Assembly Public Employment and Retirement Committee, Wednesday, April 8, 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 Public Employment and Retirement Committee California State Assembly
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
Thank you very much for having me. Chris Coursey. I'm a member of the board of supervisors in Sonoma County and the board's designated representative to the the board of the Sonoma County Employee Retirement Association, which is known as SARA. Appreciate you all's consideration of AB 16 o one. This bill is aimed specifically and only at Sonoma County.
It is it is in front of you and asked for by us to fix a problem that was created sixty years ago by another board of supervisors, the Sonoma County board, but different folks, when they made a decision, to make SARA the only county pension system in California that does not automatically grant a COLA, cost of living adjustment each year. Our our retirees, we have 4,600 retirees who are eligible for COLAs. As as, Chris said, no COLA since '19, 2020 2008. Sorry. AB 16 o one does not provide a COLA.
Speaker 44
What it does is provides the board of supervisors flexibility to grant a COLA by giving us the chance to target separate groups of those 4,600 retirees. Likely, the ones who are receiving the lowest pension dollars and who have been retired for the longest amount of time. Folks since 2008 have lost almost 60% of their purchasing power to inflation. We wanna fix that. AB 16 o one doesn't fix it.
Speaker 3
It is not the solution, but it is a key to opening a path for us to work on that solution. And we ask for your support today.
Speaker 18
My name is Travis Balzerini. I've worked for Sonoma County for eighteen years. I've been a trustee for Sonoma County Employees Retirement Association, also known as SARA, for the last six years. I'm speaking with you as the North Coast regional vice president for SEIU Local ten two one on behalf of our members, retirees, and the beneficiaries who worked for County of Sonoma and Sonoma Superior Court. SARA is the only nineteen thirty seven Act County pension system that does not offer an automatic yearly pension cost of living adjustment or COLA to retirees and beneficiaries.
Speaker 4
Therefore, Sonoma County can only grant a pension COLA using the two ad hoc options available under the county employees retirement law of 1937 or the SIRL. The last ad hoc pension COLA granted was in 2008. Following massive losses from the two thousand eight global financial crisis, an accounting mechanism in SARA's COLA policy prevented any pension COLA from being granted. That accounting mechanism was recently removed from the COLA policy. In the eighteen years since the last co pension COLA was granted, San Francisco Bay Area inflation increased by 50%, severely eroding the purchasing power of our retirees.
Meanwhile, retirees' pension payments haven't increased since 2008. Our retirees' yearly average pension payment is very modest between 18,000 and 42,000 per year. These retirees won't receive another pay increase in their lifetimes unless someone can grant an ad hoc COLA. After eighteen years without a COLA, retirees need for financial relief is dire, and the two ad hoc COLA options available in the SIRL are cost prohibitive for Sonoma County. Sarah's factory produced four cost studies with various pension COLA options that cost between 30,000,000 and $366,000,000.
Two of those COLA options require a change in CERA law to target specific groups of retirees or to allow COLA funding from additional sources. AB 16 o one will allow Sonoma County the flexibility to target those retirees who are most in need using any funding source available. We urge your support for AB 16 o one, which provides a viable path forward to deliver long overdue financial support to our aging retirees who dedicated their careers to serving the people of Sonoma County. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. It appears that we have a quorum. Madam secretary, please call the row.
Speaker 5
McKinnon. Here. McKinnon present. Lackey? Here.
Lackey present. Alanis, Berner, Garcia? Present. Garcia present. Wynn?
Wynn present. Rodriguez, you have a quorum?
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there other any other folks that would like to pledge their support? Please step up to the mic and give your name, organization, and position.
Speaker 6
Madam chair, members, Terry Brennan, on behalf of SEIU California, representing 780,000 California workers, including the Sonoma County employees. Proud to coast. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Sit down. Okay. Any are there any witnesses in opposition that would like to come to the mic? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the desk. Does anyone have any questions?
Asylum member Lackey?
Speaker 22
Yeah. Clearly, what you have here is a very questionable situation. But here's my, my concern is when we start acting outside of negotiation, I think it's a dangerous precedent because in a favorable situation, it seems like a great idea. But how about if it's unfavorable and where the legislature starts to overstep and engage in circumstances that they feel are more appropriate and overshadow negotiation? Could somebody resolve my concern?
Speaker 37
Yeah. I I think your concern around the negotiation assumes that the county is being told what to do or that the retirees are dictating what that COLA could look like. What we are doing with this bill is creating a path where in which you can have that negotiation, where you have actuarial working with your county governance and working with your retirees to come up with a cost of living that is appropriate, not just based on what the retirees need, but what the county can afford. And right now, there's no ability to do that. So this bill actually strengthens that idea that this should be done through a negotiation as opposed to right now, it's been a blanket no since 2008.
Speaker 2
And and by no fault of the employees, by by no fault of the legislature, but but literally as the supervisor said, based on a decision that was made by a board of supervisors fifty years ago, This gives that option for that negotiation to take place. And as I mentioned, it also gives them the ability to tailor it to the lowest paid workers or other metrics that they negotiate with those employees. Not everybody who is a retiree of the county is hurting the same way, but this would allow for those voices that are to be heard and to try to keep them in Sonoma County.
Speaker 8
Let me ask this question. Why can't the current board of supervisors make this decision?
Speaker 3
Yes. Thanks. Nice to see you today. The rules around the COLA in Sonoma County right now only allow a COLA to come from excess earnings from the the pension plan. In 2008 and and the subsequent years, the Great Recession blew a $600,000,000 hole into our pension plan.
Excess earnings do not exist. We have not recovered from that. This allows the board of supervisors to look at other solutions, to look for money elsewhere, in our budget. We have a pension bond, that's expiring in 2030 that we're we're pay paying into now that we won't be paying into in 2030. That may be a source.
There are other sources that we can look at. Without 16 o one, though, we are limited to excess earnings.
Speaker 3
Let me repeat what I said in my opening statement is this this does not provide any money at all. It provides us, as the board of supervisors, with some flexibility to look at other solutions that aren't available to us. That could be other budget. It could I I don't know what all the solutions are because we haven't studied that to the point where we we have an answer. What we're trying to do is get to the point where we can start studying other options besides excess earnings because we're not going to make back that $600,000,000.
Speaker 2
I wanna thank the board of supervisors. I wanna thank SEIU 10 to one and all of our retirees, for bringing this issue forward. We oftentimes talk in our district about making sure that there's no district issue that's too small. This is a big deal for thousands of people in our district. And I know it doesn't mean a whole lot to everybody else in Sacramento who represents other areas, but I can guarantee that your support on this bill will mean the world to these retirees.
Speaker 1
Well, I'd like to thank you for be bringing the bill forward. This is exactly what we should be doing. We should be watching out for our citizens, our retirees, so that they can retire in dignity. And if this gives you the flexibility to give them a raise, a COLA, I'm all for it. And so with that, I recommend an I vote.
Madam secretary, can you call the roll?
Speaker 1
Oh, I need a motion. A motion from assembly member Nguyen. A second from assembly member Garcia. Madam secretary, can you call the roll?
Speaker 5
Item number one, a b 16 o one, the motion is due pass. McKinnon. Aye. McKinnon. Aye.
Lackey. Alanis. Burner.
Speaker 5
Lackie, aye. Thank Burner, Garcia, aye. Garcia, aye. Nguyen, aye. We have sufficient votes.
We'll place it on
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you. Next, we'll have assembly member Coloza, a b sixteen thirty.
Speaker 1
Okay. We'll go down. Is assembly member Lee here? Next, we'll have a B seventeen twenty nine, item number four, assembly member Lee.
Speaker 10
Good morning, madam chair and colleagues. I'm presenting a v seventeen twenty nine to update the telework policy for state agencies. This policy has not been amended or updated in over thirty years and does not reflect the technological opportunities or workplace realities of 2026. According to the state auditor report last year, if state workers telework three or more days weekly, the state could reduce office space by roughly 30% and save upwards of $225,000,000 annually. Now since we are, of course, in a deficit situation, $225,000,000 is nothing to joke about.
It is real health care money. It is real school money, money that could be spent more efficiently. I really truly believe that telework preserves efficiency and output of our state workers while also netting real cost savings. Working in office four days a week costs a state worker over $6,000 annually to in commute costs, assuming that they only travel in a private car based in Elk Grove. Telework and hybrid schedules are the norm in many state departments, and return to the office, RTO requires planning.
And according to Sacramento Bee's own reporting, more than 70 state offices could not accommodate state workers ahead of Newsom's RTO order for July 2025. The RTO order did not acknowledge realities about office space, office leases, office equipment, or parking. The r t the RTO order did not acknowledge employees that had been hired as remote workers and may not have been able to relocate over the last six years. Teleworkers telework led to cumulative savings of nearly three hundred three hundred ninety three thousand metric tons of CO two emissions across a 121 state departments between 2021 and 2023.
Speaker 10
do we know this? The state auditor's report found that over two thirds of state employees reported that productivity was improved or unchanged when employees were teleworking three or more days per week. And in many private industries, telework is still standard. Google estimates 20% fully remote and with up to 60% of its workers on a hybrid schedule. Approximately three fourths of local governments offer hybrid schedules.
And even looking at indeed.com, the following companies offer remote jobs like Aetna, Amazon, Cisco, Salesforce, UnitedHealth Group, Wells Fargo. Remote and hybrid workplaces are becoming the standard for a wide range of jobs. So this bill updates state the state telework policy to require state departments to have a written, thought out telework policy. And when the department wants to implement a return to the office plan, the department needs to identify the operational needs to spend the time and money to do so. From 2020 to 2024, the state proudly displayed a dashboard of the savings and benefits of telework.
The bill would bring that dashboard back so that the public could see whether telework is working for the state. With me today is Anika Wells, the president of SEIU Local one thousand, and Ted Tophin representing the professional engineers in California government.
Speaker 13
Good morning. Good morning. Good morning, chair McKinnon, and committee members. My name is Anika Walls. I'm the proud president of SEIU Local one thousand and a state worker.
Local one thousand is proud to cosponsor AB seventeen twenty nine, and we would love to thank assembly member Lee for his leadership on this issue. I began my career in civil service in 2006 as a disability valuation analyst with social services. Over the course of my career, I have seen how state work and the needs of Californians we serve have changed. Telework has helped state workers do our job more efficiently, stay focused, and better meet the public's expectations while still delivering essential services every single day. We saw this most clearly during the during and after the pandemic.
State workers showed that telework allows government to remain responsive, productive, and resilient, all while running new programs and filling critical vacancies. Our members continued to process claims, answer questions, support vulnerable Californians, and deliver critical services, often more efficiently while reducing costs and cutting down on unnecessary commutes. AB seventeen twenty nine is about modernizing how state government operates and how it delivers services to California. Current telework law dates back to 1990, long before secure networks, Zoom, Microsoft Teams, mobile technology, and modern service delivery models were part of everyday government operations. This bill updates state policy to reflect how government actually works today and ensures telework decisions are based on evidence, productivity, and service outcomes, not outdated assumptions.
Speaker 47
Modern govern modern government should work better for workers, for taxpayers, and for the Californians that rely on the services that we provide. Telework helps make that possible. For these reasons, SCIU Local one thousand respectfully urges an I vote on a b seventeen twenty nine. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 9
Good morning, madam chair, members. Ted Toppin for the Professional Engineers in California government and the Association of California State Supervisors, sponsors of the bill. I will be very brief. First, thank you to, assembly member Leaf for taking up this mantle. It is, incredibly important, not just for state employees, I think, but for all workers in California.
And, you know, just to the point of productivity, I'd I'd wanna emphasize that, the state of California has delivered at higher levels than ever before, with telework, and that is not my opinion. That is the conclusion of the state auditor's report from last summer. It was very clear. This administration's leadership self reported to the auditor that telework had improved or met previous standards of service, and that is important for all Californians and all California taxpayers. The budget savings that we talk about, this is real money.
Speaker 8
Quarter of $1,000,000,000, that could be directed given our budget challenges to deficit reduction, but perhaps more importantly, to services that actually help real people, schools, health care, housing, child care. That's important. And the environmental benefits and the congestion relief and benefits, those are real. We have a statewide policy to reduce vehicle miles traveled and get to emissions below, certain levels by twenty twenty twenty forty five, carbon neutral by 2045. We're not gonna do that without adopting innovative approaches to work like telework.
Speaker 9
So in conclusion, I would say this is a win win for Californians. We would love your support On behalf of ACSS and PEG members and all state employees, we would urge an I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any others, any other witnesses that would like to, give theirs give their their position? If so, please come up to the mic and give your name, organization, and position.
Speaker 27
Hello. My name is Terry Gray. I work for the California Public Utilities Commission in San Francisco. And I support this bill as a a person that is able to
Speaker 1
Just your whether you support or Oh, I support. That's it? That's it. Thank you. Okay.
Is the microphone on? We can't. Okay. Hi
Speaker 7
there. My name is Michelle Howenald Lorenz. I'm a tax collector for the Franchise Tax Board. And as a teleworker who spends every day on the phone talking to taxpayers, I support this bill.
Speaker 1
Ma'am. You guys, please give your because we have a lot of people in line. Name and position organization
Speaker 13
Good morning. My name is Theresa Taylor. I work with the Franchise Tax Board. I support a b seventeen twenty nine.
Speaker 17
Good morning. My name is Julia Shaw. I represent California Association of Professional Scientists, and I support this bill.
Speaker 18
Good morning. My name is May Fopiano. I work for SEIU Local one thousand.
