Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations

This meeting of the Senate Committee on Appropriations will begin in thirty seconds. The Senate Committee on Appropriations will now come to order. Sergeants, please contact any absent members and have them come down to the hearing room so that we can start with the quorum. We have 15 measures on the agenda. So today's hearing will be relatively quick.

One measure will have a motion to the Senate floor, but the remaining bills will be moved to the suspense file. The authors for all but one of the suspense bills will have waived presentation as usual. However, we will be taking testimony from the public on every item. The Department of Finance has notified us that they will not be joining us today since they do not have comments on any of the bills before the committee this morning.

Before we begin, Before we begin, I want to remind any witnesses to limit their testimony to the fiscal aspect of the bill.

Please refrain from lengthy policy discussions and repeating prior testimony in your comments. Since we do not have a quorum present, we will take testimony as a subcommittee until we get enough members. I see we do have Senator Cortese who has joined us this morning. We can invite Senator Cortese up for his presentation. SCA 5 is eligible for a motion that the measure be adopted. We will establish a quorum. Madam assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

A quorum has been established. We can now move on to the business of the day. Senator Cortese, the floor is yours.

Thank you, madam chair and members. I'm I'm here to present SCA 5, the education equalization act. Last year, a bill known as SB 743 vetted the policy framework in SCA 5 and passed the Senate with broad support. This SCA 5 is almost identical to that framework that made it through both houses till we got to assembly appropriations. For more than forty years, California public school finance system, that system has allowed per people funding disparities to grow.

Those disparities show up in the student experience, academic support, mental health services, special education, safe facilities, and the ability to attract or retain qualified teachers and staff. SEA five creates the equalization reserve account in the general fund. The account is based on the same fiscal rubric as public school system stabilization account, sometimes known as a PSSSA.

It is funded only in strong budget years, only with non prop 98 general fund dollars, meaning prop 98 has already been accounted for before money is transferred over to the reserve. Deposits remain as principal in an interest bearing account.

The interest is distributed to non basic aid districts to reduce the per pupil funding gap between basic aid and non basic aid districts. So in this way, this SCA5 creates a stream, a stable stream of ongoing funding year over year over year. SCA 5 does not reduce the Prop 98 minimum guarantee. It does not redirect existing Prop 98 dollars. It creates a separate long term reserve mechanism that can be funded only when the constitutional conditions are met.

I also want to address the opposition letters directly. Just take me a moment. CTA raises concerns that SCA 5 would weaken prop 98 and fail to protect stable funding respectfully. Respectfully, the measure is designed to protect prop 98 by using non proposition 98 general fund dollars. Again, meaning Prop 98 has already taken its cut.

It's been accounted for before this reserve is funded based on total General Fund Reserve Dollars, so General Fund Revenue Dollars. And because the account is structured as an interest bearing reserve, it's intended to provide, as I said, stable long term funding over time, which in and of itself, based on this constitutional amendment, would have a constitutional guarantee. The charter school opposition letter argues that SCA 5 excludes charter school students. That's not what the measure is about.

SCA 5 addresses the statewide funding disparity between basic aid and non basic aid school districts.

The purpose is to build a constitutional tool to reduce that district level gap over time, consistent with the existing school finance structure. SCA 5 does not solve every school funding issue. It addresses one long standing inequity in a fiscally responsible way. Deposits are made only in strong years, what we would refer to as as surplus years to a protected account, constitutionally protected, designed to grow over time. May I introduce witnesses at this time, madam chair?

Yes. We will move to witnesses in support at this point.

Thank you. I'd like to introduce our witnesses, Lisa Andrew of the Silicon Valley Education Foundation and Chris Norwood, who is a school trustee in Santa Clara County among other among other things. I don't know where they testify from.

You wanna sit and

also have a seat here if you'd like. You may begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Chair Cervantes and members of the committee, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. We are here because we have seen firsthand how unequal funding affects our students and to emphasize the urgent need to address this problem. As we speak across the state, students in one school district have access to 3D printers, hands on stem experiences, and field trips to art museums.

