FOR A TO PASS.
I AS AMENDED MOTION THE
REMAINING BILLS ARE SUSPENSE
ITEMS WE ALSO HAVE THREE BILLS
THAT ARE STILL ON THE FILE THAT
WILL GO DIRECTLY TO THE FLOOR
UNDER TWENTY EIGHT POINT EIGHT
RULE. THOSE MEASURES ARE SB
SEVEN TWENTY ONE HILL.
S. B. SEVEN SIXTY SIX MONEY.
AND S. B. EIGHT SIXTEEN FOR THE
EDUCATION COMMITTEE.
US INTO THE NEW YEAR I LIKE TO
REITERATE OUR.
.
TWO OUR AUDIENCE AND MEMBERS
THAT THIS TESTIMONY SHOULD BE
LIMITED TO THE FISCAL ASPECTS
ONLY OF THE BILL. THESE BILLS
HAVE RECEIVED POLICY HEARINGS IN
THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN DEBATED
ACCORDINGLY.
AGAIN SURGEONS HAVE YOU CANNOT
PLEASE CALL. OUR COMMITTEE
MEMBERS AND MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT
WAIVING PRESENTATION ON THE
ITEMS. WILL BEGIN WITH THE ONLY
BILL THAT HAS A TO PASS AMENDED
RECOMMENDATION THE SENATE. BY
SENATOR BATES S. B. SEVENTY.
WELL AND WHEN WE ESTABLISH A
QUORUM OR RATHER.
.
SURGERY PLEASE CULTURAL LARA.
HERE LARA HERE BATES HERE BATES
HERE BELL.
THE BELL HERE BRADFORD.
BRADFORD HERE HILL.
HILL HERE NIELSEN WIENER.
WE HAVE A QUORUM.
CITIZENS TO BE SHARED WITH USERS
BEYOND
JUST THE QUIET TO REQUESTED IT
IF THE CLIENT APPROVES. RECENT
AMENDMENTS ADDED A SPECIAL
DISCLOSURE PROVISION AS AMENDED
OF THE BILL IS LIMITED EXEMPTION
THAT SIMPLY FOLLOWS FOR FOLLOWS.
A CLIENT TO SHARE ALLOWS FOR A
CLIENT SHARE THE IS RESTRICTED
REPORTS WITH SPECIFIC RECIPIENTS
ADDITIONALLY THE EXEMPTION WOULD
NOT BE ALLOWED FOR A FEDERALLY.
RELATED TRANSACTION A LONER
REFINED FUND RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY OR A LOAN OF INVESTOR
FUNDS ARRANGED BY MORTGAGE
BANKER. AS SUCH THE REPORTS
WOULD ONLY BE GOING. WOULD ONLY
BE GOING TO SPECIALIZED
PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE EXPERTS IN
THIS IN THIS FIELD. THIS IS A
VERY SMALL POPULATION AS A
RESULT WE BELIEVE A COST TO BE
MINOR I HAVE WITH ME TODAY MIKE
BELOW WITH THE APPRAISAL
INSTITUTE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT.
BUT THIS ISN'T SUPPORT. PICKING
MISTER CHAIR AND MEMBERS MIGHT
PULL OUT ON BEHALF THE
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
COMMITTEE THE APPRAISAL
INSTITUTE THE NATION'S LARGEST
PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION. OFTHIS
BILL RECEIVED A VERY VERY
SIGNIFICANT POLICY HEARING LAST
WEEK
ON THE FISCAL ISSUE THE BUREAU
OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS HAD
SUGGESTED A COST OF A HUNDRED
AND FORTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS.
I AM NOT DEAD REGULATOR I'M NOT
A STATE AGENCY STRIKES ME THAT
THAT'S.
UP OVERSTATED WHAT WE'RE
BASICALLY ASKING REGULATORS TO
DO IS NOT IN FORCE ONE NARROW
AREA OF THE UNIFORM STANDARDS OF
PERFECT PROFESSIONAL APPRAISAL
PRACTICE.
ACCORDING LEE THEY'LL BE DOING
LESS NOT MORE BUT THEY ARGUE
THAT.
COMPLAINTS WILL GO UP WE THINK
THAT'S HIGHLY SPECULATIVE WE
DON'T AGREE WE THINK
RESPECTFULLY THAT THE COST WILL
BE A LITTLE CONNECTING AND FOR
THAT WE ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE.
YOU PICTURE WHEN THIS ISN'T
SUPPORT.
WHEN IT SAYS IN OPPOSITION
BEFORE FOR.
MY NAME IS BRADFORD MCLEAN I AM
A.
CALIPHATE CALIFORNIA CERTIFIED
GENERAL APPRAISER AND I'M
SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO SB
SEVENTY.
I'M I'M A MEMBER BOTH OF THE
APPRAISAL INSTITUTE.
AND THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF OF
APPRAISERS AND.
MIKE IS A DIFFICULT PERSON TO
FOLLOW BEHIND A BUT THERE ARE
MANY ORGANIZATIONS THAT. ARE
OPPOSED TO THIS LEGISLATION I'M
IT IS NOT A MINOR THING WHILE IT
APPEARS TO BE ONLY A SENTENCE OR
TWO. IT IT'S IT'S NOT A MINOR
THING.
THERE ARE OTHER.
.
TO OUR CONCERNS ARE THAT
ENFORCEMENT. MAY IN FACT BE
GREATER THEN SPELLED OUT.
AND THE BOB BR E. A RESPONSE.
WERE ALSO CONCERNED THAT.
A RESTRICTED APPRAISAL REPORT AS
IT'S CURRENTLY CONSTITUTED IS
INTENDED FROM ONE INTENDED USE
ARE THERE IS THAT THERE'S A
KNOWLEDGE BASE BETWEEN THE
APPRAISER. AND THAT USER.
AS AS EXPANDED HERE THERE'S NO.
THERE'S NO ARE WORKING WITH.
USERS WHO HAVE VERY DIFFERENT
UNDERSTANDINGS OF WHAT MAY BE
THE OF THE.
BASIS FOR THOSE APPRAISALS SO
WE'RE CONCERNED THAT IN THE
FUTURE BIRTH PARENTS COULD BE
MUCH HIGHER ENFORCEMENT COSTS.
BUT THESE ARE VERY RESTRICTED
REPORTS THAT DON'T HAVE ALL THE
INFORMATION
THAT A WIDER AUDIENCE OF USERS
WOULD NEED SO WE ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT ENFORCEMENT BUT THE BIG
ONE IS KILLED FOR. FOR NHú
REQUIRES ALL APPRAISERS REALTORS
APPRAISERS TO FOLLOW USE PAP AND
THAT'S A NATIONAL VALUATION
STANDARDS THERE ARE MECHANISMS.
WITH THE FAT THE APPRAISAL
FOUNDATION FOR. ADOPTING A
CHANGE LIKE THIS AND I BELIEVE
IF PERSONAL STANDARD BOARD HAD
THIS HAS THIS ISSUE. COMING UP
FOR TWENTY EIGHTEEN HOW TO.
EXPAND THE USE OF RESTRICTED
APPRAISAL REPORTS SO THE COST OF
IMPLEMENTING THIS.
WHAT IS NOT A SMALL CHANGE?
IS PUBLIC EVEN LARGER THAN WHAT
IS IN YOUR HOME.
ANALYSIS IT IS NOT THE NARROW
LITTLE CHANGE THAT IS FOUND IN
THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THAT.
.
ANALYSIS WE.
MY LAST THOUGHT IS HERE THIS IS
ALONG THE SAME LINES OF OF OF.
TRYING TO DE CONSTRUCT
REGULATIONS THAT WORK IS THIS IS
JUST. THE START AND THE NEXT
TIME IT'S GONNA BE TEXAS OR
FLORIDA BREAKING DOWN OUR
NATIONAL. VALUATION STANDARDS
THAT GOT PUT INTO PLACE BECAUSE
WE'VE GONE THROUGH REALLY BAD
CYCLES AND SO WE HAVE A SYSTEM
THAT WORKS AND THIS ISSUE CAN BE
ADDRESSED ELSEWHERE WHERE IT
BELONGS. AND NOT.
TO THE POCKETBOOKS OF CALIFORNIA
MY APPRAISAL FEES HAVE ALREADY
GONE UP FIFTY PERCENT.
JUST STARTING IN TWENTY
EIGHTEEN.
I REALLY DON'T WANT THEM TO GO
UP ANY AND I SEE THIS AS BEING A
BIG ENFORCEMENT CONCERNED AND SO
DOES. THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF
APPRAISERS.
AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS YOU'VE
YOU'VE YOU HAVE THE LETTER THERE
FROM THE PRETZEL FOUNDATION AND
I THINK EIGHT OF THE BOTTOM.
FOUNDING ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE
OPPOSING THAT'S SO.
IT'S NOT AS STRAIGHT FORWARD AS
IT APPEARS IS NOT A LITTLE THING
THAT'S NOT.
BUT WILL ONLY HAVE MINOR COST
IT IS A BIG DEAL.
AND I TO RESERVE A ADDITIONAL
COMMENT BECAUSE MICHAEL TALK
NEXT
AND I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO WILL
FOLLOW UP WITH ANYTHING SHE HAS
TO SAY.
BUT ALREADY CONCLUDED THAT ARE
OUT.
WHEN THIS IS IN SUPPORT AND IS
THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES AND I
THINK YOU.
OTHER WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
THING HEARING THEM FINANCE.
OUR CHRISLEY FOR DEPARTMENT
FINANCED WITH NO FILE.
NO FILE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
FROM COMMITTEE CENTER HEALTH.
CHAIR OF THIS DID HAVE A A. HAVE
A VERY THOROUGH POLICY
DISCUSSION LAST WEEKEND AND
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS AND. IT
REALLY THE END OF THE DAY THIS
PROVIDES GREATER CONSUMER CHOICE
FROM WHAT WE LEARNED GREATER
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS AND REALLY
MORE COMPETITION WHICH WILL
REDUCE THE COST TO THE CONSUMER
I BELIEVE THAT IN THE END OF THE
DAY.
AND EVEN IF THE POTENTIAL COST
OF A HUNDRED FOR WHICH I DON'T
THINK THE THIS WOULD MAKE A
DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF THE
WORKLOAD OF FOR.
OF THE.
PREACHERS OF THE OF THE BUREAU
PLATE TO EVEN IF IT ADDED SOME
COST IT'S WELL WORTH IT FOR THE
BENEFIT TO THE CONSUMER SO I'D
I'D BE HAPPY TO MOVE THE BILL.
THANK YOU THERE'S A MOTION ON
THE BILL SENATOR BATES WHICH I
TO CLOSE I THINK THAT SENATOR
HILL JUST COVER JOB WHAT WERE
THE CRITICAL POLICY ISSUES SO
OP.
I REQUEST AN AYE VOTE THANK YOU
THANK YOU THERE IS ARM I AM
RECOMMENDING IT TO PASS AS
AMENDED MOTION TO THE.
I SENATE RULES MOVE BY SENATOR
HEALTH SECRETARY PLEASE BECAUSE
OF ALL.
LARA. BY LARA AYE BATES AYE
BATES AYE BELL.
BELL AYE BRADFORD BRADFORD AYE
HILL HILL AYE NIELSEN.
NIELSEN AYE WIENER ART WIENER
AYE.
SEVEN ZERO THAT BILL IS OUT.
THANK YOU SENATOR BATESCENTER
BELL WOULD YOU WANNA. INTRODUCE.
BROWN OKAY YOU KNOW WHAT CENTER
BALLOT CAN LET CENTER MORE LIKE
IT'S HERE. LET ME ALLOW HIM TO
GO FIRST PLEASE.
CINEMARK PLEASE COME FORWARD.
MEMBERS IT IS S. B. SIX.
FIFTY SIX.
THURMOND AQUIFER'S OURS BUT VERY
MUCH MISTER CHAIR. COLLEAGUES S.
B. SIX FIFTY SIX IS AN EFFORT TO
EVOLVE.
J. ARREST TO THE RETIREMENT
PROGRAM FOR SUPERIOR COURT
JUDGES TO A MORE EQUITABLE AND
REASONABLE POSITION IT IS
CURRENTLY A CRUDE HYBRID OF A
DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN IN A
DEFINED BENEFIT. PLAN IF YOU
MEET THE CAREER LONGEVITY GOALS
A JUDGE RECEIVES A D. B.. BUT DB
BENEFITS IF NOT IT'S A D. C.
WHERE HE GETS OFF HERE SHE GETS
ALL THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS PLUS.
INTEREST.
IF A JUDGE DIES HAS HEALTH
ISSUES SIR INCURS A CAREER.