Speaker 19
Regalado, California Department of Insurance. I'm a procurement analyst, and I support this bill.
Speaker 20
Good morning, chairman McKinnon and members. My name is Michael Young. I work for HCD, housing and community development service. I'm an attorney three, and I strongly support this bill.
Speaker 21
Good morning, chair and members. My name is Kate Turner. I am an attorney four at the California Public Utilities Commission and a member of CASE and a mother, and I please ask you to support this bill.
Speaker 20
Morning. My name is John McNeil. I'm a, vital records specialist with the Department of Public Health, and I ask that you consider and, give this bill your support.
Speaker 22
Hi. My name is Gian Perez. I'm a senior environmental scientist with Department of Conservation. I request that you, support this bill.
Speaker 23
Good morning. My name is Juan Garcia. I'm a health physicist at the Department of Public Health, and I support this bill.
Speaker 18
Good morning. My name is Melinda Lopez. I'm a dental hygienist for CDCR Solano Prison, and I'm asking behalf of SEIU one thousand to support the bill.
Speaker 24
Hi. Good morning. My name is Crystal Coles. I work for Housing and Community Development. I'm also with SEIU Local one thousand in support of this bill.
Speaker 25
Donald Antonement Antonowicz, Department of Pesticide Regulation in support of the bill. Hi.
Speaker 21
My name is Ann Hilborn. I'm with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and CAPS UAW, and I support this bill.
Speaker 26
of consumer affairs, information technology associate, and I support this
Speaker 27
morning. I'm Skyler Waldeck Myers, fiscal analyst for CDCR, and I support this bill.
Speaker 13
Good morning. My name is Oyla Katur. I'm an organizer at SEIU Local one thousand. I support this bill.
Speaker 28
Hello. My name is Trinity Smith. I work with the Department of Public Health with at the SEIU Local one thousand. I support this bill.
Speaker 23
Hi. My name is Riaz Mujadidi. I also work with local s e, SEIU, and I also support this bill. Hi. My name is Levi Souza.
I work for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and I'm an environmental scientist, and I support this bill.
Speaker 7
Good morning. My name is Gabriel Martinez. I do support this bill. I'm low with Local, one thousand SEIU.
Speaker 20
Good morning. My name is Nick Cruz. I work at the Department of Health Care Services. I'm a member of SEIU Local one thousand, and I'm in support of this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Good morning. My name is Sarah Mack. I'm an office technician with the water boards and a steward with the SEIU Local one thousand, and I support this bill. Good
Speaker 29
morning. My name is Luke Bernthal. I'm an attorney with the California Victim Compensation Board, and I support this bill.
Speaker 17
Good morning. My name is Sue Lee Liu, and I'm an attorney at the California Victims Compensation Board, and I support this bill. Farrah, local one thou SEIU local one thousand, and I urge an I vote.
Speaker 30
Matt Broad here on behalf of CASE, the Union for State Attorneys and ALJs in support. Thank you. And cosponsor.
Speaker 21
Hi. Good morning, madam chair. Janice O'Malley, AFSCME California in support. Thank you.
Speaker 31
Good morning. Omar Lazarda here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.
Speaker 32
Adrian Mohammed with the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in support.
Speaker 33
Christopher Yeager, department of social services at SEIU one thousand in support.
Speaker 35
Good morning, Jennifer Meyer. I am an IT procurement and contract official at the Department of General Services and a member of the union, and I support this bill. Hello. Melanie Bender. I work at DHCS, executive secretary, and I support SCIU one thousand.
Speaker 2
Good morning. My name is, Josh Gyle. I'm DLC seven six eight president, and I represent 4,200 members. I'm in support of this bill. And, 80% of my district are telework employees, and so I would really appreciate your support.
Speaker 21
My name is Catherine Caldwell with the California Air Resources Board, and I'm an analyst too in facility support. I'm a member of SEIU, and I support this bill.
Speaker 37
Steven Gonzales, senior steward with DLC seven eighty eight and SEIU one thousand. I work at High Speed Rail. I support this bill.
Speaker 37
Hello. My name is Leaf Jones. I'm a job steward representing SEIU Local one thousand, representing the Department of Housing and Community Development, and I support this bill.
Speaker 21
Good morning. My name is Carl Tervelez Houston. I'm a specialist too at Housing and Community Development Department, and I am a steward for DLC seven eighty two, and I support this bill.
Speaker 38
Good morning. My name is Michelle Durantz. I work for the Department of Housing and Community Development, and I support this bill.
Speaker 21
Good morning. My name is Hannah Hendrickson. I'm an office technician with the Department of Aging, and I support this bill.
Speaker 17
Good morning. My name is Marjorie Caparas, and I'm an office technician for the California Department of Aging, and
Speaker 21
I support this bill. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. My name is Samantha Kramer, and I am an analyst with the California Department of Public Health, and I very much support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 20
Good morning. My name is Wade Kelly. I'm an IT specialist one with the Department of State Hospitals, and I drove five hours to support this bill. My
Speaker 39
name is Julia Rose Pacheco, tax technician with Franchise Tax Board, SEIU Local one thousand member. I support this bill. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. My name is Valerie Sotero.
I'm an accounting officer with EDD, and I'm represented by SEIU, and I support this bill.
Speaker 40
Good morning. My name is Melissa Hogey. I'm an analyst too at Housing and Community Development and a proud member of low of SEIU Local one thousand. I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 51
Morning. My name is David J. Egan. I am a specialist with the Department of Housing and Community Development and a proud member and steward of SEIU Local one thousand. And I support this bill because telework works for Californians.
Speaker 23
Good morning. My name is Jamie Miranda. I'm an office technician with the Department of Developmental Disabilities, and I support this bill with SCIU one thousand. My name's Christine Christine Lugo, CDCR nurse sorry. I support this bill.
Speaker 16
morning. Larissa Allen with the California Victim Compensation Board and SEIU one thousand, and I support this bill.
Speaker 55
Good morning. I'm Jerry Brinsfield with the California Department of Public Health, and I also support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Hi. Good morning. My name is Tegan Silva. I am an IT specialist one with the California Department of Transportation or Caltrans and an SEIU one thousand member. I fully support this bill.
Speaker 43
Hello. I'm Kevin Aflugui. I'm with CDPH's IT, and I support this bill. Good
Speaker 44
morning. I'm Irene Myers, an attorney with the civil rights department, and I strongly support this bill.
Speaker 45
Good morning. Gabe Nevin with an attorney with the Air Resources Board, and I
Speaker 21
Good morning. My name is Megan Nevin, and I'm an attorney three for the office of energy infrastructure safety. I fully support this bill.
Speaker 47
Good morning. I'm Margaret Tides. I'm a deputy attorney general five with the natural resources section of the Department of Justice, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 34
Good morning. My name is Kirsta Perley, and I'm an attorney for with the Department of Community, Housing and Community Development, and I strongly support this bill. Good
Speaker 48
morning. I am a new to state, employee, and I fully support this bill. I'm with the California Department of Public Health.
Speaker 3
Good morning, madam chair. George Osborne, representing the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in support.
Speaker 45
Good morning. Jordan Catalano. I'm an attorney with the Department of Housing and Community Development and I'm asking you for some support of a b seventeen twenty nine today. Thank you.
Speaker 49
hearing officer at CalRecycle, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Good morning. My name is Mike Knapp. I'm an attorney at the California Department of Housing and Community Development. This is my son, Jacob, and we support a b seventeen twenty nine. Thank you so much.
Speaker 37
Good morning. I'm Peter Chao. I'm an attorney three at the Public Utilities Commission, and I'm and I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 46
Good morning. My name is Trevor Pratt. I'm a administrative law judge at the Public Utilities Commission, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 43
Good morning, madam chair members. My name is Andrew Chen. I'm an attorney three at the Department of Housing and Community Development, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 20
Good morning. My name is Ted Lindstrom. I'm an attorney for the Department of Conservation, and I strongly support a b seventeen twenty nine. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Good morning. My name is Karen Craig, and I am an attorney four at the Department of Conservation, and I strongly support a b seventeen twenty nine. Thank you.
Speaker 16
Good morning. My name is Lauren Ocadis. I'm an attorney three with the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, and I strongly support a d seventeen twenty nine. Thank you.
Speaker 24
Hi. Hi. Good morning. I'm Katie Lindsey. I'm here with Case in the Department of Toxic Substances Control as an attorney, and I support a v seventeen twenty nine.
Speaker 39
Good morning. My name is Thalesa Kingsnorth. I'm an attorney for at the California Department of Public Health, and I strongly support a v seventeen twenty nine. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Good morning. My name is Taleen Gazarian. I'm an attorney with the Department of Health Care Services and the president of the case union, and I strongly support a b seventeen twenty nine.
Speaker 39
Good morning. My name is Theresa Huang. I'm an attorney three with the Department of Health Care Services, and I strongly support this bill.
Speaker 45
Good morning. My name is Ivan Wagner. I'm an attorney with the Department of Housing and Community Development. I'm also a director with CASE, and I strongly support this bill.
Speaker 12
Good morning. My name is Matt Gauger. I'm an administrative law judge with the Agriculture Labor Relations Board. I'm also vice president of CASE, and I strongly support a b seventeen twenty nine. Thank you.
Speaker 13
Good morning. My name is Jamie Ormond. I'm an administrative law judge with the California Public Utilities Commission, and I'm the treasurer of CASE, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you very much.
Speaker 21
Monica Miner, case labor relations representative. I'm here in support of this bill.
Speaker 37
Good morning. My name is Michael Bridge. I'm an attorney with the Department of Housing and Community Development, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 53
Good morning. I'm doctor Stuart Bussey. I'm a family doctor, president of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists. I strongly support this bill.
Speaker 50
Morning, madam chair and members. My name is Galen Young. I'm an attorney with the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation with CASE, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 39
Good morning. My name is Jill Zimmerman, and I'm an attorney with Toxic Substances Control, and I strongly support this bill.
Speaker 5
Good morning. My name is Andrew Dodasevich. I'm an attorney with the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and I'm strongly in favor of this bill.
Speaker 21
Good morning. My name is Hillary Moiz. I'm an attorney with the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and I strongly, strongly support this bill. Good morning. Rebecca Bond with Toxic Substances Control.
I'm an attorney three, and I support a b seventeen twenty nine. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 20
Good morning. I'm Will McGuire. I'm an attorney three with the Department of Public Health, and I strongly support this bill. Thanks for your time.
Speaker 21
Madam chair and members, I'm Lexi Howard. I'm an attorney with the Department of Water Resources in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 38
My name is Janae Solis, and I work for the California Department of Insurance, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 36
Hello. My name is Jonathan O'Shalom. I'm a senior environmental scientist with Caltrans, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Hello. My name is Cassidy Ellis. I'm a transportation planner with, Caltrans, and I support this bill.
Speaker 17
My name's Olivia Shah, and I work for the Department of Health Care Services, and I support this bill.
Speaker 54
Good morning. I am Vikrant Singh, associate toxicologist with Department of Pesticide Regulation, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you very much.
Speaker 39
Good morning. I'm Jackie Douglas. I'm environmental scientist for CowRecycle, and I support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Good morning, Marisol Pasquier. I'm a staff research scientist with the California Department of Public Health and a head steward with CAPSIAW, and I strongly support this bill. Hello. I'm Ariel McCluskey. I'm an environmental scientist with the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and I support this bill.
Speaker 43
Justin Garcia, vice president of CAPSUAW Local eleven fifteen in strong support.
Speaker 20
Good morning. Tristan Mossbacker, research scientist with the California Department of Public Health, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 37
Hi. I'm David Webb. I'm a research scientist at the Department of Public Health, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 20
Hello. My name is Alexander Yeh. I'm a regulatory scientist at the Department of Pesticide Regulation, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 37
Hello. My name is Taylor Whitehill. I'm a senior environmental scientist with the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Hello. My name is Darian Poland. I'm ITS two at EDD, and I support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Hello. I'm Steve Nadjar, I ITS two at EDD. I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 21
I'm Jennifer Barry, attorney three with CDTFA, and I strongly support this bill.
Speaker 53
Good morning. John DeRosa, attorney four with Department of Housing and Community Development. I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Morning. Joseph Spano, attorney three, Housing and Community Development, and support the bill.
Speaker 30
Good morning. My name is Ivan, and I'm with SCAU one thousand. And I support this bill because telework is a rare win win for everyone.
Speaker 21
Good morning. Emily Ingram. I'm at the California Department of Education represented by SCIU Local one thousand in support of this bill. Thank you. Good morning.
I'm Shana Rodriguez, Department of Education Information Technology Associate, and I support this bill. Hi. My name is Britney, and I'm for the Department of Adult and Aging and represented by CEIU one thousand, and I also strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 39
Hello. I'm doctor Helen Thompson. I'm a member of California Association of Professional Scientists. I work at California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and I am strongly in support of this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 43
Hello. My name is Nick Johnson. I'm a data analyst for Cal Fire, with, SEIU Local one thousand, and I strongly support this bill.
Speaker 17
Hello. I'm Nicole Madison Rouse with Department of Social Services, and I fully support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Hi. My name is Amanda Bartell. I'm an environmental scientist with Department of Pesticide Regulation, and I, along with several of my colleagues who could not make it here today, strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 49
Hi. My name is Mel Toreny. I'm a public librarian by trade. I am with CAPS UAW, and I strongly support this bill.
Speaker 34
Hi. I'm Aruna working for CDPH. I'm a research scientist too. I strongly support this bill.
