TRY TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM BUT
WE WILL START AS A SUB COMMITTEE
AT THIS POINT IN TIME. FOR THOSE
OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS
COMMITTEE WE HAVE A. A NEW FACE
HERE ON THE DYESS YOU WILL
NOTICE AND.
I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE OUR
NEWEST COMMITTEE COUNSEL JOSH.
BECAUSE NY WHO HAS JOINED US A
WELCOME ABOARD. AND TO.
.
OF I'M SURE WILL KEEP YOU VERY
BUSY ALONG WITH THE REST OF THIS
WONDERFUL STAFF.
WE DO HAVE FIVE ITEMS ON
PROPOSED CONSENT WHICH.
.
BASICALLY MEANS THAT WE WILL NOT
BE TAKING TESTIMONY ON THOSE
MEASURES THEIR FILE ITEM ONE S.
B. EIGHT EIGHTY ONE BY.
A US SENATOR Y. KOWSKI FILE ITEM
THREE. SB NINE SIXTY NINE BY
SENATOR DODD.
FILE ITEM FOR S. B. NINE SEVENTY
BY A PRESS INFOTAINMENT ATKINS.
FILE ITEM SEVEN S. B. ELEVEN
FIFTY SENATOR JACKSON. FILE ITEM
ELEVEN SP THIRTEEN TWENTY BY
SENATOR STUBBORN SO IF ANY OF
YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON THOSE
MATTERS.
YOU CAN GO HOME OR IF YOU WOULD
JUST LIKE TO ENJOY THIS
FASCINATING. OF THE COMMITTEE.
WE WILL BE HEADED ON WITH A
NUMBER OF BILLS GOING FORWARD.
STAND AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME
WHEN WE HAVE ESTABLISHED A
QUORUM WE WILL. MOVE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR AT THAT TIME AND WE DO
HAVE AN AUTHOR PRESENT AND SO WE
WILL. PROCEED.
WITH FILE ITEM THIRTEEN LUCKY
THIRTEEN.
SP THIRTEEN NINETY FOUR BY
SENATOR NEWMAN.
SENATOR MOVE NEWMAN WELCOME.
AND DIE I WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE
TO THAT THE WAY THIS SITE
COMMITTEE DOES.
OPERATE.
IS THAT.
WE ALLOW THE OF.
AUTHOR TO SPEAK GO WE DON'T
NECESSARILY CREATE A TIME. A
LIMIT BUT BUT WE DO THEN ASK
THAT THERE BE TWO MAIN
WITNESSES.
TWO MINUTES EACH IN SUPPORT OF A
WILL THEN ASK OTHERS WHO WISH
TO.
TESTIFIED TO COME UP TO THE
MICROPHONE GIVE THEIR NAME
AFFILIATION AND OBVIOUSLY THEIR
POSITION. BY IN SUPPORT OR
OPPOSITION WITHOUT OVER. THE.
PRECIPITATION JUST NAME AND A
IDENTIFICATION. AND THEN WE WILL
SIMILARLY HAVE TWO MAIN
WITNESSES.
IF THERE ARE TWO TO APPEAR IN
OPPOSITION TWO MINUTES EACH FOR
THEIR OPPOSITION IN AGAIN ALL
OTHERS WHO WISH TO OPPOSE A
MEASURE TO COME FORWARD. BY AND
TO STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR
POSITION OCCASIONALLY WE HAVE A
PEOPLE WHO WERE ENTHUSIASTICALLY
NEUTRAL. AND IF YOU'D LIKE TO
COME UP AND STATE YOUR POSITION
ON THAT TO ARE. CERTAINLY
WELCOME TO DO THAT.
SO WITH THAT SENATOR NEWMAN
WELCOME AND PLEASE PROCEED.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
MADAM CHAIR AND SENATORS I AM
HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY TO
ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF SP
THIRTEEN NINETY FOUR. UNDER ITS
PROVISIONS BY ELIMINATING COMMON
PRACTICES IN THE GATHERING OF
SIGNATURES FOR BALLOT MEASURES
WHICH INCENTIVIZE THE WILLFUL
DECEPTION VOTERS SP THIRTEEN
NINETY FOUR WILL TAKE NECESSARY.
AND IMPORTANT STEPS TOWARD
SAFEGUARDING THE INTEGRITY OF
CALIFORNIA'S INITIATIVE
REFERENDUM AND RECALL PROCESSES.
TUB FIRST A LITTLE BACKGROUND IS
IN ORDER. TO AS A RESULT OF THE
PROGRESSIVE REFORMS OF THE EARLY
TWENTY CENTURY CALIFORNIA'S
CONSTITUTION MAKES EXPLICIT
PROVISIONS THAT ALLOW FOR THE
CITIZENRY. TO TAKE DIRECT ACTION
OUTSIDE THE NORMAL LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS IN ORDER TO ENACT REPEAL
LEGISLATION ORDER MOVIE CORRUPT
OR MALFEASANCE ELECTED OFFICIAL
FROM OFFICE. AS FORMER GOVERNOR
HIRAM JOHNSON AND HIS FELLOW
PROGRESSIVE REFORMERS ENVISIONED
AT. THE PROVISION FOR A PROCESS
WHEREBY AN ELECTED OFFICIAL
COULD BE RECALLED BY HIS OR HER
VOTERS WOULD ALLOW FOR THEIR OR
ALLOW. THAT FOR THE REPEAL OR
REPLACEMENT OF UNJUST LAWS.
GOD OR THE REPLACEMENT RECALL
SOME PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO HAD
COMMITTED AN ACT OF MALFEASANCE
OR OTHERWISE REACH THE PUBLIC'S
TRUST. SUCH AS THE REMOVAL PRIOR
THE NEXT ELECTION SITE WILL BE
IN THE SERVICE OF THE GREATER
GOOD.
BECAUSE THE FRAMERS OF THE
INITIATIVE REFERENDUM AND RECALL
PROCESSES REGARD THESE ACTIONS
AS POPULIST ACTIONS OF LAST
RESORT. THEY DELIVER EARLY
PROVIDED THAT IN ORDER TO
QUALIFY FOR THE BALLOT THE
PROPONENTS OF ANY OF THESE
DIRECT TO THE VOTERS PLEASE
BESIDES WOULD FIRST BE REQUIRED
TO GATHER A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF
VOTER SIGNATURES. AS A NECESSARY
BASIS FOR VALIDATING THE
LEGITIMACY AND POPULAR SUPPORT
FOR SUCH AN ACTION SET OF.
IT'S BEEN.
I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING WE
DO HAVE A QUORUM I'D LIKE TO
ESTABLISH A QUICKLY BECAUSE I
KNOW SOME OF THESE PEOPLE ARE
GOING TO HAVE TO BE RUNNING BACK
AND FORTH SO. MADAM SECRETARY
LET'S ESTABLISH A QUORUM PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. JACKSON HERE
JACKSON HERE MORE LOCK.
ELECT HERE ANDERSON HERTZBERG
MORNING. MORNING HERE STERN
WIECKOWSKI HERE'S MY CASKET HERE
ART WE HAVE ESTABLISHED A QUORUM
PLEASE PROCEED WELCOME CENTER
MORE LIKE. A REGARDING S. B.
THIRTEEN NINETY FOUR. THAT TO
THE ORIGINAL FRAMERS WAY OF
THINKING THE INITIAL REFERENDUM
AND RECALL REPRESENT A MEANS FOR
THE LITTLE GUY TO CHIU DIRECT
CURATIVE IN REFORMS ACTIONS THAT
ELECTED INVESTED INTEREST MIGHT
OTHERWISE THWART. OVER THE YEARS
ESPECIALLY IN RECENT DECADES
HOWEVER SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT
HAS TRANSPIRED THESE IDEALISTIC
WE FORGED TOOLS OF DIRECT
DEMOCRACY HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVELY
COOPTED BY THE VERY MONEY
INTEREST THEY WERE ORIGINALLY
INTENDED. TO OFF SET WELL FUNDED
ORGANIZATIONS WITH INCREASINGLY
EXPLICIT SELF INTERESTED
MOTIVATIONS HAVE BECOME EVER
MORE ADEPT AT USING INITIATIVE
REFERENDUM AND RECALL PROCESS
CITIES TO THEIR TACTICAL AND
STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE. FEELING AN
ARMS RACE OF SORTS ESPECIALLY TO
AS IT PERTAINS TO SIGNATURE
GATHERING. AT THE CENTER OF ALL
THIS INTENSE SPECIAL INTERESTS
DRIVEN ACTIVITY THEIR SMALL
NUMBER OF SPECIALIZED FIRMS WITH
EXPERTISE IN SIGNATURE GATHERING
HAVE RISEN TO THE FOR. OFFERING
THEIR SERVICES TO PROPONENTS
SEEKING A PLACE A MEASURE ON THE
BALLOT.
ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL TACTICS
USED BY THESE HIGHLY PAID SIX
ARE GATHERING FIRMS IS THE
DEPLOYMENT OF WELL TRAINED
PROFESSIONAL GATHERS SINGER
GATHERS ON BEHALF OF THEIR
CLIENTS PETITIONS. TYPICALLY THE
SINGER GATHERS ARE PAID ON A PER
SIGNATURE OR COMMISSION BASIS
ALSO KNOWN AS A BOUNTY AT A RATE
DETERMINED BY THE MARKET AS IT
IS ASSESSED AT THE TIME.
DEPENDING ON THE NATURE THE AN
ISSUE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
THE DISTRICT THE TIME OF YEAR
MORE COMPETITION WITH OTHER
INITIATIVES AT A GIVEN TIME THE
COST PER SIGNATURE CAN VARY
WIDELY. FROM AS LOW AS TWO
DOLLARS PER SIGNATURE GATHERED
TO AS HIGH AS TWENTY DOLLARS PER
SIGNATURE GATHERED. BECAUSE
BOUNTY PAGE SIGNATURES GATHERS
OPTIMIZE THEIR YIELD BASED ON
HOW RAPIDLY THEY CAN SECURE
SIGNATURES FROM VOTERS. THEY
FRUGALLY TRAFFICKING MISLEADING
INFORMATION AND SOMETIMES
OUTRIGHT FALSEHOODS IN ORDER TO
INDUCE AS MANY VOTERS AS
POSSIBLE TO SIGN IN THE MINIMUM
AMOUNT OF TIME.
THIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT UNDER
EXISTING ELECTIONS IN GOVERNMENT
CODE CALIFORNIA IT IS ALREADY
EXPRESSLY ILLEGAL IN OUR STATE
TO INTENTION TO MSLEAD A VOTER
AS TO THE NATURE AND INTENT OF
THE SIGNATURE GATHERING EFFORT.
PER THE ELECTION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE
SECTION EIGHTEEN SIX HUNDRED.
AND I'LL READ EVERY PERSON IS
GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR WHO.
IT WHEN CIRCULATING AS
PRINCIPAL OR AGENT OR AT FOR
HAVING CHARGE OR CONTROL OF THE
CIRCULATION. OF RETAINING
SEIZURES TO ANY STATE OR LOCAL
INITIATIVE.
INTENSELY MAKES ANY FALSE
STATEMENT CONCERNING THE
CONTENTS PURPORT OR AFFECTED THE
PETITION TO ANY PERSON WHO SIGNS
OR DESIRES TO SIGN OR WHO IS
REQUESTED TO SIGN OVER MAKES
INQUIRES WITH REFERENCE TO IT OR
TO WHOM IT IS PRESENTED FOR HIS
OR HER SIGNATURE. THE OPPOSITION
THAT THEY'RE DESPERATE THIRTEEN
NINETY FOUR IS LIKELY TO TRY TO
PERSUADE YOU TODAY THAT THERE
HAVE BEEN RELATIVELY FEW
INSTANCES OF PROFESSIONAL
SIGNATURE GATHERERS EMPLOYING
THIS. IN THE CONTEXT OF
SIGNATURE GATHER CAMPAIGNS LE I
HAVE A WITNESS WHO WILL TESTIFY.
TO VERY VIVID FACT TO THE
CONTRARY GOT MORE OVER ANYONE
WHO IS AT ANY LEVEL OF DIRECT
EXPOSURE TO PETITIONS AND
SIGNATURE GATHERING IN OUR
STATE.
IN RECENT YEARS KNOWS FULL WELL
THAT THIS IS FAR FROM TRUE WHAT
IS TRUE HOWEVER IS THAT THERE
ARE RELATIVELY FEW DOCUMENTED
CASES OF SIX YOUR GATHERS BEING
CITED FOR SUCCESSFULLY
PROSECUTED FOR VIOLATIONS OF
EXISTING LAW. THIS IS TRUE FOR
TWO REASONS FIRST THERE IS A
PRESUMPTION THAT THE KINDS OF
SPEECH EMPLOYED DURING THE
CONDUCT OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.
SHOULD BE GRANTED WIDE LATITUDE
SO THAT THERE IS A HIGH LEVEL OF
AMBIGUITY AS TO WHAT MIGHT CROSS
THE LINE FOR WHAT HAS BECOME
ACCEPTED IN THE CONDUCT OF
CAMPAIGNS AND WHAT MIGHT QUALIFY
AS A VIOLATION OF STATE
STATUTES.
SECOND THE ISSUES AROUND
ENFORCEMENT ARE AMPLIFIED BY A
COMBINATION BEEN HEARING OF
INHERENT CHALLENGES WITH RESPECT
TO THE GATHERING OF
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OF
WRONGDOING BY PETITION
SOLICITORS. ANY DISINCLINATION
ON THE PART OF THOSE WITH
JURISDICTION OVER PROSPECTIVE
VIOLATIONS WHO ARE IT IS WORTH
NOTING MOST OF ELECTED OFFICIALS
THEMSELVES. DOT ARE DISINCLINED
TO WADE INTO THE FRAY AND
THEREBY PUT THEIR OWN POLITIAL
PROSPECTS AT RISK IN THE
PROCESS.
IT'S AGAINST THIS BACKDROP BUT
THAT THE DETERMINE FACTOR FOR
GETTING A MEASURE ON THE BALLOT
TOO OFTEN HAS LESS TO DO WITH
THE POLICY MERITS OF A PETITION
THAN THE DEPTH OF THE PETITION
PROPONENTS POCKETS. AND OF
COURSE THIS IS PRECISELY THE
OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE FRAMERS OF
THE INITIATIVE RECALL IN
REFERENDUM HAD IN MIND. THE
INITIATIVE REFERENDUM AND RECALL
PROCESS CAN AND SHOULD PLAY AN
IMPORTANT VALUED ROLE IN
CALIFORNIA'S POLITICS AND
GOVERNMENT. IT HAS BECOME CLEAR
HOWEVER THAT UNDER THE CURRENT
SYSTEM DRIVEN BY PER SIGNATURE
BOUNTIES THEIR SCANT PROSPECTS
FOR DETERRING BAD ACTORS WHO
WILLFULLY MISLEAD VOTERS AT THE
EXPENSE OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE
ELECTORAL PROCESS. TO OPTIMIZE
ITS DETERRENT IMPACT AND THEREBY
ENSURE ETHICAL CONDUCT IN THE
GATHERING OF ALISON SHE'S ABOUT
BALLOT MEASURES. SB THIRTY
NINETY FOUR WOULD IMPOSE UPON
VIOLATORS EITHER A TOTAL FINE OF
TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS. OR
FIFTY DOLLARS PER SIGNATURE
UNLAWFULLY GATHERED WHICHEVER
AMOUNT IS GREATER FOR ENGAGING
IN THE PRACTICE OF OFFERING
DOWNEY PAVEMENTS IN SIGNATURE
GATHERING OPERATIONS. I WANT TO
POINT OUT THAT THIS PENALTY
WOULD APPLY TO THE COMPANY
EMPLOYING SIX GATHERS AND NOT TO
THE SIGNATURE GATHERERS
THEMSELVES. UNLIKE THREE
PREVIOUS SIMILAR MEASURES THAT
MADE IT ALL THE WAY TO THE
GOVERNOR'S DESK THIS BILL WILL
EMPOWER VOTERS TO WITNESS FRAUD
FIRST HAND TO ACT AS
WHISTLEBLOWERS THEMSELVES
THEREBY PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY
AND TRANSPARENCY TRANSPARENCY.
OF SINGER GATHER CAMPAIGNS BY
ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS TO BRING
CIVIL ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS IF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL A LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT CHOOSES NOT TO. FIVE
OTHER STATES HAVE SIMILAR
EXAMINED THE ISSUES ARE
SURROUNDING PAGE SINGER
GATHERING. AND PER SIGNATURE
BOUNTIES AND HAVE ADOPTED
LEGISLATION PROHIBITING
PROCEDURE BOUNTY PAYMENTS FOR
SIGNATURE GATHERING AND
REQUIRING THAT DOT THAT SINGS
AGAIN HE MAY ONLY BE MADE ON AN
HOURLY OR SALARY BASIS IN THEIR
STATES. THE
OPPONENTS OF S. B. THIRTY NINETY
FOUR HAVE MADE THE POINT BY THAT
THE STATE TO ADOPT A SIMPLICITY
TO GATHER MEASURES ARE FINALLY
DIFFERENT IN CALIFORNIA. AYE IN
MOST CASES SMALLER IN FACT IN
ALL CASES SMALLER THAT GIVEN
CALIFORNIA'S MUCH LARGER
POPULATION GEOGRAPHIC EXPANSE
THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO REIN IN
UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR BY SIX
GATHERS. BY THE MEANS PROPOSED
IN THIS BILL SHOULD BE
DISALLOWED SINCE DOING SO WILL
MAKE IT HARDER FOR PROPONENTS TO
GATHER THE NECESSARY NUMBER OF
SIGNATURES STATEWIDE TO QUALIFY
IMAGE FOR THE BALLOT. THIS IS I
WOULD POINT OUT AT BEST A
SPECIOUS ARGUMENT AND IT'S A
PATENTLY SELF SERVING ONE AT
THAT UNDER THE TERMS ENVISIONED
BY THE FRAMERS OF THE INITIAL
THE REFERENDUM THE RECALL. THAT
STANDARD FOR QUALIFYING A
MEASURE THE BALLOT WAS ALWAYS
INTENDED AS RIGOROUS FOR IT WAS
THE VERY ACT OF SECURING A
DELIBERATELY CHALLENGING NUMBER
SIX YEARS THAT WAS SEEN AS THE
PROPER BASIS FOR VALIDATING ITS
VALIDITY. NOT ALL MEASURES
SHOULD QUALIFY FOR THE BALLOT
ONLY THOSE WHICH ME TO DELIVER
THE HIGH STANDARD AFTER ALL THE
DIRECTLY BESIDE PROCESS FOR
WHICH. THESE MEASURES DEEP
EVERITT INITIATIVE REFERENDUM
AND RECALL WERE DEVELOPED WERE
INTENDED TO SUPERSEDE NOT RUN
PARALLEL TO OR SERVE AS A
SUBSTITUTE FOR THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS. FURTHERMORE A GOOD CASE
CAN BE MADE THAT THE PHENOMENON
OF SO MANY PROPOSITIONS IN
REFERENDUM PERENNIAL ON THE
BALLOT CALIFORNIA HAS HAD A
NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR POLITICS
AND OUR GOVERNMENTS AS THE
VOTING PUBLIC STRUCK PUBLIC.
STRUGGLES TO SORT THE GOOD IDEAS
IN THE GOOD PROPOSITIONS FROM
THE BAD WHILE ASKING THE OBVIOUS
QUESTION OF WHY THEY ARE BEING
FORCED TO MAKE POLICY FOR THE
GREAT STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
DESPITE HAVING HIRED US FOR THAT
EXPECT EXPRESS PURPOSE GLASS OF
THE OPPONENTS OF S. B. THIRTY
NINETY FOUR WILL ASSERT THAT
THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE
THE RIGHTS OF BOTH PETITIONERS
AND THEIR PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES.
BY INTERFERING WITH THE ABILITY
PROPONENTS TO ENTER INTO VALID
CONTRACTS IN PURSUIT OF THEIR
GOALS. EARLIER ON SUCCESSFUL
EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE LYING IN
THE SERVICE ABOUT PETITIONS
PROPOSED RESTRICTING SIX GATHER
TO ONLY UNPAID VOLUNTEERS. S. B.
THIRTY NINETY FOUR DOES NO SUCH
THING THE PASSAGE OF SB THIRTY
NINETY FOUR WILL IN NO WAY
INTERFERE WITH ANYONE
PREROGATIVE TO HIRE AND PAY
WORKERS TO ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF
THEIR PETITIONS SUPPORT TO PAY
THEM AS MUCH AS THEY CHOOSE.
WHAT IT WILL DO
BY ELIMINATING THE INCENTIVIZING
ON IT OF UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR
THROUGH THE PAYMENT OF PROCEDURE
BOUNTIES IS TO MORE PROPERLY
ALIGNED THOSE PAID ACTIVITIES
WITH THE PUBLIC'S VERY CLEAR
INTEREST? IN GREATER HONESTY AND
TRANSPARENCY IN THE CONDUCT OF
BALLOT MEASURE CAMPAIGNS I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE TODAY.
THANK YOU WITH US TODAY TO TEST
VICE CRAIG NORRIS A RESIDENT OF
IRVINE GUY WHO IS A COAST GUARD
VETERAN AND WITNESS FIRSTHAND
THE LANGUAGE DOWN BALLOT TO
SECURE GATHERS AWAY TO GO. IN
ORDER TO GET THEIR SIGNATURES
THANK YOU SENATOR NEWMAN AND HOW
DO YOU REALLY FEEL ABOUT THIS I
CAN GO ON AND ON.
THANK YOU IS NOT TO KNOW NOT TO
DO THAT SIR SENATOR ARE
WIECKOWSKI VENTURA MOVED.
ALRIGHT WE DO HAVE A MOTION.
THEN IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO
MINUTES PLEASE.
AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE THANK YOU FOR
HAVING ME HERE SPEAK. HOMONYMS
CRAIG NORRIS AND SENATE AND
SETTLEMENT COAST GUARD VETERAN
AND DAY OUT OF LIFELONG RESIDENT
CALIFORNIA HERE'S BEGIN AND
SUPPORT OF SB THIRTEEN NINETY
FOUR.
UNLESS YOU'RE A VOLUNTEER DONOR
FIND THE TIME TO STOP A
FRAUDULENT PETITION AIMED AT
CREATING A BALLOT INITIATIVE
THAT VOTERS WERE TOLD WOULD
QUOTE SAVE THE VETERANS
CEMETERY.
HIS CAMPAIGN HAD THREE DISTINCT
CHARACTERISTICS TO USE MANY
BOUNTY SIGNATURE GATHERERS IT
WAS DOCUMENTED MISLEADING VOTERS
IN ORDER TO GATHER THE REQUISITE
NUMBER OF SIGNATURES.
AND THE CAMPAIGN OF SIX IF THE
CAMPAIGN WAS SUCCESSFUL HE WOULD
BY ALL ACCOUNTS STOP THE VETERAN
CEMETERY FROM BEING BUILT.
I WAS WITNESS TO TWO EXAMPLES
CITED AN SP THIRTEEN ANY FORCE
FACT SHEET.
ONE PRODUCER TOLD ME VETERANS
BODIES WOULD BE EXHUMED HAND
MOVED UNLESS I SIGNED THE
PETITION. AND ANOTHER ANOTHER
CLAIM TO VETERANS JOB CENTER
WOULD BE BILLED AS ORIGINALLY
PLANNED IF I SIGNED THE
PETITION.
IF I DID NOT ONLY A CEMETERY
WOULD BE BUILT I KNEW EACH OF
THESE CLAIMS TO BE FALSE OPERATE
TO WOULD HAVE SIGNED THE
PETITION IN AN INSTANT.
THOMAS JEFFERSON'S CREDIT OF THE
SAYING AN EDUCATED CITIZENRY AS
A VITAL REQUISITE FOR OUR
SURVIVAL AS A FREE PEOPLE.
WHERE I LIVE IN IRVINE WE HAVE
ONE OF THE MOST ACTIVE LOCAL
POLITICAL LANDSCAPES AND THINGS
THAT THERE IS ALWAYS ALMOST
ALWAYS A GRASS ROOTS PETITION
SEEKING SIGNATURES FOR SOME
BECAUSE?
AS A VETERAN I APPRECIATED
SEEING RESIDENTS GET INVOLVED BY
SIGNING PETITIONS AFTER ALL I
SWORE AN OATH TO DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION ENSURE THEIR RIGHT
TO FREE SPEECH.
AND I STILL BELIEVE I HAVE A
DUTY TO DO SO.
I BELIEVE SIGNING PETITIONS WAS
AN HONORABLE YOU SOME MY RIGHTS
UNTIL I SAW THE BALD FACED LIES.
BEING TOLD TO PUSH THE ANTI
CEMETERY PETITION.
I LIKE I SAID IN OCTOBER AND
NOVEMBER AT SEVENTEEN I
VOLUNTEERED TRANSEPT THIS
PETITION FROM GOING FORWARD.
THE TEAM I WORKED WITH IS ABLE
TO DOCUMENT THE DISHONEST WAYS
IN WHICH PETITIONS WERE ABLE TO
GET SIGNATURES AS STATED IN THE
SP THIRTEEN NINETY FOUR FACT
SHEET. PROVIDING IMPORTANT
MATERIAL SUPPORT AS TO WHY THIS
BILL IS DESPERATELY NEEDED.
FROM WHAT I PERSONALLY OBSERVE
DOWNEY SIGNATURE GATHERERS A
MAIN MAINLY MOTIVATED BY ONE
THING. GETTING SIGNATURES SO
THEY CAN GET PAID.
AND THE SAD REALITY IS. HOW MANY
OF THESE FOLKS CONTRACTED TO GET
SIGNATURES ARE IN DIRE NEED OF
FINANCIAL SUPPORT? THEIR
HOMELESS.
AND OFTEN THEY'RE UNABLE TO MEET
BASIC NEEDS ONE MAN I
ENCOUNTERED LIVED IN HIS CAR.
WITH HIS WIFE.
WHO HE SAID SUFFERED FROM
SCHIZOPHRENIA?
I OBSERVE NONTRADITIONAL
RUMMAGED THROUGH THE GARBAGE FOR
FOOD IN BETWEEN ASKING FOR
SIGNATURES.
OTHER PETITIONS TOLD OUR TEAM
THEY'VE BEEN PICKED UP FROM
HOMELESS SHELTERS.
AND I SAN BERNADINO AND BROUGHT
TO BEAR IN MIND JUST FOR THIS
PETITION.
AS THE FACT SHEET STATES THERE'S
NO THERE'S NO DETERRENT FOR
MISLEADING VOTERS AND FACT I
WOULD ARGUE THAT MOST CASES
MISLEADING VOTERS ISN'T IS
ACTUALLY INCENTIVIZED. HAS THE
NATURE PAPER SIGNATURE MODELS
ARE INHERENTLY FLAWED BY THE
HIGH REWARD FOR LYING. AND
EVERYWHERE TO SHORT TERM WELL
THAT WHILE THE LONG TERM
CONSERVATION I.
IF IT'S TRUE THEN EDUCATED
CITIZENRY IS ESSENTIAL TO OUR
SURVIVAL AS JEFFERSON SAID HE
WOULD CERTAINLY SEEM NECESSARY
THOSE SEEKING REDRESS USING THE
RECALL REFERENDUM INITIATIVE
PROCESS.
EDUCATE CITIZENS USING FACTS
RATHER THAN PROVABLY FALSE
CLAIMS THAT ARE ONLY INTENDED TO
APPEAL TO EMOTION.
SIMILARLY INFORMATION PRESENTED
A VOTERS INTENDED TO CAUSE THEM
TO TAKE SOME KIND DEMOCRATIC
ACTION SUCH AS SIGNING A
PETITION.
I MUST BE BASED IN TRUTH.
THANK CLOSING OF
MISREPRESENTATION OF THE TRUTH
CONTINUES TO BE AN UNDER CERTAIN
LAWFUL WAY TO ACHIEVE AN AND IN
THIS CASE TOGETHER THOUSANDS OF
SIGNATURES THAT WE CAN EXPECT
ANY HUNTERS. BOUNTY SIGNATURE
GATHERERS AND THE COMPANIES THEY
REPRESENT TO BE UNTRUTHFUL
VOTERS AND FIRST SENTENCES
CITIZENRY TO ME INTENTIONALLY.
MISLED INTO TAKING DEMOCRATIC
ACTION BY THE SAME BIG MONEY
VESTED INTERESTS.
WHOSE POWER THE FOUNDERS
ORIGINALLY ENDEAVOR TO LIMIT
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND SINCE
THERE ISN'T A SECOND.
WITNESS WE LET'S GO A LITTLE
LONGER BUT. WITHIN THE TIGHTNESS
SUPPLEMENT GOING FORWARD OTHER
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
IF YOU'D STEP UP TO THE
MICROPHONE AND GIVE YOUR NAME
AND AFFILIATION.
MANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION IF
YOU'D STEP FORWARD
.
GOOD AFTERNOON LONG TIME NO SEE
I DON'T.
MADAM CHAIR IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO
SEE YOU AND OF COURSE I DO
PROMISE OF JESUS THANKED MEMBERS
GOOD AFTERNOON DAVID WILL FOR
THE HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS
ASSOCIATION WERE IN OPPOSITION
TO U. S.. S. B. THIRTEEN NINETY
FOUR SENATOR NEWMAN TALKED ABOUT
LOOKING OUT FOR THE LITTLE MAN
AND HOW WE SHOULD STOP.
DOING PAID SIGNATURE GATHERING
IN HAVES SIGNATURE GATHERERS BE
PAID ON AN HOURLY LIKE HOURLY
RATE IN ORDER TO LOOK OUT FOR
THE LITTLE MAN AND MAKE IT
EASIER TO COUGH AYE INITIATIVES.
FOR THE BALLOT MEMBERS.
LISTEN
THERE IS AN OVER RELIANCE ON
PAID SIGNATURE GATHERING IN OUR
INITIATIVE PROCESS.
THERE ABSOLUTELY IS WE DON'T
DISPUTE THAT WE THINK THE FACT
THAT IT TAKES MILLIONS UPON
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO QUALIFY
AND INITIATIVE AS SOMEONE WHO
REPRESENTS A GRASSROOTS
TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION IS ALL
FRUSTRATED. NOT GONNA LIE ABOUT
THAT.
BUT YEAH.
WE NEED TO FACE FACTS RIGHT
RIGHT NOW DO QUALIFY
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR HE
BALLOT. TAKES ABOUT A MILLION
SIGNATURES.
OKAY AND IT'S GONNA BE VERY
DIFFICULT TO CONDUCT THIS
PROCESS EVEN IF DE. INDIVIDUALS
GATHERING THE PAID SIGNATURES
ARE PAID ON AN HOURLY RATE.
GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE
INFRINGING ON A CONTRACT BETWEEN
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS TO GATHER
THE SIGNATURE FIRM AND THE
CAMPAIGN.
.
IF WE REALLY WANT TO SOLVE THIS
PROBLEM.
IF WE REALLY WANT TO SOLVE THE
PROBLEM OF AN OVER RELIANCE ON
PAID SIGNATURE GATHERERS THERE
ARE COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE CAN
DO. NOT BAN THE PROCESS OUTRIGHT
BUT MAKE IT MORE COST EFFECTIVE
FOR THE INDIVIDUALS. AND THE
BUSINESSES THAT DO ENGAGE IN
THIS PROCESS.
WE CAN FOR INSTANCE INCREASE THE
NUMBER OF TIME IT TAKES TO
QUALIFY A MEASURE FOR THE BALLOT
FROM SIX MONTHS TO SOMETHING
MORE. IF WE BROUGHT INTO THAT
TWO YEAR I GUARANTEE YOU THERE
WOULDN'T BE PEOPLE OUT THERE
EVEN RIGHT NOW PAYING SIX OR
SEVEN DOLLARS TO SIGNATURE. TO
GET INITIATIVES ON THE BALLOT
BRIGHTEN UP THE TIMELINE.
OR ALSO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF
SIGNATURES NEEDED TO QUALIFY A
MEASURE FOR THE BALLOT RIGHT NOW
WHAT IT'S THREE HUNDRED AND
FIFTY THOUSAND FOR STATUTORY
INITIATIVE SEVEN HUNDRED
THOUSAND FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
INITIATIVE. AGAIN TO BE SAFE
NEED ABOUT A MILLION SIGNATURES
WHY DON'T WE DROP THAT DOWN A
LITTLE BIT.
WHY NOT?
I THINK WE ALL AGREE IN DIRECT
DEMOCRACY HERE AND WE ALL AGREE
THAT THERE'S AN OVER RELIANCE ON
PAID SIGNATURE GATHERS THAT THIS
IS THE WRONG WAY TO SOLVE THE
PROBLEM ASK FOR AND ABOUT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
BUT WILL BRING IT TO THE DYESS.
SENATOR MONNING.
THANK YOU SENATOR NEWMAN FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD HAS HAD A
QUESTION FOR YOUR WITNESS
THROUGH THE CHAIR IS THAT
ALRIGHT THAT OBJECTION.
THE EXAMPLES YOU GAVE TOM I
MIGHT HAVE MISSED THIS BIT WHERE
THEY.
BACK WHERE THEY GETTING A BOUNTY
FOR THE SIGNATURES ETCETERA.
IN THE MY QUESTION FOR THE
AUTHOR.
UNDER YOUR BILL COULD EMPLOYER.
WHO'S PAYING AN HOURLY RATE.
HAVE A QUOTE OF THE MINIMUM
NUMBER OF SIGNATURES THAT WOULD
HAVE TO ME. GATHERED TO TURN
THAT HOURLY RATE. ADDED ON TO MY
BILL I SUPPOSE THAT'S TRUE MY MY
BILL SEEKS TO EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT
THE DE PAYMENT A BOUNTY CENTER.
IT.
DID YOU KNOW DID DID THE WITHIN
THAT I'M SURE THERE ARE LOTS OF
WAYS TO PAY EMPLOYEES THAT
ENSURE TRANSPARENCY HONESTY AT
NIGHT NO PROMINENT.
BECAUSE I COULD SEE. IF YOU HAD
CERTAIN QUOTAS.
THAT WERE UNREALISTIC HE COULD
ALSO INCENTIVIZE THE SIGNATURE
GATHER.
TO ENGAGE IN DECEPTION.
FRAUD COMPING NAME SET OF PHONE
BOOKS IF.
IF THEY'RE PAYING AN HOURLY RATE
AND THEY'VE GOT TO GET TWENTY
SIGNATURE HOURS AN HOUR I AND I
APPRECIATE YOUR POINT NOW NOW IF
YOU WERE COPYING SIGNATURES OUT
OF OF PHONE BOOKS. THOSE WOULD
NOT BE VALIDATED BY REGISTRAR.
THE JOKE WOULD THEN BE ON THE
YOU KNOW THE PAYER I IN THIS
ASE WHAT HAPPENS IS AYE
UNWITTING CITIZENS TYPICALLY ON
THE WAY INTO A STORE OF.
OF SOME KIND.
R. BUTTON BUTTON HOLED BY
DECISION GATHERS THAT ARE ONLY
SEEKING TO OPTIMIZE THEIR YIELD
THE AND THE SERVICES THAT
THEY'RE THERE ARE NO EFFECTIVE
PROHIBITIONS FROM
MISREPRESENTATION RIGHT NOW.
ABOUT YOU WHAT WE'RE ENDEAVOR TO
DO HERE IS AGAIN THERE'S SOME
LEVEL SIMPLY FOR THE SIGNATURE
GATHERER THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO
MAKE A LIVING. IT'S THE SYSTEMIC
ISSUES THAT THE BILL TO ATTEMPTS
TO ADDRESS. BUT I AND TO MISTER
WILLS COMMENT.
YOU KNOW AGAIN.
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO GET AN
INITIATIVE ON THE BALLOT IN
CALIFORNIA THE YOU KNOW THE
FOUNDERS.
BACK IN AN EARLIER TIME HAD A
DELIBERATELY RIGOROUS STANDARD
THAT STANDARD I WOULD ARGUE IS
PROPORTIONALLY ABOUT THE SAME
TODAY AND THAT MAKES SENSE.
BECAUSE. WE DON'T WE LEGISLATE
THROUGH THE RECALL THE
INITIATIVE AND THE REFERENDUM.
IDEALLY AS A MEASURE OF LAST
RESORT FOR ME WHERE THE CITIZENS
HAVE TO TAKE MATTERS INTO THEIR
OWN HANDS.
OUTSIDE THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
IT SHOULDN'T BE EASY.
THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THIS THAT
WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE
CONTRACT.
BETWEEN A PAID EMPLOYEE AND
EMPLOYER WHAT WE ENDEAVOR TO DO
IS TO TO TRY AND ADDRESS THE
SYSTEMIC FEATURES THAT SEEMED TO
ENCOURAGE MISREPRESENTATION.
THANK YOU AND.
IN ADDITION TO THE EXAMPLE
PROVIDED BY YOUR WITNESS COME.
I AM AWARE OF MANY EXAMPLES
AROUND THE CITY OF DECEPTION BY
PAID SIGNATURE GATHERS BOUNTY.
BOUNTY SIGNATURE GATHERER SO I'M
SUPPORTIVE OF OF THE OBJECTIVES
OF THIS BILL.
I THINK THERE'S STILL A
DISPROPORTIONATE. A RESULT IN
OUR SYSTEM WHEN. THOSE WITH DEEP
POCKETS COULDN'T.
PAY NOT ONLY WHAT THE MARKET
WILL BEAR BIT. DOUBLE OR TRIPLE
THAT TO.
PAY PEOPLE HOURLY TO CLICK
SIGNATURES PARA NO WHERE'S
SOMEBODY WITH A NOBLE CAUSE AND
WITHOUT THE DEEP POCKETS. IS
STILL NOT GOING TO BE ON A LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD BUT I SUPPORT.
THIS TRYING TO AT LEAST REMOVE.
OCCURRING INCENTIVE THAT HAS
LEAD TO DECEPTION AND
MISREPRESENTATION BY SIGNATURE
GATHER SO I THINK YOU HAVE A
MOTION BEFORE YOU WILL BE
PREPARED TO SUPPORT THIS AT THE
PROPER TIME THANK YOU SENATOR
MONNING SENATOR MORLOCK. THANK
YOU MADAM CHAIR I'M SORT OF
REMINDED OF THE TO TRAVELING
SALESMAN IN THE IN MINNESOTA IN
THE WINTER. THEY PULLED INTO A
SMALL HOTEL BECAUSE OF HIGH.
