Assembly Standing Committee on Higher Education

Alright. Good afternoon. The Assembly Higher Education Committee is now called to order. At this time, we'd like to have a Mister Secretary, if you can please call the roll to establish quorum, please. Okay.

[Rollcall].

Thank you so much, colleagues. We have established a quorum, and welcome everyone to the Assembly Higher Education Committee hearing. This hearing is the last hearing what we will have for Senate measures. Whether you're here in person or watching virtually, I'm glad that you have joined us. Additionally, I'm pleased to welcome back Mister Michael Erke, who once again is pinch hitting for our committee.

Thank you, Mister Erke, for your leadership. We truly appreciate everything you have done to support and assist our committee this year, and you're valuable to our Legislature. Thank you so much. I will now go over some key elements of the structure of today's hearing. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the early conduct of legislative proceedings.

We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that sites or threatens violence. The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place and is permitted by the Chair. Public comments relate to the subject or bills being discussed today, and no engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes orderly conduct of this hearing.

Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions, and bill will be taken up in sign in order.

Authors can sign in at the sergeant's desk in Room 126. Further, please note that the guidelines for bills heard in this committee is to allow for testimony from two lead witnesses in support and two lead witnesses in opposition to speak for no more than two minutes each.

Stakeholder groups and entities that neither support nor in opposition will be allowed to give testimony for no more than two minutes, when I call for tweeners. If a measure has more than two entities in a tweener category, only two will be allowed to speak for two minutes each.

Colleagues, since our hearings are public and some travel far to be here, respect of them and the author, please allow the author to complete their opening remarks regarding the bill before making a motion so that the public has an idea as to what the bill is about. If a motion is made during the author's opening remarks, I'll assume we state that the motion be recognized at the appropriate time.

Additionally, members, if you like to respond to a roll call, ask a question, or provide a comment, please be sure to activate your microphone and speak into your mic.

For authors of bills of today, each member presenting today will provide an opening statement and a closing statement. As previously stated, your TV witnesses will each have two minutes to provide testimony. And before we proceed with our first author, let us take up the consent calendar's time. We have six measures on the agenda today with one being on consent. File number six, SB 1374 by Senator Niello.

Mister Secretary, roll call, please, on the consent calendar. Oh, sorry. Can we get a motion and second? Thank you.

On the consent calendar? [Roll Call].

Thank you so much, colleagues. The item is out, and we'll keep the roll open for additional members to add on. At this time now, we'd like to welcome Senator Reyes, presenting three bills today. The first one by Senator Reyes would be SB 1154 item number three. Welcome, Senator Reyes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present SB 1154, which would allow community college districts to use a best value procurement method for public works projects exceeding $1 million. Best value procurement allows contracts to be to be awarded based on a combination of price and objective qualitative criteria, not simply the lowest bid. In doing so, it provides community colleges with the same flexibility already provided to k 12 school districts, the University of California, and the CSUs.

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. SB 1154 allows districts to evaluate contractors' experience, safety records, technical expertise, and life cycle costs.

The bill also contains protections from biases in evaluations as the identities of bidders are not revealed in evaluation prior to the completion of the scoring. These projects are essential to preparing students for transfer, career pathways, and participation in California's evolving workforce, and will ensure we are setting up our infrastructure for long term success. Here to testify in support are Gilbert Contreras, Dr. Gilbert Contreras, President of San Bernardino Valley College. Yes. My alma mater. And Angel Rodriguez, Associate Vice Chancellor of Government Relations at the San Bernardino Community College District.

Thank you so much, and welcome.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Reyes, and thank you, Chair and Members of the Assembly Higher Education Committee. My name is Dr. Gilbert Contreras, and I proudly serve as a President of San Bernardino Valley College in the San Bernardino Community College District. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on SB 1154, which will provide another tool in the toolbox as my campus embarks on new facilities, a new facilities master plan to build out the classrooms of tomorrow for our students and community.

This year at Valley College, we celebrate one hundred years, our centennial. That's one hundred years of educating and serving the community. One hundred years of people coming with a dream and leaving with the future. Part of our one hundred year history is the fact that we were the first community college intentionally designed and built as a community college.

All the other community colleges built before us were transitioned from other purposes. At this time, it's our responsibility to lead higher education once again by advocating that community colleges receive the exact same authority that is available to UC, CSU, and k 12 schools, the exact same authority available to public schools in California.

Best value is a tool that community college could use to deliver buildings that enhance the built environment with facilities that meet the teaching and learning needs of the communities that we serve. Currently, Valley College has three buildings under construction, aeronautics, welding, and a student services building. These facilities would have benefited from the best value because they involve innovative and sustainable design with complicated equipment and materials.

In the near future, our campus has a goal to deliver a state of the art food pantry for our students. This would be akin to a grocery store that low income students could access to ensure that they and their families have access to food and what they need. Additionally, future projects include health sciences facilities that would house our nursing and other allied health programs. This facility would train the health professionals of our community for the years to come.

SB 1154 would provide us the opportunity to utilize the method of delivery that's proven to reduce long term costs and deliver projects on time. I wanna thank Senator Reyes for introducing this important measure, and thank you for your consideration this afternoon and respectfully request your aye vote. On behalf of our 23,000 students and one hundred years of community, thank you.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you, Senator Reyes, Chair, Members. Good afternoon. Angel Rodriguez, Associate Vice Chancellor of Government Relations at the San Bernardino Community College District. Very happy to support this bill. And you just heard from President Contreras right now what this bill does for Valley College, and I just wanna add the district perspective.

Our district includes Valley College, Crafton Hills College, KVCR TV and radio, and our workforce development center. We serve about 30,000 students. And as you mentioned, this is our 100th year. As our board and our chancellor look to the next one hundred years, we have approved the facilities master plan. This plan is about meeting the educational and workforce needs of our region, safe classrooms, updated STEM labs, and high-tech job facilities.

Excuse me. SB 1154 gives community colleges another tool in toolbox when we accept bids for large and complex projects. The regular low bid process works for many projects, and we use it, but some projects are different. Our students learn in spaces that have to look and function like the real world. A nursing lab has to feel like a clinical setting.

A public safety facility may include a simulation space for firefighters or paramedics. An applied technology lab may include advanced equipment for machining, welding, and other skilled trades. Those spaces are highly technical. They're complex to design and they are complex to build. So we need this option so that we can look beyond the price. Price is important, but it doesn't tell us everything.

We also need to know whether a contractor has experience, the safety record, financial capacity, the ability to deliver the project well. At our district, we contract with both union and non union contractors. So this bill is not about putting one group over another. It's about giving community colleges the same option that the UC system has, that the Cal State system has, and that k 12s already have. So please, we ask for your support so that community colleges can have the same option as the other education systems. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members... Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California in support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Mark MacDonald on behalf of a number of local community college districts, including Contra Costa, Foothill De Anza, San Diego, State Center, and the Southwestern Community College Districts, all in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Jack Wursten from Nossaman on behalf of Citrus College in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there witnesses... I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Frank Reyes. Totally supportive of this creative whoever thought of this, the Senator was a brilliant person, and it's gonna help a lot of brilliant students. And they're gonna come out, and they're gonna get good jobs, and they're gonna pay taxes. So strongly in support of this.

And thank you for your service and leadership as well. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Welcome. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Melanie Perron on behalf of the Associate General Contractors of the California Chapters. We're in respectful opposition of SB 1154. We are strongly encouraged by the intent of the bill about using alternative project delivery methods. We very much support those types of efforts.

Where our issues come in is where it's the where the mandates come in on labor for us. So SB 1154 conditions participation in a mandatory skilled and trained workforce requirement for every bidder and every subcontractor at every tier. So the apprenticeship graduation ratios do not reflect the structure of a lot of our trades, the availability of the programs in certain areas, or the staffing realities of small and specialty firms.

That requirement does not just influence who wins a project, it determines who is even allowed to compete. As a result, we have many qualified contractors who will be excluded from even submitting a proposal regardless of their experience, safety record, or past performances. That reduces bidder diversity and dries up the cost for community college districts.

SB 1154 also requires districts to evaluate labor compliance history into scoring, which introduces subjectivity and can penalize contractors for a minor or corrected issues that they have occurred throughout their time being a contractor in our state. As we look to diversify and expand our contractor pool on public works projects, these types of mandates restrict us ultimately.