Speaker 39
Hello. I am Trisina Littlejohn. I am an analyst with EDD. I am also with SEIU one thousand, and I strongly support this bill.
Speaker 17
Hello. My name is Olga Ledergerber. I work at EDD compliance section, and I love and support this bill. Good morning. My name is Danica Dupati.
Speaker 34
I'm an analyst with EDD and a member of SEIU one thousand, and I strongly support this bill.
Speaker 57
Hello. My name is Christine Agoules, and I work with the EDD as an analyst. And I strongly support this bill.
Speaker 19
Hi, everyone. My name is Steven Van. I'm from the California Energy Commission working specifically with renewable energy. I'm currently, I'm currently energy analyst with the, build program. Part of my duties is looking at providing grants and incentives for affordable housing in low in disadvantaged communities.
Speaker 37
I want to speak on the AB seventeen twenty nine that's currently on stat today, and I support this bill because it provides flexibility and allows
Speaker 8
Sorry, sir, but you're gonna have to just name an organization. Organization. An advocacy opportunity. Thank you so much.
Speaker 58
I am Brian Leon Guerrero with SEIU Local one thousand. I work at EDD as a information technology specialist, and I support this bill.
Speaker 54
My name is Christine Lakiakamine. I work the employment development department as a legislative analyst, and I strongly support this bill. So do all my coworkers who are in SoCal currently.
Speaker 17
Hi. My name is Chelsea Lunsford. I work for the unemployment department, and I'm a legislative analyst. And I strongly support this bill.
Speaker 2
Hi there. My name is Jordan Adams. I'm a disability insurance mainframe developer for the department for the EDD. I've seen my coworkers do a bunch of incredible things teleworking, and I fully support this bill.
Speaker 60
Hello. My name is Mark Vidugo. I work in EDD, Local one thousand. I am an IT specialist one, and I fully support this bill.
Speaker 61
Hi, everyone. My name is Rafael Garcia, I am a union rep with AFSCME Council fifty seven, and I support this bill.
Speaker 45
My name is Daniel Lastinger. I'm a rehabilitation therapist at California Health Care Facility also with ASME Local twenty six twenty, and I support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 62
Good morning. My name is Barbara Perry. I'm from Napa State Hospital social worker. I'm with AFSCME Local twenty six twenty, and I fully support the bill.
Speaker 61
Good morning, everyone. My name is Carl Miller. I am the president of AFSCME Local twenty six twenty. I'm a social worker at California Health Care Facility as well, and I support this bill. Have a good day.
Speaker 63
Good morning. My name is Michelle Lam. I am from AFSCME Local twenty six twenty, and I support this bill.
Speaker 64
Good morning. My name is Nadine Antunes. I'm a behavior specialist with the Department of Developmental Services. I am with ASME Local twenty six twenty, and I support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 65
Good morning. My name is Maria Rodriguez. I work with Department of Rehabilitation as a vocational counselor, and I'm also with AFSCME Local twenty six twenty, and I support this bill.
Speaker 37
Good morning. My name is Peter Hahn. I'm a member of AFSCME, and I support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 39
Hi. My name is Aviva Fisk. I'm an environmental scientist with CAPS UAW, and I support this bill.
Speaker 66
Hello. I'm doctor Sarah Stinson, also with CAPS UAW, and I'm a molecular ecologist with the Department of Water Resources, and I support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 3
Good morning. Madison Boynton, proud member of CAPS UAW and environmental scientist at the water boards. I support this bill, especially the ten year revision period so that we don't continue rehashing this every year and wasting taxpayer dollars and your time when we already have the data that we need. Thank you.
Speaker 44
Hello. My name is Hannah Johnson. I'm a research scientist at the Department of Public Health, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Hello. Doctor Wayne Chan, research scientist supervisor at and CapsuAW member. This bill will help us retain and attract talent to work for California. Please. Thank CapsuAW.
Speaker 37
Jason Van Cort, research scientist supervisor, Department of Health Care Services, CAPSUAW. I support this sensible bill.
Speaker 1
Hello. My name's Chris Sturmer. I'm a wildlife biologist, senior environmental scientist for CDFW, and I definitely support this bill. And I'm a member of CAPS, UAW. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Good morning. My name is Tim Ryan. I am an environmental scientist with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and a proud member of CAPS UAW, and I strongly support this bill.
Speaker 57
Good morning. I'm, Lori Steffi. I work for the Department of Toxic Substances Control. I'm an environmental scientist, part of CAPS UAW, and I wanna thank assembly member Lee who is my representative. Thank you.
I support this bill.
Speaker 21
Hi. My name is Sarah Noor. I'm with Fossil Free California, and I'm here to support this bill on behalf of a coalition of environmental organizations, and we submitted a position letter with all the names. Thank you.
Speaker 49
Hello. My name is Katie Webster. I work with the California Energy Commission, and I'm part of CAPS UAW, and I support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 70
Hello. My name is Laura Harmon. I'm an environmental scientist in the Department of Pesticide Regulation and a member of CAPS UAW, and I support this bill.
Speaker 71
Hello. My name is Gonlas Komai, and I'm an environmental scientist, and a member of, CAPSA u UAW, and I support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Hi. Good morning. My name is Claudia Perez, and I'm an outreach analyst for EDDE. And I'm an SEIU Local one thousand member. And not only do I support this bill, but I kindly urge that you
Speaker 21
Hi. My name is Sarah Taylor. I'm an environmental scientist with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. I am a member of the CAPS UAW, and I support this bill. Thank you.
Hi. My name is Kimiura Ward. I'm with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and CAPS UAW, and I support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 8
My name is Keenan Smith. I'm, environmental scientist for the state water board, and, I'm under CAPS UAW. I support this bill.
Speaker 20
Morning. My name is Robert Hare. I am with CAPS UAW, and I support this bill.
Speaker 43
I'm a senior environmental scientist with CDFW, father of two third generation state employee, and I support this bill.
Speaker 21
Good morning. My name is Ellie McAluso Moore, and I, work for the EDD, and I support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Good morning. Steven Boyd, automation analyst for EDD. I support the bill.
Speaker 21
My name is Theresa Testard, air pollution specialist with the California Air Resources Board, and I fully support this bill.
Speaker 55
Sharonda Ward, Department of Justice, proud member of SEIU Local one thousand. I'm a program tech too, and I too support this bill.
Speaker 16
Hi. My name is Leticia my name is Leticia Padilla with the Department of Transportation. I'm an environmental scientist, and I fully support this bill.
Speaker 21
Hi. I'm Stacy Nagnos Stokulos, and I work at the California Department of Education. And I'm a proud SCIU Local one thousand member, and I fully support this bill.
Speaker 13
Hi. My name is Nicole Seymour. I work as an education programs consultant at the California Department of Education. I and our current budget deficit fully support this bill.
Speaker 21
I'm Carly Castillo. I'm a senior legal analyst at EDD, and I fully support this bill.
Speaker 37
Hello. My name is Peter Haupt. I'm an environmental scientist with CalEPA. I fully support this bill.
Speaker 73
Good morning. David Jimenez, Department of Social Services, disability analyst, vice president, secretary treasurer for Local one thousand, and I fully support this bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you. As we could see, a lot of people in the state, a lot of state employees support this bill. So are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, are are there any witnesses that would like to come up and and give their name, organization, and position?
Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the dais. Assembly member Nguyen?
Speaker 55
Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, assembly member, for bringing this bill forward as, someone who has a large, large amount of state workers that live in my district, and you mentioned that in your comment. I recognized many of them that actually came here. They come to my crochet club, my charm club, my community events, and they make a point to come up to me to say, where do you stand on this?
And I said, well, I mean, of course I support it because you wouldn't be here coming out to these community events and supporting the community and, you know, being able to talk to your representative. And so I wanna thank everybody that came out. I know it took some time. It's always hard to find parking here and make your way up here, but you truly do care about this. And we saw some individuals that also brought out their children as well.
Speaker 28
And as we take a look at what's happening right now and the cost of living going up and, you know, just gas going up, everything, right, that is going up. We need to find a way to be able to support our state workers because they are the fabric of the state that makes the state go on and on and and and be able to support all the departments here. I recognize that. I know that. And that we need to be able to have a balanced approach, but find opportunities to be able to support them so that they can continue to support our state and support all of us in the jobs that we do.
Speaker 55
Because while we sit here, we also know that each and every single one of them does that work to be able to help us to do the work that we do here at the Capitol. And with that, I support this bill. I'd like to make the motion, I can, madam, chair, to be able to, move this bill out. Thank you.
Speaker 22
Yes. Thank you. And I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. I actually authored a b 55 in 2022 to make teleworking permanent in the state of California for everyone. So when I was getting calls about this bill, I was like, I wrote the bill four years ago.
I'm glad everybody caught up. So I'd like to be added as a coauthor. Happy to second the motion.
Speaker 22
Yes. Don't piss off the chair. I wanna thank all the state workers for coming out. I thought it was really interesting to hear all the wide range of careers. Like, we know state workers.
Speaker 48
We've talked to them. I've served eight years, or this is my eighth year. And it was so fascinating to hear the range of careers that people can have. So I hope our young people who are watching this, maybe who did political science, you may wanna look at other jobs too because it seems like there's a wide range of very fascinating careers that the state offers as well.
Speaker 1
I appreciate the thought effort that has gone into the whole collective. And I was supporting the bill today. That
Speaker 31
said, I do believe that this is part of a broader conversation we must continue to engage in thoughtfully and responsibly. In particular, I think it's important that we, more closely examine the impact of state workforce policies and our local economies, as well as how evolving workplace structures, including remote work, may shape professional advancement opportunity opportunities, especially for navigating career growth for women. These are complex and important considerations that deserve continued dialogue as this measure moves forward. With that, I'm prepared to support the bill today in committee while respectfully reserving my right to reassess my position as a bill advances the assembly floor. Thank you, though, and thank you to all the state workers that came out today.
Speaker 8
Yeah. I just want to say that, I think a lot of times public employees are, mischaracterized. And I'm very thankful. I'm very proud of the fact that I've been a public employee my most of my adult life. So I think, it's important that we understand flexibility needs and the diverse needs, within the public employee system because we we stereotype people as a as a society, and I think it's hurtful.
So I'm very, very thankful to support this bill and, proud to be a public employee.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you. Assembly member Lee, would you like to close? Yes.
Speaker 45
I would just like to thank all the members for your conversation. I also respectfully acknowledge Assemblyman Rodriguez's points, and we'll have more further conversation about that as it hopefully advances to the floor. But I really do wanna appreciate all the members' comments and the supportive comments and also acknowledging the wide range of state workers that showed up today, many also all across the state, one even from my constituency all the way here. And I wanna also acknowledge that, yes, while we also are facing a budget deficit, we're $225,000,000, could really be real cost savings to provide people health care or fight climate change, provide childcare or housing to people. At the same time, as some of our witness talked about or or Assembly Wind talked about too is, you know, telework was or the new telework policy as we exist today, was a response to the COVID nineteen pandemic.
Speaker 10
Today's response is the Iranian war where the fuel prices have skyrocketed across the world. Other places in the world now are having fuel shortages, and this is also a response where we can cut down emissions and cut down costs by having people preserving what they do now is teleworking. And I really truly believe that there is still a preservation of productivity, so we don't have to sacrifice productivity to to increase the quality of life and efficacy of our workers. And truly right now, I think as you saw so many great people come out from across the state, these are the people that make our aspirations become reality. All the bills that we pass and all the things that we want to do, they're the ones who execute it day in, day out, and I really think this is one of those small things we can do for them to continue their strong quality of life.
With that, I respectfully ask for your Ivo.
Speaker 1
Thank you, assembly member Lee. When I first saw this bill, I had my doubts. I'm also a public work public worker. And so we do we did get get this reputation at some point. But if you know me and mister Lackey, you know that we're very hardworking people.
So that is we come from the public sector, and that that's the kind of public workers we have. But I love this modernizing government because at my age, I didn't think we could really work from home. And what did work from home mean? Because to me, I never saw that in my career. And so but when we start to look at the output that the that our employees are are doing, it's amazing.
When we look at the $225,000,000 of money that we'll save that could go back into the general budget, That is I commend the author, for looking at that because I know that we're all trying to figure out, fill that hole in the budget. And so with that, I give an eye recommendation. Thank you. Madam secretary, please call
Speaker 1
And then I'm sorry. I had a first from, assembly member Wynn and a second from assembly member Boyner. Please call the row.
Speaker 5
Item number 4AB1729. The motion is due passed and we refer to the committee on appropriations. McKinnon. Aye. McKinnon.
Aye. Locky. Aye. Lacky. Alanis.
Burner. Aye. Burner. Garcia. Aye.
Garcia. Winn. Rodriguez. Aye. Rodriguez, I.
That bill is out six to zero.
Speaker 1
we'll have file item two, a B 1630, Coloza. I'll make sure. We talked about it before I even started today.
Speaker 39
Good morning. Thank you, chair and committee members, for the opportunity to present AB sixteen thirty, worker representation for all. Thank you to the committee consultants and staff for all their hard work on this bill. AB sixteen thirty is a thoughtful and balanced measure that strengthens transparency, trust, and engagement in the collective bargaining process while maintaining the integrity of negotiations and respecting the realities faced by public employers. AB sixteen thirty would authorize the union representative to invite members of the bargaining unit to observe, meet, and confer sessions.