PROBABILITY OF A WINTER STORM IN
THE MORNING THEY WOKE UP AND SAW
A MAJOR SNOW DRAFT TO MAKE WENT
TO THE PROPRIETOR AND SAID. HOW
ARE WE GONNA GET OUT OF HERE CAN
WE GET OUT OF HERE?
AND THE PROPRIETOR SAID WELL IT
ALL DEPENDS ON WHETHER YOU'RE ON
SALARY. OR ON COMMISSION.
THOSE THOSE RUN COMMISSION WILL
FIGURE A WAY TO. TO GET OUT AND
SO.
IT'S A DIFFERENT MOTIVATING
APPROACH IN COMPENSATING PEOPLE
AND SO I'M HAVING A DIFFICULTY
WITH.
THAT YOU KNOW CHANGING THE
APPROACH BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE
YOU HAVE SOME BAD. APPLES
DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERYONE HAS
HIS HIS SCRIPT SHOULD BE SHOULD
BE. REMOVED FROM THAT APPROACH
SITE MISTER
SENATOR NEWMAN I'M JUST CURIOUS.
ON THE FLIP SIDE OF CENTER
MONIES QUESTION.
IF IF A SIGNATURE GATHERERS
BEING PAID BY THE HOUR. WOULD HE
BE ENTITLED HERSHEY.
TWO OF THE BONUSES IF THEY MEET
CERTAIN.
THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THIS BILL
WOULD PROHIBIT THAT'S DISH AND
MORE LIKE THAT BUT THERE'S A
FEATURE OF THE BILL THAT I THINK
WOULD WOULD SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC
INTEREST IN THAT SPECIFICALLY IS
THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPONENT.
AND AND THAT IS IT MATERIAL IN
THIS CASE CHAU CHAU UNDER THE
CURRENT REGIME.
THEY'RE THE ONLY RECOURSE FOR
THE CITATION PROSECUTION
OFFENSES.
ACCRUES TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS GUY
AND THERE IS IT SEEMS PERSONALLY
IMPOSSIBLE HIT TO GET A
REGISTRAR DE A OR THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO INTERCEDE AND AND
AGAIN AS I MENTIONED. DIED THERE
ARE PROBLEMS WITH RESPECT TO THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE SO IF
I WERE TO ENGAGE A SIGNATURE
GATHERER WHOSE FLAT OUT LYING BY
AND IF I WERE TO RECORD HIM OR
HER.
THAT EVIDENCE THAT WE WOULD NOT
BE ADMISSIBLE IF IT WAS SECURE
WITHOUT HIS OR HER INTENT OR
WITHOUT THE ADMONITION AS TO HOW
WOULD BE USED THAT BEFOREHAND.
SHOW BY MAKING THE A IN AN
AVERAGE VOTER DIE EMPOWER TO
FILE A COMPLAINT AND IN FACT
GIVING THEM THE SAME LEVEL OF.
NATALIE LEVERAGE BUT A
PROSPECTIVE RETURN.
AS A SHARE OF THE PENALTY I'D
AS WE DO WITH FALSE CLAIMS IN
OTHER KINDS OF ABUSES.
I THINK THAT WILL GO A LONG WAY
TO SOLVING THE PROBLEMBUT THE
PERSPECTIVE FROM THAT YOU'VE
IDENTIFIED.
BUT IT.
WE WERE STILL TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT HOW TO COMPENSATE SOMEONE
FOR DOING A TASK.
IT'S A MADAM CHAIR I HAVE A
PROBLEM WITH THAT.
THANK YOU FOR ANY AND IF I
MEASURE IT YOU KNOW SO SO. WE AS
GOVERNMENT.
PARTICIPATE OR INTERFERE IN
CONTRACTS ALL THE TIME.
THERE ARE MANY CASES IN TO
FINANCIAL SERVICES INDUSTRY
WHERE WE VERY CLEARLY STIPULATE
HOW YOU WILL OR WON'T GET PAID I
THINK IT'S FAIR IN THIS CASE
PARTICULAR WITH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST IS AT STAKE.
AND WILL TAKE THAT AS YOUR
CLOTHES I JUST WANTED TO POINT
OUT. THAT.
THE INITIATIVE PROCESS STARTED
IN CALIFORNIANS TO.
NINETEEN ELEVEN.
CALIFORNIA BECAME THE TENTS
STATE IN THE COUNTRY.
TO ENACT THIS AND AT THE TIME
IT WAS DONE BECAUSE.
SACRAMENTO HAD BECOME A ONE
COMPANY TOWN THE RAILROADS WERE.
TAKING OVER AND WE DIDN'T THE
PEOPLE WERE NOT CONSIDERED AND
THE INITIATIVE PROCESS WAS
DESIGNED TO CIRCUMVENT OVERCOME.
THIS SO THE CORPORATE THE.
HOLD ON OUR ELECTION PROCESS
TODAY IF YOU FAST FORWARD AND
THEN OVER THE PAST SEVERAL
YEARS.
WE NOW SEE THE THE VERY REASON
FOR ENACTING THE INITIATIVE IS
IS ACTUALLY CONSIDERED IN MANY
RESPECTS ITS DOWNFALL BECAUSE AS
WAS MENTIONED IT'S. ALL TOO EASY
FOR A FEW. WELL FUNDED
INDIVIDUALS FREQUENTLY.
A PEOPLE WHO DO NOT EVEN LIVE
IN CALIFORNIA.
COMING FROM NEW YORKER VIRGINIA
TESTING OUT DATA TO SEE IF THEY
CAN GET PASSED AN INITIATIVE
THAT ACTUALLY WILL UNDERMINE.
THE WILL OF OF THE PEOPLE IN
THE LEGISLATURE.
AND THEY DO IT BY BRINGING
PEOPLE INFREQUENTLY FROM OUT OF
STATE.
THEY BRING PEOPLE IN I KNOW FROM
ARIZONA AND OTHER PLACES THEY.
PUT HIM ON A BUS THEY IN THE
CALIFORNIA THEY'RE HERE FOR TO
COLLECT THE SIGNATURES AND THEN
THEY'RE GONE SO IT'S ALMOST
IMPOSSIBLE EVEN IF WE DID WANT
TO. PURSUE ANY KIND OF OF
REDRESS FOR THAT BEHAVIOR AND.
I DO THINK THAT.
A WELL INTENDED SYSTEM HAS
REALLY BECOME A CORRUPTED BY.
GUY I WANT TO THE PEOPLE WORK
ON COMMISSION ARE THE FALL ARE
THE PROBLEM BUT WHEN PEOPLE WORK
ON COMMISSION WE STILL EXPECT
THEM TO BE. REPRESENTING THEIR
PRODUCT FAITHFULLY AND
ACCURATELY AND WHAT WE SEE HERE
AND I HAVE PERSONALLY
EXPERIENCED THIS TO. A BALLOT
DID.
COLLECTIONS OR THOSE SIGNATURE
COLLECTORS WHO PRETEND THAT THE
PRODUCT THAT THEY ARE SELLING IF
YOU WILL IS CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN
WATER ONLY TO DISCOVER IT HAS
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH
EITHER. A BUT PLEASE SIGN HERE
IS YOU'RE GOING TO THE GROCERY
STORE AND THEY HAVE NO
RESPONSIBILITY.
AND MOST PEOPLE OF COURSE THEY
ARE ANXIOUS TO GET ON WITH THEIR
BUSINESS AND EVERYBODY WANTS
CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN WATER SO.
THERE HAVE BEEN PROBLEMS I
APPRECIATE THAT THIS. THIS BILL
ADDRESSES A VERY IMPORTANT
GOVERNMENT INTEREST AND.
BOB I'M.
APPRECIATIVE OF YOUR EFFORTS.
THERE THE THE THE ABILITY THE.
KIND OF CREATIVITY OF PEOPLE IS
NEVER ENDING. A.
BOB BUT WITHOUT WE WILL.
THANK YOU FOR THIS BILL AND A
AT THIS POINT TIME MADAM
SECRETARY PLEASE.
CALL THE ROLL THE MEASURE IS TO
PASS TO PUBLIC SAFETY.
JACKSON HIGH JACKSON AYE MORE
LOCK. BLOCK NO ANDERSON
HERTZBERG MINING. MINING AYE
STERN LIKE ASKING AYE WIECKOWSKI
AYE.
ALICIA THREE TO ONE AND WE WILL
HOLD THE ROLE THAT YOU MANAGER
.
SENATOR LEYVA WE'RE GONNA LET
YOU.
.
BRING YOUR BILL FIRST SENATOR
WIENER THAT EVER THE GENTLEMAN
HAS AGREE.
WE ALL OF FOR
THAT HE HAS TO BILLS AND.
YOURS IS FILE I
TIME.
FIVE.
S. B. TEN THIRTY EIGHT AGAIN TWO
WITNESSES TWO MINUTES EACH AND
THE SAME IN THE. OPPOSITION SIDE
IF THERE IS ANY SO.
GOOD AFTERNOON SENATOR LABOR
PLEASE PROCEED GOOD AFTERNOON
MADAM CHAIR GOOD AFTERNOON
MEMBERS SP TEN THIRTY EIGHT
WOULD CLARIFY THAT INDIVIDUALS
MAY BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE
FOR RETALIATING AGAINST A
PERSON.
FOR EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS
UNDER THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND
HOUSING ACT
THE HA. UNDER CURRENT LAW A
PERSON MAY ALREADY BE HELD
PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR HARASSMENT
CLAIMS UNDER FEE HA.
HOWEVER INDIVIDUALS MAY NOT BE
HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR
RETALIATION DUE TO AN
INTERPRETATION BY THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT. IN JONES VERSUS
THE LOGIC TORREY PINES
PARTNERSHIP. THAT RENDERED THIS
ISSUE UNCLEAR.
ONE IMPORTANT REASON TO HOLD
INDIVIDUALS PERSONALLY LIABLE
FOR BOTH HARASSMENT AND
RETALIATION IS THAT AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO RETALIATES
AGAINST ANOTHER TO SILENCE OR
INTIMIDATE SHOULD NOT ESCAPE
BLACK.
THE HARASSER TO JUST GET RID OF
THE PERSON WHO'S HARASSED. IN
THE IN THE HARASSER MIGHT EVEN
AVOID LIABILITY FOR THE
HARASSMENT AS WELL IF THEY
SUCCESSFULLY SILENCE THE VICTIM.
IN ORDER FOR A PERSON TO BE
FOUND LIABLE FOR RETALIATION THE
PLAINTIFF MUST PROVE THAT THERE
WAS AN ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT
ACTION.
AS IN A DEMOTION OR TERMINATION
AND THAT THE ACTION WAS
SUBSTANTIALLY MOTIVATED BY THE
PROTECTED ACTIVITY
REPORTING-SEXUAL HARASSMENT. BUT
WOULD
LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS
BILL BILL DOES NOT PLACE FULL
LIABILITY ON EITHER THE
INDIVIDUAL NOR THE EMPLOYER IT
MERELY CREATES JOINT AND SEVERAL
LIABILITY. AS WE'VE SEEN IN THE
ME TOO AND WE SAID ENOUGH
MOVEMENTS THREATS OF RETALIATION
OR WHEN THE BIGGEST BARRIERS FOR
WOMEN AND MEN WHO WISH TO SPEAK
OUT WHAT FILE SEXUAL HARASSMENT
COMPLAINTS.
THESE FEARS ARE CERTAINLY VALID
AND WELL FOUNDED.
ACCORDING TO A TWO THOUSAND
SIXTEEN STUDY BY THE US EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION EEOC. SELECT HOUSE
FORCE ONTHE STUDY OF HARASSMENT
THE WORKPLACE ONE IN FOUR WOMEN
EXPERIENCE SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN
THE WORKPLACE.
AND IN SOME REPORTS WITHIN THAT
STUDY THE NUMBER WAS AS HIGH AS
EIGHTY FIVE PERCENT. THIS LARGE
GAP MAY BECAUSE MANY WOMEN DO
NOT NECESSARILY REPORT. WHEN
REPORTS COME OUT THAT SOMEONE
HAS BEEN HARASSED IN THE
WORKPLACE ONE OF THE MOST COMMON
QUESTIONS THAT ARISES IS. WHY
DIDN'T SHE SAY ANYTHING? THAT
SAME STUDY BY THE EEOC ALSO
FOUND THAT SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT
OF EMPLOYEES WHO SPOKE OUT
AGAINST WORKPLACE RETALIATES
MISTREATMENT FACE SOME FORM OF
RETALIATION. INDIVIDUALS NEED TO
UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WILL BE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE IF THEY TRY TO
INTERFERE WITH OR THREATEN
SOMEONE WHO HAS MADE A SEXUAL
HARASSMENT CLAIM.
WE MUST NEVER ALLOW VICTIMS TO
BE SILENCED AGAIN I WOULD LIKE
TO INTRODUCE CALIFORNIA
EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
MEMBERS BARBARA FOR GARI. AND
HAVE VEEN TOMBER BOTH HERE IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
THEN BEFORE WE PROCEED.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING YOU ARE
ACCEPTING THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS IS AUTHORS AMENDMENT
SAID IS CORRECT VERY GOOD THANK
YOU TWO MINUTES EACH.
WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FIRST?
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
MY NAME'S PREVENT TIMBRE AND I
AM ON AMONG TOLKIEN'S ATTORNEY
SHE'S CURRENTLY PURSUING A
RETALIATION CASE AGAINST HER
FORMER EMPLOYER. WHO
SYSTEMATICALLY PUNISHER OVER THE
COURSE OF YEARS BECAUSE SHE
REBUFFED HER SUPERVISE ALL SEX
SEXUAL ADVANCES? HER EXPERIENCE
IS UNFORTUNATELY VERY COMMON IN
THE STORIES THAT I HEAR AND WITH
THE CLIENTS THAT I REPRESENT.
WORKERS LIKE ANA.
NOT ONLY HAVE TO PUT UP WITH
SEXUALLY HARASSING CONDUCT WHICH
HAPPENS QUITE OFTEN THEY'RE
FORCED TO PUT UP WITH THEM AND
NAVIGATE A WORKPLACE THAT
INSTILLS FEARS.
AND ANYBODY WHO STANDS UP FOR
THEIR RIGHTS OR EVEN SPEAKS
ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THEM.
I ASK YOU TO SUPPORT SB TEN
THIRTY EIGHT BECAUSE INDIVIDUALS
MUST BE HELD PERSONALLY
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RETALIATES.
RETALIATORY CONDUCT IN THE
WORKPLACE. I'LL GIVE THE REST OF
THE TIME TO ON A TO TELL HER
STORY AND CAN ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS IF YOU MAKING MAY
HAVE.
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE THANK
YOU FOR ALLOW ME TO HAVE POINTS.
MY NAME WITHOUT A MONTH OF ONE I
WORKED FOR A MULTINATIONAL.
RELIGIOUS SIX COMPANY.
WITH ABOUT THREE HUNDRED OFFICES
GLOBALLY BUT I WAS DOMICILE IN
BRISBANE CALIFORNIA.
BECAUSE OF MY HEART IN I WORKED
THERE FOR THIRTEEN YEARS BECAUSE
OF MY HARD WORK IN JOB
PERFORMANCE I WAS PERFECT I WAS
PROMOTED TO THE POSITION OF
REGIONAL ACCOUNT MANAGER FOR THE
COMPANY IN TWO THOUSAND AND
FOUR.
IN TWO THOUSAND AND SIX I WAS
RECRUITED TO SERVE AS A REGIONAL
ACCOUNT MANAGER FOR THE HIGHEST
PROFITING. GLOBAL ACCOUNT FOR MY
COMPANY.
IN TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN I WAS
GIVEN AN EXCITING OPPORTUNITY TO
MOVING TO A NEW POSITION WITH
ANOTHER ACCOUNT. THAT WOULD HAVE
TAKEN ME TO BARCELONA SPAIN.
HOWEVER WELL THIS WOULD BE TAKEN
AWAY FROM ME BECAUSE I REJECTED
THE ADVANCES OF MY SUPERVISOR.
A MAN WHO LITERALLY HELD MY
CAREER IN HIS HANDS.
IT'S ALL HAPPENED AFTER A
BUSINESS DINNER WITH HIM AND
OTHER EXECUTIVES DURING THE
DINNER HE BEGUN CARESSING MY
LEGS. UNDER THE TABLE I PULLED
AWAY AND IMMEDIATELY RECESS TO
HIS PROPOSITIONS. AT THE END OF
THE DINNER.
HE HEADED OUT ON A TRIP TO CHINA
AND I HEADED HOME HE KISSED MY
MOUTH. BUT WAS SHOCKED AND PULL
BACK IMMEDIATELY ONCE AGAIN. THE
FOLLOWING DAY HE CALLED ME AT
THE OFFICE AND DEMANDED THAT I
KEEP QUIET ABOUT WHAT HAD
HAPPENED.
BUT WAS.
TERRIFIED ABOUT WHAT HE COULD DO
TO MY CAREER SO I JUST.
REPEATED THAT I WAS NOT
INTERESTED IN HIS GESTURES AND
INTO THE CONVERSATION WITHIN A
WEEK.
I REPORTED THAT CONDUCT TO MY
COLLEAGUE HUBBY NOTES TO ME. MY
COLLEAGUE AND THEN MY SUPERVISOR
HAD WORKED TOGETHER PREVIOUSLY
IN ANOTHER OFFICE AND REMAINED
GOOD FRIENDS. SO SHE TOLD HIM OF
MY ACCUSATIONS THAT I REPORTED.
SOON AFTER THE WORK OPPORTUNITY
OF ARSENAL LA BARCELONA WAS
TAKEN AWAY FROM ME. AND THAT'S
HARD BUT I TRY TO GET MY CAREER
BACK ON TRACK I WAS CONTINUOUSLY
RETALIATED AGAINST
BUT THAT SAME SUPERVISOR AND
HIDE.
IT HE WAS ABLE TO COMPLETELY
DERAIL MY CAREER.
SOME OF THOSE RETALIATIONS THAT
OCCUR WHERE I WAS PROMOTED BY
TITLE BUT STOPPED ADOPTING PAY
INTO A DIFFERENT OCCASIONS.
HI BASED DISPARITY OF THOSE
HOLDING SAME POSITIONS STOCK
OPTIONS WERE NO LONGER GRANTED.
PAST THREE TIMES FOR EQUAL THAT
BASSMAN AND PROMOTION AND AN
ACCOUNT THAT I DEVELOPED. BY
GIVING IT TO OTHERS. WITH GIVEN
SIPPAR ACCOUNTS. GIVEN SO PART
IN WHOSE STYLE REVIEWS. THE ABLE
TO ON MY REVIEWS OF BEING
DRAMATIC AND TOO OUTSPOKEN.
INTIMIDATION OF DEMOTION STARTED
IN TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN
UNTIL HE FINALLY DID IN TWO
THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN. ULTIMATELY
BEING DEMOTED AND I WAS FORCED
OUT. PIECE INCIDENTS IMPACTED MY
PROFESSIONAL CAREER. I WORKED SO
VERY HARD TO BILLS. YOU INSTILL
FEAR OF LOSING MY JOB CONTINUE
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS LACK OF
CONFIDENCE IN TREMENDOUS
FINANCIAL LOSSES MY SUPERVISOR
WAS NOT WAS TO MAKE. ABLE TO
EXPLOIT HIS POSITION OF POWER IN
MAKE SEXUAL ADVANCES TOWARDS ME.
AND THEN SILENCE ME AND PUNISH
ME FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT IT.
I HAVE HEARD FROM OTHER
EXECUTIVE IN THE COMPANY THAT
HE'S DONE THIS TWENTY YEARS
BACK.
A.
IN RATHER THAN BEING HELD
ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS
INAPPROPRIATE AND UNLAWFUL
BEHAVIOR I HAVE BEEN PUNISHED
AND HE WAS ACTUALLY BEING
PROMOTED WITHIN THE COMPANY.
THERMOSBE PERSONAL
ACCOUNTABILITY TO THIS KIND OF
BEHAVIOR.
IF INDIVIDUALS LIKE HIM. ARE
ABLE TO RETALIATE AGAINST THOSE
THE PAPER TRADE ACCOUNTS AND
PUSH THEM OUT OF THEIR CAREERS
WE WILL NEVER MAKE ANY PROGRESS
TOWARDS ENDING SEXUAL
HARASSMENT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY
NEXT WITNESS PLEASE TWO MINUTES
PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE MY NAME
IS BARBARA FERRARI AND I'M A
PLAINTIFF SIDE EMPLOYMENT LAWYER
AND BOARD MEMBER FOR THE
CALIFORNIA PLANET LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION.
I'M HAPPY TO BE HERE ALONGSIDE
MY CLIENT NIKITA RICE WHO WILL
TELL HER STORY ABOUT HAVING TO
AND YOUR SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
SHE WORKED IN A MALE DOMINATED
INDUSTRY WERE SEXUAL HARASSMENT
IS NOT ONLY MORE PREVALENT BUT
WHERE YOU ALSO COMMONLY SEE MEN
COVERING UP AND PROTECTING THEIR
MALE COLLEAGUES WHO ARE ENGAGING
IN THE HARASSING CONDUCT.
SHE CAN TELL YOU HOW DESTRUCTIVE
RETALIATION IS TO ONE'S CAREER
AND HOW IT OFTEN PUTS VICTIMS OF
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE
POSITION OF HAVING TO JUST PUT
UP WITH IT. OR IN HER CASE
ACTUALLY BEING PENALIZED AND
OSTRACIZED FOR STANDING UP
AGAINST IT.
THIS LEGISLATION IS IMPORTANT
BECAUSE THERE MUST BE PERSONAL
ACCOUNTABILITYFOR THOSE WHO TRY
TO SILENCE AND PUNISH THE
VICTIMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY IS THE
ONLY WAY WE CAN CHANGE THIS ALL
TOO COMMON BEHAVIOR THAT
FURTHER%
VICTIMIZERS THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN
SEXUALLY HARASSED AND IT DERAILS
THEIR CAREER.
I WILL GIVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME TO MY CLIENT NIKITA WILL BE
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
THE COMMITTEE HAS.
WE GIVE THANK YOU VERY MUCH
PLEASE PROCEED AND AGAIN TRIED
TO KEEP PICTURE WE GET I THINK.
MOST OF US HERE GET THE. GET THE
POINT THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF.
GOOD AFTERNOON. MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE MY NAME
IS THE KEY TO RISE AND I'M PROUD
TO TESTIFY TODAY AN EFFORT TO
STRENGTHEN. THE SEXUAL
HARASSMENT RETALIATION CLAIM IN
THIS STATE. I MYSELF WAS A
VICTIM OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
RETALIATION AND I'M HERE TO
STAND UP FOR MYSELF TODAY. ALONG
WITH ALL WORKERS WHO ARE
SUBJECTED TO THIS RESPONSIBLE
CONDUCT.
I WAS HIRED BY CHRYSLER ON
NOVEMBER TWENTY NINTH TWENTY TEN
AS AN OPERATIONS MANAGER. AT THE
LOS ANGELES PARTS DISTRIBUTION
CENTER LOCATED IN ONTARIO
CALIFORNIA AND FROM TWENTY TEN
AND TO THE NEW ARRIVAL OF THE
SUPERVISOR OF TWENTY TWELVE I
WAS NEVER DISCIPLINED OR PUT ON
ANY SORT OF PERFORMANCE.
IMPROVEMENT PLAN OR DEMOTED
ANYWAY.
THIS CHANGES THE CHANGE HOWEVER
IN TWENTY TWELVE WHEN CHRYSLER
MADE JAMES PARKER THE MANAGER OF
THE ONTARIO PLAN.
THE FOLLOWING YEAR WHERE HE HAD
HIRED A FRIEND TO TAKE OVER MY
POSITION AS OPERATIONS MANAGER.
AND AS A RESULT I WAS DEMOTED AS
A WAREHOUSE SUPERVISOR. AS A
WAREHOUSE SUPERVISOR MY JOB WAS
A SUPERVISOR WORKERS WHO
ASSEMBLED THE PARTS INCLUDING
SCHEDULING PERFORMANCE REVIEWS
QUALITY CONTROL SHIPPING AND
RECEIVING PARTS.
ALL THE WORKERS I DIRECTED
SUPERVISED WERE MEN THAT THE
ONTARIO PLANT APPROXIMATELY
NINETY PERCENT WERE MALE AND TEN
PERCENT WERE FEMALE.
I WAS A SUPERVISOR THAT I WAS
SUBJECTED TO DEMANDS FOR DATES
BOTH IN PERSON AND VIA PHONE
PHONE CALLS AND TEXT MESSAGES.
NEARLY EVERY DAY I WORKED AT THE
ONTARIO PLANT. HOUSE
CONSISTENTLY CALLED A* BY
THE MALE EMPLOYEES I SUPERVISED
INFREQUENTLY IN FRONT OF MY OWN
SUPERVISORS.
I WAS ASKED FOR MY PHONE NUMBER
REPEATEDLY CURSED OUT BY MAIL
EMPLOYEES WHEN I COULD EVEN.
THINK ABOUT EVEN GOING OUT ON
DATES AND I WOULD NOT PROVIDE MY
PHONE NUMBER TO THESE. WORKERS
THE MALE EMPLOYEES HUNG PICTURES
UP OF NAKED WOMEN IN THE
WORKPLACE IT REFUSE TO TAKE THEM
DOWN NOR DID MANAGEMENT DO THAT.
ONE OF THE WORKERS I SUPERVISE
TOLD ME THAT HE ONLY AGREED TO
PERFORM THE TASK ONLY IF I GAVE
HIM MY NUMBER.
ANOTHER WORKER BY ONLY LINED LA
UP EXCUSE ME ANOTHER WORKER BY
ONLY AND PHYSICALLY LUNGED AT ME
AND TOLD MY MANAGER.
I MEAN WHEN I DID I TOLD THEM
THAT PHONE IT THREATENING AND
INTIMIDATING IN THE PHYSICAL
THREAT OCCURRED DIRECTLY IN
FRONT OF MY MANAGER ARE ALSO
REPORTED TO MY MANAGER. THAT
ANOTHER WORK REPEATEDLY CALL ME
A** WHILE I WAS
SUPERVISING THEM ON THE LOADING
DOCK. EVEN AFTER THAT I WAS
REQUIRED TO WORK ALL HOURS OF
THE DAYS AND NIGHTS. INCLUDING
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SHIFT OF
THE LOADING DOCK WITH MEN WHO
HARASSED ME WHEN I WAS THE ONLY
FEMALE PRESENT. WHEN I
COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS I WAS
BLAMED FOR NOT GETTING ALONG
WITH MY SUPPORT EMPLOYEES AND
SOMEHOW THEIR CONDUCT TOWARD ME
WAS MY FAULT. WANNA ELEVATED THE
COMPLACENT MY SUPERVISOR I
COVERED UP MY MAIL EMPLOYEE THEY
WERE COVERED UP BY THE MILLION
PLEASE OR HARASSING ME. AND
INSTEAD IT WAS RECOMMENDED BY MY
SUSPENSION DETERMINATION FROM
THE COMPANY. OF THE PERFORMANCE
ISSUE CENTERING ON THE
COMMUNICATION WITH SOME OF THE.
INDIVIDUALS WHO SEXUALLY
HARASSED ME ON A DAILY BASIS.
SOME OF THE THINGS ARE A FEW
OTHER EXAMPLES OF WHAT HAS
HAPPENED TO ME IS THAT.
.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER JUST NAM
TAUNTING ME CALLING ME A BIT
SHARING INAPPROPRIATE POSTERS OF
NUDE WOMEN MAKING STATEMENTS
LIKE HEY MAN YOU KNOW.
SHE KNOWS WHAT IT'S LIKE
GETTING DOWN THERE HA HA HA HA.
AND ALSO DO IS PUTTING YOUR ARM
AROUND ME TRYING TO KISS ME PULL
ME IN.
TRYING TO CURSE ME.
PURPOSELY BRUSHING UP AGAINST
ME MAKING SEXUAL OP COMMENTS
ABOUT MY APPEARANCE THEY LOVE
THE WAY MY LOOK LIP GLOSS.
WHEN I WORE MY LIP GLOSS
BECAUSE THEY COULD IMAGINE WHAT
I COULD DO FOR THEM AND IT WOULD
BE EASY TO SLIP UP AND DOWN
THEIR GENITALS. HEY I THINK I
THINK YOU MADE YOUR POINT HERE.
APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY.
AND.
WITH GIVING YOU EACH.
A LITTLE EXTRA TIME AND AND I
PRAY I. I KNOW WE ALL APPRECIATE
THE FRUSTRATION AND THE
HUMILIATION THAT THIS UNIX
UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR BECAUSE.
SO WITH WITHOUT.
LET'S HAVE OF THOSE WHO ARE IN
SUPPORT. OF AS WELL OF THIS
MEASURE PLEASE SHOW STEP FOR
WITH YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION
HERE AT THE MIKE EACH OF YOU IF
YOU COME FORWARD.
THANK YOU PAMELA LOPEZ PAMELA
LOPEZ WITH WORK EQUITY THANK YOU
BOTH FOR YOUR COURAGE WE ARE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
MANDY BENSON WITH WORK EQUITY
AND IN DEFENSE AND CONSULTING
WHERE IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL THE
QUEUE.
BRITNEY MCCARTHY FROM SANTA
MONICA CALIFORNIA HERE WITH WORK
EQUITY AND SUPPORT THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TESTIMONY.
THANK YOU.
MEANING A CASINOS WITH THE
COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC
RELATIONS CALIFORNIANS STRONG
SUPPORT THANK YOU.
I JENNA GARY WITH LEGALLY
NETWORK IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU.
TECHIES TURN OVER THE CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIANS PART.
THANK YOU.
JESSICA STAND WITH EQUAL RIGHTS
ADVOCATES A SPONSOR AND STRONGER
CALIFORNIA ADVOCATES NETWORK
BOTH IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU.
VERY GET YOUR SHOWER WITH A
CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION ALSO PROUD TO
COSPONSOR THIS BILL IS BIGGER A
MUCH.
BRIAN HOW WOULD THE CALIFORNIA
FEDERATION OF TEACHERS WE DON'T
HAVE A FORM POSITION ON IT BUT
I'LL BE RECKONING A STRONG
SUPPORT ON THIS. THANK YOU SIR.
FROM MY CAROL WITH THE WESTERN
CENTER ALONG POVERTY IN MARIN
SUPPORT ALSO.
THANK YOU.
WITNESSES HAD OPPOSITION ARE
THERE ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION PARTY TO PEOPLE IF
YOU WOULD COME FORWARD WILL HAVE
TO GIVE UP TO THE SEATS IN THE
FRONT.
GOOD AFTERNOON. AFTERNOON MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
JENNIFER BROWN BEHALF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AND WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE
MEASURE.
FIRST WE WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR
OBVIOUSLY HARASSMENT THERE'S
ALREADY PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR
HARASSMENT AND SO A LOT OF THIS
CONDUCT THAT WAS TESTIFIED
THAT'S ALREADY COVERED UNDER
EXISTING LAW FOR HARASSMENT. BUT
THERE'S A DISTINCTION THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT MADE
BETWEEN HARASSMENT ALLEGATION IN
ONE IS BECAUSE HARASSMENT IS NOT
NECESSARY FOR SUPERVISOR TO
CARRY OUT THEIR DAILY JOB RIGHT
THEY DON'T HAVE TO HARASS AN
EMPLOYEE IN ORDER TO PERFORM
THEIR JOBS AS A SUPERVISOR
WHEREAS WITH A SUPERVISOR. THEY
HAVE TO MAKE PERSONAL DECISIONS
AND PERSONNEL DECISIONS ARE WHAT
ARE THE BASIS FOR RETALIATION
COMPLAINT AND IF YOU HOLD THEM
PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR PERSONNEL
DECISIONS YOU'RE BASICALLY
PUTTING THEM IN A CONFLICT
POSITION. WHERE THEY'RE MAKING
PERSONNEL DECISIONS THAT COULD
IMPACT THEIR PERSONAL LIABILITY?
AND HAVING TO FOLLOW THE
DIRECTION OF THE SUPERVISORS OF
THAT IS THE DISTINCTION THAT THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT MADE
BETWEEN HARASSMENT WHICH IS
UNNECESSARY FOR PERFORMANCE OF
THE JOB VERSUS. A PERSONNEL
DECISIONS THAT ARE THE BASIS FOR
THE RETALIATION COMPLAINT THAT
ARE NECESSARY FOR THE JOBI WANT
TO TALK ABOUT THAT OF PERSONAL
LIABILITY FOR A MOMENT IF I MAY.
THE WHOLE IDEA THERE IS PERSONAL
LIABILITY AND THIS BILL IS KIND
OF A FALSE THREAT. BECAUSE UNDER
LABOR CODE TWENTY EIGHT OH TWO
OF THAT OF OUR LABOR CODE
SHALL INDEMNIFY AND DEFEND ANY
EMPLOYEE WHO SUFFERS A LOSS AS A
RESULT OF THEIR WORK. AND THAT.
PROPONENTS OF THE BILL I
NOTICED IN THE ANALYSIS CITED
THE JACOBUS DECISION IF IT CORPS
ARE THE COMMITTEE WILL INDULGE
ME FOR JUST A MINUTE I WANT TO
TALK ABOUT THOSE FACTS. THERE
WAS THIS A CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER IN THAT CASE WHO SENT.
SEXUAL PICTURES OF SEXUAL
INNUENDOS EXPLICIT YET EMAIL AND
TEXT MESSAGES TO A COLLEAGUE AN
EMPLOYEE IN THE WORKPLACE ON THE
TALK ABOUT GOING TO STRIP CLUBS
TOGETHER THEY WOULD TALK ABOUT
THEIR SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS
TOGETHER.
THEY WERE TALK ABOUT.
DIFFERENCE ACTUAL CONTEXTUAL A.
IT MESSAGES INKATHA CONTEXT
RATE.
HE GETS SUED FOR SEXUAL
HARASSMENT EMPLOYER SAYS THERE
IS NO WAY I AM AND HAD BEEN DONE
DEFENDINGYOU IN THIS CASE AND
I'M NOT PAYING FOR IT BECAUSE
YOU CONDUCTED SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
THE COURTS SAID I KNOW YOU HAVE
AN OBLIGATION YOU AVE TO DEFEND
THEM EMPLOYER YOU HAVE TO PAY
FOR THE LIVES OF ALL THOSE
EXPENSES EMPLOYERS BECAUSE
SEXUAL BANTER IT'S A PART OF THE
EXPECTED ON PART OF THE
WORKPLACE. AND AS AN EMPLOYER
YOU SHOULD EXPECT TO KNOW THAT
THAT COULD HAPPEN IN YOUR
WORKPLACE AND YOU HAVEA DUTY TO
DEFEND SO HERE WE HAVE PERSONNEL
DECISIONS THAT IS DEFINITELY
GOING TO BE IF IF SEXUAL BANTER
IS AN EXPECTED PART OF THE
WORKPLACE. PERSONAL DECISIONS
ARE GOING TO BE A PART OF THE
WORKPLACE AND SO WHERE IS THAT
LIABILITY GONNA FALL IT'S GOING
TO FALL ON THE EMPLOYERS TO ALL
THIS BILL DOES. IS CREATE TWO
SHOTS OF THE EMPLOYER FOR
LIABILITY BECAUSE WORD ON THE
HOOK FOR RETALIATION COMPLAINT
ALREADY RIGHT THE EMPLOYERS
ALWAYS UNNAMED PARTY IN THESE
CASES. AND IF YOU MEAN THE
SUPERVISOR AS WELL NOW THE
EMPLOYER HAS TO DEFEND
THEMSELVES PETE FOR THE ATTORNEY
OF THE OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND FOR
YOU KNOW MOSTLY SKATES TO SETTLE
THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO PAY FOR
THE SETTLEMENT BECAUSE THERE IS
NO DETERMINATION THAT IT WAS
UNLAWFUL CONDUCT OUTSIDE. OF THE
SCOPE OF THE WORKPLACE AND EVEN
IF IT DID GET TO A JUDGMENT I
SUSPECT SIMILAR TO THE JACOBUS
DECISION THAT THE COURT WOULD
SAY THIS IS WITHIN THE COURSE
AND SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT AND
IMPLORE YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION
NOT T PAY FOR THIS DEFENSE. SO
ALL THIS BILL IS DOING IS
PUTTING TO JUDGMENTS NOW ON AN
EMPLOYER INSTEAD OF ONE THERE IS
NO TRUE THREAT OF PERSONAL
LIABILITY THE WAY TO DO THAT IS
EXCLUDED FROM THE REQUIREMENT
THAT WE AYE REIMBURSE YOU UNDER
LABOR CODE SECTION TWENTY EIGHT
OR TWO. AND THEN THERE'S
PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR THOSE
REASONS FOR POST THANK YOU VERY
MUCH NEXT WITNESS PLEASE GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIR JACKSON MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS MICHAEL CALLED AND
FULL DISCLOSURE I REPRESENT OF
THE EMPLOYER IN THE JONES VERSUS
LODGED TWENTY PINTS CASE.
HOWEVER I'M APPEARING BEFORE YOU
TODAY IN MY CAPACITY AS THE
GOVERNMENT A FAIR SHOT FOR CAL
SHERMAN. AND I DO SO BECAUSE OUR
TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND HUMAN
RESOURCE PROFESSIONALS MEMBERS
IN CALIFORNIA WILL BE AMONG THE
MEMBERS OR INDIVIDUALS MOST
IMPACTED AND MORE SPECIFICALLY
NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY THE
PROPOSED CHANGE.
THE QUESTION TODAY IS NOT
WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD
OUT WHILE RETALIATION.
THE WHOLE ORDEAL PROHIBITS
RETALIATION.
THE QUESTION IS ALSO NOT WHETHER
ADDING A NEW LAW WILL CURVE BALL
RETALIATION.
FEE HER HAS LONG PROHIBITED
HARASSMENT
AND RETALIATION INCLUDING WITH
INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY FOR
HARASSMENT BUT THIS DID NOT
DETER HARVEY WEINSTEIN AND
OTHERS FROM ENGAGING IN
HARASSING BEHAVIOR.
QUESTION IS REALLY WHETHER THIS
LEGISLATURE WILL FUNDAMENTALLY
FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE FEE HER
AND FOIST A MODERN DAY SORT OF
DAMOCLES OVER EVERY HUMAN
RESOURCE PROFESSIONALS WITHIN
CALIFORNIA.
THIS LEGISLATURE HAS
HISTORICALLY BEEN VERY CAUTIOUS
IN ALLOWING INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY
UNDER THE FIA. INDEED DESPITE
DECADES OF AMENDMENTS TO
NUMEROUS FEE HAVE PROVISIONS THE
LEGISLATURE HAS ONLY AUTHORIZED
INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY FOR
HARASSMENT.