And, ultimately, what happens is it limits opportunities, especially for our emerging contractors or small and midsize contractors. What this will result in is in fewer bids and higher costs for these types of projects. For these reasons, the Associated General Contractors is in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there additional witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? We have a motion and a second. Assembly Member Muratsuchi.

Thank you, Senator. Could you comment? I thought I heard different things. One of your witnesses saying that this is not picking among the labor pool and the opposition saying that it would preclude those not using skilled and trained.

Thank you very much. The bill, the argument has made been made in in other committee hearings about skilled and trained. Skilled and trained, as we all know, is in California law, specifically Public Contract Code section 2601, which refers to a construction workforce for public projects where a percentage of workers are either division of apprenticeship standards registered apprentices or skilled and trained journey persons.

Skilled and skilled journey person must have graduated from a DAS state approved apprenticeship program or have at least as many hours as on the job experience as is required to graduate. For some crafts, the minimum skilled and trained percentage on a job site is 60%. For some crafts, the percentage is 30% to be in compliance. These provisions are not union specific. There are both union and nonunion state approved apprenticeship programs.

Okay. So in other words, AGC is or represents contractors that don't use skilled and trained?

Correct. So, well, we have both union, nonunion contractors in our membership and support both of those equally. As we think about with these types of contracts, when we have contractors that do not have collective bargaining, those who do not will have to go seek these types of things, of skilled and trained requirements.

The thing that we really are trying to emphasize is when we talk about our small midsize firms that are really trying to get into public works. We have larger contractors that have indicated that they have basically a one per one staff ratio when it comes to apprenticeships to be able to monitor all the compliance that comes with the public works project.

So as we continue to add additional requirements into public works projects, we are only gonna have a certain bid pool that will be interested in continuing to pursue those efforts, where our smaller contractors just don't even have the ability to get their foot in the door just because of all the requirements with skilled and trained just being another component of that.

Alright. Thank you.

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

Thank you. This program has worked for k through 12 schools. It's worked for our UCs. It's worked for our CSUs. And if we're using taxpayer money, we do want, in the very least, skilled and trained, skilled and trained workforce. And I think that if California law shows what that is, everybody has the ability to bring that kind of skill to a job. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this.

Thank you so much, Senator Reyes, for bringing this measure forward. And as a former trustee for the Los Angeles Community College District, I witnessed firsthand how the best value procurement process improves a project delivery and ensure support for skilled workforce through project labor agreements. This measure aligns our community college districts procurement authority with that of k 12 school districts and other higher education segments. And with that, I'm pleased to support it today. Mr. Secretary, roll call, please.

File item number three, SB 1154. The motion is do pass to the Assembly floor. [Roll Call]

That measure is five votes. We'll keep the role open for additional members add on. Thank you so much.

Next up, we'll have Senator Reyes presenting SB 1255 item number four.

Welcome, Senator Reyes.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Thank you for this opportunity to present SB 1255. I would like to start by accepting the committee amendments. SD 1255 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 expand access to higher quality education for Latino and other low income students.

As one of the most diverse states in the nation, nearly 179 campuses in California hold this federal designation and have leveraged funding to develop STEM curriculum, facility improvement, and other student support services, expanding educational opportunities to all students on campuses.

Under SB 1255, campuses must meet certain eligibility requirements and submit an application to the managing entity to receive the designation. But let me be clear, this designation benefits not just the Latino students, but benefits every student regardless of race or ethnicity.

SB 1255 is similar to the framework used for Black Serving Institutions and Asian American and Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander serving institutions, AB 2374 by my great colleague Assemblymember Fong. Chair Fong.

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.

Here to testify are Noemi Lujan Perez with the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, HACU, and Chris Morales with the California State University, Office of the Chancellor.

Thank you so much and welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Noemi Lujan Perez, and I'm proud to represent HACU, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. HACU represents more than 600 colleges and universities nationwide, including 179 Hispanic serving institutions or HSIs here in California alone. SB 1255 is about recognizing institutional impact.

A California HSI designation would formally recognize institutions educating nearly 2,200,000 post secondary students statewide. These students include approximately 92% of California's Pell grant recipients. California HSIs are key to creating California's talent pipeline. These are the institutions that are creating California's future professionals and business leaders.

In California alone, our 179 HSIs include all CSU campuses, 92% of community colleges, 55% of UC campuses, and 52% of private institutions. These colleges and institutions play a central role in preparing the workforce for our state and its ability to sustain our state's $4,000,000,000,000 economy and its role in its long term global competitiveness.

Collectively, collectively, HSI has also educate 70 to 85% of African American, AAPI, Native American, and first generation communities and students. In fact, HSIs enrolled some of the highest concentrations of these student populations nationwide, reflecting their broad and inclusive mission.

HSI serve as powerful engines of social and economic mobility, providing these first generation, low income, and historically underserved students with access to the credentials, skills, and professional networks needed to achieve upward economic mobility. Doing so helps these students, their families, their communities, and again, directly contributes to California's economy.

HSI is embodied in many ways the premise and promise of educational opportunity advanced by landmark California civil rights victories, such as Mendez versus Westminster. That historic case helped lay the foundation for Brown versus the Board of Education and to further principle that access to educational opportunities should be available to all students regardless of their background. By establishing a California HSI designation, the state formally recognizes the vital role HSIs play in expanding educational opportunities for all students.

HSIs and the students and communities they serve statewide, including those HSIs in your districts, would benefit from these HSI designations. It ensures that future generations understand the sacrifices and progress that have shaped a more inclusive educational system while reaffirming California's commitment to opportunity, upward mobility, and a stronger democracy for all.

HACU respectfully urges your support for SB 1255 on behalf of our HSIs and 2,200,000 students statewide. Thank you.

Thank you so much, and welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Chris Morales on behalf of the CSU Chancellor's Office in support of SB 1255. The CSU is proud to serve one of the most diverse student bodies in the nation and to be a national leader in advancing educational opportunity for Latino students. Latino students account for nearly half of the CSU student population.

And of our 22 universities, 21 were recognized as Hispanic serving institutions under federal law. CSU universities are deeply engaged in the work of not only enrolling Latino students, but also ensuring they are supported, retained, graduated, and prepared to enter and succeed in California's workforce.

SB 1255 aligns with this mission by creating a state level framework to recognize institutions that are intentionally serving Latino students and advancing measurable student success.

The bill also recognizes our experience and leadership in this area by designating the CSU Chancellor's Office as the managing entity responsible for developing the application process and supporting the work of the governing board. We stand ready to work with the legislature and our higher education partners to ensure the designation process is implemented effectively and focused on student outcomes.

By formalizing a state level HSI designation, SB 1255 can reinforce the state's commitment to educational equity and access and recognize the successes and contributions of these institutions. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

[inaudible]

Sorry. One second. We're gonna turn the microphone.

Welcome. Thank you.

Thank you. Madal Hernandez, California State University, San Bernardino in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Henry Ryan on behalf of Lieutenant Governor, Eleni Kounalakis in support.

Thank you.

Martha Zaragoza Diaz on behalf of the University of California, Chicana x Latinx Alumni Association in strong support of the bill.

Thank you.

Mike Tafias, UC Board of Regents staff representative, and UC Davis as HSI director, strongly in support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and members. Mark McDonald on behalf of a number of local community college districts, Los Angeles, San Diego, Los Rio State Center, Kern, Antelope Valley, Southwestern, Victor Valley, Contra Costa, Lake Tahoe, and Foothill De Anza, Community College Districts all in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Crystal Padilla on behalf of the Chief Executive Officers of the California Community Colleges in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Alex Graves on behalf of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities in support.

Thank you.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT, a Union of Educators and Classified Professionals in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sabrina Means on behalf of Cerritos College, Los Angeles Community College District, El Camino College, Santa Monica College, and Pasadena City College in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Teresa Brown, on behalf of the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jesse Hernandez Reyes on behalf of the Campaign for College Opportunity and Etros West in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon on behalf of, Angel Rodriguez on behalf of Crafton Hills College, San Bernardino College District in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon again. Gilbert Contreras, President of San Bernardino Valley College, on behalf of San Bernardino Valley College in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Carol Gonzales on behalf of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality HOPE, and the Cal State Student Association, and the Long Beach City College in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair members, Austin Webster with W Strategies on behalf of the student senate for California Community Colleges and Unidos US in strong support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jessica Dawn, the University of California Office of the President in support.

Thank you.