While in another school district within the same county, students cut out cardboard shapes with scissors, watch a YouTube video about frog dissection, and learn about the ocean from a book.

As a teacher, principal, superintendent, and now CEO of an education foundation, I have experienced the near impossible task of preparing our students to become productive and engaged citizens with limited resources all because my school district was located in the area with limited property tax revenue. What I needed in each of those roles was a funding stream that I could count on year to year.

One that ensured I could replace PE equipment, have a master schedule that provided students access to a comprehensive education, and one I could apply to an ongoing salary schedule to pay teachers a competitive salary. While not the Nirvana all education groups are seeking, STA 5 provides that steady stream of funding, begins to equalize the educational opportunity, and allows the prop 98 minimum guarantee to be maintained while other legislation is crafted. Students, teachers, administrators, and school Board Members need their resources now.

Across the state, California's investment in a student's education varies within the same county. In San Diego County, Spencer Valley Elementary, a basic aid district, receives approximately 28,000 more per pupil than Julian Union Elementary, a nearby non basic aid district. And in Butte County, Golden Feather Union Elementary receives approximately $10,000 more per pupil than Manzanita Elementary. Equitable education funding is about outcomes.

According to the Learning Policy Institute, increasing funding by just $1,000 per student over three years resulted in a full grade level gain in reading and math.

This same three year $3,000 investment led to an 8.2 percentage point increase in graduation rates and improved college readiness. The students in your Senate districts in our state deserve more than a promise of an education. They deserve an equal opportunity to thrive because of their education. Thank you, Senator Cortese, for authoring this, and thank you to committee members for your consideration of an aye vote.

Good afternoon, chair Cervantes, and members of the committee. My name is Chris Norwood, and I serve as the board president of Milpitas Unified School District and the chair of the Santa Clara County School Boards Association legislative action committee that represents 31 school districts for more than 260,000 students throughout Santa Clara County. I rise today in strong support of SCA 5, the Education Equalization Act. At the core, SCA 5 asks a simple question.

Should a child's future of the American dream be significantly compromised by the assessed value of a property in their community?

My hope that is in your mind, the answer is no. In the minds of most California voters, the answer is no. Our school finance system has allowed for significant differences in per pupil funding, grow beyond what was intended. And now those glaring differences are taking away opportunities from students in the state. They They show up in our school resources.

They show up in the access to mental health services. They show up in the access to arts, technology, music, career, counseling, and enrichment opportunities. And ultimately, they show up in student outcomes. As a school board member for more than twelve years, this past year has brought forth some new challenges.

20% rise in health care costs, for many of our school district employees, unexpected litigation costs from issues not connected to our school district over the past thirty years, cell phone policies, dealing with the impact of artificial intelligence, and more.

Each year, we're asked to do more for children with less resources due to these rising costs. And in that work, I've learned a simple truth. When we invest in our children, we invest in California's future workforce, future taxpayers, future homeowners, future entrepreneurs, and future civic leaders. SCA 5 is built on that simple principle. SCA 5 does not reduce proposition 98 funding.

It does not take money away from anyone. It does not redirect local property tax revenues. Instead, it creates a fiscally responsible equalization reserve funded only in the strongest budget years using non proposition 98 dollars. This is not about winners or losers. It's about creating a long term tool that helps ensure students have access to opportunity regardless of their ZIP code.

Each child in California requires access to excellent cute teachers, safe schools, mental health support, strong academic gains, and pathways. SCA 5 is that investment in our human infrastructure. It invests in our students. It invests in opportunities, and it is an investment that that in the belief that every child deserves a fair chance to succeed.

For those reasons and on behalf of the Santa Clara County School Boards Association legislative action committee and the Melpedis Unified School District Board of Trustees who passed the resolution, I respectfully request your aye vote on SCA 5.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any additional witnesses in support of SCA 5?

Good morning, chair members. Cordell Hampton with the Association of California School Administrators in support.

Marie Geisel, superintendent of Pleasanton Unified School District in support.

Morning, madam chair and members. Kat Brackman with the California School Employees Association in support. Thanks.

Good morning. Ashanti Smith with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in strong support.