IT'S LEGISLATIVE RESTRAINT FLOWS
FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE TWO TYPES OF
BEHAVIOR INVOLVED. HARASSMENT
INVOLVES PERSONALLY MOTIVATED
MISCONDUCT UNNECESSARY TO JOB
DUTIES AND THEREFORE SOMETHING
THE SUPERVISOR CAN REFRAIN FROM.
IN CONTRAST DISCRIMINATION AND
RETALIATION INVOLVED PERSONALLY
RELATE PERSONAL RELATED
DECISIONS.
ALLEGEDLY MOTIVATED BY AN
UNLAWFUL INTENT.
UNLIKE PERSONALLY MOTIVATED
HARASSMENT THE HUMAN RESOURCE
PROFESSIONALS CAN NOT AVOID
MAKING THESE PERSONNEL RELATED
DECISIONS. AT LEAST NOT IF THEY
WANT TO CONTINUE WORKING AS
HUMAN RESOURCE PROFESSIONALS.
COUNT SHERMAN SHERM ONE OUR
MEMBERS TO REPORT UNLAWFUL
HARASSMENT SO WE CAN ADDRESS IT
INCLUDING.
DISCIPLINING HARASSERS BUT OUR
HR DUTIES ALSO INCLUDE MAKING
PERSONAL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS
SOMETIMES INVOLVING INDIVIDUALS
WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY COMPLAINED.
OUR MEMBERS WILL NOT RETALIATE
BUT THEY MUST BE ALLOWED TO MAKE
THE BEST PERSONAL DECISIONS NOT
SIMPLY THE PERSONAL DECISION
LEAST LIKELY TO PROMPT
RETALIATION CLAIM.
AND SEVERAL MINUTES THE
COMMITTEE WILL CONSIDER SP
THIRTEEN HUNDRED TO AMEND FEE
HAD TO LIMIT. EMPLOYEES FOR
POTENTIAL SPOT EXPOSURE FOR
COSTS. TO AVOID DISSUADING
EMPLOYEES FROM BRINGING THEIR
CHOICE CLAIMS THAT ONE THING BUT
IF YOU SUMA POTENTIAL FIVE
THOUSAND ARE COSTS WOULD MIGHT
TO SWEDEN EMPLOYEE FROM BRING A
VIABLE CLAIM WHY WOULD YOU
ASSUME THAT POTENTIAL SEVEN
FIGURE FEE HAVE EXPOSURE OR
LEAST TWO YEARS OF LITIGATION.
AND SIX YEAR SIX FIGURES WORTH
OF ATTORNEYS FEES WOULD NOT
DISSUADE THE HR PROFESSIONAL
FROM MAKING TOUGH AND PERSONAL
DECISIONS. IN CONCLUSION CAO
SHERMAN'S COMMITTED TO
PREVENTING UNLAWFUL RETALIATION
AND WORKING WITH EMPLOYERS THIS
COMMITTEE AND THIS LEGISLATURE
TO PREVENT IT BUT CAO SUREPOS SP
TEN THIRTY EIGHT BUT BECAUSE IT
WOULD KILL EFFECTIVE WORKPLACE
MANAGEMENT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
THE DECISION IN JONES VERSUS
LOGIC TORREY PINES THE DESCENT
TALKS ABOUT THIS TORTURED
REASONING OF THE DEFINITION OF A
PERSON.
AND AS WE READ THE STAFF REPORT
IT SEEMS TORTURED.
TO ME.
HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO CSUS AND
THE
THIS DISSENTED LEASE CRISIS OUT
FOR THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO
BRING SOME CLARITY OF WHAT A
PERSON AS WHY WOULD WE NOT WANT
TO DO THAT? WHAT YOU EAT?
WITHOUT INTO INTO THE WEEDS YOU
WOULD NOT BE CLARIFYING LONG
YOU'D BE CHANGING THE LOGS THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS
ALREADY RULED ON BUT HAVING SAID
THAT. I READ THE ENTIRE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT ADD TO
THOSE WORDS PERSON TO THE
RETALIATION PROVISION THERE WAS
NOT ONE WORD OF LEGISLATIVE
INTENT. EXPRESSING ANY DESIRE TO
IMPOSE INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY. IF
YOU KILL BILL WHEN I WAS HERE
AND THAT WAS GOOD TIGHTENING
CATCH UP WHICH WOULD GO AHEAD.
AT NO THIS DOES SHE LOOK Q. BILL
WAS THE ONE THAT ADDED I'M HER
PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR
HARASSMENT AFTER THE CARE SOLACE
DECISION. THE WORDS THAT ADDED
THE WORD IN PERSON IN NINETEEN
EIGHTY SEVEN TO RETALIATION
STATUTE THAT WAS NO DISCUSSION.
ABOUT IMPOSING INDIVIDUAL
LIABILITY IN THIS LEGISLATURE
KNOWS HOW TO DO ONE INTENDS TO
IMPOSE INDIVIDUALIZED BUILDING.
RIGHT BUT THAT'S AND I'M I'M
LOOKING AT PAGE EIGHT WHEN THEY
SAY THAT THE COURT LEFT OPEN THE
ISSUE OF FIRE IF YOU FIND THAT
THERE'S HARASSMENT THEY'RE NOT
GOOD IT'S NOT PRESENTED TO AT
LEAST THE. FACTORY PINES THE
LOGIC TORREY PINES ACCORD SAID
THAT THERE'S THEY OFFER NO
OPINION AS TO WHETHER AN
INDIVIDUAL IS PERSONALLY LIABLE
ON HARASSMENT MIGHT ALSO BE
PERCENT LEVEL ON RETALIATION
SECOND IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S AN
INVITATION. TO THE SET THE LIKE
THE LEGISLATURE'S TO.
PROVIDE SOME CLARITY HERE WILL
DO THE LEGISLATURE ALWAYS HAS
THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THE LAW
WHO WANTS AND THAT'S WHAT YOU
WOULD BE DOING HERE WE WOULD
SUSPEND SUGGEST THAT. CHANGING
THE LAW IN THIS RESPECT WOULD
REFLECT BAD PUBLIC POLICY WE
WOULD URGE YOU NOT TO DO SO FOR
THE REASONS WE DISCUSS HERE
TODAY BUT THE JONES CASE WAS. IF
YOU READ THE ENTIRE JUNKIES AND
YOU MAY WELL HAVE IT IS VERY
CLEAR IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY WERE
HOLDING.
LIMIT KICK* QUESTIONS TURN
CENTER HURT TO HEAR SOME ON THE
SLEUTHING. LOOK THE EASE CASES
ARE NOT ABOUT WHAT THE ULTIMATE
LIABILITY IS MY QUESTION IS NO
INSURANCE COMPANY OR EMPLOYER IS
GOING TO PAY THE LEGAL FEES WHEN
THERE'S AN INDIVIDUAL PARTY.
NAME AND SO THAT THE INDIVIDUAL
PARTY'S GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR
THEIR OWN LAWYER AND MAYBE THEN
LITIGATE I KNOW WHAT I KNOW
WHAT.
TWENTY THOUGH TO SAYS I KNOW
TWENTY TO TO SAYS BUT WHEN THE
LAW SPECIFICALLY SAYS IT'S
RELIABLE PUSH TO THINGS WHAT HE
UGHT TO BELIABLE FOR PEOPLE
BRING ALL KINDS OF ACTIONS
AND-NOT SAYING THE RIGHT OR THE
WRONG. BUT OFTEN THE THING THAT
BREAKS YOUR LEGAL FEES.
BUT JUST BREAK YOU AND IF THE
INDIVIDUAL CAN'T AFFORD TO SPEND
ALL THE MONEY TO TRY CASE WHICH
TO TELL GET TO THE TRUTH. THEIR
BROKEN BEFORE IT GETS THERE
BEFORE YOU CAN GET TO
DETERMINATION SO I'LL TRY TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS IN
THE PRACTICAL WORLD. YEAH IN THE
PRACTICAL WORLD IF YOU LOOK AT
LABOR CODE TWENTY YOU GO TO IN
TALKS ABOUT NECESSARY
EXPENDITURES IT SPECIFICALLY
CALLS OUT ATTORNEY'S FEES TO
DEFEND THE INDIVIDUAL AS
UNNECESSARY EXPENDITURE THATTHE
EMPLOYER HAS AN OBLIGATION TO
PAY FOR DISTINCTION IN THESE
CASES IS TO WHEN SOMEBODY IS.
NAMED YOU ALWAYS NAME EVERYBODY
BECAUSE YOU WANT YOUR STICTION
OVER THEM IF THE LAW
SPECIFICALLY AMPLE IMPART HOSES
LIABILITY THE UP TO GET A
SEPARATE LAWYER THAT'S ON TRYING
TO GET THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IN
HARASSMENT CASES WHERE THE
SUPERVISORS ARE INDIVIDUALLY
PERSONALLY LIABLE THE EMPLOYER
WILL END UP. PAYING FOR TWO
ATTORNEYS THE INDIVIDUALS NAMED
AND WHAT
HAPPENS IS THE EMPLOYER PAYS FOR
BOTH AND THEN THERE'S A
SETTLEMENT AGAINST BOTH AND THE
EMPLOYER PAYS FOR BOTH
SETTLEMENTS SO THERE IS NO
ACTUAL PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR
THESE INDIVIDUAL SUPERVISORS
BECAUSE OF TWENTY EIGHT OH TO.
LOOKING MISTER YET MISTER CHAIR
CAN WE RESPOND.
SURE THANK YOU THINK HIS SHARE
OF. THE KEY WORD IN TWENTY EIGHT
OF TWO IS UNNECESSARY EXPENSE AN
EXPENSES NECESSARY IF THE
EMPLOYER AUTHORIZED RETALIATION
AND IN THAT CASE THAT WOULD BE
UNNECESSARY EXPENSE IF THE
RETALIATION OCCURRED IN THE
COURSE AND SCOPE OF THE
EMPLOYMENT. THEN THE EMPLOYER
MUST INCUR THE NECESSARY EXPENSE
BECAUSE THE AUTHOR IS THE
CONDUCT BUT TWENTY TWO TO MAYES
CLEAR AND SO DOES. OUR
GOVERNMENT CA NINETY FIVE POINT
ONE RELATING TO PUBLIC ENTITIES
IF THE RETALIATION WAS NOT IN
THE COURSE AND SCOPE MEANING YOU
HOT A ROGUE ACTOR MEANING THE
COMPANY DID NOT. AUTHORIZE THE
RETALIATION TO OCCUR THEN IN
THAT INSTANCE THAT IS NOT
UNNECESSARY EXPENDITURE AND THE.
AND AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING
THE EMPLOYER WOULD HAVE TO.
THE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE KEYWORD
IS NECESSARY AND THE KEY INQUIRY
IS COURSE AND SCOPE THANK YOU
OTHERS OPPOSED TO. S. B. TEN
THIRTY EIGHT PLEASE COME
FORWARD.
THIS IS OPPOSITION TO SB TEN
THIRTY EIGHT ZERO THANK YOU.
THAT WAS GOOD GOOD SEGUE I'M
VERY HAPPY I'M SORRY YOU HAVE TO
SPEAK UP IS SORRY GOOD AFTERNOON
KIDDING AND SOME OF THE
CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION AND OPPOSITION FOR
THE REASONS STATED. THANK YOU.
BUT IF YOU DON'T GET BINS WITH
THE CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS
ASSOCIATION OPPOSITION FOR THE
REASONS STATED.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
WHY LET'S BRING THIS BACK TO THE
DYESS?
THANK YOU.
GO HAD ANY ANY QUESTION TODAY
CENTER HERTZBERG. HIS FOLLOW UP
YOUR YOUR POINT.
I GET YOUR POINT ABOUT NESSA SIX
ACCURATE I'M TRYING TO GET TO.
WHAT WE MISSION THE LAW ALL THE
TIME IS THE? OVER ARCHING INTENT
WHICH IS ALWAYS GOOD AND YOU CAN
ALWAYS WHEN THOSE THINGS AND
VOTER THOUSAND OF WOMEN WAS IN
VOTE ON THE BILL THAT'S TO
SUBJECT TO THAT LITIGATION
TWENTY YEARS AGO. BUT WHAT I'M
INTERESTED IN IS THE PRACTICAL
REALITY. SO YOU CAN SAY
NECESSARY NECESSARY.
SOMEONE IS CHARGED WITH
SOMETHING. EVERYBODY.
THE FUNDAMENTAL HAS A RIGHT TO
DEFENSE EVEN THE SCHMUCK HE'S
PERSON THE WORLD HAS A RIGHT TO
DEFENSE.
IF YOU GOT A CRUMMY EMPLOYER. OR
IF THE HR DEPARTMENT DID
SOMETHING IN RETALIATION BRIGHT
AND YOU GET NAMED IN THE CASE
THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THE
LAWYER'S FEES CAN BANKRUPT YOU
AND WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS I
DON'T AGREE WITH THE CHAMBER.
ABOUT THE NOTION OF THE LAND OF
THE THE LOW LAWYER BUT MEAN OF
THE EMPLOYER BEING A VIABLE
EMPLOYER SAYS A SMALL COMPANY
THE HR PERSON DOES SOMETHING.
YOU GET NAMED IN THE CASE YOU'RE
STUCK NAMED IN THE CASE AND AND
AND YOU SAY YOU TAKE YOUR VIEW
OF THE LAW. THAT IT'S NECESSARY.
THE LAWYERS THAT THEY THEY DON'T
HAVE THE MONEY OR THEY DON'T
HAVE INSURANCE THEY SAY I'M NOT
GOING TO PAY.
ARE SOMEBODY SITTIN THERE HERE
SINCE SENATOR LEYVA SITTIN THERE
SHE'S CHARGED.
AND WHAT DO YOU DO. RIGHT THAT'S
THAT'S THE ISSUE THE THIRD PARTY
RELATIONSHIP AND BEING CHARGING
THESE THINGS AND TRYING TO HAVE
A DEFENSE UNDER THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT TO ME. IS IS
ONE OF THE BALANCING ACTS YOU
HAVE BAD ACTORS RIGHT BUT
ULTIMATELY.
EVERYBODY HAS A TRIAL IS TO
PROVE THAT WHAT THEY DID WAS
pWHATEVER BUT EASY TRIALS ARE
STILL. HORRIBLY EXPENSIVE I'VE
BEEN WORKING ON BAIL REFORM AND
WORKING ON.
TRAFFIC TICKET REFORM BECAUSE
I'M SO DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT AND HOW IT'S ONYX
INACCESSIBLE THE FOLKS AT EVERY
LEVEL. AND THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS
TO BE AN THE IT TO BE AT A PLACE
WHERE IT PROVIDES NOT JUST
RIGHTS BUT ALSO DEFENSE WITH
ITS.
POOR PEOPLE WITH WITH LEGAL AID
AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS
SO MY QUESTION ABOUT THE
NECESSARY PART. IS NOT THE BIG
COAST.
BUT THE LITTLE PEOPLE IN COMPANY
SMALL BUSINESSES BASICALLY WHAT
I MEAN WHEN THEY DON'T HAVE THE
RESOURCES AND SOMEONE STUCK IN
THAT SITUATION OF A FAIR HEARING
THAT'S I'D LOVE TO HEAR YOU GET
A LITTLE SENATOR IF I COULD JUST
JUMPING UP AND I THINK THIS IS
THE SAME. QUESTION WE HAVE IN
THE BASIC A HARASSMENT SITUATION
WHICH IS NOW IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN
THIS BILL.
IS JUST GOING TO ADD.
RETALIATION TO THAT SAME
CONSTRUCT
SO YOU'RE ASKING LEGITIMATE
QUESTIONS BUT THEY BUT THIS IS
NOT A NEW SET OF ISSUES THIS IS.
WHAT IT IS BECAUSE WERE TAUGHT
WE GET WHAT WAS EXPLAINED HERE
WHEN YOU OUT OF THE ROOM? IS
RETALIATION COULD BE YOUR HR
DEPARTMENT DOING SOMETHING
HARASSMENT TO DIRECT ACT BY AN
INDIVIDUAL.
THAT'S A DIFFERENT ALLOCATED WAS
SO SO PAYMENT TERMS OF EATING
WELL HAVE CONTROL OVER HAPPINESS
AT THAT BUT I THINK WHAT THIS
BILL DOES AND THEN I'LL I'LL LET
YOU ALL ANSWERING TO GO. THROUGH
LIFTING BECAUSE ANOTHER
COMMITTEE SO I DID I APOLOGIZE I
DIDN'T IS SLOW BUT OF THE
DISCUSSION BUT MY UNDERSTANDING
IS. THAT.
THAT THE THE QUESTION THAT
YOU'RE RAISING IS.
ONE IF HR OR IF A THIRD PARTY'S
SUPERVISOR.
GUY IS NOT DIRECTLY ENGAGED IN
THE BEHAVIOR BUT LET'S SAY IS
THAT IT IS TOLD THAT THEY NEEDED
TO FIRE THAT EMPLOYEE AS A
MATTER OF RETALIATION.
MIKE MY QUESTION WAS.
IF THAT THIRD PARTY HAS HAD
NOTHING TO DO WITH IT BUT AS IN
A SOUP OF ASORIO POSITION IS THE
ONE THAT SAID YOU HAVE TO GO
FIRE THEM. ARE THEY NOW STILL
RESPONSIBLE FOR RETALIATION AND
THAT WOULD BE TO MEET THE
DISTINCTION I UNDERSTAND WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING CAN YOU ANSWER
THAT QUESTION IF I'M IN A
PHARMACEUTICAL VISOR I HAVEN'T
BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS.
THERE THERE HAS BEEN SEXUAL
HARASSMENT. THE INDIVIDUALS NOW.
WHO IS THE VICTIM?
HAS A BLOWN THE WHISTLE ON THIS
AND THE EMPLOYER SAYS TO ME YEAR
THAT YEAR HER SUPERVISOR. AND
YOU HAVE TO GO FIRE HER. THAT AS
A RETALIATORY ACTORS IS A
SUPERVISOR LIBEL BECAUSE THE
SUPERVISOR HAS A CHOICE EITHER I
CARRY OUT THE DIRECTIVE FROM MY
EMPLOYER. OR.
OR I DON'T AND LOSE MY JOB HOW
TO HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT
BECAUSE SAID I THINK IS.
THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF WHAT THE
THE CONCERN IS LEGAL AND WHAT
THIS WOULD BE AT THE SLOW WHEN
ACTED.
WELL IF YOU STUCK MY I'M TALKING
TO THE PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL IF YOU
WOULD MIND.
HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT
CONSUMER?
IN THAT CASE MADAM CHAIR IF THE
SUPERVISOR AUTHORS* HIS
MARROW JUST POINTED OUT NOT THE
PLANE'S CONSUMMATE THE AUTHORS
COUNSEL I CAN'T GET A LAWYER OUT
OF A QUORUM THE MATTER WHAT YOU
TRY TO DO MY APOLOGIES.
TO THE PLAINTIFFS A TO THE TO
THE AUTHORS COUNCIL.
WE PROUDLY WEAR THE BADGE OF
PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL WHO MADAM
CHAIR BUT IN THAT PARTICULAR
INSTANCE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN
THAT CASE IS THE SUPERVISORS
BEING DIRECTED TO DO SOMETHING.
THAT WOULD BE AN INSTANCE WHERE
THEY ARE ACTING IN THE COURSE
AND SCOPE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT
BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN DIRECTED
BY HR TO DO SOMETHING. HOWEVER
REPREHENSIBLE IT MAY BE AND IN
THAT CASE THEY WOULD BE
INDEMNIFIED FOR THEIR COST OF OF
DEFENSE BECAUSE IT IS IT IS IT
IS IT IS IN THE COURSE AND SCOPE
OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT. AND THAT'S
THE NECESSARY INQUIRY IS WHETHER
IT IS. IT IS WHETHER UNDER
TWENTY YOU KNOW TO IT'S
UNNECESSARY EXPENSE AND THAT.
THE IRAQI AGREE TO ANSWER THAT
QUESTION IS IF IT WAS THE COURSE
SINCE IF IT IF THE ACTION WAS IN
IN THE CURRENT IN THE COURSE AND
SCOPE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT. THE
DIFFERENT BROAD PROPOSITION
WOULD BE IF YOU HAVE A ROGUE
ACTOR WHO DECIDES I'M GONNA
RETALIATE AND I'M NOT GOING TO
TELL THE JURY WHAT I'M DOING I'M
JUST GONNA RECOMMEND THIS PERSON
FOR TERMINATION. BECAUSE I'M
COVERING UP FOR MY FRIENDS OR IN
SOME OTHER ROGUE ACTION AND
DIDN'T TELL EACH OTHER TRUE
MOTIVATIONS SO HR WAS THE ONE IN
THE DARK. IN THAT INSTANCE YOU
WOULD HAVE PERSONAL LIABILITY
BECAUSE THAT IS AN ACTION AND
RENT AND I THINK IT'S VERY
IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT.
WITH DUE RESPECT THAT
RETALIATION IS AN INDIVIDUAL
ACTION JUST LIKE HARASSMENT IT
ABSOLUTELY CAN BE AND IS
EVERYDAY.
BUT AND THAT ISN'T MY CONCERN MY
CONCERN IS THAT AS YOU MENTIONED
IN THE COURSE AND SCOPE OF THEIR
EMPLOYMENT SO IF I COULD ASK THE
CHAMBER. TO RESPOND DO YOU AGREE
OR DISAGREE WITH THAT
DISTINCTION AND WHETHER THIS
BILL DOES INCLUDE THAT AND THEN
CENTER HERTZBERG THAT DOESN'T
ANSWER QUESTIONS SO OF GIVE THE
MIKE BACK TO YOU. SIR IF I MAY
UM I DON'T THINK IT'S EVER S.
CRYSTAL CLEAR AS YOU GO AND
TERMINATE THIS INDIVIDUAL
BECAUSE I WANT YOU TO RETALIATE
AGAINST THEM FOR DOING SEXUAL
HARASSMENT RIGHT I DON'T THINK.
I MEAN I WOULD SAY NINETY NINE
POINT NINE PERCENT OF THE CASES
THAT IN DIRECT INSTRUCTION IS
NEVER GIVEN IT'S JUST YOU NEED
TO GO DISCIPLINE THIS INDIVIDUAL
UNITS TERMINATED SO HOW'S THE
SUPERVISOR AT THAT POINT. ABLE
TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT
YOU'RE ASKING ME TO DO SOMETHING
WITHIN THE COURSE AND SCOPE OF
MY EMPLOYMENT OR WHETHER YOU
ASKED ME TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S
RETALIATORY YOU'RE PUTTING THEM
IN A HORRIBLE POSITION. OF
HAVING TO DECIDE WHETHER I
FOLLOW MY MY EMPLOYER MY BOSS
WERE AT I DON'T FOLLOW MY BOSS
AND JEOPARDIZE MY JOB AND I HAVE
NO IDEA TO DO. TERM IN THE
INTENT OF THE EMPLOYER A CASE
THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE NOW IF THE
SUPERVISORS THAT'S WHAT THE ONE
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE ONE I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT. BE A IS WHERE
THEY ARE TOLD.
THE WHAT IS GOING ON AND THEY
ARE GIVEN A DIRECTIVE TO FIRE
THAT EMPLOYEE.
THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT
WHAT IS THERE WHAT DID THEY DO
IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE APPRECIATE
THAT I'M GONNA SAY THE BILL IS
MUCH BROADER RIGHT INCLUDES MY
SITUATION BUT YOUR TO YOUR
QUESTION IS. THE EMPLOYERS
TELLING THE SUPERVISOR TO GOING
TERMINATE AN EMPLOYEE IN
RETALIATION FOR THEM COMPLAINING
ABOUT HARASSMENT RIGHT THE
PLAYERS ON THE HOOK.
THE EMPLOYERS ON THE HOOK YOU
READY HAVE SOMEBODY WHO'S AT
RESPONSIBLE OR LIABLE AND THAT'S
THE EMPLOYER.
DO YOU AGREE OF OF AUTHORS
WITNESS DO YOU HAVE DO YOU AGREE
WITH THAT AND IF THAT. IS
SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T AGREE
MAYBE WE CAN TIGHTEN TIGHTEN UP
THE LANGUAGE BECAUSE I THINK
THAT'S A HOBSON'S CHOICE FOR. A
SUPERVISOR THEY'RE NOT ENGAGED
IN THE ACTIVITY THEMSELVES BUT
THEY'VE JUST BEEN DIRECTED BY
THE EMPLOYER.
FOR A FOR A. YOU KNOW AN
UNLAWFUL RIFF THIS BILL PASSED
IN LAWFUL RECENT. TO THEY HAVE
LIABILITY SHOULD THEY HAVE
LIABILITY AND DO THEY UNDER THE
BILL.
UNDER THE BILL AT MADAM CHAIR
THEY WOULD NOT BECAUSE YOU HAVE
TO CHAU RETALIATORY INTENT AS OF
CAUSATION PRONG OF THE CAUSE OF
ACTION SO.
IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF JUST DID
IT OCCUR IT'S A QUESTION OF DID
IT OCCUR AND WAS THERE SPECIFIC
RETALIATORY INTENT IF THEY KNEW
ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE AND WHAT
THEY WERE DOING. AND THEY
INTENDED TO RETALIATE AGAINST
THE INDIVIDUAL THEN THAT WOULD
BE SOMETHING THERE PUT BUT I'M
TALKING ABOUT THE THE SUPERVISOR
WHO IS DIRECTED BY HR.
TO TO FIRE SOMEBODY.
FOR BECAUSE THE EVA AND AND
LET'S ASSUME THEY TOLD WHY.
THE THE IMPLANT THE SUPERVISOR
HAS A HOBSON'S CHOICE EITHER
THEY TELL HR TO GO JUMP IN THE
LAKE. OR THE A AND LOSE THEIR
JOB OR THEY COMPLETE THE TASK
AND ARE THEY ON THE HOOK UNDER
THIS BILL THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN
AND YES AND THEN SENATOR FIGHT
HAPPENED GOTTEN YOUR QUESTION.
FEEL FREE TO JUMP IT HUNNICUTT
SCENARIO YES PLEASE EMPLOYER
WOULD BE ON THE HOOK BECAUSE THE
EMPLOYEE OR THE SUPERVISOR WAS
TOLD AS IT YOU MUST DO THIS IN
THE COURSE OF YOUR JOB YOU HAVE
TO DO TAKE THIS ACTION. AND AS
MY OF FELLOW WITNESS POINT OUT
THERE'S ALSO REQUIREMENT TO SHOW
THAT THERE WAS RETALIATES OR
INTENT SO THE ADVERSE ACTION
AGAINST THE EMPLOYEE HAS TO BE
SUBSTANTIALLY MOTIVATED BY.
GBIT INTEND TO DO TO RETALIATE
FOR THE EMPLOYEE HAVING ENGAGE
IN A BATTLE LET'S SAY THE
IMPORTANT OFFENSIVE THE HELIUM
PLOT WE HAVE NO INTENT THE
SUPERVISOR KNOWS EXACTLY WHY THE
BOSS WANTS TO FIRE THIS PERSON.
AND THE BOSS SAYS YOU GO AND YOU
HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND FIRE THEM.
THAT'S LEAVING THE SUPERVISOR IN
A DEBT VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION
IF THEY DON'T GO AHEAD AND DO
WHAT THEY'RE TOLD THEY'RE LIKELY
TO GET FIRED. IF THEY DO WHAT
THEY'RE TOLD THEY'RE ACTUALLY.
NOW ON THE HOOK FOR SOMETHING
THAT THEY DIDN'T DO BUT IT'S NOW
THEY HAVE TO DO IT IN ORDER TO
KEEP THEIR JOB.
YES AND JUST TO BE CLEAR THE
HEAR THEM PLOY WILL BE ON THE
HOOK NOT EXIT RIGHT OFF THE
SUPER OKAY AND SO WHAT I HEAR IS
THERE'S A DIFFERENCE OF
AGREEMENT. I SUSPECT YOU'RE NOT
TRYING TO PUT THE EMPLOYEE AND
THE SUPERVISOR ON THE HOOK WHEN
THEY'RE JUST BEING ASKED TO.
THE COMPLETED TASK THAT THEY HAD
NOTHING TO DO WITH SO PERHAPS WE
CAN THAT YOU CAN CONTINUE TO
CLARIFY THAT LANGUAGE THAT'S MY
ONLY PROBLEM WITH THE BILL I
THINK IT'S GREAT BILL. BUT I
THINK DEBT HOBSON'S CHOICE PUTS
PEOPLE IN A SITUATION WHO
SHOULDN'T NECESSARILY AURA OF
WHO I DON'T THINK YOU WANT TO BE
IN THAT POSITION ELECTION
RESPOND. THEN SENATOR HERTZBERG
AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON I TOSS A
ONE OF A QUICK THING ON THAT.
THE PLANES PARTS QUITE GOOD AT
THESE THINGS SO EVEN THOUGH THEY
MIGHT NOT HAVE LIABILITY
SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE.
THAT DETERMINATION CAN BE MADE
TWO YEARS FROM NOW. WHAT'S GOING
TO HAPPEN IS THEY'RE GOING TO
SUE THE SUPERVISOR MADE THE
DIRECTIVE. AND THE HR PERSONNEL
AND A CENTER HERTZBERG POINT
ABOUT ACCESS I JOKE I COULD
AFFORD ME.
HOW IS E.?
SUPERVISOR HR PERSONAL GONNA
FIRE AFFORD FOR TWO YEARS
SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
WITH ATTORNEYS FEES TO HOPEFULLY
GET TO THE POINT WHERE THEY
DETERMINED AFTER THE FACT THAT
THEY DID NOT HAVE LIED BUILDING.
AND I I THINK IT'S A.
IT'S BEEN A RATHER ACTIVE DAY
HERE.
I THINK.
IN THAT SITUATION THE EMPLOYER
WILL.
MOST LIKELY BE A PAYING THOSE
ATTORNEYS FEES AND.
I APPRECIATE THAT THERE'S
CONCERN BUT.
IF YOU CAN CLARIFY THIS
BY IT ISSUE.
I THINK THAT THAT WILL GO A
LONG WAY TOWARDS RESOLVING WHAT
MAY BE SENATOR HERTZBERG
CONCERNED.
BUT I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FEW
SENATOR FIT LIKE TO RESPOND
THANK YOU E. DO HAD EXACTLY MY
POINT BUT I'M TRYING TO APPLY
THE PRACTICAL OTHER FACTS AND
LOG ON AND OFF FOR THIRTY NINE
YEARS. AND IS EXACTLY THE POINT
WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS SOMEONE'S
GOING TO BRING UP SUMMONS A
COMPLAINT. WHEN YOU GETS FOR SO
I'LL ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM GET
SERVE THEY GOTTA GO OUT AND IF
THEY WANT TO HIRE A LAWYER
THAT'S REALLY EXPENSIVE.
THE BIG THE THAT BECAUSE THE LAW
SAYS ALL YOUR PERSONALLY LIABLE
UNDER THIS THE THE PLAYERS GOING
TO FIND A THOUSAND EXCUSES NOT
TO PAY FOR THAT SECOND LAWYER.
IT EVEN AT THAT THE THE IDEA OF
THE INDEMNITY IS IRRELEVANT ACT
DEFINED BANKRUPTED.
OR I HAVE TO GIVE IF I HAVE TO
JUST LIKE IN THE BILL CASES OR
INCOMPLETE CASES I HAVE TO GIVE
UP BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE
ENOUGH MONEY.
YOU CAN'T IGNORE THAT IN TERMS
OF THIS AND THE DISTINCTION
THAT'S DIFFERENT IS EXACTLY WHAT
YOU SAID RETALIATORY INTENT.
IN ONE CASE THE SUMMONS A
COMPLAINT THE PLEADINGS GOING TO
SAY. PERSON A DID THIS THIS THIS
THIS AND THIS IT'S GOING TO BE
CLEAR AND THE ACCUSATIONS AGAIN
TO BE CLEAR AS TO WHAT THEY
WORK.
IN THE SECOND CASE BEATS
A SERIES OF A COMPANY WHERE
OTHER PEOPLE COULD HAVE MADE A
DECISION AND THAT TO ME IS A
VERY BIG DISTINCT I WAS HERE
WHEN THIS LAW PASSED LAST TIME
BEFORE THIS CASE WAS. I WAS
INVOLVED IN THESE DISCUSSIONS IN
THESE DEBATES AND I THOUGHT THAT
THERE WAS A VERY BIG REASON WHY
THE NATURE OF THAT BEHAVIOR BIT
BAD BEHAVIOR SHOULD BE.
REPREHENSIBLE AND PUNISH
EVERYWHERE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH
THAT BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT REALLY
GOES ON IN THE REAL WORLD IT
TAKES YEARS BY THE TIME YOU GET
THESE CASES SETTLED AND YOU'RE
BANKRUPT.
AND THEN ON UNFAIR CHARGES AND
THAT'S THE QUESTION OR FAIR
CHARGES WHATEVER THE CASES
BECAUSE YOUR EMPLOYER YOU'RE A
BAD PERSON AND YOUR EMPLOYER
DOESN'T PAY YOU.
SO THAT'S WHAT MY CONCERN IS
BECAUSE IT'S THE INTENT PROBLEM
IT'S JUST THE PRACTICAL
APPLICATION OF EXACTLY WHAT THE
CHAIR JUST ARTICULATED THAT'S.
BUT I'M TRYING TO EXPRESS.
MADAM CHAIR IF I MAY AS.
AND I'LL MAKE IT MY CLOSING OUR
HAPS IS HERE ANY WAY WE CAN ASK
HIM TO TONE IT DOWN A BIT OR
EITHER LIFT THE VOLUME HERE
BECAUSE.
IT'S VERY HARD.
IS THAT WHAT CHECK. CONTEST SO
IT'S A PROTEST ó OKAY WELL IN
THAT CASE. WOULD YOU RAISE THE
LEVEL OF THE MICROPHONE SO WE
HEAR IN THIS ROOM.
CAN HAVE A
HEARING.
SO IF I MAY AS MAY BE THE ONLY
NON LAWYER IN THE ROOM.
BRING US BACK
A LITTLE BIT
ONE OF FOUR WOMEN EXPERIENCE
SEXUAL HARASSMENT ONE IN FOUR
WOMEN.
BUT SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT OF
EMPLOYEES WHO SPEAK OUT ABOUT
WORK PLACEMENTS MISTREATMENT OR
RETALIATED AGAINST
SO WHATEVER WE'RE DOING NOW IS
NOT WORKING.
ALL THIS DOES IS THIS TELLS
PEOPLE WHO BEHAVE IN RETALIATORY
BEHAVIOR THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO
FACE THE CONSEQUENCES. AND I
COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH THE
OPPOSITION WHEN THEY SAY THAT
SEXUAL BANTER ISEXPECTED PART
OF THE WORKPLACE I KNOW YOU YOU
SEE THAT I'M NOT SAYING IT'S
YOUR OPINION UNDER SAY I
COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH WHERE
YOU GOT A FROM I'VE BEEN AN
EMPLOYER FOR FIFTEEN YEARS. AND
THAT WOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED IN
ANY PLACE THAT I WORKED AT WE'VE
NEVER AL THAT THAT BE EXPECTED.
IF YOU ARE A SUPERVISOR OR YOU
ARE AN EMPLOYEE YOU CANNOT
RETALIATE AGAINST SOMEONE FOR
COMING FORWARD AND SAYING I HAVE
BEEN SEXUALLY HARASSED RIGHT NOW
THAT CAN HELP IN THE WAY THE LAW
IS. WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
CHANGE THE LAW WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHETHER YOU
ARE AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS
RETALIATING AGAINST SOMEONE OR
YOU A SUPERVISOR WHO IS
RETALIATING AGAINST SOMEONE. IT
IS NOT OKAY BUT ONE ANALYST LAST
THING IF I AM AN EMPLOYER AND I
SAY TO MY SUPERVISOR HEY I NEED
YOU TO GO AND FIRE. SUSIE OVER
THERE.
IF I DO IT IF IT IS NOT ILLEGAL
OR IMMORAL I HAVE TO DO WHAT MY
EMPLOYER TELLS ME TO DO IT DOES
NOT MEAN THAT I AM RETALIATING
AGAINST EMPLOYEES. BECAUSE I'M
NOT THERE'S NOTHING FROM YOUR
TELL YOU I AM FOLLOWING THE
INSTRUCTIONS OF MY EMPLOYER THE
EMPLOYER IS GOING TO BE ON THE
HOOK WOULD BE MY THOUGHT. BUT
NOT THE ACTUAL SUPERVISOR WHO
WAS JUST FOLLOWING WHAT THEIR
EMPLOYER ASKS HIM TO DO AND IT
WAS NOT ILLEGAL AND IT WAS NOT
IMMORAL BUT WE CAN CONTINUE DOWN
THE ROAD THAT WE HAVE BEEN GOING
DOWN. AND CONTINUE TO UP THE
NUMBER GROW MAYBE NEXT TIME
AROUND IT WILL BE TO AND FOUR
WOMEN ARE HARASSED AT WORK.
RETALIATION HAPPENS EVERY SINGLE
DAY ALL THIS BILL DOES IS SAY
THAT IT'S NOT O. K. AND IT GIVES
A PERSON BEING RETALIATED
AGAINST AN OPPORTUNITY. TO HAVE
THEIR DAY IN COURT SO TO SPEAK
WITHOUT I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE THANK YOU BILL.
ALRIGHT DID. THE BILL MOTIONED A
IS TO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS.
WITH THAT OF MADAM SECRETARY
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
JACKSON HIGH JACKSON I AM MORE
LOCK. ANDERSON HERTZBERG.
MONNING. STERN.
STERN AYE WIECKOWSKI AYE
WIECKOWSKI AYE. PART DOCUMENTUM
CHAIR OF THE A BILL HAS THREE
VOTES AND WE'LL PLACED ON CALL I
THINK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALRIGHT.
WE HAVE TO BILLS BY SENATOR
WIENER.
HOW TO PRESERVE WHAT IS FOR?
ALL RIGHT AND.
.
LET'S START WITH THE FILE ITEM
TO. S. B. NINE THIRTY SEVEN.
LACTATION ACCOMMODATION.
AND I BELIEVE THERE ARE
AMENDMENTS THAT.
BY THAT MEASURE ON BECAUSE OF
CENTER STERN IS GOOD BECAUSE
PRESENTING WITH ME AND YET STILL
LEAVES SO IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO
TAKE TEN FORTY FIVE FIRSTS.