DETERRING INCIDENT OVER AGE
SIXTY FIVE THE ANNUAL
CONTRIBUTIONS PUTS INTEREST
RETURNED. AND DOES NOT BENEFIT
FROM THE YIELDS THAT A
DIVERSIFIED PORTFOLIO. WOULD
ACHIEVE S. B. SIX FIFTY SIX
PROVIDES A SIMPLE REMEDY BUT
EVEN WITH THIS MINOR TWEAK BUT.
THE JANITOR WILL STILL HAVE A
BETTER DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION
PLAN. THEN A SUPERIOR COURT
JUDGE.
THIS SMALL MODIFICATION WILL
CREATE AN IMMEDIATE UNFUNDED
LIABILITY ACCORDING TO THE
ACTUARIES. WHEN I STARTED THIS
BILL LAST YEAR. THE EARLY
CALPERS ESTIMATE WAS IN EXCESS
OF A HUNDRED AND THIRTY MILLION
DOLLARS.
I DURING TWENTY SEVENTEEN WE
REQUESTED THE JUDGES TO OBTAIN
AN INDEPENDENT.
ACTUARIAL REPORT AND OF HIS
DONE BY JOHN BARTEL HE
CALCULATED IN THE VICINITY OF
TWENTY FIVE. MILLION DOLLARS
LAST WEEK CALPERS PUBLISHED
REVISED VIABILITY OF TWENTY ONE
MILLION DOLLARS SO WE'RE GETTING
A LITTLE BETTER AS WE GO.
.
MANY JUDGES.
DON'T RETIRE AT THE LEFT TO WORK
SO THAT THERE'S STILL SOME
DEBATE ON HOW YOU MAKE CERTAIN
ASSUMPTIONS.
THERE ARE THREE WAYS THAT THIS
NEW DEBT CAN BE ADDRESSED THE
FIRST JUST ASK GOVERNOR BROWN.
TO ADD TWENTY MILLION TWENTY ONE
MILLION IN HIS MAY REVISE.
AND PARTIALLY GOVERNOR BROWN
HAS THE SORT OF NOT BEEN KIND OF
THE JUDICIARY BRANCH I KNOW WHAT
THAT UNDERLYING TONE HIS BUT I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU WOULD. DO
DEBORAH ALTHOUGH IT WOULD BE A
NICE GESTURE FOR HIM.
AND CALIFORNIA'S NEARLY
SEVENTEEN HUNDRED JUDGES IN THE
TERRACE TO SYSTEM UP ON THE
GOVERNOR'S WAY OUT THE SECOND IS
TO WORK WITH THIS CATEGORY OF
CRITICAL PROFESSIONALS. TO
DETERMINE WHAT THEY NEED TO
CONTRIBUTE ABOVE THEIR EIGHT
PERCENT WITHHOLDING TO ADDRESS
THE DELTA. IN ORDER TO DO THIS
S. R. SIX THIRTY SIX MUST MOVE
FORWARD.
AND IT BE AMENDED IN AN AMICABLE
MANNER TO ACHIEVE A MUTUALLY
BENEFICIAL RESULT. THE THIRD IS
FOR THE ACTUARIES TO PUT MORE.
WEIGHT ON THE FACT THAT A GOOD
NUMBER OF JUDGES WORK LONG PAST
AGE SIXTY FIVE BECAUSE THEY LOVE
THEIR JOBS.
THEY WILL CONTINUE PAYING
ENHANCE THE CONCLUSION OF THE
STAFF REPORT IS IS PRETTY SPOT
ON. SO THE GOOD NEWS TERRACE TO
HAS BEEN FULLY FUNDED SINCE ITS
INCEPTION IN NINETEEN NINETY
FOUR NO JUDGE WILL DRAW A DOLLAR
MORE OR SOONER. WE CAN REMOVE
DISINCENTIVES FOR THOSE
CONSIDERING AN APPOINTMENT TO
THE BENCH ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE
YOUNGER THAN AGE FORTY FIVE.
AND THIS SOLUTION ALLOWS JUDGES
TO WORK TWENTY YEARS AND DIVERT
THE DEFINED BENEFIT. UNTIL THEY
BECOME SIXTY FIVE RESULT THIS
ALTERNATIVE BEATS RECEIVING NO
DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION AT ALL.
AND THAT AND IS A DOWNSIDE.
WHICH IS THE DOWNSIDE OF THIS
CRUDE HYBRID.
IT PROVIDES YOU MAY PERMITTED
THE JUDGES FACING SERIOUS HEALTH
ISSUES PRIOR TO AGE SIXTY FVE
AND YOUNGER PROFESSIONALS WILL
BE MORE INTERESTED. TO BE
SERVING IN THIS CRITICAL ROLE IN
OUR SOCIETY.
MISTER CHAIR I I URGE MY VOTE
FOR THIS CRITICAL INITIATIVES SO
THAT THE PROCESS CAN CONTINUE.
S. B. SIX FIFTY SIX HAS
WIDESPREAD SUPPORT.
WITH IMAGES HISTORY INCLUDING
JUDGE LANCE ITO WHO TESTIFIED ON
THE BILL'S BEHALF LAST WEEK.
SO I ENCOURAGE MY BOTH THANK
YOU PER TIME. PICK YOU WIN THIS
ISN'T SUPPORT.
YES THANK YOU GOOD MORNING
MISTER CHAIRMAN MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE MY NAME IS KEN HAMLIN.
I'M A JUDGE IN THE S. PER
QUARTER FRESNO COUNTY EVENT
PRIVILEGES SERVING THAT ROLE FOR
NINETEEN YEARS.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE CAN MAKE
A RADICAL REVISION R. PLAN.
DIED BY WAY BACKGROUND I'M SURE
YOU KNOW THIS IS A JUDICIAL
RETIREMENT SYSTEM WAS COMPLETELY
UNFUNDED. UNTIL TERRACE TO WAS
ADOPTED NOVEMBER NINTH EFFECTIVE
NOVEMBER NINTH NINETEEN NINETY
FOUR FOR JUDGES APPOINTED OR
ELECTED AFTER THAT DATE.
RATHER THAN ADDRESS AT UNFUNDED
LIABILITY PREVIOUS.
LEGISLATURE JUST MADE THE
DETERMINATION TO GO FORWARD AND
CREATE ACTUAL EARLY SOUND
PROGRAM FOR FUTURE JUDGES AND
THAT'S WHAT THIS PROGRAM IS.
HOW IT HAS BEEN FULLY FUNDED
SINCE ITS INCEPTION?
AS RECENTLY AS A COUPLE YEARS
AGO WAS A HUNDRED TWO PERCENT
FUNDED.
AND IT'S NOW FOLLOW THE NINETY
TWO LARGELY BECAUSE CALPERS IS
RECALCULATED WHAT THEY THINK
THEY CAN MAKE ON INVESTMENT
RETURNS.
THIS THIS SYSTEM HAS REMAINED
FUNDED AND WE AS JUDGES HAVE NO
INTEREST IN DOING ANYTHING TO
THE SYSTEM THAT WOULD DAMAGE
THAT AYE WE'RE COUNTING ON THIS
SYSTEM TO PAY OUR BENEFITS.
WHILE THE LEGISLATURE IS GONNA
HAVE TO FIND WAYS TO FUND
UNFUNDED BENEFITS FOR CALPERS
ENCOUNTERS AND OTHERS. THIS PLAN
IS FUNDED.
SO WE I DON'T WANT TO DO
ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO DAMAGE
THE HAVE FISCAL INTEGRITY OF
THIS PLAN.
I WE ARE COMMITTED TO MAKING ANY
CHANGES THAT WE NEED TO MAKE IN
pNEUTRAL IF THAT'S WHAT'S
REQUIRED AND IS SENATOR NOBODY
IS MORE AWARE OF THE. CONCERNS
ABOUT UNFUNDED PUBLIC
LIABILITIES THAT ARE AUTHORED
SENATOR MORLOCK.
THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT
CALIFORNIA FACES THROUGHOUT ITS
RETIREMENT SYSTEMS.
THIS SYSTEM WAS CREATED TO
PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE FOR JUDGES
EXPERIENCED JUDGES TO STAY ON
THE BENCH. THE PROBLEM IS THAT
IT KEEPS THOSE JUDGES WHO CAN'T
SAFELY SERVE UNFAIRLY SERVE ON
THE BENCH ON THE BENCH SIMPLY TO
EARN A RETIREMENT.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF TERRIBLE
STUDIES.
STORIES OF PEOPLE JUDGING
TULARE COUNTY WHO.
WAS DIAGNOSED WITH METASTATIC
CANCER WHEN HE WAS SIXTY NINE.
HE HAD SPENTHIS LAST YEAR ON
THE BENCH DYING OF CANCER IN
ORDER TO SECURE SURVIVOR BENEFIT
FOR HIS WIFE WHO DIED FORTY DAYS
AFTER HE REACHED HIS SEVENTIETH
BIRTHDAY. AYE THAT'S UST COOL
AND IS NO REASON FOR THERE'S NO
PUBLIC POLICY REASON. FOR
FORCING JUDGES IN THE FACE OF
PERSONAL HEALTH ISSUES OR FAMILY
ISSUES TO STAY ON THE BENCH. OR
FACE FINANCIAL RUIN.
IT A JUDGE WHO IS FORCED TO
TAKE BACK HIS MONETARY CREDITS
LOSES A SURVIVOR BENEFIT. AND
TAKES LESS THAN HALF OF WHAT THE
JUDGE WOULD RECEIVE IF THE JUDGE
MADE IT TO THE FINISH LINE.
THE JUDGE LEASE A DAY BEFORE AGE
SIXTY FIVE.
TWENTY YEARS OR DAY BEFORE AGE
SEVENTY WITH LESS THAN TWENTY
YEARS THAT JUDGE GETS BACK THOSE
MONETARY CREDIT. IT WOULD NOT
PROVIDE SECURITY FOR THE JUDGE
IF THE JUDGE HAS AN ILL FAMILY
MEMBER OR SOMEONE WHO THAT CLOSE
TO HIM NEEDS ATTENTION AND THAT
JUDGES FORCED. TO STAY IN THEIR
JOB AND NOT PROVIDE THAT
ATTENTION AND CARE. BECAUSE THEY
FACE FINANCIAL RUIN IF THEY
DON'T.
THAT'S NOT A SUITABLE SYSTEM
THERE'S NO GOOD PUBLIC POLICY
REASON FOR THAT.
THIS BILL IF WE WILL WORK WITH
CALPERS IF WE NEED TO TAKE A
REDUCE BENEFIT THAT'S WHAT IT
TAKES TO GET THIS THING TO
REVENUE NEUTRAL AYE SENATOR
MORLOCKS COMMITTED TO DOING IT.
THEN ASK YOU TO PASS IT THROUGH
THE SUSPENSE FILE ON THURSDAY
WITH THAT PROMISE IS BILL'S NOT
GOING TO IMPACT THE TAXPAYERS
IT'S GOING TO PROVIDE A LIMITED
EXCEPTION. TO THE HARSH REALITY
OF TERRACE TO WHICH IS THAT IF
THE JUDGE DOESN'T MAKE IT TO THE
FINISH LINE AGE SIXTY FIVE OR
SEVENTY DEPENDING ON YEARS OF
CREDIT. THAT JUDGE LOSES MORE
THAN HALF OF THEIR RETIREMENT.
THAT'S A VERY UNFORTUNATE
SITUATION WHICH IS LEGISLATURE
HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE AND
WE LOOK FOR YOUR HEALTH.
THANK YOU TO SHOW WHAT THIS
ISN'T SUPPORT. WHEN THIS IS IN
OPPOSITION.
FINANCE.
ARE USING CALPERS ESTIMATE OF
TWENTY ONE MILLION DOLLARS OF
THE BILL'S ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACT
TO THE STATUS SEVEN MILLION
SHALL.
THANK YOU FOR WE GO TO QUESTIONS
AND COMMENTS HAVE A QUESTION FOR
YOU JUDGE. A IN IN THIS CURRENT
SCENARIO WHAT IS THE CURRENT
PROCESS FOR SAY A JUDGE THAT
FALLS ILL. AND OUSE THATTHEN
COME BACK TO THE BENCH
FOR A LIMITED NUMBER OF DAYS AND
THEN HOUSE TO.
YOU KNOW WRITTEN HIMSELF FOR A
WHOLE OTHER NUMBER DAYS TO TEND
TO THEIR ILLNESS TO THE GET TO
TO SIXTY FIVE IS OUT.
A NEW ISSUE THAT YOU'RE SEEING
HAPPENING AS WELL. WHAT YOU HAVE
IS ARE COMING IN FOR TWO THREE
DAYS AND THEN?