Jack Worston from Nausman on behalf of the North Orange County Community College District in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Melanie Dixon, President of College of Alameda and also representing the Peralta Community College District in support.

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

Are there tweeters in the hearing room?

Colleagues, any questions or comments? Assemblymember Rodriguez.

I wanna thank you for bringing this measure forward and all the supporters who came out today. If you're accepting co authors, I would like to offer that support and also move the measure.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. We have a motion and a second. Any further questions or comments?

Seeing none. Senator, we'd like to close? please.

Thank you. I sincerely appreciate all of those who did come out to support and the witnesses also. With that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And thank you so much, Senator Reyes, for championing this Hispanic serving institution designation and for working with our committee staff to address the concerns as outlined in the analysis. Encouraged by the speed by which California responded to the removal of the MSI designations at the federal level to show that our students continue to receive high quality education and the tools necessary to achieve their educational goals.

We know that there's a upon appropriation clause in here that would make it a challenge, so I encourage the author to continue work with the committee staff to address this at a later date. We really appreciate your leadership and efforts on SB 1255 and for your leadership and efforts in the space here. And with that, I look forward to supporting a measure today.

Mister secretary, roll call, please.

File item number four, SB 1255. The motion is do pass as amended, and we refer to the committee on appropriations.

[roll call]

That item has five vote, 5-1 and we'll keep the roll open for additional members to add on. Thank you so much.

And next up, we'd like to welcome Senator Reyes. Presenting item number five, SB 1328 on behalf of Senator Cervantes.

Welcome.

Welcome, Senator Reyes.

On behalf of Senator Cervantes for item number five, SB 1328.

Thank you. As noted, I'm here to present Senate Bill 1328 on behalf of Senator Cervantes. I would like to confirm that Senator Cervantes will be taking the committee amendments. Senator Cervantes would also like to thank the Chair and committee and the committee staff for their hard work and helpful guidance on this bill.

SB 1328 is a targeted but critical fix to ensure equity in higher education for LGBTQ plus students, faculty and staff. This bill builds directly on the success of SB 1491 by former Senator Susan Eggman, which ensured every main campus has a confidential LGBTQ plus point of contact.

However, SB 1491 left a clear gap. Satellite and branch campuses were not included. Today, there are, there are about 100 satellite campuses across the CSU and Community College systems where students lack access to culturally competent, confidential support.

Students at these sites are often forced to travel for hours, sometimes across entire counties or even international borders to find help. There are hundreds of satellite sites across the state at the UC, CSU, and Community College systems. Some of these sites might be just down the street from the main campus and some may be over 100 miles away.

The issues of harassment, discrimination, and sexual assault are present on every campus regardless of its location, which means critical services to address those issues must be equally present. Geography should not determine whether a student has access to safety, support, and dignity.

SB 1328 provides a clear fix to this problem by requiring CSU and community colleges to provide an LGBTQ plus point of contact at satellite or branch campuses, either by assigning a dedicated staff member or providing regular in person or virtual office hours.

SB 1328 also provides greater clarity regarding the roles and responsibilities of these liaisons to ensure consistency across and within both educational systems. The bill also aligns state law with current federal title nine realities after recent regulatory changes coming from Washington.

I want to thank you colleagues, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote on Senate Bill 1328. With me to testify in support are Emily Mitchell, Chair of the LGBTQ Advisory Council for the California Community College Foundation.

Also with me is Kristen, Kristen Russell, the SB 1491 liaison for Delta College Stockton.

I also have Jacob Fraker with the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus here as a technical witness to help answer questions.

Thank you so much, and welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, esteemed members of the committee. My name is Dr. Emily Mitchell, and it is the honor of my life to serve as the Chair of the California Community Colleges LGBTQ+ Advisory Committee. I am here today in strong support of SB 1328 authored by Senator Sabrina Cervantes.

For years, I have worked alongside colleagues across our system to ensure that queer and Trans Community College students and employees experience at campuses that are welcoming, affirming, and safe.

We have made tremendous progress. One of our greatest accomplishments was SB 1491, which required every California community college to designate a confidential point of contact for LGBTQIA plus students and employees. The legislation was monumental, but as we implemented it, we discovered a significant gap.

The California Community College System serves more than 2,100,000 students across 116 colleges and numerous educational centers. These centers can be located hours away from the main campus, particularly in our geographically isolated parts of the state.

For example, Cerro Coso Community College's main campus is in Ridgecrest, California, while its Eastern Sierra Educational Center is nearly 200 miles away, one way, in Mammoth Lakes. It is simply unreasonable to expect a student or employee at the educational center to travel to a point of contact located on the main campus.

SB 1328 provides a practical and necessary solution and ensures that students and employees at educational centers have meaningful access to the same support, resources, and affirming services that act that individuals have access to on main campuses. Where a student or employee lives should never determine whether they have access to support.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 1328 and your continued commitment to ensuring that every queer and trans student and employee in the California community colleges is seen, supported, and able to thrive.

Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you so much, and welcome.

Okay. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Oh, good afternoon, chairperson and members of the higher education committee. I appreciate your time today.

My name is Kirstyn Russell, and I've taught photography at San Joaquin Delta College for eighteen years. I have been an advocate for LGBT plus students throughout my time at Delta. Over the last year, I became the AB 620 designee and am now the the SB 1491 point of contact. I was chosen as designee because of my longtime advocacy for LGBT plus students as well as my ability to connect with students over shared identity. The challenges of working in Stockton are many.

As SB 1491 designee, some of the issues I've dealt with are helping students with preferred name and email changes. I've advocated for the rights of transgender employees and help file bias reports for students who have suffered discrimination in classrooms. It is essential our students employees have support and someone to direct them to resources no matter where they take classes in our district. Delta College serves communities across 2,300 square miles, a service area larger than the state of Rhode Island.

Our biggest center is Mountain House, also known as South Campus.

It's 29 miles away but can take over fifty minutes to get from our main campus in Stockton to Mountain House. Many of the students at Mountain House will never set foot on the main Stockton campus. It is essential for our LGBT plus students to feel supported no matter where they are taking classes.

SB 1491 obviously had this discrepancy, but I wanna say that because our district serves such a vast area and has and many of our districts have multiple campuses, it's imperative that we have multiple designees that are available on these satellite or center areas to support our students. We're living in extremely challenging times, and the more support our students receive, the better success they will have.

Thank you very much.

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

Tiffany Mok, on behalf of CFT, a Union of Educators and Classified Professionals. I wanna thank you for your testimony, and thank you for this bill.

Thank you so much.

Melanie Dixon, college President at College of Alameda Peralta District, and I support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jessica Duong, the University of California in support.

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

Are there tweeters in the hearing room?

Colleagues, any questions or comments?

We have a motion to second. Vice Chair DeMaio.

I know the author of the bill is not here, but maybe the Senator presenting on our behalf or the witnesses can help me understand this. As a gay Republican, I'm absolutely in tune with and wanna make sure that all of our students, LGBT, straight, trans, they all have the support services they need on every campus in the State of California.

But I also have to look at this as a cost benefit analysis of are we adding more requirements and is there really a need here?

So first and foremost, have we identified how many staff would be impacted by this? I mean, do we have people who we've identified at each of these satellite campuses that are willing to do this?

How many staff members will this new role be impact?

So because the current legislation 1491 requires a point of contact on every campus, This only requires not that an additional person be designated at the center, that is one avenue, but could simply be that online, office hours or the point of contact that's on the main campus. So this isn't adding any additional staff or time other than what was already called for in the already passed legislation.

So you're saying that this bill would have no staffing impacts?

Other than the impacts of 1491 requiring a point of contact. So all currently, all California community colleges must have this point of contact. This does not require but does not prohibit, right? an individual an additional individual from being assigned as a 1491.

What do you want? I mean, because you sit here and say that if we don't pass this

I want every student and employee to have access to support.

I understand all of that.

And I leave that

We all want that.

To the discretion of each and every campus to decide where it's best.

Trying to get to the impact of your bill.

Okay. I need to understand.

Are you saying

Yes.

Okay. Let's have one person speak at a time, please. Thank you.

Are you saying that because you just laid out a bunch of needs that are not being met. Are you saying that we can meet those needs remotely with existing staff or that we do have a staffing implication. Because I have to look at this from a budget standpoint because we always get fee increases and then the students show up and they're not happy. We have a very tight budget up here that's not gonna go away next year or the year after.

