complex. And so when we have policies like this, it overcomplicates the reality of being able to be fair to everyone. Now there there's no one that doesn't wouldn't like to fund people that have these medical emergencies that they're trying to manage.

But the fiscal realities are different, and I I just I I would love to be able to support this as a person who cares about people.

But in the same right, I also care about being able to be equitable to all participants within the network. And I just feel like this is an unmanageable proposal. I would like to support it, but I I don't think it's realistic. So I'm sorry to say that I'm I'm not gonna be able to support it.

Thank you, assembly member. Any other?

The bill was moved by Assembly member Burner, second by Assembly member Rodriguez. For me, I I have one question for the opposition. You you made a statement about folks just staying out and not coming back to work after they're sick. You do have to have some type of a doctor's excuse if you're out over three to five days. Right?

So they still have they would still have to do that. They couldn't just be out.

Yes. But we have learned from our practitioners that, you know, a medical provider wants to do what's in the interest of the patient. If a patient is indicating they need additional time, they often work with their medical providers to receive those notices or those leaves. So, again, we're not we're not opposing or or, dismissing that, yes, people have ongoing medical needs.

It's really about how we're going to provide that leave time and provide the staffing and support for our students and other employees. But, yes, you do normally need the, medical notice or, leave request.

Thank you. Assembly member Rodriguez?

And, you know, I did work in a doctor's office before. That's kinda where my career started. And, I can honestly say we never gave patients notices to be off work because they asked for them. They really had to have a legitimate reason to be off. And we can't question anybody if they're sick or they have time off.

You can't question illness.

Thank you. Thank you. And, Assemblymember Koloz, thank you for working with my staff, and and working with the committee. You have we we have some suggested amendments. You have offered to look at those amendments to work with us.

I would also ask you to work with the opponents because they it is their districts that that that's going to be impacted. But with that today, I am, giving an aye recommendation. Madam secretary, can you please call the roll? Item number.

No. She didn't. I'm sorry. I moved so fast sometime. Assemblywoman, would you like to close?

Thank you so much, chair. Thank you to the opposition for coming forward. I look forward to working with you. Appreciate, you sharing your concerns. Assembly member Lackey, and thank you to the committee members for your additional thoughts.

You know, I think for me, AB 1750 is a targeted investment in maintaining stability, in the teaching profession. You know, this is, you know, if and when they need extended periods of leave if they are sick or have illness. Teachers also don't accrue leave in the same way that the traditional worker may accrue leave. You know, they accrue leave, I believe, about one sick day a month in some of the cases that we were hearing about.

And so if you can imagine what that's like for a new teacher and something horrible happens to them, then only to have their wages garnished, to allow for them to recover during that time. And so I think this is a a targeted investment. I look forward to working with the opposition. I thank the witness for their time and respectfully ask for your aye vote, and thank you, chair.

Thank you. And it just hearing that teachers have to pay for substitutes, I never heard of that. That is unbelievable. But with that, madam secretary, can you call the roll?

Item number three, AB1750. The motion is do passed. And we refer to the committee on higher education. [Roll Call]

Mckinner, aye. Lackey. Not voting. Alanis, Boerner. Aye. Boerner, aye. Garcia, Wynn. Wynn, aye. Rodriguez? Aye.

You have sufficient votes. We'll place it on all four apps and numbers.

Thank you. Thank you. We will take a brief rest recess of three minutes. Thank you, mister Gonzales. You're next, though. You're next. Real quick. though.

I'd like to bring the meeting back to order. The next item, file number 5, AB1896 Gonzales.

No. I'm joking.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, members. First, I would like to thank the committee staff for their work on this very, very important and needed bill today. I'm pleased to present AB1896, the GTFO Act, which says get the feds out.

This bill says that individuals who participated in immigration enforcement activities between 01/20/2025 and 01/20/2029 will be disqualified from holding state, county, or local public employment in California, except for conduct already permitted under California's Senate bill 54, the law that protects trust between our communities and our local government.

This bill is authored by myself and our speaker, Rob mister Rivas, whose continued partnership on this effort reflects a shared commitment to making sure California stands strong in defending our communities, our civil rights, and the values that define our great state. Since the start of January 2025, our neighborhoods have lived with raids, intimidation, and fear.

And I wanna give a point of personal privilege to thank our chair of the delegation, our chair of this committee, who helped put together a a press conference and immediate attention, especially as ICE was focused on neighborhoods in Los Angeles and my district, including hers. Families waking up wondering if today is the day someone knocks on their door to kidnap them. Folks who are just selling flowers, going to graduations, just simply trying to live their day being kidnapped in broad daylight.

Communities that wonder and understand what this Federal Government is doing and wondering if people who swore to protect them are actually working against them. This is not an abstract thought. This is our reality. We have seen with our very own eyes horrible, horrible acts of terror, violence, and hate committed against our communities. These acts are not isolated.