WELL I I I HAVEN'T TALKED WITH
THE OTHER JUDGES AND TULARE
COUNTY FOR INSTANCE WHERE JUDGE
PORTMAN SPEND AS LAST YEAR DYING
ON THE BENCH. BUT I KNOW IT HAD
AN IMPACT ON HIS SERVICE TO THE
CORE AND IS COLLEAGUES I DON'T
HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC.
I KNOW THE JUDGES ARE FACED WITH
THAT SITUATION ANY BANKS OF THE
JUDGE DOWN IN ORANGE COUNTY HAD
REACHED HIS TWENTY YEARS BUT NOT
AGE SIXTY FIVE HIS WIFE. WHO'S
PLAYED WITH ALZHEIMER'S
HE WANTED TO SPEND THE TIME WITH
HER WHILE SHE STILL HAD A
QUALITY OF LIFE BUT HE HAD TO
DRAG HIMSELF IN IT INTO THE INTO
THE JOB EVERY DAY UNTIL YOU
REACH SIXTY FIVE. IN ORDER TO
GET THAT DEFINED BENEFIT TO
PROTECT HER IN THE EVENT THAT
SHE IS IN CARE FOR YEARS AND
YEARS. AND TO GIVE HIM FINANCIAL
SECURITY THAT'S THE KIND OF
SITUATION WE'RE FACING SO I MEAN
I CAN GIVE YOU A NUMBER OF
PARTICULARS. I KNOW THAT A JUDGE
WHO SIMPLY NOT ABLE TO DO THE
JOB AT ALL IS FACED WITH A. THAT
THE PROSPECT OF A DISABILITY
RETIREMENT AND UP FOR INSTANCE
JUDGE JUST THE PERKS AND ORANGE
COUNTY. HE WAS DIAGNOSED WITH
CANCER TOLD AT A YEAR TO LIVE
AND HE WAS ABOUT THREE YEARS
SHORTER HIS RETIREMENT DATE. AYE
HE HAD THE PAPERWORK COMPLETED
TO FILE FOR DISABILITY LEFT THAT
WAS SOME OF THE FILE. AND IT WAS
A DAY TO DAY THING IF I DON'T
MAKE IT TO THE FINISH LINE YOU
NEED TO FILE THAT AND ULTIMATELY
MADE IT TO THE FINISH LINE AND
GOT HIS BENEFIT BUT.
BUT IT WHAT'S PUTS GAIN BY THAT
IF A JUDGE FOR INSTANCE JUDGE
FOR MEN AND TULARE COUNTY IF
WHEN HE WAS DIAGNOSED HE WOULD
BE ALLOWED TO TO. TAKE A
DEFERRED RETIREMENT AS UNDER
THIS BILL HE WOULD HAVE TAKEN
THE YEARS LESS SERVICE CREDIT AT
THE SAME DATE AGE SEVENTY.
ANYWHERE EXISTS TO HAD THE
SECURITY OF KNOWING HS WIFE IS
PROTECTED. BUT DOESN'T COST AND
IF IT COSTS ANYTHING WE'RE READY
TO MAKE IT COSTS NOTHING. BUT
THERE HAS TO BE A CHANGE TO
ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM BECAUSE
MORE AND MORE JUDGES NOW
APPOINTED OR ELECTED AFTER
NOVEMBER NINTH NINETEEN NINETY
FOUR REACHING THAT AGE WHERE THE
FINISH LINE IS IN SIGHT. BUT DUE
TO HEALTH REASONS OR FAMILY
REASONS WE MAY NOT MAKE IT AND
THAT'S THE KIND OF.
COOL RESULTS AT THIS BILL
IMPOSES NO UNINTENDED THAT AND
CERTAINLY NONE OF US SAW THAT
WHEN WE SIGNED ON TO THIS BILL.
BUT I THINK THAT THE OF THE
HARSH REALITY IS WE CAN FIX THAT
RATHER EASILY WITH THIS MINOR
CHANGE. THERE'S LOTS WOULD LOVE
TO DO WOULD LOVE TO GET OUT
EARLY WE'D LOVE TO HAVE FEWER
YOU KNOW MOVE HIGHER PAYOUTS
AND.
AND AND GET OUT WITH YOUR YEARS
OF SERVICE SURE OF COURSE
EVERYBODY WOULD WE KNOW IN THIS
ENVIRONMENT THAT'S NOT REALISTIC
WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS JUST
THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEAVE THE
JOB.
NOT RECEIVE A SALARY PAY FOR OUR
OWN HEALTH BENEFITS PLUS AN
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS WHILE WE DO
THAT AND RECEIVE THE BENEFIT WE
WOULD HAVE RECEIVED HAD WE
GOTTEN TO THE RETIREMENT DATE.
PERHAPS A LESSER BENEFIT BETA
BASED ON FEWER YEARS OF SERVICE.
THAT JUST MAKES SO MUCH SENSE
IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT WE
HAVE TO DISCUSS IT BUT I
APPRECIATE WHILE THERE'S A PRICE
TAG IT'S A CONCERN. AND WE CAN
DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN ORDER
TO MAKE THAT PRICE TAG GO WAKE
YOU THANK YOU FOR MAKING THE
IMPORTANT POINT OF HOW IMPORTANT
DEFINED BENEFITS ARE. ITEM IN
OUR WORK A.
CENTER MORE AUTOMATIC YOU FOR
WORK ON THIS ISSUE. I KNOW IT
WASN'T YOUR INTENTION TO PAY
JANITORS AGAINST JUDGES BUT JUST
TO LET YOU KNOW JOHNMYERS TO A
VERY HARD WORK ACTUALLY SPEND
AN EVENING WITH THE JANITOR
CLEANING A DOWNTOWN.
FOOD COMMON AREA ENEMY
TERRITORY HARD WORK AND THEY
DESERVE COULD BENEFITS AS WELL
BUT I KNOW AS A YOUNG TECH JUST
WANNA. CLARIFY SOMETHING I'M
HERE BECAUSE I VERY HARD WORKING
MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE JANITORS
IN OUR STATE AND DESERVE GOOD
RETIREMENT SWELL.
MEMBERS OF THE ANY ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS FOR SOME AYE-MOORLACH.
SEEING NONE.
SOMEWHERE WHICH ARE TO CLOSE
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN THANK
YOU FOR THE YET.
POINT BY I WORK LATE ENOUGH IN
THE EVENING THAT I'M. ON A FIRST
NAME BASIS WITH MY JANITORS I
MET THOUGH NO MALICE AT ALL.
I'M.
WHEN YOU'RE WHEN YOU SENATE
DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION BOARD
YOU DO AN EXPERIENCE STUDY EVERY
THREE YEARS TO SEE IF YOUR
ASSUMPTIONS ARE ACCURATE ARGUE
KNOWS LONGEVITY. ALL ALL THE
ISSUES THAT AFFECT THE
ASSUMPTIONS AND SO NOW WE'VE HAD
TIME SINCE NINETEEN NINETY FOUR
TO LOOK AT THIS ENSION PLAN.
AND IT IS IT IS LACKING IT IS.
KIND OF SURPRISING THAT WE ARE
TREATING THE THIRD BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT. WITH THIS TYPE OF A
PLANNED SO AS I SAID IN MY
OPENING REMARKS IS AN EVOLUTION
WERE TRYING TO EVOLVE TO. TO
MAKE THIS.
BUT I'M A MORE FAIR PLAN AND I
THINK WE CAN DO IT. COST NEUTRAL
WORKING WITH ALL PARTIES NAY
ENCOURAGED BY YOUR SUPPORT AND
AND LOOK FORWARD TO THURSDAY'S
MEETING.
THANK YOU MEMBERS THIS IS A
CANDIDATE FOR SUSPENSE WITHOUT
OBJECTION MOVE THIS ITEM TO
SUSPENSEFUL TICKETS ARE MORE.
THANK YOU.
SENATOR BALLOT FUNGI SO THAT
YOU'LL HAVE S. B. TO FIFTEEN
MEMBERS.
IT IS ACCOUNTED FOR SUSPENSE.
TURBO AND EVERYBODY.
MORNING R. CHURN MEMBERS SO.
I'M PROUD TO PRESENT TO S. B.
TWO FIFTEEN.
.
REGARDING MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION AND NAM.
ALL GO THROUGH MY PRESENTATION
AND TURN OVER THE JUDGE MANLY.
FOR.
HIS THOUGHTS.
IT LEASE A THIRD OF THE PEOPLE
IN CALIFORNIA JAILS AND PRISONS
SUFFER FROM MENTAL ILLNESS.
OUR JAILS ARE UNEQUIPPED TO
ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THOSE
SUFFERING FROM MENTAL ILLNESS.
AND DESPITE CALIFORNIA'S HARD
WORK A CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM.
PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS
SERBIAN PRISON AT AN ALARMING
RATE.
AND THIS IS A WASTE OF
RESOURCES.
THE STATUS QUO IS COSTLY
INEFFECTIVE UNFAIR AND
DANGEROUS.
AND WE NEED TO INTERVENE
ENVYING.
AND THAT'S WHERE THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET INCLUDES HUNDRED
SEVENTEEN MILLION DOLLARS.
FOR DIVERSION.
MAYBE NOT ENOUGH ACTUALLY.
BUT THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE BUDGET.
THIS BILL PROVIDES TRIAL COURTS.
WITH THE DISCRETION.
TO ORDER IMMEDIATE TREATMENT TO
EMILY ILL PERSON COMMITS A MINOR
OFFENSE.
AND WE BEGIN THOUGH SO WERE
CLASHING WITH S. B. EIGHT.
AND HAVE WORKED WITH R. DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS AND WE HAVE A NEW BILL
THAT HAS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.
IN THE LAST COMMITTEE I ADDED
SIX AUTHORS.
MISTER CHAIRMAN.
.
COULD HE THE CHAIRED BY SCARING
THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE SO
THERE SIX NEW OFFERS ADDED TO
THOSE.
S. B. TWO FIFTEEN HAS A MORE
NARROW SCOPE. INCLUDES MORE
INVOLVEMENT BY THE PROSECUTION.
MAKING DIVERSION COLLABORATIVE
AND EFFICIENT TO EMPLOYMENT.
IT ALLOWS BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE
THE TRIAL COURT TO PLEASE THE
LOW BIG QUALIFYING LOW LEVEL
DEFENDANT. IN A PRE EXISTING
MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM.
IT'S MODELED AFTER A
CALIFORNIA'S VETERANS DIVERSION.
THE PROGRAM ACTUALLY IN SAN
DIEGO COUNTY SAVED OTHER THREE
POINT NINE.
MILLION DOLLARS IN INCARCERATION
TREATMENT COSTS.
IN THE FIRST THIRTY SIX MONTHS
ALONE FOR THE VETERANS DOWN
THERE.
AND WE DISAGREE WITH THE IDEA OF
THE S. B. TWO FIFTEEN WAY OUT
BECAUSE IN THE COURTS.
S. B. TWO FIFTEEN IS A MORE
EFFICIENT PROCESS.
THEN THE STATUS QUO OF
INCARCERATION AND PROBATION.
WERE WERE FOCUSING ON DIVERSION
AND TREATMENT AS OPPOSED TO
INCARCERATION.
AND NAM.
PROBATION.
S. B. TO FIFTEEN AVOID SO SOME
OF THE BIGGEST CROSSES IN THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE.
SYSTEM.
THE DISCOVERY PROCESS THE JURY
TRIAL. AND.
HIGH RECIDIVISM RATES THE
RESULT IN COST SAVINGS A THE
STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL BUT BIG
MAKING MOST OF THE TREATMENT
OPTIONS.
WE HAVE IN OUR COMMUNITIES STUDY
AFTER STUDY SHOWS THAT THE SAME
IS MONEY.
THE VERSION ADDRESSES THE NEEDS
OF A POPULATION.
WHOSE MEDICAL AND SECURITY NEEDS
MAKE THEM MORE EXPENSIVE TO
INCARCERATE.
AFTER INCARCERATION A PERSON
WITH UNTREATED MENTAL ILLNESS IS
MORE LIKELY TO REQUIRE THE USE
OF EXPENSIVE. COUNTY EMERGENCY
SERVICES
SUCH AS HOSPITALIZATION OR
AMBIENCE IN THE FUTURE.
A CRIMINAL RECORD MEANS THAT
THEY ARE LESS LIKELY TO FIND
EMPLOYMENT.
OR HOUSING IN THE FUTURE
INCREASING THE LIKELIHOOD THAT
THESE DEFENDANTS.
WILL RELY ON STATE OR LOCAL
SYSTEMS ARE ACTUALLY BE
HOMELESS.