I THINK THIS ONE IS GOING TO
MOVE A LITTLE QUICKER.
.
AND.
WELL.
THEY'RE CALLING THEIR DOING
VOTES NOT A GOOD WILL GESTURE.
RIGHT WELL THEN YOU'LL BE BACK
IN TIME FOR.
THEN YOU'LL BE BACK IN TIME FOR.
OF FILE ITEM SIX
IF YOU IF YOU JUST HAVE TO GO
VOTE THEN WILL IT'LL TAKE A FEW
MINUTES I'M SURE TO DO THIS AND
WHEN YOU COME BACK.
IT WILL ALLOW YOU WILL BE READY
TO HAVE FEW COLD PERCENT.
ALRIGHT SO LET'S GO AHEAD.
WITH FILE ITEM TO S. B. NINE
THIRTY SEVEN LACTATION
ACCOMMODATION.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE
AMENDMENTS THAT YOU WILL BE
TAKING.
ON THIS ITEM IN TRANSPORTATION
AND HOUSING IS THAT CORRECT.
THAT IS CORRECT VERY GOOD IN
THOSE ARE ON PAGES TWELVE
THROUGH FOURTEEN COMMENT NINE.
OKAY. VERY GOOD HER MANAGER
THINKS YOU'RE HEARING THIS.
TODAY ON MY NOTES A SECOND TIME
YOU LOOK AT IT THIS.
TOM THE COLORS LAST YEAR.
MY FORMER COLLEAGUE ON THE SAN
FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
KITTANNING. PA AUTHORED FIRST IN
THE NATION LEGISLATION TO
REQUIRE BY LAW THAT EMPLOYERS
PROVIDE SAFE AND COMFORABLE
ACCOMMODATIONS FOR WORKING
MOTHERS WHO WERE BREAST FEEDING.
LA I AM WORKING WITH AN
INCREDIBLE TEAM OF ADVOCATES.
TO BUY HAVE A STATEWIDE POLICY
TO MAKE SURE FIVE THAT WAY
MOTHERS NEW MOTHERS WHO RETURNED
TO WORK. ARE ABE TO WORK.
AND ALSO ABLE TO LOCK TODAY OF
FOR THEIR CHILD FAMILY FRIENDLY
WORKPLACES ARE KEY.
TO THE HEALTH OF MOTHERS AND
INFANTS.
AS WELL AS I ACHIEVING EQUITY
CAUGHT BETWEEN THE GENDERS TO
ALSO GOOD FOR BUSINESS BOB WOMEN
WITHOUT A QUICK BREAK TIME AND
PRIVATE SPACE ARE MORE THAN.
TWICE AS LIKELY TO BE BREAST
FEEDING EXCLUSIVELY AT SIX
MONTHS
SO COMPARED TO WOMEN WITHOUT THE
SUPPORT. INADEQUATE
ACCOMMODATIONS FOR BREASTFEEDING
MOTHERS OFTEN LEADS TO A MOTHER
HAVING T MAKE A DIFFICULT
CHOICE BETWEEN RETURNING TO WORK
AND NOT BREASTFEEDING OR
RESTORED DELAYING A RETURN TO
WORK. IN ORDER TO BREAST FEED
FELT SO SIGNIFICANT DIE IMPACTS
FINANCIALLY BECAUSE FORMULA IS
EXPENSIVE.
BOB LOWER INCOME MOTHERS ARE HIT
THE HARDEST A WITH ITS DIFFICULT
CHOICE BETWEEN PAY.
AND.
ADEQUATE NUTRITION FOR A CHILD.
AND PURCHASING FORMULA THOUGHT
THIS BILL WILL EASE THE
TRANSITION FROM OTHERS GOING
BACK TO WORK WHILE CONTINUING
BUT TO HAVE A WORK LIFE BALANCE.
THOUGHT AND PLAYERS WILL BE ABLE
TO RETAIN HOT TALENTED
EMPLOYEES.
HI THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POLICY
AND AND WE FOR TO THE BROAD
STAKEHOLDER GROUP THOUGHT TO PUT
IT TOGETHER.
VIS A BILL.
WILL REQUIRE.
INDICTMENTS LAWYERS SET ASIDE
PRIVATE SPACE IT'S APPROPRIATE
FOR LACTATION INCLUDING WITH A A
TABLE AND A CHAIR.
YEAH I WILL NEED TO BE PRIVATE
THERE WE NEED TO BE.
REFRIGERATOR.
CLOSE BY.
AND RUNNING WATER ARE CLOSE BY
IT WILL REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT.
TO ESTABLISH BEST PRACTICES ARE
OPTIONAL VOLUNTARY BEST
PRACTICES CONFRONTATION IN THE
WORKPLACE A SO THAT OUR BUSINESS
CAN HAVE MY GUIDANCE. ON
THE.
THE BILL ALLOWS MULTI TENANT
BUILDINGS TO SHARE LACTATION
SPACE IN THIS IS PARTICULARLY
IMPORTANT FOR SMALL RETAIL. AUTO
SHOPS
THE BILL IS VERY FLEXIBLE IN
TERMS OF WHAT THE SPACES I AM
SMALLER SPACE IT MIGHT NOT BE A
SEPARATE ROOM AND MIGHT BE.
REMOVABLE BARRIERS THAT CAN BE
SET UP AND TAKEN DOWN WE PROVIDE
A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY.
AND WE ALSO PROVIDE A HARDSHIP
EXEMPTION OF FOR THE SMALLEST
I'M NEVER BUSINESSES THE BILL
ALSO REQUIRES THE CALIFORNIA
BUILDING CODE IN THE NEXT
UPDATE.
OUGHT TO INCLUDE PROVISION FOR
AND.
INCLUDING NEW LACTATION SPACES
AND BUILDINGS OVER FIFTEEN
THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.
AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF
THE BUILDING PERMIT.
SIMILAR TO HELP BUILDING COULD
ST DISABILITY ACCESS.
AND AL LINES ARE ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISM BOTH STOP PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION THOUGHT AS WELL
AS.
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT
PROCESS.
SO COLLEAGUES I RESPECTFULLY
ASK YOUR AYE VOTE.
AND. WITH ME HERE TODAY IS A
DOCTOR ELEANOR SCHWARTZ.
.
AND.
ROBBIE GONZALEZ TALCUM THE
CALIFORNIA.
BREASTFEEDING COALITION AND.
JENNA JERRY FROM THE WAY TO
WORK.
THANK YOU SENATOR WINNER GOOD
AFTERNOON AND I AM GOING TO
START HOLDING US TO TWO MINUTES
FOR EACH WITNESSES TO MENDOCINE.
THANK YOU.
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS I'M
ROBBIE GONZALEZ STYLE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BREASTFEEDING
COALITION AND WE'RE PLEASED TO
BE CO SPONSORS OF S. B. NINE
THREE SEVEN. CALIFORNIA REALLY
IS LEADING THE NATION IN
REMOVING BARRIERS TO BREAST
FEEDING. IN CALIFORNIA AND IN
TWENTY THIRTEEN WE PASSED THE
TEN STEPS TO SUCCESSFUL
BREASTFEEDING AND HOSPITALS.
AND.
OF THAT RESULTED IN SUPPORTING
PARENTS TO BREASTFEED EARLY. AND
MOST PARENTS DO WANT TO
BREASTFEED IN FACT MOST TO DO
BREAST BEGIN TO BREASTFEED
IMMEDIATELY AFTER BIRTH HOWEVER
AT SIX MONTHS POSTPARTUM. TWENTY
FOUR POINT EIGHT PERCENT ARE
EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFEEDING. AND
THIS IS OF GREAT CONCERN TO US
BECAUSE ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
RECOMMENDS.
THAT INFANTS BE FRED ONLY BREAST
MILK FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS IN
AT LEAST TWO YEAR AS SOLIDS ARE
ADDED TO THE INFANTS DIET. BUT
PARENTS ARE STRUGGLING TO MEET
THIS RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE THEY
FACE BARRIERS TO CONTINUE
BREASTFEEDING WHEN THEY RETURN
TO WORK AND MOMS WITH THE LOWER
HOUSEHOLDS.
LOWER HOUSEHOLD INCOME ARE LESS
LIKELY TO HAVE WORKPLACE
BREASTFEEDING SUPPORT THAN THOSE
WITH HIGHER INCOME.
AND THE GREAT THING ABOUT US
EMPLOYER SUPPORTING THE NEEDS OF
LACTATING PARENTS IS THAT IT'S
ASSOCIATED WITH BOTTOM LINE
BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYERS SUCH AS A
THREE TO ONE RETURN ON
INVESTMENT. LOWER ABSENTEEISM
RATES LOWER INSURANCE CLAIMS FOR
BUSINESSES.
HELPS RETAIN AND RECRUIT GOOD
EMPLOYEES AND IMPROVES
PRODUCTIVITY BUILDS EMPLOYEE
MORALE AND LOYALTY.
AND I'VE SEEN THIS FIRSTHAND I
WORK IN THE CENTRAL COAST AND
EMPLOYERS THE AGRICULTURE.
INDUSTRY.
CREATE WORKPLACE POLICY AND IN
TRAINED THE SUPERVISORS TO
SUPPORT WOMEN TO PUMP IN THE
FIELDS AND IF WE CAN SUPPORT
WOMEN IN THE FIELDS.
WE CAN REALLY ANY WORK PLACE TO
BE ABLE TO SUPPORT WOMEN WITH
ACCOMMODATIONS TO EXPRESS MILK
AT WORK.
POLICY REALLY DOES MAKE A
DIFFERENCE IN INSURERS THAT
EMPLOYEES HAVE ACCESS TO
CONSISTENT SUPPORT. IN THE
POLICY HELPS CLEARLY DEFINE THE
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
BOTH SUPERVISORS AND EMPLOYEES
AND I'VE BEEN TOLD BY MANY
WOMEN.
THAT IF THEY HADN'T HAD THE
SUPPORT THEY WOULDN'T OF
RETURNED AS EARLY AS THEY DID.
ONE MOM TOLD ME THAT SHE WOULD
HAVE STAYED HOME AND THEN
RETURNED THE NEXT HARVEST SCENES
SEASON. BUT SHE WITH INSTEAD SHE
WAS ABLE TO RETURN TO WORK SHE
MET HER BREASTFEEDING GOALS AND
SHE HAS.
INCOME THANK YOU.
THANKS VERY MUCH OKAY NEXT
WITNESS AG AFTERNOON THANK YOU
MADAM CHAIR. MY NAME IS JENNY
GARRY NAM ATTORNEY WITH LEGAL
AID AT WORK WHERE NONPROFIT
ADVOCATES ON BEHALF OF LOW
INCOME WORKERS ACROSS
CALIFORNIA.
SIMPLY PUT SB NINE THIRTY SEVEN
WILSHIRE ALL LIFE LACTATING
PARENTS ARE ABLE TO MEET THE
MOST BASIC NEEDS OF THEIR CHILD.
PROVIDING FOOD ILLEGALLY TO WORK
WE HEAR FROM FAR TOO MANY
EMPLOYEES WHO'VE LACK ADEQUATE
SUPPORT WITHIN THE WORKPLACE TO
EXPRESS MILK. FOR EXAMPLE WHEN A
QUICKLY SHARE ONE STORY OF OUR
CLIENT TARA TARA WAS A WAITRESS
AT A RESTAURANT.
WHEN SHE GAVE BIRTH TO HER FIRST
CHILD SHE RETURNED AND HOPE TO
CONTINUE TO BREASTFEED HER
CHILD.
UNFORTUNATELY THE ONLY OPTION
SHE WAS GIVEN WAS TO PRESS TO
PUMP IN THE BASEMENT THAT WAS
DIRTY THAT DIDN'T HAVE
ELECTRICITY AND SHE HAD TO STAND
UP TO PUMP.
THAT'S WITH INSUFFICIENT AND SHE
COULDN'T CONTINUE TO WORK AND
CONTINUE TO BREAST FEED HER
CHILD. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO
MAKE THAT DECISION THAT DECISION
IS PERSONAL AND EVERY PERSON TO
GET THE SUPPORT THEY NEED IN THE
WORKPLACE SO THEY CAN CONTINUE
TO WORK AND CONTINUE TO FEED
THEIR CHILD.
FOR THESE REASONS WE ASK FOR
YOUR SUPPORT AND FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE THANK YOU. VERY MUCH
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT PLEASE.
I'M DOCTOR ELEANOR SCHWARTZ FROM
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
DAVIS I'M A PROFESSOR OF
MEDICINE WHO SPECIALIZES IN
WOMEN'S HEALTH. I WANTED TO JUST
HIGHLIGHT THE WAYS IN WHICH
BREASTFEEDING HELPS WOMEN
RECOVER FROM PREGNANCY HAS VERY
LARGE LONG TERM EFFECTS ON
WOMEN'S HEALTH SO. DECREASING
RISK OF BREAST CANCER AND HEART
DISEASE THESE ARE LONG TERM
EFFECTS THAT HAVE. IMPACTS ON
EMPLOYERS BOTTOM LINE SO I
HIGHLY SUPPORT THIS IS WELL
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OF THE
WITNESS'S NAME AFFILIATION ONLY
PLEASE THINK ABOUT CHAIR ALICE
KESSLER BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS
GYNECOLOGISTS SHOULD NINE WITH
THE AMENDMENTS REFERENCE WERE
MOVING TO A SUPPORT POSITION.
THINK EXCELLENT THANK YOU.
VERY GOOD A SHOWER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT THINKING.
CATHERINE OF ARAGON ON BEHALF OF
FIRST FIVE CALIFORNIA IN STRONG
SUPPORT. BIG YOU.
BRIAN HOW WITH THE CALIFORNIA
FEDERATION OF TEACHERS WERE ITS
OWN SUPPORT THANK YOU THANK YOU.
KAREN LAYING ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
AND MARK MAYOR MARK FOR ON
SUPPORT THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
JESSICA STUNNER ON BEHALF OF
EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES AND
STRONGER CALIFORNIA ADVOCATES
NETWORK IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH.
JACKIE ST ON BEHALF OF THE
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ANSWER KEVIN PEAK OF AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
CALIFORNIA ALSO INSTRUCTS PART.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
I GOOD AFTERNOON MY
DEFINITIVAMENTE THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TESTIFIED TODAY MY NAME'S LAURA
CURTIS AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE. AND WE ARE IN A
PROPOSAL MUST AMENDED POSITION
WITH S. B. NINE THIRTY SEVEN WE
DO WANT TO THANK THE AUTHORS
OFFICE THEY'VE BEEN WONDERFUL TO
WORK WITH US ON HAN POTENTIAL
AMENDMENTS AND LANGUAGE AND
DISCUSSING OUR CONCERNS. AND
THEY'VE GIVEN US LOTS OF TIMES
WE GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT I'M A
FEW THINGS THAT AS THE LANGUAGE
IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED AND AND IS
THAT THERE ARE FEDERAL
PROTECTIONS FOR AND EMPLOYEES
REGARDING LACTATION
ACCOMMODATION. WE WOULD LIKE
THIS TO BE AND THE SAME AS THE
FEDERAL REGULATIONS SO THE
HARDSHIP EXEMPTION FOR SHOULD
COMPLY WITH FEDERAL AND AS OF
RIGHT NOW IT SAID PROVIDES A
SEPARATE HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WE
FEEL THAT IT SHOULD BE THE SAME
AS FEDERAL HARDSHIP EXEMPTION.
OFFICIALLY THEIR SPECIFIC
PROVISIONS IN THE BILL THESE
MIGHT HAVE BEEN.
STRUCK A STRICKEN I APOLOGIZE
IF THEY HAVE BUT AS FAR AS THE
TICKET THE SMALL NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS AND THE.
RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS AND
DOCUMENT RETENTION REQUIREMENTS
THERE'S A FIVE DAY NOTICE
REQUIREMENT FOR AN EMPLOYEE TO
RESPOND AND AGAIN THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT.
IF THE EMPLOYEE OR IF THE
EMPLOYER PROVIDES A REASONABLE
ACCOMMODATION THEN.
THEY EMPLOYER COULD STILL BE ON
THE HOOK FOR THAT THE THREE YEAR
DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS AS
WELL AS SOMETHING THAT IF THE
AMP EVEN IF THE EMPLOYER
PROVIDES A REASONABLE
ACCOMMODATION.
FOR THE EMPLOYEE THEY COULD
STILL BE LIABLE FOR NOT
RETAINING THE DOCUMENTS FOR
THREE YEARS AT THAT WERE TO COME
UP IN A SEPARATE LITIGATION
MATTER AND SO THERE'S CONCERNS
THERE WITH THAT. ADDITIONALLY
AND FEE HARDY PROTECTS
RETALIATION FOR HER AND
BREASTFEEDING AND SO WE FEEL
THAT THESE PROVISIONS WOULD BE
BETTER SUITED IN THE FAIR
EMPLOYMENT HOUSING ACT
REGULATIONS. AND FINALLY AND
THERE ARE A BEST PRACTICE
PROVISIONS STATED IN THIS BILL
HOME WEEKEND FEEL THE BEST
PRACTICES A WITHIN THE STATUTE
WOULD PRESENT WOULD PROVIDE THE
PRESUMPTION THAT AN EMPLOYER IS
NOT.
ACCOMMODATING APPROPRIATELY
SPECIFICALLY THE BEST PRACTICES
SAY THAT THERE SHOULD BE A
MICROWAVE AND THINGS LIKE THAT
IF THAT'S IN THE STATUTE WERE
AFRAID THAT THAT WOULD BE USED
AS EVIDENCE AGAINST EMPLOYER
LATER ON. THAT THEY DO NOT
PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE.
FABRIC OR HAD ADEQUATE
ACCOMMODATION AND WE FEEL THAT
THOSE KIND OF BEST PRACTICES
WILL BE BETTER STUDENT BAHA.
YOU VERY MUCH OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION HUSAM CHAIR CHRIS
MCKINLEY THAT CALIFORNIA BUILDS
ASSOCIATION YOU DID HEAR SOME
OF.
OUR COMMENTS LAST WEEK IN THE
SENATE LABOR COMMITTEE SO I WILL
BE BRIEF I AM I AGREE WITH THE
COMMENTS THE MISS CURTIS MADE
AND. JUST DRAW ATTENTION
SENATOR.
WIENER AND HIS STAFF HAS BEEN
VERY GENEROUS IN CONTINUE TO BE
IN WORKING WITH US AND
HOPEFULLY.
BEFORE IT'S THE SENATE FLOOR
WILL COME TO RESOLUTION IF NOT
MOST OF HOPEFULLY ALL OF THEM.
BUT. HE INDICATED THAT THIS IS
PATTERNED AFTER THE SAN
FRANCISCO ORDINANCE WHICH JUST
TOOK EFFECT ON JANUARY THE
FIRST.
AND THERE WERE TWO PROVISIONS OF
THE ORDINANCE THAT JUMPED OUT AT
ME. OTHER NOT A IN THAT
ORDINANCE THAT ARE IN THIS
LEGISLATION. THE FIRST IS IN.
SECTION TWO OF THE BILL.
SUBDIVISION GE ON THE.
PROVISION FOR AN UNDUE HARDSHIP
EXEMPTION
BUT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT THE
MORE BROADLY APPLICABLE TODAY
IT'S LIMITED TO BUSINESSES WERE
FIVE OR FEWER EMPLOYEES. ANOTHER
EXAMPLE OF A CONCERN THAT WE
EXPRESSED HIS IN SECTION THREE
OF THE BILL SUBDIVISION II.
WHICH NOT ONLY ALLOWS
APPROPRIATE PUBLICAN FORSMAN BY
THE LABOR COMMISSIONER BUT ALSO
PROVIDES A PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION WHICH IS YOU KNOW CENTER
JACKSON AND CENTER WIECKOWSKI
WE'VE. LONG EXPRESSED CONCERN
WITH PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.
AND THEN BOTH SECTIONS FOUR AND
FIVE DO ADD NEW PROVISIONS TO
THE CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE WHICH.
OF COURSE RAISES CONCERN WITH
THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY ABOUT THE
POTENTIAL ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS
UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
GENERAL ACT
SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING
TO WORK WITH YOUR COMMITTEE BUT
CERTAINLY WAS SENATOR WIENER ON
RESOLVING SOME OF THESE
OUTSTANDING CONCERNS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION NAME AND
AFFILIATION PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON DOROTHY JOHNS BUT
THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION
OF COUNTIES OPPOSE LET'S AMENDED
FOR THE REASONS STATED BY MY
COLLEAGUES THANK YOU THANK YOU
VERY MUCH OTHER WITNESSES
POLICE.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS MATTHEW
HARPER THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
PROPERTIES ASSOCIATION WE HAVE
SOME BUILDING CODE PRACTICAL
ISSUES THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH
THE AUTHOR ON AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO A.
HOW COME TO CONCLUSION ON THOSE
THANK YOU THANK YOU?
GOOD AFTERNOON KELLY HANSEN WITH
CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION WERE OPPOSE A LESS
AMENDED FOR THE PRISONS
PREVIOUSLY STATED. THANK YOU.
THE CALL RISE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURES AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION ALSO POSE AS AMENDED
THANK YOU THANK YOU.
JOHN KERRY OF CIVIL JUST
CESSATION OPPOSING US AMENDED
FOR THE REASONS STATED THINKING.
BRIAN LITTLE CALIFORNIA FARM
BUREAU FEDERATION OPPOSED MOST
AMENDED FOR THE REASONS STATED
BY THE CHAIR BY THE CHAMBER
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION.
CARL LET'S BRING IT BACK TO THE.
DYESS ANY QUESTIONS SENATOR
WIECKOWSKI.
I'M TRYING TO RACE DOWN ALL THE
AMENDMENTS ON AS OUTLINED PIECE
TWELVE. TWELVE. MAYBE AUTHOR IT
SEEMS AS THOUGH SOME OF THE
OBJECTIONS THAT WERE REYES.
PALM.
BY THE OPPOSITION ARE SATISFIED
THE.
FIVE DAY PERIOD THE HARDSHIP
WAIVERS FOR FIVE EMPLOYEES. IS
THAT AND I DON'T KNOW IF PEOPLE
JUST CATCHING UP WITH THIS BILL
RIGHT IN THERE HAVE BEEN A
NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS TAKEN SO
PERHAPS WE WE CAN HANDLE THOSE.
IS WOULD YOU RESPOND TO THOSE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
THAT ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO YOU
OR OF RESPOND FOR EXAMPLE. ONE
THAT COMES TO MIND IS APPLYING
THE FEDERAL LAW. ABOUT THAT IT
FREQUENTLY IT SERVES AS A FLOOR
NOT A CEILING AND I ASSUME THAT
THAT WOULD BE THE SITUATION AND
YOUR.
MIND ON THIS LEGISLATION IN ANY
OTHER AREAS WHERE THERE MIGHT BE
SOME SIGNIFICANT IF DISAGREEMENT
WITH WHAT IS SAW SUGGESTED BY
THE OPPOSITION
SURE AND I DON'T HAVE A COMPLETE
LOOK COMPLETE LIST BUT I A FEW
THAT COME TO MIND ODD THAT YOU
KNOW THE FEDERAL. STANDARDS IT'S
GREAT THAT THERE IS A FEDERAL
STANDARD IS A FLOOR IT'S A VERY
BASIC SEND THAT WE'RE TRYING TO.
FLUSH IT OUT WHAT WE'RE SAYING
IS NOT AYE.
BUT A DRAMATIC SHIFT FROM THE
FEDERAL BUT IT IS A A MORE SOLID
AYE TANGIBLE AND I THINK.
IT'S A BETTER APPROACH BOTTOM
IN TERMS OF THE THE HARDSHIP WE
LIMITED IT TO A LOT OF FIVE IN
ON THEIR.
AND MEN DO YOU KNOW THE REASON
AS. WELL WHEN YO GO HIGHER.
EVEN IF YOU GO TO TWENTY OR
FIFTY YOU YOU CUT OUT A HUGE
PERCENTAGE OF THE WORK FORCE.
AND THIS IS NOT.
YOU KNOW WE TALK ABOUT SOME OF
THE OTHER YOU KNOW. PAID
PARENTAL LEAVE PAID SICK LEAVE
THERE. REAL YOU KNOW THEIR COSTS
TO THE EMPLOYER AND SO THERE'S
MUCH MORE OF A CONVERSATION OF
WHAT SHOULD THE THRESHOLD BE.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT. FIVE THIS
BILL THIS IS NOT ONEROUS.
INVITED YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO
DEDICATE A SEPARATE ROOM YOU CAN
COME THAT YOU CAN HAVE A LITTLE.
BIT OF A TENT
BETTER IT'S A VERY FLEXIBLE BILL
FIVE YOU BUT I YOU KNOW I MEAN
LIKE A AND I SEE THERE WERE
PEOPLE WHO TALKED ABOUT THAT.
THINK WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO PUMP
IN A TENT SO TRY ANOTHER CALL ME
MISSING OUT ON THE MATCH I DON'T
APPLY TO ME TO PUT IN THERE I
SHOULD SOMETIMES AREN'T. BY
NATURE THE WHERE I LIVE BUT WHO
AND THEY'RE PEOPLE WHO TALKED
ABOUT THAT LAST WEEK THEIR WOMEN
TO TALK ABOUT THAT. ON FOR
EXAMPLE IN IN AN AGRICULTURAL
AREA WE HAVE JUST OF A TEMPER
IT'S CALLED A TEMPORARY
STRUCTURE. BETTER NUMBER EIGHT
STRUCTURE CAN TAKE MANY FORMS
AND WE HEARD LAST WEEK.
DOW TIME INSIDE A SMALL RETAIL
SPACE WHERE YOU HAVE PARTITIONS
THAT YOU PUT UP TO CREATE AN AD
HOC ROOM AND YOU TAKE IT DOWN.
WHEN YOU'RE DONE AND SO.
DESERVES A QUITE FLEXIBLE BILL
AND AND SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A
HARDSHIP ON SMALL BUSINESSES.
IT. MADAM CHAIR SINCE
THIS IS THE SECOND TIME I'VE
BEEN IN THE COMPETE FOR THE
PRESENTATION THIS BILL AND I'LL
BE BEFORE TRANCE NEXT WEEK WHEN
IT'S PRESENTED A THIRD TIME ALL
MOVED BILL.
I KNOW IT'S A VERY CONSISTENT
POSITION THANK YOU SENATOR Y.
CASCADE REPORT REFERRED AND AND.
I THINK THAT YOU KNOW AGAIN I
APPRECIATE YOUR BRINGING THIS
BILL.
I THINK. AGAIN RECOGNIZING THAT
WE HAVE A CHANGING WORKFORCE AND
WE PEOPLE IN THE WORKFORCE WHO
ARE.
AT NEEDING TO BE THEIR YOUNG
MOTHERS.
AND WE CERTAINLY FOR THE
REASONS THAT WERE MENTIONED
BRIEFLY THAT THE.
THERE'S VERY LITTLE QUESTION
ABOUT THE VALUE OF BREAST MILK
AND ITS BENEFITS TO OUR.
YOUNGEST A CALIFORNIANS.
IT'S A VERY. YOU KNOW POWERFUL
HEALING NURTURING.
SORT OF A SOME WOULD. EVEN SAY
GOD GIVEN OPPORTUNITY FOR.
MOTHERS AND CHILDREN TO BOND
AND TO FOR MOTHER TO PROVIDE THE
BEST NUTRITION FOR A.
AN INFANT IN A TOP TWO I GUESS
SIX MONTHS NOW WHICH.
FOR MOST WOMEN WHO AREN'T GIVEN
THE LUXURY OF BEING ABLE TO STAY
AT HOME FOR SIX MONTHS THEY HAVE
GOT TO FIND A WAY.
TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE.
.
THIS PROCESS AND.
.
HAVING NURSED.
IN THE BREAST FED MY DAUGHTER
FOR THE FIRST FIVE MONTHS BUT
GOING BACK TO WORK AFTER I CAN'T
REMEMBER IT'S BEEN SO LONG AGO
BUT. BEFORE THEN IT'S OF IT'S A
REAL CHALLENGE AND I THINK WE
NEED TO MAKE AS MUCH OF AN
ACCOMMODATION. AS WE CAN AND I
APPRECIATE YOUR. WILLING TO WORK
WITH THE OPPOSITION ON THIS BUT.
BOB I THINK THE DETAIL ACTUALLY
GETS EMPLOYERS OF A ROAD MAP
WHICH I THINK IS VERY HELPFUL.
IN AND THE GREATER THE
SPECIFICITY SO THAT.
WE CAN REALLY KIND OF DRIVE HOME
THAT IT IS NOT. AS YOU SAY GOING
TO BE A.
THE BREAK THE BANK IN ANY ANY
BUSINESS.
BUT JUST GIVE WOMEN THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO.
EXPRESS MILK STORED SAFELY ARE I
DON'T THINK IS IS THAT DIFFICULT
BUT IT'S A CHANGE IN OUR
PARADIGM HERE BUT WE NEED TO
MAKE THOSE CHANGES AND SO I
APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE DOING
AND.
WITH THAT.
.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY CLOSE
IT'S JUST THE TWO OF US AND WE
BOTH A VINDICATED OUR STRONG
SUPPORT FOR THE MEASURE.
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR AYE VOTE
WELDON. MADAM SECRETARY PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL OF IT AND THE
MOTION IS TO PASS TO
TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING. AND
THE AMENDMENTS WILL BE TAKEN IN
THAT COMMITTEE PLEASE CALL TH
ROLL. JACKSON AYE JACKSON I AM
MORE LOCK ANDERSON HERTZBERG
MINING. STERN WIECKOWSKI POP.
STERN AYE WIECKOWSKI AYE.
THE BILL HAS THREE VOTES AND WE
WILL PLACE IT ON CALL PERFECT
TIMING.
SENATOR STERN FOR FILE ITEM SIX
WHICH IS.
S. B. TEN FORTY FIVE.
CONSERVATIVE SHIPS.
AND.
WE CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THIS.
WE DO HAVE AMENDMENTS.
THAT HAVE BEEN AGREED UPON THE
ME JUST GIVE YOU A MOMENT TO. BE
ABLE TO CONCENTRATE ON BOTH OF
THIS YEAR IN THIS YEAR.
WE DO HAVE AMENDMENTS STATE
YOU'VE AGREED TO TAKE IN PUBLIC
SAFETY.
THEY ARE RELATED COMMENT THREE
PAGES NINETEEN TWENTY ONE AND
TWENTY TWO. AND THEN THE COMMENT
TO A FOUR ON PAGE TWENTY THREE.
AND THAT THIS WILL BE A PILOT
PROJECT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING
THIS BILL IS GOING TO IS A WORK
IN PROGRESS WHERE WE'RE TRYING
TO DO HERE. IS TRYING TO CONNECT
THE DOTS ON IT IF POSSIBLE TO
CONNECT TO EXISTING PROGRAMS THE
LPS PROGRAM ON CONSERVATIVE
SHIPS. AND LARA'S LAW YOU
BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A.
GAP.
AND THE REASON FOR THIS BILL.
I THINK AND I THINK WITH A
LITTLE MORE WORK WE CAN ACTUALLY
CONNECTED TO OR MAKE A TWEAK SO
THAT WHAT WE HAVE. WILL CONTINUE
TO WORK.
AND TO SERVE THE PURPOSES OF
OUR SEVERELY IMPACTED HOMELESS
PEOPLE SO OF WITH THAT IN MY
THANKS FOR YOUR.
EFFORTS HERE THIS IS I I THINK
WE'RE CLOSE I THINK WE'RE CLOSE.
OF THE PILOTS WOULD BE IN SAN
FRANCISCO AND LOS ANGELES GO
THROUGH ITEM FOR IS A THANK YOU
MADAM CHAIR FOR.
TAKING QUITE A BIT OF TIME TO
SIT WITH US AND WORK WITH US
INTO YOUR STAFF EYES WATER RIVER
EAST OF THE THINGS THAT WE ALL
LIVE FOR.
BUT WE TAKE A SOCIAL SO WE
TRULY DO ARE PROJECTS IN
IMPORTANT ISSUE IS A VERY
IMPORTANT ISSUE. SIDES ISSUE
THAT IMPACTS CIVIL LIBERTIES AND
SUPPORT TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY.
AND IN TERMS OF THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS.
WE DO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE
AMOUNTS WITH.
TO COPY AT ONE IS THAT WE WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE
COMMITTEE AS WE HAVE INDICATED.
AND THE SECOND DIED. WELL I'M
EVEN THOUGH SAN FRANCISCO AND
LOS ANGELES OR THE TWO COUNTIES
THAT HAVE BEEN BRINGING THIS AND
ALSO THERE'S AN ASSEMBLY BILL.
FORWARD AND WE DIDN'T RECEIVE
SUPPLY ENDORSEMENT OF THIS BILL
FROM THE LA CITY COUNCIL AS WELL
THAT WAS PASSED LAST WEEK.
WE ARE THERE ARE OTHER COUNTIES
WHO ARE INTERESTED AND SO THE
CABBIE OUT BEING THAT DOES WE
WORK THROUGH THE ISSUES THERE
MIGHT BE OTHER COUNTIES. THAT
WOULD LIKE TO BE INCLUDED BY AND
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT
WITHOUT WILL BE OPEN TO
CONSIDERATION. AND IF IF NEED BE
WE WILL AT SOME POINT TRIED TO
HAVE.
IT TO WORK IN ACCOMMODATION BUT
WE MAY AND MAY NEED TO BRING IT
BACK.
.
I THINK IF WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW
TO HOW TO MAKE THIS WORK I THINK
THAT WE COULD EVEN GO BEYOND BUT
RIGHT NOW WE'RE STILL IN
UNCERTAIN WATERS AND THAT'S THE
REASON FOR THE WILL BE A WORK IN
PROGRESS AND CONTINUING
CONVERSATION AS WE SAY VERY
OFTEN IN. THIS BUILDING.
SO COLLEAGUES I SP TEN FORTY
FIVE AND I WANT TO THANK MY
JOINT AUTHORS SENATOR BUT STERN
HAS BEEN TEN FORTY FIVE IS
FUNDAMENTALLY ABOUT GIVING
COUNTIES A NARROW TOOL. TIED TO
CARE TO CARE FOR THE MOST
VULNERABLE PEOPLE ON OUR STREETS
CHRONICALLY HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS
WHO ARE SUFFERING FROM SEVERE
MENTAL ILLNESS AND SUBSTANCE
ABUSE DISORDERS.
THIS IS A TINY SUBSET OF OUR
OVERALL HOMELESS POPULATION
BECAUSE SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC HEALTH FOR EXAMPLE
ESTIMATES THAT THIS POPULATION
IS APPROXIMATELY ONE PERCENT. OF
OUR OVERALL HOMELESS POPULATION
THE VAST MAJORITY OF HOMELESS
PEOPLE DO NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO
MEETING THE SPELLS CRITERIA.
THOUGHT BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE DYING
ON OUR STREETS.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO
WERE.
WHO ARE ACTING ABNORMALLY OR
OUT OF THE NEW NORMAL ON OUR
STREETS OR PEOPLE WHO ARE
EXPERIENCING CHALLENGES ARE
SICK?
THERE'S ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE
DYING ON OUR STREETS.
BUT ON. PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY
TO SEE THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE
DYING ON OUR STREETS AND CAN
CONCEIVE THAT WITH THEIR OWN TWO
EYES.
AND THEY SEE IT DAY AFTER DAY AS
PEOPLE DETERIORATED AND
ULTIMATELY DISAPPEAR WONDER WHY
AREN'T WE DOING ANYTHING ABOUT
IT.
AND THE REASON IS THAT. THESE
PEOPLE ARE FALLING THROUGH THE
CRACKS IN OUR SYSTEM AND THAT'S
WHAT THIS BILL IS TRYING TO
SOLVE. LOT SB TEN FORTY FIVE
CREATES A NEW CONSERVATORSHIP IN
THE WELFARE INSTITUTIONS CODE
OUGHT TO APPOINT A CONSERVATIVE
FOR A PERSON WHO IS CHRONICALLY
HOMELESS. GUY AND INCAPABLE OF
CARING FOR THEIR OWN HEALTH AND
WELL BEING. DUE TO SERIOUS
MENTAL ILLNESS AND SUBSTANCE
ABUSE DISORDER THOUGHT AS
EVIDENCED BY VARIOUS INDICIA
PARTICULARLY HIGH FREQUENCY
SOUNDS LIKE EMERGENCY.
HIGH FREQUENCY FIFTY ONE
FIFTIES AND SO FORTH. BY THE NEW
CONSERVATORSHIP IS COMPLETELY
VOLUNTARY FOR COUNTIES TALK
COUNTIES CAN OPT IN OR STAY OUT.
OF THE CONSERVATORSHIP WILL
PROVIDE FOR THE APPROPRIATE
PLACEMENT TIE IN SUPPORT OF
HOUSING INCLUDING A LICENSED
HEALTHCARE OR PSYCHIATRIC
FACILITY WHEN APPROPRIATE. WERE
AS PREFERRED COMMUNITY BASED
RESIDENTIAL CARE SETTING.
TO CARE FOR PERSONS SIDE NEEDS
THAT WE DO APPRECIATE THE
AMENDMENT FROM THE COMMITTEE ARE
REQUIRING THAT THE COUNTY FIRST
SHOW THAT IT HAS THE RESOURCES
AVAILABLE. BOB FOR THIS HOUSING
WE WANT HOUSING.
AS A TOP PRIORITY. VOLATILE
CONSERVATIVE SHIPS IN CALIFORNIA
OF THE BILL MAINTAINS FULL DUE
PROCESS PROTECTIONS FOR PEOPLE
FOR WHOM CONSERVATORSHIP IS
SOUGHT JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
REPRESENTED SOMEBODY
REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL. AND A
REQUIREMENT FOR PERIODIC
REASSESSMENT A RENEWAL. ON IT
FOCUSES ON THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
TRULY.
DYING ON OUR STREETS WERE
COUNTIES ARE CURRENTLY
POWERLESS.
TO HELP THEM. NON.
SO WHAT ONE IT'S IMPORTANT TO
KNOW IS PEOPLE SOMETIMES ASK WHY
IS IN THE CURRENT PROCESS
WORKING. NOT WORKING BECAUSE I
UNDER THE LPS WHEN YOU HAVE SAY
A SEVENTY TWO HOUR HOLD. ON THE
PERSON WHEN THEY GO BEFORE A
JUDGE WHETHER AFTER SEVENTY TWO
HOURS OF FOURTEEN DAYS. TIME
ESPECIALLY IF IT IS A SUBSTANCE
ABUSE DISORDER ODD THEY WILL
HAVE SOBERED UP AND THEY MAY
APPEAR PERFECTLY. NORMAL AND BE
COHERENT AND THEN THE JUDGE
LOOKS AT THE PERSON AND SAYS
THIS PERSON. THINGS COMPLETELY.