Are there any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SCA 5? Please approach. You may begin when you're ready.

Chair and members, Carson Eads on behalf California Charter Schools Association in opposition to SEA five unless amended. At the outset, we agree with the central premise of this measure. Public school students should be funded equitably regardless of where they live or whether they attend a basic aid or non basic aid public school. However, SEA five does not apply that principle to all public school students. While the measure seeks to address funding disparities affecting students in non basic aid districts, it excludes charter public school students entirely.

It also excludes county schools. I'm not a county lobbyist, but would raise that as well. That exclusion is difficult to reconcile with the bill's own framework. Charter schools also do not receive basic aid funding. Like non basic aid school districts, charter schools are funded through the state's local control funding formula and are subject to the same funding disparities this measure is intended to address.

In fact, in the very LCFF code section SCA 5 relies upon to identify who a non basic age school is, it applies to both districts and charter schools. 42238.02 is literally titled the charters the school district and the charter school local control funding formula and is used to determine which school district should be funded in this bill.

If that is the section that the bill uses to identify who should get funded, it is plainly obvious that we should be in this bill, yet SCA 5 limits eligibility only to school districts. Reminder, school district and the charter school. Unfortunately, as drafted, SCA 5 would solve only one funding inequity while while creating another, leaving out more than 12% of California's public school students, about 750,000 students, more than that if you include the counties, despite those students facing the same underlying funding inequity.

Even worse, because this is a constitutional amendment, this is not something we can simply correct later in the budget or another bill. If we're excluded here, fixing that exclusion in the future will require another constitutional amendment and another vote of the people. If the author amends his measure to include all non basic aid public school students, like the sponsor said, every child, we would gladly remove our opposition. Until then, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any additional witnesses who'd like to testify in opposition to SCA 5? Seeing none, thank you to our witnesses. The Department of Finance is not with us today so we will bring it back to the committee. Are there any comments, questions from committee members?

Senator

Thank you madam chair and I'm pretty sure I see the Department of Finance hiding over there but I assume they have no position on the bill. So I've supported the bill in the policy committee because I know the author has been working incredibly hard on this issue and it's complicated and he's been searching for creative solutions.

I can't support it today for its fiscal implications as it's been presented and it's one of the features of the legislation is it does we're here we're focused on non proposition 98 dollars which essentially means we're increasing the proposition 98 share of the budget which as an educator I think is a great idea.

At the same time, one of our challenges with the budget and protecting access to Medi Cal to other public services adding another constitutional mechanism that diverts additional resources into proposition 98 without it being a budget choice that the legislature is making I think it's not good fiscal policy.

We have that measure in place for that reason already. So I think sort of top line that's of concern me. But I think secondarily, and I'm just uncomfortable the bill talks about to the low billions of dollars that would be deposited in this account that would be available for all children in California except those that happen to live in these particular districts.

And I think that, you know, the key breakthrough of the local control funding formula was the state's financing strategy needs to look at the kids, not at the districts. And it is specifically about that.

That's why the local control funding formula has all these features of, you know, students that that whose, you know, who are English language learners, who are poor as as measured by free and reduced price lunch and foster youth and so on and so forth. That that it's what it's what the student is, what the the the challenges they're facing that they're that teachers and schools are are helping them to overcome.

That's what matters as opposed to the sort of the nineteen nineties approach of like it's the it's a battle between districts over equalization that was a long fight for a long time. And it becomes very relevant here because there are many districts in California that serve more high needs students than non basic aid districts. The average high needs student share for school districts in California is like two thirds, 65% or so plus or minus.

But there are plenty of basic aid districts who are serving far more high needs students up to a 100% who would be ineligible, constitutionally ineligible for any additional funding into the future as though they have done those kids have done something wrong but happened to be living in a district that might be basic aid. And it matters because basic aid is a continuum. Right?

So there are the McKittrick School District in Kern County is fabulously wealthy, and they're often often cited in because they're so wealthy on in property values, they draw the average up by quite a bit. But if you look at the school district in in in Contra Costa County, I don't represent the district, I do the county.