S. B. TO FIFTEEN GIVES OUR
COURTS AND COMMUNITY A TOOL TO
BREAKING THE STREETS TO JAIL
CYCLE.
FOR PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS
DIVERSION IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC
THING IN THIS CASE.
IT REQUIRES A DEFENDANT'S DISH
DEFENSE TO SHOW. YOU THE OFFENSE
BECAUSE.
BY THE MENTAL ILLNESS THE
DEFENSE ALSO HAS
TO SECURE TREATMENT.
THAT IS AVAILABLE AND
APPROPRIATE.
COMMUNITY BASED TREATMENT FOR A
DEFENDANT WITH MENTAL ILLNESS.
COSTS ROUGHLY ABOUT TWO TO
TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS PER
YEAR.
COMPARED TO MORE THAN SEVENTY
FIVE THOUSAND. A YEAR FOR
IMPRISONMENT.
AND TREATMENT LEE SETS WITH LAST
YEAR. AS A MEMBER OF THE.
BUDGET SUB COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC
SAFETY WE WE PAY DID AT.
SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS.
PER YEAR.
FURTHER COUNTIES CAN BILL MEDI
CAL.
OR MEDICAID.
.
FOR ROUGHLY HALF THE COST OF
COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH
TREATMENT RATHER AND BEARING THE
FULL COST. OF CARE IN AN
INCARCERATION SETTING.
RESEARCHERS SHAUN THE DIFF
DIVERSION PARTICIPANTS HAVE
EXTREMELY ROW LOW RATE.
A REALLY DEFENDING.
WHICH PROVIDES FURTHER SAVINGS
INTO CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS.
WE GOT RAMPS ARE REPORTS ON NASA
DOES REDUCE RECIDIVISM.
FOR ELIGIBLE DEFENDANTS.
SP TWO PRETEEN CAN TAKE THE
PLACE OF INCARCERATION OR
PROBATION OR PROBATION.
WE ARE PAYING TO PUT PEOPLE
THROUGH EXPENSIVE PROGRAMS THAT
DO NOT GIVE US THE RESULTS WE
WANT.
S. B. TWO FIFTEEN GIVES US A
CHANCE.
TO CONNECT DEFENDANTS WITH
TREATMENT.
IT WOULD REDUCE COSTS TO THE
STATE COMMUNITY AND.
AND NOW THE COUNTIES.
PA I URGE BAIRD SHOW THIS BE.
CONSIDERED THOUGHT IT
APPROPRIATE TIME.
.
AND REFERRED TO THE FLOOR AYE
AYE PRESENT JUDGE MANLEY WAS
THAT I THINK YOU. WHEN OR FOR
OUR JOB CORD DUH.
SENATE CLERGYMEN PARTICULARLY
MUCH.
I'M A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE IN
SANTA CLARA COUNTY.
THE.
I WATER TO FIRST MAKE SURE
YOU'RE AWARE OF THE FACT FIFTY.
JUDICIAL COUNCIL CREATED ATTACK.
ON INNOVATIONS AND CHANGES
NEEDED IN MENTAL HEALTH
TREATMENT.
SPECIFICALLY FOR CRIMINAL
JUSTICE OFFENDERS. AND WE HAVE
STRONGLY SUPPORTED DIVERSION I
CHAIRED THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THAT
TASK FORCE. THAT IT IS SUPPORTED
BY THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL THERE'S
A NATIONAL MOVEMENT.
STEPPING UP.
IN WHICH COUNTIES ARE JOINING
TOGETHER INCLUDING MANY MANY
CALIFORNIA COUNTIES TO CREATE
DIVERSION OPPORTUNITIES
FOR THE MENTALLY ILL. IN SANTA
CLARA COUNTY BY COUNTY
WE HAVE IN FACT DONE THIS.
AND I PRESIDE OVER IN THE VERY.
OFFENDERS THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT TODAY. MILITARY DIVERSION
WHICH WAS THOUGHT TO BE GOING TO
COST THE COURTS A LOT OF MONEY.
HAS NOT COST US MONEY IT'S SAVED
US MONEY.
OF THE.
WHAT WE DO IN THE COURTS IS WE
SPEND SO MUCH TIME?
TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT WE
SHOULD DO WITH MENTALLY ILL
OFFENDERS. WHILE WE WAREHOUSEMAN
JAILS THAT THEY SPEND MORE TIME
IN CUSTODY.
THE HAND IF WE FACE THE PROBLEM
UP FRONT.
WE DO KNOW THIS THAT IF YOU DO
MOVE THEM OUT OF THE SYSTEM.
EFFECTIVELY EN YOU SAVE MONEY TO
THE COUNTY THE STATE AND THE
COURTS WE SPEND LESS TIME.
IN LITIGATION ARGUMENTS
AND DISCUSSIONS REGARDING
OUTCOMES. THAN ONE WE JUST USED
A TRADITIONAL SYSTEM. HERE ARE
COUNTING WHAT WE ARE REALLY BEEN
COMMITTED TO THIS DIVERSION
WE'VE REDUCED THE JAIL
POPULATION.
BUT BY ABOUT TWENTY FIVE
PERCENT.
IT'S DROPPED FROM FORTY THREE
HUNDRED THIRTY ONE HUNDRED.
BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY BECAUSE OF
DIVERTING THE MENTALLY ILL BUT
BECAUSE THE MENTALLY ILL
DIVERSION HAS BEEN A BASIC. PART
OF THAT PROCESS.
WE'VE EXPENDED COUNTY FIRE.
BUT THE TREATMENT SIDE TO MOVE
THEM INTO TREATMENT. THERE'S
PLENTY OF FUNDING FOR TREATMENT
FOR THESE OFFENDERS.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT.
WITH OF THE MENTALLY ILL PERSON
IS IN COURT WITH THE PENDING
CASE OR IS IN PRISON OR IS IN
JAIL IN THE END THERE BACK IN
THE COMMUNITY. AND IF THEY DON'T
HAVE TREATMENT THEY WILL NOT
SUCCEED. THIS STATUTE IS A VERY
HIGH STANDARD.
FOR DETERMINING WHETHER
SOMEONE'S ELIGIBLE FOR DIVERSION
IN MILITARY DIVERSION YOU SIMPLY
HAVE TO BE MENTALLY ILL A
SUBSTANCE ABUSER WHO HAVE
SUFFERED TRAUMA. BUT HERE IT
MUST BE RELATED TO THE OFFENSE
COMMITTED. THAT MAKES A BIG
DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBERS WHO
WILL BE DIVERTED. AND DISCRETION
IS LEFT WITH THE JUDGE.
WE HAVE PLENTY OF FUNDING
IN THE COMMUNITY TO SUPPORT
TREATMENT AT THIS TIME.
AND WE HAVE !N SPAN PROPOSITION
SIXTY THREE FUNDING FOR
INNOVATION SUCH AS DIVERSION I
BELIEVE THERE'S OVER THREE
HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS IN THE
COUNTIES AVAILABLE FOR THIS
TREATMENT.
AND SO I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S
A FAIR ARGUMENT.
I THINK IT'S AN EXCUSE NOT TO DO
SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DO. AS
TO THE COURTS
THERE IS NO GREATER BECAUSE
THEIR ACTUAL SAVINGS I DO THIS
EVERY DAY. YEAR AFTER YEAR IN
THE REAL SAVINGS TO THE COURTS.
MY CORD IS SO CONVINCED OF IT.
THAT WE HAVE INCREASED THE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WE ARE
MOVING THROUGH DIVERSION.
AND INTO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT
DRAMATICALLY AND AND SO WE NOW
HAVE OVER EIGHTEEN HUNDRED
OFFENDERS THAT ARE PARTICIPATING
IN DIVERSION TYPE PROGRAMS. AND
I URGE YOU TO. SUPPORT THIS
PROGRAM. I THINK IT IT'S
IT'S-GOING TO SAVE MONEY AND
MORE
IMPORTANTLY. IS GOING TO LET US
GET BETTER OUTCOMES.
AND STOP SENDING PEOPLE TO JAIL
PRISON AS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE
WHEN THEY COME TO COURT. THANK
YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU JUDGE
FOR WORKING THERE INNOVATION I'M
IN THIS FIELD UP ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS KURT CHILD
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA WE
STRONGLY SUPPORT THE POLICY IN
THIS BILL.
AND I I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO BOTH
WITH SENATOR BILL AND HER JUDGE
MANLIUS SAID ABOUT THE POTENTIAL
SAVINGS FROM.
.
COMMUNITY BASED TREATMENT AND
MOST IMPORTANTLY WE BELIEVE
THAT.
IT GIVES INDIVIDUALS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO. ACTUALLY GET
REHABILITATED IN THE COMMUNITY
AS OPPOSED TO.
IN GELS WHERE THEY OFTEN DE
COMPENSATE AND THE TREATMENT IS
SPORADIC AT BEST SO WE SUPPORT
THE BILL THANK YOU.
MISTER CHAIRMAN THERE'S MIKE A
DOCTOR OFF ON BEHALF OF THE ACLU
OF CALIFORNIA HERE IN SUPPORT OF
THE MEASURE.
THANK YOU DOES ANYONE IS IN
SUPPORT. ONENESS IS AN
OPPOSITION.
FINANCE.
NO FILE.
NO FILE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
FROM COMMITTEE SENATOR ABOUT.
TOURNEY'S NELSON SORRY.
NOT.
SENATE BILL I. THINK I'D LIKE TO
BILL. BENNETT COUPLE QUESTIONS.
GOOD MEET MAYBE YOUR HONOR YOU
COULD ENLIGHTEN ME.
WOULD THIS IT AND I'M A BIG.
DEMO TAPE OF DIVERSION NINE ONE
OF THE EARLIER ARCHITECT
ARCHITECTS OF DRUG COURT. AND
THE UNFORTUNATELY PROP FORTY
SEVEN HAS SEVERELY HAMPERED AND
UNDERMINED THE THAT. THAT VERY
SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM AND ALSO THE
VETERANS COURT.
WITH THIS IN ANYWAY THOUGH
ALLOW.
AN INDIVIDUAL OF THAT TODAY.
LIKELY WOULD QUALIFY FOR IT.
MDO.
COMMITMENT TO CIVIL COMMITMENT
WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO EXEMPT
THEMSELVES FROM THAT. WHOLE
PROGRAM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
HAS A VETO. YEAH AND THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ARE NOT GOING
TO PERMIT THAT OKAY. DID WITH
THAT THAT'S WHY I CAN'T SEE A
JUDGE EVER PERMITTING A.
THAT.
THAT'S THAT'S REALLY A DECISION
TEND FOR LOW OF LITTLE NOW THAT
LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
THIS I EDU SEEM TO INDICATE THAT
THERE'S A LOT OF MONEY THERE IN
THE COUNTIES FOR MENTAL HEALTH.
YES.
I'M NOT HERE NOT FROM THE COUNTY
SEAT WELL I THINK YOU HAVE TO
LOOK AT YOU YOU WOULD HAVE TO
LOOK TO PROPOSITION SIXTY THREE.
AT THE IDEA OF SET ASIDE MONIES.
BY THE INITIATIVE THAT MUST BE
SPENT FOR INNOVATION.
AND I AM TOLD AND UNDERSTAND.
THAT THERE'S THERE'S HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT HAVE
YET TO BE SPENT BY THE COUNTIES
WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THIS IS A
VERY INNOVATIVE.
PROGRAM BECAUSE IT'S MOVING
PEOPLE OUT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
INTO TREATMENT. AND THE METAL
SERVICES ACT SPECIFICALLY TALKS
ABOUT. HELPING THE INDIGENT
ALMOST WHO ARE MENTALLY ILL
THOSE IN THE GROUP MUCHO CSU
SYSTEM.
IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THE FUNDING
IS ALREADY THERE I KNOW IN OUR
COUNTY WERE ACTUALLY USING. PROP
SIXTY THREE FUNDING AB ONE ALL
NINE FUNDING AND GENERAL FUND OF
THE COUNTY FUNDING.
TO BUILD OUT MORE CAPACITY FOR
THE MENTALLY ILL.
A FOR TREATMENT FOR THEM BECAUSE
THE COST INCARCERATE.
IS SO HIGH FOR THE MENTALLY ILL.
IT'S MUCH HIGHER THAN IT IS
BELIEVE IT OR NOT IN THE
COMMUNITY BECAUSE. THE OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS THE HIGHER COURTS
WHATEVER THEIR THEIR THEIR THIS
LITIGATION THEY ORDER THE
COUNTIES TO PROVIDE THE KIND OF
TREATMENT THAT HAS TO BE DONE IN
STATE PRISON. SOME VERY
EXPENSIVE SO IT'S EATEN THE HERO
TO ME.
THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE IS NO
KNOWN TREATMENT LOCALLY. JUST
DOESN'T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE ONCE
THEY LEAVE THE CRIME OR JUSTICE
SYSTEM THERE'S STILL MENTALLY
ILL. THEY NEED THE TREATMENT OF
THE GET UP FROM THE COUNTY SO TO
ME.
IT'S IT'S THE AIR MAYBE IF
THERE'S NOT ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE
OF COURSE BUT CERTAINLY. YOU
KNOW THERE IS ENOUGH TO TREAT
THIS GROUP WE WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY
NO PROBLEM IN FINDING THE
TREATMENT DOLLARS FOR A VERY
LARGE NUMBER OF PROMOTE JUSTICE
OFFENDERS OR MENTALLY ILL IN MY
COUNTY. OCCURRED WELL THAT DESK
AYE AYE SUPPORT.
SENATOR BILLS EFFORTS IN THE
AREA NOW SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY
BUT I STILL HAVE THAT NAGGING
QUESTION ABOUT THE RESOURCES
AVAILABLE IN THE COMMUNITY.
THOUGH WE NOW HAVE A LOT OF.
MENTALLY ILL SHOWING UP IN FACT
IN THE P. OURS.
RIGHT THAT THAT'S WHERE THE END
UP.
AND IN FACT I OF SUPPORTED BILL
LAST YEAR THAT I WOULD NOT
NORMALLY NEVER SPORT I'VE HAD
THE BORDER PRISON TERM FOR MANY
YEARS SO I THOUGHT I COULD HELP
YOU KNOW THE INDIOS AND. BE ESOS
BEFORE THAT.
BUT THIS BILL WOULD ALLOW AN E.
R. DOCTOR TO IMPOSE A. FIFTY ONE
FIFTY HOLE.
NO I NORMALLY WOULD NOT WANT TO
SEE DOCTORS HAVE ANOTHER STORY
BUT KNOWING WHAT THEY'RE
OVERWHELMED WITH NOW AND THE
RISK OF DANGER TO.
YEAH ANYONE BEEN E. ARE. AND I
SAID YES TO THAT BILL. SO I'M
STRUGGLING WITH THIS DARN THING
BUT I I THINK THIS IS A
RIGHTEOUS ATTEMPT AND I DO I DO
NEED TO LOOK INTO.
FOR I'M ALWAYS LOOKING INTO THE
RESOURCES FROM MENTAL HEALTH
CARE.
TO GET FOR GOING TO HAVE
DIVERSIONS AND WE'RE NOT GONNA
POLL HOPE PEOPLE IN CUSTODY OR
OR HAVE TO CIVIL COMMITMENT.
THEN WE.
WE GOTTA GET MORE TREATMENT UP
THERE IN THE COMMUNITY TOLD YOUR
OPTIMISM IS ENCOURAGING TO ME
LET ME PUT IT THAT WAY. WILSON
THIS IS A CAMERA FOR SUSPENSE IN
THAT WE CAN HAVE BOTH OFFICES
FURTHER ON THE CONVERSATION. ON
YOUR CONCERNS AS WE MULLED OVER
THE BILL IN THE NEXT COUPLE
DAYS.
SENATOR BATES HAVE A QUESTION I
JUST QUICKLY ON THE OP. THE
FUNDING SOURCE I'M A LITTLE
CONFUSED WE HAVE PROP SIXTY FOUR
IN. OUR AB ONE OWN NINE PARK
ZAVOD SIXTY THREE IN AVIANO
NINTH. THAT MANEUVERS AND THEN I
HEARD A REFERENCE TO MEDI CAL
SO.
BOB HOWELL WITHOUT.
YOU KNOW COME INTO PLAY MEDI CAL
THE COST PRESSURE ON MEDI CAL IN
THE COUNTIES WELL ONLY A LITTLE
CONCERNED ABOUT THAT WHILE I'M I
BELIEVE IT'S A GREAT CONCEPT
SURE I CAN I CAN JUST TELL YOU
WHAT WE'VE DONE M. ARE NOT ME
NOT THE COURTS BUT THE. COUNTY.
THEY'VE TAKEN.
MEDICARE HOW.
OF FUNDING.
PROP SIXTY THREE.
FUNDING.
BUT AB ONE ALL NINE. AND BUILD
TO BUILD OUT THE TREATMENT
SYSTEM WE ARE FOR EXAMPLE WE ARE
BUILDING.
A WHAT I WOULD CALL THE
BEGINNING OF A RESTORATION
CENTER WHERE YOU HAVE.
A CUTE TREATMENT SUBACUTE.
OUT PATIENT RESIDENTIAL
SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND WITH THE
MEDI CAL MONEY OF COURSE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS PAYING FOR
MOST OF IT SO. IT'S BEEN CREATED
WITH THE MONEY THAT'S ALREADY
THERE. AND I AM WELL I KNOW
WE'RE ONE OF THE FIRST COUNTIES
TO IMPLEMENT THESE NEW PROGRAMS.
BUT BUT THAT'S ABOUT TO ME O.
WE'RE CREATING MRE OUT PATIENT.
MORE IMPATIENT WE JUST OPENED
AMONG THE COUNTY NOT THE COURTS
THE COUNTY JUST OPENED A NEW
FACILITY. FOR CRISIS RESIDENTIAL
AND I THINK THAT'S.
IT'S ONE OF THE WAYS YOU DIVERT
PEOPLE BECAUSE IF WE IF WE CAN
AS WAS MENTIONED ABOUT.
LIKE I GO THROUGH THIS EVERY
DAY.
THEY HAVE NOT THE POLICE TAKEN
TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM THE
EMERGENCY ROOM PUTS HIM IN THE
STREETS OF CUPS AND TAKEN TO
JAIL AND THEN THERE IN FRONT OF.
WHERE THE COURTS SO? IF WE CAN
STOP THAT BY HAVING A MEANINGFUL
PLACE TO TAKE THEM LIKE.
URGENT CARE CENTER THAT IS TIED
TO CRISIS RESIDENTIAL SO YOU CAN
DECIDE WHAT KIND OF TREATMENT
THEY WANT AND TRY AND PLAY SOME
NAY. IT'S A BEGINNING AND THANK
YOU I THINK THE FUNNY SAYS THANK
YOU. MATURE ANY ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE.
AGAIN JUST WANNA THANK YOU AGAIN
FOR LIKE YOU SAY WORK ON THIS
YOU OFFER HERE FARIA. UM.
MEMBERS THIS IS A KIND OF PERSON
SPEND CENTER BELL WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE OUR PRESENTATION. OF
JUST COUPLE THINGS TO RESPOND TO
QUESTIONS ABOUT. THERE IS AN
AUDIT OF THE PROP SIXTY THREE.
OF FUNDS COMING SOON.
.
AND AS.
THE JUDGE SAID.
THE EXPECTATION IS TO SHOW
BALANCES. ON SPENT.
JUST SO YOU REALIZE THAT'S COMIN
NEVER WE TALKED ABOUT IT LAST
YEAR. YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT
ALASKA. THAT'S COMING UP WE KNOW
THAT'S HAPPENING.
THE OTHER THING IS THE COST OF
MEDICAL CARE IN THE.
COUNTY JAIL.
IS IT WORSE STATE PRISON IS A
HUNDRED PERCENT LOCAL OR STATE.
YOU HAVE TO PAY A AND RIGHT NOW
BECAUSE OF THAT FEDERAL COURT
ORDER.
FOR STATE PRISONS.
WORK WERE SPENDING.
NOW SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND
DOLLARS PER INMATE AND A LOT OF
THAT COST IS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO
VIRTUALLY HAVE HOSPITALS IN
EVERY PRISON.
SO IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MENTAL
HEALTH HOSPITALS IN EVERY
PRISON.
AND PAY A HUNDRED PERCENT OF IT.
IT'S NOT VERY HARD TO REACH THAT
CONCLUSION.
THAT IF WE DO THESE DIVERSION
PROGRAM AND KEEP PEOPLE OUT OF
THE STATE PRISON.
SPINNING A HUNDRED PERCENT OF
OUR STATE GENERAL FUND MONEY ON
THE PRISON HEALTHCARE COSTS.
THAT WE CAN DO A BETTER JOB WITH
THE PROP SIXTY THREE. THE MEDI
CAL COUNTY FUNDS STATE FUNDS
OUTSIDE.
OF THE PRISON AND STILL HAVE
BETTER RESULTS ON REDUCE
RECIDIVISM. AND THAT'S WHY
THAT'S WHY IN THE LAST OMMITTEE.
OF CENTER STONE AND ANDERSON
AGREED TO BE CALL OFFICES.
THANK.
THANK YOU ARE.
SENATOR BROWN WHAT THE OBJECTION
AND THIS IS THE KIND OF SUSPENSE
WE MOVE THIS ITEM TO THE
SUSPENSE FILE. WE ARE NOW GOING
TO MOVE THROUGH OUR AGENDA FOR
ALL THE OTHER ITEMS IN WHICH
MEMBERS HAVE WAY PRESENTATIONS.
WILL ALLOW.
FOLKS AGAIN IF YOU'RE HERE FOR
SPECIFIC BUILT A TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OR NOT POSITION OF THE
MEASURE AS THEY COME UP.
BUT AGAIN WE REMIND YOU TO STAY
TO THE FISCAL ASPECTS OF THE
BILL WE DO NOT WANT TO REHASH.
THE POLICY HEARING ON THE ITEMS
BEGINNING WITH S. B. THIRTY
EIGHT CENTER ROCK.
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
FINANCE.
A FINANCE OPPOSES THIS BILL
BECAUSE IT WOULD RESULT IN
SIGNIFICANT GENERAL FUND COST
NOT INCLUDED IN THE
ADMINISTRATION'S.
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE.
SEEING AND HEARING NONE WITHOUT
OBJECTION WHEN WILL THIS ITEM TO
THE SUSPENSE FILE. MOVING ON TO
SENATOR DENOUNCE ITEMS BEGINNING
WITH SP TWO TWO SEVEN. WHEN THIS
ISN'T SUPPORT.
WHEN THIS IS IN OPPOSITION.
JENNIFER BAKER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
WE DON'T HAPPEN A PASSAGE AN
OFFICIAL POSITION ON THE MEASURE
AND WE UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF
WHAT THE AUTHOR IS TRYING TO
ACHIEVE IN CERTAINLY WANT TO BE
HELPFUL. WE DO WANT TO KNOW THE
CURRENT VERSION UNINTENTIONALLY
REDUCES THE STATE'S MONEY AN
OBLIGATION TO PROP NINETY EIGHT
WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY LEAD TO
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF LOSSES
FOR BOTH K. TWELVE AS WELL AS
COMMITTEE COLLEGES. WERE WORKING
WITH THE AUTHOR ON FINDING THAT
LANGUAGE THAT WORK IN A LONG RUN
THAT'S NOT COULD HAVE AN
INTENTIONAL COST TO PUBLIC
EDUCATION. GREAT THANK YOU.
DIGITAL WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION.
SEEING THEM FINANCE
I HAVE TO BE IN THE STATE
TREASURER'S OFFICE DON'T HAVE A
ESTIMATES YET FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS.
AND THE ADMINISTRATION STILL
EVALUATING THE BROADER POLICY
ISSUE THIS BILL ADDRESSES THANK
YOU COMMENTS OF COURSE FROM
COMMITTEE.
THING AND NOT OBJECTIONABLE THIS
ITEM TO SUSPENSEFUL.
WHEN I TO AS BEFORE SIXTY ONE
THIS ISN'T SUPPORT.
BILL BUSILY SEAN BEHALF THE CITY
OF SANTA MONICA AND SUPPORT.
THIS IS AN OPPOSITION.
COME ON DOWN.
MISTER CHAIRMAN MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE THAT SEEMED A LITTLE
BIT UNFAIR SINCE THE PER.
AUTHORS IN HERE SO WE'LL MAKE
OUR COMMENTS VERY VERY SHORT.
THAT WE OF COURSE ARE OPPOSED
TO SP FOUR SIXTY.
BOB I WANT TO PUT ON THE RECORD
THAT EIGHTEEN T. DOZEN FAX
SUPPORT AND OPEN INTERNET. AND
ALL THE RULES AND REGULATIONS
APPLY TO THAT ARE ON OUR WEBSITE
AND HAVE BEEN FOR OVER A DECADE.
HOWEVER AS STATED IN THIS
ANALYSIS THE FISCAL IMPACT OF
THIS BILL WILL BE SUBSTANTIAL.
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT COST WILL
BE THE FACT FOR THE VERY FIRST
TIME IN THE HISTORY CALIFORNIA.