This, at its core, is a bill about trusting the process. For many workers, collective bargaining can feel out of reach, something that happens behind closed doors with outcomes deeply affecting their livelihoods, without direct visibility into how those decisions are being made. Allowing members to observe negotiations opens the door to greater understanding and transparency. Workers gain firsthand insight into the complexity of bargaining, the trade offs involved, and the good faith efforts made on their behalf. This transparency strengthens confidence in union leadership, fosters unity within bargaining units, and ultimately leads to more informed and engaged workplaces.
Participation is limited and controlled, extended only at the discretion of the exclusive representative who is best positioned to determine when and how observation is appropriate. This ensures that negotiations remain focused, productive, and respectful of the sensitive nature of discussions, a critical component, of the balance we are striking. It ensures that public resources are used responsibly and that employers are not required to bear additional costs for observational participation. It also preserves flexibility. If both parties see value in allowing compensated observation in certain circumstances, they retain the ability to come to that agreement.
With me to testify in support of the bill are Sandra Barreiro with SEIU California and Alana Oshre, family medicine and psychiatry resident physician at UC Davis Health.
Speaker 63
you, madam chair and members. Medical residents are isolated by exceptionally long hours and the mental and physical demands of their jobs. They're often placed in areas where they're socially isolated, without a support network, and fifty to seventy percent of residents experience depression and burnout. The union is a support network. It provides a sense of belonging and control over their working conditions, both of which improve mental health.
But residents' opportunities to engage in the union are limited by their inflexible schedules. This bill would make union engagement more accessible by allowing residents to listen to bargaining sessions remotely from wherever they can, whenever their such their schedule allows it. It wouldn't change the role of the bargaining team, which would still be the only union members that are actively engaged in negotiations. CIR represents residents in five other states where they allow this practice of having remote observation. And in California, the current law allows the UC and the CSU to do the same, but the CSU and UC can refuse those requests.
Speaker 43
The CSU and UC allow in person observers, but they have refused to provide remote access to observers. One of the the one of the concerns is that this bill could disrupt bargaining. However, disrupting bargaining is already prohibited under existing law, and any disruptions could subject the union to an unfair practice charge at PERB. Providing remote access is the simplest way that the UC and CSU can recognize the work of all their employees, but especially the medical residents who sacrificed their mental and physical well-being to take care of patients. It's a simple way to help make them feel more connected with their union, especially compared to the larger structural changes that would be needed to reduce the number of twenty four hour shifts.
Speaker 42
Good morning, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with the committee today. My name is Doctor. Alana Ashray, and I'm a combined family medicine and psychiatry resident at UC Davis and a proud member of the union, the Committee of Interns and Residents. We represent over 6,000 residents and fellows across the UC system, and I'm testifying today in support of AB sixteen thirty, which grants unions the right to invite member observers to bargaining sessions. I chose my residency program to work with patients who are unhoused and have serious mental illness and chronic health conditions.
Speaker 16
I average a work week of seventy eight hours. As a resident in family medicine psychiatry, I work in pediatrics, OBGYN, and I'm treating people with serious mental illness, including those who are incarcerated. Passing AB sixteen thirty is crucial to ensuring that workers have a seat at the table to negotiate their working conditions and receive resources they need from their employer. Again, I average seventy eight hours per week. Currently, UC resident physicians are negotiating their first statewide contract.
The UC refuses to allow remote observer access, which is disrespectful to residents who work sixty to eighty hours per week on top of nights, twenty four hour call shifts, and weekends. We also work across the state from Sacramento down to San Diego, so many of us are not able able to attend bargaining sessions that are held in person due to our incredible work hours and distance. It's just not realistic. Please vote in favor of a b sixteen thirty, and thank you for your time.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come to the mic. Give your name, organization, and position. Seeing seeing no other witnesses, are there any witnesses in opposition?
Please come forward. You have two minutes each.
Speaker 53
Good afternoon, madam chair and members. Tyler Aguilar on behalf of the University of California. The university fully supports the goals of increased transparency in this bill, we respectfully oppose a b sixteen thirty because we believe observation protocols are still most effectively handled at the bargaining table. As noted in the analysis in our letter, historically, PERB has maintained and ruled that the presence of observers should be settled through mutually agreed upon ground rules for observation. This flexibility allows the university and our labor partners to tailor a process that works for each specific unit.
Speaker 33
At UC, 18 system wide units, 270,000 employees. We wanna make sure we're tailoring, approach that works for each unit. Again, we appreciate and share the author's goal of increased transparency, but we continue to believe that the best way to reach timely agreements is to keep these decisions within the existing bargaining process. Thank you, and I'll pass it to my colleague at CSU.
Speaker 28
Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. I'm Adriana Gomez with the CSU Office of the Chancellor. We appreciate the conversations we've had with the author's office and sponsors. However, we do remain concerned about the potential impacts of the bill.
Speaker 13
I echo my colleague's comments from UC and would just like to additionally note that there is significant ambiguity in the bill at the moment. For example, the bill stipulates one or more observers may attend collective bargaining meetings at the exclusive representative's discretion without any defined parameters around that attendance, and passive observation and ground rules are also not defined. So without clear limits, as noted in the analysis, this language could be interpreted to permit an unlimited number of observers and create logistical and security challenges. We're worried about this potentially undermining the candid dialogue that's necessary at the bargaining table to reach agreements. And employer employers and unions can already come to mutual agreements at the bargaining table, as my colleague noted, that consider the different needs for different employee groups and that set the necessary ground rules.
Speaker 28
We feel that this bill overrides the necessary ability to come to these mutually agreed to frameworks and can significantly alter the dynamics of collective bargaining in a manner that might delay agreements or further complicate bargaining sessions, so we respectfully request a no vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Are there any other, folks that want to give their position? Please come to the mic. Give your name, organization, and position. Seeing none, I'd like to bring it back to the dais. Assembly member Lackey.
Speaker 8
Yeah. I just have a, a question. Listening to the opposition, how is this not making, these delicate discussions from being public?
Speaker 63
you for the question, assembly member Lackey. I mean, the intent would be to make the conversations public. And according to our unions at the UC and CSU, you know, the intent is to limit it to just the bargaining unit members. I'm sorry. Let me clarify.
The intent is to limit of observation to only bargaining unit members, So they wouldn't necessarily be public, but currently, the bill does not set a a number on the number of, union members that can attend and observe remotely.
Speaker 8
Yeah. I I do believe that negotiations are a very delicate part of the process respected and limited within act access. And this is a scary move from, keeping it private to, expanding that. And I think it's it's a little bit dangerous. That's all.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any other members? Move the bill. The bill was moved by assembly member Burner and seconded by assembly member Nguyen. Assemblymember Kalosa, would you like to close?
Speaker 39
Thank you, chair and members, for your consideration. As we heard from the witness testimony, some of our workers across the state and even from the prior bill are working excruciating hours and aren't able to participate in a meaningful way. I think our bill moves in the right direction of allowing more meaningful participation given the demands, of the work schedule of all of our workers, across the state. So thank you. Respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
And I now I can't ask any questions because I let you close first, but I did have some, but it's okay. I think this bill is needed. I think that it's great if folks can watch in online. That way, you're controlling the questions or noise or they're not there in person. They're online, and they're able to see what's happening and how the negotiations are going when it's pertaining to them.
It's their job. And so with that, I recommend an I vote. Madam secretary?
Speaker 5
Item number two, a b sixteen thirty, the motion is due passed and re refer to the committee on appropriations. McKinnon? Aye. McKinnon? Aye.
Lackie?
Speaker 5
Burner, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Nguyen?
Aye. Nguyen, aye. Rodriguez, Rodriguez, aye. That bill is out. Five to zero.
Speaker 39
Thank you, chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to present a b seventeen fifty, which is a bill about making sure that we fully support our teachers. Thank you as well to the committee consultants and staff for all your hard work on this bill. AB seventeen fifty is built on a principle that we must stand for, that teachers, the people who show up for our children every single day should not have to pay the price for things outside of their control. This bill ensures that when certify certified and classified school employees exhaust, their sick leave and are absent due to illness or accident that they will continue to receive their full salary for an additional five months. It is a policy grounded in dignity, stability, and respect for the essential workforce that keeps our schools running every single days.
Our teachers, from our bus drivers, custodians, and school staff are more than just employees, are the backbone of our education system. They show up for students in moments big and small and are often going above and beyond their job descriptions. But when life takes an unexpected turn, when a serious illness, a surgery, or an injury occurs, too many of these dedicated professionals are forced to choose between their health and their financial security. And in some of the most staggering, polls recently show that one in five teachers, struggle financially, and over thirty three percent of them have a second job just to make ends meet. And nearly half of our teachers in California plan to leave the workforce in the next ten years.
Speaker 36
And so, a b seventeen fifty is making a step towards really looking at our teacher workforce and figuring out how can we do more to retain, the current workforce that we have by making sure that they are more secure in their most dire moments of need. We also know that teacher salaries are not where they should be. They are one of the most underpaid, professions, and the salaries that they received often do not reflect the value of their work or the cost of living in our state. On top of that, we know that many teachers routinely spend their own money on classroom supplies, covering everything from the most basic necessities to books, to learning resources, and pretty much anything that students need to learn. We know that many teachers pay out of pocket.
Speaker 39
And so providing a full salary for teachers is a critical bridge when they're in dire need. This is a really important safety net that I think will help with retention so that they can fully heal and return in the classroom, and this will make our students more successful and our schools more successful and our communities more successful. With that, I am proud to welcome Raul Gonzalez, a TK teacher with Visalia Unified as my witness.
Speaker 74
Good morning. My name is Raul Gonzales, and I'm a transitional kindergarten excuse me. Transitional kindergarten teacher in Visalia Unified, also a member of Visalia Unified Teachers Association. And I'm here speaking on behalf of California Teachers Association in support of AB seventeen fifty. CTA believes that all educational employees should have access to paid short term disability benefits.
Currently, differential pay system forces school employees to bear uncapped cost to our own substitutes after exhausting sick leave. When we exhaust sick leave, we're still injured and aren't able to return to work. Our bills don't go away. Our bills don't change. And so having having to pay a sub a sub out of pocket for five months can be financially ruining particularly for our new employees like my two sons who would would be dead in the water if if they if they had to give up most of their paycheck in order to to cover these costs.
In extreme cases like cancer, in the case of my sister, or heart attacks, severe injuries, this bill would deliver that stability that the workers would need and when they need it the most. I want to share a story about my one of our members who was out riding her bike, was bumped by a car, hit by a car, bumped, hit her head. Her brain essentially rebooted. She'd she'd suffered a traumatic brain injury. Had to relearn everything all over again.
Speaker 38
And she had to not only learn that that her bodily function, but also her curriculum, but at the same time dealt with the stress of having to deal with with the pay cut. No person should have to be penalized for not being too well to work. This bill allows employers and employees that that that ability to dedicate themselves to just being well before they get back to work. I think it's all about community. When our employees are at most need is when we need to be there for them.
Speaker 74
So for those reasons, I respectfully urge your yes support on AB seventeen fifty.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come to the mic.
Give your name, your organization, and position.
Speaker 50
morning. Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support.
Speaker 1
Seeing no other witnesses, are there any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. You have two minutes each. Thank you.
Speaker 29
Good morning. I am Michael Evans, director of labor and employee relations at the Alameda County Office of Education or ACOE. I have been in education for over eighteen years and have played several roles, including as a teacher, budget analyst, and now as an HR professional. ACOE's mission is to equip the most vulnerable students and the people who serve them with the tools to thrive. We work closely with the 18 school districts in our county who serve more than 200,000 students.
We do not impose support to employees facing long term illness. In fact, we already provide employees who exhaust their leave with up to five months at at least 50% of their regular salary or the difference between their salary and what we must pay to a substitute. However, we respectfully, pose to AB seventeen fifty for several reasons. The bill may create incentives for employees to remain out of work to the detriment of students and staff. Filling long term teacher vacancies can mean a revolving door of substitutes for students, which reduces classroom stability and hampers the relationship between teachers and students so vital for successful learning.
Speaker 46
The lack of stability and consistency is particularly difficult for students with disabilities. Long term absences also create challenges for existing staff covering their own workload as well as the workload of their absent colleagues. Finally, we do have cost concerns. The bill would increase costs without increased funding at a time when districts are laying off staff to balance budgets. Differential pay allows previously budgeted funds to be used for qualified substitute coverage.
Speaker 29
To remove LEA's ability to use differential pay without adding additional funding would require budget cuts to other programs or services. For these reasons, I ask for a no vote on a b seventeen fifty. Thank you.
Speaker 35
Good morning, madam chair members. Dorothy Johnson on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, also respectfully opposed to a b seventeen fifty, really focusing on staffing challenges and the increased costs. We think a change is significant as proposed in a b seventeen fifty really needs to take in the full universe of existing leave time allowances, paid disability benefits, the return rights, the thirty nine month rehire practices for those who exhausted their sick leave, and all of the other considerations, set for school based positions, teachers, and classifieds, compared to other public sector employment. So as, my, counterpart from Alameda County Office of Education mentioned, the staffing challenges are real and they're getting worse because as you may know, the, extended period for substitutes from sixty days was, no longer in effect. So now we have that thirty day revolving door.
And making matters worse, our retired annuitants who have supported staffing needs will lose their extended abilities as of July 1. We are particularly concerned again for our special education students who do require and thrive when there's greater stability in their in their classroom settings. And then quickly speaking about costs, this would dramatically increase costs outside of prop ninety eight's current structure. So we're looking at dollars already committed to students and staff that would be drained. Another bill, that would have provided three months of leave was estimated to cost about $500,000,000 annually.