It's a it's a barely basic aid district. So for the benefit of being barely over this line, they would be constitutionally prohibited from ever receiving funds from this low billions of dollars of funds that would be allocated to this new fund. That's just that's not fair. Calistoga Unified in my district, we had 80% high I need students. By the way, almost every school district in my in my account in Napa County is basic needs.

80% of the students in Calistoga, that that is a third more than the statewide average are high need students, mostly English language learners and mostly living in poverty. They would be constitutionally banned from receiving any of these funds while many, many districts with much lower needs students and higher wealth would be getting them. Calistoga is not Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley is not a microcosm of the entire state when it comes to school finance or to property tax economics. Calistoga is much more typical.

A lot of poor immigrant families trying to do the best that they can. They live in a community that has been overrun by tourists and a couple of billionaires and so their property values are high, but that is not an indication that they have a lot more money than everybody else.

This legislation I think could could have been more nuance or could be more nuance in dealing with these, you know, the folks that are closer to the line dealing with high need students just as LCFF did. But in this form where it's just sort of very simple like you cross that line even if you, you know, and you're there for more than a couple of years, your base and your basic aid but only by a little bit but consistently.

And even if you have 100% high, high needs students that you're not eligible for a funding windfall that would come outside of proposition ID.

To me those those those fiscal the fiscal doesn't work out for for this one. So I really do sincerely appreciate the author's work on this.

We've talked about this one a lot and I know he's trying to solve a very real problem in Silicon Valley, but plays out very differently in other parts of the state and it seems highly inequitable to me for the students that were that these formulas are supposed to benefit for us to constitutionally prohibit students in high needs places and high needs students themselves from being able to access them and so I can't support it today but continue to appreciate the author's work.

Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. Do we have a question from Senator Grayson?

Thank you, madam chair. And to the author, the intent is absolutely incredible because of the fact that there is so much uncertainty and in certain certain arenas or or conditions or environments and this tries to solve for that but by moving this dial over here, 10 other dials. Today, I am gonna support it to balance out my colleague.

I am gonna support it but I know this is not the end that there is some more time and room to be able to work on this to the best. And I know you are already.

I just really want to encourage that because he actually he he actually called out one of the situations, the Akalani's school district that I do represent. And it is it literally cuts them out. And so I just I I would need some help in trying to figure out what is the what is a more equitable approach to it. And I know you will. I know you'll work hard at it.

So with that, I will support it today. Thank you.

Thank you. Vice Chair Seyarto?

So, you know, I I have concerns that have been outlined by everybody here. One of the concerns was outlined by one of the speakers here, and and because it it does involve the city in my district. And and I know the condition of their schools. They've been to those schools. And they're in dire need of the funding and, you know, not just LCFF.

But somehow, we're gonna have to figure out how to do this within this $138,000,000,000 budget that we have for our schools, where, we're not dragging down schools over here that are being successful in favor of schools that are trying to make we're trying to make them more successful. They should all be successful. And and I'm afraid of of constitutional amendments because of that.

It's how do we we need to get in there and do the work of figuring out a different way of doing this formula because it is not it is not doing what had the intention was, which was to, you know, Kinda raise all the boats. Instead, it's taking the boats down.

And and and so it's, you know, there's so many complications in this. It's hard for me to support. I was gonna lay off it today and try to get a little bit more feedback on, you know, from from people about, you know, how does this affect them? Yeah. And so the one question I would have is in the situation that she was talking about, what happens to those two districts?

What happens to Julian's district? What happens to the San Diego district that she was talking about?

Through through the chair?

Yes. Certainly.

The irony of our colleagues complaint is last year in policy committee, he raised the same issue, asked me to fix it. We came back and what we said was any district that's a whopper like that that be that has one even one non basic aid year, you know, equivalent in the past three years, a three year look back receives funding gets into the cycle. So nobody's left out like that.

The greatest travesty of all, if you wanna talk about unfairness, is not that these poor districts start getting some money eked out to them. It'll take thirty, forty years to equalize them.