They are not faceless. A pattern has been shown, a pattern of poor training, poor decision making, and poor values. Terribly terrible events like the immigration enforcement officials publicly executing Renee Goode, shooting Alex Preddy in the street, cat kidnapping five year old Liam Fornejo junior to use as political bait, and shooting and killing Keith Porter junior during a holiday. Whistleblower documents and complaints presented to Congress show alarming changes to ICE training. Current ICE recruits receive 250 fewer training program.

ICE eliminated a dozen practical exams and reduced the number of tests that a training needs to pass from 25 to just nine. ICE has also removed entire courses from their training program, like how to approach use of force, the structure of United States government, and how to determine a criminal versus a civil removal proceeding. In comparison, peace officers in California must go through a minimum of forty weeks of training just to graduate from the academy.

California expects its public employees to be moral, to defend its people against all enemies, and to support and defend both the constitution of The United States and of California. And anyone who has participated in these raids has shown that they did not live up to the bar that California deserves from their public servants.

So today, California answers with clarity. If you participate in cruel, baseless immigration enforcement, if you violated civil rights, ignored due process, or followed unlawful orders, you will not be welcomed into California's public workforce. Today, in primary witnesses in support is Christian Ramirez, vice president of SEIU USWW, representing SCIU California, and Peter Trujillo, director of organizing with CHRLA. And I know today is their day of action as well, so I thank you both for being here. Take it away. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members. My name is Christian Ramirez. I'm the vice president of SEIU USWW, and I'm representing SEIU California today. I'm here in support of AB1896 on behalf of 750 members 350,000 members in our families. We appreciate the assembly member, Sunilio Ramirez, leadership and the speaker's leadership on this important issue and their commitment to upholding the values that California expect from public service.

AB1896 ensures that individuals who participated in immigration enforcement activities between 01/20/2025 and 01/20/2029 are disqualified from holding state, county, and local public employment in California, except for conduct already permitted under SB 54. Since the start of this administration, ICE and border patrol have unleashed a wave of aggressive, unchecked military style immigration rates. These actions have resulted in kidnappings, beatings, and shootings, and even the deaths of unarmed civilians.

We represent workers, immigrants, and citizens alike across industries like health care, childcare, education, janitorial, security officers, airport workers, public service workers. We are the folks that make the state run.

And yet, the very same people that we trusted with our tax dollars have turned their guns against us. Our members expect to be good stewards of public trust and to serve their communities with integrity every single day. That's the expectation members have. It's the expectations we have also of federal law enforcement. California sets a high bar for its public servants.

We expect them to uphold the constitution, respect due process, and serve all communities with dignity. Same individuals carrying out these rates are harming the very communities they have claimed to serve and protect. We also want to ensure that this bill is meaningful and enforceable in practice, so it delivers on the promise and truly protects the rights and dignity of California of California's workers and their families. Anyone who participated in these rates has shown that they do not meet the standards that California expects from them.

Thank you. Thank you. Sir, you have two minutes.

Thank you. Mic check here. Good morning, Madam Chair, members. My name is Pedro Trujillo. I'm the organizing director at CHIRLA, also known as a Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights.

And, CHIRLA is a nonprofit immigrant rights organization that's been serving the state of California for almost forty years and, forty years at the end of this year. I've been at CHIRLA for fourteen years as an organizer at a nonprofit organization with the mission statement to achieve a justice just society fully inclusive of immigrants. Aye, along with colleagues, were called by the threat of mass deportations to reactivate the Los Angeles Rapid Response Network in 2017 during the first Trump administration.

And this network comprised of nonprofit, immigrant rights, civil rights, orgs, unions, faith, and grassroots organizations had to come together to train the community on know your rights and train volunteers as rapid responders to document any immigration enforcement. But the threats of mass deportations during the first Trump administrations mostly remain as that, as a threat, because most of the operations that we were able to document and witness were similar to what was happening prior during the Obama administration.

During the next presidential administration, which is the Biden administration, the structure of the rapid response network remains, but it was largely unused given that most of the issues were happening at the border at that time. There were still some operations in the interior, but we did not need to activate the large rapid response network.

During this last, Trump administration, the current Trump administration, we had to I had to reactivate the rapid response network in November 2024, and the Rapid Response Network began training volunteers and getting ready for mass operations, deportations, and arrests. In a few months, we trained hundreds of volunteers. And to date, we have over 2,000 individuals trained by the network.

It is clear by our documented reports for volunteers that cruelty and injury and racial profiling has been used by these agents, ICE agents and border patrol agents, and that they're even targeting rapid responders who are peacefully documenting what is happening and ensuring that people's due process is followed.

We had to adjust our training to get the ACLU to actually give us a little bit more of, like, how do we keep ourselves safe and document safely and protect ourselves given that they directed their attention from not just the community, but also to the people helping out. Thank you. Thank you. We ask you to support.

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witness in support? Please come forward. Give your name, your organization, and your position.

Good morning, Madam, Madam Chair and Members. Christopher Sanchez on behalf of the Central American Resource Center, CARES, and in strong support.

Edgar Guerra with SEIU California in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses and opposition please come forward? You'll have two minutes, sir. Thank you.

