Assembly Arts, Entertainment, Sports, And Tourism Committee, Tuesday, April 7, 2026
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Assembly Arts, Entertainment, Sports, And Tourism Committee California State Assembly
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 4
Welcome. Thank you. Good morning, chair, ward, and members. My name is Renata Semmrill, president of the Play Equity Fund, and we are proud to cosponsor AB sixteen twenty six. I also wanna thank assembly member Gabriel for his leadership on this very important issue.
At the Play Equity Fund, we believe that sport and play and movement are not luxuries. They are essential to a young person's physical, social, and mental well-being. We often say that play because it matters, and it does, especially when it comes to mental health. Our latest finding from our 2024 play equity report makes something very clear, that access to sport is deeply uneven and so are the mental health benefits that come with it. Across California, young people who participate in structured sport and play are strong, report stronger connections, greater resilience, and a greater sense of belonging.
But too many youth are being left out. Only twenty two percent of youth from households earning $30,000 are active five days a week compared to 50% from households earning over 100,000. And one in three kids are dropping out of sports due to cost and because it's not fun. The absence that absence matters because sports is more than a game. It is the most one of the most consistent and trusted environments where young people can build identity, cope with stress, and feel like they belong.
And at the center of that experience is a coach. Coaches are often the first adults to notice when something is wrong. They are in moments of pressure, disappointment, and growth. But right now, most are not equipped with the tools to respond. As the assembly member stated, according to our friends at the Aspen Institute, only one in five coaches report feeling highly confident supporting youth facing mental health challenges.
Speaker 7
That is a gap we can and must close. AB sixteen twenty six recognizes what we see every day, that coaches are not just leaders on teams. They are the frontline support of mental health. By equipping them with training, we strengthen one of the most powerful existing systems of care already embedded in our communities. If we are serious about adjusting the mental health crisis, the youth mental health crisis to be more specifically, we must meet young people where they are, and millions of them on are on fields, courts, and playgrounds.
Speaker 4
This bill is about ensuring those spaces are not only places of play, but places of safety, connection, and belonging. So on behalf of the Play Equity Fund, I respectfully ask for your I vote on a b sixteen twenty six. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Wonderful. Chair and distinguished members of the committee, my name is Ron White. I'm the president of the California Youth Football Alliance representing hundreds of thousands of youth student athletes statewide. Over the years, I've had the privilege of of appearing before this very committee multiple times, but none more important than today as the matter before you will have a direct and lasting impact on the young people we serve. California student athletes are facing increasing mental health challenges with rising levels of stress, anxiety, and depression impacting their well-being both on and off the field.
Balancing academics, competition, social pressures, and personal expectation places un you excuse me, unique demands on these young individuals, making access to timely and trusted mental health support more critical than ever. For many young athletes, coaches are among the most consistent and influential adults in their lives. Coaches build relationships rooted in trust, mentorship, and daily interaction, placing them in a unique position to recognize any signs of early mental health distress. However, most youth coaches across California are not provided with the training or resources necessary to effectively support the mental health needs of their young athletes. This gap represents a missed opportunity to provide early intervention and meaningful support in a setting where it can have the greatest impact.
Speaker 23
Assembly Bill sixteen twenty six directly addresses that unmet need by establishing mental health training for coaches at a critical re as a critical resource within youth athletics. Through this legislation, California is ensuring that coaches are equipped with the knowledge and tools to identify warning signs, respond appropriately, and guide student athletes to the help they need. AB sixteen twenty six strengthens the capacity of coaches to serve as informed frontline resources, enhancing early detection, improving communication, and fostering healthier team environments. This legislation is especially important because it reaches young athletes where they already are Mhmm. On teams, in practices, in competitions, and in daily interactions with trusted mentors.
Speaker 2
It ensures that mental health support is not limited just to clinical settings, but integrated into one of the most influential aspects of a young person's life. AB sixteen twenty six provides a practical, scalable solution to growing crisis by delivering critical mental health resources through coach training, helping ensure that California student athletes have access to informed, supportive adults who can make a difference really when it matters most. For those reasons, we strongly support a b sixteen twenty six. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public here in support of a b sixteen twenty six? Please use the public microphone, and we're looking for name, organization, and position.
Speaker 6
Divya Shiv with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, a proud cosponsor of the bill in support.
Speaker 8
Good morning, mister chair and members. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Danny Therakult on behalf of the California Youth Empowerment Network, proud cosponsor in support. Also, on behalf of LGBTQ plus inclusivity, visibility, and empowerment in support.
Speaker 10
Karen Vakary, Mental Health America of California, proud cosponsor in support.
Speaker 11
Callie Blackman Noon representing the Positive Coaching Alliance in strong support.
Speaker 12
Dominic Damari here on behalf of the California Alliance of Boys and Girls Clubs in support.
Speaker 13
Good morning. Sarek Kaminski on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators in support.
Speaker 12
Good morning. Brian Ricks with the Los Angeles Unified School District in support.
Speaker 14
Andrew governor, on behalf of Major League Baseball and the San Francisco 49ers in support. Apologies for not getting our letter in in time.
Speaker 1
Danny Offer with the National Alliance on Mental Illness, also known as NAMI California in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Good morning. Michelle Underwood on behalf of the California Interscholastic Federation. We don't have an official position, but appreciate working with the author's office on the language.
Speaker 12
Thank you. Good morning. Greg Gardner on behalf of the Drug Policy Alliance in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you all very much. At this time, I think that we have a quorum. Madam secretary, would you please, call the roll?
Speaker 16
Ward? Present. Blackie? Here. El Hawari?
Here. Jeff Gonzalez? Here. McKinnon? Ortega?
Here. Valencia? Zuber. Thank
Speaker 1
you. And we have a quorum. There's no formal rep opposition registered for this bill for this committee's purposes. Is there any members of the public here wishing to state a position of opposition? Okay.
Seeing none, we can move to any questions, comments? Motion by mister Gonzales and second by miss, Elwari. Please, miss Elwari.
Speaker 17
I just wanted to thank the author and sponsors for this bill. It's so important that we support our young people, through mental health challenges, and I think what you mentioned is incredible in terms of ensuring that we're going to the young people where they are, at their competitions, at their sports, practices, while they're on their teams.
Speaker 17
As a young person who was in sports, it made all the difference for me. And knowing that I was rarely with my parents because they had to work and I was in sports. My coach was the person who always had my back. So thank you all for this.
Speaker 18
Yeah. Just, obviously, to commend the author for addressing an issue that's pretty powerful. We we have a lot of difficulty with our young people. And a lot of times, it's because of the absence of adult supervision and adult influence. And coaches have a way bigger impact that goes way beyond the game that they coach.
And sometimes, in in many instances that I'm very aware, even in smaller communities, this is a very powerful reality. And so if we we arm these coaches and these mentors with a little bit more expertise, I think that you can't go wrong. And it's really a void that is gonna be greatly appreciated by by the young people. So thank you for bringing this Yep. Before us.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. Mister Gabriel, I wanna, as well, thank you for bringing this build for this committee. I know you're working closely with Assembly members Pacheco and Irwin on very similar topics as well to make sure that in tandem, as well as multiple other, assembly committees that we're getting this issue right. I think it's critically important that you are addressing the issue of mental youth mental health issues, particularly as they pertain to many of our youth sports activities, particularly this time that we have a tremendous amount of pressure on our kids.
We wanna make sure that these resources are available, that there's training that's appropriate, and I know that your bill goes a long way to be able to help to pull all that together. So this does enjoy a due a past recommendation, and I invite you to close.
Speaker 3
Yeah. Thank you very much, mister Chernigan. I just wanna thank you and your very able committee staff for the help. We're very excited about that there's so many members that wanna address this issue, And I just want to thank my witnesses for their incredible testimony. And I think a lot back to my experience in high school and how important coaches were as part of my life in helping me to survive some challenging years and just the incredible power that they have to, to impact young people, to help young people, to support young people.
That's something that I keep in mind now that I'm a coach. And and, you know, I'm gonna fly home today to coach the third the the, triple a Phillies in Encino Little League, a mediocre third base coach. But I'm very mindful of the fact that, you can have a profound impact on these young people. And it's something that I think about a lot when I'm out there on the field. So, appreciate all the kind comments, appreciate the support, and respectfully request your I vote.
Speaker 1
We'll be thinking about you tonight and hope for the win. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 16
AB sixteen twenty six do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Education. Ward? Aye. Ward, I. Lackey?
Aye. Lackey, I. El Harari? Aye. El Harari, I.
Jeff Gonzalez? Aye. Jeff Gonzalez, I. McKinnar?
Speaker 1
Okay. That is currently at six o. It will be out, and we'll hold the role of perhaps some members.
Speaker 1
Next, with us here today, we have Assemblywoman Hadwick, with AB eighteen eighty four, I think, co presenting as well as Assembly member Sharp Collins. So we welcome both of you to the table and any lead witnesses that you have for the bill. And when you're ready, I'll forward both of you, the time that you need to maybe split your opening statement. If there is any additional comment by someone in Sharp Collins, I'll let you lead it off to someone in Havwick. K.
Speaker 20
Thank you so much, mister chair and members. I would really like to thank the chair and the committee for working with us on this critical issue. I'm deeply appreciative and grateful for working with me on this bill, and I accept the committee amendments. Nicotine use and vaping in my district is a youth public health crisis. Nicotine is a highly addictive substance, and early exposure increases the likelihood of long term addiction and adverse health outcomes.
If a student turns 18 and hasn't quit smoking, the odds of them quitting in their lifetime is less than ten percent. This isn't something that we can wait on. As a mom of teenagers, I fought the vaping crisis with my own children. I spent the last ten years on the tobacco coalition for my county and served as the 2P, tobacco use prevention education director. This isn't just an issue for me.
It's personal, and I'm scared for our kids. We don't even have the research to know the full damage that that vaping will have on our youth. My home county is one of the highest vaping rates in the state for youth. When we asked the kids how many students were vaping at the school, they almost always said 80%. When we asked the parents the same question, they would almost always say ten to fifteen.
Forty percent of high school kids using vapes have tried to quit in the last year, which suggests that many students are struggling with addiction rather than casual use. Vaping is highly addictive. Current vapes have a number on them that lists how many hits or puffs are in that device. Typically, have about 5,500 hits. This is the amount of nicotine that is in 21 to 24 packs of cigarettes, and our kids are finishing these in less than a week.
In my schools, almost every kid has tried it, and half of them are addicted. When we asked kids that were in our diversion program oh, I'm repeating. Sorry. This is a sad reality nationwide. More than ninety percent of teens with substance use disorder never ask for treatment.
Teens don't know how to seek treatment, and very few will ever ask for help. This is truly a crisis, and kids in my schools need help more than ever. The biggest barrier to helping students is identifying that they have a problem in the first place. This is why school districts across the state have adopted drug testing programs for their athletes to get kids the help they need. Unfortunately, these programs don't have guardrails for students, and most programs do not test for nicotine.
Speaker 28
This bill requires school districts who currently have a drug testing program for athletics to also test for nicotine. Assembly Bill eighteen eighty four establishes key safeguards for students by clarifying that a student who is tested cannot be subject to criminal or juvenile enforcement, cannot be suspended or expelled for a test, must be provided treatment or diversion program, and test results can only be shared with a parent, a coach, and the superintendent's designee. By identifying students that need help, especially student athletes at risk of physical health issues, this bill will connect more students with supportive intervention and treatment, not punishment. AB eighteen eighty four will give parents and schools an additional tool to confront public health crisis that we have and get students the help they need. Respectfully ask for your I vote, and I'm proud to be joined today by assembly member Sharp Collins.
Speaker 21
Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. Today, I'm here to jointly present a b eighteen eighty four. Thank you to assembly member Hedwig, assembly member Ward, and stakeholders, and also community staff for helping us move the bill in the right direction. Nicotine addition, addiction is no longer a hypothetical problem.
It is something that's happening right now in our schools. In my district, we have a whole stop the vape campaign. We have, students that are passing out doing sports practices. Coaches are now reporting athletes collapsing on the field and also finding vapes that are being left behind. And you would think that this is something that will stop all of us inside our tracks, but this is not just a discipline issue.
It is a public health crisis that is unfolding in real time. We have coaches, and I myself being a coach, who are seeing in real time the effects of vaping amongst the youth that are actually supposed to be prioritizing health. What makes this crisis different is how invisible it feels to the young people. Vaping does not carry the same stigma that cigarettes once did. Instead, it is packaged in a way that looks harmless and even appealing.
Bright colors, it has sweet it has sweet flavors, and also sleek design is really masking just how harmful it is. Our kids are not fully understanding the damage being done to their bodies until it shows up in moments that should never happen, like collapsing in the middle of a game. Our coaches do not fully understand the damage or know which students to identify and help lead to recovery. So student athletes, in my opinion, they are leaders on campus. They set the tone for their peers, and they deserve the support to stay healthy and also competitive.