We're $62,000,000,000 behind. And we hear people saying, well, we got a structural deficit. We got a state budget of a structural deficit that we're worried about that might be 14 to $20,000,000,000 a year ongoing right now over the next few years. This is $62,000,000,000 a year. If you close it with one time right now, you'd be right back to square one and be $62,000,000,000 behind again next year.

But but the travesty is to say when prop 98 comes in and showers all of its, you know, blessings of money on all these school district, the basic aid school districts and shoots up your basic aid districts and all those kids to these dramatic levels like 27, 28, 29, $30,000 per student and leaves the non basic aid behind.

And we come in and try to try to start, you know, stemming the bleeding there, stopping that from happening to say that that's unfair to some basic aid kids who just received another, you know, another another dose of of love from the legislature and prop 98 and the public is really a misstatement.

I I I can't wait till they get till this gets on the ballot so I can actually do debate and not have people leave the room, you know, right when there's an opportunity to talk about this more. But those those are the real answers. We have corrected those things and it's on me, Senator Seyarto, that I didn't sit down with you and answer those questions because those are absolutely legitimate questions or questions that we had to take up.

They're questions we had to go back to Ledge Council with and say, hey, you need to help us fix this. You know, we can't can't leave Wobart Districts behind. You know, we we can't have any inequities. We can't touch prop 98. We can't amend it.

We can't use a constitutional amendment for the first time in the history of the state of California to guarantee statutory what's now statutory funding, you know, to to charters, you know, to charter schools. They get their money through us. You know, we get to take up those funding formulas any year we want, anytime we want. But but to start dragging those into a constitutional discussion that's never been part of the discussion ever since 1992 when Prop 13 passed or when the charter school statute passed rather.

It's it's not something that's covered by this bill.

And I know you didn't bring that up directly, but I wanted to address that is if you will sort of part of a close I guess. Thank you. And I'm absolutely happy to sit down with you and try to check off some of these boxes in in the future because we'd love to have your support going forward.

I see no additional comments or questions from committee members. Senator Cortese, would you like to use that as your close

or would you like to? Yes, yes I would. Thank you madam chair and appreciate you giving me that opportunity and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. This item is eligible for a vote today. Do we have a motion on SCA 5? This bill has been moved by Senator Grayson. The motion is that the bill that the measure be adopted.

Please call the roll.

Cervantes. Aye. Cervantes, Aye. Seyarto.

Not voting.

Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Grayson aye, Richardson, Wahab

We will put that on call to allow other members to add on

AB 402 is a suspense file candidate, and Assemblymember Patel has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who'd like to testify in support for AB 402? Seeing none, are there any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to AB 402? Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments.

This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 402 will move to the suspense file. AB 708 is a suspense file candidate and Assemblymember Valencia has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB708?

Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to AB708? Bringing it back to the committee seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 708 will move to the suspense file. AB 1080 is a suspense file candidate, and Assemblymember Bryan has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support of AB 1080? Any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1080? Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1080 will move to the suspense file.

AB 1126 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Patterson has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who'd like to testify in support to AB 1126? Any witnesses who'd like to testify in opposition to AB 1126?

Bring it back to the committee so you know questions or comments. This is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1126 will move to the suspense file. AB 1204 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Alvarez has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1204? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1204?

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support to AB 1204? Any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 1204?

Please begin when you're ready.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Diane Jones, president of the Fremont Unified School District Board of Education. Fremont is a founding member of the most recent Raise the Base Coalition which includes over 50 California school districts serving more than 350,000 students. When LCFF was adopted, only about five school districts were statistically underfunded. Today, that number has grown to more than one third of California school districts serving over 1,200,000 students.

Nearly 700,000 in districts represented by this committee's members. While we are grateful that Assemblymember Alvarez recognizes the need for LCFF reform and the intent of AB 1204 is to raise public school funding, many of our member districts are opposed to the proposed adjustments to supplemental and concentration grants. These adjustments would severely diminish the funds available to raise the base funding levels of all school districts, including those most underfunded and would cause more extreme funding disparities throughout the state.

Over the course of LCFF, Fremont Unified has gone from being funded at 90% of the state average in per pupil funding to 75% despite our unduplicated pupil percentage increasing significantly. More than $50,000,000 from our budget, eliminating all but legally mandated bus service, raising class sizes, reducing library hours, and cutting administration and support.