So you've laid out a need, but are you saying that we can fulfill that need, in essence, largely through remote office hours for these satellite offices?

In all fairness in all fairness to the witness, I think that the answer to your first question is there a need? Absolutely, there is a need. Every campus, every student should have access. The second question, it has to do with the budget. And certainly, the appropriations committee is going to determine whether or not this is something that can pass muster.

If it's if the cost is so great, it's not going to pass muster and it's not going to get out of appropriations. But there are different ways as was noted by the witness. One can be remote. So the college campus main campus is going to determine whether the need for the satellite or branches is going to be met by someone putting office hours who is already the liaison on the main campus.

They can set the regular office hours for the remote, for the satellite or the branch office.

Or the college campus may determine that they want to hire someone specifically for those satellites. It'll I would imagine that it's going to depend on the need on that campus.

I mean, I guess where I'm getting at here is I don't support legislation unless I know the practical logistical financial impacts of them. It's my responsibility as a legislator where I whether I serve on the appropriations committee or not.

Our committee passes a bunch of legislation each year. All well intended. I you know, the intentions are always good, but we have to make sure that we understand the operational impacts of well intended legislation.

So unless I know the staffing implications, because it seems as though when when that issue is raised, it's, oh, we can do it virtually. Well, then what's keeping the system from doing that now? I don't think that there's any homophobic college administrators here. Okay? I think probably California college campuses are perhaps the the safest spaces for LGBT community members you can possibly get.

And frankly, I don't think there is a threat, in public society on LGBT. I mean, we're talking about 2026. We just celebrated unanimously a floor presentation for LGBT pride. Things have changed so much. And so I heard in the presentation of this bill that there's this unmet need.

I don't see the unmet need. I don't see these college, satellite campuses as somehow being hostile environments. I do believe that the system has a genuine commitment, a very vigorous commitment to LGBT students. I don't see the administrators saying, oh my goodness, we're not gonna serve these needs. And I think that if we're dealing with remote, most of this can be done without passing a bill, creating another layer of requirements.

So, the other issues I am having a concern with is if we do it for LGBT community members, then do we start elevating LGBT above other community members? And would there be a me too effect that we would then have to entertain? So I'm not able to support the legislation today. I'm giving you this feedback because I believe that this will be a concern that the system will have with the bill passes.

I also believe that if members set aside the good intentions and look at the details of the impacts of the bill, they also may share these concerns.

So these are issues you may wanna address by the time you get to appropriations and ultimately if appropriate on the floor. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any further questions or comments?

Seeing none. Senator, we'd like to close? please.

I will certainly take the comments to Senator Cervantes. I think oftentimes when we're looking at needs on a campus, we look to see who the students are that we're serving. And if the students have a need, I think the need has to be met. If it's met on campus before Senator Eggman introduced this legislation, there wasn't a liaison. And I think that putting the emphasis on a particular need on a campus then helps us to fulfill or to fulfill that need.

And that's exactly what happened, and I'm very proud of Senator Egmond for having introduced this that legislation. I'm equally proud of Senator Cervantes for recognizing that there is a gap. If we have 100 satellites and branches that are not filling the needs of the students on that campus, then, yes, they can be creative without legislation, but that isn't true for every campus. And so in order to provide it equally, this is the legislation that's needed. And with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And thank you so much, Senator Reyes for presenting this measure on behalf of Senator Cervantes. In a time when LGBTQ plus communities and identifying people are under attack, ensuring that they have a safe space to share their thoughts without fear of the conversation being shared is critical. And thank you for Senators Cervantes for bringing this forward this measure, and I would be supporting this measure today. And with that, Mister secretary, roll call, please.

File item number five, SB 1328. The motion is do passed as amended and we refer to the committee on appropriations.

[roll call]

The measure has five votes. One no. We'll keep the role open for additional members add on. Thank you so much, Senator.

Next up, we'd like to welcome Senator Cabaldon, and thank you for your patience.

Presenting item number two, SB 960. Welcome, Senator Cabaldin.

Thank you, Mister chairman and members, and good afternoon. This is SB 960 is a topic which you're well familiar with as you've already advanced similar legislation on the topic earlier by Assembly member Alvarez.

And SB 960 simply tries to create a statewide framework for how to deal with the burgeoning demands in many, many communities across the state for additional community college bachelor's degrees programs, that run afoul of some of the the existing statute that we think, imposes some requirements that may not make sense in all cases. Now keeping in mind that the goal here is to assure that, number one, that California can meet its workforce needs going forward and report after report after report.

PPIC, California, California Competes, and others have identified just how many Californians we need to have a a successful diversity diverse competitive economy going forward at all age levels, and and and actually not principally for traditional college age students, but for adults.

And secondarily, how many Californians need those opportunities, today, for adults, but also in the in the very near future with the with the potential threat to many, many sectors of the of the workforce from artificial intelligence and other technologies, it's incredibly important that we have our best players on the field to be able to meet those needs. We've often considered the the battles ever since the passage the enactment of the of the master plan for higher education as a battle between institutions.

You know, what should what should be the exclusive right the monopoly right of UC or the monopoly right of CSU or the monopoly right of the community colleges. And that structure, that focus on making sure everybody does what they're best at, has served the state well in many respects.

But at the same time, it can be quite limiting in particular parts of California, in particular disciplines, and especially when it comes to workforce needs because not all of the institutions have the same experience, expertise, and local connections in order to advance workforce development, particularly for adults.

That's why the, original community college bachelor's degree program was created as a small part of the community college portfolio. And I and I know it's small because I was vice chancellor of the community colleges, and we oppose I oppose doing this at all. We're doing it we did it anyway, and here I am to try to slightly expand it.

But that that that limitation is that it is small, that it'd be specifically and exclusively for those bachelor degree programs where there is an demonstrated unmet workforce need. So it's not even under existing law and under all the legislation pending today, there's no there's no intention or desire and it's bad it would be bad public policy to simply have community colleges do all kinds of bachelor's degrees because they might be interested or there might be a few students interested in it.

There has to be a clear workforce need. And what we've seen in the development of these programs is largely a very laser focus very laser focused on in occupational programs that are bachelor degree programs that are not typically found at universities. Industrial automation, which is one of the first ones at Bakersfield College, for example. But you go down the line and and these pro these are programs that are specifically oriented around particular workforce needs in the regions.

Existing law says community colleges can't offer those programs even if there is a demonstrated, unmet workforce need if UC or CSU offers that program.

But there are two challenges with that with that framework that this bill seeks to address. The first is that, it's not a real solution to the local workforce needs or for the local community if you happen to be, in the service area of Cal State Fullerton. Cal State Fullerton wants to offer degree a bachelor's degree in a particular, work high workforce needs area, and you're told, well, no. Because we are we offer that program at Humboldt State. Sorry.

At Cal Poly Humboldt. And so you're welcome to go there, though. But we know that the vast majority of community college students, especially adults, need to and choose to go to an institution nearby. And so it's not real access to that bachelor's degree program if it is four or five or 700 miles away. And so SB 960 loosens that band to make it more directly related to the service area that that of that precise CSU campus.

So a College of the Redwoods nearby Humboldt can't offer that course, but but, Fullerton could in in under SB 960. The second, areas where the programs are are, persistently impacted. And so if you have a program that is being offered, at Cal State Northridge, under current law, College of the Canyons can't offer it. Santa Monica College can't offer it. Not neither no one else can because it's already offered to the CSU.

But if that campus, every single year for the last decade, is turning away the vast majority of the applicants, it's not a real alternative. You cannot say to a student at one of those community college service areas, well, you know what? We'd love to offer that degree, but it already exists at this campus that has no room and hasn't had any room for a very long time. So SB 960 focuses on those two areas.

That is impacted programs that are not actually available to students and to, programs that are offered outside of the service area of the of the CSU campus in which they reside in the community college district, exists.

That's the that's the simple idea, of of the bill. There we've been engaged in in extensive, conversations and negotiations with, the community colleges, with the California State University, on this as well because it is both complicated and then ultimately simple, to accomplish. But there are a lot of competing interests. We wanna make sure we get those right, and we're continuing that work.

I also wanna assure you because you advanced similar legislation by Assembly member Alvarez, we he and I are both also in in regular close, cooperation.