So less time, significant costs. And I do wanna reemphasize that end of the day, this would create incentives for staff to remain out longer and could create a paid off ramp as individuals seek other positions either with different districts or outside education. So remain opposed. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Please step forward and give your
Speaker 42
Good morning. Lucy Salcedel Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education. I am, representing, in respectful opposition, Dublin Unified, Hayward Unified, Livermore Joint Valley Unified, Newark Unified, Pleasanton Unified, Sonoa Glen Unified School Districts, as well as California County Superintendents, California Suburban School Districts Association, Central Valley Education Coalition, and Kern County Superintendent of Schools.
Speaker 75
Good morning, madam chair and committee members. Michelle Gil on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 35
Caitlin Jung, on behalf of the San Bernardino County District Advocates of Better Schools and the School Employers Association of California in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 76
Madam chair members, Nick Romley, behalf of the School Districts Association, technically opposed unless amended, wanna thank the committee for noting our concerns in the analysis. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Cristal Padilla with chief executive officers of California Community Colleges. We wanna thank the author for working on us with amendments to address our concerns. Thank you.
Speaker 8
would just like to say a couple things. First of all, there's no one that thinks that teachers are overpaid. I I would tell you, I started my career as as a teacher knowing fully that I was never going to get the compensation that I felt I deserved. But and I I believe that the majority of teachers know that. They're not happy about that, but they find a way to to survive through that.
And I think that this bill is very noble and and worthy in its intent. But, I mean, there's a reason prop 98 passed with such overwhelming support. People want to fund education, but there's limited funds. There are limited funds as we're finding within our own budget within as legislators. We see there are limited funds available, and there's incredible competition for the money.
So what we have is a a finite amount of dollars, and and we have to figure out the most equitable way to spread that money. As a former school board member, it was a huge challenge to even understand the budget process. It becomes very, very complex. And so when we have policies like this, it over complicates the reality of being able to be fair to everyone. Now there there's no one that doesn't wouldn't like to fund people that, have these medical emergencies that they're trying to manage.
But the fiscal realities are different, And I I just, I I would love to be able to support this as a person who cares about people. But in the same right, I also care about being able to be equitable to all participants within the network. And I just feel like this is an unmanageable proposal. I would like to support it, but I I don't think it's realistic. So I'm sorry to say that I'm I'm not gonna be able to support it.
Speaker 1
Thank you, assembly member. Any other Move the bill. The move the bill was moved by assembly member Burner, second by assembly member Rodriguez. For me, I I have one question for the opposition. You you made a statement about folks just staying out and not coming back to work after they're sick.
You do have to have some type of a doctor's excuse if you're out over three to five days. Right? So they still have they would still have to do that. They couldn't just be out.
Speaker 35
Yes. But we have learned from our practitioners that, you know, a medical provider wants to do what's in the interest of the patient. If a patient is indicating they need additional time, they often work with their medical providers to receive those notices or those leaves. So, again, we're not we're not opposing or or, dismissing that, yes, people have ongoing medical needs. It's really about how we're going to provide that leave time and provide the staffing and support for our students and other employees.
But, yes, you do normally need the, medical notice or, leave request.
Speaker 18
Yeah. You know, I did work in a doctor's office before. That's kinda where my career started. And, I can honestly say we never gave patients notices to be off work because they asked for them. They really had to have a legitimate reason to be off.
And we can't question anybody if they're sick or they have time off. You can't question illness.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you. And, assembly member Kaloza, thank you for working with my staff, and and working with the committee. You have, we we have some suggested amendments. You have, offered to look at those amendments and work with us.
I would also ask you to work with the opponents because they it is their districts that that that's going to be impacted. But with that today, I am, giving a a recommendation. Madam secretary, can you please call the roll?
Speaker 1
No. She didn't. I'm sorry. I move so fast sometime. Assemblywoman, would you like to close?
Speaker 39
Thank you so much, chair. Thank you to the opposition for coming forward. I look forward to working with you. Appreciate, you sharing your concerns, assembly member Lackey, and thank you to the committee members for your additional thoughts. You know, I think for me, AB seventeen fifty is a targeted investment in maintaining stability in the teaching profession.
You know, this is, you know, if and when they need extended periods of leave if they are sick or have illness. Teachers also don't accrue leave in the same way that the traditional worker may accrue leave. They accrue leave, I believe, about one sick day a month in some of the cases that we were hearing about. And so if you can imagine what that's like for a new teacher and something horrible happens to them, then only to have their wages garnished to pay for a substitute teacher, to allow for them to recover during that time. And so I think this is a targeted investment.
I look forward to working with the opposition. I thank the witness for their time and, respectfully ask for your I vote. And thank you, chair.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And it just hearing that teachers have to pay for substitutes, I never heard of that. That is unbelievable. But with that, madam secretary, can you call the roll?
Speaker 5
Item number three, a b seventeen fifty, the motion is due pass. And we refer to the committee on higher education. McKinnon. Aye. McKinnon.
Aye. Lackie.
Speaker 5
Burner. Garcia. Wynn. Wynn. Aye.
Rodriguez. Aye. You have sufficient votes. We'll place it on all four absent members.
Speaker 1
a brief rest recess of three three minutes. Thank you, mister Gonzalez. You're next, though. You're next. Real quick.
I'd like to bring the meeting back to order. The next item, file number 5, AB1896, Gonzales.
Speaker 12
Thank you, madam chair. Good morning, members. First, I would like to thank the committee staff for their work on this very, very important and needed bill today. I am pleased to present AB eighteen ninety six, the GTFO Act, which says get the feds out. This bill says that individuals who participated in immigration enforcement activities between 01/20/2025 and 01/20/2029 will be disqualified from holding state, county, or local public employment in California except for conduct already permitted under California Senate Bill 54, the law that protects trust between our communities and our local government.
Speaker 15
This bill is authored by myself and our speaker Rob mister Rivas, whose continued partnership on this effort reflects a shared commitment to making sure California stands strong in defending our communities, our civil rights, and the values that define our great state. Since the start of January 2025, our neighborhoods have lived with raids, intimidation, and fear. And I wanna give a point of personal privilege to thank our chair of the delegation, our chair of this committee, who helped put together a a press conference and immediate attention, especially as ICE was focused on neighborhoods in Los Angeles and my district, including hers. Families waking up wondering if today is the day someone knocks on their door to kidnap them. Folks who are just selling flowers, going to graduations, just simply trying to live their day being kidnapped in broad daylight.
Speaker 12
Communities that wonder and understand what this federal government is doing and wondering if people who swore to protect them are actually working against them. This is not an abstract thought. This is our reality. We have seen with our very own eyes horrible, horrible acts of terror, violence, and hate committed against our communities. These acts are not isolated.
They are not faceless. A pattern has been shown, a pattern of poor training, poor decision making, and poor values. Terrible terrible events like the immigration enforcement officials publicly executing Renee Good, shooting Alex Preti in the street, cat kidnapping five year old Liam Fornejo Junior to use as political bait, and shooting and killing Keith Porter Junior during a holiday. Whistleblower documents and complaints presented to Congress show alarming changes to ICE training. Current ICE recruits receive two hundred and fifty fewer hours of training and are only receiving a fourteen week training program.
ICE eliminated a dozen practical exams and reduced the number of tests that a trainee needs to pass from 25 to just nine. ICE has also removed entire courses from their training program, like how to approach use of force, the structure of United States government, and how to determine a criminal versus a civil removal proceeding. In comparison, peace officers in California must go through a minimum of forty weeks of training just to graduate from the academy. California expects its public employees to be moral, to defend its people against all enemies, and to support and defend both the constitution of The United States and of California. And anyone who has participated in these raids has shown that they did not live up to the bar that California deserves from their public servants.
So today, California answers with clarity. If you participate in cruel, baseless immigration enforcement, if you violated civil rights, ignored due process, or followed unlawful orders, you will not be welcomed into California's public workforce. Today, in primary witnesses in support is Christian Ramirez, vice president of SEIU USWW, representing SEIU California, and Peter Trujillo, director of organizing with Chirla. I And know today is their day of action as well, so I thank you both for being here. Take it away.
Speaker 79
Thank you, madam chair and members. My name is Christian Ramirez. I'm the vice president of SDIU USWW, and I'm representing SDIU California today. I'm here in support of AB eighteen ninety six on behalf of 750 members 350,000 members and our families. We appreciate the assembly member Assemblyman Gonzalez's leadership and the speaker's leadership on this important issue and their commitment to upholding the values that Californians expect from public service.
AB eighteen ninety six ensures that individuals who participated in immigration enforcement activities between 01/20/2025 and 01/20/2029 are disqualified from holding state, county, and local public employment in California, except for conduct already permitted under SB 54. Since the start of this administration, ICE and border patrol have unleashed a wave of aggressive, unchecked military style immigration rates. These actions have resulted in kidnappings, beatings, and shootings, and even the deaths of unarmed civilians. We represent workers, immigrants, and citizens alike across industries like health care, child care, education, janitorial, security officers, airport workers, public service workers. We are the folks that make the state run.
And yet the very same people that we trusted with our tax dollars have turned their guns against us. Our members expect to be good stewards of public trust and to serve their communities with integrity every single day. That's the expectation members have. It's the expectations we have also of federal law enforcement. California sets a high bar for its public servants.
Speaker 50
We expect them to uphold the constitution, respect due process, and serve all communities with dignity. Same individuals carrying out these rates are harming the very communities they have claimed to serve and protect. We also want to ensure that this bill is meaningful and enforceable in practice so it delivers on the promise and truly protects the rights and dignity of California of California's workers and their families. Anyone who participated in these rates has shown that they do not meet the standards that California expects from them.
Speaker 11
Thank you. Mic check here. Good morning, madam chair, members. My name is Pedro Truquillo. I'm the organizing director at CHERLA, also known as the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights.
And, CHERLA is a nonprofit immigrant rights organization that's been serving the state of California for almost forty years and, forty years since the end of this year. I've been at Charlotte for fourteen years as an organizer at a nonprofit organization with the mission statement to achieve a justice just society fully inclusive of immigrants. I, along with colleagues, were called by the threat of mass deportations to reactivate the Los Angeles Rapid Response Network in 2017 during the first Trump administration. And this network comprised of nonprofit immigrant rights, civil rights orgs, unions, faith, and grassroots organizations had to come together to train the community on Know Your Rights and train volunteers as rapid responders to document any immigration enforcement. But the threats of mass deportations during the first Trump administrations mostly remained as that, as a threat, because most of the operations that we were able to document and witness were similar to what was happening prior during the Obama administration.
Speaker 34
During the next, presidential administration, which is the Biden administration, the structure of the rapid response network remained, but it was largely unused given that most of the issues were happening at the border at that time. There were still some operations in the interior, but we did not need to activate the large rapid response network. During this last, Trump administration, the current Trump administration, we had to I had to reactivate the Rapid Response Network in November 2024, and the Rapid Response Network began training volunteers and getting ready for mass operations, deportations, and arrests. In a few months, we trained hundreds of volunteers, and to date, we have over 2,000 individuals trained by the network. It is clear by our documented reports from volunteers that cruelty and injury and racial profiling has been used by these agents, ICE agents and Border Patrol agents, and that they're even targeting rapid responders who are peacefully documenting what is happening and ensuring that people's due process is followed.
Speaker 11
We had to adjust our training to get the ACLU to actually give us a little bit more of, like, how do we keep ourselves safe and document safely and protect ourselves given that they directed their attention from not just the community, but also to the people helping out. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any other witness in support? Please come forward. Give your name, your organization, and your position.
Speaker 60
Good morning, ma'am madam chair and members. Christopher Sanchez on behalf of the Central American Resource Center, Carrese, in in strong support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition please come forward? You'll have two minutes, sir. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Madam chair and members, Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in opposition to the bill. To be clear, this is not a comment about what the federal government is or isn't doing in regards to immigration enforcement. This is about the impact that this bill will have on county sheriff offices across the state of California. This bill will restrict California law enforcement agencies from hiring otherwise qualified individuals as peace officers simply because they happen to work for a federal agency that has some connection to federal immigration enforcement. And it's important to note that this bill is not limited to persons who work for federal agencies like ICE that have a primary responsibility connected to immigration enforcement.
A plain reading of this bill would indicate that somebody who worked for the Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard, FEMA, maybe as a military reservist, somebody who worked for TSA or even the Secret Service during the time period in the bill would not be allowed, to serve as a peace officer under California law. It also the bill doesn't restrict future employment of just persons who actively participated in actual immigration enforcement. Under this bill, a person, for example, who is employed as a mail clerk by DHS during the dates described in the bill would be ineligible to become a California peace officer, not to mention someone who worked for TSA or even the Secret Service. The bill also neglects the fact that any person who's ultimately employed as a California peace officer is subject to extensive background checks and high statutory and departmental qualifications as they exist in statute and across the state. And this is our the crux of our concern is that recruiting and retaining qualified peace officer candidates is already hard enough in the state, and this bill will unnecessarily make that process more difficult.
So for those reasons, we'd respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward, state your name, organization, and position. Seeing none, I'd like to bring it back to the dais. Any members like the move the bill is moved by, first by assembly member Burner and seconded by assembly member Garcia.
Assembly member Rodriguez?
Speaker 18
Okay. I just wanna thank the author. And in my own district, a constituent of mine was taken in a manner that left an entire community shaken and searching for answers. It drew a national attention, but more importantly, it left an lasting impact on the people I represent. This is not something that I can ignore.