We still face a $12,000,000 structural deficit, which may result in further devastating cuts, which may include the closure of all of our school libraries. And AB 1204 would further increase funding disparities and make matters worse for FUSD and similar districts.

We agree that California needs major new investment in public school education and welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively on meaningful LCFF reform to ensure changes are financially sustainable and are directed in ways that strengthen all school districts while continuing to prioritize high need students. Increasing the LCFF base alone remains the strongest foundation for achieving fiscal sustainability, positive outcomes, and equity in California public schools. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is doctor Maurice Ghysels, superintendent of Pleasanton Unified School District. Excuse me. Pleasanton is one of the 219 California school districts identified as underfunded, receiving less funding per student than the state median. We are concerned that AB 124 would make that disparity even greater.

It directs a larger share of future funding growth away from the LCFF base and that's the grant that supports every student across California. And in recent years, a combination of low funding declining enrollment and rising costs has created significant fiscal challenge to districts like ours. So we've been going through reductions is the third year. We're in the lowest decile of funding in the state and similar stories are playing out throughout the the state.

We agree that students need more funding and we support additional funding for higher needs students.

The solution is not to widen the existing funding disparities but to strengthen the LCFF base grant that supports every classroom. So let me just be tell you a story. I retired as a superintendent in 2018 in Menlo Park and I was a basic aid district. And my company, Ghysels Group, actually made the movie Zip Code Code Red that started the movement for SCA 5. So I'm very familiar with my background being an economist and a superintendent for sixteen years of school finance.

I came back to Pleasanton two years ago for three months out of retirement. And at 70 years old, I've been there for two years and no light at the end of the tunnel because there's so much heavy lifting. Never gone through anything like this in my career. So the point here is that when you look and there was an interesting discussion about the disparity among basic aid districts.

But when you look at districts that are, you know, excessive amount of local revenues because community funded district And then you look at districts with the high duplicated count.

You have a bifurcation where the base isn't enough. And, you know, inflationary factors in places like Pleasanton where people vote are really tough. And the last two years going in the third year now with inflation, with declining enrollment, I was a teacher right after Prop 13. And structurally, this is more challenging now with no light at the end of the tunnel. So just very plainly, there's some good aspects about SB 124.

But raising the base and floating all all boats is really important for public education because we have to include people who vote the professional class, the middle class, so they choose public education. So we oppose, Senate Bill 1204 and thank you for listening.

Thank you to our witnesses. Seeing no question or comments from committee members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1204 will move to the suspense file. Thank you. We will open the roll on SCA 5 and allow members to add on.

[Roll Call]

We will keep that on call. Moving back to the file. AB 1235 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Rogers has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses who like to testify in support of AB 1235? Are there any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to AB 1235? Seeing none, and also seeing no questions from committee members or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1235 will move to the suspense file. Very quickly, I wanna recognize there are additional folks who wanted to testify as me Toos on AB 1204.

You have a moment to please approach the microphone. And then they can pass it up.

Good morning. Jackie McCaney, assistant superintendent from the Buckeye Union School District. I work with doctor David Roth, who is leading that Raise the Base coalition, and we oppose AB 1204.

Thank you. Renu Nyer with the Fremont Unified School District, board trustee, and I strongly oppose AB 1204.

Doctor Tyler Graff, superintendent of Ross Valley School District, and I oppose 1204 . Rachel Litwack, board trustee for the Ross Valley School District, and I strongly oppose.

Matt Taylor. I'm the superintendent of the California Montessori Project Charter Schools, and we oppose 1204.

Thank you to all the witnesses. Moving back to file order, we have AB 1555, which is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Hadwick has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1555?

Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to AB 1555? Seeing none, and seeing no questions from committee members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 1555 will move to the suspense file. AB 1641 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Jackson has waived presentation.

We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any individuals wishing to testify in support to AB 1641? Are there any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to AB 1641? Bringing it back to the committee, see no questions or comments. This is a suspense file candidate without objection.