This approach is about accountability, but it's also about support. By allowing schools to include the nicotine testing in their, in their existing drug program, we are creating an opportunity to intervene early. We are creating a pathway to connect students with rehabilitation and restorative programs before the harm becomes irreversible. So in closing, I I will leave you with this. If we cannot act when our kids are collapsing on the field and struggling to catch their breath and putting their futures at risk, then when will we actually act?
Speaker 24
How much clearer does this need to be before we treat it like it is a crisis? We have a chance right now to step in and to say what we always tell people, enough is enough, and that we're sick and tired of being tired, and to make sure that our schools are are places that protect our students and not places where this is something that's quietly going to be continuing. So let let's meet this moment with the urgency that it currently deserves, and let's stand up for our kids for their health and for their their future. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and we are joined today by Sally Townsend who will also provide testimony. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Good morning. My name is Sage Townsend, and I'm a high school senior, a proud member from the Pit River tribe of the Coastalecti Band, and I serve as the chairman of the Strong Family Health Youth Board in Modoc County. I was part of a youth advocate team that created a create curriculum called Vaping Endgame, and it is now used statewide. I am passionate about addressing addiction because I've seen how quickly it can lead people down the wrong path. It hurt too many people and too many of my loved ones.
In my school, vaping is everywhere. Almost everyone is doing it. It is easy to hide, easy to get, and it's cheap. We even have a diversion program that regularly regularly includes elementary school students, and that should tell you how serious this problem is. But from where I stand, it doesn't always feel like adults fully understand just how big of an issue this has become, and that's why I'm here today to testify in support of AB eighteen eighty four.
Speaker 3
This bill would help deter students from vaping by allowing schools that already have drug testing programs in place to include nicotine testing for student athletes. Kids know the rules, and they know the laws, and they know how to get around them. But athletes are leaders on our campuses, and they set the tone. If we want to shift the culture, we need to make it clear that not vaping is just as important and just as expected. This issue is especially important to me as a native youth because native American students have some of the highest rates of teen vaping, and that is deeply concerning.
Speaker 11
I've been using my voice since I was 13 years old to raise awareness and make sure native youth understand the risk. The truth is we don't fully know the long term impacts of vaping, and the data and research are still catching up. And that, uncertainty, should concern all of us. We need the adults in our lives to step up and give us the tools to make better choices and protect our future. AB eighteen eighty four is a strong step in that direction.
It helps create accountability, supports healthier decisions, and shows students that our health matters. Thank you for your time and for listening to my voice, and I hope that you all vote yes on this bill to protect our generation.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public here wishing to register support for the bill? Okay. Seeing none, I know there's some registered opposition on file. Are there any lead witnesses that wanted to testify against a b eighteen eighty four?
Speaker 15
Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is McClain. I'm the policy analyst at the Alameda County Office of Education or ACOE. ACOE's mission is to equip the most vulnerable students and those who serve them with the tools to thrive.
We work proactively through tobacco use prevention education grants and partnerships with other organizations to address the impacts of nicotine and other substance use among young people in Alameda County. We share the author's goals of addressing youth substance use and recognize that nicotine addiction among young people is a growing problem across California. However, for several reasons, we object to the bill's approach to addressing this problem. AB 18 a four would significantly expand drug testing in schools and implement measures that research shows are not only ineffective but potentially harmful. The American Academy of Pediatrics explicitly opposes drug testing in schools and without clear clinical cause.
Speaker 10
They warn that it erodes trust between students and adults, produces unreliable results, and most importantly, not treat addiction. The bill's proposal that school drug testing students as a condition of student participation in extracurricular activities and barring them from participation if they fail tests also runs counter to the research. Studies show that extracurricular activities, in fact, provide protective factors against the primary risks for substance use by youth and address the root cause of addiction. Athletics, in particular, are affected in preventing and treating substance use disorders. We believe that this bill could have negative effects on all student populations, but particularly on opportunity youth and other vulnerable groups whose engagement in school may already be tenuous and for whom extracurricular participation could really make a positive difference.
Speaker 15
We also wanna highlight the financial and relational costs of implementing drug testing in schools. Under the provisions of this bill, schools will be forced to divert limited financial resources and staff away from proven student supports. We appreciate conversations with the bill author staff and the committee's amendments. However, we remain opposed a b eighteen eighty four and ask you ask you to vote no on this bill today. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Greg Gardner. I'm the California state director for the Drug Policy Alliance, which has worked for nearly three decades in California and nationwide to advance health centered approaches to drugs that address the harms of drug use and eliminate harmful punitive approaches to drugs. DPA respectfully opposes this bill. We all want our loved ones, our communities, and particularly young people to be safe and healthy.
Speaker 8
We want to protect young people from the harms that come with drug use, including nicotine and alcohol, and ensure that young people are connected with resources that meet their needs effectively. Policies such as those proposed in AB eighteen eighty four, however, drive more students away from constructive social activities and further isolate many young people who may be struggling with mental health, anxiety, or identity. Extracurricular activities, as we've heard, when they're available and accessible, provide important opportunities for young people to connect with mentors, coaches, counselors, and other school professionals who can help them navigate the many challenges they may face. Drug check drug testing policies such as those proposed by this bill are certainly well intentioned, but they're not an effective solution and instead have detrimental impacts. Too many young people who may have tried nicotine, alcohol, or or another substance or may think they might test positive for any number of reasons are likely to avoid engaging in extracurricular activities, particularly if they fear they may face sanctions.
Speaker 12
Substance use disorders often grow out of disconnection, trauma, and unmet needs. What we need are more connections for those who are struggling and those who might try something one time. We need greater access through schools and otherwise to easily obtainable, low barrier, person centered care, mental health services, substance use disorder treatment, overdose prevention services, and evidence based drug education. In many districts, we already have insufficient resources to provide access to a range of extracurricular programs, school counselors, and elective opportunities that meet the needs of all students. Drug drug testing programs such as this, as mentioned previously, divert resources from investments that can meaningfully reduce drug use and addiction.
For those reasons, we respectfully oppose a b eighteen eighty four and urge you to vote no today.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any other members of the public here wishing to register a position of opposition?
Speaker 19
Hello. Lucy Salcedo Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education expressing opposition on behalf of the National Center for Youth Law. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Anybody else? Okay. We'll turn this back to the diocese. I'm gonna take a prerogative to maybe kick off some conversation because we have some late amendments right now that I know we wanna be able to debate and keep kinda keep in conversation. I first wanna thank the author and seem to be joint author for their careful attention and work on this issue.
I wanna commend miss Hadwick as well for bringing this issue because this is exactly the kind of the bill that somebody coming from as a mom, as a local local community member has spent some time and passion really working on this issue as personal, but also community experience that is really guiding some of the work that she's bringing to the capital to try to make a difference for all of our kids statewide. And I wanna thank you for really diving into that through that lens. As the bill was in print, I had some deep reservations and some concerns, and I think a lot of them are really overlaid with what the opposition points are are are coming out as well too. That something might be, one, a little bit too expansive. The mandates that, you know, otherwise would be in there, one would be both burdensome for a lot of our school districts to accept, I think, you know, as it was in print, but also might have a deterrence effect as well that would prevent people from wanting to sign up in the first place to do something positive, which is contribute in sports.
The second area is, you know, this I think, you know, your your intention to kind of really focus us in on athletic activities. And in fact, wanting to cite this bill as the California Student Athlete Drug Abuse Prevention Act. I deeply get the connection there between drug or nicotine or alcohol abuse or any substances for that matter and healthy participation in sports. The bill imprint was more expansive or at least it was a little vague by trying to create other extracurricular activities. So if there is a pathway here to be able to have a positive effect on this issue and everything, maybe limiting it to sport activities right now in a way that sort of contest that new paradigm and see if it kinda works.
And the third issue is one of a punitive discussion that originally there was text in there that would forbid an individual after a third positive test from being able to participate in sports as well. I feel like that would be very counterproductive to what we'd wanna see for the use betterment out there because addiction can be real. It can be fast. It can be ugly. And I would not wanna see them fall out of a positive opportunity that can help to mitigate the management of that addiction while they are trying to better themselves, get off of the substances, but not have to lose the opportunity.
That, I think, would place a youth in a position right now where they've got a void of time. They might be a little bit bummed and depressed about having lost that opportunity, and they might be more susceptible to the the addiction and and and negative activities as well. So we worked together as well to have some amendments that I think can help to move this conversation forward
Speaker 1
That we're gonna make sure something is not such a a substantial mandate, but really creates that paradigm for a local school district to be able to have the opportunity should it actually decide to have a a drug testing policy as well that it would also include nicotine as well as a part of that panel of tests and making sure that we're limiting this to sports activities and that we are not seeing this as something that is gonna be a gateway to preventing them from participating in sports for the rest of the season, but rather a diversion program, which is something you champion back in your home district as well too, I think is a good model to be able to move this forward in conversation. But notwithstanding that, there are a lot of other points that I think opposition raised that I would encourage you to continue to work with them on. Because as we had had our discussion too, you know, my my my continued fear is that this is gonna be something that is going to have some negative consequence but before it has a a net positive benefit. Right? That you're gonna have a deterrence from being able to participate in sports at all to begin with and everything.
And so, you know, the the the the devil being in the details and trying to get this right, you know, sort of creating that structure that creates creates that model guidance for all school districts to be able to act on that manages the the manages this issue well towards the the betterment of what you're trying to seek through this bill, and I believe in in in that as well too, while mitigating for any unintended consequences that might come from the implementation of this bill is something that I would encourage, you know, continued thought and discussion on. But with your acceptance of these amendments, I'm happy to have a supportive recommendation here today. I'll turn this over to any other committee members for questions or comments beginning with assembly member Gonzalez.
Speaker 8
I think you stole all the wind beneath my wings on that one. First and foremost, as a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, to see two members from from separate parties sitting together to try and solve an issue is admirable, and I thank both of you for doing that. We need to see more of that in California. So to see both of you leaders and dragon slayers, as I like to say, standing up for what you believe in is just I love it. So thank you.
Thank you just for for that piece of the of your leadership. Secondly, in in my conversations with both of you, I nine, if not 10 out of 10 times, everything that comes, from from your bills or or your your guidance is usually something that you believe in because you've seen it or you have experienced it. It comes from from home. Right? You you have real world experience.
So the chair already, spoke to that, so I won't belabor that piece. So I understand the heart behind it. To to add just a small portion of of what the, of what the chair spoke about was 100% agree with you. But I as a as a dad who had a all of my kids were in sports. Almost all of my kids were in sports.
One of my sons, he played since he was three, played soccer, and he was deathly afraid of not being picked on the next season, so he stayed away from that Mhmm. From anything that would mitigate or that would take him off the team. So he stayed, very on a clear path. And other kids who were not as afraid would end up getting kicked off or something happens and they wouldn't continue. So there is that balance that we need to strike.
I do believe there is that balance. I I hear the conversation about, the fiscal impact, to education. And to be perfectly honest, yeah, I I see that from a from a fiscal perspective. But, unfortunately, here in California, we don't invest enough money into the into our education system to do things, to to provide these types of, secondary and tertiary pieces. So, like, drug addiction.
Yes. We need we absolutely need to invest more into that when it comes to our education system. We need to raise the the level of of how we do education in California. By the way, it's you know, our teachers are doing the best they can. Our students are doing the best we can, but it is a top tier priority because they are the future.
So the balance that we have to strike is it's very no kid is the same. Mhmm. And I think, you know, as the chair alluded not alluded, talked about was the continued conversation to make sure that in good governance that we take into effect the human toll of each individual child Mhmm. Because each one is different. They're uniquely created, and I think there's a there's a balance here.
There's there's another conversation about the fiscal impact that I think needs to continue to be had. But I do I I agree with with the chair in that please continue the conversation because we wanna get it right. Mhmm. Right? We wanna make sure, but I also wanna make sure that it's not just about the money because I would do anything to protect my kids.
Anything to protect my kids. So thank you.
Speaker 19
Yes. Good after good morning still. First, this proposal, moves kinda fast, ladies. Mhmm. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but it moves faster than our systems are ready to handle.
We are layering on new requirements without fully addressing capacity, costs, and enforcement realities. That's not good policy. That's setting people up for failure. Second, we have to be honest about who bears the burden. Too often, when we pass well intended legislation without clear infrastructure or funding, it's working families and small operators and local governments who absorb the cost.
Speaker 12
And third, we are missing a critical step, stakeholders, alignment. The voices of those who will actually have to implement this policy are really opposed to this. So that means they have they're not at the table in this in this bill. I agree with you, my colleague, that investing in schools, we have forgotten about doing a lot of that when we talk about investment. I really think about arts, after school care, stuff I used to do, cooking, auto mechanics, techs, job readiness.