With that being said, we support the measure today, but I know that at the moment, this isn't the end of the conversation. And I know I've talked to my assembly member Gonzales, and I know he will engage with law enforcement and see if there's any amendments that could be taken. So with that, I will be supporting the bill today.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Any other member have any comments? Any questions? No? Okay.
I have a couple. You talked about workforce short shortages. You claim this worsens workforce shortages. What evidence do you have that allowing individuals with concerning prior conduct improves recruitment or retention outcomes?
Speaker 25
Madam chair, I mean, it's a it's a simple matter of numbers. We're not looking to hire people who have questionable backgrounds or who have done things that have violated the law or that would violate law enforcement policies. But that's taken care of by the fact that anybody who wants to become a peace officer has to undergo an extensive background check, including with the agencies with whom they formerly worked. And, again, it's not limited to someone who, you know, took place in a an actual immigration enforcement action on the street, you know, enforcing a removal order or something like that, that's found objectionable by the proponents. So, again, it's it's the bill is saying there there are there is some number of people, how big or how small depending on what the bill says in terms of definitions, that simply are not available to be in the possible employment pool of California peace officers.
Speaker 1
Okay. Let's see. When we think about public trust, how do you respond to community concerns about individuals with problematic histories continuing to serve in the law enforcement roles, especially when we look at the ICE, what's happening with ICE. And I think we just had a shooting a murder yesterday or a couple of days ago.
Speaker 25
But, madam chair, if you're referring to the Patterson incident, I don't believe the person was killed.
Speaker 25
So thankfully. But, again, I think it's it's it's the same response. It's it's assuming that I mean, the bill is based on the premise that anybody who worked for any federal agency that touches immigration enforcement law has necessarily been actively, affirmatively, and personally involved in some kind of job or job duty that the proponents or whomever find objectionable. That that's that's an opinion. But when it comes to hiring somebody, there's a process.
Law enforcement, California sheriffs don't just look and say, okay. Well, this person worked for the Homeland Security, so they're okay. They work for Secret Service, so they're okay. They still go through background checks. There's still very high standards.
So anything that's unlawful or undesirable in terms of an action, that's gonna come out in a hiring investigation. And if it's something that's done while they're employed as a California peace officer, they'd be subject to discipline if it's violative of state law or policy.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you for those, those answers. One more time. Anybody else from the dais? Assembly member Gonzalez, would you like to close?
Speaker 12
Yes. I just, two pieces here. One is we are gonna be continuing, and I did make that commitment to miss Rodriguez about continuing to work with law enforcement on this bill. Again, the bill is going after people who are part of the enforcement piece. We're not going after the clerical people.
We're not going after people who are not part of the enforcement piece. If you take the bonuses, you take the consequences. That's what this bill is about. And so today, we have a choice to stand together to choose dignity over cruelty, law over lawlessness, and people over power. If you choose to terrorize communities instead of serving them, California will not reward you with a public paycheck.
And with that, madam chair and committee members, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 5
Item number five a b eighteen ninety six. The motion is to pass and re refer to the committee on public safety. McKinnon. Aye. McKinnon.
Aye. Lackie. No. Lackie. No.
Alanis. Burner.
Speaker 5
Burner. Garcia. Aye. Garcia. Nguyen.
Aye. Nguyen. Aye. Rodriguez. Rodriguez.
Aye. That bill is out. Five to one. Thank you.
Speaker 1
The next item is a item six, AB2120, Selache. I thought I saw him. Okay. So maybe Selache is not in. The next item is item number 7AB2129, Flora.
Speaker 80
Colleagues, madam chair, thank you again, to them presenting a b 29 or twenty one twenty nine, which approves compensation for CAL FIRE firefighters to ensure that their salaries are more competitive with local fire departments. AB twenty one twenty nine aims to improve the hiring and retention and will reduce the loss of firefighters to higher paying jurisdictions, which will also assist CAL FIRE in meeting the state's public safety needs. Today, with me is Terry McHale, representing Cal Fire Local twenty eight eighty one with Aaron and Associates. Terry?
Speaker 30
Madam chair, members of the committee, it's a privilege to be here in your committee. I'm always reluctant to come to your committee because my personal resemblance to your chief of, consultant, Michael Bolden, is so disturbing to people
Speaker 30
I like to remind people, the way to tell us apart is that Michael is a couple years older and doesn't work out as much as I do. But I do wanna take since we are so close, if I were Michael Bolden, I would certainly take credit for the analysis that was done today. It is spot on. This legislation was before you in a different version last year. The governor did not sign it.
He wanted to make sure that it was not free of a bargaining equation. And so we rewrote it. It makes it absolutely clear that it creates a floor, but this still has to go through bargaining. This committee understands as well as anyone. Cal Fire is the largest fire department not only in California.
Speaker 52
It is the largest and most diverse fire department in The United States. And shockingly, it is one of the lowest paid fire departments in The United States. And what this bill does is it creates a floor taking fire departments chosen by HR that are now memorialized in the bill and says that they must be paid the employees must be paid within 15% of the average of those fire departments. So instead of being the lowest paid, we will inevitably be somewhere in the middle. It is a smart bill.
Speaker 30
I appreciate a former firefighter carrying this bill, and I very much appreciate the support that this committee has shown in the past. And I ask that you please support it again. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come forward. Give your name, organization, and position. Seeing none, are there any witness in opposition?
Seeing none, are there any witnesses that would like to state their name, organization, and position? Seeing none, I'd like to bring it back to the dais. Assembly member Burnham moved the bill. Assembly member Nguyen second. Would you like to close?
Speaker 5
Item number seven AB twenty one twenty nine. The motion is due passed and we refer to the committee on appropriations. McKinnon? Aye. McKinnon?
Aye. Lackey?
Speaker 5
Garcia? Aye. Nguyen? Aye. Rodriguez?
We have sufficient votes, so place it on hold for absent members.
Speaker 1
Thank you, commissioner. Thank you. So we didn't get Selache back, did we? No. The next item number 9, AB2367, Carla.
Speaker 77
Good morning, and thank you, madam chair and members. AB twenty three sixty seven will require state run health care facilities report on a quarterly basis their staff vacancy overtime and contract data with additional breakdowns by classification and facility. Per the direction of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the state auditor reviewed staffing levels at the California Department of Corrections Rehabilitation, the Department of Developmental Services, and Department of State Hospitals last year. They focused on three facilities, and the audit found that over five years, the staff vacancy rates at all three facilities had increased. To address the vacancies, the facilities had to increase their use of contract workers, which cost more per hour than their state civil service counterparts even after taking into account the non wage costs associated with state civil service employment such as benefits.
The contract workers also had two to three years less tenure than state employees in the same classification, which resulted in a need for additional training and time. The auditor also found that CDCR, DDS, and DSH do not have a formal process for reporting their shift staffing minimums, which are critical to ensuring the provision of legally required levels of care. To promote transparency, accountability, and oversight, the auditor recommended all three departments immediately require their facilities to track and report publicly their staffing levels with explanations for any missed minimums. AB twenty three sixty seven builds on the auditor's recommendation and requires state run health care facilities to report quarterly by facility, information regarding vacancy and overtime data, registry contract data, and the number of shifts by which the facility fell short of its required shift staffing minimums and an explanation for why it missed those minimums. With me to provide supporting testimony is Vanessa Seestrong, RN BSN PHN, Bargaining Unit seventeen chair for SEIU Local one thousand, and Kenny Sims, research director for SEIU Local one thousand to help address technical questions.
Speaker 81
morning, chair and committee. My name is Vanessa Seestrong. I'm a registered nurse working for the state of California. I'm proud to serve as the bargaining unit chair for SEIU Local one thousand. Through my union, I represent health care workers in state facilities across California.
I'm here today about AB twenty three sixty seven, speaking directly what my coworkers and I live through every day on the job. For years, our facilities have been short staffed. Vacancies gone unfilled. And when there aren't enough state employees, the solution is often mandatory overtime or expensive contractors. This means state workers are required to work longer hours and multiple double shifts to keep things running.
This has real consequences. It leads to burnout, unsafe working conditions, high turnovers, which only makes staffing shortage worse. And while contract staff can help short term, but relying on them year after year caused the state far more than investing in civil service workers. As a state worker, we have raised these concerns over and over, and we've asked how many positions are vacant, how much overtime is being mandated, and how much money is going to contractors. Right now, the answers aren't always available for the legislators or even the workers affected by these decisions.
Speaker 33
AB twenty three sixty seven is about transparency and accountability. It requires regular reporting of vacancies, overtime use, and contracts so policymakers, departments, workers can clearly see what's happening in the state health facilities and begin to address the root problems. State auditors' recent report confirms what workers have been saying for years. This system isn't working. AB twenty three sixty seven gives us the information we need to do better for patients, workers, and taxpayers.
Speaker 16
Good morning, and thank you for your time. My name is Kenny Sims. I'm the research director for SEIU Local one thousand, And I have with Vanessa and our team been working on the mandatory overtime problem for at least fifteen years. And one of the things that we have discovered and fully understood is that this issue of the mandatory overtime usage combined with outsourcing is quite intricate and difficult to understand because it is not a statewide problem. It is a facility by facility problem.
Speaker 82
When we look at the data that we have gotten over the last couple of years, we come to realize that the issues that are affecting one institution aren't necessarily the same types of issues or the magnitude of the overtime or MOT that's affecting another institution, which requires that any solution that we have that we're gonna achieve a reduction of mandatory overtime while at the same time making sure that civil service work is done by civil service employees requires an understanding on the ground of both the vacancy issue, the usage of registry contracts, and the amount of mandatory overtime that occurs on a case by case basis. Because the conversation, the discussion, then dissection of the problem is not something where a decade ago, we might have said it's a statewide problem. Now we know it's a statewide problem in terms of the administrative policies and management solutions that the state has used to solve the issue for staffing shortages, but the solutions need to be a little bit more focused and understood at a more detailed level. And for that reason, we are asking for your support to provide us the information on a real time ongoing basis so that we can actually address and track this issue as it grows, changes, and hopefully comes to an end in the near future.
So thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come forward and give your name, organization, and position.
Speaker 20
Edgar Guetta with SEIU California, sponsor of the bill and in support. Thank you.
Speaker 34
Good morning. My name is Gina Lindsay. I am with Fiscal. I am a a one specialist, and I support this bill.
Speaker 13
Anika Walls, Social Security disability evaluation analyst with social services and proud president of SEIU Local one thousand in strong support of this bill. Thank you very much.
Speaker 14
Terry Gray, Public Utilities Commission. I strongly support this bill as well.
Speaker 83
Good morning. Irene Green, employment program representative with unemployment, and, I stand in support with my siblings, with Local one thousand, strong support of this bill.
Speaker 19
Jose Regalado, California Department of Insurance, and I strongly support this bill.
Speaker 27
Good morning. I'm Skyler Waldeck Myers with, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and I support this bill.
Speaker 24
Hi. My name is Crystal Coles. I'm with Housing Community Development and also with SEIU Local one thousand in strong support of this bill.
Speaker 26
Laborn, SEIU one thousand and Department of Consumer Affairs. I support this bill.
Speaker 48
Icy Williams, California Department of Public Health. I fully support this bill.
Speaker 73
Good morning. David Jimenez, disability analyst analyst with Social Services Department, and I fully support this bill.
Speaker 36
Joshua Gale, DLC seven six a president and secretary of state's office is where I work. Strong support of this bill and the 4,000 members I represent. Thank you.
Speaker 23
Nate Cruz. I work at Department of Health Care Services. I'm a member of SAU Local one thousand, and I support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 40
Alyssa Hogey, analyst two at Housing Community Development, member of SAU Local one thousand. I strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 32
Omega Brewer Gonzalez, director of government affairs for SEIU Local one thousand representing over 100,000 state workers, strong support of the bill.
Speaker 1
Seeing seeing no more witnesses, are there any witness in opposition? A senator Warren Burner. Anyone like have a any questions or comments? Burner. You like to vote?
Speaker 5
Item number nine, a b twenty three sixty seven. The motion is due passed and re referred to the committee on appropriations. McKinnon.
Speaker 5
Garcia, I. Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, Rodriguez, you have sufficient votes, so we'll place it on hold for absent members. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
And the next item is item number eight, AB2223 Lowenthal or twenty two twenty three. My age. Right. Mine too. It's definitely nice here today.
Speaker 21
Alright. Thank you, madam chair and members. I'm so pleased to present a b twenty two twenty three, which requires CDCR to report standardized information regarding the number of contracted workers, the classifications they perform, and the total cost of these contracts to the state. This information will improve transparency, accountability, and help ensure that state resources are being used appropriately and efficiently, ultimately resulting in important cost savings for the state of California. Twenty twenty four, I requested a state audit examining the use of contracted medical and mental health staffing at certain state facilities, and the auditor subsequently found that vacancy rates at some facilities remain extremely high, exceeding 30 at some state hospitals, more than 50% at Salinas Valley State Prison.
Speaker 45
These shortages have led departments to rely heavily on private staffing contractors to fill critical positions and often cost more per hour than comparable state employees. So let me give some examples of that. Recent, budget subcommittee seven oversight hearing highlighted these discrepancies. For example, a state psychologist is paid $91 an hour, whereas a contracted psychologist is paid $196 an hour. The audit also revealed that departments do not consistently evaluate whether recruitment strategies are effective in addressing vacancies.