WE WILL ATTEMPT TO REGULATE THE
INTERNET AT THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION. UNDER THIS BILL THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION WILL
BE REQUIRED TO BUILD AN ENTIRE
NEW DIVISION. HIRE ADDITIONAL
STAFF INITIATE PROCEEDINGS IN
RULE MAKINGS. ALL AT SUBSTANTIAL
EXPENSE AND YEARS OF REGULATORY
UNCERTAINTY.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS IS
COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY ARE AND
THE PROVISION OF THE BILL THAT.
COULD BE ELIMINATED.
.
IT DOES OPEN THE DOOR TO
REGULATION OF NOT ONLY THE
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS.
BUT WOULD ALSO LEAD TO AN
EXAMINATION OF DEVICES.
SEARCH ENGINES IN APPLICATIONS
ESSENTIAL TO THE OPERATION OF
THE INTERNET. WHICH OF COURSE
WILL BRING UNTOLD EXPENSE
AND DELAY TO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
MY CONCLUSION WOULD BE
REGULATING THE INTERNET BY THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.
ABOUT WILL CREATE IN CALIFORNIA
A COLLISION
BETWEEN THE DELAY AND THE
EXPENSE OF BUREAUCRACY. WITH THE
SPEED OF INNOVATION THAT IS
SERVE THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY SO
WELL WITH THAT THANK YOU VERY
MUCH MISTER CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU
DISH AND ONE IS IN OPPOSITION.
MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS JONATHAN
AND ON BEHALF OF CTIA THE
WIRELESS INDUSTRY'S TRADE
ASSOCIATION CTA IN ITS MEMBER
COMPANIES SUPPORT A FREE AND
OPEN INTERNET UNFORTUNATELY SP
FOUR SIXTY ACCOMPLISHES NEITHER.
THE MOBILE WIRELESS BROADBAND
MARKETPLACE ATTRACTS BILLIONS IN
NETWORK INVESTMENT EACH YEAR
THAT DIRECTLY BENEFITS CONSUMERS
ESPECIALLY IN CALIFORNIA.
THE FCC'S TWO THOUSAND FIFTEEN
ORDER APPLIED AN EIGHTY YEAR OLD
MODEL MEANT FOR TRADITIONAL
PUBLIC UTILITIES THISOCCURRED
WITHOUT A COMPELLING SHOWING
EVERY PROBLEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
SO IN TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN THE
FCC SWITCHED AGAIN CITING
EVIDENCE OF A DECLINE IN
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE. IN THE
MOBILE BROADBAND MARKET ALONE
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FELL FROM
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN TO TWO
THOUSAND SIXTEEN NEARLY SIX
BILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY. THE
SLOWDOWN AFFECTED MOBILE
PROVIDERS OF ALL SIZES IN ALL
MARKETS URBAN AND RULE ALIKE.
POTENTIAL NEGATIVE FISCAL IMPACT
SP FOUR SIXTY COULD HAVE ON
CALIFORNIA IS MASSIVE.
NO ONE ON THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD
TRUST THAT ANY STATE AGENCY IN
CALIFORNIA COULD REGULATE THE
INTERNET. AND BE ABLE TO KEEP UP
WITH THE FURY OF INNOVATION IT
CURRENTLY PROVIDES.
HOW OFTEN WOULD THEY HAVE TO
UPDATE THE REGULATIONS IF IT
TAKES A YEAR IT WILL BE OUT OF
DATE BEFORE THEY'RE EVEN
CONSIDERED FINAL?
IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE ANY STATE
AGENCY TRYING TO REGULATE THE
INTERNET WOULDN'T HAVE A
POTENTIALLY NEGATIVE AFFECT ON
ONE OF THE MOST VIBRANT. HIGH
PAIN IN INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIES WE
HAVE IN CALIFORNIA.
BILL WE'RE DISCUSSING WAS
AMENDED TO THIS LANGUAGE ON
JANUARY THIRD ELECTED PASS A
POLICY COMMITTEE. MAYBE THIS
FISCAL COMMITTEE AND THE SENATE
FLOOR IN LESS THAN ONE MONTH.
TRYING TO REGULATE THE INTERNET
DESERVES A LITTLE BIT MORE
THOUGHT THAN THAT THE FCC TOOKIE
HERE'S THE FISCAL IMPACT OF
GETTING I WRONG COULD BE
DISASTROUS TO CALIFORNIA. THIS
LEGISLATION WOULD HARM CONSUMERS
AND ALSO CONFLICTS WITH FEDERAL
LAW FOR THOSE REASONS AND MANY
OTHER NON FISCAL REASONS WE MUST
RESPECT RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE S.
BEFORE SIXTY.
VISION AWARENESS AS AN
OPPOSITION MISTER CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS CAROLINE MCINTYRE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CABLE
AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
ASSOCIATION ALSO IN OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL AS BEFORE SIXTY.
WILL INCREASE COSTS TO THE
GENERAL FUND AND ALSO INCREASE
COSTS SIGNIFICANTLY TO BROADBAND
CONSUMERS FOR THIS REASON WE
WERE QUESTION OF ON.
THANK YOU.
MR CARE MEMBERS EQUITY MICHAEL
SAW CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURES
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION WHILE
WERE ALSO POSED AS BEFORE
SIXTEEN OR QUESTION ABOUT IF
YOU.
MR MEMBERS DOMINIC'S MAR HERE
BEHALF FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
ALSO IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL
THANK YOU.
RESEARCHER CHRIS MCKAY WE ON
BEHALF OF THE COMPUTING
TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
IN OPPOSITION.
MORNING KEVIN KELLY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
IN OPPOSITION THANK YOU.
BROKEN MCFETRIDGE ON BEHALF OF A
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS IN
OPPOSITION OF THE BILL.
MARGARET CLUTCHED IN BEHALF OF
COMCAST IN OPPOSITION.
SEVERE GARCIA WITH FRIES AND
ALSO IN OPPOSITION.
GOOD MORNING MEMBERS LARA
BENNETT WITH TEKE IN OPPOSITION.
KIRK EMOTION ON BEHALF OF SPRINT
ALSO IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL.
MORNING FICON INVISIBLE JUSTICE
ASSOCIATION ALSO IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU.
BUT I THINK THAT'S ALL THAT
OPPOSITION.
FINANCE.
I PC ESTIMATES WE CONCUR
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF FIVE AND
A HALF MILLION DOLLARS OVER FIVE
YEARS.
THANK YOU.
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE BEFORE WE GO TO THE
MEMBERS LET ME I'VE WE CAN HAVE.
MAYBE. BELLAMY WANNA COME
FORWARD WE HAVE. I HAVE A
QUESTION FOR THE OPPOSITION.
SHOW MISTER DEVINE I KNOW YOU
TALKED ANOTHER WAS A COMMERCE
THE LOCK. DISCUSSION ABOUT THE
P. YOU SEE. IF IT'S NOT THE P.
YOU SEE THEN WHO DO YOU THINK IS
THE APPROPRIATE. AGENCY. TO
REGULATE THE INTERNET SO JUST BE
THE FCC.
MISTER CHAIRMAN OF THE FCC HAS
HELD THIS RESPONSIBILITY SINCE
THE INCEPTION OF THE INTERNET.
AS YOU KNOW THERE ARE MULTIPLE
SECTIONS OF THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT.
THE LAST DECISION THAT WAS MADE
BY THE FCC AND HISTORICALLY.
THE INTERNET HAS BEEN TREATED AS
AN INFORMATION SERVICE.
UNDER TITLE ONE IT HAS NOT WITH
THE ONE EXCEPTION OF THE TWO
THOUSAND FIFTEEN DECISION. IT
HAS NEVER BEEN TREATED AS A
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE UNDER
TITLE TO. THE TELECOM SERVICES
HAVE A FIFTY YEAR HISTORY OF
TELEPHONE MONOPOLY REGULATION
WHICH IS ALWAYS BEEN DEEMED TO
BE INAPPROPRIATE WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF THAT DECISION IN
TWO THOUSAND FIFTEEN.
SO UNDER THE OLD RULES WHERE THE
INTERNET THRIVED. AND UNDER THE
CURRENT RULES.
WE WOULD SUGGEST THE
APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCY A
WOULD BE THE FCC AND THEY DID
PUT IN THEIR DECISION.
FEDERAL PREEMPTION I REALIZE
THAT THAT'S A RATHER UNPOPULAR
ISSUE AMONG MEMBERS OF THE STATE
HOWEVER. I WILL ALSO TELL YOU
THAT HISTORICALLY EVERY FCC
INCLUDING THE OBAMA FCC IN TWO
THOUSAND FIFTEEN. ALSO PUT INTO
THEIR RULES FEDERAL PREEMPTION
BECAUSE THERE'S UNIVERSAL
AGREEMENT THAT THE INTERNET IS
AN INTERSTATE SERVICE NOT AN
INTRA STATE SERVICE. THE LAST
THING I MIGHT ADD MISTER
CHAIRMAN IF I MAY. THIS
PARTICULAR BILL SPELLS OUT. THE
BASIC NET NEUTRALITY PRINCIPLES
IN ITS FIRST SECTION.
WHICH WE ALL AGREE WITH.
IN THE SECOND SECTION THEY GIVE
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S AND CITY
ATTORNEYS TO ENFORCE THE LAW.
ALL OF THE ISPS HAVE INTERNET
PRINCIPLES ON THEIR WEBSITE
THAT'S PUBLIC FOR EVERYONE TO
READ AS PART OF THE AGREEMENT
THEY REACH WHEN THEY SELL
SERVICE TO A CONSUMER.
SO THAT'S FULL
FORCIBLE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND OTHER LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
AGAINST COMPANIES.
AND BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A A
DEFINED PROBLEM.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY OUTRAGEOUS
CONDUCT PEOPLE ARE REPORTING. A
WE DON'T EVEN HAVE GOOD
CITATIONS HISTORICALLY OVAL
ALLEGATIONS A PROBLEM.
WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT IS MORE
THAN ADEQUATE AYE IF THE STATE
MOVES FORWARD WITH THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. OUR COVERAGE OF
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE CENTER
BATES I THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL
IF OF ACTUALLY TO FINANCE.
ARE WE HAVE A ON FIVE BILLION
DOLLAR ON A COST ESTIMATE HA AS
COMPARED TO BACK IN TWENTY
TWELVE WHEN I WAS NOT HERE OF
SOME BILLION DOLLARS THAT CAME
FROM. CPU SEES SO I THINK IT
WILL BE IMPORTANT AND THE FISCAL
ANALYSIS AS WE GO FORWARD. TO
SHARE WITH US HOWELL AND THAT
WAS REDUCE SO SIGNIFICANTLY IN
TERMS OF WHAT YOU SEE WAS BOB.
ARE PROJECTING IN TERMS OF
ACOSTA THAT'S A THAT'S A BIG
ISSUE AND THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN
A RESPONSE TO THE ORIGINAL
LETTER FROM THAT APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE BUT THAT HAS NOT BEEN
PROVIDED TO US.
SO I MEAN TO TO TO REDUCE IT
THAT SIGNIFICANTLY. HA IT
SUGGESTS THAT YOU KNOW THERE'S
SOME MISSING PIECES THERE BY AND
OUT I THINK WEIGHS HEAVILY ON
THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE BILL.
THANK YOU SENATOR NELSON.
WELL AND ALSO FLIES IN THE FACE
OF LOGIC.
THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF
CALIFORNIA.
DECIDING THAT IT IS.
PRISON UNITED STATES.
AND A GO IT ALONE STATE.
AND IT'S ALMOST A BLANK CHECK.
TO THE P. YOU SEE.
WHICH I DO NOT THINK NOW.
IT'S CAPABLE OF HANDLING.
KIND OF AUTHORITY THIS BEEN
DUMPED INTO SLAP.
NOW IT WOULD REALLY SAY YES WE
WANT TO DO THIS BECAUSE.
AGENCIES ALWAYS WANT A BILL
THEIR EMPIRES.
BUT THIS IS ALMOST A BLANK CHECK
TO DO SO.
THEY WILL COME IN EVERY YEAR FOR
MORE P. WISE. MORE CAPITAL
OUTLAY AND BUILD THIS ENORMOUS
REGULATORY BODY.
AND MR DIVINE WHO JUST POINTED
OUT. THAT IF ANOTHER. MORASS
THAT WOULD BE EMBARKING ON.
BECAUSE COMPANIES AT ANY GIVE
BIRTH TO MY THINK YOU TRYING TO
FIX A PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T
EXIST.
COMPANIES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO
BE DEALING WITH LITIGATION.
FROM EVERY SOURCE.