Speaker 19
We've abandoning we've been abandoning investment in schools, and we we really gotta get back to that. And so with that, I have a couple of questions. This bill is key physical. Who pays for ongoing random drug test testing programs across the districts?
Speaker 20
So I think there's some confusion of the amendments that were accepted. Can I clarify those? Okay. So we put safeguards up. It is no longer requiring or mandating drug tests.
This is only to add nicotine if they already have a drug testing program. So that cost is already the school is already doing that for this bill. So there will be no additional cost.
Speaker 20
statewide because you don't need changed it all yesterday very late. So it also takes the there is no punishment. They're supposed to seek treatment and connect them with treatment or diversion program. We took all of that out of the bill because of the opposition from it. And so I don't know if it will still be keep fiscal because of that.
I we haven't gotten that far because we we were figuring this out very late, yeah, late late afternoon. Late.
Speaker 20
I mean, comes from your 2B director, your public health program. They already have them set up in the communities. So so and typically and that I wanted that punishment or whatever that whatever that consequence was. I guess not punishment, but whatever that consequence was should be left up to the the school and the district and what their what their coaches and superintendents decide. So we took that entire portion out.
Speaker 19
Oh, so you guys are just adding tobacco. But Yeah. Because most coaches still there, or are they the school districts, are they still in opposition? I know there's a one one question just about the drug testing period. The American Academy of Pediatrics has expressed concern about school based drug testing.
Why are we ignoring their guidance? Did you guys know anything about this test? The American Academy of Pediatrics are at Herb. They they advise they're expressing concern about school based drug testing.
Speaker 20
Because of trust or why? Because of what they're doing. So our like, our school, they're they hire it out to a medical company that does the drug testing for jobs and stuff in the community. Most of them are hired out because the school can't legally, they can't do it typically themselves. But I we we tried to put up those safeguards.
We also have privacy things. Right now, there is no safeguards for privacy. It our bill says that they can only share it with parent, coach, and a superintendent's designee, whether that's the principal or athletic director, whatever, because I know that was one of the concerns as well. I think coaches and parents think that they're being tested for nicotine. That was a common misconception for myself as well as a coach, as a parent.
I thought they were being tested for that, and they were not. And this is coming from it's I mean, this is a personal issue for me. It's a personal issue for my colleague. It is coming from coaches and teachers and superintendents and school districts. So they didn't have letters.
We I I
Speaker 20
Yeah. Do we know how many This happened really fast, and we thought the bill was gonna be dead, honestly.
Speaker 19
Do we do we know how many districts are actually doing these testing? I
Speaker 20
we asked CIF that, but they didn't they they weren't sure because it's not a requirement for CIF, for athletes. The majority of the the districts in my my district do. I have a 101 school districts in my district. So I have a quarter of the school districts in the state in my 11 counties, and this is a huge problem for us, a huge problem. And we have to be the adults in the room and guide these kids.
They're they're not getting it at home. Their coaches are they like, nobody knows what to do. They it has become such a big issue that we are drowning, and our kids are the ones that suffer. So I know there's unintended consequences with having, you know, standards set, but the unintended consequences of us continuing to ignore this is gonna be our kids can't breathe in ten years. You know?
We don't know what they're putting in their body. It's pure chemicals. Ninety percent of vapes are illicit and coming from China. They're I mean, they have rat poison, formaldehyde, the things that they're inhaling. I mean, we we we're here to create great adults, and that is what our education system is here to do.
Athletes, yes. If they can go and be athletic be athletes, that's great too. It's a part of the experience, but we have to we have to save this generation because we don't even know how bad it's gonna be.
Speaker 19
Thank you. Just a little bit. I've raised two athletes myself. My sons played from five years old through college. Athletes are special.
We love them. And sometime, you know, I'm glad we took the suspense suspending them and kicking them off Yeah. Out of that because they need sports. Sports help children thrive. So with that, thank you for it.
Thank you for your answer.
Speaker 18
Kicking off this very, very important discussion. You know, the power of nicotine is what we're talking about. And back in my day, long time ago, nicotine was in the form of cigarettes. Mhmm. And I would tell you that what's different you guys don't know this, that you young people.
Probably about seventy percent of the population smoked. Mhmm. It was a very, very, very powerful part of our social culture.
Speaker 18
Now we have nicotine that not only comes in tobacco, it also comes in vaping and also another form called zens.
Speaker 18
I don't know if you know about those, but, they're also very, very powerful.
Speaker 18
So what we're trying to prevent here, what it seems like to me in in your proposal here on this bill, is preventing addiction.
Speaker 26
Mhmm. Addiction has many, many negative circumstances, and I appreciate the opposition's points that they're bringing out. And I I think that your willingness for balance has been proven by accepting the amendments to the fact it's bipartisan collective. So I don't know why anybody would try to stop, preventing addiction because addiction is proven. And back in the day when tobacco was so prevalent, no one really addressed the addictive net nature, and they thought that it was gonna be just fine.
Speaker 18
They were they were told that that was the case, and we now know much differently, and and tobacco use is far less prevalent than it used to be. So we're moving in the right direction, and it's because of, the actions of of others that that have allowed that to happen. So I I appreciate what you're trying to do here in preventing addiction, and it has my complete support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Is there any other committee member questions or comments? Miss Ortega.
Speaker 10
First, I wanna thank the the chair for the amendments. I think they're gonna they make a huge difference in addressing, many of the concerns that I had. Mhmm. I still have some concerns, So I wanna ask, the author, how do you ensure that this policy is applied equitably and not just appropriately targeting certain students or schools? You know, I Alameda County is here.
It's my my area. You know, it's primarily, kids of color. We don't have access to a lot of the same extracurricular activities that are made available to other parts of the states and other districts. And so I'm really concerned about this piece. You know, I I didn't have access to extracurricular activities because my parents couldn't afford it.
I wanted to be a cheerleader, but they couldn't afford the classes. They couldn't afford the the outfits. You know, I have sons. They were also very much in sports, and but I had one that was constantly, you know, needed extra support. And if his coach had said, oh, you smoked cigarette one time, you will no longer be able to play, that would have been devastated his entire life because he lived for for, for that sport.
And so I'm glad to see that those parts were taken out in terms of the punishment or consequences, because we have seen that this, oftentimes, they they don't do what they're supposed to do. I mean, it's a it's facts. We have research.
Speaker 10
It's been stated here. So, I'll stop there and let you answer my first question.
Speaker 21
I can. It's fine. What I wanted to say was coming on board now as a joint author, me coming on as a joint author was honestly based upon removing the the things that we're already discussing. So, that is removing the mandate, that's removing the suspension, and that's push pushing people to the diversion programs. Currently, in San Diego, looking at San Diego Unified, Lincoln High School, Morris High School, and others, we are already doing this.
We already have the stop the stop stop the vape campaign. We have partners within our district, so we have some community organizations that are also partnering with us to talk about drug addiction, talk about nicotine, and then, of course, the ways to to stop this process. They have relationships with different diversion programs as well. And so students who, who are currently going down this this path have been referred to different programs. And it's not at the hands of the district.
We have community partners that have stepped in, and they're doing the work to provide the service. The reason why I highlighted these schools is because in my district, that is the urban community. You know, it's it's it's black and brown. And this campaign, when I got involved in this, is coming from the basketball coach. It's coming from the football coach.
It's also coming from from our soccer coaches, and they're all extremely concerned as they've had to revive kids who have collapsed in the middle of games and so forth. So this is a big issue, but it is happening in San Diego Unified. They are addressing it, and they have brought in the community, partners to help support the work for what they're doing.
Speaker 10
So just to do a follow-up. So you don't you don't have concerns that some districts will face, harsher impacts, due to limited resources and and access to support?
Speaker 21
There's always concern. There's always gonna be concern, especially when it comes down to equity, when it comes down to the funding part of it. So we there's always gonna be a concern, and it it is important that we do everything we can to obviously provide and find some type of balance to be able to move forward. So just know me sitting here, I will never say I don't have the concern because I do. The question become how do we get to that point and make sure that the parents can still afford, make sure that that kids still have access and that they are, actually seeking positive support services through the whole process.
So that would be us talking to the restorative justice program from the county office of Ed and other options that are available, community schools programs and etcetera, and doing every everything we can to partner with them for additional support. So there always have to be equity component in anything that we move forward with.
Speaker 20
And and this bill just adds it to existing schools that are already doing an existing random drug test. So now they have computer systems that they plug in names. It automatically pulls out people. It's not it's I don't think it's quite as biased as it used used to be in most areas. I I I can't prove that either way.
So, but it is just to simply add nicotine to the drug testing that they're already doing.
Speaker 10
I mean, I I disagree with that statement, but, I appreciate your efforts here. I'm gonna go ahead and support it today, because of the work that you've made and your willingness to continue talking to our chair and our committee members. You know, I I understand what you're trying to do in terms of the the nicotine, and, you know, I've worked on a number of bills this year and last year related to limiting, you know, access to nicotine and the health impacts that it has in our community. I understand the issues and the concerns with when it comes to vaping and how, kids are accessing Mhmm. A lot of these, new vapes.
But, you know, I, again, I still have some concerns, but I'm willing to support it today, because of your efforts, and I see your overall goal. So thank you.
Speaker 17
First, I wanted to thank Sage, just as a young person sharing your perspective given that I know so many young people are struggling right now around vaping. Like, I think we we recognize it as a problem. We appreciate your voice in this, conversation given, you know, just the importance of hearing directly from the folks who are most impacted. I wanted to ask, Greg, the when it's in opposition, if you could just share why you're still in opposition given a lot of the changes, because I think I'm also struggling and share some of the concerns of my colleagues, but wanna be thoughtful about what is still holding back and and kinda keeping that opposition.
Speaker 12
Thank you, assembly member. I appreciate that question. Sorry. Sorry. Through the chair.
Speaker 1
And that's fine. And and will be fair. Yep. These amendments, you know, were just negotiated yesterday as well. So I did wanna afford the opposition to, state their points, but also recognize that you need time to process these amendments and think about any future improvements.
Speaker 12
Thank you, chair. Yes. We are still processing the amendments, but, generally, we oppose programs like this, that tend to lead with, identifying students, stigmatizing students, you know, pushing people away from constructive activities. So generally, you know, we have concerns about drug testing programs like this, even when it's simply just adding on top of existing programs. That being said, you know, I also have concerns.
We have concerns with the the way that the language may address diversion,
Speaker 12
how it might push people. You know, I think the language was was push students into diversion, young people. I think that could look very different in a lot of different places around the state. And I think that when we designate when we leave discretion to designate a wide range of school personnel to know the results of a drug test, it really creates opportunities for students to be, marginalized and, and and further stigmatized, and that causes some concerns. Also, the diversion program, diversion is used in a lot of different contexts, the word diversion, and it can look very different in a lot of different contexts.
Often, is, you know, diverting somebody from a negative consequence, giving somebody an opportunity to do something instead of a negative consequence, a punishment, or a sanction, that is what it may look like to a lot of students. And so the feeling may be the same. The marginalization, the isolation, the you know, pushing them away from constructive mentors may look the same to a lot of kids that are are entering that. So that's why we would have concerns. We may have concerns with that.
I if, you know, if the chair would like, I'm happy to address some other things that I think might be more constructive in terms of approaches to dealing with vaping and and like issues because we certainly share concerns about vaping, the health impacts, and nobody wants to prevent addiction. Thank you, Trudy.
Speaker 17
Thank you. And just appreciate oh, you wanted to share as well? Just appreciate you sharing on that perspective. Go ahead.
Speaker 15
Thank you so much. So we do share the concerns on the potential for marginalization due to testing in and of itself. We do also agree that testing in and of itself can be viewed as a punishment by young people. And we disagree with the statement that this expansion of testing because adding nicotine would expand testing. It would expand who's tested.
Would expand the number of tests. That would expand the number of students impacted by the unintended negative consequences of testing. It would expand the costs. Having looked at these tests, they can range from $7 to $15 each, so the total cost could be quite expensive. And to some member Ortega's point, there is a potential for a disproportionate impact on our disadvantaged and disenfranchised youth because in many schools, there are in some schools, there are random drug testing.
But this according to our staff, we've talked to social workers, we've talked to nurses. We've talked to principals. We've talked to district administrators, and their perspective is that testing in schools is somewhat limited at this time and is often used when there is clinical cause. So to now be looking for clinical cause for nicotine, as these members stated, this can be harder to spot. So there is an element of bias that could be introduced into who do you identify for testing and who is there for because of that testing pushed out of these really, really valuable activities.