In addition, the auditor noted that departments lack standardized processes to track court, contractor staffing levels and assess the long term impact of outsourcing on workforce planning. In March 2026, the LAO overview of state correctional population spending trends revealed that health care accounts for nearly a third of CDCR spending. As we face significant budget shortfalls in the state of California, it is paramount that we use limited state resources efficiently. It is concerning that the department does not have a clearer picture of contractor staffing levels, especially in an area where they are spending nearly one third of their budget. Despite the growing reliance on contractors, the legislature currently lacks consistent and standardized information about the number of contracted workers, the classifications they perform, and the total cost of these contracts.
AB twenty two twenty three addresses this gap by requiring CDCR to provide standardized disclosure of key information regarding contracts that substitute for civil service work. I'm very pleased to be joined by Carl Miller, president of AFSCME twenty six twenty, Stuart Bussey, president of UAPD, who are here to testify in support of the bill. Doug Chiapetta is also here with us. Thank you, madam chair.
Speaker 84
morning, madam chair, committee members. Real briefly, Doug Chiapetta, UAPD executive director. I've been here twenty four years. It's unfortunate if that we're still addressing a problem that it's a core issue within the public sector, the outsourcing of our jobs. Now more than ever, with the tremendous deficit that we have here at the state level, it'd be an opportunity to really hone in on these outrageous contractual costs and bolster civil service.
I'm here to introduce our board president who's also been here a long time, Doctor. Stuart Bussey, who's actually testified before comparable committees. Joan Buchanan had an oversight hearing on contracting out IT stuff 2012. I mean, it's like, you know, the more things remain the same, the more things remain the same. So, god, hopefully, we can move here and advance a piece of vital clear legislation.
Speaker 32
Thank you, Assemblyman Lowenthal, for the JLAC study. This is good stuff, and it's really important. Thank you. Doctor Busse, your board president.
Speaker 53
Like Doug said, this is deja vu all over again. I was here giving some solutions to these problems. So I had the top 10 solutions, including transparency, but I'll briefly you know, this bill starts it off, but there's so much more to be done. Strengthen the government code that defines emergency. Take the salary savings from the vacancies and give it to the civil servants.
Provide triggers to when contract when contract should be done, term limits for contractors. And, of course, what mister Lowenthal has has recommended, improve the transparency. We tried, in many ways to do this. We had a bargaining session right after, the PEPRA bill and, when this hearing was done in 2013 to create a contracting out committee, when we bargained with the CDCR, we found some really amazing things. Some of the contracts making a $130,000 a month.
Speaker 14
When you when you take the cumulative amount of money that has been spent on contractors between 50 and $70,000,000 a year for CDCR, it's almost a billion dollars since this hearing was done in in 2012. There's just simply a huge problem in how to how to be precise about where this money is going and how to, you know, customize the incentives at certain prisons so that it it's a better business model. We went to the state of California in 2020 and did a white paper with them, which the legislature didn't see for nine months. It was kinda buried in there. And, you know, this bill of mister Lowenthal addresses things that the Skipper's website I don't if you have a Skipper's state procurement and recruitment services and the e procurement website that Jerry Brown put out in an executive order.
Speaker 53
They don't they don't address what mister Lowenthal's bill does. So, basically, as you know from the bill, it addresses any liabilities that the vendors might have, any unlawful labor practices that they have, the number of total contracted workers, the annual amount. As CDCR does now, they put out a cumulative amount for the year, which is hundreds of millions of dollars, which is confusing for the budgetary process.
Speaker 61
Good morning, madam chair and members of the committee. My name is Carl Miller, and I am the interim president of AFSCME Local two thousand six hundred twenty. I currently work at the California health care facility in Stockton as a licensed clinical social worker. I represent hundreds of of frontline state workers who deliver critical medical and mental health services inside of the California correctional system. I'm here today in full support of a b twenty two twenty three, which at its core is about transparency and accountability and how the cal California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is increasingly relying on private contractors to perform work that has historically been done by state civil service employees.
Speaker 11
The lack of transparency around contracting makes it difficult for policymakers, unions, and the public to determine whether outsourcing is being used appropriately or whether taxpayer dollars are being spent efficiently. Contracting creates instability in our workforce, disrupts the continuity of care, and often results in significantly higher costs to the state. We are seeing situations where contract workers are paid significantly more per hour, yet facilities like ours continue to struggle with recruitment and retention of permanent staff. I personally will never forget the day I was sitting at my computer at CHCF typing in notes and overheard two contract social workers literally right next to me on the phone with their agencies discussing renewing their contracts, and they were negotiating higher rates. The rate that both of them were asking to be raised from was already more than twice what I currently make, And this was right out in the open.
Speaker 61
I sat there and I just felt demoralized and shocked, like, what am I doing? You know, state civil service employees, we are held to a rigorous hiring standard, rigorous training requirements. We have lots of professional oversight. We provide continuity, institutional knowledge, and a long term commitment to public service to our incarcerated patients. When our work is outsourced without transparency, it becomes much more difficult to ensure quality care, control costs, and build a stable workforce.
AB twenty two twenty three gives us the tools to have an honest conversation about these decisions. Okay. Doesn't eliminate contracting, but ensures those decisions are made in the light, with full understanding of their impact. Thank you for your time and consideration, and we are asking for an I vote on this bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any further witnesses in support? Please step forward and give your name, organization, and position.
Speaker 21
Good morning, madam chair. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California. We are pro proud cosponsors of the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 31
Good morning, chair members. Elmer Lazarda here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.
Speaker 83
Good morning again. Irene Green. I work for the unemployment office and stand in support of this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Good morning. I'm Skyler Waldeck Myers with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and I support
Speaker 48
I see Williams, California Department of Public Health. I happily and gladly support this bill.
Speaker 13
Anika Walls, disability determination services division with the Department of Social Services and proud president of SEIU Local one thousand representing a 100,000. I support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 34
morning. Gina Lindsay with the Department of Fiscal, with the position a one specialist, and I fully support this bill.
Speaker 14
Terry Gray, Public Utilities Commission, SCIU Local one thousand, and I support this bill.
Speaker 24
Hi. My name is Crystal Coles. I work for Housing and Community Development. I'm also on the board of directors with SCIU Local one thousand in strong support of this bill.
Speaker 36
Hi. Again, Josh Gyle, DLC seven six eight president, in charge of 4,000 members, political reform division, secretary of state's office in strong support of this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 23
Hi. My name is Nick Cruz. I work at the Department of Health Care Services. I'm a member of SEIU Local one thousand, and I'm in support of this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 26
Kevin Laborn, steward for SEIU one thousand, Department of Consumer Affairs. I strongly support this bill.
Speaker 40
Melissa Hogey, analyst two at Housing and Community Development, member of SEIU Local one thousand. I strongly support this bill. Thank you. Mhmm.
Speaker 19
Jose Regalado, California Department of Insurance, Stewart for SEIU one thousand. I support this bill.
Speaker 32
Omega Brewer Gonzales, director of government affairs for SEIU Local one thousand, representing over 100,000 workers throughout the state of California, stand in strong support and proud cosponsor.
Speaker 3
George Osborne for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing no witnesses in opposition, would it any witnesses that would like to come up and give a state their name and organization? Seeing none, let's bring it back to the dais. Anyone?
Assembly member Burner moves the bill. Assembly member Wynn seconds. Any any questions, comments? Would you like to close?
Speaker 45
Respectfully ask for your I vote. I think transparency, accountability, especially in this time of, you know, challenging financial, you know, conditions. The state of California should be welcomed by everybody so we can make decisions out in the open. Thank you, madam chair.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Assembly member, meta secretary, can you please call the roll?
Speaker 5
Item number 8AB2223. The motion is due passed and be referred to the committee on appropriations. McKinnon. Aye. McKinnon.
Aye. Lackie.
Speaker 5
Lackie not voting. What? Alanis. Burner. Aye.
Burner. Aye. Garcia. Aye. Garcia.
Wynn. Aye. Wynn. Aye. Rodriguez.
We have sufficient votes. We'll place this on hold for absent members.
Speaker 1
The next item is item number six a b 21 twenty's, Selache. Assemblymember?
Speaker 60
Good. Thank you. Madam chair and members, I would like to sincerely thank committee staff for their thoughtful analysis and engagement in my with my office. As a former school board member and personnel commissioner, I am proud to present AB twenty one twenty. A selective a selective certification has been used by Los Angeles Unified Hiring since 2003 with the most recent sunset extension twenty twenty.
AB twenty one twenty simply removes the sunset on this long standing practice now that it's been proven and provisions will be, this limited manner make a difference in hiring and for certain positions. The policy has been extended by the legislature seven times and has received unanimous support, on both senate and house floor since 2005. Selective certification is used when a position requires specialized skills, certifications, or abilities beyond what is listed in the job description. Selective certification is used by other merit system employers with large number of employees, including the US federal government, Los Angeles County, and the cities of San Francisco and Sacramento. This bill will add to language around the potential future reductions enforced for the limited positions included in this bill.
Speaker 41
AB twenty one twenty would allow the district to skip over these employees during any potential future reductions in force for the specific positions in this bill if following the typical layoff pattern would district from a special skill for which employees was hired. Selective certification is primarily used for less than 1% of all AUSD classified positions, specifically for district, representative managerial and confidential positions, and six classifications represented by the Teamsters Local five seven two. Selective certification allows Los Angeles Unified to maintain the rigorous hiring standards created by the merit system while effectively hiring for a district with over 30,000 classified employees across schools and offices. Having served as a personal commissioner for Lingua Unified District, I understand the value of the merit, system and especially the importance of working collaboratively, with our labor partners. Continued engagement with our labor remains top priority for me.
Speaker 60
And with us, we have, David Grego, a personal commissioner himself for LAUSD. Person
Speaker 58
Good morning, madam chair and esteemed members. David Grego, I'm actually personnel director of the personnel commission for Los Angeles Unified School District. LA Unified supports AB twenty one twenty in order to permanently authorize the district to use selective cert certification in its hiring process. We've employed flexibility since 2003 with SelectCert, and we believe it's time for a permanent authorization. LA Unified, adheres to the merit system, a set of laws that are over a century old promoted for excellence in government, hiring government positions.
Speaker 26
Under the merit system, an employer is required to hire from the top three ranks. The selective cert allows us to hire somebody outside of those top three ranks that may have a particular certification or license. For example, we have a office of general counsel that employs approximately 40 attorneys in different specializations. If we're hiring for a labor and employment attorney, for example, and we take only from the top three ranks, those top three ranks might be special ed, attorneys and not have the necessary skill set for, the labor and employment needs. So with the select cert, it allows us to hire somebody to hit the ground running, and it's the best, most efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
Speaker 58
In addition to removing the sunset, of the select cert, this bill also is asking to logically apply the same process in the reduction of force process. So if a layoff pattern creates a, elimination of a position in the classification of attorney, for example, but we need somebody specifically in the labor and employment again, we can skip that person with those certifications and move on to the next seniority. In closing, select cert allows the district to, again, use taxpayer dollars the most efficiently, and I ask for your support in this maybe twenty one twenty.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any more witnesses in support? Please come forward and give your name, organization, and position.
Speaker 39
Probably duplicative, but on Ayo Gomedi's on behalf of Los Angeles Unified in strong support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any seeing no more witnesses, are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, are there any witnesses that would like to come and give their name and organization? Seeing none, I would like to bring it back to the dais. Second.
Assembly member, Burner, move the bill. Assembly member Lackey, second. Assembly member I'm sorry. Let me make sure no one had a comment or question. Assembly member Solace, would you like to close?
Speaker 60
Thank you, madam chair and committee members. Again, as a former personal commissioner myself and understanding the merit system and respecting the merit system, this is critical to ensure that our labor partners are involved and engaged. And so this is why we are doing this to move this forward and ensure that our school district also is being, you know, in in consideration as they move forward to having the best practices of hiring the employees. So with that, thank you.
Speaker 1
Assemblymember, thank you for for carrying this bill. I am a public worker again, and every time I hear things that doesn't go with my old way of thinking, it kinda shocks me Right. When I don't hear about the top three because that's how I got hired.
Speaker 1
But love what you guys are doing to modernize the the system. And with that, madam secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 5
Item number six, AB twenty one twenty, the motion is due passed and we refer to the committee on education. McKinnon. Aye. McKinnon, I. Lackey?
Aye. Lackey, I. Alanis, Burner.
Speaker 5
Garcia, I. Wynn? Wynn, Rodriguez? You have sufficient votes. We'll place this on hold for absent members.
Speaker 1
Up next, we'll have item number 10AB2417, Zabur. Almost there, team. Almost there.
Speaker 78
Good morning. Good morning, madam chair, members. I am proud today to present a b twenty four seventeen sponsored by the California Federation of Teachers, which helps close a vital gap for our California community college staff by making sure that educators get the retirement information and options they need to plan for their future. The community college system has become a critical pathway allowing Californians from all backgrounds to access higher education and economic mobility, and faculty, including part time faculty, play a critical role in educating and enriching our communities. Part time community college faculty are often individuals who have chosen to give back to their communities by becoming educators in their local college districts after long careers and other sectors.
These individuals may be less familiar with retirement options available to them as educators, including CalSTRS, which requires years of teaching to vest, and other options like defined benefit contribution programs. While current law allows also allows the option of Social Security, this option is not always made available and is often not promoted like other retirement options. When an educator is making a decision regarding which retirement system to enter into, there are many important considerations. For example, an individual in a tech sector who teaches a class on coding later in life but then moves away, retires or switches second careers is unlikely to vest in a CalSTRS pension. While the dollars they may contribute into the pension still remain with them, the educator will, without vesting, forego ongoing retirement benefits that are paid out on a regular basis through their retirement.