STATE.
CITIES.
CHALLENGE.
EVERYBODY IS EMPOWERED. TO
REGULATE.
IN ADDITION TO THE FEW SAFE HAVE
STANDING IN LITIGATION
PEDALBOARDS.
THIS IS A.
I THINK TO LOOK HAVE TO HUGE
HUGE PROBLEM.
IT CREATES A PROBLEM.
TO FIX A PROBLEM.
IT DOESN'T EXIST.
THANK YOU ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS COMMITTEE CENTER HELP
EMIT THANK YOU SHOULD CHAIR OF.
THE YOU KNOW IN THE ENERGY
COMMITTEE LAST WEEK WE HAD QUITE
A DISCUSSION OF A ABOUT THIS AND
ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT CAME UP
IN.
FAIRLY UNIVERSAL IN THE COMMENTS
WERE THAT THE. UC WAS NOT THE
APPROPRIATE PLACE TO.
YOU EAT REGULATE OR TRY TODEAL
WITH THE INTERNET AND ANYWAY AND
THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED
THROUGH PREVIOUS LEGISLATION.
IT BY THIS BODY THAT.
WE TOOK ANY REGULATION OR
OVERSIGHT OF THE INTERNET AWAY
FROM.
THE P. YOU SEE AND OR AT LEAST
THERE WERE NO INTEREST IN IT. UP
ALSO WE HAVE THE PROBLEM OF
HISTORICALLY THE OVER.
.
OVER PLACEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY
AT THE P. YOU SEE THAT AND.
LEGISLATION LAUGHTER THAT I
CARRIED EVEN STARTED REMOVING
SOME OF THE RESPONSIBILITY FROM
THEM AND GIVING THEM TO THE
RIGHT AGENCY SO. I THINK
REGARDLESS OF WHERE THIS GOES.
IF YOU SEE IS NOT THE CORRECT
PLACE SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN HAVE
THAT DISCUSSION THE NEXT COUPLE
DAYS THINKING FUTURE THANK YOU
CENTER WIENER. AYE THANK YOU
MISTER CHAIRMAN AND I AND.
AS I YOU.
STATED AS DID CENTER HILL AND.
AYE AND ENERGY COMMITTEE A
REPEAT HEROES WHILE I'M WHILE SO
I DON'T BELIEVE IT BUT TO SEE IF
YOU SEE IS THAT. ARE ARE CRACKED
AGENCY TO OR IF I DON'T THINK IT
MAKES SENSE TO GIVE THE CPC
BROAD REGULATORY POWER.
OVERNIGHT NEUTRALITY AND OVER
BROADBAND.
I I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE CPC
WOULD HAVE NO ROLE AND AND
IMPLEMENTING ENFORCING THE BILL
THERE MAY BE A LIMITED ROLE.
FOR US I DON'T WANNA FOR CLOSE
UP BUT I THINK THIS KIND OF
BROAD REGULATORY POWERED. ON
DOESN'T MAKE SENSE OUT OF NO AND
I'M NOT IN ANY WAY TRYING TO
CRITICAL THE CPUC DECISIONS YOU
HAVE A LOT OF RESPONSIBILITIES.
GIVING IT AN ADDITIONAL HUGE
RESPONSIBILITY OUGHT TO ME IS
NOT.
THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT.
SO.
IT IS MY HOPE THAT THIS WILL
SEEK YOU SEE PART OF THE BILL A
WILL BE REMOVED AYE WALL SO I
KNEW NONE THAT I HAVE A AND THE
BILL S. B. TWENTY TWO. OF WHICH
WERE CONTINUING TO WORK ON.
WE ARE IN COMMUNICATION WITH.
THE PROTANDIM WE WANT TO WORK
TOGETHER A COLLABORATIVELY SO
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS.
FROM THE COMMITTEE.
SEEING NONE THIS IS A CAqADA
FOR SUSPENSE SO WITHOUT
OBJECTION IN LISTENING TO THE
SUSPENSE FAR. MOVING ON TO
SENATOR LABELS ITEM SB THREE
TWENTY.
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT PLEASE
COME FORWARD.
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
.
BRENT.
I GOOD MORNING CHAIR MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE.
I'M HERE.
AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN AND
SOMEONE A WOMAN WHO HAS HELPED
NUMEROUS WOMEN OVER THE LAST
TWELVE YEARS WITH AND AFTER
PORTION CARE.
AND WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER.
AND AGREE WITH WHAT WE WANT TO
MINIMIZE THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF
HEALTH CONCERNS ON STUDENT
STUDIES.
AND OF HIS FACILITATE RETENTION
AND GRADUATION BUT LIKE TO POINT
OUT THAT. I AM WE ALL HAVE A
REPRODUCTIVE AS SOME OF US YOU
KNOW DON'T
SEE CHILDREN SOME.
SEE ONE OR TWO OR MORE IN A
REPRODUCTIVE STORY. AND THERE
ARE TIMES WHEN STUDENTS ARE
FACED WITH UNINTENDED PREGNANCY.
MISTIMED OR UNWANTED. AND IT
DOESN'T MATCH THAT REPRODUCTIVE
PLAN. IN A. BUT IN RESPONSE TO
THAT THERE IS SURPRISE THERE IS
SHOCK AND VOTE WHETHER OR NOT WE
ARE FOR OR AGAINST ABORTION HERE
IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT. THAT
LIFE IS NOT THE SAME WHEN THERE
IS A PREGNANCY. EITHER WANTED OR
UNWANTED.
AN ABORTION CHOICE DOES NOT
ERASER AND DO A AND UNINTENDED
PREGNANCY FROM OUR HEART AND
MIND.
BUT INSTEAD LEASES TO FACE A
POTENTIALLY GRIEF AND LOSS
EITHER IMMEDIATELY OR IN THE
FUTURE.
A PSYCHOLOGY TODAY ARTICLE
STATES THAT WE ALL ENCOUNTER
EXPERIENCES IN LIFE WHERE WE ARE
TIM A TEMPORARILY OVERWHELMED BY
A NEGATIVE EMOTION.
PRESSURE NERVOUSNESS DESPAIR AND
CONFUSION AND WE CAN AGREE THAT
AND AT UNINTENDED PREGNANCY CAN
BRING THAT ONTO A STUDENT.
BUT PSYCHOLOGY TODAY SAYS IN THE
SITUATIONS HOW WE CHOOSE TO
MASTER THE MOMENT CAN MAKE THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING
PROACTIVE AND REACTIVE.
I BELIEVE THIS BILL WILL
INCREASE REACTIVE DECISIONS OUT
OF A NEGATIVE EMOTIONS WITH ON
CAMPUS.
ABORTION ACCESS.
A.
I HAD TO IN UNINTENDED
PREGNANCIES MYSELF ONE AT
SIXTEEN AND ONE AT NINETEEN WHEN
I WAS IN COLLEGE. AND I DID NOT
HAVE ON CAMPUS.
OPTIONS FOR HEALTH CARE FOR AND
CHILD CARE FOR FLIGHT SCHEDULES
OR ANY OF THAT SORT. AND OF MY
REACTIONS WERE NEGATIVE AND WHEN
CONFRONTED I MADE A DECISION TO
ABORT OUT OF REACTIVE STRESS.
OVER THE LAST TWELVE YEARS I'VE
HELP MANY WOMEN THROUGH THEIR
ABORTION CARE.
AND EVERY WOMAN DID FACE A
CRISIS AND AND. AND AND HER
DECISION LIKE ME WE WERE LEFT
CHANGED.
WE WISH WE WOULD HAVE MORE
SUPPORT WHEN WE WERE FACED WITH
A CRISIS IN THAT DECISION MAKING
PROCESS S. OPUS WANNA BE
RESPECTFUL OF YOUR TIME IN YOUR
TESTIMONY WANT TO MAKE SURE WE
KEEP THE ARGUMENTS. OF THE BOOK
TO THE FISCAL ASPECTS RIGHT WE
DO APPRECIATE YOUR HISTORY.
RIGHT SO I WOULD I ASK TO PLEASE
CONSIDER AT MUCH GREATER BENEFIT
TO FISCAL SPENDING. IF COLLEGES
AND UNIVERSITIES OFFERED A SAFE
AND OPEN ENVIRONMENT FOR
PREGNANT STUDENTS.
BUT THE RESOURCES THEY NEED FAST
AS* SCHEDULES HOUSING
TRANSPORTATION ON CAMPUS CARE.
PRENATAL CARE AND OTHER EXPENSES
OF THIS MONEY WOULD BE BETTER
SPENT TO HELP MAKE A PROACTIVE
CHOICE AND NOT A REACTIVE
CHOICE.
THANK YOU.
SENATOR LARA. AND MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
ON WNET SILLS DIRECTOR OF
CALIFORNIANS FOR LIFE WE BRING
BEFORE YOU TONYA AND THE STORY
THAT I'VE.
.
DISTRIBUTED TO EACH OF YOU
ASSIST JESSICA ON BEHALF OF
WOMEN. MUCH LIKE TONYA AND
JESSICA WHO ARE PREGNANT AND
FIND THEMSELVES IN A VERY
DESPERATE SITUATION ON CAMPUS
I'M ASKING EACH OF YOU.
ARE YOU PRO CHOICE OR YOU PRO
ABORTION BECAUSE THIS BILL IS
EXCLUSIVELY PRO ABORTION AS AN
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE VOTE.
THIS IS A THIRD ESTIMATED
THIRTEEN MILLION DOLLARS
PROJECTED COSTS THAT COULD BE
BETTER SPENT HELPING WOMEN LIKE
JESSICA YOU SEE IN OUR OWN
TESTIMONY AS WELL AS TONYA.
CALIFORNIANS EXPECT TRANSPARENCY
WILL THE LIST OF DONORS TO THIS
FUND BE MADE PUBLIC WITH A LIST
OF GRANTEES AND THE AMOUNT OF
MONEY THEY RECEIVE ALONG WITH
THE BALANCE OF THE
IMPLEMENTATION FUN.
BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
WE DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MUCH THIS
BILL WILL COST.
BUT.
WATER THE ONGOING MAINTENANCE
COSTS OF THIS BILL WHO WILL PAY
FOR THE ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS.
IN THE REMARKS OF THE ARMS AT
THE SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE
LAST WEEK CENTER LEYVA SAID THAT
STUDENT ATHLETES WHO.
HAVE ABORTIONS THEY HAVE
ABORTIONS TO AVOID LOSING
SCHOLARSHIP.
I WANT T BE VERY CLEAR ON
THE-RECORD.
THAT THAT IS A CLEAR VIOLATION
OF TITLE NINE AND WILL OPEN UP A
UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS TO.
CIVIL LITIGATION.
DOES IT THAT IS HAPPENING ON
OUR STE UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES THAT
NEEDS TO BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY
TO HE CIVIL RIGHTS OFFICERS IN
CLEAR VIOLATION OF TITLE NINE.
IT'S THE ON GOING COSTS OF THE
PILL ITSELF.
IT'S WELL OER THREE MILLION
DOLLARS A YEAR THAT THE ANALYSIS
SUGGESTS THERE WILL BE FIVE
HUNDRED STUDENTS AND PERMANENT
TIME SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS A PILL.
THAT IS.
THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
A MONTH THAT WILL BE REQUIRED OF
THIS FUND.
WHAT ABOUT THE? ADDED COST
INSURANCE LIABILITY AND RISK
FROM MALPRACTICE FOR THOSE
STUDENT HEALTH CENTER STAFF WERE
VIOLATING THAT FORCED TO VIOLATE
THEIR CONSCIENCES FORCING THEM
TO WORKING CONDITIONS WHICH AND
HUMAN LIFE AND HURT WOMEN.
THE NEXT POINT I'D LIKE TO MAKE
IS THAT THE BILL ANALYSIS SAYS
THE BILL DOES NOT REQUIRE THE.
EXPECT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE
EXPENDITURE STATE FUNDS.
BUT DEAR SENATORS.
THE PHRASE DOES NOT REQUIRE IS
FAR DIFFERENT THAN PROHIBIT THE
USE OF.
OF STATE FUNDS STATE GENERAL
FUNDS.
I PROVIDE FOR YOU AT.
PRESS RELEASE PROVIDED BY.
STATE TREASURER JOHN CHIANG AND
THAT HE HAD TWELVE YEARS OF
SERVICE ON THE BOARD OF PLANNED
PARENTHOOD. AND HAS A LONG
HISTORY OF DIVERTING STATE FUNDS
TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND SO TO
PUT HIM IN CHARGE OF THIS.
IMPLEMENTATION FUND.
IF THE SAID THE INTENT OF THE
AUTHORS TO.