Speaker 1
Thank the motion by mister Gonzales, which I'll be happy to second. Thank you. I just wanna close and, again, thank the author and and joint author as well for continued thought and debate on this. Obviously, like, you know, we're balancing, you know, some very thoughtful issues that don't undercut, I think, the ultimate issue that you are trying to solve for here, and that is really to dissuade against any addictive use by our youth as they continue to better themselves and and grow into healthy and successful adults. And I think that with that continued conversation, I know this has more committee hearings ahead should it get out of this committee.
That can afford some more time to digest the improvements that are made here today and other issues that may need to be worked on going forward as well, which I look forward to maintaining conversation as a part of that as well. Happy to invite you to close. And
Speaker 20
I just want to say thank you for the conversations. We truly I think we all have the same goal at the end of the day. We want our kids happy and healthy and successful. And we unfortunately have to set some standards to do that. And this is, I think, testing for nicotine.
I disagree with some of the things that were said by the opposition, but that's why we have a healthy debate. But we're happy to continue that conversation. I we're we're failing them. That I mean, there's no other way to say it. We we are failing our kids right now, and we can't ignore it anymore.
And I feel like we we we all are we all have the same goal, but we don't have the same path to get there. And and maybe it's different in Northern California than it is Southern California. It probably is because our communities are all different. This bill allows the schools to make that choice and allows them the tools to that they need in their toolbox to help keep their kids healthy. So I very thankful for for the work and the the collaboration on this, and thank you to my colleague, assembly member, Sharpe Collins, for partnering with me on this very important issue.
I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 16
AB eighteen eighty four do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Education. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Lackey?
El Harari?
Speaker 16
Jeff Gonzalez, aye. McKinnon? No. McKinnon, no. Ortega?
Aye. Ortega, aye. Porgsilva? Valencia? Spur.
Speaker 1
Okay. That currently has three votes. We'll hold the role of Pravicent members, and thank you for the presentation today. I am going to need to go to a committee to present a bill. Hopefully, it'll be faster than not faster.
Either of you are you is anybody here to stay? Yeah.
Speaker 1
I'll hand the gavel over to miss Ortega. I will invite assembly member Haney.
Speaker 1
You are. Okay. So great. So we'll invite member assembly member Wallace to come up and present his bill. This will be a b twenty five zero three, which also has committee amendments.
I'll ask the secretary to be able to pass those out. Well, hopefully, I'll be back in time to be able to discuss all of that, but I look forward to your presentation, and we'll see you
Speaker 13
Well, good morning, madam chair and members of the committee. I have before you today assembly bill twenty five zero three, which maintains a strong commitment to student athlete welfare while ensuring that youth sports remain accessible, competitive, and viable. One size fits all heat guidelines have put Desert schools at a disadvantage. It's harder for Desert student athletes to fully participate in the sports they love. Schedules are disrupted when practices go late into the evening, which burdens families.
Speaker 25
Parents, coaches, and athletic directors are united in calling for relief. They want guidelines that reflect the realities of our climate and account for the unique heat acclimatization among athletes who train and compete in it every day. For some high schools in the early season, as many as half of all scheduled practices have been pushed into the evening hours just to comply with existing regulations. These long and strenuous nights take a measurable toll on both athletic performance and academic achievement, which then accelerates athlete burnout. I've had a lot of great conversations with the the chair, of the committee, and I do remain fully committed to the rep recommended path forward, working directly with CIF and the Department of Education to rig rigorously examine the feasibility of modifying the current wet bulb globe temperature guidelines.
I'm also committed to working with the opposition and acknowledging the legitimate concerns surrounding artificial turf fields. Joining me today is Kendra Calderon, a certified athletic trainer from Rancho Mirage High School to provide testimony and answer any questions the committee may have.
Speaker 6
Hi. Thank you, mister chair and the committee members. Thank you. I'm Kendra Calderon. I'm the athletic trainer at Rancho Mirage High School.
I've been the athletic trainer in the Desert for thirteen years now. And in those thirteens, I've on thirteen years, I've only had one heat stroke case. This case happened on a Saturday morning after a Friday night game, and he had not, properly hydrated and ate. During this time of the year that this happened, our temperatures are about low or high eighties, low nineties for full duration of our outdoor practice. Through my years of experience, this treatment, this is a testament of how our student athletes acclimatize to our desert.
Our acclimatization period has already started for us across the desert. Just a couple of weeks ago, we were at a 107 degrees, and the wet bulb reading was at 88.9. Yeah. And this starts in the spring, with our spring practices when temperatures are well into the low hundreds and with no gear and continues into our summer months. To ensure the safety of our student athletes, I do follow the National Athletic Training Position Statement for exertional heat illness.
In addition, all our coaches are required to take heat illness prevention courses with n a f n a NFHS. Sorry. As soon as the athletes show any signs and symptoms of heat illness, they are pulled out of practice, and we begin the cooling process right away. This is taking them off the field, putting them in an air conditioned position air conditioned building, and getting them with cool wet towels or putting them in a cold submersion. And then also start replenishing any electrolytes that we have.
As Assemblyman Wallace stated, our fall season sports cannot hold practice or competitions right after school like normal high schools with our current guidelines. Our student athletes get out of school at 03:40, then they don't start practice till 05:45, 06:00 at night.
Speaker 1
the means to go home and come back, which leaves them stranded at school. Before these guidelines were set in the law, there were guidelines that our local community college had set, and we had a threshold of 93.7, and that worked really well for our community. It just shows the capacity that our athletes have for acclimatizing to our desert. Last year alone, we had 15 practices that either were canceled or postponed. By increasing our threshold, we would be able to get half of those practices in with different guidelines, thus keeping our student athletes engaged in our after school programs.
Speaker 10
Thank you. Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support? Seeing none. Do we have, any primary witnesses in opposition?
Seeing none, I will turn it over to our one member. Any questions, comments? Okay. Thank you, mister Wallace, for bringing this forward. I appreciate you taking the amendments put forward by our chair.
And seeing, no other members wishing to comment, would you like to close?
Speaker 25
Yeah. Just, very appreciative of the chair and the committee staff's work on getting this bill, to a good place where we can move forward, and just respect the request and I vote at the appropriate time.
Speaker 10
We have first, motion and a I'll second. Secretary, could you please call the roll?
Speaker 16
A b twenty five zero three, the motion is due passed as amended to the Assembly Committee on Education. Ward, Lackie, Elhawari, Jeff Gonzales?
Speaker 16
voting. McKinnon not voting. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye.
Quirk Silva, Valencia, Spur. Valencia, aye. Spur.
Speaker 10
Okay. So we'll just, pause for a bit as we wait for additional members to come and present their bills. Before AB nineteen fifty four award, assembly member, whenever you are ready.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you, madam chair and members. I wanna thank you for the opportunity to present AB nineteen fifty four, which is protecting access to reservations or the PAR Act. Golf is an incredibly popular sport in California, and its courses attract tourists from all around the world. There are more than 220 golf courses in California, are municipally owned by cities, counties, charter cities, the state. As part of the publicly owned park systems, these courses operate at below market value and make them maximally available to local residents, seniors, juniors, school athletes, local clubs, and civic organizations.
This pricing creates a demand for tee times in California's urban areas that are among the highest in the nation. AB nineteen fifty four is necessary to prevent bad actors from continuing to take advantage of golf course reservation systems for personal gain as well as taking the opportunities from local residents whose taxpayer dollars go towards the upkeep and maintenance of those public and municipal facilities. This bill is addressing an issue being experienced by municipal golf courses across the state where individuals are booking reservations for tee times and reselling them at inflated prices. Some are setting up websites that look like they are affiliated with the golf course where the URL or name is similar, but they do not have any agreement in place with the golf course. AB nineteen fifty four fixes this problem by requiring the operators of third party golf reservation service platforms to have a written agreement with the golf course operators to authorize the listing, advertising, promoting, or selling your reservations for those golf courses.
With me today to speak in support of the bill is Craig Kessler, the executive director of the California Lines for Golf, and Rick Reinschmidt, the golf manager for Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation.
Speaker 23
Craig Kessler, executive director of California Alliance for Golf. I'm gonna repeat some of the some of what the assembly member said, but there are about one out of four golf courses in the state of California are municipally owned, cities, counties, charter cities, and the state itself. As part of publicly owned park systems, these courses operate for business models that forego maximal revenue generation in favor of making them universally and equitably available to local residents, seniors, juniors, school athletes, local clubs, and civic organizations. Because California's urban areas are among the most golf starved in the nation, this model creates a demand for tee time second to none in the nation. It has also created opportunities for third party tee time brokers to capture and broker those times at inflated prices and in the process substantially reduce the already strained supply of recreational opportunities available to California residents, siphon resources that might otherwise accrue to the benefit of golf enterprise funds and general funds of municipal park departments, and turn them more into de facto playgrounds for the privileged than recreational sites equitably available to local residents, seniors, juniors, school athletes, local clubs, local charities, and civic organizations.
AB nineteen fifty four would give the state's cities, counties, charter cities, and the state itself a tool in the form of a civil remedy to restrain third party brokering that is not performed by consent of the parties. This is a tool they do not now have and one that only the state can provide. To be clear, a b nineteen fifty four would not affect the many agreements freely entered into between municipal golf operators and third party operators that benefit both municipalities and the golfers who patronize their publicly owned parkland courses. Bill Sponsor, California Alliance for Golf, thanks assembly member Ward for his leadership in on this issue and respectfully asks for your I vote.
Speaker 20
Good morning. Rick Reinschmidt, city of Los Angeles golf manager. The city of Los Angeles operates one of the largest municipal golf systems in the nation, serving more than 1,000,000 golfers annually. The mission of our golf program is the same mission we pursue for all the recreational amenities we offer at our public parkland spaces, affordable, accessible, equitable access. In recent years, we have experienced challenges related to third party individuals and entities reserving public tee times for the purpose of reselling them at significantly higher prices.
Speaker 26
This practice restricts fair access and undermines our ability to keep golf affordable and equitably available. In April 2024, we implemented a nonrefundable green fee deposit requirement at the time of booking a tee time, Fully funded by our golf patrons and designed to discourage speculative reservations, this measure has restored a measure of integrity and equitable access to our reservation system. However, relying solely on internal administrative measures to counter those seeking to profit from Los Angeles' commitment to affordable, accessible, recreation is not sustain is not a sustainable solution. Without stronger legal protections, these efforts remain vulnerable. AB nineteen fifty four would offer that stronger legal protection by making the unauthorized resale of public golf tee times unlawful and subject to civil enforcement, thereby preserving the integrity of public reservation systems and protecting equitable access for all golfers.
This is a tool that only the state can provide, and a b nineteen fifty four would provide it. We'd like to thank assembly member Ward for his leadership on this issue and respectfully request an I vote. Thank
Speaker 7
Hi there. Serena Scott on behalf of the League of California Cities in support.
Speaker 21
Morning, chair and members. Moira Top on behalf of San Diego mayor Todd Gloria in support.
Speaker 27
Good morning, members. Kevin Fitzgerald on behalf of the Southern California Golf Association in strong support.
Speaker 10
Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any main witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I will come back to the committee for any comments or questions.
Speaker 8
Yeah. Thank you, madam chair. I I just have one question. I I have a 100 and some odd I think it's a 120 golf courses just in my district. And throughout the Coachella Valley, it's it's significant.
We have some public ones, and this is what it's specifically talking about. I I might have missed it. I tried looking for it, but I just wanna talk about quickly the the enforcement mechanism associated with this. So if, from what I'm hearing, the problem is someone's buying up a whole bunch of reservations, tee times, and then reselling them for a higher cost. What's the enforcement mechanism in there with that this bill talks to, or is there one already in place?
Speaker 19
The enforcement mechanism would create a cause of action on behalf of those municipalities that are agreed, so they would have something more than quite honestly, I know Rick Reinschmidt from the city of LA is here. I know they came to us along with mother number of other cities in the state of California and said that when they sat down with some of these brokers, they got laughed at and saying that everything they was do everything they were doing was legal. So this gives them the minimal tool necessary to at least, file a civil action.
Speaker 8
So it says you would for instance, city of LA, the county of LA, you would then sue them for for doing such a a thing. It would be incumbent upon you to do that. Is that correct?
Speaker 8
Civilly. Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much. I appreciate the the author for for this bill, especially in, we call it, tennis heaven and golf heaven in, in the Greater Palm Springs, Coachella Valley region, and I'm sure everyone over there is is paying attention to this.
So I appreciate the author, and because of that, I'll I'll be in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I think, very simply at the crux of this bill, you know, we are seeing an influx of opportunists that are taking over what is meant to be an affordable, available opportunity for many of our residents to be able to enjoy the experience of golf. And as we are seeing that, that action happening, we have an opportunity to be able to correct the record. This isn't unlike we are seeing, you know, bots and other activities going on in other areas of online sales. But because it is so acute here for the specific issue and pertaining to this committee's jurisdiction, I respectfully request your I vote on a b nineteen fifty four.