AB 1641 will move to the suspense file. ACA 7 is a suspense file candidate. Assembly member Jackson has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who like to testify in support to ACA 7?

Any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to ACA 7? Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this is a suspense file candidate without objection. ACA 7 will move to the suspense file. AB 1672 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Solache has waived presentation.

We'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 1672?

Good morning. EJ Aguay on behalf of the California PACE Association, also known as CalPACE, in support. Thank you.

you. Are there any witnesses who'd like to testify in opposition to AB 1672? Seeing none, bringing it back to the committee, for question or comments. Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1672 will move to the suspense file.

AB 1943 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Gibson has a way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who like to testify in support to AB 1943? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to AB 1943?

Seeing none, there are no questions or comments from committee members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection, AB 1943 will move to the suspense file. AB 2565 is a suspense file candidate. Assemblymember Wallis has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony.

Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to AB 2565? Any individual wishing to testify in opposition to AB 2565? Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 2565 will move to the suspense file. AB 2571 is a suspense file candidate.

Assemblymember Flora has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any individuals who'd like to testify in support to AB 2571? Are there any individuals who'd like to testify in opposition to AB 2571? Seeing none, bring it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments.

This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. AB 2571 will move to the suspense file. We will open up the row for SCA 5. The motion is that the measure be adopted. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Final vote is four to zero. We will now invite Assemblymember Caloza to the microphone to present on ACA 18, which the floor is yours at any moment. Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair, members of the committee. Sorry. I'm catching my breath. I sprinted from the airport. But I'm here to present ACA 18 this morning, and I thought it was really important to present so we could get a chance to make our case and continue to do so about why, this amendment is so important.

I will be taking author amendments which will generalize the language that specifically makes mention of the undergraduate and graduate UC student associations based off of feedback that we received in one of the Senate hearings. Thank you as well to the Senate Appropriation selections, and education committee consultants and staff for their working guidance on this bill.

And I also want to extend extend my gratitude to our joint co author Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens for his leadership and partnership and of course our sponsor the UC Students Association for bringing this measure forward and of course to the students themselves. ACA 18 is a bipartisan measure coauthored by four members of the Senate and 32 members of the assembly. It doubles the number of student seats on the UC Board of Regents because today only, one student voting seat, remains on the 26 member board.

That is one student representing the experiences and everyday challenges faced by over 300,000 students and 265,000 faculty and staff in the UC system. The fiscal costs attached to AC18 are relatively small, especially when the size and impact of the UC system is taken into account. According to the UC Office of the President, the cost of one student regent voting or nonvoting is 86,000 per year, with a student receiving full coverage of their tuition and fees along with a parking permit valid at any UC campus.

As a leading public higher education institution in California, meaningful representation of our students, the heart of the UC system should not be an afterthought. ACA 18 is a worthwhile investment that sends a clear message, California puts students first.

Moreover, the state funded higher education institutions in California, the UC Board of Regents is the only system that has one voting representative for students. The California State University system and the California Community College systems not only have two student voting representatives each, but they also have one for faculty on their board of trustees. And the community college system has two voting tenured faculty members and one voting classified staff on their board of governors.

To ensure that students have UC, have representation on the UC Board of Regents comparable to that of the CSU and community college systems, we respectfully ask, for you to support ACA 18 so that for the first time ever there are dedicated seats for both an undergrad and graduate student. And with that, it's, my honor to introduce, two leaders who have been instrumental in this work.

Please join me in welcoming Alexis Zaragoza, UC Regent Emeritus, and Aditi Hariharan, UCSA president.

Your witnesses in support may have a seat if they'd like. Please begin when you are ready.

Hello? Okay. Sorry. Good morning. My name is Alexis Atsilvsgi Zaragoza and I served as the forty seventh student regent to the University of California Board of Regents.

I also served on the California Community Colleges Board of Governors, making me the only student to have been on two major higher education system boards in California history. In my college career, I've had the honor of representing over 2,600,000 students in California. It has been over fifty years since the adoption of the student regent position. And in that time, we have helped drive some of UC's greatest accomplishments. Basic needs committees, housing investigations, campus policing reform.