TIED NORMAL AND ABLE TO CARE
FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF THERE'S
NO BASIS TO HOLD THE PERSON TODD
NEVER MIND THAT THE PERSONS THAT
FIFTY. FIFTY FIVE TEN TIMES IN
THE PAST YEAR NEVER MIND THAT
IT'S HIGHLY LIKELY THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO END UP INSIDE YOU ARE
WITHIN A WEEK OR TWO. OF BEING
RELEASED AND SOME PEOPLE CYCLE
THROUGH THE SYSTEM.
UNTIL. THEY'RE NO LONGER WITH
US.
AND IT.
AND THIS BILL AIMS TO CLOSE.
OR FILL IN DOT A CRACK IN THE
SYSTEM ABOUT WHERE WE ARE
FAILING SOME OF OUR MOST
MARGINALIZED.
AND.
I'M NOT WELL BY INDIVIDUALS CON
SO.
.
I'M.
SO COLLEAGUES UNDER THIS BILL I
THINK AND.
COMBINATION WITH OTHER TOOLS I
THINK ILL HELP OUR COUNTIES AYE
ADDRESS BECAUSE SOME OF THE MOST
CHALLENGED. INDIVIDUALS ON OUR
STREETS PEOPLE WHO ARE SICK. AND
DYING BY AND I WANTED TO SAY
THAT SAN FRANCISCO AND LOS
ANGELES IN PARTICULAR BUT IN
OTHER COUNTIES IN ORANGE COUNTY
IN SAN DIEGO. ALL OVER THE STATE
OF THIS IS AN ISSUE.
AND OUR LOCAL TIME COMMUNITIES
ARE COMING TO US.
SAN FRANCISCO AND LA AND OTHER
COMMUNITIES AND SAYING.
WE KNOW ALL THE TOOLS THAT ARE
AVAILABLE BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE
WHO ARE EXPERTS
PUBLIC HEALTH PROFESSIONALS
ARRIVED THEY KNOW THE TOOLS THAT
ARE AVAILABLE AND THEY ARE
TELLING US. THAT THE TOOLS
AVAILABLE NOW OR NOT ENOUGH AND
THEY NEED AN ADDITIONAL TOOL AND
THEY'RE ASKING FOR US TO GIVE
THEM ABOUT TOOL SO THAT THEY CAN
SAVE PEOPLE'S LIVES. AND HELP
PEOPLE GET HEALTHY AGAIN.
SO A TURNED OVER TO SENATOR
STERN AND THEN WE HAVE TWO
WITNESSES AND YOU COULD CHARGE
YOU FROM THE MAYORS FROM THE
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF SAN
FRANCISCO.
AND KELLY YOUR MOTO FROM SAM IN
SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH.
SENATOR. THANK YOU VERY BRIEFLY
IF YOU IT IS VERY VERY BRIEFLY A
JUST A COUPLE.
JARRING STATISTICS TO PUT THIS
IN CONTEXT.
EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY ONE
HOMELESS PEOPLE DIED IN LA
COUNTY LAST YEAR.
AS A MASSIVE INCREASE YEAR ON
YEAR AND EVEN IN OUR LITTLE
COUNTY VENTURA COUNTY. WITH THAT
TWELVE YEAR HIGH IN HOMELESS
POPULATION BUT EVEN HIGHER THAN
THAT HAS BEEN THE MORTALITY
RATES OF THE MORTALITY RATES ARE
NOW ACTUALLY DOUBLE THE
POPULATION INCREASES. AND. THIS
ISSUE IS WHAT I THINK IS A SLOW
MOVING DISASTER ONLY OF NATURAL
DISASTERS AND WILD FIRES THAT
BURN UP A WHOLE COMMUNITIES ARE
STILL. WE ALL SNAP INACTION THIS
IS HAPPENING RIGHT UNDER OUR
FEET RIGHT BEFORE I SO THANK YOU
FOR INDULGENCE AND YOUR INSIGHT
AND.
YEAH I I I LOOK FORTY MORE
ENGAGEMENT ACROSS THE STATE TO
REALLY SOCIALIZE THIS AMONG THE
COUNTIES IN THE FOLKS ARE REALLY
ON THE FRONT LINES HERE TO MAKE
SURE THEY'RE COME FROM WITH THIS
FRAMEWORK THAT IT'S ACTUALLY
SOMETHING WE CAN DO BUT I WANT
TO SAY THE CAVIAR.
IMPORTANT-AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT
DOES TAKE
DOLLARS TO. AND WE CAN'T USE
THIS BILL AS A WAY TO DIVERT
DOLLARS AWAY FROM EXISTING
SERVICES BUT WE'VE GOT TO MAKE A
COMMITMENT HERE I KNOW THIS IS
NOT A BUDGET COMMITTEE BUT IT
DOES MATTER SIR. THANK FOR
INDULGENCE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO WITNESSES
TWO MINUTES EACH PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR JACKSON
COMMITTEE MEMBERS MY NAME IS
INIGO TREACHERY AND I SERVICE
THE SENIOR ADVISER FOR HEALTH
POLICY TO THE MAYOR OF SAN
FRANCISCO. FIND BEHALF OF MAYOR
FARRELL AND THE CITY AND COUNTY
AND I'D LIKE TO THINK THE
AUTHORS FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS
IMPORTANT ISSUE. AND THANK YOU
ALL FOR.
YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT MARK ON
THIS ISSUE AS WELL.
AS YOU'VE HEARD FROM SENATOR
WIENER AS BETWEEN FORTY FIVE
CREATES AN OPTIONAL NEW
CONSERVATORSHIP TO SERVE OUR
MOST AT RISK RESIDENTS. THOSE
EXPERIENCE THE COMBINED AND VERY
HEAVY WEIGHT OF CHRONIC
HOMELESSNESS SERIOUS MENTAL
ILLNESS AND SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER.
WE ANTICIPATE THAT THIS BILL
WILL ADD TO THE SPECTRUM OF
SERVICES AND TOOLS THAT WE HAVE
AVAILABLE.
AND AND WILL BE EFFECTIVE IN
HELPING US TO DELIVER SERVICES
TREATMENT AND SUPPORT TO
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE UNABLE TO
CARE FOR THEMSELVES.
WE AGREED THAT CAUTION MUST BE
EXERCISED AND CONSIDERING
LIMITATIONS TO CIVIL LIBERTIES
HOWEVER SMALL SUBSET OF OUR
POPULATION. FACES SUCH PROVIDE
CHALLENGES THAT THEY'RE UNABLE
TO ENGAGE IN VOLUNTARY SERVICES.
THEIR HEALTH IS DETERIORATING
FURTHER WITH EACH CRISIS AND
INCREASED TIME ON THE STREETS.
FOR THESE INDIVIDUALS AND DURING
REPEATED CRISES SP TEN FORTY
FIVE OFFERS US A WAY TO HELP
BREAK THE CYCLE OF STREETS
HOSPITALS AND JAILS.
CURRENT LAW THE LPS ACT AND
LAWYERS LAW TO FALL SHORT ON
SERVING THIS POPULATION BECAUSE
NEITHER ADDRESSES THE CONFLUENCE
OF HOMELESSNESS SUBSTANCE USE
AND SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS.
THE LPS ACT DOES ALLOW IT AND
THE DAY ADDED. ALCOHOL USE AS A
CRITERION FOR GREAT DISABILITY
COVERAGE DOES NOT CONSIDER OTHER
SUBSTANCE USE.
BUT THE REALITY IS THAT SIXTY
SEVEN PERCENT OF THE HOMELESS
INDIVIDUALS VISITING OUR
PSYCHIATRIC EMERGENCY SERVICES.
HAVE A SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER
DIAGNOSIS METHAMPHETAMINE
DIAGNOSES ARE THE MOST COMMON AT
THIRTY TWO PERCENT COMPARED TO
THIRTEEN PERCENT FOR ALCOHOL.
THE LPS ACT ALSO REQUIRES A
SERIES OF PROGRESSIVE
INVOLUNTARY HOLDS IN THE
HOSPITAL. AND WHILE THESE ARE
APPROPRIATE FOR IDENTIFYING
PERSISTENT GRAVE DISABILITY IN
INDIVIDUALS WITH SERIOUS MENTAL
ILLNESS THESE HOLDS ACTS AS A
REVOLVING DOOR FOR PEOPLE. WHOSE
CRISES ARE WORSENED OR.
PRIMARILY DUE TO SUBSTANCE USE.
WE SUPPORT THE NARROW
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA THAT S. B.
TEN FORTY FIVE PROPOSES AND
APPRECIATE THAT INCLUDE
SAFEGUARDS AND PROTECTIONS TO
PROMOTE DUE PROCESS AND AN
INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO CONTEST
CONSERVATORSHIP.
AND THIS BILL WE SEE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HELP OUR HIGHEST
AT RISK INDIVIDUALS TO STABILIZE
WITH A WARM AND SAFE PLACE TO
SLEEP EACH NIGHT AND ACCESS TO
SERVICES THAT THEY MAY BE
UNAWARE THEY NEED.
THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE IT. NEXT WITNESS
PLEASE
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS MY NAME IS
KILLING OUR MOTO AND I AM THE
DIRECTOR SAN FRANCISCO HEALTH
NETWORK TRANSITIONS DIVISION
WITH THE SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH. MY
TEAM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
PROVIDING APPROPRIATE PLACEMENT
FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE PLACED
ON CONSERVATIVE SHIPS OR DO NOT
HAVE A PLACE TO GO AFTER LEAVING
HOSPITAL.
AS YOU HEARD SB TEN FORTY FIVE
IS INTENDED TO HELP OUR HARDEST
TO REACH INDIVIDUALS I'D LIKE TO
OFFER AN EXAMPLE OF WHO THAT
MIGHT BE.
MISS SMITH IS A THIRTY EIGHT
YEAR OLD WOMAN WHO HAS A BI
POLAR DEPRESSION DIAGNOSIS AN
ACTIVE USER OF OPIOIDS AND
METHAMPHETAMINES.
SHE INJECTS DRUGS IN PUBLIC
THREATENS PASSERSBY HAS VISIBLY
OPEN WOUNDS AND SORES IN IS
HOSTILE TO OUR REGION.
TEAMS.
IN THE PAST MONTH HE'S BEEN
PICKED UP BY THE POLICE TWICE
HAD TWO VISITS TO PSYCHIATRIC
EMERGENCY AND ONE VISIT TO THE
MEDICAL EMERGENCY ROOM. SHE WAS
LAST KNOWN TO BE ENGAGED IN
TREATMENT FOR YEARS AGO WHEN SHE
WAS TREATED FOR HEPATITIS C..
DURING A RECENT FIFTY ONE FIFTY
HOLD SHE WAS AGITATED
THREATENING AND HAD PARANOID
DELUSIONS OF HARM.
SHE WAS ADMITTED TO THE IN
PATIENT UNIT AND AFTER TWO DAYS
WAS LESS AGITATED HAD STARTED ON
MEDICATION.
OUR CASE WAS PRESENTED AT A
FIFTY TWO PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING
BUT TO CONTINUE TO HOLD WAS
DENIED BECAUSE SHE DID NOT
PRESENT. AS AN IMMEDIATE DANGER
TO HERSELF OR OTHERS AND WAS NO
LONGER DEEMED GRAVELY DISABLED
FOR SHOES ABLE TO STATE WHERE
SHE GOES FOR FOOD AND SHELTER
AND THAT SHE WANTED TO BE OUT OF
THE HOSPITAL. SHOES GIVEN
MEDICATION OFFERED REFERRALS AND
RECONNECTION WITH COMMUNITY
PROVIDERS FOUR DAYS LATER HE WAS
BACK AT PSYCHIATRIC EMERGENCY
FOR HAVING ADDRESSED IN PUBLIC
WALKING INTO TRAFFIC AN ACTING
AGGRESSIVELY TOWARD CARS AND
PEDESTRIANS. UNFORTUNATELY I
COULD SHARE MORE EXAMPLES LIKE
THIS INCLUDING ONES OF AGING
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SERIOUS
MENTAL ILLNESS. SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER AND OTHER CONDITIONS
LIKE DIABETES OR HIV. SERVICES
GO HAS A LONG HISTORY OF
PROVIDING COMPASSIONATE CARE AND
FOLLOWING A RECOVERY ORIENTED
MODEL. RECENTLY WE STARTED AN
INTER AGENCY WORKING GROUP TO
CREATE CARE PLANS FOR FORTY TO
FIFTY OF OUR HIGHEST UTILIZE
HERS OF MULTIPLE SYSTEMS. SOME
AMONG THIS GROUP HAVE BEEN KNOWN
TO THE CITY FOR YEARS AND WE
HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO HELP THEM
STABILIZE NOT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T
TRIED THE BECAUSE THEIR ABILITY
FOR SELF CARE HAS DETERIORATED
OVER TIME. AND VOLUNTARY
SERVICES ARE HARDER AND HARDER
FOR THEM TO ACCEPT.
FOR THEM SB TEN FORTY FIVE CAN
BE A PATH TO STABILITY HOUSING
AND A VASTLY IMPROVED QUALITY OF
LIFE THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF
THEIR OF THEIR WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT.
RIGHT.
BOARD IT WAR BETWEEN.
SEC.
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS SYLVIA
SOLELY SHAUN BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF LOS ANGELES ON ANY GIVEN
NIGHT THE CITY HAS APPROXIMATELY
THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND HOMELESS
INDIVIDUALS. AND WE ARE IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS MEASURE.
WE BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL HELP
THOSE AT ABOUT A THIRD OF THOSE
FOLKS.
OF THE THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND NEED
FIVE NECESSITATE SERIOUS MENTAL
HEALTH TREATMENT WE THINK SB TEN
FORTY FIVE IS ONE TOOL TO HAVE.
HOPE THOSE FOLKS GET THE
TREATMENT THAT THEY NEED.
SO WE AGAIN ARE IN STRONG
SUPPORTER AND ALSO LIKED JST
FINE SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA THANK YOU
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
FOR THEIR ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
GREAT IF WE COULD.
.
WE HAVE TO SO IF WE COULD ASK
YOU TO. GIVE THEM.
OKAY.
HER HER.
OPRAH DID WISH.
IT WAS AN INTERESTING DANCE STEP
YES. ALRIGHT PLEASE GO AHEAD TWO
MINUTES EACH PLEASE OUT OF CHAIR
KIRK CHILD DISABILITY RIGHTS
CALIFORNIA WERE APPEARING ON
BEHALF OF A COALITION OF
DISABILITY RIGHTS CIVIL RIGHTS
AND HOMELESS ORGANIZATIONS THAT
ARE. ALL UNITED IN. OPPOSITION
TO THIS.
PROPOSAL I I DO NEED TO MAKE
SURE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORK
THAT YOUR COMMITTEE COUNSEL
DIDN'T THE ANALYSIS ON THIS WAS
AN EXCEPTIONAL ANALYSIS THOROUGH
AND. AND.
THOUGHTFUL AND WE ALWAYS
APPRECIATE THAT I I WILL SAY IT
ON ON BEHALF OF THE.
COALITION THAT WE ARE ALWAYS
CONCERNED WHEN WE GIVE AWAY
THAT WAY TO THAT.
TO THAT CRISIS HISTORY IS
RIDDLED WITH.
WITH THOSE WRONGS COMMITTED
UNDER THE BANNER OF A OF A
CRISIS EIGHT YEAH I WAS JUST
REMINDED OF THAT TODAY AS.
WE'RE WORKING ON A BILL THAT'S
AND PUBLIC SAFETY A YOU KNOW
CHAIR VERY WELL ABOUT.
THIS HISTORY OF INVOLUNTARY
STERILIZATION IN OUR STATE
HOSPITALS AND.
DEVELOPMENTAL CENTERS.
AND THIS BILL WOULD PROVIDE FOR
REPARATIONS. SEEMED LIKE A GOOD
IDEA AT THE TIME AND I WOULD
SUGGEST TO THE COMMITTEE THAT
THIS IS ONE THAT WOULD.
SEEM LIKE A GOOD IDEA AT THE
THAT TIME I THINK.
WOULD I WANT TO BE A A REMIND
THE COMMITTEE DISABILITY RIGHTS
CALIFORNIA SO LARGEST DISABILITY
RIGHTS ORGANIZATION IN THE
COUNTRY WE FROM REPRESENTED
CLIENTS FOR YEARS THESE ARE OUR
CLIENTS WE CARE DEEPLY ABOUT
THEM. SO I THINK WHAT WOULD BE
HELPFUL THAT IS IF YOU COULD
FOCUS ON. WHY THE LPS?
LAW ISN'T AVAILABLE IN WHY
LARA'S LAW WOULD NOT.
Y. EAT IT BECAUSE THIS KIND OF
DEALS WITH BOTH OF THEM SO.
THE THE QUESTION OR THE ISSUE IS
WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN CREATE A
THIRD. ESSENTIALLY A THIRD
SYSTEM TO WOOD TO DEAL WITH
THESE FOLKS WHO WERE.
SORT OF FALL WITHIN THE CRACKS
WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS IS
A. VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
THAT'S REALLY THE TRIMMING
QUESTIONS IT IS EXPANDING
INVOLUNTARY CARE. AND THAT'S THE
ESSENCE OF WHAT WE'RE SUBMITTING
IS THAT THE PROBLEM WITH THIS
PROPOSAL AS WE HAVE.
I THINK MADE MULTIPLE REQUESTS
TO TRY AND FIND THE ANSWER TO
WHY DOES LPS.
AND WHY DOES LAURA'S LA DOT
COVER THESE INDIVIDUALS.
I THINK THERE WAS THE ASSERTION
THAT IF INDIVIDUALS CAN AND
THEIR BROAD AND.
THEN RELEASE CLEAN UP BROUGHT
AND THEN HE RELEASED THAT'S
CERTAINLY AN ISSUE THAT THE
COURT CAN CONSIDER SHOULD
CONSIDER IN MAKING THAT
DETERMINATION UNDER EXISTING
LAW.
FOR THE ON GOING.
I'M GOING HOLD A AND ALL SAY
THAT AS WE'VE SORT OF PUSHED ON
THIS WE'VE NEVER FOUND SORT OF
WHERE THE TO. THE BOMB POINT IS.
ó AND SO WOULD IS STANDING IN
THE WAY TO REACH THESE
INDIVIDUALS THAT THE V..
PROPONENTS OF THIS BILL THINK
THAT THEY NEED TO HAVE WE DON'T
BELIEVE IT'S IN THE COURTS AT
ALL IT'S NOT AS GOOD AS YOU
KNOW.
MADAM CHAIR I SPENT A LOT OF
TIME.
WORKING IN THE IN THE COURTS
AND AND AND INDEED HAD THE
MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS.
WELL IS IT THE COURSE THIS WAS
NEVER AN ISSUE THAT WE HEARD
WAS%
A BARRIER.
TO.
INTO EXISTING.
EXISTING LAW.
THE THE OTHER.
FOR HIM TO ACT YEAH IT UP
BECAUSE I AND INTERJECTED BUT I
REALLY WANT TO GET TO THE
CRAFTSMAN OF THIS PROBLEM THAT
WE'VE ALL BEEN DEALING WITH AND
IT'S MAKING MY HAIR GRAY. IS.
IS THE THE QUESTION WE HAVE TO
EXISTING.
SETS OF CONSERVATORSHIP OPTIONS.
LPS IS ONE OF THEM LPS REQUIRES
GRAVELY DISABLED FOR SPRING
COURT HAS ALSO RULED THAT THAT
YOU MUST HAVE A FINDING OF GRADE
DISABILITY TO INVOLUNTARILY.
DETAIN SOMEONE WE ALSO HAVE
LARA'S LAW WHICH ALLOWS FOR OUT
PATIENT CARE.
SO THAT WHAT WE DO WITH THIS
BILL DOES IS TRY TO FIND A THIRD
WAY BETWEEN THE GRAVELY THE
GRAVE DISABILITY FINDING
WITCHES.
ONE THAT REQUIRES VERY SCRIPT.
SCRUTINY BY THE GUN ACCORDING
THE COURTS AND LARA'S LAW WHICH
CALLS FOR ESSENTIALLY A
VOLUNTARY PROGRAM OUTPATIENT
TYPE OF PROGRAM.
WHY? WHY DOES?
WHAT WHY DO YOU THINK THOSE TWO
ACTUALLY WOULD PROVIDE WHAT
THESE PEOPLE NEED WHO ARE?
SEVERELY.
.
CHALLENGED IN PHYSICALLY
THREATENED WE HAVE A NUMBER HERE
OF NINE HUNDRED PEOPLE THERE'S A
BAND WE KNOW THIS TO IT'S NOT
YOU JUST WALK THE STREETS OF LA
OR SAN FRANCISCO ANY BIG CITY
YOU SEE A LOT OF HOMELESS
PEOPLE.
WHO HAVE WHO ARE CLEARLY
SUFFERING THROUGH LOTS OF
CHALLENGES
WHY IS THIS?
ABOUT WHY DO YOU THINK I SHOULD
SAY AND PERHAPS WILL HAVE OUR
NEXT WITNESS PERHAPS ADDRESS
THIS. WHY DO YOU FEEL NAM? THAT.
THAT.
LPS FILE OR LOWERS LAW WOULD
ADDRESS THE PROBLEM AND THAT WE
DON'T NEED A THIRD SORT OF A
THIRD SYSTEM.
BUT I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU I DON'T
KNOW YOUR NAME I APOLOGIZE.
I'M JENNIFER FRIEDMAN BAKA.
FROM COALITION ON HOMELESSNESS
SOME I HAVE A STATEMENT THAT
MIGHT ADDRESS SOME OF THAT FREE
ARM. SO. AND I'VE BEEN WORKING
IN THIS FIELD FOR ABOUT THIRTY
YEARS.
I JUST WANT TO START BY
ACKNOWLEDGING A SENATOR WINNER
STATEMENT THAT WERE NEGLECTING
ALL PEOPLE WITH SEVERE MENTAL
ILLNESSES AN ADDICTIVE DISORDERS
I WISH THIS BILL WOULD SERVE
THEM. IT WILL NOT.
SOME OF SPENT THE LAST MONTH
TALKING TO MENTAL HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS.
AT THE. GROUND LEVEL.
AND HOMELESS PROVIDERS SOME WE
SPEND THEIR DAYS OF RATHER
SWEATER TEARS WORKING TO ADDRESS
THIS ARE. TWENTY EIGHT MEMBER
HOMELESS EMERGENCY SERVICE
PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION OPPOSE
THIS BILL WITHOUT QUESTION. AND
THEY KNOW IT WON'T WORK AND WE
HAVE ABOUT A THOUSAND PEOPLE ON
A WAIT LIST FOR SHELTERS IN SAN
FRANCISCO WE HAVE ABOUT EIGHT
HUNDRED SUPPORTIVE HOUSING UNITS
AT OPEN UP EVERY YEAR.
WE HAVE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS
AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE
TRYING TO GET THOSE SPOTS WE
HAVE OUR MENTAL HEALTH DIED
SYSTEM IS GREATLY IMPAIRED. OF
FOR RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT ONLY
THE VERY SLIGHT SLIVER OF PEOPLE
GET ACCESS TO THOSE AND
COMMUNITY CRISES MOST OF THE
TIME PEOPLE ARE TURNED AWAY EVEN
OUR OUTPATIENT TREATMENT.
PAUSE LONG LONG LONG WAIT LISTS
BY FAR THE EASIEST WAY TO ACCESS
TREATMENT IS TO GET FIFTY ONE
FIFTY EIGHT FOR MOST THAT'S
THEIR FIRST INTRODUCTION TO CARE
IT'S TRAUMATIZING. AND IT'S ALSO
THE MOST EXPENSIVE THE LEAST
EFFECTIVE. AUTUMN FOR PEOPLE WHO
BECOME HOMELESS THEIR ENTRANCE
INTO HOMELESSNESS THEY HAVE NO
HIGHER RATES OF MENTAL HEALTH OR
ADDICTION DISORDERS ONCE THEY
ARE HOMELESS AND FORCED TO
REMAIN ON THE STREETS FOR
LONGER.
THAN THOSE ISSUES THEIR MENTAL
HEALTH DISINTEGRATES THERE'D AND
ADDICTION DISORDERS GET STRONGER
AND NOT ONLY CHANGES ONCE
THEY'RE IN HOUSING. FROM OUR
ANALYSIS OF THE LANGUAGE
AND WE BELIEVE THAT TWENTY ONE
HUNDRED PEOPLE IN SAN FRANCISCO
OF WHAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR
THIS.
AND THEY ARE HOMELESS
CHECK RIGHT ARM FOR A FRANKLY
BIZARRE WAY TO DETERMINE WHETHER
OR NOT YOU CAN TAKE AWAY
SOMEONE'S. A LIBERTIES ON
HOMELESSNESS IS A STATE IT IS
NOT A CLINICAL TRAITS.
THAT DETERMINES A LACK OF
ABILITY TO SELF CARE MAKE
DECISIONS FOR YOURSELF ABOUT
WENT WHAT SERVICES YOU NEED.
THEY WOULD HAVE FREQUENT
HOSPITALIZATIONS CHECK HOMELESS
PEOPLE GET SICK A LOT THEY LIVE
OUTDOORS THEY SUFFER FROM SEVERE
SLEEP DEPRIVATION AGAIN NOT A
REASON TO TAKE AWAY THEIR.
LIBERTIES WE BELIEVE THIS CASTS
A VERY DANGEROUSLY LARGE NETS A
MOST OF THE FACTORS WERE TALKING
ABOUT WOULD BE ADDRESSED BY
HOUSING. ON WE HAVE COORDINATED
ENTRY IN SAN FRANCISCO LIKE WE
DO AROUND THE STATE WHICH MEANS
THE MUNICIPALITY DECIDES WHO
GETS SUPPORTIVE HOUSING THEY ARE
READY PRIORITIZE. PEOPLEWITH A
KEY.
AND HIGH ACUITY.
THE SAME FOLKS WERE TALKING
ABOUT THIS BILL GOES THE
COMPLETE WRONG DIRECTION I'M
CURRENTLY OUR SYSTEMS BROKE.
WE HAVE MENTALLY ILL AND
ADDICTED HOMELESS PEOPLE CAN IT
CAN GET CANNOT GET THE HELP THEY
NEED EXCEPT THIS HIGH AND
HOSPITAL LEVEL. I'M AND THEN
EVENTUALLY THE RELEASED BACK TO
THE STREETS.
ALCOHOLICS WE ALREADY HAVE THAT
RATE WITH A FIFTY TO FIFTY AGAIN
IT DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE YOU THEY
DON'T MAKE THEIR WAY THROUGH IT.
IT IT HASN'T DONE ANYTHING WE
ALREADY TRIED THIS AND IT
FAILED.
.
THIS BILL. THERE'S NO COMMITTEE
RESIDENTIAL CARE THERE'S NO
HOUSING THIS BILL WOULD
LITERALLY EXPAND NOT FIX EXPAND
THE BROKEN PART OF OUR SYSTEM IT
WOULD NOT ADD MORE HOUSING AND
IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A SOLUTION.
IT'S NOT GOING TO GET US
ANYWHERE.
THEY FEEL SORRY.
OTHER WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
PLEASE.
JERRY KEVIN BIG AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION OF CALIFORNIA.
JUST TAKING US BACK QUICKLY TO
BREEZE FIRST PRINCIPLES WE KNOW
AS LAWYERS THAT THE GOVERNMENT
CANNOT DETAIN AND CONFINE
SOMEONE INVOLUNTARILY AGAINST
THEIR WILL WITHOUT A COMPELLING
GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST. AND LEAST
RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVES AS THE
TESTIMONY HERE MAKES CLEAR WE
DON'T HAVE THOSE CONDITIONS IN
THAT IN THIS BILL AND WOULD
THEREFORE THINK IT'S AND.
THANK YOU THANK YOU VERY MUCH
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
MADAM CHAIRMAN MATA TWEENER NO
POSITION CATEGORY TRANSMIT ON
BEHALF OF THE STATE ASSOCIATION
OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATORS PUBLIC
CONSERVATIVES IN PUBLIC
GUARDIANS.
ARE.
MAIN CONCERN IS THE FINANCING
PART OF THIS AND WHILE THIS AND
I APPRECIATE SENATOR STERN'S
COMMENTS WELL THIS PROBABLY CARE
MAY BE A LEGITIMATE TOOL TO BE
USING. AGAIN WE.
HAVE A CAUTIONARY NOTE THAT
WE'RE NOT SURE IT WILL REACH THE
CONCLUSION EVERYONE HOPES.
IF THERE ARE NOT MORE PEOPLE
COUNTY EMPLOYEES HIGHER TO
ACTUALLY SERVE AS THE PUBLIC
CONSERVATOR RIGHT NOW MOST CASES
AND MOST COUNTIES THOSE
DEPARTMENTS ARE OVERWHELMED WITH
THEIR CURRENT CASELOAD AND IF
YOU'RE GOING TO ADD MORE.
CASELOAD WITHOUT DEDICATED
FUNDING TO HIRE MORE PUBLIC
CONSERVATORS YOU'RE NOT GONNA.
HAVE THE THE OUTCOME YOU'RE
YOU'RE LOOKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL
ONCE THEY ARE CONSERVE IT'S BEEN
ALLUDED TO. CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW
WE DON'T HAVE THE MENTAL HEALTH
FACILITIES TO PLACE THESE
INDIVIDUALS JUST AN EXAMPLE IN
YOUR OWN COUNTY.
CHAIRWOMAN JACKSON THERE ARE
CONSERVING THESE WHO ARE BEING
TREATED IN SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BEDS AND SO
AGAIN IF YOU PUT MORE PEOPLE
INTO THE CONSERVATIVE THE.
PROGRAM AND THERE AREN'T THE
MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES TO
TREAT THEM AGAIN YOU YOU END UP.
SADLY SOME OF THESE PEOPLE AND
UP AN EXTENDED STAY HOTEL
BECAUSE THERE LITERALLY IS NO
PLACE TO PUT ON. AND SO AGAIN
WITHOUT THE FUNDING FOR THESE
OTHER KEY TOOLS THIS MAY NOT BE
THE SOLUTION EVERYONE'S HOPING.
THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION.
RIGHT.
.
DIDN'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I HAVE
SEVERAL BUT OUR WINNER LET'S
OPEN IT UP TO THE DICE FOR
SENATOR MONEY.
TO.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR I AM.
SORRY I MISSED THE FIRST PART OF
THE PRESENTATION FROM THE
PROPONENTS.
I DO HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS BUT IT AND WANT TO JUST
CLARIFY I'M SORRY MISSED.
THE AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED THE
AMENDMENTS.
YES WITH THE PALM OF HIS HAND
WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE
COMMITTEE.
AND I.
TIES THE BILL INVOLVES LEAVING
OPEN THE DOOR POTENTIALLY TO ADD
ADDITIONAL COUNTIES WE KNOW THAT
ORANGE COUNTY HAS EXPRESSED
INTEREST OF SAN DIEGO.
HAVE HAD SUPPORTING THE BILL
THOUGHT SO BUT FORNOW I WILL
WORK WITH THE COMMITTEE ON ANY
OF THOSE ABOUT ME IF WE FIND
THAT SWEET SPOT BECAUSE THAT
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS WE
HAVE LPS.
WE HAVE LARA SLAW THIS IS A
THIRD SYSTEM.
IF THERE'S A CHANCE WE CAN TAKE
WHAT WE HAVE IN SORT OF LINK THE
TWO.
THEN I THINK WE HAVE A.
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR AT WHICH
POINT WE IT WOULD THEN OPEN UP
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDS WHAT I'M
PREPARED TO DO AND IF WE CAN'T?
GET THERE WE CAN PULL IT BACK
AND WE WERE UNDER TIME
CONSTRAINTS HOW COULD YOU DO GO
TO PUBLIC SAFETY IF I'M NOT
MISTAKEN.
BUT THAT THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT
ISSUE AS WAS MENTIONED ARE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS HERE.
AND SO WE HIT WITH THIS IS A
VERY DELICATE BALANCE WE'RE
TRYING TO ACHIEVE THANK YOU I
APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION.
.
THE SEVENTEENTH SENATE DISTRICT.
SAN LUIS OBISPO MONTEREY SANTA
CRUZ SANTA CLARA.
ALSO HAS THE SAME CHALLENGE.
THE SAME PROBLEM THE SAME
CRISES.
.
I FIND THE AMENDMENTS IN A PILOT
NAM. REASSURING BUT I WOULD LIKE
TO JUST HEAR FROM THE OPPONENTS.
IS THERE ANY FORMULA OF
EXPANDED.
MANDATORY.
SERVICE.
FOR PEOPLE SUFFERING FROM MENTAL
ILLNESS THAT YOU WOULD SUPPORT.
BEYOND WHAT IS IN THE BILL RIGHT
NOW RIGHT OR WERE FORMULATED IN
ANOTHER WAY TO GET TO THE ISSUE.
I MEAN WE WENT THROUGH THIS WITH
LARA IS LAW IN AGAIN THE BALANCE
BETWEEN.
PRIVACY RIGHTS AND INDIVIDUAL
LIBERTY RIGHTS.
IN PUBLIC SAFETY AND INDIVIDUAL
SAFETY. AND I UNDERSTAND FIFTY
ONE FIFTEEN I UNDERSTAND LOWERS
LA. BUT.
WOULD YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THERE'S A
GROWING COMMUNITY OF PEOPLE IN
DISTRESS FOR WHOM WE DON'T HAVE.
ADEQUATE RESOURCES ADEQUATE
SERVICES ADEQUATE HOUSING
OPTIONS ADEQUATE.
MENTAL HEALTH CARE OPTIONS.
ABSOLUTELY WE WOULD AGREE WITH.
THAT SENATOR.
AND THAT BECOMES THE FAILURE OF
FELLING GO OF ENSURING THAT
THERE ARE THOSE ADEQUATE
RESOURCES AND SO WHEN YOU ASK TO
THE AND STEPPING INTO INDIVIDUAL
RIGHTS.
TO COVER UP FOR THOSE FAILURES
THAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT WE SEE.
TO THE FIRST PART OF YOUR
QUESTION THAT WE DO THINK IT IS
CRITICAL AND IN INTERESTINGLY
ENOUGH IT WAS AMENDED OUT OF THE
BILL. IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN
INSURANCE.
HE DIDN'T IN ANY BILL WHETHER
THAT BE AND LPS OR ARE LAWYERS
WHO ARE LOOKING BEYOND THIS IS
THAT THERE BE A SUPPLY OF
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING. WITH IN
THAT.
THAT WAS EVIDENT SPACE THAT WE
KNOW WORKS.
AND WE KNOW THERE IS NOT ENOUGH
OF THAT WITH A FULL RANGE OF
WRAPAROUND SERVICES.
AND WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF
YOU HAVE THAT. MUCH LIKE LAURA'S
LAW YOU GET MORE VOLUNTARY.
PARTICIPATION IF THERE ARE
INDEED THOSE.
.
AT.
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE.
AND THAT'S IS A THINK THE
AUTHORS WOULD BE THE FIRST TO
ACKNOWLEDGE IN ITS PREY IMPLICIT
IN.
FOR EXPLICIT IN THE AUTHOR'S
PRESENTATION THAT.
PROBLEMS ARE SO MULTI FACTORIAL
THE SOLUTIONS ARE MULTI
FACTORIAL.
IN THIS EFFORT TO TRY TO.
LET ST STE BEST SENSE PROVIDED
TOOL TO PROTECT
THE LIVES AND HEALTH OF THOSE WE
CARE ABOUT. THEM.
WITHOUT HAVING ALL THE
WRAPAROUND SUPPORT.
I WONDER IF THIS.
CREATES.
A PATHWAY TO.
TO NO WHERE IN LESS IT ALSO
SERVES TO STIMULATE.
.
THE MOBILIZATION OF THOSE
RESOURCES WHETHER TO THE
COMMUNITY LEVEL THE STATE LEVEL
OR WHATEVER. NAM BUT I KNOWN WE.
WE'VE GOT A JAMMED AGENDA THIS
AFTERNOON NAM I AM GONNA BE
SUPPORTIVE TODAY BUT WITH.
WITH OF VIGILANCE AS IT MOVES
FORWARD I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR
THE COALITION OF OPPONENTS AND
EMBRACE THE PRINCIPLES THAT
YOU'VE ADVANCED TODAY. GREAT
RESPECT FOR THE AUTHORS SIN AND
WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO WITH
THE.
HERCULEAN.
CHALLENGE I WILL RESERVE THE
RIGHT. ON.
SHOULD THIS COME TO US ON THE
FLORIDA SCENE.
HOW HAVE IT'S BEEN ADAPTED BUT?
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
I APPRECIATE THAT CENTER I THINK
WE'RE ALL STILL THIS IS A WORK
IN PROGRESS FOR SURE WE HAVE A
SENATOR ANDERSON FOLLOWED BY
SENATOR WIECKOWSKI.
AND.
HIM CHAIR AND.
HARD TO THE AUTHORS AYE KNOWS
THAT SEEM. DE ACE IN SUPPORT.
YEAR AND YET THE BILL DOESN'T
INCLUDE SAN DIEGO IS PART OF
THE.
PILOT IN PERHAPS WE COULD
INCLUDE THEM. IN I THINK ORANGE
COUNTY'S IN THE SAME BOAT.
BUT.
YOU KNOW WE ARE.
WE'RE HAVE SUCH A.
DIFFICULTY YOU KNOW WE HAD A
HEPATITIS OUTBREAK.
WE HAVE PEOPLE DYING THE STREETS
LITERALLY.
NPR AND.
.
AND I'M CONCERNED THAT WE THAT
WE ARE TREATING.
THESE PEOPLE ON THE SCREEN.
WITH THE COMPASSION THAT THEY
DESERVE. AND THAT WERE HELPING
THEM AND.
I THINK FOR SOME OF THEM.
.
MENTAL HEALTH IS SO IS A
CHALLENGE. AND I THINK WHAT WE
CAN DO TO TO GET RESOURCES TO
ALMOST QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
AND HELP THEM GET BACK IN TO.
.
I'M MORE MAINSTREAM AMERICA SO
THAT THEY THEY CAN.