Speaker 10
Second. Second. Assemblymember's Valencia. Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 16
AB nineteen fifty four do pass to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Ward?
Speaker 16
Jeff Jeff Gonzalez, aye. McKinnon? Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye.
Quirk Silva? Valencia? Yes. Valencia, aye. Zuber?
Speaker 1
Thank you. Okay. We're back at it, and we will await an author. I think we have two more bills to dispense with today. At this time, just to save a little bit of time, we'll go ahead and open the roll for members that previously missed.
We'll go back to the top with a b sixteen twenty six to catch any absent members. Madam secretary?
Speaker 16
A b sixteen twenty six, the motion was due passed as amended to the Assembly Committee on Education. Valencia? Yes. Valencia I? Zuber?
Elhawari?
Speaker 1
Current role is seven zero. We'll hold that open for absent members. And a b eighteen eighty four, Hadwick with amendments.
Speaker 16
A b eighteen eighty four do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Education. Valencia? No. Valencia, no. If we had everybody else.
Okay.
Speaker 1
That is now three two. We'll hold that roll open for absent members. And, a b twenty five zero three.
Speaker 16
A b twenty five zero three do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Education. Ward? Aye. Ward, I. El Harari?
Aye. El Harari, I.
Speaker 1
Current role is five zero. We will hold the role of the members and await an author. Schultz for the win.
Speaker 1
Alright. Next up will be item number five. This will be assembly bill twenty three nineteen. Mister Schultz, when you and your lead witnesses are available, you may go ahead and begin your presentation.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much, mister chair, and thank you so much for fitting me into a a narrow window as I step out of my own committee. I am incredibly proud and pleased to present Assembly Bill twenty three nineteen today. California remains the center of the global film and television industry, but post production work including editorial sound, scoring, visual effects, and finishing is increasingly being performed in other jurisdictions that offer targeted incentives. Current law limits eligibility for the California motion picture tax credit primarily to projects that complete principal photography in the state of California. As a result, post production work is often moved to competing jurisdictions that offer standalone or more flexible incentives for post production activity.
Speaker 2
Some of these states and countries that we are competing with, and quite frankly, we are trailing substantially include New York, New Jersey, Canada, The United Kingdom, and Australia, all of which offer incentives that allow productions filmed elsewhere to to complete postproduction locally while still qualifying for tax credits. These policies have led to the migration of high wage jobs, vendor spending, and related economic activity out of the state of California. Major post production editorial facilities, including scoring stages operated by Sony, Fox, Warner Brothers, and Skywalker Sound, are generating substantially less revenue than in prior years and face the risk of closure. Economic analysis demonstrates that post production incentives generate significant returns on public investment through increased taxable wages, local vendor spending, and broader ancillary economic activity. Simply put, without a targeted post production incentive, the state of California risks losing a critical segment of the entertainment industry supply chain even when creative leadership remains based in our state.
Speaker 9
Eighty twenty three nineteen creates the California post production tax credit, a targeted incentive for qualified post production expenditures performed in California regardless of where principal photography occurred and subject to program requirements and oversight. This post production tax credit is not tied to the $750,000,000 budget of the motion picture tax credit that was passed by this legislature last year. I've submitted a pending budget request to establish the separate funding for this post production credit. To be eligible for the post production credit, the project either needs to be filmed outside of California or be a project that was filmed in California but did not receive the motion picture tax credit. A project cannot double dip and receive both credits.
As the analysis correctly notes, the bill before us today is a work in progress. I will continue to work with the studios, labor unions, and others to to so that future amendments will ensure that this post production tax credit can provide benefits to workers while attracting more post production work to come to the state of California. With me today to speak in support of a b twenty three nineteen is Karen Baker Landers with the California Post Alliance, sponsor of the bill, as well as f Hudson Miller, president of the Motion Picture Editors Guild, IACI Local seven hundred.
Speaker 29
Good morning. My name is f Hudson Miller, and I come to you as president of the Motion Picture Editors' Guild, the world's preeminent labor union for postproduction professionals. We have more than 7,500 members nationally, 6,200 right here in California, which is the heart of our film industry. But our heart is ailing. Economists can rattle off all kinds of statistics.
I can share with you the fact that we lost over 6% of our California membership in a single year. But these aren't just numbers to us. These are hundreds of dedicated artists and craftspeople who are no longer confident they can support themselves and their families doing the work they love right here in the state of California, the state that they love. That's why we should follow the lead of other states and establish a stand alone post production tax credit. We loudly and proudly back the concept of this bill.
But at the same time, we need to get it right. A b twenty three one nineteen or one nine, as currently written, has no meaningful labor standards. We need language ensuring credits go to supporting middle class jobs with meaningful health care and retirement benefits. We appreciate that the committee's analysis underscores this need. Right here are more than 1,300 letters our members have sent to this committee.
Speaker 14
I I know they've been arriving in all your mailboxes. Their collective message is first amend and then pass a b twenty three nineteen. Our members work the magic of transforming raw footage into stories that transfix the world. With the help of other stakeholders, we can shape a b twenty three nineteen into a law that will keep good union jobs here in California, the state that has been the mecca of film filmmaking and moviemaking for over a century. In our business, there's a saying for when something's not quite right in the script or didn't go perfectly on set, and that saying is, let's fix it in post.
Speaker 30
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Karen Baker Landers. I'm a supervising sound designer. I'm also the vice president of the California Post Alliance, and, I've worked in the film industry for over thirty five years. I'm also a union member.
And I'm here today to speak, in support of the postproduction community. Because postproduction is so misunderstood, it's been incredibly underrepresented. It's said that a movie is born three times, when the script is written, when it's filmed in production, and, again, when it's, where it comes to life in post. The current four point o incentive, which both Nick and Hudson have said, it it covers films it only covers films that have shot in California. However, films often shoot elsewhere for creative purposes.
Speaker 29
AB twenty three nineteen does complement four point o by incentivizing projects that do not shoot here otherwise, and otherwise did not qualify for the four point o program. Because we currently don't have a post only incentive, California is becoming less and less of a viable option for studios and filmmakers that desperately want to stay here. Projects are going to territories, as Nick said, like New York, New Jersey, Georgia, New Mexico, Spain, Canada, The UK, Ireland, and Australia, all which offer a stand alone post production incentive. This has had a devastating effect on our jobs. My crew and I have to leave California on many occasions to work.
Speaker 30
A few years ago, it hit me. We've been training our replacements. There's a negative narrative about California, about the film industry, that we've lost our luster, that we're the next Detroit, and I refuse to accept that. I love this state because it's special. California is a vibe.
It's a bright light in what can be a very dark world at times. People still come here from all over because they believe this place is magic. It's called California Dreamin'. California has such an incredibly complex and unique mix of voices that need to be heard. The film and entertainment industry gives them that chance.
Speaker 30
Okay. I know for sure and I'm well, I'll just say this. One thing I do know for sure is that the world is watching to see what California does next because they know if we get this right, it's game on for California.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public here wishing to, state a position of support? Please push the microphone, and if you could have your name, organization if represented, and position.
Speaker 4
Hi there. My name is Marielle Bounza, and I'm president of the California Post Alliance. I'm also executive vice president of Signature Post, an organization a a post sound that has been affected. I am in strong and urgent support of AB twenty three nineteen.
Speaker 1
Good morning. Keira Ross on behalf of the city of Burbank in support of the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Good morning. My name is Sharon Miller. I'm a vice president of the Editors Guild and, professional in the postproduction industry for seventeen years. I strongly urge support of this bill with amended labor standard language. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Hello. I'm Jennifer Fried. I am a small business owner of Tirvana Post. We support the post production industry, and I'm also with the California Post Alliance in strong support and urgency of this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 32
Thank you, mister member mister chair and members, Jason Schmelzer on behalf of California Arts Advocates in strong support.
Speaker 14
Hello. My name is, Michael McCusker. I am a picture editor, member of IATSE seven hundred and Kappa, and I am in wholehearted support of this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Good morning. My name is Tricia Rodrigo. I'm here with IATSE Local seven hundred, the Editors Guild, and I strongly support the passage of assembly bill twenty three nineteen after it's amended to include strong labor standards. Thank you.
Speaker 24
Good morning. Mike Robson here on behalf of the Walt Disney Company. We know that Walt Disney doesn't have a official position on the bill today. Here to speak in support of the bill's passage and can and, you know, we're meeting with the author. We wanna continue to work on on language.
The Walt Disney Company is the parent company of Industrial Light Magic, which I think most of you might know is the birthplace of visual effects, and and we wanna make sure that Bill's crafted in a way to VFX is a, you know, major component of post production. We wanna make sure Bill's crafted in a way best serve the VFX industry going forward. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. We have no registered opposition on file, but is there any members of the public here wishing to state a position of opposition? Okay. Seeing none, we'll turn this back to committee members for questions or comments to some member Gonzalez.
Speaker 8
When, thank you, mister chair. When when, our colleague passed it last year, it was huge for and I supported him on it. It was huge for for California. Especially in the Coachella Valley, we get a lot of off-site filming that goes on there across the board through that region, and it puts folks to work. And that's what we want here in California.
We're all in agreement with that. Fact that this takes it a little bit further for for the post side of things. Also, you know, I think that's part of the good governance side. We gotta continue to massage this all the way through. That's why I appreciate the author bringing this up.
You know, there's a there's a lot of bills this year that talk to actually mimicking what what was done last year and then also this year. So because of your efforts and, several members of Burr's effort, we're looking at other industries when we can do the exact same thing. So because of that, we will be in support because this is what California is asking for. It's asking for an affordable California, and it's asking for Californians to be employed. So in a district, in a county that has a 20% unemployment rate, we need jobs, and we need California jobs.
So thank you to the author. And for that, I'll be in support. Thank you. Thank
Speaker 1
you. Any other member questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none, I wanna also thank and commend the author for initiating this work, and we know that there's some work that needs to be done on this, particularly as it involves making sure that the program one, like, includes very strong labor standards. I think that's a goal.
We don't wanna see this ultimately be used for utilization of AI in post production, but rather this is about keeping our jobs and enhancing our jobs here in the state of California. So we know that's gonna be something essential for this to continue to move forward in the process. You know, very supportive, of course, the work that our committee members, Assemblyman Zabird, did last year on Assembly Bill eleven thirty eight. We understand the massive role that postproduction does play in not just the lifespan of the the the movies, the the wonderful finished product that we have in editing and sound effects, visual effects, and and so much more. So we wanna make sure that those jobs, even if something is actually filmed elsewhere, are those jobs are retained here as all that film comes back into California and the work is completed for that third version I learned of how actually the movie comes to life.
So we wanna be supportive of this. Of course, it's gonna be a lot of fiscal conversation as well that you're gonna have to navigate to. You're establishing a program here. We're improving upon the parameters of that program, and we're gonna have to work on the budget side of things to make sure everything is right. So definitely a lot of work ahead of us, but if you're successful, this can be something that would be very, instrumental, to being able to keep this, subset of jobs that we here that we very
Speaker 1
wanna stay here in California and continue to grow in California. So with that, I invite you to close.
Speaker 9
Well, thank you very much, mister chair. I'll try to be brief. I wanna begin by thanking the committee and your staff for your work on the bill. I also wanna thank my witnesses for being here today. She's very modest, but miss Landers probably didn't mention that she's the first woman to win the Academy Award, not once, but twice for sound editing.
And that's the kind of talent that we wanna keep in California. I also wanna acknowledge mister Miller from the guild, and I would say it's relatively rare to have someone testifying in support of a bill and saying that there are problems that we need to work out, but I bring that up to say they both understand the urgency. This is not a bill that can afford to wait a year to come forward. There are jobs that will be lost and will not be here in a year's time, and this is why this conversation needs to move forward now. The second of three points I wanna briefly make, mister chair, is what's at stake.
California share of post production has fallen from 53 to 42% in about a ten to fifteen year span. We're talking about eight hun forgive me. We're talking about more than, 4,000 jobs lost, $1,630,000,000 in economic activity lost, $507,000,000 in wages lost. And so the point I will close with, mister chair, is this. This is an issue that's deeply personal to me and to my district.
Not a day goes by that I don't talk to one of my neighbors. Not in the abstract sense. I mean, like, literally my next door neighbors who cannot find work because jobs are leaving. This is not something that we can study a year from now. It needs to be acted upon now.
You have my full commitment that I will work with every possible stakeholder to to develop the very best possible version of this bill because we need something to pass this year. And I'll leave you with this, mister chair. I think that my, my colleague from Indio said it perfectly. If there was ever a bipartisan issue of this time, it is addressing affordability. It's keeping jobs in our state.
I view this as a win that we can accomplish for every Californian because postproduction doesn't just happen in Los Angeles. It is across our great state. There are so many good jobs at stake. With that, I respectfully and pleafully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Is there a motion for the bill? Moved. Moved by mister Gonzalez. Is there a second?