And you you absolutely have my commitment that we will not be advancing just just similar enough bills, forward to confuse everybody. We are committed to working with your committee and and our and your cognate committee and Senate to make sure that we have either one bill or we have a a bill that is comprehensive in its in its approach in the end. I'm also committed to the and and and and gladly accept the author's amendments that have been outlined already in the analysis.

And also would just point out several of the other policy issues that are raised in the analysis that don't point to amendments to simply indicate that we are in we are in conversations with the various parties about about all of those, and we do expect to be addressing many of those issues, and and they will help us to both both get to an agreement, but also to make sure that the program works.

Again, I wanna emphasize that for me, this is this is not about creating a a new mission for the California community colleges that they should spend less time on transfer or workforce development or associate degrees and instead do this.

This is for the very specific cases in which in a in an area, in a region or community, there is a significant unmet workforce development need, which means significant opportunities for local residents that cannot be met in another way or is not being met by the CSU campus locally to give the community college the opportunity and the opportunity only because they don't get to do this by rights.

They still need approval by the State Board of Governors to be able to mount and launch that program in their students' behalf. With me and to testify in support is Joshua Hagen on behalf of is it my organization from before? The Campaign for College Opportunity.

One of my many

other ones. So on behalf of the Campaign for College Opportunity with and I would also respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you so much, Senator. Thank you for accepting the committee's amendments and thank you for your opening remarks. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Fong and members of the committee. Joshua Hagen on behalf of the Campaign for College Opportunity, a nonpartisan policy and advocacy organization focused on ensuring all Californians have equitable access to college. In 2023, governor Newsom laid out an ambitious goal of 70% post secondary attainment to ensure California can meet its workforce needs. Increasingly in California, new jobs and jobs that become open due to retirement will require higher education degrees or credentials.

At the same time, California has a projected decline of over half a million TK through 12 students by 2032. These factors combined make it critical now more than ever for our higher education system to adapt to meet the needs of students who have typically been left out. Adult learners, students who have stopped out, and students who are place bound.

Last year in our report, the declining impact of impaction at the California State University, the campaign for college opportunity found that even with the declining enrollment across the CSU system, five CSU campuses are still fully impacted, four of which have been impacted since 2012. All campuses except for three have at least one program that is impacted.

So while enrollment constraints ease and more seats open at many CSU campuses, there are still programs that students can't access and entire campuses that don't have enough capacity to meet the demands of any of their programs. Since our 2021 report shut out the need to increase access to the UC and CSU, we have elevated expanding to baccalaureate degree programs at the California community colleges as one of the core strategies for California to leverage to increase bachelor's degree capacity.

SB 960 provides a practical solution to the students who have faced these barriers for over a decade by allowing for expansions in capacity to be directly aligned to where persistent misalignment is found between student interest, higher education enrollment capacity, and workforce demands. Thank you, and we respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you so much. We have a motion. Well, do we have a second? Well, do you would anybody like to I'll second the bill. Thank you.

Are there any witnesses in support? Please welcome.

Thank you, Chair and members. Mark McDonald on behalf of a number of local community college districts, Los Angeles, San Diego, Southwestern, State Center, Victor Valley, Kern, Foothill, De Anza, and Antelope Valley and Contra Costa Community College Districts all in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Crystal Padilla on behalf of the Community College League of California in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Carol Gonzalez with Latina Advocates on behalf of Long Beach City College and on behalf of Gabilan College in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ruth Sosa on behalf of PowerCA Action in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Carlos Lopez on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jack Werson from Nossman on behalf of Citrus College, Mount San Antonio College, and the North Orange College North Orange County Community College District. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Justin Nazarajos on behalf of the Campaign for College Opportunity and support.

Thank you.

Chair members, Austin Webster on it's always strategies on behalf of the academic senate for California community colleges, California Community College Association for Occupational Education, and the Student Senate for California Community Colleges in support.

Thank you.

Afternoon. On behalf of College of Alameda and the Peralta Community College District, we are in support.

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

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

Welcome. And you have two minutes each.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm Doctor Junius Gonzales, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at the CSU Office of the Chancellor, and we have respectfully taken an oppose unless amended position on SB 960.

The CSU recognizes that access, affordability, and workforce needs are real issues that must be addressed and that our institutions must be nimble enough to meet those needs, especially for students who are place bound, working adults, or looking to continue their education particularly after stop out.

Since this bill was last heard in the Senate education committee, the CSU, along with leadership from the California Community Colleges and the University of California together met with legislators and staff, including the author and Chair of this Committee on this important issue.

It's clear that we share a common objective of expanding opportunity for students, responding to critical workforce needs, and preserving our commitment to the transfer process, including the associate degree for transfer and transfer student success pathway programs, which remain the most effective and affordable ways to attain a bachelor's degree in California. Ninety one percent of transfer applicants are currently admitted to the CSU, and we expect that number to grow next year.

I wanna reiterate Chancellor Garcia's desire to get to yes on this issue and to find a path forward that allows these programs to emerge in a reasonable and responsible way. To that end, we recently shared our proposed amendments with the author and committee staff, and we believe provide a constructive path to moving ahead in a positive way.

The amendments that we have suggested prioritize CSU community college partnerships while allowing for flexibility when regional needs require it. We are willing to consider the duplication of programs that are not realistically available or accessible in a community colleges region and that support students where they are and ensure that regional workforce needs are met that can only be served by a baccalaureate degree.

Our proposal also allows for proper consideration of the existing programs, academic infrastructure, and partnerships at the CSU that can serve students throughout the state and maximize our state's resources to best serve our students rather than operate in silos. It addresses critical issues of transparency and accountability, especially of student outcomes, including a clear demonstration of workforce need, limitation on the use of Prop 98 funding, and a commitment to pursue partnerships right from the outset.

What we have suggested are reasonable boundaries and limitations that would help ensure that the CSU, UC, and Community Colleges are effectively serving students, meeting workforce needs, and preserving the core missions of each segment and optimizing student outcomes, particularly completion.

We view these amendments as an important first step. The CSU will continue to work with the author in this committee to reach an agreement that ensures all students are served and that our institutions continue to meet the needs of the state.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you, Chair members. Chris Morales with the CSU Chancellor's Office here for technical questions. Very briefly, I wanted to touch a little bit on the issue of impaction and access into the core part of the bill. As noted in the committee analysis, impaction means solely that we have more applicants to a campus or program than we have spots in the program. It does not mean that we are closing our doors to the students of the region.

It does not mean that we are turning away the majority of students in the region. In fact, often it is quite the contrary. And we believe that data that best encapsulates that you will see in our acceptance rates of those campuses for community college students in their region.

When we look at a place like San Diego State University as an example, a campus that is impacted completely for every single undergraduate program at the campus, we accept over 70% of all of the community college applicants in South San Diego in South San Diego County for San Diego State. At Cal State Fullerton, the numbers are quite similar where they accept over 80% of all of the applicants at the community college students in their direct vicinity.

And these numbers have only been increasing in the past few years. And the question is, of course, can we do better? And the answer is yes. It's precisely why we have supported bills in the past to strengthen initiatives like the direct admissions program, the transfer success pathway, these proven initiatives that serve students where they are.

And in that spirit, as we connect as we continue to communicate with the author's office and we add and as we work through amendments, it's in that spirit that we'll try to best strengthen the partnerships and pathways between our institutions that best serve our students and are the most effective at at me addressing our workforce needs.

Thank you so much. Are there there it's just an awareness as an opposition in the hearing room?

Good afternoon. Mario Guerrero with the California Faculty Association. Respectful opposition due to the unintended consequences of all of the bills that would expand bachelor's in CSU. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there tweeters in the hearing room?

Colleagues, any questions or comments? Assemblymember Muratsuchi followed by Assemblymember Patel.

Thank you, Sir Senator Cabaldon for raising this issue in this committee again. Again, following the Assembly member Alvarez, I share your desire to address the impaction situation. I I'm curious, though. I may have missed it in the in your bill, but is is there like, a procedure for reevaluation?

Like, if for example, if the CSU the data shows that there's impaction for at least three years, a community college starts a program, and then CSU corrects the impaction, does is there any, procedure or opportunity to reassess the starting of a program?

There's not in the bill. Be open to thinking about it. I mean, the challenge, obviously, is we don't want to once the once there is a set of faculty at the community college and students and especially and most importantly workforce partnerships with employers in the region in the underserved areas of the workforce preparation, we can't just turn that off either off and on. That's that won't work for students or for the institutions at all.