Without us, these topics could be ignored. Some people think that one vote doesn't make a difference. I'd say they're wrong. When the regents voted for cohort tuition, I was able to make critical amendments. When students came to us with problems that had been ignored by administration for years, we were able to fix them within days.

The UC Board of Regents is distinct from other higher education boards. There are no staff or faculty votes. There is one voting alumni and one voting student. In the entire history of the board, only 4% of all governor appointed regents since 1868 have worked in education. At a time when our Federal Government is actively harming students, threatening university resources, and taking away rights, we need voices in the room that actually understand the system and the needs of students.

The current framework does not do that effectively. Students do not just need another vote. Our state needs it. They need diverse representation. They need people from every income level, every background, and every geography represented on the board.

Students consistently host that diversity and advocate well beyond student issues. The one time cost for putting this on the ballot is worth it for the 300,000 students and millions who come after. Students have made this their priority for a reason. In addition, this amendment will not impose any mandatory financial impact on the UC Board of Regents if this passes. The board has granted student tuition waivers and stipends over the years and they have changed it many times as well.

In 1984, 1996, and 2002, for example. The regents can decide a new system that works better for them upon adopting the new framework. It is entirely within their control. As a former student regent, I urge you to move this forward and to put students first. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Aditi Hayuran. I'm newly graduated from UC Davis and president of the UC Student Association. We serve as the official representative of over 235,000 undergraduate UC students across the state. The UC system bound by constitutional autonomy is almost entirely regulated by the UC Board of Regents and office of the president.

Regents are appointed by the Governor for twelve year terms and are primarily composed of people who graduated college many years ago, have backgrounds in investments, health or policy, and donor ties, and who rarely engage with students outside of their direct obligations during regents meetings once every other month. It's my second term as UCSA president, which means I've been to nearly every regents meeting for the past two years.

And in that time, I've witnessed how decisions made at that table have monumental repercussions on current and future students, including the crackdown on student and faculty free speech, the reapproval of UC's cohort tuition model despite attempted negotiation and immense student opposition, a struggle to prioritize basic needs and student services, and the alarming increase in total cost of attendance through housing and non resident student tuition fees.

Despite these realities, the only student voice heard at the decision making table is the sole student region and their student region designate. And often a voting voice has much more power and sway than their designate counterpart to warrant both consultation and tangible bargaining power.

ACA 18 through its addition of the second voting student regent will directly increase student voice in the policies and decisions that impact them, such as all of the things previously mentioned. Students are not a monolith, so more than one student should be consulted in decisions that have vast impacts across the state. We're able to offer perspectives about our current and long term issues, as well as offer insight about the implementation of university policy and budget impacts on students across the UC.

A second voting student regent will also allow the UC to have parity with CSU and CC counterparts, allow the UC to keep better pace with its student growth as student enrollment has more than doubled since the student regent role was first implemented and will codify both an undergraduate and graduate vote, allowing for the discussion of unique issues impacting both student populations.

The UC is the third largest employer in California with the fourth, which it has the fourth largest economy in the world, which speaks to the global impact of the UC, the board of regents, but most importantly, the impact of its students, faculty, workers, and community members.

The university ecosystem cannot run with students, therefore, we need meaningful power through ACA 18. Thank you.

Thank you to both of our witnesses and thank you for all your, work on being the student led voices, that, we do need to see. We want to now invite up any individuals who'd like to test find opposition to ACA 18. Seeing none, we will bring it back to Assemblymember Caloza to close.

Thank you so much, madam chair, and thanks again to the staff, and yourself for for holding, this open so we could have the opportunity to present. Thank you again to our witnesses. So proud of the work and advocacy that you both have led with. And, it is our hope to earn, the support of, yourself, madam chair, so we can hopefully get this on the ballot this November.

Students are really disillusioned by government right now, And we really wanna give them something to vote for that they brought to us, and we're hoping that ACA 18 is it. So respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you to the author and dig it to our witnesses today. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, ACA 18 will move to the suspense file.

Thank you to everyone who participated in today's committee hearing. We have now concluded the agenda. The meeting of the Senate Committee on Appropriations is adjourned.