Second. Second by miss Ortega. Some, madam secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 16
AB twenty three nineteen, the motion is due passed to the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation. Ward? Aye. Ward, I. Lackey?
El Harari? Jeff Gonzalez?
Speaker 16
Jeff Gonzalez, I. McKinnor? Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye.
Quirk Silva, Valencia? Yes. Valencia, aye. Zur.
Speaker 1
Our last bill for the day, but not the least, will be item number two, Assembly Bill seventeen twenty.
Speaker 1
And as your witnesses are approaching the bench, you may go ahead and begin your presentation.
Speaker 28
Thank you so much, mister chair. And members, I wanna first thank the chair and your staff for your work on the bill and accept the committee amendments. AB seventeen twenty two 20 is the California Fans First Act. This bill will put fans first by protecting fans from excessive ticket price gouging by capping the resale price of tickets for concerts and other live entertainment events at no more than 10% above face value, including fees. I don't have to tell this committee about how important live performance and live events are for our state.
In every corner of our state, these events are generating, millions and millions of dollars in revenue, tens and hundreds of thousands of jobs, and they are, even more than that, bringing incredible culture and community and connection to our state. We are the number one state for live events in the country and one of the most important places for generating live events and culture, arts, and music in the world. For decades, our residents could access these events that are so important and essential to their lives and their communities in a very simple way. They would line up at the box office, and they would purchase a ticket. And when tickets were accessed that way, our residents, our constituents could go to these events at affordable prices.
Even some of the largest acts in the world were accessible to California residents, when they purchased those tickets directly. But, unfortunately, with the transition of ticket sales to online online platforms and the rise of ticket scalping, it has become a highly profitable scheme, which is increasingly out of reach for so many of our residents. If we allowed what is happening now online to happen in person, it would be so ridiculous that there would be an outcry to ban it immediately. There is no reason we should allow folks to come forward, buy all the tickets before regular fans could get there. If that happened if you imagine what that would look like in person, if somebody lined up before you could get there, bought all the tickets, even blocked the entrances in some cases for you to even get to the to the box office, and then held these tickets behind their back and forced you to pay $4.05, $6.10 times as much for the ticket cost if you bought it directly.
That would be madness. But that's exactly what is happening right now, online. Professional scalpers purchase large number of tickets the moment they go up on sale and immediately upload them to secondary resale websites. The result of this is that fans are paying an average of 200 plus percent over face value when purchasing these tickets on resale platforms, and 90 plus percent of the tickets that go onto these platforms are being sold by these professional brokers and scalpers. All of us have examples of seeing this in our communities.
Nearly every single live performance has egregious examples of this now. In San Francisco, we just had 20 shows from Sam Smith. They reopened the Castro Theater. It was an incredible experience for our city. The second these tickets went on sale at an affordable price, $120 for general admission, they were all swooped up largely from these secondary brokers and scalpers.
And if you wanted to buy a ticket at that point for any of these shows, you had to go into the secondary market and pay 600, $708,100 dollars. The difference between that $120 when it was sold upfront and the $700 that fans were paying, that went all in the pockets of these professional scalpers, many of whom are out of state, none of whom have built a venue, none of whom are paying janitors or performers or playing instruments. They've contributed nothing to the actual event, but they're extracting and speculating from directly from the pockets of our residents and taking it not only of the pockets of residents and who sent and fans who simply wanna see their favorite artists, but they're also not contributing anything to the folks who are making the music and providing for the venues, and that's hurting the overall, opportunity for live events and venues in our state. 14 US states, including New York, Wisconsin, and was Washington have introduced similar legislation as this. Many other countries are already operating with this model.
Denmark, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, and Norway have successfully implemented bans or caps on ticket scalping. I wanna be very clear that this bill specifically does not apply to sporting events and tickets owned by season ticket holders or license holders for sporting events. These are fundamentally different and more of a a subscription based model, and it will continue to allow early access for some of those season ticket holders. But by limiting excessive markups, this bill will remove the financial incentive that drives large scale ticket scalping while still allowing everyday fans to resell tickets if they cannot attend and recover their costs. This is incredibly important not only for our residents or fans who simply wanna see their favorite artist, a comedy show, a musical, but also in supporting the musicians, the artists, the folks who actually, spend their time and energy and and and resources to make this happen and ensuring that they have the support and the venues who are struggling as well.
And so I'm very proud to have a a huge coalition of artists, of recording industry, of independent venues supporting this bill. And with with me to testify in support is Joe Rinaldi, owner of Music Box San Diego, and Ron Gubitz, the executive director of the Music Artist Coalition.
Speaker 27
Good afternoon, chair ward and members. I'm Joe Rinaldi. I built a venue in, I'm also the national I'm sorry. National Independent Venue Association's president for the chapter for California, and I represent 650, venues, promoters, and festivals, across the state. Everything that, assembly member Haney's brought up affects us on our daily daily operation of these venues.
Thanks for the opportunity to speak in support of a b seventeen twenty, and thank you, mister Haney, for your valuable leadership on this matter. We're currently witnessing a market in failure. The free market, this would be fine if it didn't have this diversion principle of secondary markets taking tickets out of the transaction before the public has access to them as was described by, mister Haynie. This diversion has negative implications and negative externalities across our business model. We run a business.
We host artists. We host customers. We pave with that ticket money, the cost of operating shows, the cost of artist fees, and then we try to maintain customer confidence in this transaction. Currently, that customer views this transaction as a bit of the Wild West. We're facing a public relations battle as they think they're buying these tickets at this exorbitant overcharge from us, and it takes some doing to reconvince them that we are not that actor and that actor is a third party.
Speaker 6
Venues also wind up operating at a fraction of their capacity even though they've sold every possible ticket because a byproduct of industrial diversion and ticketing is that I might sell 700 tickets, and I might only have 500 people come into the venue. Their their model does not intend to sell every ticket. It provides us a a new challenge that we have not faced, you know, that we've seen in the past three to five years that seems like it's compounding over time. And it seems like if we don't take action in the immediate, we'll, wind up with that being an even greater percentage. What's proposed here is a price cap, and it feels to me like a surgical fix to a problem.
Speaker 27
We have another bill thirteen forty nine that has a whole bunch of symptom treatments that we really support in. But in this particular case, if you were to take the profit incentive out of this marketplace at once, you would solve the biggest incentive problem that we have, and that's to take tickets away from customers, put it into a secondary market, and, keep it out of our ecosystem that we, you know, as a small business, are trying to make payroll with or pay artists with.
Speaker 14
Thank you very much for the opportunity. I'm Ron Gubitz. I'm the executive director of the Music Artist Coalition. Our board includes Don Henley, Dave Matthews, Maren Morris, Meghan Trainor, among many others. This is the golf bill, but for concert tickets.
An artist we work with sold out a 16,000 seat arena in minutes. He was very price conscious. He wanted affordable tiers for people to get in. Months later, the production team, as we laid things out, realized there was about 350 additional seats that they could sell. In a mishap, a mistake, the box office listed them without any announcement on a random Wednesday.
Speaker 30
No social media, nothing. They were bought up in minutes, and immediately, you could find those tickets on a secondary website at double the price. Another manager told me just last week that resellers bought out the entire lawn from an amphitheater and then reset the base price on the secondary market. That is not a free market. That is a market failure where profiteers with no stake, no investment, no contribution to the show are extracting value on the backs of artists and their relationships with fans.
Speaker 14
You know cuckoo birds? They lay their eggs in another bird's nest. The host bird does all the work. It incubates, feeds, raises the chick. The cuckoo gets all the benefit.
Let's be clear here. The parasitic resellers are the cuckoo birds in this analogy. The relationship between artists and fans is sacred. Think back to your first concert or your first concert with someone special. Why are we letting outside platforms gouge that relationship?
Californian, Jerry Garcia said, you need music. I don't know why. It's probably one of those Joe Campbell questions, why we need ritual. We need magic and bliss and power and myth and celebration in our lives, and music is a good way to encapsulate a lot of it. Well, live music sustains our communities.
The people who make the music, the crew who and the production, the folks who tend the bar, they should benefit economically from ticket sales, not industrialized resale operations, running an arbitrage game, manipulating demand while artists and venues don't see a penny. Producers and other industries get to set prices, but with concert tickets, we set ours, and we watch others run them up on
Speaker 14
fans, profiting off of our art and blocking affordable access to music. Jerry Garcia said we need magic and celebration and bliss, and music does give us that. Concerts give us that. Let's keep the cuckoos out of the nest.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Is there any other members of the public here wishing to, share a statement of or a position of support?
Speaker 32
Thank you, mister chairman. Members, Jason Schmelzer on behalf of California Arts Advocates and strong support.
Speaker 21
Mister chairman, members, Shane Gusman on behalf of SAG AFTRA and our recording artists in sport.
Speaker 2
Mister chairman and members, Carl London on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America in support of our artist partners.
Speaker 31
Chair and members, Alex Torres here. I'm here to read off a quick list of National Independent Venue Association, California Chapter members who couldn't be here today and but are in support. The Fox Theater in Oakland, channel twenty four here in Sacramento, Transplant Brewing and Venue in Palmdale, register in support for local Sacramento reggae artist Stone Lion, also on behalf of Kevin Erickson with the Future of Music Coalition, a leading national anti monopoly organization in support. Thank you.
Speaker 9
My name is Jim Cornett. I am a live music venue operator of Harlow's, The Starlet Room Cafe Colonial, and The Colonial Theater, and I'm here in support of the bill.
Speaker 27
Good afternoon. My name is Chaz Boswell. I'm the owner and operator of The Rink Studios here in Del Paso Heights, Sacramento, and I am in support.
Speaker 5
Thank you. Brandon Knapp with Golden Bear Strategies. I'm here on behalf of a cosponsor, National Independent Talent Organization. With permission from the chair, can I read a couple of those organizations,
Speaker 18
Okay. Sound Talent Group, Ground Control Touring, Stuart Ross Management, Rome Artists, Partisan Arts, Mongrel Music, Lucky Man Management, Like Management, Paradise Artists, and Ineffitable Music Group, and seventy two Music Management.
Speaker 1
you. Thank you. It's more in support or we're waiting for opposition? There. Okay.
If, two opposition witnesses wanna come up and provide their testimony, we welcome you now. Thank you.
Speaker 13
Thanks to Chair Ward and members of the committee for the opportunity to to appear and present remarks in opposition to AB seventeen twenty. I am Diana Moss, vice president and director of competition policy at the Progressive Policy Institute. PPI urges the committee to reject invasive regulatory price controls in the resale market. The economics are very simple. Price caps will eliminate the only source of competition in ticketing, driving fans back to Live Nation Ticketmaster where they have been ripped off by monopoly ticket fees for decades.
This will all destabilize the already strained live events ecosystem. Price caps will decimate the resale market. The market serves its cleanup hitter for the primary market where we see ticket shortages caused by monopoly pricing, underpricing of tickets, and ticket holdbacks. Resale provides fans with a functional competitive alternative for buying tickets, not to mention putting fans in seats for the benefit of artists and fans alike. All of this will come crashing down under resale price caps.
Speaker 16
Price caps will bring on significant ticket shortages, drive up ticket prices, guarantee half full concert halls, and prompt the exit of online marketplaces from the market. Without a resale market, ticket price buyers will have two undesirable alternatives. The first is shadow markets where fans will be subject to fraud and abuse. The second, of course, is that fans will have no choice but to go back to Live Nation Ticketmaster, handing the monopoly even more market power. Finally, any state regulatory system that displaces competition in resale could legally immunize market participants from antitrust liability.
Speaker 13
This includes Live Nation Ticketmaster, which is currently ensnarled in one of the largest antitrust cases in U. S. History. PPI urges the committee to be skeptical of support for resale price cap proposals, which are running aground in multiple states. Live Nation Ticketmaster supports resale price caps because it protects their monopoly profits.
Venues support price caps because they are guaranteed continued sharing of monopoly profits with with Live Nation under exclusive contracts. Artists support price caps because their profits come from the primary market. The only group that doesn't support price caps are consumers. For all these reasons, resale price caps will put consumers, artists, and the entire live events ecosystem at more risk. PPI respectfully urges the committee to reject a b seventeen twenty.
Thank you.
Speaker 22
Good morning, mister chair and members. My name is Robert Harrell. I'm the executive director of the Consumer Federation of California. We're in respectful opposition to this bill. We've worked quite a bit with the author on a wide range of issues and are normally on the same side, but this is one exception.