HOLD DOWN A JOB HOLD DOWN. A
PLACE TO LIVE IN IN CARE FOR
THEMSELVES.
SO I I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT
IF THERE'S ANY WAY THAT WE COULD
ADD.
SAN DIEGO I KNOW THAT MY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY WOULD BE
DEEPLY APPRECIATIVE.
UNDERSTOOD THAT'S WHERE WE'RE
HOPING TO WORKING CREATE
SOMETHING THAT WE FEEL
COMFORTABLE COULD EXPAND.
.
SO FAR I I BELIEVE THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL HERE FROM COULD YOU COME
UP I KNOW YOU HAVE NO POSITION
ON THIS BUT MAYBE.
SENATOR WIECKOWSKI. IF YOU
DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR
THEM I DO HAVE A COUPLE SO. NICE
GUY BECAUSE.
VOTE FOR FOR TO FOURTEEN GO HIT.
GO AHEAD. OCEAN PURCHASE WONDER
AS I'M SITTING HERE LISTEN THINK
THE STIGMA THAT PEOPLE ARE
CONCERNED ON WHY DO WE NEED TO
IDENTIFY THE HOMELESSNESS IF
YOU'VE GOT.
FOR FIFTY ONE FIFTIES OR FIVE
ARRESTS WITHIN THE TWELVE LAST
TWELVE MONTHS OR FIVE TRIPS THE
EMERGENCY A ROOM THAT THE
CONSERVATORSHIP
COULD BE SET UP WHY DO WE HAVE
THE. ADDITIONAL HOMELESSNESS.
ELEMENT IN THE.
CONSERVATORSHIP GOT
QUALIFICATIONS.
SO.
BOTH SAN FRANCISCO AND LOS
ANGELES ARM HAD INDICATED THAT
THERE IS A VERY.
STINKS.
SMALL A GROUP OF PEOPLE. ARE
CHRONICALLY HOMELESS SEVERELY
DRUG ADDICTED AND DYING AND EVEN
THOUGH ALL OF US I MEAN WE'RE
ALL ON THE SAME PAGE WE NEED
MORE RESOURCES IN THE MENTAL
HEALTH SYSTEM. SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING AND SO FORTH.
BUT PEOPLE WHO. WERE OUT THERE
ARE CITIES ARE STRUGGLING TO
EVEN GET INTO THE SERVICES THAT
DO EXIST. FIVE AND DIME THEIR
GOAL IN THIS BILL WAS TO MAKE IT
AS NARROW AS POSSIBLE. THROUGH
FOR EXAMPLE SOME PEOPLE SAID
DOES CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF
CREED DISABILITY IN THE LPS
ABOUT THE ASSEMBLY BUILD
OUTSIDE.
GOT PROTECT CHILI A MUCH BROADER
EXPANSION POTENTIALLY BECAUSE IT
CAN APPLY LPS COMPLY IN A NUMBER
OF CONTACT.
OUR GOAL HERE WAS TO MAKE THIS
BILL AS NARROW AS POSSIBLE TO
ADDRESS A VERY SPECIFIC ISSUE
THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO US. BY
A NUMBER OF OUR LOCAL
COMMUNITIES AND THAT'S WHY WE
LIMITED IT IN THIS RESPECT ARE
THE BILL COULD BE BROUGHT IN
NOW.
BUT THEN THE CIVIL LIBERTIES
ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED
WOULD BE. EVEN BIGGER SO I CAN
GUARANTEE YOU. THAT IF THAT THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE SAYING ó THIS
IS. FOCUSING JUST ON HOMELESS
PEOPLE.
IT OF WE WERE BROUGHT ANNOUNCE
OKAY COMPLIED ANYONE SEEN PEOPLE
WOULD BE BOXING ó MY GOD THIS
IS AN EVEN BIGGER INFRINGEMENT
ON CIVIL LIBERTIES SO WE'RE
TRYING TO KEEP A NARROW IN
FOCUS.
NOT ABOUT BETSY ROSS ENOUGH
CENTER OKAY I JUST WHOSE HERE
THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS THAT
THEY'RE UNABLE TO CARE FOR%
THEMSELVES AND IF THEY'RE UNABLE
TO CARE FOR THEMSELVES AND THEY
HAVE ALL THESE TRIPS TO. THE
COURT FIFTY ONE FIFTY THAT IT
APPEARS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF
THE CONSERVATORSHIP SHOULD BE
ENOUGH AYE I JUST SEE IT
DIFFERENTLY BUT. IT'S IT'S A
REAL LIVES TO REASONABLE POINT
OF VIEW OF THE PROBLEM I BELIEVE
A FIFTY ONE FIFTY IT'S TIME
LIMITED.
A FIFTY ONE FIFTIES HOLD IS
THREE DAYS UP TO FOURTEEN AND
THEN MAYBE IF YOU HAVE A GOOD
SHOWING A GREAT DISABILITY YOU
GET YOUR YEAR. THIRTY OR THIRTY
DAYS FRIDAY KEIKO'S
INCREMENTALLY BUT LAWRENCE LAW.
.
DOESN'T DO THAT BECAUSE THAT
DOESN'T HAVE THAT STANDARD
BECAUSE WE'RE NOT AND KEEP WE'RE
NOT PUTTING PEOPLE INTO
INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT THAT ITS
TREATMENT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY
AND THEY'RE NOT.
DEPRIVED OF THEIR LIBERTY AND
WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO
SOMETHING IN BETWEEN.
SO I GUESS MY MY POINT WAS IS
THAT I'VE GOT PERSON A WHO SPENT
FIFTY ONE FIFTY FOUR TIMES A
PERSON BE HE'S BEEN FIFTY ONE
FIFTY FOUR TIMES BUT THERE
HOMELESS. THEY'RE ELIGIBLE THIS
OTHER PERSON IS NOT ELIGIBLE
FROM CONSERVATORSHIP IT APPEARS
THAT THE UNDERLYING.
THE SUGGESTION IS THAT THEY'RE
UNABLE TO CARE FOR THEMSELVES
BUT.
I LISTEN TO WHAT THE CHIP
JUDICIAL COUNCIL HAS TO SAY.
FULLER ACTUALLY THAT'S A GOOD.
.
IT COULD THE SUPPORTERS THIS
RESPOND TO THAT TO ME BECAUSE
THEY'RE THAT THE ELEMENT OF
HOMELESSNESS.
.
IT IS IMPLIED THE IMPLICIT THAT
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE TRULY CAN'T
CARE FOR THEMSELVES BECAUSE ARE
HOMELESS AND THAT IS I BELIEVE
SOMEONE REFERRED TO IT AS SUCH
STATUS.
NOT A CONDITION.
YEAH WE'RE REALLY DEEPLY
CONCERNED WITH HAVING
HOMELESSNESS AS A CRITERIA. IN
AND OF ITSELF FOR REMOVING CIVIL
LIBERTIES.
BECAUSE IT'S
YOU KNOW IT'S CAUSED BY THE LACK
OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN ITS
CENTER AND AS I AS I DROUGHT AND
SO IF YOU'RE. YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT A SYSTEM WHERE YOU GONNA
GO THROUGH.
THE COURT PROCESS YOU'RE GONNA
BE GIVING JURY INSTRUCTIONS ON
AND SETTING STANDARDS ARM AND
HOUSING STATUS OF DOES NOT
RELATED ALL WHATSOEVER TO ONE'S
ABILITY TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT
WHETHER. THEY'RE GOING TO
VOLUNTARILY ACCEPT TREATMENT OR
INVOLUNTARY RIGHT BECAUSE
ARGUMENT BEHIND THIS IS THAT.
PEOPLE WHICH. YOU KNOW WHICH WE
DISAGREE WITH WE SEE PEOPLE
EVERY DAY TRYING TO GET FIFTY
ONE FIFTY THEY LITERALLY GO TO
TECH EMERGENCY AND SAY CAN YOU
PLEASE FIFTY ONE FIFTY MAKE. OF
THEIR LOCKED OUT OF CARE SO ON
BUT NONE THE LESS THE IDEA I
THINK BEHIND THIS IS THAT YOU
HAVE FOLKS WHO WERE IN AND.
IN GREAT NEED LET'S SAY SOMEONE
WITH AN ADDICTIVE DISORDER AND
THEY ARE.
DIET REFUSING TREATMENT.
AS IF THAT TREATMENT WHEREVER.
YOU KNOW PRESENTED TO THEM WHICH
IT'S NOT BUT LET'S PRETEND IT
WAS.
IT AND THEN WE'RE SAYING OKAY
BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE HOUSING
BECAUSE YOU'RE TOO POOR TO
AFFORD A PLACE TO LIVE. THAT
ITSELF IS A CRITERIA FOR
DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE
GONNA TAKE AWAY YOUR CIVIL
LIBERTIES IT'S HIGHLY
PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE IT HAS NO
CLINICAL OR. JUSTIFICATION
BEHIND IT.
SO I'M PLEASE GO AND RESPOND TO
THAT VERY VERY QUICKLY IF WE
SAW.
THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT YOUR TOO
POOR FOR A PLACE TO LIVE AND SO
WE'RE GONNA CONSERVE YOU THIS IS
ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE SEVERELY.
SICK AND YOU ARE DYING ON OUR
STREETS AND AND AND TO AND I
KNOW THAT THE RHETORIC ALL WILL
ALWAYS COME BACK TO THIS IS JUST
A WAY OF ROUNDING UP POOR EOPLE
WHO CAN'T AFFORD HOUSING. THAT
IS NOT WHAT THE BILL IS ABOUT.
IT THAT DOES NOT MEET THE
CRITERIA OF THE BILL AND YOU
KNOW I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH
AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT HOW THE
BILL IS STRUCTURED THE DETAILS
OF THE BILL TO MAKE SURE
COMPETITION NOT. A FAIR
DISCUSSION BUT IT DIED THE LAST
COMMENT I JUST I STRONGLY
DISAGREE ABOUT WITHOUT.
SO PART OF THIS GUY AND I'D LIKE
TO ASK THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL THAT
WE HAVE TO KEEP INDIA GOING E
COULD SPEND A MONTH ON THIS SITE
A SUSPECT. BUT.
WITH THE LPS SYSTEM WHICH IS
THE THE ONE THAT RISES TO
CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL BECAUSE WE
ARE DENYING PEOPLE OF THEIR.
THEIR LIBERTY. BUT. MY
UNDERSTANDING IS A CASE LAW
PROVIDES THE QUARTZ WITH THE
ABILITY OF A TO CONSIDER
PERSON'S PAST HISTORY. A WITH
THE LPS SYSTEM IF THAT
INFORMATION.
OR IS THAT INFORMATION PROVIDED
TO THE COURT WHEN THERE'S AN LPS
PROCEEDING.
BOTTOM. ETCETERA JERRY DIDN'T
COME FOR THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL.
THEM YOU'RE CORRECT WE
DON'T-HAVE A POSITION ON THE
BILL
THESE ARE POLICY ISSUES OUTSIDE
OUR PURVIEW WE WILL BE LOOKING
AT THE FISCAL. THE IMPLICATION
SHOULD THE BILL MOVE FORWARD BUT
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT
HISTORICAL COURSE INFORMATION.
ABOUT THE PERSON'S CONDITION IS
RECOGNIZE BOTH THROUGH STATUTE
IN CASE LAW ON THAT SOMETHING
THAT'S FROM ROUTINELY PRESENTED.
IN LPS CASES.
SO IT IS THERE IT IS TO THINK
THERE'S A FURTHER NEED FOR
EDUCATION OF OUR BENCH OFFICERS.
.
OF REGARDING THIS SYSTEM I MEAN
TO INC YOU'VE HEARD THE
TESTIMONY YOU'VE HEARD THE.
.
THE CONCERNS UNDER THE LPS
SYSTEM WHICH IS THE WAY WE CAN
BRING THESE PEOPLE IN AND. OF
REQUIRED THAT THEY THEY GET
TREATMENT
BOB YEAH BUT ONLY AFTER THOSE
PROTECTIONS ARE MET.
HE DO YOU BELIEVE THE LPS SYSTEM
AT LEAST AS THE COURTS HAVE
IMPLEMENTED IT. UP WOULD BE AN
OPTION THAT IS OTHERWISE
AVAILABLE.
IF THE COURTS TO EITHER
EDUCATED ON IT OR DO THEY HAVE
THAT INFORMATION TODAY.
CONTEND WERE TRUSTS YOU REALLY
SERIOUS PROBLEM.
WHAT DOES THIS FIT WITHIN OUT
THE LPS SYSTEM FROM THE AND?
I'VE I'VE NOT HEARD FROM THE
PROPONENTS ARE SAN FRANCISCO
COUNTY ABOUT. COMPLAINTS ABOUT
JUDICIAL OFFICERS IN SAN
FRANCISCO.
IN PARTICULAR ORDERED MORE
GENERALLY ACROSS THE STATE.
NOT UNDERSTANDING OR MISS
SUPPLYING WHAT THE CURRENT LEGAL
STANDARDS ARE IT MAY BE A
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT.
INTERPRETING HOW THE STANDARDS
ARE BEING APPLIED ON A CASE BY%
CASE BASIS IT'S OFTEN THE CASE.
AND LPS ESPECIALLY AFTER A SHORT
TERM DETENTION IF TREATMENT IS
BEING PROVIDED. THOUGHT THAT THE
CONDITION THAT LED TO THE
DETENTION HAS AMELIORATED
SOMEWHAT IT IS OFTEN THE CASE
THAT SOMEONE PRESENT AT THE TIME
OF THE HEARING. WHETHER IT'S AT
A FIFTY TO FIFTY HEARING OR A
CONSERVATORSHIP HEARING THERE IN
BETTER SHAPE OR THEY HAVE A PLAN
FOR THIRD PARTY ASSISTANCE.
AND THE LAW REQUIRES THAT YOU
LOOK AT WHAT THEIR PRESENT
CONDITION IS AT THE TIME.
THAT'S ONE QUESTION. THAT I
WOULD HAVE IS. THE WHOLE
DISCUSSION AND DEBATE WHEN
LAURA'S LAW WAS BEING.
CONSIDERED BY THIS LEGISLATURE
OVER THE SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE IT
WAS PASSED
WITH I BELIEVE ABOUT THE
POPULATION THAT SIMILARLY BEING
DESCRIBED. IN SUPPORT OF THE
NEED FOR THIS PARTICULAR BILL
SO.
IT AS FAR AS I'VE HEARD OUR
JUDICIAL OFFICERS ARE WELL
FAMILIAR WITH THE CRITERIA. OF
BOTH SCHEMES AND THEY HAVE A
PROBATE INSTITUTE WHERE. THE
THAT THE OFFICERS RECEIVE
TRAINING ON WHAT THE CURRENT
STANDARDS ARE IN THE NEW
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CASE LAW OR.
THE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES BUT IT
LEAST UNTIL TODAY I HAVE NOT
HEARD ANY SPECIFIC COMPLAINTS
ABOUT. PROBLEMS WITH INDIVIDUAL
CALL SO SO MY LAST QUESTION TWO
IS CAN A COURT ORDER UNDER LARA
SLAW.
CONTAIN THE TREATMENT OPTIONS
THAT ARE BEING SOUGHT BY. THE
LEGISLATION BROUGHT TODAY AS
DISCUSSED BY THE WITNESSES IN
YOUR OPINION. AND BEGIN MY
UNDERSTANDING GENERALLY IS THAT
LAWYERS LAW WAS DESIGNED TO TRY
TO ADDRESS THE POPULATION THAT
WAS BEING DESCRIBED CYCLES IN
AND OUT THAT MAY GET IT TOGETHER
ENOUGH AT THE TIME OF THE
HEARING TO NOT MEET IN PATIENT
CRITERIA BUT. BASED ON THEIR
HISTORY OF HISTORICAL COURSE
KIND OF INFORMATION THAT'S
PRESENTED MAY LOOK MAY LIKELY BE
BACK IN THE SYSTEM AND THAT
THEIR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
TREATMENT SO LAURA'S LOT WITH
ALL DESIGNED FOR. THAT
POPULATION THAT THE HAMMER OVER
THAT IN THE FAILURE TO FOLLOW
THROUGH WITH THAT TREATMENT. AND
IT'S A BROAD BASE OF TREATMENTS
THAT MUST BE OFFERED IN ORDER
FOR THE COUNTY TO EVEN.
OPT INTO THE PROGRAM. M. AGAIN
UNLESS I'M MISSING SOMETHING IT
WAS DESIGNED FOR ADDRESSING A
VERY SIMILAR POPULATION AND WITH
THAT SENATOR WIENER WHICH YOU
RESPOND TO THAT IN YOUR CLOTHES
OUT. AT THIS POINT.
WOULD YOU GO HIM CLOSE PLACE
OKAY GREAT.
FIVE THANK YOU AGAIN AND I I
HAD TO REALIZE THAT THE JUICE OF
COUNSEL I'D LIKE MEDICINE WAS
THAT DON'T HAVE A POSITION ON AT
THAT TIME THE LITTLE BIT LIKE A
POSITION BUT. I WANT TO JUST
RESPOND NO IT.
WHATEVER IT IS WOULD YOU RESPOND
TO THE CONCERNS BECAUSE THAT'S
SORT OF THE GRAVEL MEN OF THE
PROBLEM RIGHT HERE DO THAT
MANAGER FIRST OF ALL. LOWERS LAW
IS NOT NEARLY AS COMPREHENSIVE
AS A CONSERVATORSHIP.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO
DO SUCH AS A BALLOT MEDICATION.
TREATMENT IT'S ALSO ABOUT THE
GLOBAL WELL BEING AT A
CONSERVATIVE HAS THOSE BROAD
TOOLS TO CONSIDER SOMEONE'S
OVERALL WELL BEING AND HELP THEM
GET HEALTHY SOLARZ LAW NOTHING
IS NO OVERLAP. BUT I DON'T THINK
IT'S ACCURATE TO SAY THE LORD'S
LAW SO IT'S WILL ACHIEVE WHAT
WE'RE DOING HERE TONIGHT IT IS A
PIECE OF THE PUZZLE. CON IN
TERMS.
AND I'M TEARS YOU KNOW BECAUSE
WHEN WE MET WITH FOLKS FROM SAN
FRANCISCO ON THERE ARE JUDGES
WHO ARE ABSOLUTELY SAME PERSON
LOOKS FINE NOW. NO BASIS TO HOLD
THEM AND NOT JUST ACCOUNTS
LEADING ADMITTED THAT OCCURRED
TO THEIR KNOWLEDGE THAT I CAN BE
THE CASE.
AND AND WE'RE TRYING TO CLARIFY
THE LAW THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY.
CONSIDER OTHER WHAT HAS GONE
BEFORE. DONE SO NON COLLEAGUES I
KNOW THIS IS A HARD ISSUE AND
WHEN THIS BILL WAS FIRST BROUGHT
TO ME. I I YOU KNOW YOU GET A
BILL LIKE THISTO TAKE A DEEP
BREATH. YOU KNOW THAT ANYTIME
YOU'RE EXPANDING A
CONSERVATORSHIP OR CREATING A
NEW CONSUMERS HAVE THERE'S GOING
TO BE IT'S GOING TO HARD BILL IS
GOING TO BE A LOT OF BACK AND
FORTH. A LOT OF.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION FIVE BIG
AND THAT'S HOW IT SHOULD BE
DELIVER TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE
CIVIL LIBERTIES I DON'T TAKE
THIS LIGHTLY IT'S A SERIOUS
THING TO CONSERVE SOMEONE. UP
BUT THE REALITY IS THAT THERE
ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE. DYING ON OUR
STREETS AND THE CURRENT TOOLS
THAT WE HAVE ARE NOT REACHING
THEM.
AND THIS ADDITIONAL NARROW TOOL.
WILL HELP AND WE ARE BEING TOLD
THAT. BY OUR LOCAL COMMUNITIES
ARE SAYING. TOOLS WE HAVE AREN'T
ENOUGH WE NEED ANOTHER TOOL. ON
OF COURSE IN COMBINATION WITH
RESOURCES I SUPPORT THAT A
THOUSAND PERCENT AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR AUTO.
THANK YOU CENTURY THANK YOU TO
ALL OF YOU THIS AGAIN IT'S A
VERY CALM I THINK AN ANGUISHING.
A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND.
WITH THAT WE HAVE A MOTION.
WITH DEMANDS TO BE TAKEN IN
PUBLIC SAFETY AND I ALSO WANT TO
INDICATE IS SENATOR MONNING I'M.
HOPING TO HELP
GET TO RESOLUTION BUT I DO ALSO
RESERVE THE RIGHT AT SOME POINT
IF THIS DOES NOT MEET WHAT.
I BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO AYE ONE
SPORT BUT FOR TODAY PLEASE CALL
OUR.
IT DIDN'T MOTION.
WE NEED A MOTION BIGGEST THANK
YOU DID PASSED A PUBLIC SAFETY
DO WE HAVE SUCH A MOTION.
I'M.
SENATOR MORE LIKE MOVES PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL.
JACKSON AYE JACKSON AYE AND MORE
LOCK MORE LUCK AYE ANDERSON.
HERTZBERG.
MONNING. MONNING AYE STERN
WIECKOWSKI AYE WIECKOWSKI AYE
RIGHT THAT HIS FOUR VOTES WILL
KEEP THE ROLE OF THANK YOU
SENATOR WIENER.
AND THANK YOU SENATOR A MITCHELL
FOR BEING SO PATIENT.
FASCINATING DISCUSSION I'M SURE
BOTH AFFIDAVIT I JUST WISH THE
ROOM OR NOT SUBZERO.
I.
FEEL THEIR WAY OF TIPS ABOUT
MOST OF THE ROOMS IN THIS
BUILDING EFFORT THIS ONE FELT
WARMER THAN WHERE WE WERE THIS
MORNING SO GO FIGURE I THINK I'M
NOW JUST HIM GOT IT. ALRIGHT.
SO WE ARE ON FILE ITEM TWELVE
THIS IS S. B. THIRTEEN FORTY
THREE AND I UNDERSTAND.
IT'S. I UNDERSTOOD HIS SENATOR
THAT YOU ARE TAKING ALL OF THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS DETAILED IN
THE ANALYSIS.
MADAM CHAIR I AM THINKING THEIR
TECHNICAL IN NATURE WE ACCEPT.
VERY GOOD.
WITH THAT PLEASE PROCEED THANK
YOU VERY MUCH I'M PRESENTING
CALLING FOR THE BILL THIRTEEN
FORTY THREE WHICH TAKES A MODEST
STEP TOWARD A MORE EQUITABLE
WORKPLACE BY ESTABLISHING A BASE
STANDARD REQUIREMENT. THAT ALL
EMPLOYEES WHO WORK FOR COMPANIES
WITH FIVE OR MORE EMPLOYEES
RECEIVE INFORMATION TRAINING ON
SEXUAL HARASSMENT PREVENTION.
SINCE TWO THOUSAND SEVEN
EMPLOYERS WITH FIFTY OR MORE
EMPLOYEES THESE HAVE BEEN
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE TWO HOURS OF
SEXUAL HARASSMENT PREVENTION
TRAINING TO ALL SUPERVISORS
EVERY TWO YEARS.
CURRENT STANDARD. FOR INFORMING
NON SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES ABOUT
SEXUAL HARASSMENT PREVENTION
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IT
THROUGH A POSTER THAT ALL
EMPLOYERS ARE REQUIRED TO HANG.
POLLSTER OUT LIES IN OUTLINES
EMPLOYEE RIGHTS
THE FILED COMPLAINT AND INCLUDES
A TOLL FREE PHONE NUMBER FOR
PEOPLE TO CALL TO REGISTER
COMPLAINTS OR ASK FOR MORE
INFORMATION. BUT THERE IS NO
REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE TRAINING
TO NON SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES.
MILLIONS OF CALIFORNIA WORKERS
HAD NOT BEEN INFORMED OF THEIR
RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS NOR
TRAINED IN HOW TO DETECT WORK
INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIORS. ARE HOW
TO REPORT THOSE BEHAVIORS.
TO THE EEOC EVEN MINIMAL
TRAINING CAN INCREASE THE
ABILITY OF WORKERS TO UNDERSTAND
THE TYPE OF CONDUCT THAT'S
CONSIDERED HARASSMENT. AND HINTS
UNACCEPTABLE IN THE WORKPLACE.
BUT TWO THOUSAND ONE STUDY FOUND
THAT EVEN THE THIRTY MINUTE
TRAINING SESSION RESULTED IN
PARTICIPANTS BE MORE
KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT SEXUAL
HARASSMENT AND THOSE WHO WOULD
THEN THOSE WHO HAD NOT
PARTICIPATED IN ANY TRAINING AT
ALL.
ADDITIONALLY NINETY TWO PERCENT
OF THE WORKFORCE IS EMPLOYED BY
A FIRM WITH FIVE OR MORE
EMPLOYEES
WHILE THIRTY PERCENT OF
EMPLOYERS HAVE FIVE OR MORE
EMPLOYEES.
THAT TRANSLATES.
DID.
IT TO THE FACT THAT NEARLY ALL
OF CALIFORNIA'S WORKFORCE BUT
ONLY A RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT
OF EMPLOYERS WOULD BE IMPACTED
BY THIS BILL.
WE'RE SENSITIVE TO THE DELICATE
BALANCE BETWEEN BUSINESS COSTS
TO EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES
SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE WIFE.
WERE WORKING COLLABORATIVELY
WITH VESTED INTERESTS TO ENSURE
THAT THE VIDEO TRAINING
COMPONENT THIS BILL IS BOTH
ACCESSIBLE.
AND COST EFFICIENT WHILE ALSO
DELIVERING THE IMPORTANT
INFORMATION THAT EMPLOYEE NEEDS
PRIMARILY.
INFORMATION THAT SECTOR
SPECIFIC.
GIVEN THESE WITH ACTORS AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE
MILLIONS OF WORKERS WHO NEVER
RECEIVED ANY EXPLANATION ABOUT
THEIR RIGHTS THE TYPES OF
BEHAVIORS THEY SHOULD REPORT OR
THE PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO
REALLY THEIR GRIEVANCES. WE NEED
TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE DEVELOP A
SYSTEM TO ADDRESS ABUSE OF POWER
IN THE WORKPLACE.
WITH ME TODAY I'M GLAD TO HAVE
JEFF DEFENDER FROM EQUAL RIGHTS
ADVOCATES.
AND EVAN GOLDBERG REPRESENTING
STATE COMPTROLLER BETTY WHO IS
SPONSORING THIS LEGISLATION.
MUCH TWO MINUTES EACH IF YOU
WOULD.
GOOD AFTERNOON JESSICA CENTER OR
LESS COUNSEL FOR WORKPLACE
JUSTICE AND PUBLIC POLICY GET
EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES ARGUE A
BRIEF I KNOW WE'VE HAD A LONG
DAY.
WE.
AT THE COURTS ADVOCATES
REGULARLY REPRESENT.
WORKERS WHO EXPERIENCE SEXUAL
HARASSMENT THE WORKPLACE
PRIMARILY WOMEN.
ANY UC TASK FORCE STUDY FROM
TWENTY FIFTEEN FOUND THAT AS
MANY AS EIGHTY FIVE PERCENT OF
WOMEN SAY THEY EXPERIENCE SEXUAL
HARASSMENT HOWEVER CSUS SEVENTY
FIVE PERCENT NEVER REPORT THAT.
ONE OF THE MAJORITY OF THE ONE
OF THE MAJOR BARRIERS THAT
PEOPLE FACE IN REPORTING SEXUAL
HARASSMENT IS THAT OFTEN PEOPLE
DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT WHAT
THEY'VE EXPERIENCED CONSTITUTES
UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR.
AND DON'T KNOW WHERE TO TURN IF
THE IF SOMETHING HAS OCCURRED.
THIS OCCURS WITH EMPLOYEES OF
ALL TYPES ALL TYPES OF JOBS AND
ALL WE'D JE REGION WAGE WAGE
RATES.
HOWEVER LOW INCOME WORKERS IN
PARTICULAR ARE OUR SPECIALTY.
KIND OF VULNERABLE.
AND AND NOT AWARE OF THEIR
RIGHTS WHICH INDICATES A NEED
FOR HAVING THESE KINDS OF
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY
TO ALL EMPLOYEES AND NOT JUST
FROM SUPERVISORS WE REGULARLY
REPRESENT ON. LE LOW WAGE
WORKERS IN INDUSTRIES SUCH AS
THE JANITORIAL INDUSTRY
FARMWORKER INDUSTRY RESTAURANT
INDUSTRY WHERE THERE HIGH
INCIDENCE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
AND OFTEN WOMEN THAT WE SPEAK
WITH ARE AWARE THAT WOULD HAPPEN
TO THEM IS ILLEGAL. A SERVICE A
BILL WHICH WOULD REQUIRE ALL
COVERED EMPLOYERS WHO ARE
CURRENTLY COVERED BY THE FIA TO
PROVIDE TRAINING AND REQUIRE
THAT THAT TRAINING BE PROVIDED
TO ALL EMPLOYEES NOT JUST
SUPERVISORY WILL FILL A REALLY
NECESSARY.
VOID.
AND ENSURING THAT WORKERS HAVE
SUFFICIENT INFORMATION ABOUT
THEIR RIGHTS.
ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES SEXUAL
HARASSMENT AND ABOUT HOW TO
REPORT IT AND THAT THEY RECEIVE
THAT INFORMATION AND ANYTHING A
LANGUAGE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND.
LEGAL PROTECTIONS MEAN NOTHING
IF WORKERS ARE AWARE OF THEM AND
IF THESE LAWS ARE ENFORCED AND
SO FOR THESE REASONS WE
RESPECTFULLY RESPECT YOUR AYE AS
ASK YOUR AYE VOTE THANK YOU
THANK YOU NEXT WITNESS AFTERNOON
MADAM CHAIR AND SENATORS EVAN
GOLDBERG WITH STATE COMPTROLLER
BRADY IN SUPPORT OF. THE BILL
HAPPEN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU
MAY HAVE THANK YOU VERY GOOD
THANK YOU. OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT IF YOU'D STEP FORWARD TO
THE MIKE AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND
AFFILIATION PLEASE. MANDY BENSON
WITH WORK EQUITY AND WE SUPPORT
THIS BILL
THANK YOU.
WHEN DID HE SETTLED CHAIR OF THE
CALIFORNIAN PLUMMET LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
DILLON GIVENS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS
ASSOCIATION ALSO REPRESENTING
THE ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA
HEALTHCARE DISTRICTS AND SEE
SACK. AND OUR SUPPORT IF AMENDED
POSITION.
TO ARE ASSOCIATIONS WHO WOULD
SEEK.
AMENDMENTS TO HAVE PROOF FOR
TRAINING COMPLETION.
BUT WE ALSO SEEK TO HAVE THE.
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS REDUCED
DOWN O AN HOUR FOR THOSE%
EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ARE THERE AND
THEY'RE NON SUPERMAJORITY WHICH.
.
THOSE SORTS SUPERVISORS ALREADY
RECEIVED TWO HOURS OF TRAINING.
I JUST THINK THAT SINCE THEY
HAVE LESS LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
THAT THAT TRAINING CAN BE
REDUCED OUT OF OUR. WOULD ALSO
SEEK A AMENDMENTS TO.
.
WORK AROUND OUR SEASONAL AND
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES.
TOOK KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU KNOW WE
MIGHT HAVE LIFEGURDS WHO WERE
WORKING PART TIME FOR THREE
MONTHS THAT MAYBE A AS SEPARATE
TYPE OF TRAINING OR. PRODUCE
TRAINING OR SOME TYPE OF
EXEMPTION MIGHT.
TO BE HELPFUL FOR ME IN THOSE
CASES AND AND PRESERVE OUR
CURRENT TRAINING PRACTICES FOR
THOSE AGENCIES. HAVE FOR THOSE
DISTRICTS OR ARE COUNTIES ARE
ALREADY PROVIDING TRAINING FOR.
NON SUPERVISORY WILL.
EMPLOYEES AND HAVE A PARTICULAR
SCHEDULE ALREADY SET UP. DID
THOSE SCHEDULES MIGHT BE ABLE TO
GET GRANDFATHERED IN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH I'M SURE THE
SENATORS TAKEN GOOD NOTES. ON
THAT OTHER ANY.
LET'S SEE THAT WAS A TWEEN TO
HAVE ANY.
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
FEEL FREE TO COME TO THE DESK
HERE.
GOOD AFTERNOON. NEW MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS LOCAL RICE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION WE ALSO WORKED
WIENERS WORD JUST LEANING A
DIFFERENT WAY.
WHERE OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED ADD
TO THE BILL TO INCLUDE?
SEVERAL ON HAVE THE COMMENTS
THAT WERE MADE BY THE WITNESS ON
A PREVIOUSLY RELATED TO YOU.
ENSURING COMPETENCY AND
COMPLETION OR REGARDING THE
VIDEO CMPONENT TO MAKE SURE
THAT IT'S.
TO.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD HAVE
BEEN ALRIGHT I FELT THAT. A
RANDOM.
BUT IN A MAP HERE BECCHIO.
TO ENSURE COMPETENCY IN
COMPLETION RELATED TO THE VIDEO.
OMPONENT IN THE BILL SO THAT
IT IS A TRUE AID.
FOR OUR SMALL AND MANUFACTURERS
ALSO RELATED TO THAT DIE OUR
TIME FRAME THAT IS FOR NON
SUPERVISOR ORIEL EMPLOYEES FOR
THE REASONS THAT WOULD JUST MAKE
MENTION AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE. A
LITTLE A CLARIFYING ISSUE FOR
SMALL MANUFACTURERS TO ENSURE
THAT THEY CAN INCLUDE THIS
TRAINING INTO IN THEIR DURING
THEIR TRAINING MECHANISMS THAT.
THEY ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE TO
COVER A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT
THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY UNDER
LAW SO WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH
THE AUTHOR WILL CONTINUE TO DO
THAT WE HOPE TO BE ABLE TO REACH
A RESOLUTION. THANK YOU VERY
GOOD THANK YOU ARE THERE ANY
WITNESSES AND FULL OPPOSITION.
HIDE SEEING NONE. LET'S BRING IT
BACK TO THE DYESS ANY QUESTION
SENATOR. MONNING.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR ONE THINK
THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD.
ON.
I THINK YOU'VE ANSWERED MY
QUESTION WE PASSED LEGISLATION
LAST YEAR THAT REQUIRES
SEXUAL HARASSMENT PREVENTION
TRAINING FOR FARMWORKERS SIMPLY
BY FARM LABOR CONTRACTORS WITH
THIS COVER ALL AGRICULTURAL
EMPLOYERS.
HA AS WRITTEN TODAY YES OUGHT IF
THEY HAVE FIVE OR MORE
EMPLOYEES.
END WITH IT COVER.
PEOPLE THAT EMPLOYEE JANITORS.
YES IF THEY EMPLOY FIVE OR MORE
EMPLOYEES IN WITH IT COVER
PEOPLE THE EMPLOYEE FIVE OR MORE
DOMESTIC WORKERS.
YES.
AND WOOD LIVOR MORE ELITE COVER
PEOPLE EMPLOY FIVE OR MORE FAST
FOOD WORKERS.
INDEED.
THANK YOU AND IN LANGUAGE
APPROPRIATE TO.
BEING UNDERSTOOD BY THOSE FIVE
OR MORE EMPLOYEES THAT THAT
AGAIN IS THE GOAL OF A LANGUAGE
APPROPRIATE AND SECTOR SPECIFIC
ON THAT WE'VE HAD LOTS OF
CONVERSATION.
AND WE APPRECIATE THAT WILL BE
CHALLENGING BUT WE LOOK TO WORK.
A CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THOSE
WHO.
ARE ABLE TO OUR DON'T HAVE THE
RESOURCES INTERNALLY TO DEVELOP
THE VIDEOS BUT THE FIELD VIDEOS
THAT WILL BE A MALE MADE
AVAILABLE BY.
DEPARTMENT EMPLOYMENT HOUSING A
MEET ALL THE CRITERIA WE
APPRECIATE THAT.
GONNA BE CHALLENGING BUT THAT
ULTIMATELY IS OUR GOAL.
I JUST WANT TO KNOW WITH REGARD
TO A JANITORIAL WORKERS EXISTING
LAUNDER AB NINETEEN SEVENTY
EIGHT ACTUALLY CRYING PROVIDES
FOR A A A BIT MORE ABOUT THE A
DIFFERENT PROGRAM IS ALREADY IN
PLACE.
FOR INTERACTIVE IN PERSON
TRAINING SO I BELIEVE THAT WOULD
IN THAT CASE APPLY.
EVEN BETTER YET FREE SO THIS TO
BE COMPLIMENTARY EXACTLY BUT
EVEN BETTER WOULDN'T DISPLACE
THAT. GREAT.
WITH THOSE CLARIFICATIONS THANK
YOU MADAM CHAIR AND THAT WOULD
BE HONORED TO MOVE THE BILL AT
THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
THIS LOOKS LIKE THE APPROPRIATE
TIME NO QUESTIONS OVER HERE
ALRIGHT IF YOU'D LIKE TO CLOSE
MADAM.
IT DOES VERY DELIBERATELY AND
AND YES WE HAVE HEARD FROM ALL
THOSE WHO REPRESENT THEMSELVES
TODAY S. TWEENS ARE CONTINUING
TO HAVE CONVERSATION WE WERE
DOUBLE WERE FOR. BEGAN THE
CONVERSATIONS IN LABOR COMMITTEE
OUGHT LAST WEEK AND WILL
CONTINUE TO.
HOPEFULLY BEFORE WE GET.
TO A APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
AYE AYE TO HAVE MET WITH A
NUMBER OF SMALL. THE A A GROUP
THAT REPRESENTS A NUMBER OF
SMALL MANUFACTURERS.
IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IN MY
DISTRICT WHO.
I WAS.
PLEASED TO HEAR AMMAR ALREADY ON
THEIR OWN PROVIDING. A LEVEL OF
SEXUAL HARASSMENT TREATY BECAUSE
AS EMPLOYERS THEY WANT TO AVOID
POTENTIAL LAWSUIT. ON I FOUND IT
STRIKING TODAY AS WE TALK ABOUT
BALANCING KIND OF BUSINESS
INTERESTS WITH. ON THE RIGHTS OF
WORKERS TO HEAR ON CNN TODAY
THAT.
STARBUCKS WILL CLOSE ALL
STARBUCKS ACROSS THE COUNTRY MAY
TWENTY NINTH FOR A FULL DAY TO
ALLOW THEM TO ENGAGE THEIR
EMPLOYEES IN RACIAL BIAS
TRAINING. SO I THINK EMPLOYERS
WHEN THEIR BACKS AGAINST THE
WALL.