Speaker 5
In this case, it may yield better retirement benefits for that individual to to have continued to pay into Social Security system where the amount is determined based on the duration of contributions and not subject to a vesting period. AB twenty four seventeen merely ensures the option of Social Security as a retirement benefit is provided to community college faculty. Specifically, this bill would ensure that part time faculty understand that they can select to pay into Social Security, and community colleges would be required to allow that option and also pay into that retirement account for that employee. AB twenty four seventeen also provides information to faculty, including part time faculty, about the most common retirement options so that they are equipped and empowered to make the best informed decisions about their retirement security. For individuals that have elected to give back to their communities through teaching, AB twenty four seventeen provides clarity to make the best financial decisions for secure and stable future.
Speaker 78
I ask for your I vote at the import at the appropriate time. And with me today, a sponsor of the bill and to answer technical questions is Tristan Brown, legislative director with the California Federation of Teachers.
Speaker 20
Thank you, madam chair. Good morning, good morning members. Tristan Brown with CFT. Just like you to visualize two types of part time community college faculty that exist. The one who, is a go getter.
They've had their masters. They're early in their career. They're really going out as many to get as many as much assignment as they can, perhaps working in several districts. These are folks that are long term lifers. They're gonna be faculty for a long time.
They will vest in their pensions or utilize whatever best retirement option is is fit a best fit for them. The alternate is someone who's late in their career, perhaps even a retiree who wants to provide a little bit of their expertise and knowledge into the system. This is something that is, I don't want to say a hobby, but not a full time second career. This is something that they are utilizing their experience to provide a great service for students. Those folks are not typically going to vest all the way in the defined benefit program.
Speaker 49
It takes quite a bit of years to actually do that as a part timer. And we've had many members who've turned around later on and said, boy, if I had just known what my options were for a more secure retirement, I probably would have just continued to contribute to my Social Security credit that I accumulated in the private sector in my primary first career. So all we're trying to do with this bill is make sure that those options are presented to every new part time hire and that they're provided with some very basic information on how the differences between continuing in Social Security could look versus joining the defined benefit or other options that exist. We encourage everybody to have their own financial adviser that we are not providing anything more than just the basic info there. So this is a very good transparency and inform informative bill for new hires to make the best decision they can.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come forward and give your name, organization, and position.
Speaker 50
Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses, are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, are there any witnesses that would like to come up and state their name and organization? Seeing none, I'd like to bring it back to the dais. Assembly member Berner?
Speaker 22
Well, I'd like to move the bill, first of all. And second of all, I might have been category two in your category In my 20s, I was part time faculty. I think there's a pension out there somewhere I never vested. I get things in the mail that I can't log into. That's some other problem that might be a me problem.
But I think having that transparency for whatever part you are in your career, whether you know you're gonna stay in academia and you're a lifer or if you think you're gonna go into the private sector, having those options are really important. I'd like to be added as a co author. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I suggest that you look into those forms that they keep sending you. Are there any more comments or questions? I have a set a first from assembly member Burner. Second.
A second from assembly member, Garcia. Would you like to close?
Speaker 5
Item number 10 a b twenty four seventeen. The motion is do pass and re refer to the committee on higher education. McKinnon. Aye. McKinnon.
Aye. Lackie.
Speaker 5
Garcia, aye. Wynn Rodriguez will place this on hold, for absent members to add to the roll.
Speaker 1
Thank you. So we save our best for last. Last but not least, we have item number 12, our own member, committee member, assembly member Garcia, a b twenty one forty two.
Speaker 7
Good morning. Thank you, madam chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to present a b twenty one forty two, a bill that ensures temporary classified employees that are employed longer than 75% of the school year are given the benefits and protections that they are they are entitled to as permanent staff. Existing law allows school district boards and community college boards to employ in lieu of traditional classified workers, quote, short term employees, end quote. A short term employee is anyone who does classified work for up to 75% of the school year.
Speaker 56
These individuals are exempt from virtually all protections guaranteed specifically to those in the classified service. Although these positions are deemed not needed on a continuing basis, they are in fact utilized continuously for many years. Many such situations include people being worked as a short term employee for ten years or more. This practice of maneuvering the law denies employees the status and benefits of regular employment. AB twenty one forty two creates a rebuttable presumption so that an assignment that is habitually used by jurisdictions as short term is in fact full time.
Speaker 7
While this bill does not raise wages or create any new benefits, it does help simply guarantee that workers at a minimum will earn the benefits and rights established under current law. Such a reform will help us keep the classified workers we currently have, attract new ones, and better protect the workers doing and devoting so much to our to keep our education system running strong. And so with me to testify in support is, mister Tristan Brown from CFT and mister Carlos Lopez from CSEA.
Speaker 50
Okay. Thank you very much. Good morning, chairman, Kenner, and committee. My name is Carlos Lopez with California School Employees Association representing over 250,000 school workers and proud cosponsors of the proud cosponsors of this bill. Try not to repeat too much of what assembly member Garcia just said, but mainly highlighting that education code four five one zero three clearly states that short term employees work less than 75% of the school year and that their work not be extended or be required on a continuing basis.
Speaker 57
That's really a critical part of this bill. Because despite those clear statements, districts hire short term employees beyond 75% of the year sometimes, and we'll hire them year after year for continuing tasks. We think that we wanna lay out two basic things. If you work more than 75% of the school year, you become enrolled in the permanent classified service. If you've been in a short term employee with the school district for year after year and that's accrued over 75%, you become part of the classified service because we wanna see those folks who are performing essential duties for our schools get the benefits and protections, that they need.
Speaker 50
We, of course, see the value in short term employees to offer occasional flexibility, short term projects, disaster relief, but predictable regular work or work that takes a majority of the school year should be getting done by permanent benefited classified employees. Thank you so much, and we ask for your right vote.
Speaker 20
chair and members, Tristan Brown of CFT. I think with all good things, we try to find balance that is true of this public policy. The current law, as my colleagues have mentioned, does try to find that balance where you allow for temporary assignments to fulfill needs in the school system. But unfortunately, what we've seen and heard from many members over time is that folks have become locked in this short term purgatory. In fact, from one local, we've have numbers where there's about four 343 permanent employees, but 465 additional part time staff and five zero four student workers at this local.
That's a three to one ratio of permanent classified school employees to the temporary and student workforce. So in terms of balance and trying to make sure that we have a well established and supported classified public employees service to support all of our schools, it seems that we're a little bit out of phase. We do have other examples, and I'll keep these folks' identities private since they are still working and fear retaliation. But, Julie worked for twenty years at one local, and after two decades of the service, this person still remains in temporary classification without advancement or benefits. We have Mark, who was an eleven year custodial worker at the local who never was able to join the permanent classified service as well.
These somewhat might be outliers, but actually they are exemplars of what we're trying to find in that balance. As my colleague stated, this is about a rebuttal presumption because we do have to acknowledge there are reasons why you might have a short term employee come on to help, take care of the snow after a storm and and the like. We want to find that balance. We're happy to continue to work with the opposition to make sure we get there and find a way that we know when a job has been kept as short term for years and years and years, we would say, that looks like a an actual real job. Let's convert that over, but keep those temporaries as they should be.
So with that, we ask for your aye vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come forward and give your name, organization, and position.
Speaker 31
Elmer Lazardi on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any witness in opposition? Please come forward. You have two minutes each. Good
Speaker 35
morning, madam chair and members. Dorothy Johnson, behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, respectfully opposed. I don't think we disagree with what the current law says and the practices that were shared, by the author and sponsors, but we think there's alternative solutions that will actually get to the problem that they are they're talking about. So I I do wanna talk about why we have part time positions in the first place. For some, they don't have consistent or ongoing funding.
Jobs that are grant funded, like a literacy coach or homelessness assistant specialist. They're funded through federal dollars, like our COVID s or the the recovery dollars that were sent out, or they're one time dollars, like our ELOP, our after school and summer break and winter break staffing opportunities. Sometimes these temporary part time short term jobs reflect student populations. As enrollment declines, so do the needs. For instance, the number of paraeducators in transitional kindergarten classrooms or students with IEPs, students with a disability.
We heard from one of our districts that, a student had left that needed a a specialist to assist that individual. That employee was offered to work at a different school site within the district for a different student. They declined that opportunity. And then finally, as was mentioned, some some jobs are seasonal, especially when you've got student registration ramp up. So I do wanna expressly address, despite the stated need of this bill, what we heard from our districts is that there may be an unintended consequence.
Speaker 25
When you're bringing back an employee year after year, they become part of the permanent classified designation. Their additional benefits may make it impossible to bring them back because there's not the budget or the resources to bring back that person, not just for those wages, but for the added benefits. And so that means that a trusted experienced adult would no longer be invited back to the school to, you know, the detriment of that student, the individual, the other staff. And so for these reasons, we are opposed, and I'd like to express opposition on behalf of the California Suburban School District Association, Central Valley Education Coalition, and the current county superintendent of schools. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Good afternoon, chair members. Cristal Padilla here on behalf of the chief executive officers of the California Community Colleges in respectful opposition to two one four two. Community colleges operate in highly flexible environments serving working adults, part time students, and individuals in short term workforce programs. To meet those needs, we often rely on short term classified employees to support limited grant funded and categorical programs. Current law already provides clear guardrails under education code eight eight zero zero three.
Speaker 30
Short term employees are used for discrete, noncontinuous work, and districts are explicitly not required to create permanent classified positions for services that are not ongoing. Colleges carefully track these assignments and operate within defined limits to ensure compliances. This bill, disrupts that structure. And by allowing the hundred and ninety five day threshold to accumulate over an employee's lifetime, the bill creates a pathway to permanent status that does not reflect how community college staff staff works and staffing works there. Many employees serve intermittently across different assignments tied to one time or restricted funding.
Speaker 17
These roles are not designed to be permanent. This creates some serious fiscal concerns and operational challenges for us. Community colleges are already facing a lot of budget constraints, and many short term positions are funded through grants, as I previously mentioned, and cannot support these long term salary and benefits. Converting these roles to permanent positions would shift cost to general fund, reducing available funds for students. It is important to clarify that this law governs classified employees and not student workers who are explicitly excluded.
However, the loss of flexibility funding will directly impact students by reducing job opportunities and limit services that they rely on. Finally, as Axa mentioned, this bill creates unintended consequences that colleges might be less likely to rehire experienced short term employees instead rotate staff to avoid triggering permanent status, reducing the quality and continuity of our service. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Please come forward and give your name, organization, and position.
Speaker 20
Good afternoon, madam chair and members Chris Reeve on behalf of California School Boards Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 75
Good afternoon. Michelle Gil on behalf of California's Association of School Business Officials in opposition.
Speaker 76
chair members, Nick Romley on behalf of the Small School Districts Association in opposition.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And we'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions, comments?
Speaker 1
Assembly member Burner moves the bill. Assembly member Rodriguez seconds. Assembly member Garcia, would you like to close?
Speaker 7
Yes. Thank you, everyone. I want to thank witnesses here in support and also opposition for for bringing up concerns that we will continue to be in conversations and address, and I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 5
Item number 11, a B twenty one forty two. The motion is due passed and re refer to the committee on higher education. McKinnon. Aye. McKinnon.
Aye. Lackie. Alanis. Burner.
Speaker 5
Garcia. Win. Rodriguez. Aye. Rodriguez.
Aye. Place this on hold. We have sufficient votes for absent members. Thank
Speaker 1
I'm sergeant. Can you please, contact absent members? And madam secretary, should we go back over the role? Thank you.
Speaker 5
Item number one eighty sixteen o one. The current vote is four to zero. Motion is due passed. Burner.
Speaker 5
Burner, aye. Rodriguez. Aye. Rodriguez, aye. That bill is out six to zero.
Item number two, AB sixteen thirty, that bill is out five to zero. Item number three, we state seventeen fifty. The motion is due passed and referred to the committee on higher education. The current vote is four to zero. Garcia.
Speaker 29
Aye. Garcia, aye. That bill is out five to zero. Item number four AB seventeen twenty nine was out on a six to zero. Item number five, AB eighteen ninety six, that bill is out on a five to one.
Speaker 5
Item number six, a b twenty one twenty. The current vote is five to zero. The motion is due passed and we refer to the committee on education, Rodriguez.
Speaker 5
Rodriguez. Rodriguez, I. That bill is out on a six to zero. Item number seven, AB twenty one twenty nine, five to zero. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations.
Rodriguez.
Speaker 5
Rodriguez I. The bill is out on a six to zero. Item number eight, a b twenty two twenty three. The current vote is four to zero. Motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations.
Rodriguez. Aye. Rodriguez. Rodriguez, aye. Motion.
Bill is out on a five to zero. Item number nine, twenty three sixty seven. The current vote is five to zero. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. Rodriguez.
I'm so sorry. Rodriguez, I. The bill is out on a six to zero. Item number 10, a b twenty four seventeen. The current vote is four to zero.
The motion is due passed to the committee on higher education. Wynn Rodriguez. Rodriguez, I've the bill is out on a five to zero. We'll hold the bill open for absent members.
Speaker 1
Did she answer? Matter secretary, please call the roll for absent members.
Speaker 5
Item number 10 a b twenty four seventeen. The current vote is five to zero. Motion is do pass and be referred to the committee on higher education. Win? Win aye.
That bill is out. Six to zero. Item number eleven twenty one forty two. The current vote is four to zero. The motion is do pass and be referred to the committee on higher education.
Win. Win aye. That bill is out. Five to zero.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.