So I don't think there's a simple answer, but I think I'm happy to continue to work on that on that on what happens over the long on the long run, to the extent that CSU can do this.

I do want if I can't just emphasize, there's no I'm a in addition to former community college vice chancellor, I'm the one former tenured faculty member from CSU in the Senate. There's no shade on CSU here. It's not that CSU is failing in any way to meet its needs.

But even if CS even if Fuller's even if San Diego State were admitting 150% of the transfer applicants, that is more than there are, we're still nowhere near our workforce goals. And that's not CSU's fault.

They we don't fund them for all of that. But simply, you know, turning a few knobs here and there to make to make CSU a little better or better partnerships or whatever, it doesn't will not meet the needs either state order regionally on the economic piece.

And so as we think about what the solutions are, I just would encourage us to always put the students and that local economy at the center and the institutions being like, the supporting actors with the main character being the students themselves.

I appreciate that. A question for the CSU. I mean, the Senator raised the funding challenges of the CSU raised. We of course, recognize that the community colleges has the have the advantage of being covered by proposition 98. But in terms of like, I actually appreciate the Senator's approach here where they have to demonstrate at least a a community college has to demonstrate at least three years of impaction.

Would that be, wouldn't that give the CSU campus an opportunity to reallocate resources within the system to try to address the impaction, you know, so that you wouldn't, you know, be exposed to the possibility of a local community college starting a bachelor's program?

So I'm sure Chris has memorized the numbers in here two more months than before. So, yes, we are funding impacted campuses in order to have them try increase enrollment. There are other funding issues which relate to speaking of structural components, things like buildings and labs and that sort of stuff. So part of it, yes, might be addressed but probably not to the needs and desires that any of us would like.

So but, yes, a significant amount of money, I don't remember what it was, has gone and still plans to go to the impacted campuses.

I believe that was most recently $89,000,000 to some of these higher impacted campuses where we allocated to increase some of this enrollment. But some of the I think one of the problems we run into is that some of these pro, specific programs that are impacted, one that we hear about often as well as the last committee hearings is something like nursing, where the impaction is largely driven not necessarily in our control, but by the state and due to clinical placements.

And so while there's only so much that we can do there, but in terms of the partnerships that we can incorporate the community colleges where we can institute, of course, expanding our access to our ADN to BSN programs. So students that complete their ADN at the community college can come, get their BSN at us. And for those programs at 20 of our universities, the acceptance rate is over ninety five percent.

So there is no capacity issues. There is no clinical placement issues, but that's a proven partnership and pathway where impaction is isn't necessarily as much of an issue. But it would be difficult for us to, of course, expand our access to like, a pre licensure nursing where you would do four years at us. That that'd be a bit more challenging, but that's often what we hear in terms of the impaction dilemma.

Okay. So, I mean, I appreciate that it's not just a matter of reallocating monies, you know, like, from a under enrolled campus to a over enrolled cap support or program, but that there are issues like buildings and labs. But I guess, the, you know, the the the fundamental issue that both Senator Cabaldon and Assemblymember Alvarez is raising is that community colleges, you know, there are more of them in different parts of the state.

And so that in and of itself provides a greater access. And and so that that's what, you know, makes these proposals sympathetic.

I mean, other than, you know, the notion starting with the master plan that, you know, somehow community colleges should stay in their lane, focus on associate degrees, CSU's focusing on bachelor's degrees. I mean, what is fundamentally the problem that or the or the bigger the concern that you have with community colleges trying to provide more access to impacted programs by offering bachelor's programs at community college campuses.

So I think what's represented in the amendments and let me go back to something I said. In the meeting, the Senator was there, Assemblymen, and others, you know, the chancellor is very willing to get to yes on this particular issue. I think the devil is in the details of the design, and that is there are a number of things I won't get into now. But one, for example, is in let's just take in the assessment of workforce need.

What you don't currently see at least often is, believe it or not, there still are many workforce need areas that are not being fully addressed by associate degree production.

And the whole focus has shifted to baccalaureate production. I do think there are great opportunities to also work together as per the coastal hearing in April to probably do something that can move with the times more quickly and with the workforce, like their AI infused curriculum for cyber.

But you don't have that collaboration happening right from the start. And while that seems like a sort of obvious thing, it might need to be put for lack of a better phrase, in writing. So that's a one thing.

There are other issues. I think, Senator Cabaldon is totally right. There are places which we well know are not served at all. I forget the mileage when you start looking. And those really need to be looked at seriously, and there are discussions around rural consortium, etcetera.

But it's also important from our side and where I sit to take models like Chico where they are offering they will be teaching the second two years of degrees. The faculty are gonna drive out to can't remember the names of the two schools. And more and more of those are important. But, again, I wanna reiterate what Chancellor Garcia said.

Yes, We wanna get to some component of yes on this. There are concerns about the funding pieces which I know less of prop 98, etcetera. And then really, perhaps in some areas, you know, competition for a declining number of students in some areas. So I'll stop there because there's a lot of places that the amendments go to.

Alright. Thank you. Last question, Senator Cabaldon. I see in the committee analysis, the committee suggestion that your bill should incorporate a partnership first framework. Is

What is the status of incorporating that? Because that seems to make sense.

We so we are that is part of the set of amendments that we've got from CSU that are quite extensive. So we are reviewing that. I don't wanna overpromise on this issue. I mean, that there there's a path there on partnerships.

I think the there is a clear difference between collaboration and control, though, and so we wanna make sure that partnerships are they're real partnerships, that they're not, you know, they're not a mechanism by which one institution controls a junior institution and makes all their decisions and says no and has vetoes over everything.

So it's partly, like, making sure for partnerships to work, they have to be authentic. And so a sort of a mandated you must partner first is a very difficult in any organization, it's a difficult path.

So we're trying to figure out how to how to make sure that we keep those doors open so that they're real and they're incentivized properly, while also recognizing that there won't the universal requirement that everybody always has to partner, partner first is is not really in anyone's interest.

Alright. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Muratsuchi. Assemblymember Patel.

Thank you for bringing this bill forward, Senator Cabaldon. I'm very interested in making sure that our regional workforce needs are being developed and fostered and supported through the education community. I do have several questions. Some of my concerns do align with Assemblymember Muratsuhci. I think that comes from us both being concerned with protecting Prop 98 funds.

So some of us you know, some of those concerns are very shared. Also, I wanna raise a couple of questions, that haven't been raised yet. And one is around you talk about workforce development a lot, but what about the educator workforce requirements that are gonna be needed to implement these bachelor's programs at the community colleges? Are there a sufficient supply of educators out there to start enacting these programs, and what does the ramp look like for bringing these programs online?

Yeah. Thank you for the question. I don't know. And I think none of us know because there there several colleges are exploring and and I think many of the context are gonna be quite different. As to you know, for nursing, it's gonna be a different workforce need than some of the other bachelor degree programs in other occupational areas depending on the location in the state.

The good news though is that, you know, the bill the existing law, and the bill both are just about what sort of like bans on what community college like before you do anything, you cannot even apply to offer a bachelor's degree program if it has these characteristics. That's what we're changing here. But you don't have the right to a bachelor's degree program either under existing law or under SB 960.

So you'd still have to be able to demonstrate in the board of governors in its review of bachelor degree proposals will be reasonably expected to ask exactly these questions, like, what are your data sources for on the workforce side? Is there the appropriate teaching workforce in the in the programs?

Are the partner you you've demonstrated the statistical need, but do you have any actual any agreements with employers? Right? Those are exactly the kinds of questions that, that the state board that the board of governors should be examining when they are determining whether or not to grant approval.

And part of that concern for me lies within, part time faculty being used excessively to support these kinds of programs. I do have concerns that they may not have benefits, which is part of the bill that I supported earlier. So I wanna make sure that as we look at our workforce, that's gonna teach these programs that they are well supported workforce in whatever capacity that looks like. Also, to the CSUs, those CSUs continue to be impacted. We know which ones those are.

One is in my region. We understand that a lot of that isn't about a lack of desire or interest in offering those programs, but it is due to a need for more funding support. The community college programs would be Prop 98 funded. I know this is not, the an appropriations or budget conversation here. This is a policy space.

But, of course, I am always concerned about protecting those Prop 98 funds. Is there any provision in the bill language that would look at alternative sourcing for these workforce related impacted programs that require a bachelor's degree rather than an AA degree followed by actual work experience?