THEM AND THEY RECOGNIZE THAT
THEY HAVE.
A.
CORPORATE CULTURE THAT NEEDS
SOME ATTENTION THEY STEP UP AND
DO THE RIGHT THING. OUT WITHOUT
I ASK FOR YOUR ARM AYE VOTE
TODAY ON THIS BILL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OF. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS.
MADAM SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL JACKSON AYE JACKSON AYE
MORE LOCK. BLOCK AYE ANDERSON.
HERTZBERG. MINING. MINING AYE
STERN. WIECKOWSKI. WIECKOWSKI
AYE ALRIGHT THAT BILL HAS FOUR
VOTES WILL HOLD THE REBEL ROLE
OPEN FOR THE ABSENT MEMBERS
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALRIGHT WE HAVE VOTE SENATOR
HILL NEXT TO AND THEN I HAVE TWO
MATTERS.
THE LAST TWO ARE.
IT'S BE.
TWELVE EIGHTY FOUR AND S. B.
THIRTEEN HUNDRED INTO THOSE
WITNESSES WHO ARE GOING TO
APPEAR IN THOSE PILLS I
APPRECIATE YOUR. PATIENCE WE
HAVE ONE BILL BEFORE THAT AND
THAT IS.
SENATOR HILL S. B. ELEVEN
EIGHTY SIX GOOD AFTERNOON
SENATOR AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THE FIRST ONE I
THINK.
VERY MUCH THE CHAIR AND THE
STAFF FOR THE WORK ON THIS BILL
I JUST I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
HARD WORK IN THE COMMITMENT THAT
THEY'VE MADE.
TO THE EFFORT TO.
I'M ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENT
SUGGESTED IN THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS SB ELEVEN EIGHTY SIX IS
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO A BILL
THIS COMMITTEE APPROVED LAST
YEAR WHICH IS S. B. TWENTY ONE.
IT ENSURES THAT STATE LAW KEEPS
UP WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT'S RAPID
ADOPTION OF SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGIES.
THE POLICE WANT A SEARCH YOUR
PHONE YOUR CAR OR YOUR HOUSE
THEY HAVE TO GET A WARRANT.
BUT MANY AGENCIES HAVE
TECHNOLOGY THE CONTRACT WHERE
YOU GO WHO YOU TALK TO AND WHAT
YOU SAY IN PUBLIC PLACES WITHOUT
ANY SAFEGUARDS.
OVER ONE HUNDRED LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES IN THE STATE ARE
THOUGHT TO USE SOME TYPE OF
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY. AND
MANY DEPLOY MULTIPLE KINDS
INCLUDING FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY AND SOFTWARE THAT CAN
MONITOR SOCIAL MEDIA WEBSITE.
S. B. ELEVEN EIGHTY SIX EXPANDS
THE TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS
ESTABLISH FOR LICENSE PLATE
READERS AND CELL PHONE TRACKING
DEVICES ESTABLISHED IN TWENTY
FIFTEEN TO ALL SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGIES USED BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. WHICH
MEANS SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
WILL BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE AND LOCAL LEGISLATIVE
REVIEW.
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES MUST
BE GOVERNED BY A SURVEILLANCE
USE POLICY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES MUST PRODUCE BIANNUAL
SURVEILLANCE REPORT. THE BILL
PROVIDES AN EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE
PROVISION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT TO
ALLOW THEM TO USE UNAPPROVED
SURVEILLANCE DEVICES IN
EMERGENCY SITUATIONS.
LAW ENFORCEMENT GROUPS WILL
ARGUE THAT CREATING TRANSPARENCY
PROVIDES A SURVEILLANCE ROAD MAP
TO CRIMINALS.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE
THE MERE KNOWLEDGE OF A POLICE
TACTIC DOES NOT RENDER IT
USELESS THERE ARE ALREADY LAWS
MANDATING THE DISCLOSURE OF WIRE
TAPS. AND LICENSE PLATE READERS
THAT BOTH TECHNOLOGY STILL HELP
CATCH CRIMINALS.
SOME CONCERNS MAY ALSO BE
EXPRESSED BY THE BREADTH OF
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES
COVERED BY THE BILL.
S. B. ELEVEN EIGHTY SIX
RECOGNIZES THE WIDE AN EVER
CHANGING ARRAY OF SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGIES AT THE DISPOSAL OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT. NOW IN IN THE
FUTURE. THE GOAL IS TO BE
SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO CAPTURE THE
APPROPRIATE SURVEILLANCE DEVICES
BUT NOT OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE SO
THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO RUN A BILL
EACH TIME A NEW TECHNOLOGY IS
INVENTED.
IN CLOSING I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE
THING VERY CLEAR.
THIS BILL DOES NOT PROHIBIT LAW
ENFORCEMENT FROM USING
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY TO FIGHT
CRIME.
I SUPPORT USING TECHNOLOGY TO
INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY BUT WE
NEED TO SAFEGUARD BASIC CIVIL
LIBERTIES FROM POTENTIAL ABUSES.
WE LIVE IN A NATION OF LAWS AND
A NATION FOUNDED ON DEMOCRATIC
ACCOUNTABILITY AND IS THOMAS
PAINE ONCE SAID.
A BODY OF MEN HOLDING THEMSELVES
ACCOUNTABLE TO NOBODY OUGHT NOT
TO BE TRUSTED BY ANYBODY.
THANK YOU MEMBERS APPRECIATE
YOUR. INDULGENCE THANK YOU
SENATOR HILL AND SOMEDAY WE WILL
AMEND THAT STATEMENT TO INCLUDE
WOMEN AS WELL BUT. THE POINT IS
WELL MADE.
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT TWO
MINUTES EACH POLICE TO
WITNESSES.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND GOOD
AFTERNOON COMMITTEE MY NAME IS
YOU NEED TO SEE US AND I'M WITH
THE COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC
RELATIONS WE ARE THAN IT
NATION'S LARGEST MUSLIM CIVIL
RIGHTS GROUP. CARE CALIFORNIA
URGES THE COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT
SB ELEVEN EIGHTY SIX MUSLIM
AMERICANS IMMIGRANTS AND PEOPLE
OF COLOR ARE FREQUENTLY CAUGHT
IN THE NET OF WARRANTLESS
SURVEILLANCE. LEADING TO
PLACEMENT IN DATA BASES THAT MAY
BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT INCLUDING IMMIGRATION
AUTHORITIES.
THE SECRET AND UNACCOUNTABLE USE
OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY IS A
WIDESPREAD PROBLEM IN CALIFORNIA
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE
USING TECHNOLOGIES DESK OUR
SOCIAL MEDIA SCANNED FACES.
AND EYES AND RECORD THE
LOCATIONS OF DRIVERS FREQUENTLY
WITHOUT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OR
WRITTEN RULES FOR TO PREVENT
ABUSE. S. B. ELEVEN EIGHTY SIX
HELP COUNTER THIS TREND.
IT PROVIDES BASIC MECHANISMS OF
TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT THAT
ALLOW CALIFORNIANS TO HAVE A
VOICE.
IN SURVEILLANCE DECISIONS A
IMPACT THEIR DAILY LIVES THE
DISCRIMINATORY COLLECTION AND
USE OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTS
MINORITY AND IMMIGRANT
POPULATIONS HERE IN CALIFORNIA.
JUST A FEW EXAMPLES OVER TWO
DOZEN CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES INCLUDING SHARE SAN
DIEGO'S ACROSS THE STATE HAVE
PURCHASED SOCIAL MEDIA
MONITORING SOFTWARE. MARKETED AS
A TOOL FOR SURVEILLING BLACK
LIVES MATTER AND OTHER PEACEFUL
ACTIVISTS ALL WITHOUT PUBLIC
PROCESS.
COMPTON RESIDENTS WERE OUTRAGED
TO LEARN THAT LA SHOULD THE LA
SHARE OF AND.
DID THE LA SHOW IF I CONDUCTED
SECRETIVE AERIAL SURVEILLANCE
WITH HIGH POWERED CAMERAS
WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE CITY'S
NINETY THOUSAND RESIDENTS
RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT
DISCRIMINATORY SURVEILLANCE.
THE SAN DIEGO AND CHULA VISTA
POLICE DEPARTMENT HAVE USE
MOBILE FACIAL RECOGNITION
DEVICES SINCE AT LEAST TWO
THOUSAND ELEVEN TO SCAN IN
RECORD THE BIOMETRIC SIGNATURES
OF THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS NOT
CONVICTED OF A CRIME.
THE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES
ARE FREQUENTLY PURCHASED WITH
FEDERAL GRANTS YET IT IS THE
LOCAL COMMUNITIES WHO ARE
BURDENED WITH THE REAL HUMAN AND
FINANCIAL COSTS. WHEN THESE
TECHNOLOGIES ARE MISUSED S. B.
ELEVEN EIGHTY SIX IS NEEDED TO
ADDRESS THESE IMPACTS AND ENSURE
DIVERSE CALIFORNIANS ARE PART OF
THE CONVERSATION AND IMPORTANT
SURVEILLANCE DECISIONS. ALL
LOCAL COMMUNITIES NOT JUSTCITY
RESIDENTS DESERVE TO BE IN
CONTROL OF DECISIONS.
ABOUT INVASIVE SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGIES ACQUIRED BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES CARE
CALIFORNIA URGES THE COMMITTEE
TO SUPPORT SB ELEVEN EIGHTY SIX
WITH THE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS
BY THE COMMITTEE THANK YOU THANK
YOU VERY MUCH NEXT WITNESS TWO
MINUTES PLEASE LESS OBVIOUS FAST
AS I CAN. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR
CAN MEMBERS MY NAME IS TRACY
CRUCIBLE ECONOMIC OAKLAND
PRIVACY A CITIZENS COALITION
THAT THE DEFENSE PRIVACY RIGHTS.
AND HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTING
SIMILAR LEGISLATION TO SENATE
BILL.
ELEVEN EIGHTY SIX IN SEVERAL.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CITIES AND
COUNTIES
THE BILL IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT
DOESN'T FOCUS ON ONE OR TWO.
PARTICULAR. ARE TYPES OF
SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT OR
TECHNOLOGY THAT SEEKS TO INSTALL
ON OVERSIGHT FRAMEWORK FOR ALL
OF THEM INCLUDING THOSE.
THAT WE KNOW ABOUT NOW AND THOSE
THAT ARE STILL TO COME. DOES NOT
PROHIBIT OR BANNED THE USE OF
ANY SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY OR
AUTHOR I THINK PREVENT MATTER
IT'S ABOUT LOCAL CONTROL IT'S
ABOUT.
POWERING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
SIT DOWN. LOCAL. RESIDENTS AND
FIGURE OUT THE PROPER BALANCE
BETWEEN SAFETY AND SECURITY. AND
CIVIL RIGHTS AND.
AND LIBERTIES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE.
COMMITMENT COMMANDMENTS WE WERE
LOOKING EARLIER ADD ACR.
EQUITY PROBLEM SCORES OF
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS LIVE IN
UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE
STATE.
WAR I'M IN AREAS WHERE LAW
ENFORCEMENT IS OUTSOURCE IT CUTE
CUTE.
CHU CHU TO THE SHERIFF'S SAN
WERE BASICALLY EXEMPTED.
FROM THIS BILL AND IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT CIVIL RIGHTS NOT
BE DEPENDENT ON.
WHERE WE LIVE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA?
THE FUNCTIONS IN THIS BILL WHICH
INCLUDE ITEM ACQUISITION OF
EQUIPMENT.
POLICY OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING
AND AUDITING ARE NOT.
INVESTIGATIVE.
FUNCTIONS THEY ARE NOT SPECIFIC
CUED THE DETAILS OF ANY
PARTICULAR CASE. SO IT IS
IMPORTANT WILL ONLY BRING UP
THINGS LIKE STATE CODE TWO FIVE
THREE OH THREE IT'S NOT
RELEVANT.
TO TO THE FUNCTIONS THAT ARE
BEING.
ASSIGNED TO.
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
OUR EARLY.
ADOPTER OF LEGISLATION LIKE THIS
LOCALLY SANTA CLARA COUNTY
PRODOXIDAE IN JUNE OF TWENTY
SIXTEEN AND TO DATE THERE HAS
BEEN NO LEGAL CHALLENGE YOU
KNOW.
LITIGATION. AND THE SANTA CLARA
COUNTY SHERIFF IS IN FULL
COMPLIANCE
WITH THE WORD AND SO WE KNOW
THAT IT WORKS NAY CAN'T WE.
CAN'T WE KNOW THAT IT WORKS ON
THE GROUND SIR THANK YOU AMADOR
IMAGE CREE THANK YOU OTHER
WITNESSES SINCE POURED NAME AND
AFFILIATION PLEASE PATTERN
MEMBERS KEVIN BACON FAT AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION WITH
APPRECIATION FOR THE COMMITTEE
AND THE AUTHOR FATIGUE MUCH
NEEDED AMENDMENTS THANK YOU VERY
MUCH OTHER. WITNESSES AND SPORT.
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
TWO PEOPLE PLEASE.
AND WHILE WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU
TO. VACATE THE FRONT DESK THERE
IS THOSE.
FAR THE OPPOSITION WITNESSES.
GOOD AFTERNOON TWO MINUTES EACH
PLACE.
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS WHO SHALL MUCH ARE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION WE MUST
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THIS
MEASURE.
AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE RISK
INVOLVED IN PUBLICIZING GAS
SENSITIVE INFORMATION DORIS ANY
PERCEIVED BENEFIT EMANATING FROM
THE DESIRE TO INFORM THE PUBLIC
ABOUT HOW LONG FORSMAN OPERATES.
AS IT RELATES TO LONG FORCE
UNLAWFUL SURVEILLANCE TECHNIQUES
A WERE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE
REQUIREMENT THAT SHERIFF'S HOLD
A PUBLIC HEARING UNDER
SURVEILLANCE POLICIES AND
CONDUCT REGULAR REPORTING ON THE
USE OF SURVEILLANCE. AGAIN THIS
PARTICULAR FUNCTION IS VERY
SENSITIVE AND THESE BURDEN SOME
HEARING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS WILL ONLY SERVE AS
COSTLY UNFUNDED MANDATES THAT
COULD POTENTIALLY JEOPARDIZE
OFFICER SAFETY. ALSO AS FAR AS
LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS CONCERNED
LOCAL CONTROL I'M CURRENTLY ANY
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SHOULD
DAY A DESIRE DE ARE THEY CAN'T
PUT THEIR SURVEILLANCE POLICY.
ON.
ON THEIR WEBSITE AND SHARE THAT
INFORMATION WITH THE PUBLIC IF
THAT'S WHAT THEY DESIRE TO DO.
AND FORTIES REASONS WOULD
RESPECTFULLY I REQUEST THAT YOU
VOTE NO I JUST LEGISLATION THANK
YOU.
VERY MUCH NEXT WITNESS PLEASE
SHARE MEMBERS JONATHAN FILM OF
THE CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION.
LIKE THE MY COLLEAGUES SAID IN
IS THE WITNESS BEFORE SAID LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS CAN ALREADY
ADDRESSES IF THEY'VE CHAIRED
GUY.
CARE TO DO SO THEY CAN ADOPT
ORDINANCE IS TO PLACE
RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
IT'S BEEN DONE IN PLACES IT CAN
BE DONE NOW WITH THIS BILL DOES
IS SAID. BURDENSOME CUMBERSOME
RESTRICTIONS
REPORTING MANDATES REQUIREMENTS
FOR DOING SO THAT A LOT OF OUR
SMALLER AGENCIES ARE GOING TO BE
ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH. I MEAN
I'VE GOT CHIEF SCENARIOS WITH
TWENTY FIVE SWORN OFFICERS
FIFTEEN SWORN SINGLE TIME THAT
THEY ACQUIRE
NEW TECHNOLOGY. A MAN THE USE OF
THEIR EXISTING TECHNOLOGY
THEY'VE GOT A REPORT OUT ON
EVERYONE THAT USES IT HOW IT'S
BEING USED HOW THEIR ENSURING
THAT ITS MEETING ALL THE PULSE
REQUIREMENTS I MEAN IT'S A LIST
OF THINGS IN THIS BILL. THAT
THEY CANNOT KEEP UP WITH. AND
THEY DAVE TOLD ME FLAT OUT WHICH
IS NOT GONNA BUY THIS TECHNOLOGY
THEN WHEN WE CAN'T. WE CAN MEET
THE THE BURDENS THAT THIS BILL
SETS.
ONCE WE WON'T BUY AND THAT YOU
KNOW WE TALK ABOUT PRACTICALLY
THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS BILL
AND OF THE AUTHOR SAID NOTHING
IN THIS LEGISLATION. PRECLUDES
LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM ACQUIRING
THE TECHNOLOGY BUT EFFECTIVELY
DOES.
.
WANT ANY AND I UNDERSTAND YOU
KNOW. FOLKS DON'T THAT THERE'S
NO REQUIREMENT INVESTED DIVULGE
OUR.
TACTICS WITH THAT IS A CONCERN
THAT WE HAVE AN OPEN PUBLIC
HEARING AND I TOLD THE SENATORS
AUTHOR AT THE START OF LAST YEAR
ONES BUT. BILL CAME UP.
THAT THAT'S A NON STARTER FOR US
IF YOU'RE WILLING TO TAKE A
PIECE OUT YOU KNOW THERE IS OF
COURSE LAW ENFORCEMENT IS ALWAYS
YOU KNOW LOOKING TO ENGAGE THE
PUBLIC IN AND TALK WITH OUR CITY
COUNCILS ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING.
IS IT IS A WAY TO INCLUDE THAT.
PROVISION ON THAT AROUND. A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THIS
OF OUR AGREE ACQUISITION AND USE
THE TECHNOLOGY.
WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING AND IF
WE ARE WILLING TO GET PAST THAT
THERE'S ROOM FOR US TO TALK
ABOUT THE REST OF THE CONCERNS
WE HAVE WITH THE BURDENSOME
REQUIREMENTS IN THE BILL.
LASTLY I WANT TO TALK ABOUT.
THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES
EXEMPTION THAT THEY HAVE IN THE
BILL THAT PRACTICALLY DOESN'T DO
ANYTHING FOR US THE WAY IT'S SET
UP. AYE YOU CAN USE THE
TECHNOLOGY ONLY FOR THE SOLE
PURPOSE OF THAT EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCE WHICHEVER IS
DEFINED BY I DON'T KNOW WHO. I.
IF YOU CAN'T STORE DATA OR USE
THE TECHNOLOGY FOR ANYTHING
UNRELATED TO THAT EXHAUSTION
CIRCUMSTANCE OF YOU'RE GOING
AFTER KIDNAPPED.
YOU KNOW KIDNAPPING SUSPECT AND
YOU FIND EVIDENCE OF A MURDER OR
SOMETHING ELSE YOU KNOW YOU YOU
CAN'T USE THAT DATA YOU CAN'T
SAVE THE DATA THAT DATA HAS TO
BE JETTISONED.
THE TECHNOLOGY TWO CHOIR FOR
THAT EXHAUSTION CIRCUMSTANCE HAS
TO BE RETURNED WITHIN SEVEN DAYS
OR THE END OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE.
WHICH IS NOW DEFINED BY AGAIN I
GUESS THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OR OR
WHOEVER ELSE.
UNLESS APPROVED BY THE
GOVERNING BOARD OR GRANT AN
EXTENSION IN THOSE TIME LINES
DON'T.
MATCH UP FOR A LOT OF THE
PROCESS THAT WE HAVE TO GO
THROUGH.
TO GET THIS APPROVED IN THE
FIRST PLACE.
SO YOU KNOW PRACTICALLY THERE'S
THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERNS THAT
JUST DON'T MAKE THIS WORKABLE.
I THERE'S ROOM FOR US TO DISCUSS
IT BUT YOU KNOW AGAIN THE
PHILOSOPHICAL OPPOSITION TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING. IS KIND OF AN
IMPEDIMENT FOR US HAVING ANY OF
THOSE CONVERSATIONS LIKE THE
OTHER POINTS WE HAVE.
CONSERVE SHADED OR APPRECIATE
YOUR TESTIMONY.
OTHER WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION IF
YOU'D COME TO THE MIKE GIVE YOUR
NAME AND AFFILIATION PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON CENTER RANGE FROM
OF THE RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION OF FOR THE.
REASONS STATED OR POST WELL
THANK YOU.
PAN BRENDAN UP OPPOSE ON BEHALF
OF SHARE FEW MCDONNELL LOS
ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT THANK YOU SIR.
ABOUT AND CHECK MEMBERS NOT
CYBERLINK ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATION FOR LOS ANGELES
DEPUTY SHERIFF THE LOS ANGELES
POLICE PROTECTIVELY THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION ARE ABLE TO BRING IT
BACK TO THE FLOOR.
.
THE THE ONE AREA OF THE THE
SENATOR HILL THAT IS OF CONCERN
TO ME I THINK.
.
TO SAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO USE
IT FOR LAWFUL TECHNIQUES
BASICALLY ALSO GIVES.
LAW ENFORCEMENT THE.
THE FULL POWER TO DETERMINE WHAT
IS AND ISN'T LAWFUL AND I THINK
AS WE WERE DISCUSSING TODAY AND.
PUBLIC SAFETY AND I THINK
SOMETHING THAT WE.
GOING FORWARD I THINK ARE ALL
REALIZING IS THAT PRIVACY IS AT
RISK.
THE PUBLIC'S CONFIDENCE IN OF
SOME OF OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT IS
ALSO RIGHT NOW.
CARE AND IT IN QUESTION AND TO
ADD BOTH TOGETHER I THINK IT IS
A OF. A POTENTIALLY TOXIC STEW.
OF FARM POSSIBLE ABUSE SO I I
HAVE WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE%
SENATOR HILL AND. I'M A PRIVACY
BUFF MYSELF I THINK WE'RE ALL
ENTITLED TO IT BUT I ALSO FEEL
VERY STRONGLY THAT WE NEED TO.
PROVIDE OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH
THE TEETH TECHNIQUES THAT THEY.
NEED TO BE ALE TO ADDRESS A A
CRIME IN A REASONABLE FASHION
AND SO WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT
IS THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
BECAUSE STATEMENT NOW EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCES ARE WELL
ESTABLISHED IN IN LAW.
O. USUALLY WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE
THE TIME TO GET A WARRANT YOU
ARE IN HOT PURSUIT THERE ARE A
WHOLE VARIETY OF.
LEGALLY IDENTIFIED EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCES BUT.
.
MY CONCERN IS THAT.
THE IF IN THE COURSE OF.
THAT THAT WE FIND. THAT WE
HAVEN'T WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
HASN'T EXACTLY IDENTIFIED THE
CRIME THAT THEY'RE GOING AFTER
WHAT THEY DISCOVERED TO
DIFFERENT CRIME.
IT COULD YOU RESPOND TO THAT.
A WOULD YOU BE.
WILLING SENATOR TO TAKE AN
AMENDMENT THAT THAT RECOGNIZES
THAT PERHAPS
I MEAN IF IT'S JUST WERE OUT
THERE WERE JUST LOOKING AROUND
TO SEE. WHO IS?
DRIVING DOWN A PARTICULAR
STREET IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT
WERE A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT I
THINK THAT'S THE KIND OF THING
WE'RE TALKING BY THAT.
ANY OF US WOULD FEEL A SORT OF A
AND ABUSE OR AN EXTENSION OF
POLICE POWERS BEYOND WHAT'S
APPROPRIATE.
BUT IN AN EXIGENCY COME STANCE.
WHERE YOU'RE NOT QUITE SURE
WHAT YOU'RE GOING AFTER BUT YOU
KNOW THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S
UNLAWFUL? A WOULD YOU RESPOND TO
HAVE ACTUALLY MINIATURE AND AND
I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS OF THE
OF THE POLICE CHIEF BECAUSE I
THINK.
WHAT WE'VE WHEN WE MET WITH THE
LOCAL POLICE CHIEF SHOULD OF
WENT IN?
IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS
OF A RAISE THAT ISSUE AS WELL
AND I THINK THERE'S SOME
OPPORTUNITIES THERE TO ALLOW FOR
CIVIC.
SOME ARE SOME EXPANSION OF OF
THAT WITH AN EXOGENOUS SPECIALLY
IF YOU'RE USING THE TECHNOLOGY
AND YOU HAVE TO. GO ONE.
IF THE RETURN OF RIGHT OF WAY
YOU CAN'T CONTINUE TO THE USE OF
IT I MEAN I I GUESS WE'RE TRYING
TO PREVENT ALL OF THE ABUSES THE
ABUSES WHERE SOMEONE WOULD TAKE
THE TECHNOLOGY USE OF TECHNOLOGY
KEEP THE TECHNOLOGY AND THEN.
CONTINUE TO APPLY IT WITH WITHIN
THEIR DEPARTMENT AND AND NOT
HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE NORMAL
PROCESS OF. OF OF A PUBLIC.
DISCUSSION WITH THE OF THE
CONSTITUENTS IN THE CITIZENS OF
THAT AREA SO I THINK THERE ARE A
LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES TO BROADEN
THAT IT TO ALLOW FOR. LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO DO WHAT I THINK
THEY NEED TO DO WITH THOSE.
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THAT
THE SMALLER DISTRICTS ESPECIALLY
SMALL DEPARTMENTS WON'T HAVE TO
STRUGGLE WITH THAT AND HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO USE THE
TECHNOLOGY WHEN NEEDED.
IT IS A BALANCE IT IS A BALLOTS
AND I THINK WE CAN GET THERE
WITH THIS I APPRECIATE THE WORK
YOU'VE DONE ON THAT AND AND SO.
IT ANY OTHER SENATOR MORE LOCK
IN THAT WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
THANK YOU THANK SENATOR HILL
THIS.
WRITTEN SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
ROOF USED REPORT.
THAT WOULD BE.
REQUIRED.
HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU THINK THAT
WOULD TAKE? STATE PUBLIC SAFETY
OFFICIAL TO PREPARE.
WELL I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THEY
WOULD USE THE TECHNOLOGY.
THAT WOULD DETERMINE THE AMOUNT
OF TIME THAT THEY USED IT IF
IT'S A. A PIECE OF TECHNOLOGY
THAT THEY IF IT'S A LICENSE
PLATE READER WHICH IS NOW IN
EFFECT IN THAT IS LAW TODAY
AFTER THEY USE LICENSE PLATE
READERS QUITE. FREQUENTLY A AND
OFTEN IN THEIR COMMUNITIES OF
THEIR THEIR WORK THAT THAT IS.
THAT IS WORKING TODAY IN THOSE
DEPARTMENTS AS WELL AS FOR
CELLULAR INTERCEPTED VICES
THEY'RE USING THOSE TECHNOLOGIES
TODAY. WITHOUT COMPLAINT WHEN
THE THE THE LEGISLATION WAS
ADOPTED OR OUR COMPLAINT
REGARDING THE TIME INVOLVED IN
THIS OR THE FACT THAT SMALL
CITIES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
ACQUIRE. THAT EQUIPMENT NONE OF
THAT CONVERSATION NONE OF THOSE
ISSUES WERE RAISED THE FACT THAT
THIS WOULD BE TELLING THE THE
BAD GUY WHAT TECHNOLOGY HAD NONE
OF THOSE ISSUES WERE RAISED WHEN
THOSE. WHEN THOSE. TECHNOLOGIES
WERE BROUGHT FORWARD NOW WHEN WE
WANT TO INCLUDE OTHER
TECHNOLOGIES ALL OF A SUDDEN
THAT DISCLOSURE IS BECOMING A
PROBLEM I DON'T KNOW THE TIME
THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED. BUT I DO
THINK IT'S AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT
OF TIME WHEN YOU WHEN YOU FIND
TRIED TO DETERMINE THE PUBLIC
HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW. THE AMOUNT
THAT THE THE EQUIPMENT ISSUES
HOW IT'S BEING USED IN TERMS OF
WHO WHO HAS ACCESS TO THAT
INFORMATION THAT'S BEING NOT
BEING COLLECTED. UNITS GETS PUT
ON THE WEBSITE.
AND THOUGHT IT REASON I ASKED
ABOUT THE TIME COMPONENT IS. I'M
I'M DEALING WITH CITIES THAT
HAVE CUT THEIR POLICE
DEPARTMENTS BY TWENTY FIVE
PERCENT.
SO THERE'S A LOT MORE WORK BEING
I'M NOT ABLE TO GET THE COSTS
ARE JUST LOOKING AT HOW THEY.
FIT ALL THAT AND TO HAVE ANOTHER
MANDATE.
SO THAT'S WHERE I'M.
THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION
YOU KNOW I UNDERSTAND IT AND
THEY ARE DOING IT WITH THE.
THE OTHER TECHNOLOGIES THAT WE
HAVE THE BACKING OF GIVE BUT I
THINK IF IF IT'S PART OF A LOG
YOU KNOW IS THEY GO OUT DURING
THE DAY THEY TAKE FIREARMS WITH
THEM THEY HAVE TO LOG THE MEN
LOG IN MY. I THINK THAT THE IT
WOULD ASSUME THAT THEY COULD DO
THAT IF THEY WERE USING VARIOUS
TYPES OF TECHNOLOGY.
SO I THINK THE PUBLIC INTEREST
IN PROTECTING OUR PRIVACY RIGHTS
TO MAKING SURE THAT.
OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IS DOING ITS
JOB IN IN A WAY THAT HAS THE
PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THAT WORK
ETHIC IS PART OF WHAT THIS IS
AND SO. WITH THAT SENATOR FEED
LIKE TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS RIVALS
THINK
FOR GOOD.
ALRIGHT THE MOTION IS TO PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS IS OUR
MOTION.
BROUGH BY SENATOR MONNING.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
JACKSON AYE JACKSON AYE MORE
LOCK.
MORE LIKE NEW ANDERSON.
HERTZBERG.
MONNING.
I MONEY I STERN.
WIECKOWSKI. WIECKOWSKI AYE RIGHT
HIT THE OF THREE VOTES WILL PUT
THAT MATTER ON CALL.
YOU'RE THINK YOU'VE EVER TRIED
TO HAVE A TO MORE ITEMS THEY ARE
BOTH SO. MY BILLS AND I WILL.
HAND THE GAVEL OVER TO MY.
VICE CHAIR.
PENSION POPE.
AND WE'LL START.
LET'S START WITH FILE ITEM. NINE
SP TWELVE EIGHTY FOUR
.
WELCOME SENATOR JACKSON YOU HAVE
THE FLOOR. NICE TO BE HERE.
THAT AFTERNOON MISTER VICE IT IS
STILL AFTERNOON GOOD AFTERNOON
MR VICE CHAIR MEMBERS. OF I AM I
HERE TO PERCENT SP TWELVE EIGHTY
FOUR THIS IS A BILL. TO FIGHT
DISCRIMINATION WOULD DATA.
WITH INFORMATION.
BECAUSE WHEN IT COMES TO PAY
EQUITY FOR WOMEN AND MINORITIES
WE CAN'T FIX WHAT WE DON'T KNOW.
AS NOTED IN THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS I AM TAKING A NUMBER OF
AMENDMENTS TO THIS BILL.
WHICH ADDRESS CONCERNS RAISED BY
THE ANALYSIS AND THE OPPOSITION
AND I THINK MOVE THE BILL
CLOSER.
TO ITS INTENDED GOAL.
I BELIEVE THESE AMENDMENTS MAKE
IT CLEAR. THAT I AM.
SERIOUS ABOUT THIS BILL NOT
BEING ABOUT PUBLIC SHAMING OF
EMPLOYERS THIS IS A COMPLAINT I
HAVE HEARD. I THINK IT'S A
LEFTOVER FROM THE MEASURE BY
ANOTHER BILL IN ANOTHER
COLLEAGUE LAST YEAR THERE WAS
ACTUALLY.
I THINK INTENDED TO PUBLICLY
SHAME THAT IS NOT MY GOAL HERE.
IT IS NOT MY GOAL IN TRYING TO
ADDRESS THIS SERIOUS PROBLEM. A
PAY DISPARITY I BELIEVE THERE
ARE WAYS THAT WE CAN DO IT
COLLABORATIVELY AND I.
AND VERY PROUD THAT WHEN IT
COMES TO THE EQUAL PAY BILL THAT
WE PASSED IN TWENTY. OF FIFTEEN
A WE HAVE WORKED COLLABORATIVELY
WITH ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS TO
DEVELOP A REGULATIONS AND.
CRITERIA. THAT ARE HOPEFULLY
GOING TO GET US TO THE GOAL THAT
ARE COLLABORATIVE THAT A
COOPERATIVE AND THAT ARE
DESIGNED TO. BRING ALL THE
PARTIES TOGETHER IN A POSITIVE
FASHION AND THAT'S WHAT I AM
HOPING TO DO WITH THIS BILL AS
WELL.
SO THIS BILL OF THE AMENDMENTS.
CLARIFY THAT THIS BILL APPLIES
TO EMPLOYERS WITH A HUNDRED OR
MORE EMPLOYEES NOT JUST THOSE
INCORPORATED IN CALIFORNIA.
WE KNOW THAT MANY IF NOT MOST OF
THE CORPORATIONS IN CALIFORNIA
ACTUALLY INCORPORATE IN
DELAWARE.
BECAUSE DELAWARE HAS ALWAYS BEEN
A BUSINESS FRIENDLY EXTREMELY
BUSINESS FRIENDLY.
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS SO OUR
GOAL IS IN A PLACE WHERE THERE
ARE. A BUSINESS WHO IN
CALIFORNIA WITH A HUNDRED. OR
MORE EMPLOYEES THAT THAT WILL
COVER THEM AS WELL. THE
AMENDMENTS ALSO NARROW THE
ENTITIES THAT RECEIVE THIS
CONFIDENTIAL PAY DATA. TO BE THE
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL%
RELATIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING. AS
THESE ARE OUR ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES.
THE AMENDMENTS ALSO ENSURE THE
DATA THAT INCLUDES EMPLOYER
SPECIFIC INFORMATION REMAINS
CONFIDENTIAL AND IS NOT SUBJECT
TO DISCLOSURE. THROUGH A PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT REQUEST THE
AGGREGATE DATA WHICH IS.
DIDN'T NOT SPECIFIC TO ANY
INDIVIDUAL.
AGGREGATE GATHER WHAT DATA
WOULD BE AVAILABLE PUBLICLY IT
CLARIFIES THAT EMPLOYERS NEED
NOT PROVIDE SPECIFIC PAY DATA
FOR EACH EMPLOYEE BUT ARE TO USE
AN INDIVIDUAL'S W. TO USE. AS
THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING WHAT
PAY BAND AN INDIVIDUAL FALLS
INTO AGAIN. NOT FOCUSING ON THE
GRANULAR AND SPECIFIC BUT TO GET
A IF YOU WILL THIRTY THOUSAND
FOOT VIEW OF HOW COMPANIES ARE
OPERATING.
AS. YOU MAY KNOW EQUAL PAY IS AN
ISSUE GO NEAR AND DEAR TO MY
HEART.
IN CALIFORNIA I AM PROUD THAT
WE'VE MADE GREAT STRIDES IN
ADDRESSING THE DISPARITY IN
EQUAL PAY. INCLUDING THE
ENACTMENT OF.
MY BILL THE CALIFORNIA FAIR PAY
ACT BECAME OPERATIVE IN TWENTY
SIXTEEN. AND I'D LIKE TO
INDICATE THAT AS A RESULT OF
THAT LEGISLATION THERE ARE NOW
FORTY ONE OTHER STATES THAT ARE
FOLLOWING SUIT IN USING THAT
LEGISLATION AS A TEMPLATE.
SO WE ARE MOVING FORWARD IN THAT
AREA BUT WE AREN'T THERE YET IN
THE SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE WITH
ON EQUAL PAY IS THAT IT'S SO
OFTEN HIDDEN. NACHOS TO
EMPLOYEES BUT OFTEN EVEN TO
EMPLOYERS THEMSELVES
AND WHILE PAYING THEIR EQUITY
AND PAY INEQUALITY CONTINUES
MOST EMPLOYERS I BELIEVE DON'T
INTEND. TO SHORT A CHANGE THEIR
EMPLOYEES BUT. THERE IS A LOT OF
IMPLICIT BIAS AND SO WE HAVE
MUCH WORK TO BE DONE. AND
RECOGNIZING THE PAY
DISCRIMINATION IS HARD TO DETECT
AN ADDRESS.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
IT DURING IT'S THE IT'S THE
IT'S TENURE ANNOUNCED A PROPOSED
REVISION TO A DEMOGRAPHIC REPORT
THAT LARGE EMPLOYERS HAVE BEEN
SUBMITTING. FOR OVER FIFTY YEARS
THE EMPLOYER INFORMATION REPORT
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE E. E. O.
ONE.
SOMETHING THAT ALL EMPLOYERS ARE
A LARGE EMPLOYERS HAVE BEEN
REQUIRED TO SUBMIT FOR A LENGTHY
PERIOD OF TIME.
TO ADD
INCLUDE REPORTING A PAY DATA BY
RACE AND GENDER.
THIS WAS TO BEGIN IN TWENTY
EIGHTEEN THIS IS A PROCESS THAT
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAD
BEEN WORKING ON FOR A NUMBER OF
YEARS BRINGING ALL THE
STAKEHOLDERS TOGETHER. IN ITS
TRADITIONAL THOUGHTFUL.
AND OF A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT
BUT IN AUGUST TO TWENTY
SEVENTEEN NOT SURPRISINGLY GIVEN
THE DIFFERENCES IN THE
APPROACHES OF THE TWO
ADMINISTRATIONS. THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION PUT A HALT TO
THIS NEW RULE.
DEALING A BLOW TO THE FIGHT FOR
EQUAL PAY.
SO S. B. TWELVE EIGHTY FOUR
GAMES TO ENSURE THAT CALIFORNIA
COLLECTS THIS IMPORTANT PAY DATA
THAT EMPLOYERS WERE POOREST OF
ACTUALLY PREPARED TO START
REPORTING.
AND TO DO THIS EVEN IF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT.
MODELED AGAIN AFTER THIS SET UP
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ORDER THIS
BIT OF A BILL WILL REQUIRE
EMPLOYERS WITH A HUNDRED
EMPLOYEES OR MORE TO SUBMIT A
PAID DATA REPORT ANNUALLY.
TWO THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING.