I wanna just make a few points if I could briefly. My letter went into quite a bit of detail about the history of the monopoly and the lawsuit and what's going on. I'm not gonna repeat all that here, but I would just note that when you have almost every single state after the Trump administration forced out the head of the antitrust division, and apparently, based on open reporting, this case against the Live Nation Ticketmaster monopoly was the straw that broke the camel's back. Within two weeks of that happening, you have a settlement agreement, and almost all of the states, red states, purple states, blue states that are part of the lawsuit, including California, rejected the federal government settlement agreement with the monopoly. So if you don't think that there's some heavy thumbs on the scale here, you're not paying attention, I think we've lost the force for the trees here.
Speaker 17
The problem here is the monopoly and the monopoly power. I hate resale high prices as much, if not more, as the next person, but this is the one area where you don't have monopoly dominance. Hundreds of artists represented by the monopoly, venues owned by the monopoly, particularly in the outdoor amphitheater market, which is a big market here in California where the that season is very long. The primary ticketing market, 80% market share, monopoly. No doubt about it.
Speaker 22
I know, mister Sisbury, you spent an hour plus just hearing about seventeen seventy six and the other committee. That's all about this kind of market behavior. It is abusive. It is dominant. It is anticonsumer.
Two quick final points, mister mister chair. The amendments to the bill, unfortunately, make the bill worse, at least on our preliminary analysis of it. How? It's a Christmas tree of carve outs. And by the way, the one of the organizations exempted is FIFA.
If anyone is even remotely paying attention to World Cup soccer prices, this is outrageous. To exempt them from this bill is preposterous. Gianni Infantino and his, you know, I can say a couple words, his group of folks at FIFA, what they're doing to the World Cup right now, combined with the current federal administration not even letting the fans in of many of the countries that qualify for the World Cup to exempt them is just outrageous and preposterous. Finally, I wanna close on this note. I'll tell you what's cuckoo.
What's cuckoo is having a monopoly secretly want to remove what little competition there is. I have plenty of disagreements with the secondary market, and I've shared that with them on a wide range of issues. But the cuckooness of this whole thing is the market dominance of the monopoly. That's what's wrong. You should reject this bill.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Are there other members of the public here wishing to register a statement of opposition a position of opposition? Sorry.
Speaker 6
Thank you, chair and members. Megan Allred on behalf of the coalition for ticket fairness in opposition. Thank you. Mister chair and members, Courtney Jensen on behalf of Sikki, TickPick, and Gametime in opposition.
Speaker 6
And Jamie Minor passing on the opposition of our colleagues over at TechNet who are testifying in another committee. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Juanita Martinez, on behalf of the California Live Equity I'm sorry. The California Live Events Equity Alliance in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Okay. We'll turn this back to committee member questions, comments, debate. Assembly member Gonzalez.
Speaker 8
Thank you, mister chair. First and foremost, I wanna thank the author. We've been in in direct conversation, about this. I've had, some opposition, groups come and speak with me on this. My my question first would go to, PPI.
PPI and the Consumer Federation of California. Did you have the opportunity to reach out to any committee members, here to commit communicate your position?
Speaker 13
I'm happy to answer that first. No. We did not reach out directly to committee members. We are in broad based conversations across The US and state houses about ticketing bills, price cap bills, and other consumer protection bills. I will say we have recently completed a very deep dive report on, the resale ticket market, and, I invite you to take a look at that.
I have filed that, with the record.
Speaker 22
I'm happy to answer the question also. We always reach out whenever we can to every member of the committee on any committee where we have a position on a bill. I will tell you CFC, which has a small staff, has a very full legislative package, which has, I think, nine sponsored or cosponsored bills. And so if we didn't get a chance to meet with you as somebody member, I would just like to publicly extend the invitation. I'm happy to talk at disgusting length about all things ticketing, and we'd be pleased to do that with you at any time.
Yeah. You know, one of the one of the challenges I I look at in this specifically so I have Coachella, Stagecoach, and several other, not only, I guess, smaller venues compared to Stagecoach and Coachella, Pappy and Harriet's near near the region. So one of the one of the key pieces for me to include Aquashire Arena, which is new to our region and to the author, I I have Aquashire Arena near near my house. There there are not only music events there, there are community events there, and there are sporting events there. How would this this affect venue venue ticket holders?
Speaker 8
This arena hosts a multitude of events, and individuals can purchase tickets on a yearly basis for all events, whether that's a hockey event, and I know you talked about supporting, whether, and I understand that an amendment is being taken today. Would that amendment remove this kind of ticket holders from this restriction? Because this is a complicated. Right? It's not just music that we're talking about.
We're talking about several different types of events. So I wanna know your thoughts on
Speaker 28
that Right. Question. Appreciate it. And and, certainly, the the large, large majority of of of venues and independent venues are are very strongly supportive of of this bill because for folks like in your district who wanna purchase, whether that's a single single event for a concert or other event, they should be able to do that directly from the venue and support the folks who work there and the musicians who perform there and not have to go through the the speculators or the the the scalpers who are taking a huge, chunk of what is being paid for for themselves and not having contributed. In terms of your question specifically, our amendment, recognizes that sporting events are different.
It's much more reliant on season ticket or seat licenses, which is more of a subscription based model, very different than if you're going to see see a single concert. I'm not familiar with any venues that that provide for a subscription based model for a a whole set of events like concerts and such. Right now, we're just exempting sporting events. If if a season ticket holder, because they have a season seat license, is able to get early access to purchase concert tickets, they would still be able to do that. That's fully allowed under this bill.
But what it doesn't allow for is even if you have a seat a seat license and have early access to a ticket, purchase it for $50 and turn around and sell it to somebody else for $500 for a concert. That's not something that's allowed, but I'm happy to talk more about this particular model. Likely, what happens is they have a a season ticket, to a, the hockey aspect of it and then maybe have early access to some of these other events, and they would continue to be allowed to do that.
Speaker 8
Yeah. I'd like to continue the conversation specifically about this type of model because it's not, if you will, your standard. Yeah. But in in the region, in the Inland Empire region, we are going towards that model of a more complex venue versus just one specific type. Sure.
So I I I'd love the opportunity to continue having the conversation and see how that truly impacts my district and what what that means. The the second question I have is I understand that the target of this bill is industrial resellers. If a reseller is based in Florida and never physically does business in California and simply buys and sells tickets for events taking place in California online, would the AG have the authority to enforce this restriction on them?
Speaker 28
Yes. Absolutely. This is something that happens in in many different areas either online and not where the attorney general is required to take enforcement action against companies or operators that are not based in California. This is something that is happening, as I said, all over the world with similar types of models. Essentially, in order to operate one of these online platforms, you would need to, when this bill is signed into law, upload the original ticket with how much you paid for it, and in and in a very transparent way, able to demonstrate that you're not charging above that 10%.
If you are doing that, then the the attorney general would have no reason to go after you or seek to have an an action enforcement action. If you're not doing that at scale, that's really the target of what this bill is intended to do to stop what is now a widespread and standardized practice, which is these large scale brokers, speculators, scalpers buying a huge number of these tickets and marking them up at, you know, five, ten times as much as they were purchased for and putting them on these platforms. That would be illegal under this law, and they could enforce that even against, platforms that are operating out of a different state.
Speaker 8
Again, I wanna thank the author for always being available for conversation. You have proven that in the past, and you continue to prove that today and yesterday and in the days ahead, and then bringing folks to to help clarify the different conversations and to the those in in in the room that have reached out as well to have those conversations. Because, look, I you know, I wanna enjoy a venue. I don't wanna pay an astronomical amount, but I also believe that, there should be a a secondary market, to to be able to to do those things. But at the same time, I don't want someone, you know, buying up, you know, a a lawn and then, you know, a a ticket that's a $100 is now $300.
There should be some of that. So I I think there's more conversation to be had, with respect to this. And and I appreciate the chair's leadership because you you're always trying to balance these types of things, and that's that's important. We can't just, like, throw the hammer down. We need balance.
So I I appreciate that, and I I look forward to continued conversations from from all sides.
Speaker 25
Thank you. I think I'm a little concerned about what feels like kind of the monopoly side of this in terms of Ticketmaster being able to, I think, have the opportunity to then be the main resellers if we if we eliminate the secondary market. And so I'm just wondering, especially given what's going on with the ongoing litigation, how you see this kind of reducing competition even further. I think I understand that we don't want tickets to be resold for astronomical prices, we want to protect consumers at the end of the day. But I feel like Ticketmaster then becomes the only kind of space where we're that won't be in trouble by this.
Speaker 28
Well, let me say one piece, then maybe if the the folks who operate the venues again, the the the the venue independent venue owners, the artists, the recording industry, SAG AFRA, all of the folks who really wanna make sure that we are supporting not only the people who are making the art, but the the folks who own the buildings, run the buildings, the workers, and the fans are behind this. And many of them have their own issues with with Ticketmaster and Live Nation that's separate from this. A couple things that I'll say say about that. One is Ticketmaster is also a very large ticket reseller. They would also be controlled by this bill.
They would no longer be able to resell tickets for over a 110% just like any other platform. So they are also will be limited by this bill significantly in terms of what they will be able to do on resale. The problem that we have of direct, needing to have competition in the direct sale market is still there. And I think for in talking to the to the venues and talking to, the folks who who are the artists, they believe that by taking this huge profit motive of the secondary market out of this, that we actually provide more opportunity for competition in the direct sale sale market, that you're gonna find more folks who come in and provide for partnerships maybe in a nonprofit level or with lesser fees or venues can then really focus on how to do the primary direct market in a way that provide to breaks up the the the the the competition that needs to be there and exist in the in the primary market. Right now, I know that they're the the focus, here, they wanna make this about Ticketmaster and the monopoly.
We can use our common sense there. How exactly is that creating competition with Ticketmaster and Live Nation on the primary market to allow for folks to jack up prices in the secondary market by by by buying up all the tickets on Ticketmaster and then going and selling those at three, four, five times as much. That they wanna be able to continue to sell for a lot more on the secondary market, and somehow that's creating competition on the primary market. That doesn't add up at all. So, yes, we need more folks who come in and are able to provide for competition in partnership with the venues who are supportive of this in how we provide for direct sales, but, that that doesn't happen by allowing the the speculators, to to run rampant by making, the the the competition for for tickets, even more concentrated in the hands of a very few and not accessible to fans.
So this will require Ticketmaster and resale to follow these same rules, and for that reason, I think actually, provides much more of a fair playing field, broadly. But I if you wanna have the the venue, some some of them work with Ticketmaster and some some don't.
Speaker 27
Super specifically, the conversation that I have with customers at the rope line when they're affected by this has nothing to do with antitrust. It has only to do with their experience in trying to navigate the Wild West and get into the venue. There's so many pitfalls that they wind up having to, address as they're trying to come through, and I see it five to 10 times a night. These are two separate subjects. National Independent Venue Association met with the AG's office.
We're in strong support of the antitrust, case continuing. We work diligently on that. It's it's a priority for us. These are definitely distinctly different issues. We are dealing with a consumer crisis, a confidence consumer confidence crisis, and we have to address that specific aspect of this, ticketing diversion.
Speaker 14
I would just say that in in The UK, there was a proliferation of secondary websites that came out after there was a cap on football resale. So more sites came into the market selling at face value, what we would call ethical resale. So we want ethical resale. That is you know, I have sick young kids. They're sick all the time.
If I have to miss a show, I wanna be able to move that ticket, and get my money back. There will be but that has nothing to do with the primary.
Speaker 22
I just I I would just note that The UK law hasn't taken effect yet. I know this because I'm a member of Newcastle United Football Club in the Northeast Of England, went to see two matches, and even as a member, could not get tickets. That's a supply demand problem. I get it. And wound up going to the secondary market to be able to get a ticket to one of those matches.
That was just literally a month ago. The other broader point I'd make about Europe, which came up earlier, is that generally speaking, what you don't have and, again, it's not just one country. It's obviously the combined equivalent of The US population wise. But generally speaking, you don't have one dominant player in the continent. Occasionally, in some of the countries, have one bigger player the way that you do here.
So the the the notion that I look. I appreciate we disagree with Niva on a lot of things. We agree with them when they said break up Ticketmaster. We agree. Okay?
So we agree on that. Most other things, we have a difference of opinion. And I understand how tough it is for them because they have exclusive contracts with the monopoly. And if you dare cross the monopoly, the federal lawsuit makes this crystal clear. If you dare even think about using another ticketing entity, the monopoly will blackball you.
They literally have done that. It's one of the things they're being charged with in the federal antitrust case. So I understand the pressure they're under. I would just finally note, a lot of the large venues, those owned by the monopoly, have deals with ticket brokers to sell massive blocks of those tickets. So the very thing that's being condemned here is actually being done by the monopoly to make sure that when the artist looks out at the fans, that there's relatively full arena.
So that's an underside of this that hasn't been discussed. So there's a lot of aspects to this. It's it's quite complicated, but what we do know is that monopolies historically don't help consumers. There's not a single example where in the long run monopolies help consumers, And what they're doing here in terms of the applicability the assembly member's right. This applies to their resale as well.