There, there's not in the bill. There are in this CSU proposed amendments. I will get I'll tell you why it gives me a little bit of pause though, because we're try you know, to the extent that in many of these occupational areas, it is sort of the the bachelor's degree is sort of emerging as the minimum required for these programs. And let's focus for a second on so if it's not CSU relevant.

For example, the one of the first programs in the state, which was, industrial automation at Bakersfield College. So if you have a dollar of your a baker's if you're Bakersfield College, you have a dollar to spend on on the next program, and this gets partly to what the vice chancellor said is, should you be would you spend it on this on associate degree program a or on industrial automation bachelor's degree program b?

And your assessment really should be what is the best thing for student opportunity to secure good paying jobs with a in a strong career, and what is the workforce needs in our region as opposed to what is the funding source associated with them. As you know, prop 98, the prop 98 formula itself does not depend on community college enrollment. It's driven by K12, enrollment, and then the split is what determines how much community colleges are.

So even if community colleges were to add the maximum amount of students that the bill would allow, which by the way is less students than or less programs than under current law, the bill actually shrinks the that cap. But even if it were to max out, it's not it doesn't affect the Prop 98 cap. It doesn't eat into the money for K12 in any way.

It's simply an expenditure within because that student is still getting the same that they're getting an education that they would have gotten in in a sub degree program, but now it's at the bachelor's degree program, which if it's if it meets those criteria for workforce unmet needs, that is a win for them and for the state.

So I it's one of the reason I've been concerned about that sort of the CSU proposal is, like, when, like, we don't we when we when we, authorized CSU to offer doctoral degrees, you know, we I think we all would have reacted badly if CSU, if UC had come in and said, well, you know, you can only use your federal funds or maybe only money that you get from ag school.

Like, it's not like that gets gets into this sort of control notion that as a senior institution, it's our job to figure that. It is our job to figure out as a legislature, but I but I'm hesitant on just like, an outright ban on the use of Prop 98 because those dollars are there to make sure students can get post can get community college education that leads to good jobs.

Yeah. I think on that one, we will disagree. Prop 98 funds are intended as determined by the ballot initiative.

And so it's not just simply a a policy decision where we can shift it towards baccalaureate degrees versus its intent to fund primary secondary education.

Yes.

I'm not sure. I mean, the Prop 98 does not reference associate degrees. And in fact, the I mean, the community colleges exist because we went through this exact same this exact same debate after the after high school became mandatory in America. And there were and the burgeoning University of California, it's one campus in Berkeley, wasn't offering the full range of things.

And so high school started to offer thirteenth and fourteenth grade adult ed, educational programs one by one and it created essentially the entire community college model which we didn't validate until the master plan.

So this this has been the history of education is institutions trying to meet the needs of their of their students as they have changed over time and as the education levels have continued to rise in terms of the expectations of the economy. And in this case, community colleges, a very small number of them in a very small numb in a infinitesimal number of programs are just trying to do the same.

Appreciate it. I think we can go back and forth a little more, but I will reserve a few other conversate questions. It seems like the conversation is gonna be ongoing through the summer. What I would like to share is that I do have these concerns and also the concerns that community colleges still aren't doing everything they can do for their associate degree programs.

Additionally, they have rolled out dual enrollment programs, which just in my personal experience, Supahui Unified School District students, they're they've been told they can do dual enrollment, but they're finding that their associate degree track students are getting priority.

So there's already an impaction issue on the community colleges with the dual enrollment students and then the associate degree students. And now you add bachelor's degree students. It could be that same biology class, that same physics class, that same calculus class that they're now all competing for.

And what we think is, a capacity in the community college system may turn out to be an impaction if we're not careful at just organizing our resources adequately.

So we've, rolled out these programs for our community colleges to enact in their we we may put further strain on them than we anticipate. So I'd like there to be some thoughtful consideration of that planning and what that looks like. I plan to cautiously support this bill today. I did give the same kind of cautious support to Assemblymember Alvarez.

I have concerns around prop 98 funding being used for bachelor's degrees, and I look forward to reviewing this again as it comes to the floor and reserving my right t take a second look at it. So thank you.

Thank you so much, Assembly member Patel. Doctor Jackson, welcome.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator for this idea. I mean, obviously I mean, I think this year and last year has just been the year of degrees for everybody. But I think it continues just to highlight the updating that we need in terms of our master plan and what does California's needs continue to shift.

Our economy is drastically shifting very fast, which means that there's gonna be a lot of instability, but we still have to be willing to make shifts with that to make sure that we're meeting the needs. Unlike the other bills, which generally were more about community colleges being closer and four year universities being further away, this one is more of a wider instance, but still, I think, still has some merit.

I remember shopping around for when I was going into looking for a master's of social work program. And Cal State San Bernardino, one of my alma maters for my bachelor's. But man, that wait list.

And I didn't know when I would be able to start if I chose that route, but there was nothing else closer to me. And then that means that the next step is something a lot more expensive, which is the private colleges. And I think we also have to think about the cost effect that in many cases, bachelor degrees, may be available in the area, but at what cost? Right? Because a private institution may be also offering that.

And if do we think that that's okay when we could be offering something more affordable at the same time? And so I think that, you know, I look forward to seeing the amendments, especially as I take a look at it on the floor. But I am also cautious just to make sure that we are, being very thoughtful in this process as well. But certainly, it's just a greater recognition, that a society we're changing and our systems are gonna need to start changing.

And they actually whether we likely, like it or not, they're gonna change whether we like it or not, because people are voting with their feet as well.

So, thank you for continue to be one of those who will continue to move this issue, making us continue to think about this issue because certainly, we're probably gonna be dealing with this for quite some time. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you so much, Assemblyman Jackson. Any further questions or comments?

Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close? please.

Yeah. I just really appreciate the deeply thoughtful consideration of this issue both here in the in the earlier hearing on Assemblymember Alvarez's bill as well. And to pick up on Assemblymember Doctor Jackson's comments, you know, the master plan itself that is the cause of both our greatness in some ways and also exactly these kinds of challenges, it didn't come out of nowhere.

In the 1950s, before the master plan, in the decade leading up to the master plan, the five years leading up to the master plan, members of the two houses, the Assembly and the Senate, introduced so many individual pieces of legislation to try to deal with, at that time, tidal wave two, and all the all the people that we're finding finally seeing colleges as an option.

Because before that, it was only for a very tiny part of the population and also before the GI bill.

And so everybody in those chair in these chairs back then, everybody had to build to add a new university nearby them or a new college, and it seemed like the whole system was gonna fall apart. That's what caused the master plan. And we are in a hopefully, a slightly less chaotic time now, but I've in the many decades I've been working on higher education policy in this building, I've never seen this many bills on a single topic.

And so, we are in that moment again, and the same level of leadership about looking towards the future is required. That time we depended on the chancellor of CSU, well the or the there was no CSU then, the superintendent of public instruction and the UC president.

But now it's on us, to figure this out, and we have to. So it's inevitable that something is going to happen. No one is gonna be able to stop it forever. No man no chancellor, no vice chancellor. Something is going to happen, and this bill and the Alvarez bill are intended to create the framework to do it right and to put students students of today and the students of tomorrow, at the center of those decisions and the institutions playing a supporting role.

And with that, I would ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Mister chairman.

Thank you so much, Senator Cabaldon for authoring this bill and for accepting the committee's amendments. And the issue of baccalaureate degree duplication is one that we have seen in numerous bills this year as referenced by a number of my colleagues as well. And thank you for your thoughtful policy approach and thank you to all the segments.

My understanding is that the segments are continuing to engage with the senators and Assembly members on all our authors, and that work is being done to continue to find opportunities for collaboration and partnership as mentioned at the segmental level. Also addressing the important issue of finding a real solution for instances of duplication.

And thank you for working closely with our committee staff and continue to engage with us as you continue to refine your amendments going forward. And with that, I look forward to supporting the measure today. Mister secretary, roll call, please.

File item number two, SB 960. The motion is do pass as amended, and we refer to the committee on appropriations.

[roll call]

That measure is six aye's. One no, two not voting. We'll keep the roll open for additional members, and that measure's out. Thank you, Senator.

Next up, we'd like to welcome Senator Arreguin. Thank you for your patience. Presenting item number one, Senate bill 632. Welcome, Senator Arreguin.

If I can ask my witnesses to join me. Yep. Hi. Nice to see you. Thank you for being here.