PROHIBIT THE EXPENDITURE OF
STATE FUNDS FOR THIS EFFORT THAN
IT NEEDS TO SAY SO EXPLICITLY
AND NOT USE THE PHRASE DOES NOT
REQUIRE BECAUSE THAT'S FAR
DIFFERENT THAN PROHIBIT.
I'D LIKE TO.
PRESENT YOU THE CHART SHOWING
THE CURRENT PROXIMITY OF A
CHEMICAL ABORTION PROVIDER TO
EACH OF OUR UCC ISSUE CAN
SINCE.
THERE IS NO LACK OF ACCESS TO
CHEMICAL ABORTION AND THEREFORE
I'M ASKING THAT THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. I'M
REALLY LOOK CLOSELY AT THE
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS IN THIS
DIRECTION WHEN THERE IS NO UNMET
NEED.
THE PROGRESSIVE FORWARD THINKING
EMPOWERED STRONG WOMEN OF
CALIFORNIA INCREASINGLY REJECT.
THIS BILL'S NOTION THAT WE MUST
HAVE.
ABORTION AND IN THE LIFE OF OUR
CHILDREN IN ORDER FOR US TO
SUCCEED AND REACH YOUR
EDUCATIONAL AND LIFE GOALS.
THE DEMAND FOR ABORTION IS AT AN
ALL TIME LOW FOR CALIFORNIA'S
DOCUMENTED BY THE SECOND WILL
BE.
AND I'M ASKING HOW MANY OF OUR
TWENTY THREE SERIOUS YEAR WHEN
TEN UC CAMPUSES OR EVEN. HAPPY
BEEN EXPRESSED INTEREST IN
APPLYING FOR THESE ABORTION
GRANT SO FAR I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT
IN THE BILL ANALYSIS.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR
ATTENTION.
A CHART THAT SHOWS THE. ANNUAL
REPORTS OF THE.
.
A. REVENUE IN EXCESS OF EXPENSES
BY EACH OF THE SEVEN PLANNED
PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES HERE IN
THE STATE.
WHILE THERE NUMBER PATIENT
VISITS GOES DOWN EACH YEAR AND
EVEN THEIR NUMBER OF ABORTIONS
BOTH CHEMICAL AND SURGICAL
ABORTIONS GO DOWN.
THERE AMOUNT OF REVENUE IN
EXCESS OF. EXPENSES EXPENDITURES
IS WELL OVER TEN MILLION DOLLARS
HERE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AND SO. IF YOU ARE REALLY PRO
CHOICE IF YOU ARE REALLY
CONCERNED ABOUT HELPING WOMEN
LIKE TONYA AND JESSICA. I'M
FULFILL THEIR EDUCATIONAL GOALS.
THEN WHY CREATOR UNNECESSARY
MANDATE IN EXPENSIVE MANDATE
UPON OUR UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS.
WHEN.
THE.
.
THE PERCEIVED NEED COULD BE
BETTER ADDRESSED BY THE ABORTION
INDUSTRY IS REPRESENTED BY
PLANNED PARENTHOOD WHO RD HAS
WELL OVER TEN MILLION DOLLARS IN
EXCESS REVENUE AND THEIR
ACCOUNTANTS SO.
IT SEEMS THAT THIS IS REALLY AN
URGENT NEED THE AUTHOR SHOULD BE
ADDRESSING.
THE MONEY IN THAT DIRECTION
RATHER THAN CREATOR A SPECIAL
FUND HERE IN THE STATE
TREASURER'S OFFICE.
I'D LIKE TO FINISH BY. WE'VE HAD
TONYA WE'VE HAD JUST A CO STORY
HIGHLIGHTED IN OUR TESTIMONY OF
THE IMPACT OF THIS MANDATE UPON
WOMEN YOUNG WOMEN ON CAMPUS. THE
FINAL STORY IS ABBY STORY AND I
HOPE PER ARM STORY RESTS IN YOUR
HEART ISSUE A MAKE YOUR JUST.
BILL.
SHE HAD THE CHEMICAL ABORTION
AND PASSED.
WHAT'S THE SIZE OF LEMONS AND TO
THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE
HAPPENING IN OUR DORMITORY ROOMS
WITHOUT.
EVEN THEM A TRIAGE EMERGENCY
PHONE CALL NUMBER TO MAKE.
IS REALLY A SAD SITUATION FOR
STUDENTS AND I BELIEVE WE CAN
DO.
AND I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK.
THAT IN THIS APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE.
THAT WE AIM HIGHER THAT THIS IS
NOT EVEN A PRO CHOICE BILL BUT
MERELY EXCLUSIVELY A PROPORTION
EFFORT AND WOMEN DESERVE BETTER
AND THEREFORE ELSE FOR A NO VOTE
ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU THANK
YOU ARM.
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION IS FROM FOR.
GOOD MORNING HE SAID IT BORN SAY
WHAT THE CALIFORNIA CATHOLIC
CONFERENCE IN VERY STRONG
OPPOSITION OF THIS BILL.
MARIE LET THERE BE DIRECTOR OF
THE SACRAMENTO LIFE CENTER IN
OPPOSITION.
TRICIA LUIS BOARD MEMBER OF
CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR
PROTAGONIZADA AN EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR IT'S YOUR PREGNANCY AND
HEALTH IN ROSEVILLE IN
OPPOSITION.
RING BURKE FROM THE CALIFORNIA
FAMILY COUNCIL IN STRONG
OPPOSITION THANK YOU.
MY NAME'S MARY SERI I'M A MOTHER
AND A GRANDMOTHER AND I PLEAD
WITH YOU PLEASE DON'T DO THIS TO
OUR GIRLS THANK YOU.
L. ROMBERG ASKING YOU. NOT TO
TURN THE CALIFORNIA LECTER
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICE OF
TREASURE. INTO A FUNDRAISER IN A
MANAGER.
FOR A CHAIN OF ABORTION CLINICS
ON THE CAMPUSES STARTING WITH
THE THIRTY FOUR PUBLIC CAMPUSES
IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGES THAT'S
NOT THE ROLE OF THE TREASURES.
THAT SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE IN
ELECTIONS WHICH IT WILL BECOME
OF COURSE.
I DON'T KNOW.
THANK YOU TO SHOW WHAT IS
OPPOSITION THING AND FINANCE.
NO FILE.
NO FILE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
FROM COMMITTEE.
SEEING AND HEARING THEM THIS IS
ACCOUNTED FOR SUSPENSE WITH AN
OBJECTION TO MOVE THIS ITEM TO
SUSPENSE FILE.
MOVING ON TO. THE CURRENT
PORTANTINO'S ITEMS S. B. THREE
NINETY NINE.
WHEN THIS ISN'T SUPPORT PLEASE
COME FORWARD. WHEN THIS IS IN
OPPOSITION.
FINANCE.
NO FLOW NO FILED COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE. THING
IN HEARING NOW WITH
OBJECTIONABLE THIS ITEM TO
SUSPENSE FILE MOVING ON TO S. B.
FIVE FOUR FIFTY NINE.
WHEN THIS IS IN SUPPORT.
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
OPPOSITION PLEASE COME FORWARD
.
BUT YOU'RE CHAIRMAN MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE FOR THE RECORD
DbN READ WITH NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION ALSO HERE ON BEHALF
OF GUN OWNERS CALIFORNIA TODAY.
OVER HERE WE FEEL THIS BILL IS
UNNECESSARY REDUNDANT A
CURRENTLY FIREARMS DEALERS ARE
ALREADY SUBJECT INSPECTIONS FROM
CALIFORNIA PART.
THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF ALCOHOL
TOBACCO FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES.
AND IN SOME INSTANCES OF LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS THIS BILL WOULD
MANDATE DOJ CALIFORNIA DOJ TO
CONDUCT INSPECTIONS EVERY TWO
YEARS THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT
AUTHORITY THEY'RE JUST NOT.
MANDATED ON THE FREQUENCY OF
THOSE INSPECTIONS
UP BY MANDATING THIS YOU COULD
HAVE.
RESOURCES ALLOCATED.
ON DEALERS THAT ARE DOING VERY
SMALL VOLUMES IN MAY NOT REQUIRE
THE ATTENTION. THAT SOME OF THE
LARGER VOLUME DEALERS DO OR.
DEALER THAT MAYBE HAS A HISTORY
OF.
MAYBE SOME VIOLATIONS OR THINGS
ANY CLARIFYING SO THIS IS GOING
TO.
A TIE UP A LOT OF RESOURCES IN A
LOT OF MAN HOURS ON DOJ THEY
ALREADY DO HAVE THIS AUTHORITY
TO CONDUCT INSPECTIONS AS THEY
SEE FIT.
I'M AND SO WE FEEL THIS IS
UNNECESSARY THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS ROY GROUP IT'S BECOME
BEHALF THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE
PISTOL ASSOCIATION ECHOING MY
COLLEAGUE'S COMMENTS. VERY
CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE IS OVER
TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED EFA TELLS
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. OF. UP
VERY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE OF
FORTY FIVE HOURS PER INSPECTIONS
TRANSLATES INTO OVER FIFTEEN
HUNDRED DAYS OF INSPECTIONS FOR
THESE THESE OFFICERS PARTNER
JUSTICE.
THAT WOULD REQUIRE FOUR OFFICERS
THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE DAYS A
YEAR TO CONDUCT BUSINESS BUT
JUST TOOK TO MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT.
WE WOULD MUCH RATHER SEE THAT
TIME AND EFFORT SPENT WITH DOJ
MAKING A SURGEON WHERE THEY
SPEND THOSE HOURS AND KEEPING
PROHIBITED PERSONS. FARMS OUT OF
THEIR HANDS RATHER THAN. THESE
UNNECESSARY INSPECTIONS.
BOB RETIRED TWENTY SEVEN YEARS
FOR THE STATE I KNOW WHAT
HAPPENS WHEN A STATE IS GIVEN AN
UNFUNDED MANDATE THOSE RESOURCES
HOW
BE TAKEN AWAY FROM STOP
ANNOUNCED THEY JUST CAN'T
CREATE.
THOSE BODIES OUT OF THIN AIR SO
FOR ALL THOSE REASONS WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOU KNOW
VOTE. THANK YOU SIR THANK YOU.
FRANCE.
NO FILE.
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE.
THING ENTERING ANOTHER OBJECTION
LIST ITEMS THE SUSPENSE FILE.
MOVING ON TO S. B. SIX THIRTY
FIVE BY SENATOR WESO.
WHEN THIS IS IN SUPPORT.
WHEN THIS IS IN OPPOSITION.
FINANCE WHILE.
NO FILE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
FROM COMMITTEE THEATRE NOT
OBJECTIONABLE THIS ITEM TO THE
SUSPENSE FILE. MOVING ON TO SB
SEVEN OH SEVEN BY SENATOR
CANNELLA WHEN THIS IS IN
SUPPORT.
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
FINANCE.
HEALTHCARE SERVICES HAS NOT A
COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF THIS
MEASURE BUT A A PREVIOUS SIMILAR
MEASURE THEY ESTIMATED COTS
ABOUT TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND A
YEAR HALF OF WHICH IS GENERAL
FUND.
COME THE SURPLUS AND FROM
COMMITTEE.
THING ANY NONE WHAT OBJECTION
WILLIS ITEMS THE SUSPENSE FAR.
MOVING ON TO SB SEVEN FIFTY
SEVEN BY SENATOR GLAZERS. WELL
THIS ISN'T SUPPORT ONE IS IS IN
OPPOSITION.
FINANCE
WELL.
NO FILE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
FROM COMMITTEE THING HEARING
NONE WHAT OBJECTION WHEN WILL
THIS ITEM TO THE SUSPENSE FILE.
MOVING ON TO SB SEVEN FIFTY NINE
BY SENATOR MCGUIRE. WHEN THIS
ISN'T SUPPORT.
WHEN THIS IS IN OPPOSITION.
FINANCE WELL.
NO FILE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
FROM COMMITTEE THING HERE NOW
WITHOUT BJECTION IN WHICH I
DON'T THE SUSPENSE FAR. WOMAN
THAT TO SB SEVEN SIXTY.
I BY SENATOR WE KNOW WHEN THIS
IS IN SUPPORT.
SALINAS ALICIA ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA AND ON
BEHALF OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES
MAYOR ERIC GARCETTI IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
FINANCE I DON'T KNOW FILE
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE. THING HEARING NONE
WITHOUT OBJECTION WHEN LISTS
ITEM TO THE SUSPENSE FILE. THAT
IS THE FINAL ITEM.
ON OUR AGENDA TODAY.
SO WITH THAT WE WILL ADJOURN
TODAY'S HEARING