They are the biggest player in resale. Market share is tougher to get in that space. This is what I call a loss leader strategy. It's what Walmart did when they went into communities and lowered the prices, and then all the other small businesses on Main Street had to shut down. And then what happened after that?
They jacked them up way high. They they are absolutely it's the monopolist playbook one zero one. This is the lost leader strategy. I'm not blaming the assembly member. I'm not blaming the venues for that.
That is the monopoly that's doing that strategy.
Speaker 13
I would just like to respond to what we've heard over here, if that's if that's okay. Yeah. So I'm gonna respectfully disagree with all of what you've heard here in terms of no relationship between the primary and the secondary market. They are absolutely linked. The primary market is highly dysfunctional.
There is a monopoly sitting in the middle of the primary market, jacking up ticket fees, holding back tickets, underpricing tickets, and the artists are are very much part of this. So what we have in the primary market are ticket shortages. Fans can't get tickets on the primary market. So where do they have to go? So they look for the secondary market.
If Ticketmaster is supporting price cap
Speaker 13
secondary market, which is not only competitive, it balances supply and demand, and it fills up, concert halls and amphitheaters, then what will happen is they will drive all the fans back from a nonfunctional disappearing resale market because of price caps all the way back to Ticketmaster. That's the link that we are not hearing about over here. This is a strategy for Ticketmaster to shut down the resale market, and fans will have no place to go because it is a monopoly. And once they get back to Ticketmaster, they will pay monopoly ticket fees.
Speaker 17
Thank you. And I'll just, appreciate your response, assembly member, to my question. I think that's what I was worried about is, like, that Ticketmaster will be the only place that you can buy the ticket and resell the ticket, and so then they'll just keep going higher and higher. But it's helpful to hear your perspective and to hear you all as well.
Speaker 28
And and some of the practices that we wanna stop that Ticketmaster may be engaging, and you heard that there are some places that have deals with ticket brokers where they're, allowing exactly what what what Robert just just described, these huge bulk buying of tickets and these early deals to allow the speculation to happen on secondary markets. Well, that would now be illegal under under this also. There's there's some some things that we're doing that really break down those type of practices that we wanna stop, whether it's happening from, from secondary brokers or from some venues. But, again, I would listen to the to the small venues themselves. I would listen to the artists themselves.
And I bet if you stopped in that line and talked to actual fans about this, they would also agree. We are all seeing this firsthand and understand it. When we get in this conversation about monopoly, it's getting away from, I think, what is our common sense, which is this practice should not be allowed, and it's not supporting affordability, and it's not supporting these venues or or the musicians.
Speaker 9
First of all, I wanna thank, the author for bringing this bill. I read all of the, the letters on, on both sides, obviously. And, you know, I think, obviously, there's, you know, when I was reading the letters, it was all a lot about the antitrust lawsuit. I sort of see this as just sort of a separate issue, frankly. It's, you know, it's something where we've got the small venues are asking for the small venues obviously want more competition in the primary market, and I don't think that this prevents that from happening.
Speaker 35
This is dealing with something where, you know, you've got secondary folks coming in, buying up tons of tickets, and then jacking the prices up. And I just sort of see putting some limit on that as something that is pro consumer and is something that the you know, it's a it's a sort of a separate issue than how you have more competition so that the venues and the artists actually have more competition in the primary market than who they contract with. And so I just sort of see them as separate issues. I think this is a consumer protection issue. It makes it less likely that you're gonna have someone come in and buy a path to stadium and then just jack and pick the prices up.
And so with that, I will support the bill today. Thank you.
Speaker 10
I just had a quick follow-up question in terms of the exemption for the FIFA. Can you talk to us a little bit about that and why they were exempted?
Speaker 28
This is really about live events and live performances, and so we committed to exempt all sports. So their athletic events are not included in this bill. The focus is really on how this is impacting live music, live performance.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. Well, I wanna thank the author for kicking off this conversation, because I think it responds to something with your intention of really what so many consumers, what any one of us in this room probably experiences. We're trying to access the the best show that we wanna go see, but you run right into that wall of, you know, the tickets were barely available if they can even, like, know, get them on the first second at all and immediately have to go. And somehow, some other sophisticated technology was able to get them and immediately inflate the prices right now.
This isn't anything new. This has been going on for some time, and so we know there's a need out there or a hunger out there for some some kind of solution. And, you know, it's it's it's deeply unfair because we don't wanna go back to the old system that we grew up in where you basically had to go down and camp out the night before and get in line. That was fair, but it was incredibly inconvenient. Now we have a convenience right now, but it's being perverted.
And there's been a shift of really financial gain, not towards the artists or those that serve those venues, certainly not, you know, towards the benefit of the consumer, but really towards some third party out there that has developed that system, which is just extracting money, and all this comes on the back of consumers. I would echo the comments of some members of Burr as well because I've been taking very critically this issue of monopoly challenges that are out there right now, which are under investigation, which are being vetted and and should be vetted right now. And I see that as relevant for conversation, but distinct from, I think, the solution that you're trying to be able to put here. And I'm really trying to think through that lens of maybe theoretically, economically, theoretically, whether or not this is actually in play here. And I'm having trouble actually landing on that as as much as I'm studying that issue because when you have the initial ticket that's being operated through a Ticketmaster or a Live Nation venue that was originally purchased there, and then ultimately, somehow, somebody, something is grabbing it and reselling it over over here.
They're they're kind of out of the equation at that point. And to a degree and so then it's been sort of, like, linked that, okay, if this were to pass and everything was sort of being driven back to only a Ticketmaster sort of style, site that that would leave an opportunity then for inflated, really, you know, monopolistic control over those ticket fees and prices. It's gonna enhance prices. And as I had talked to some that had come in to sort of vet this through me, a couple of sort of examples come to mind. One, yes, it's not in effect yet in The UK, but it is in effect in the country of Ireland.
Is that correct? And so we're not seeing half full venues and inflated prices there. Like, I I'm I'm I'm believing that we're seeing, you know, the intent of what we're trying to see, which is not to allow this sort of backdoor channel for excessive inflation of the ticket values. And if I'm a consumer, you know, on some hand on on some level, like, you know, I don't wanna pay a thousand dollars for a $100 ticket. I wanna pay a $100 or something in the ballpark of a $100.
So if that gets inflated to a $110, I'm much happier than if something gets inflated to a thousand dollars because a system is in place that allows that to be captured for something that is sold out. It's about the total price right there. And so we're trying to be able to see, is there a model out there? We're not reinventing the wheel here. We're trying to take a model that is starting to show some positive effect elsewhere and see whether or not it's something that could be of a positive effect here for California opportunities as well.
And I think it deserves more thought and study, no doubt. But I I think that we're we're trying trying to reflect that through the work of 1720 here is to really sort of test that question about whether this can work here as well. So, you know, it also was raised as well. I I don't wanna I don't don't wanna leave the conversation without mentioning some of the unfairness arguments that were brought up by some of the current resale markets, you're SeekGeek or Vivid, Seats or others out there as well about transferability and knowledge. Right?
That how do you actually know what the fair market ticket value is with the original ticket value as the price that somehow there's also a monopoly of information there that only Ticketmaster knows. I just did a quick search to see what journeys come into town in a week, and I was curious what the fair market value of those were. And it was easily able to be pulled up through some kind of search engine here about what that fair market value ticket price should be. And I'm not to say that this is evolving technology, but somehow there's gonna be a quickly evolving status of of of that information, the ability to access that information. So getting it right so that there's a fairness in there because I I had heard the argument that somehow we would be shut out others would be shut out from the competition.
We want that competition out there for the secondary market to be able to have options, to be able to keep prices competitive out there, no doubt. There are other sites in the country of Ireland that are acting as secondary markets. So somehow it's working for them, but, yes, other major ones that we know here in The US have pulled out of those markets. And so this for me, there's just there is a disconnect here, but I wonder if that disconnect is gonna be solved with the continued evolution of technology that is out there right now to make sure that you can access that information, that you can apply it to your prices. So you wouldn't run afoul of the restrictions of this bill that or
Speaker 1
consequences of bill. That's something that we also don't wanna see happen as well. So I I think that this is a conversation that that that can evolve, but as fast as technology is evolving, it might even be solvable, like, you know, in the lifespan of this bill for all we know. So I do believe, you know, for the merits of what you're trying to achieve here, that we want to test that question and ultimately to bring it full circle for the benefit of consumers, here in California, knowing that we have their back for some kind of a standard that's really gonna try to put a handle around these inflated prices, I think, is gonna benefit more for access to the shows that they wanna be able to see. So I'll be supportive of the bill today.
I wanna thank you for your hard work and your continued work ahead, I think, with all of our stakeholders, and I invite you to close.
Speaker 28
Thank you. Thank you for for those, thoughtful comments and for your for for your partnership and and leadership and and and for the amendments that have been put forward. Look. We know how important, live music, live performances are for ourselves, all of us. I know, I know all of you enjoy, these events and music and and performances, and so do the the millions of people that we represent across the state.
And, they should be accessible. They should be available for fans. This should not be a tool for speculation, for gambling, essentially, and that model does not work for accessibility and affordability for fans. We know that. We are seeing that firsthand.
You can look with your own eyes at any single one of these shows and see it happen right in front of your eyes. It is not something that's working for fans in our state, and it is definitely and we're gonna listen to anyone in this conversation in terms of how to actually get this right, let's listen to the fans. Let's listen to the venues, the independent venues that are trying to make sure these shows are accessible, and let's listen to the artists, the ones who actually make the art that should be available to fans. And, also, when our constituents are spending these types of funds, their, you know, their hard earned dollars to go see their favorite artists, let's have it go to the musicians and the venues and the workers and the actual folks who make the art are not in the pockets of speculators, many of whom are out of state, who have done nothing to contribute to these shows. That's what this is about.
It will it will help fans. It will help musicians. It'll help venues. And appreciate, all all of your comments and questions. And, with with that respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Speaker 16
AB seventeen twenty do pass as amended to the assembly committee on privacy and consumer protection. Ward? Aye. Ward, I. Lackey?
El Harari? Aye. El Harari, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? McKinnon?
Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye.
Speaker 16
Jeff Gonzalez? No. Jeff Gonzalez, no. Valencia? Yes.
Valencia, aye. Zuber? Zuber, aye.
Speaker 1
Right now, that is a five one. I want the bill to be out. We'll hold the roll open for absent members. Thank you all very much. And at this time, I'd like to call committee members back to Room 444.
We'll take two passes through our file for those who are here and want to get all their votes on record. Maybe we'll go back to the top and begin with item number one, a b sixteen twenty six, madam secretary, when you're ready.
Speaker 16
A b sixteen twenty six, the motions do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Education. Zuber? Aye. Zuber, aye. And
Speaker 1
the bill is out. Eight to zero. Next, item number two. We just heard. So we'll Yeah.
Hold on that. I have number three. That's on call.
Speaker 16
A b eighteen eighty four, the motion is due pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Education. Zuber? Zuber, aye?
Speaker 15
AB nineteen fifty four Ward do pass to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Berg? Yes. Zber Eye.
Speaker 16
A b twenty three nineteen due passed to the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation. Zuber? Aye. Zuber, aye. El Hawari?
Aye. El Hawari aye.
Speaker 1
That's currently at six zero. We'll hold the roll up in drafts and members.
Speaker 16
A b twenty five zero three, the motion is due passed as amended to the Assembly Committee on Education. Sperr?
Speaker 1
That's six zero. We'll hold the roll up and perhaps members. We'll reopen the roll then for a b seventeen twenty, item two.
Speaker 16
A b seventeen twenty, the motion is due passed as amended to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Lackey?
Speaker 16
AB eighteen eighty four, the motion is due pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Education. Lackey?
Speaker 16
AB nineteen fifty four, the motion is due passed to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye.
Speaker 16
AB twenty three nineteen, do pass the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation. Lackey?
Speaker 1
Bills at seven 0 will hold the roll open for absent members. And item six.
Speaker 16
AB twenty five zero three do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Education. Lackey?
Speaker 1
Alright. That is at seven zero. We'll hold the roll up in perhaps the members. Thank you, mister vice chair.
Speaker 1
Thank you, madam secretary. We will reopen the role for item number two.
Speaker 16
AB seventeen twenty, the motion is due passed as amended to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. McKinnon? Aye. McKinnon, aye.
Speaker 16
AB nineteen fifty four, the motion is due passed to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. McKinnon? Aye. McKinnon, aye.
Speaker 16
A b twenty three nineteen, the motion is due passed to the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation. McKinnon? Aye. McKinnon, aye.
Speaker 1
That bill is out eight to zero. And number six. Did. Okay. So that's out.
Yeah. And on m six, e v twenty five zero three will be out seven to zero. And with that, we are adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.