May I present, Mister Chair?

Yes. Welcome, please.

Well, thank you, Mister Chair and members, for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 632, which will allow part-time community college students enrolled in nine units to qualify for the California College Promise Program. Under current law, California community colleges are authorized to waive tuition fees through the California College Promise Program, and this initiative aims to increase access to higher education by providing financial relief to eligible students.

The California College Promise can manifest as a fee waiver that covers the tuition cost for qualifying students for up to two academic years after the waiver is granted. Currently, to qualify for this fee waiver, students must meet specified criteria, including enrollment in 12 or more units of coursework. This requirement ensures that only full time students receive the program's financial benefits, potentially limiting its reach and expanding access to higher education.

The criteria leaves a significant majority of community college students ineligible for the tuition waiver. Part time students who often face the most significant challenges are particularly affected. Many students choose par- time enrollment to mean flexibility to to work, to care for their families, or to meet other unique circumstances. By restricting eligibility to full time students only, the California College Promise misses a vital opportunity to serve the most underserved students.

SB 632 will help us fully realize the California College Promise by expanding access to part-time students, and regardless of whether they enrolled part time or full time in our community colleges.

By expanding access, this will ensure that more students have access to these critical resources. And, I would just wanna call attention to, in the committee analysis, there was a mention of the issue of should we limit this to just students who have a particular need, a financial need. Appreciate that the the thoughtful analysis and input the committees provided will certainly take that into consideration if this bill moves forward.

With that, I wanna introduce my witnesses, Tiffany Mok from the California Federation of Teachers and Melanie Dixon, the President of the College of Alameda, in my district.

Thank you so much, and welcome.

Thank you so much. I'm Tiffany Mok representing CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals. I wanna thank the committee for this, hearing this bill, and I wanted to just start with the two anecdotes of the professors that I represent who have led me to come here. Professor James McKeever is president of our AFT Local 1521, and it took him nine years to graduate from community college.

As a single parent, he had no choice but to support his family, and he needed a scholarship then as he would to ensure that he could take more units, but it was not available at the time.

He represents about 10% of the community college students who are working parents who apply for financial aid, and many of them do not receive it. And he went to complete his PhD at USC and now teaches at Pierce College, but it really illustrates the need for flexibility in how many units an individual can take. Another professor, Bill Miller, sees struggles at Sac City today. One student, an aspiring surgeon, must prioritize caring for siblings over a full time status.

Despite taking less units, however, she still managed to pass calculus too and complete a prestigious internship in cardiothoracic surgery at Stanford, two summers ago.

Another student of his must support herself to work. Both are talented students whose progress is limited by the current full time requirement of the current scholarship program. For those reasons, CFT proudly supports SB 632. And I certainly echo those.

Welcome.

Thank you so much. Chair and members of the committee, my name, again, is Melanie Dixon and I'm the President of College of Alameda, where I have a great honor to serve Bay Area students. And I'm a part of the Peralta Community College District. And we are very much interested in addressing some of the impacts that our students have. So, one of the most expensive nations - regions in the nation, is one of the reasons that I'm here supporting this particular bill.

Because of the realities facing our students today require us to rethink how we support educational access and completion. And in high-cost communities like Alameda County, the greatest barrier to college and completion is not the tuition cost. It is the cost of housing and food and transportation and basic living expenses.

We routinely serve students who are working multiple jobs as stated, caring for family members and commuting from distances to simply attend education and to afford to be able to live in communities of of their native land. In this particular regard, we have students that are enrolling in schools - they're choosing to pay their for their classes over their rent and really needing the opportunity to receive relief.

California loses talent, workforce capacity, and economic mobility if we deny these students access based on the cost of of living and the impact of the lack of promise funding. California Community College educates students most vulnerable to these rising costs, first generation students, working adults, student parents, and our veterans, historically underserved populations as well. These students are not asking for special treatment for many of you.

They are asking for a fair opportunity to pursue their education while meeting their basic needs as citizens and residents of the Bay Area.

Policies that acknowledge the realities of affordability help ensure that higher education remains a pathway to economic mobility rather than an additional financial burden for our students. Community colleges in California are the primary workforce engine. The nurses, teachers, advanced manufacturing technicians, public safety professionals, and small business owners. Our state needs are sitting in our classrooms every day, being trained to go out into the workforce. California's workforce goals become significantly harder to achieve if these students are denied access based on cost.

Supporting students through affordability measures is not simply an educational investment, it's an economic development strategy. With that said, a one size fits all approach does not reflect the vastly different cost of living in California. Institutions located in regions such as the Bay Area face unique affordability challenges that directly affect students enrollment, persistence, and completion. SB 632 recognizes that the regional cost pressure should be considered when shaping public policy.

Every day, I meet students with really extraordinary talents and we've heard a couple of them here today.

What stands out often for me is is it's not their ability to be able to achieve their degrees. It's really the affordability to be able to pursue their dreams. And so, SB 632 helps us align our policies with our realities that the students face. On behalf of our students and our families in our region, I'd ask you to vote yes on SB 632. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room? We have a motion and a second. Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you, Chair, members. Mark McDonald on behalf of the San Diego and Los Angeles Community College Districts; also on behalf of the Los Angeles College Faculty Guild AFT 1521 in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Yes.

Assemblymember Rodriguez followed by Assemblymember Boerner.

I just wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. As a former community college student, I recognize how beneficial this could be and I would like to add on as a co-author and I look forward to today. Thank you.

Thank you. Summer Burner.

Yeah. I wanted to bring this for I wanted to thank you for bringing this measure forward. Just a few weeks ago, I was talking to my oldest, who's enrolled in our local community college, and they had to decide, do they take an unnecessary class to meet the full time status, or do they have to pay? Now, we're in a family where we could pay. They live for free at home.

And I thought of all the families who do not have that opportunity. So, thank you for this.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Boerner. Any further questions or comments? Assemblymember Dr. Lashae Sharp-Collins.

Only thing I would like to say is thank you. Just like all my colleagues have said for bringing forth this bill. Having been in in a situation myself when I was at a community college, I thoroughly understand and would like to be at it as a coauthor. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Sharp- Collins. Any further questions or comments? Seeing none, Senator, would you like to close, please?

Well, I just wanna thank, my witnesses for being here, particularly the President of College of Alameda, Melanie Dixon. She's doing amazing work supporting our students, in the Peralta Community College District. We hear from the ministry to talk about the the importance of this, not just for the district, but for the students, I think, really reinforces why this bill is important. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Senator Arreguin, for bringing this, measure forward. And as a former trustee for the Los Angeles Community Colleges, I remember being part of the team to advocate and support Assembly Bill 19, which was supported by a Assemblymember Santiago to make - to continue to fulfill the requirements of California College Promise to make the second year free.

And we know that almost 65% of our community college students attend part time, and this measure can assist them in potentially enrolling more courses because of some of the financial burdens could be eased by being able to participate in this program. However, we also have uplifted a number of the concerns or fiscal implications by expanding this to all part-time students regardless of financial need. Please continue to work with my committee and probably stakeholders to address concerns in this page five of the analysis.

But I really appreciate your leadership and efforts around this space here. And with that, I look forward to supporting and measure today. Mister Secretary, roll call, please.

File item number one, SB 632. The motion is do passed and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That measure is nine ayes. We'll keep the roll open for additional members and it's out. Thank you so much. Alright. At this time, we'll entertain add ons. Yeah. We'll start at the top. Thank you so much, Mister secretary.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep the roll open for number two. Thank you. Item number three, Ramos. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Number three. Senate Bill 1154.

[Roll Call]

That measure is eight ayes, two noes, and it is out. Thank you so much, Mister secretary. Item number four, please.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That measure is out seven to three and, with Doctor Sharp Collins being added as a co author. Thank you. Item number five, please.

[Roll Call]

The measures out seven to three. I'm sorry? Okay. That measures out seven to three, and now we'll do the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much, colleagues. The consent calendar is out 10-0. So good. And we'll keep the roll open for absent members to add on. We'll keep the roll open for a few more minutes.

Thank you so much, colleagues. Alright. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you so much, colleagues, and thank you so much to everyone involved with today's Assembly Higher Education Committee meeting and to to Assembly Higher Education Committee staff to all the authors, to everyone involved, to all my colleagues.

We'll appreciate the robust discussions here today and our meeting. And with that, this committee is adjourned. Thank you.