Madam Chair Members, Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association, in opposition to the bill. To be clear, this is not a comment about, what the Federal Government is or isn't doing in regards to immigration enforcement. This is about the impact that, this bill will have on, county sheriff offices across the state of California.

This bill will restrict California law enforcement agencies from hiring otherwise qualified individuals as peace officers simply because they happen to work for a federal agency that has some connection to federal immigration enforcement. And it's important to note that this bill is not limited to persons who work for federal agencies like ICE that have a primary responsibility connected to immigration enforcement.

The a fairly Un a plain reading of this bill would indicate that somebody who worked for Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard, FEMA, maybe is a military reserve, somebody who worked for TSA or even the Secret Service, during the time period in the bill would not be allowed to serve as peace officer Under California law. It also the bill doesn't restrict future employment of just persons who actively participated in actual immigration enforcement.

Under this bill, a person, for example, who is employed as a mail clerk by DHS during the dates described in the bill would be ineligible to become a California peace officer, not to mention someone who worked for TSA or even the Secret Service. The bill also neglects the fact that any person who's ultimately employed as a California peace officer is subject to extensive background checks and high statutory and departmental qualifications as the existing statute and across the state.

And this is our the crux of our concern is that recruiting and retaining qualified peace officer candidates is already hard enough in the state, and this bill will unnecessarily make that process more difficult.

So for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition please come forward, state your name, organization, and position? Seeing none, I'd like to bring it back to the dais. Any members like

Move it.

The move the bill is moved by, first by Assemblymember Boerner and seconded by Assemblymember Garcia, Assemblymember Rodriguez.

Okay. I just wanna thank the author. And, in my own district, a constituent of mine was taken in a manner that left an entire committee shaken and searching for answers. It drew a national attention, but more importantly, it left the lasting impact on the people I represent. This is not something that I can ignore.

With that being said, we support the measure today, but I know that it's a moment this isn't the end of the conversation. And I know I've talked to my assembly member Gonzales, and I know he will engage with law enforcement and see if there's any amendments could be taken. So with that, I will be supporting the bill today.

Thank you. Any other member have any comments? Any questions? No? Okay.

I have a couple. You talked about workforce short shortages. You claim this worsens workforce shortages. What evidence do you have that allowing individuals with concerning prior conduct improves recruitment or retention outcomes?

Madam Chair, I mean, it's a it's a simple matter of numbers. But we're not looking to hire people who have questionable backgrounds or who have done things that have violated the law or that would violate law enforcement policies. But that's taken care of by the fact that anybody who wants to become a peace officer has to undergo an extensive background check, including with the agencies with whom they formally worked.

And, again, it's not limited to someone who, you know, took place in a an actual immigration enforcement action on the street, you know, enforcing a removal order or something like that that's found objectionable by the proponents. So, again, it's it's the bill is saying there there are there is some number of people, how big or how small depending on what the bill says in terms of definitions, that simply are not available to be in the possible employment pool of California peace officers.

Okay. Let's see. When we think about public trust, how do you respond to community concerns about individuals with problematic histories continuing to serve in the law enforcement roles, especially when we look at the ICE what's happening with ICE? And I think we just had a a a shooting, a murder yesterday or a couple of days ago.

But, madam chair, if you're referring to the Patterson incident, I don't believe the person was killed.

Which I So, thankfully. But, again, I think it's it's it's the same response. It's it's assuming that I mean, the bill is based on the premise that anybody who worked for any federal agency that touches immigration enforcement law has necessarily been actively, affirmatively, and personally involved in some kind of job or job duty that the proponents or whomever find objectionable. That that's that's an opinion. But when it comes to hiring somebody, there's a process.

Law enforcement, California sheriff's don't just look and say, okay. Well, this person worked for the Homeland Security, so they're okay. They work for Secret Service, so they're okay. They still go through background checks. There's still very high standards.

So anything that's unlawful or undesirable in terms of an action, that's gonna come out in a hiring investigation. And if it's something that's done while they're employed as a California peace officers, they'd be subject to discipline if it's violative of state law or policy.

Thank you. Thank you for those those answers. One more time, anybody else from the dais? Assembly member Gonzales, would you like to close?

Yes. I just two pieces here. One is we are gonna be continuing, and I did make that commitment to miss Rodriguez about continuing to work with law enforcement on this bill. Again, the bill is going after people who are part of the enforcement piece. We're not going after the clerical people.

We're not going after people who are not part of the enforcement piece. If you take the bonuses, you take the consequences. That's what this bill is about. And so today, we have a choice to stand together to choose dignity over cruelty, law over lawlessness, and people over power. If you choose to terrorize communities instead of serving them, California will not reward you with a public paycheck.

And with that, madam chair and committee members, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Item number 5801896. The motion is do passed and re referred to the committee on public safety. Mckinner. Aye. Mckinner, aye.

You gotcha.

Thank you.

The next item is a item six, AB2120, Solache. I thought I saw him. Okay. So maybe is not in. The next item is item number seven, AB2129 Flora.

He lost it.

We lost it. I know.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

I'm sorry. Can you please contact absent members? And madam secretary, should we go back over the roll? Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Seeing no more business, this meeting is adjourned.