WHICH OUTLINES THE COMPENSATION
IN HOURS WORKED OF EMPLOYEES BY
GENDER. RACE ETHNICITY AND JOB
CATEGORY BILL THE GOAL IS TWO
FOLD TO ENCOURAGE EMPLOYERS TO
ANALYZE THEIR OWN PAY PRACTICES
AND ALLOW FR SELF CORRECTION.
THAT IS THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE
WORLDS AND TO TO ALLOW THE
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS AND DE FE H. ACCESS TO
IMPORTANT DATA. THAT ALLOWS THEM
TO SEE PATTERNS OF WAGE
DISPARITIES AND IF THEY NOTICED
DEVIATIONS WORE OUT LIARS IT
GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO
INVESTIGATE THREATS OF FURTHER.
SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT BASED
UPON SOME OF THE INFORMATION OUT
THERE TO NOTE AGAIN WHAT THIS
BILL IS NOT.
THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT PUBLIC
SHAMING IT WILL NOT EXPOSE
INFORMATION THAT IS IDENTIFIABLE
BY BUSINESS TO THE PUBLIC NOR
WILL IT EXPOSED EMPLOYEES
PRIVATE FINANCIAL INFORMATION TO
THE PUBLIC. THE DATA WILL
PROVIDE A BIRDS EYE VIEW ON PAY
DISPARITIES AND OCCUPATIONAL
SEGREGATION.
A BIRDS EYE THIS LEVEL BUT IT
DOESN INTEND TO DO IT IN A.
GRANULAR LEVEL THE INFORMATION
IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED TO
ENFORCE THE CALIFORNIA FAIR PAY
ACT IT IS AN INVESTIGATORY TOOL.
TO HELP COMPANIES AND THE
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SHED LIGHT ON
TRENDS AND PROVIDE CLUES ABOUT
DISPARITIES IN PAY TODAY.
I'M PLEASED TO HAVE WITH ME
JESSICA STANDARD. OF EQUAL
RIGHTS ADVOCATES A SPONSOR OF
THE BILL.
AND SHANNON SMITH PROBABLY WITH
A A UW ALSO ONE OF THE BILL'S
SPONSORS HERE TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF THE MEASURE AND WITH
THAT I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE.
GOOD AFTERNOON SHANNON SMITH
CROWLEY AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
UNIVERSITY WOMEN ALL KEEP MY
COMMENTS BRIEF THERE'S NOT A
WHOLE LOT TO AND.
AFTER SENATOR JACKSON'S
COMMENTS BUT JUST REALLY WANTED
TO FOCUS ON THE NEED FOR THE
BILL ABOUT THE PERSISTENCE OF
THE PAY GAP.
AND I KNOW THAT YOU'VE HEARD A
LOT IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS ABOUT
THE DIFFERENT BILLS THAT WE'VE
HAD BUT WE ACTUALLY HOUSE NEW
DATA.
TOMMY GARDENS IN NOTHING THE
SENATE LABOR COMMITTEE WE'VE
BEEN SAYING.
THAT IT WAS TWO THOUSAND
FIFTEEN NINE BEFORE THE CAP WAS
GOING TO CLOSE HAVING FEMALE SO
SHE'S. A DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS
NUMBER WAS TWO THOUSAND FIFTY
EIGHT.
BUT BASED ON THE TRAIN FROM TWO
THOUSAND ONCE TWO THOUSAND
FIFTEEN.
IT'S TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED
AND NINETEEN NOW.
IS THE PROJECT PROJECTED DATE.
THAT'S A HUNDRED THEM ONE YEARS.
FIFTEEN YEARS FURTHER THE WELL
WE'VE MADE GREAT STRIDES IN
CALIFORNIA AND SOME OF THE DATA
MEAN ON MAY BE CHANGING BECAUSE
OF BECAUSE OF THE BILL'S WE'VE
DONE.
IT'S STILL WE NEED TO DO
SIGNIFICANT.
EFFORTS IN THIS AREA AND I HIT
RENTS JUST TODAY BUT SOME USING
WELL IT'S ACTUALLY NOT A GENDER
PAY GAP.
IT'S A CHASM.
DENNIS AT ALL CATEGORIES EVEN
FOR PROFESSIONAL WOMEN AT THE
NINETY NINTH PERCENTILE.
PROFESSIONAL WOMEN MAKE HALF OF
WHAT MEN MAKE. EVEN IN IN.
MEDICINE.
CLUB OBGYN SPILL OVER CHILEANS
MAKE MORE MALE NURSES MAKE MORE
IS ACROSS THE BOARD.
EIGHTEEN W. AGREEMENTS WITH
SENATOR JACKSON A LOT OF THIS IS
NOT INTENTIONAL.
BUT IT'S WE ACTUALLY HAVE DONE
IT SAYS THAT ONLY ABOUT SIX TO
TWELVE PERCENT OF THE OF THE.
PINK OUT CAN BE DISARM.
EXPLAINED BY BIAS OR
DISCRIMINATION AND REALLY THE
REST OF IT IS.
JUST WERE PERPETUATING THE
STATUS QUO. WE DON'T LOOK AS WE
NEED TAKE A STEP BACK AND GET
THE STUFF OUT THERE.
AND SO THE PEOPLE CAN LOOK AT
THEMSELVES AND MANY
ORGANIZATIONS ARE MAKING THE
CHANGES THEMSELVES. SO.
THAT WE SUPPORT THIS EFFORT AND
WE ASK YOUR AYE VOTE.
CHIU.
GOOD AFTERNOON MR VICE CHAIR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
ARMENIANS JESSICA STANDER I'M
SENIOR COUNSEL FOR PLEASE
JUSTICE AND PUBLIC POLICY PEOPLE
RIGHTS ADVOCATES WHO WORK TO
REMOVE BARRIERS TO EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY AND TREATMENT IN THE
WORKPLACE. HOW MORE PROUD
SPONSOR OF THIS BILL?
I ALSO KEEP MY COMMENTS BRIEF
BECAUSE OF SENATOR JACKSON'S
VERY THOROUGH PRESENTATION BUT
REALLY QUICKLY I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TALK ABOUT WHY THIS
BILL MATTERS Y. THE DATA THAT WE
WILL GET FROM THIS BILL.
PATTERSON IS IMPORTANT
THE BILL WOULD ADDRESS TWO MAJOR
OBSTACLES TO CLOSING THIS GENDER
AND RACE WAGE GAP WE ALL KNOW
HOW PERVASIVE IT IS AN EFFECTIVE
TAKES NOT ONLY ON WOMEN BUT ON
FAMILIES GIVEN HOW OFTEN WOMEN
ARE. PRIMARY OR CO PRIMARY
BREADWINNERS IN THEIR FAMILIES.
BUT IT'S A IT'S IT'S A STUBBORN
GAP IT'S NOT CLOSING AND THE
RATE AT WHICH IS CLOSING
ACTUALLY SLOWING AS YOU'VE
HEARD.
AND THERE'S MANY CONTRIBUTORS
TO THE GAP AND THAT REQUIRES A
KIND OF VERY APPROACH TO
ADDRESSING THE CONTRIBUTORS TO
THE TO THIS RACE RACIAL AND
GENDER WAGE GAP. ARMS OF THE TWO
THAT THIS BILL REALLY DEALS WITH
OUR.
OCCUPATIONAL SEGREGATION THAT
WOMEN AND MINORITIES ARE OFTEN
FALL INTO LOWER PAID.
OCCUPATIONS AND ALSO INTO LOWER
PAID POSITION WITHIN A COMPANY.
AND ALSO THE FACT THAT I MANY
PEOPLE INCLUDING EMPLOYERS
THEMSELVES ARE OFTEN UNAWARE OF
PAY DISPARITIES AND THIS TYPE OF
OCCUPATIONAL SEGREGATION.
.
THE WHEN EMPLOYERS ARE UNAWARE
OF THESE DISPARITIES THEY DON'T
KNOW WHAT THEY CAN FIX SO
REQUIRING PAY DATA COLLECTION
PROVIDES EMPLOYERS OF THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS INTERNAL
LOOKING AND THEN TO DIVE DEEPER
IN WHEN THEY NOTICED THERE IS A
PAY DISPARITY. THAT DOESN'T
NECESSARILY MEAN THERE'S A
VIOLATION OF AN EQUAL PAY LAW
BUT A KIND OF INSTANT
INCENTIVIZE THEM TO LOOK DEEPER
AND IF THEY DETERMINE THAT THERE
IS NO JUSTIFICATION AT AN
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL. THEY CAN THEN
RECTIFY THAT COMMENT ALSO IF
THEY DETERMINE THERE ARE
PATTERNS THAT THEY MIGHT NOT
HAVE BEEN AWARE OF WITH WOMEN
AND PEOPLE OF COLOR CONCENTRATED
INTO THESE LOWER PAID POSITIONS
OF THEIR COMPANIES. THAT CAN
THEN SPUR THEM TO TAKE TO MAKE
CHANGES WITHIN THEIR HIRING AND
PROMOTION PRACTICES TO TRY TO.
ADDRESS THESE PROACTIVELY.
WE'VE HEARD OF MANY LARGE
EMPLOYER VOLUNTARILY DOING THIS
I'M JUST TO NAME A FEW SALES
FORCE DELTA AND STARBUCKS ABOUT
PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE THAT THEY'VE
DONE THESE TYPES OF. INTERNAL
PAY AUDITS AND THEY HAVE AND NOT
SURPRISINGLY.
UNCOVERED THE STEPS OF
DISPARITIES AND CAUSED IN IN IN
ALMOST ALL THOSE CASES.
THE EMPLOYERS THAT TO MAKE PAGE
CHANGES CHANGES THEIR BASE
SYSTEMS TO BRING A WORKERS UP TO
PARITY.
AND ALSO TO CHANGE THEIR HIRING
PRACTICES TO ENSURE EQUAL
REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN AND
PEOPLEOF COLOR IN ALL ROUNDS
AND ALL PAY SCALES. AND I WOULD
JUST ADD THAT IN ADDITION TO
THIS ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES NOW
WILL HAVE MORE EFFECTIVE A USE
OF THEIR. RESOURCES
INVESTIGATORY DRIVE AND I'LL
LEAVE IT AT THAT I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE.
STANDARD DO I HAVE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY CLEAR SHE ARE
WITH THE CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT
LAWYERS ASSOCIATION IN STRONG
SUPPORT.
JERRY MEMBERS KEVIN BAKER FOR
THE MARKETS OF LIBERTIES UNION
OF CALIFORNIA ALSO INSTRUCTS
PARK.
WHEN A LOT OF US ARE YOU
CALIFORNIA ALSO IN SUPPORT.
GETTING GARY FROM LEGALLY
NETWORK CONCERNS FOR.
DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME FLOOR
CURTIS NAME HERE ON BEHALF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY WE
ARE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB
TWELVE EIGHTY FOUR WE DO
APPRECIATE. SENATOR JACKSON
THEIR WILLINGNESS TO TAKE SOME
OF THE AND SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AND WE JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT
THOSE AMENDMENTS FALL IN LINE
WITH THE STRICT PARAMETERS
IMPOSED BY THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION WITH THE
ORIGINALLY EO ONE. REQUIREMENTS
AND ADDITIONALLY ARE CONCERNED
STILL IS THE UNDERLYING
ADDITIONAL REPORTING THAT'S
GOING TO BE REQUIRED BY
EMPLOYERS THAT ACTUALLY DOESN'T
COMPARE SIMPLY APPLES TO APPLES.
AND THE ESSENCE OF THE FAIR PAY
ACT WAS TO HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR TO HAVE AND. THE
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR POSITIONS
COMPARED AND THAT ALLOWS FOR
BONA FIDE FACTORS TO BE IN
CONSIDERATION HOWEVER THIS
REPORTING I'M WILL NOT SHOW THAT
THIS REPORTING WILL SHOW
EVERYBODY UNDER ONE SPECIFIC
TITLE. FOR EXAMPLE IF YOU TAKE
ALL OF YOUR STAFFERS ONE HAS
BEEN HERE FOR THIRTY YEARS ONE
HAS BEEN HERE FOR TWO WEEKS YOU
PUT THOSE TO YOU UPON TOGETHER
THERE'S GOING TO BE WAGE
DISPARITY NOT ALWAYS DISPARITIES
UNLAWFUL. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT
THERE SHOULD BE UNLAWFUL WAGE
DISPARITY BY ANY MEANS WE
ACTUALLY SUPPORTED THE FAIR PAY
ACT HOWEVER OUR CONCERN IS IS
THAT THIS WILL BE A REQUIRED
REPORTING THAT WON'T ALLOW
EMPLOYERS. TO ACTUALLY THAT
WON'T SHOW WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY
LOOKING FOR A MINUTE ALTERNATIVE
I THINK THERE SHOULD BE AN
INCENTIVE FOR EMPLOYERS TO
CONDUCT FOR PACKED AUDITS RATHER
THAN REQUIRING REPORTING THAT
WON'T SHOW WITH MISS IT WHAT DAY
AND WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR.
BIGGER SO MUCH FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY.
YOU MISTER CHAIR AND MEMBERS
MIKE BELOVED FOR THE CALIFORNIA
EMPLOYMENT LAW CUNSEL. I DON'T
KNOW IF ANY OF YOU HAD A CHANCE
TO SEE SIXTY MINUTES THE OTHER
DAY BUT IT HAD A SEGMENT ABOUT
SALES FORCE AND THE DIFFICULTY
THEY HAVE ROOTING OUT. OF EQUAL
PAY.
.
EQUITY. IT WAS IT BUT IT WAS
HARD IT WAS REALLY HARD TAKES A
LONG TIME OUR COMPANIES ARE
DOING THESE SELF AUDITS NOW. AND
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT AND AND THE
LAW REQUIRES AN ABILITY TO CUT
DISCERN EVEN THE SMALLEST
DISTINCTIONS AND FIX SOME OF TWO
EVEN IF STATISTICALLY
INSIGNIFICANT ANY. DIFFERENCE
THAT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY
OTHER REASONS MUST BE CORRECTED
AT OUR COMPANIES ARE GOING
THROUGH THAT. SO NOW WE LAYER ON
TOP OF THIS ON TOP OF THE EQUAL
PAY ACT WHICH WE SUPPORTED AND
WE ARE WORKING TO IMPLEMENT.
THAT NOW THIS.
THIS NEW A REPORTING
REQUIREMENT ACCORDING TO
CATEGORIES AND.
SENATOR JACKSON'S ABSOLUTELY
RIGHT THE STAKEHOLDERS DID WORK
WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO
TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE
THAT WORK.
I THOUGHT THE ANALYSIS OF MR
GRIFFITHS DID WAS WAS REALLY
GOOD AND THOUGHTFUL AND COMPLETE
HE TAUGHT BUT IT IT RAISES AN
AMBIGUITY ABOUT THE PURPOSE TO
WHICH THIS INFORMATION IS BEING
COMPILED AND SEND IT.
ON PAGE TWO OF THE ANALYSIS IT
SAYS THE RESULTING AGGREGATE
DATA WOULD ENABLE THE STATE TO
MONITOR OVERALL PROGRESS OR LACK
THEREOF. TOWARD ACHIEVING PAY
EQUITY AND IT TALKED ABOUT THE
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION USING
AGGREGATE DATA. BUT IT'S UNCLEAR
TO US.
UNDER THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE
BEING DISCUSSED IF THIS IS
SPECIFIC INFORMATION GIVING DE
L. AT SEA SPECIFIC AUTHORITY TO
RETURN AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION
AGAINST AN EMPLOYER. OBVIOUSLY
WE ARE MORE INTERESTED IN THE
OBAMA OUT WHAT WE THINK IS THE
OBAMA APPROACH.
YEAH WHICH WAS AGGREGATE AND
CONFIDENTIAL.
AND WHAT LOOKS LIKE I MORE
ENFORCEMENT ORIENTED APPROACH
HERE BUT OUR EMPLOYERS ARE
WORKING HARD ON THE SELF AUDITS
WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD GET AN
ANSWER TO OUR QUESTION AND WE
WILL KEEP WORKING WITH SENATOR
JACKSON BECAUSE WE ALL BELIEVE
IN PAY EQUITY.
THANK YOU ARE THERE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
THE BOOK AND PLEASE FEEL FREE TO
USE THE MICROPHONE.
MEMBERS TRUST ABOUT THE ABOUT
THE PERSONAL INSURANCE
FEDERATION OPPOSITION.
KEVIN ANDERSON ON BEHALF OF THE
RETAIL INDUSTRY LEADERS
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION.
BRIAN LITTLE CALIFORNIA FARM
BUREAU FEDERATION OPPOSITION FOR
THE REASONS ARTICULATED
PREVIOUSLY BY MY COLLEAGUES
THANK YOU.
AND THE CALL RISE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURES AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION ALSO HAS.
JOHN LEWIS OF THE NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS REPRESENTING OVER
TWENTY THOUSAND SMALL BUSINESS
OWNERS ACROSS THE STATE ALSO
POST.
WHEN KATIE HANSON CALIFORNIA
RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION WERE HERE
IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU DO I HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS FOR MY COLLEAGUES WILL
START WITH SENATOR WIECKOWSKI.
MISTER CHAIR CAN WE GET A
CLARIFICATION OF THE A BOMB
APPROACH IN THE JACKSON APPROACH
IF THERE'S A DISTINCTION TO BE
MADE. THERE REALLY ISN'T A
DISTINCTION.
AND WHAT WE'VE DONE IS FEES
AMENDMENTS BRING IT. JUST ABOUT
IN LINE OF TO THE EXTENT THAT.
ONE DEALS WITH THE FEDERAL WE
DEAL WITH THE STATE SO WE LOOK
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FAIR
EMPLOYMENT HOUSING DEPARTMENT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.
WE HAVE A ADDRESS THE THE ISSUE
IT IS AGGREGATE WHICH MEANS IT'S
NONSPECIFIC ANONYMOUS IF YOU
WILL IN BIG BANDS.
SO THAT IF THERE ARE
DIFFERENCES FOR REASONS THAT ARE
CLEARLY.
ACCEPTABLE THAT THERE'S AN
OPPORTUNITY TO IDENTIFY.
YOU HAVE SOMEONE IS WORK FOR
COMPANY THIRTY YEARS LET'S SAY
NINETY PERCENT HAVE BEEN THERE
FOR THIRTY YEARS AND THAT'S THE
REASON THAT THE THE PAY OF A PAY
DIFFERENTIAL.
THAT AGAIN IS SO.
AND ATTEMPTED TO CREATE A SORT
OF THAT GENERAL.
.
TOP DOWN VIEW IF YOU WILL THE
THIRTY THOUSAND FOOT VIEW AND TO
MAKE IT CONFIDENTIAL.
WE HAVE ALSO REMOVED.
SECRETARY STATE.
NOW THIS IS GOING ON A WEBSITE.
SO WE ARE PARALLELING I THINK.
AND. THE PRETTY MUCH.
IN SPIRIT AS WELL AS HE AND.
DESIGN.
WITH THE.
WITH THE OBAMA EFFORT. WILL
THAT'S BASICALLY THIS IT TAKES
THAT AND OVERLAYS WITH
CALIFORNIA DATA HARMONIZATION
NAM PREPARE TO MOVE THE BILL.
WE HAVE A MOTION SENATOR
HERTZBERG.
YEAH YOU KNOW THAT THAT THE
THING IN THE OTHER NIGHT
ADDITION SEE FOR THE SALES FORCE
HOUSE UP PIECE OF AT NIGHT
INCIDENT BASING THE PROMISE WAS
NOT HEARTLESS BUT.
THAT WAS HIS MIKE MARC BENIOFF
WAS IN THE GENTLEMAN'S CEO HE
DIDN'T VEN KNOW WE HAD THE
PROBLEMS RIGHT THE WORD SO I
THINK WHAT'S HAPPENED IS TWO
SIDES THIS IS THE GOVERNMENT
SIDE AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THE
PRIVATE SIDE.
WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN WITH
COMPANIES WHEN THEY'RE REQUIRED
TO DO THIS DIAGNOSTIC WHICH DID.
NOT DOING BECAUSE THEY'RE
INVOLVED THIS STUFF THEY'RE
GONNA REALIZE PATTERNS AND
YOU'RE GONNA SEE SELF HELP.
I THINK IN THE PROCESS JUST
BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONLY GUY THAT
I DIDN'T REALIZE IT HAD THESE
PATTERNS IN THIS PROCESS AND
THEY'RE GONNA KNOW WHAT ARE SOME
WAS THERE FOR TWO MONTHS OR
TWENTY YEAR IT'S WHATEVER. AND
SO WHAT IT DOES IT DID FORCES
THAT DIAGNOSTICS OF THAT REASON
THESE GOOD IDEA. AND THAT'S PART
OF THAT IF WE CAN GET COMPANIES
TO LOOK IN THE MIRROR THAT'S
RIGHT GOAL LOOK IN THE MIRROR
SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING. WHEN YOU
DO WHEN IT ONE OF THE STATISTICS
THAT IS STAGGERING TO ME ON
PEOPLE PAY. YOU KNOW THE NURSING
PROFESSION IS NINETY NINETY FIVE
PERCENT FEMALE.
AND YET IN THE STUDY THAT WOULD
COME OUT IN THE NEW ENGLAND
JOURNAL OF MEDICINE IN TWENTY
FOURTEEN. TO TWENTY FIFTEEN.
.
MALE NURSES ARE PAID ON AVERAGE
FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS MORE PER
MONTH THAN FEMALE NURSES.
I'M ME WHO KNOW WHAT I THE
CHURCH SHOPPING AND SO THE HOPE
IS THAT IF A HOSPITAL FINDS
ITSELF IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE
THAT.
THEY ASK THEMSELVES WHY WE WHY
IT WHY IS THAT AND.
THAT IS SOME IMPLICIT BIAS THAT
THEN THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE
JUST HAVE TO AGAIN LOOK IN THE
MIRROR AND REALIZE. THAT WE ALL
HAVE THE BIASES.
I AND I DON'T THINK THEY'RE
NECESSARILY INTENTIONAL OR
VICIOUS BUT I THINK THAT THEY
HAVE REALLY IMPROVED IMPEDED
WOMEN'S ABILITY TO.
PD COOLEY IN THE WORKPLACE AND
TO BE PAID FAIRLY AND THAT'S THE
REASON FOR THIS BILL.
WAS THAT YOUR AND THAT WAS MY
CLOSE GREAT THEN ONE OF THE.
WE HAVE A MOTION NO MORE NO FOR
THE QUICK.
ASIA*. GOING TO PROPOSE
INSTEAD OF LADY LIBERTY HIGH
NOTE CENTER JACKSON LIKES TO
QUOTE LADY EQUALITY MAY BE
BETTER TITLE FOR YOU APPRECIATE
BRINGING THIS FORWARD HOPEFULLY
GET THIS THING.
THROUGH THIS YEAR BUT. THIS
QUESTION ABOUT.
THE ACTUAL WHAT LIKE WHAT
TRIGGERS THE THE LIABILITY HERE
AND THE THIS OF STANGEL A
SIMILAR POSITIONS THAT WON'T BE
IN THE REPORT ITSELF
THAT'S NOT WHAT WOULD TRIGGER.
WHO A VIOLATION THAT WOULD SORT
OF THE AGGREGATE DATA IS WHAT
WOULDWOULD TREAT A VIOLATION OF
THE FAILURE TO ACCURATELY REPORT
THE AGGREGATE DATA AND THAT
WOULD TRIGGER THE VIOLATION? BUT
THEN THEY'D HAVE TO DRILL DOWN
DEEPER TO FIGURE OUT THIS IS TO
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR.
POSITIONS IN A LEGAL PROCEEDING
I JUST WALK ME THROUGH IT
BECAUSE I'M SURE I'M CONFUSED
BUT I JUST DID. THE CHAMBERS
CONCERNS ABOUT THOSE SORT OF
SIMILAR LEAST.
TITLE SAME SAME BUT EXPERIENCE.
YOU KNOW EDUCATION THOSE KINDS
OF THINGS DIFFERING SO HOW DOES
THAT WORK SOURCE OF THE DATA
WOULDN'T TRIGGER A VIOLATION OF
ANYTHING THAT THE DATA YOU KNOW
UNDER THE FAIR PLAY ACT IF YOU A
MAN AND A WOMAN AND.
LET'S A WOMAN'S EARNING LESS FOR
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR WORK AND
THERE'S NO BONA FIDE
JUSTIFICATION BONAFIDE FACTOR TO
JUSTIFY RECEIVING LESS PAY FOR
EQUAL WORK THAT COULD BE A
VIOLATION OF THE ACT. THIS
AGGREGATE DATA IS AN INDIVIDUAL
BY EMPLOYEES SO WHAT IT DOES IS
IT SHOWS HOW MANY EMPLOYEES ARE
IN EACH OF THESE BODIES SEVERAL
JOB CATEGORIES.
AND THEN THAT'S BROKEN DOWN BY
RACE GENDER ETHNICITY AND HOW
MANY EMPLOYEES ARE IN A SEVERAL
DIFFERENT KINDS OF PAY BANDS OR
PAY RANGES BROKEN DOWN BY SEX
RACE AND ETHNICITY SUCH
AGGREGATE IT'S NOT INDIVIDUAL.
AND REALLY WHAT IT IS INTENDED
TO DO IT'S PROMPTED EMPLOYER TO
SAY HEY AS I'M CENTER HERTZBERG
MENTION EMPLOYERS ARE OFTEN
AREN'T EVEN AWARE THAT THERE
MEET MAYBE THESE FIVE FOCUSED A
KIND OF CONCENTRATION OF WOMEN
OR MINORITIES. IN LOWER PAID UP
POSITIONS OR LOWER PAID YOU KNOW
PAY BANDS OUGHT TO LOOK A LITTLE
DEEPER AND SAY HEY SHOULD WE
CHANGE OUR HIRING AND PROMOTION
OF POLICIES TO TRY TO GET BETTER
REPRESENTATION ACROSS THE BOARD.
AND THEN IF WITHIN A CERTAIN JOB
CATEGORY THE SEED DISPARITIES ON
THIS AGGREGATE BASIS IT'S A
TRIGGER THEM TO LOOK A BIT
DEEPER AND SAY. IS THIS
SOMETHING THAT AT AN INDIVIDUAL
LEVEL WE AS EMPLOYERS DETERMINE
THAT MAY BE AN INDIVIDUAL.
DIFFERENCE OUT THE NEEDS WE
RECTIFY THAT IS NOT JUSTIFIED
BUT THE MOVE DATA GOING TO THE
AGENCY WOULD BE THIS AGGREGATE
DATA NOT AND ANYTHING THAT WOULD
TRIGGER A VIOLATION OF THE ACT
THAT DATA WON'T INCLUDE EXPIRY
THAT YEARS OF EXPERIENCE HOW
MANY YEARS YOU'VE WORKED THERE
THINGS LIKE. THAT NOW BECAUSE
IT'S BY GROUP IT WOULD BE BY
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY JOB
CATEGORY BY PAY BAND AND EACH OF
THOSE BROKEN DOWN BY RACE GENDER
ETHNICITY.
SO FOR SO AS A PRACTICAL MATTER
LET'S SAY THE STARTED.
IT NEXT YEAR
AND COMPANIES STARTED DOING THIS
AND THAT THE INFORMATION HAS TO
BE REPORTED TO LET'S IDEA FEE
AGE. AND OVER THE COURSE OF FIVE
YEARS YOU START SEEING THE THE
THE THE. A CONSTITUTION OF THE
HIGHER LEVEL PEOPLE ARE GOING UP
MORE WOMEN MORE MINORITIES
YOU SEE A TREND WHERE THEY'RE
MAKING IMPROVEMENTS ON THEIR
EXISTING SYSTEM. IF THERE'S A IF
IT'S GOING DOWN FOR EXAMPLE AT
THE END OF THREE FOUR FIVE YEARS
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT
HOUSING WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY
TO GOAL NGUYEN AND TO
INVESTIGATE WIERD THINGS GETTING
WORSE. RATHER THAN BETTER SO IT
DOESN'T TRIGGER ANY KIND
LITIGATION WHAT IT DOES IS IT IT
IT WILL PROVIDE INFORMATION ON
SORT OF ALL. A BROAD SCALE OF
HOW COMPANIES ARE PERFORMING
WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF
DISPARITY.
THAT'S BASICALLY IT ONE OF
THINGS CHAIRMAN JUST VERY
QUICKLY BECAUSE I I LOVE THIS
KIND OF STUFF BECAUSE WHAT
HAPPENS IS IT HAS A SHORT AND
NARROWLY BROUGHT AFFECT.
THE LEAST AMOUNT OF ENERGY
INFORMING PEOPLE THE ABILITY TO
SELF CORRECT WITHOUT HAVING A
BIG GOVERNMENT PROGRAM I KNOW WE
HAD THOSE DISCUSSIONS YESTERDAY
TIME TO DO SOME AND YOU GET THE
RESULT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
ACHIEVE FROM A GOVERNMENTAL
PUBLIC POLICY PERSPECTIVE I
THINK ABOUT THIS LOTS A. TIMES
IN TERMS OF CONSTRUCT OF LAWS
HOW DO YOU GET THE MOST AMOUNT
OF LEVERAGE FOR THE OUTCOME YOU
WANT. FOR THE LEAST AMOUNT TO
COST THE LEAST AMOUNT OF.
IT MISTAKES OR OVER REACHING OR
WHATEVER ELSE THE CASE MAY BE
THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE IN MY
JUDGMENT. OF HOW TO ACCOMPLISH
THAT NIGHT THANK YOU AND IF IT
WAS RD MOVE IT MOVE IT AGAIN.
I WOULD JUST ADD THE VOC ADOPTED
THIS E. O. ONE REVISED FORM ON
WHICH THIS BILL IS BASED AFTER A
VERY THOROUGH INVESTIGATION
FOCUSED ON BURDEN ON EMPLOYER.
CONFIDENTIALITY AND UTILITY OF
DATA AND CONCLUDED AFTER THIS
VERY RIGOROUS PROCESS THAT WOULD
NOT IMPOSE IT WOULD NONE UNDUE
BURDEN ON EMPLOYERS WILL BE A
MINIMAL COST AND BENEFICIAL FOR
THE REASONS WE TALKED ABOUT.
SO IF WE REALLY NEEDED TO HAVE
TO HIRE DRIVE VOTE. BUT HAVE TO
MOTIONS TO US SUPPORT AND I I
HAVE NOT HEARD FROM SENATOR
MINING SO PLEASE.
A HOMEMADE. MARKET AT THREE
MOTION.
EVEN
THUNDERSTONE WOULD YOU LIKE FOR
A CASE OF WORLD GOOD AND WE GOT
A CLOSE A MADAM CLERK WENCH TAKE
THE ROLE.
THE MOTION IS DEEP PASSES
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS
JACKSON HIGH JACKSON AYE MORE
LOCK. MORE LIKE NO ANDERSON.
HERTZBERG HERTZBERG I AM
MONNING.
MONNING AYE STERN.
STERN AYE WIECKOWSKI. WIECKOWSKI
AYE. FOR FIVE ONE.
THEN WILL HOLD OPEN THE ROLE
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR NOW HAVE
SHARED S. B. THIRTEEN HUNDRED
VERY GOOD.
FIGHT THE LAST BILL OF THE DAY
HE.
IS S. B. THIRTEEN HUNDRED.
THIS IS A.
FAIRLY COMPREHENSIVE BILL ON
SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND PREVENTION
ACCOUNTABILITY.
FIRST I WANT TO THANK STAFF.
TIM GRIFFITHS.
WITH THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
WHICH IF YOU READ THOROUGHLY.
SHOULD RESULT IN CONTINUING
LEGAL EDUCATION CREDITS FOR ALL
OF US.
FOR THSE OF US WHO ACTUALLY
NONE OF US NEED THE MORE WE HEAR
BUT PERHAPS CAN EXTEND THEM. AT
THE END OF OUR TEN YEARS HERE
BUT.
.
I CONDUCTED A COUPLE HEARINGS.
IN MY IN. MY CAPACITY AS CHAIR
OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON WOMEN
WORK AND FAMILY AND ALSO THE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
ON ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS THAT
CAME TO LIGHT YET AGAIN I WOULD
SAY BY THE MEAT TO MOVEMENT.
CAME TO LIGHT YET AGAIN BECAUSE
TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO THESE WERE
ISSUES THAT CAME TO LIGHT VERY
PUBLICLY WITH THE ANITA HILL.
DIE HEARINGS WITH OF THE
CLARENCE THOMAS'S CONFIRMATION
FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT. AND.
TWENTY FIVE YEARS LATER IN THE.
ISSUE HAS YET A HAS AGAIN RISEN
AND THIS TIME I THINK.
EXPLODED IN PART BY GIVEN THE
NUMBER OF WOMEN OR STEPPED
FORWARD GIVEN SOCIAL MEDIA AND
THE FACT THAT WE HAVE HEARD
HUNDREDS.
IF NOT THOUSANDS OF BRAVE WOMEN
COME FORWARD BUT TO EXPOSE THE
PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
IN THE WORKPLACE AND IN
INDUSTRIES. ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
WE'VE SEEN.
PERPETRATORS BEING HELD
ACCOUNTABLE FINALLY. OF SOME BIG
NAMES IN ALL VARIOUS INDUSTRIES
WHO HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY
HARASSING.
DID TO WOMEN FOR DECADES AND
WE'VE LEARNED HOW DEVASTATING
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS TO WOMEN
AND TO SUMMON.
BOB HOW THEIR CAREERS XIN THEIR
EMOTIONAL WELL BEING HAS BEEN SO
SEVERELY IMPACTED BY THIS
BEHAVIOR.
AND WE'VE ALSO LEARNED HOW
CHALLENGING IT IS TO PREVENT AND
STOP IT.
BECAUSE SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS
ABOUT MORE THAN PERPETRATORS WHO
SHOULD KNOW BETTER. IT'S ALSO
ABOUT ENSURING THAT OUR LAWS OUR
JUSTICE SYSTEM AND OUR WORKPLACE
CULTURES ARE WORKING TO ENSURE.
THAT WOMEN TRULY HAVE EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY IN THE WORKPLACE.
THIS IS ULTIMATELY A CIVIL
RIGHTS ISSUE.
IT'S ABOUT ECONOMICS BUT IT'S
ALSO ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS.
AND AGAIN AFTER HOLDING THESE
TWO HEARINGS TO BECAME CLEAR TO
ME THAT THERE ARE LARGE GAPS MY.
SOME MIGHT EVEN SAY CHASMS
BETWEEN THE PROTECTIONS THAT
MANY OF US THINK SHOULD BE IN
PLACE FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT
VICTIMS. AND THE ACTUAL
PROTECTIONS OF THE LAW CURRENTLY
DOES PROVIDE. SO S. B. THIRTEEN
HUNDRED.
CAME OUT OF THOSE HEARINGS AND
IS AN EFFORT TO STRENGTHEN OUR
LEGAL PROTECTIONS IN A NUMBER OF
KEY AREAS SO IF YOU'LL BEAR WITH
ME AS I WORK THROUGH. THEM FOUR
MAIN SECTIONS OF THE LOOT
LITIGATION EXCUSE ME
LEGISLATION.
AND THERE WILL BE SOME
LITIGATION.
THEN AND THERE WILL HAVE TO BE.
THE TWO SO THAT WE CAN TRY TO
MAKE CHANGES IN THE WORK FORCE.
SO THIS BILL. PROVIDES GUIDANCE
TO THE COURTS WHEN WE DO HAVE
LITIGATION ON THE SEVERE AND
PERVASIVE LEGAL STANDARD THAT WE
USE IN CALIFORNIA. WHAT WE MIGHT
CASUALLY LABEL SEXUAL HARASSMENT
IN EVERYDAY LIFE IS A FAR
DIFFERENT DEFINITION THAN THE
NARROW IMPRECISE LEGAL
DEFINITION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
AVAILABLE IN LITIGATION? AND
ACCORDING TO THAT LEGAL STANDARD
THE CONDUCT TESTS TO BE
UNWELCOME.
IT HAS TO BE DISCRIMINATORY
MEANING THAT IT IS BASED THAT
THE BEHAVIOR IS BASED ON A
PRETTY A PROTECTED CLASS WHOARE
OTHERWISE. WOULD NOT BE OF THE
VICTIM OF THIS BEHAVIOR AND IT
HAS TO MEET THE LEVEL OF
BECOMING SEVERE. OR PERVASIVE
AND IT'S A HIGH BAR.
AND FRANKLY. BUT IT HAS NOT ONLY
SERVE VICTIMS WELL. MOST OF US
WOULD THINK THAT FOR EXAMPLE
HAVING OUR BREAST GRAB BY A CO
WORKER WHILE REPORTING TO A NINE
ONE ONE CALL WOULD INDEED
CONSTITUTE SEXUAL HARASSMENT BUT
IN FACT. THE COURT FOUND IN
BROOKS VERSUS CITY OF SAN MATEO
THAT THAT CONDUCT IN DID DID NOT
IN FACT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF
SEVERE OR PERVASIVE. NOW SO I S.
B. THIRTEEN HUNDRED PRESERVES
THE LEGAL STANDARD IN PLACE.
BUT IT PROVIDES KEY GUIDANCE TO
THE COURTS ENCOURAGING THEM TO
APPLY THE LAW THROUGH THE LENS
OF THIS QUESTION.
DID IT FUNDAMENTALLY DEPRIVE
SOMEONE OF AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
TO SUCCEED.
TWO ITS STRENGTH OR SOME BUT
EMPLOYER ACCOUNTABILITY BECAUSE
EXISTING LAW ALREADY REQUIRES.
EMPLOYERS TO TAKE ALL REASONABLE
STEPS NECESSARY TO PREVENT
DISCRIMINATION FROM OCCURRING
MOST PEOPLE WOULD EXPECT
IMPLORED INTERVENED. WHEN THEY
LEARN AN EMPLOYEE IS SAYING ON
WELCOME SEXUALLY SUGGESTIVE
THINGS FOR EXAMPLE TO A CO
WORKER OR. BEHAVING IN THE
MANNER I CHEST DESCRIBED
PREVIOUSLY BUT IT LOGICALLY
UNDER CURRENT LAW.
AND THIS IS ILLOGICAL IT
EMPLOYERS DUTY TO PREVENT
HARASSMENT ONLY KICKS IN ONCE
THE HARASSING CONDUCT HAS
REACHED THE SEVERE AND PERVASIVE
STANDARD.
SO EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN THERE
IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT EMPLOYERS
STEP IN AND DO SOMETHING.
WHICH IS.
A CONCERN BECAUSE ONLY UNTIL AN
EMPLOYER HAS A VERY SIGNIFICANT
PROBLEM TO DEAL WITH DO THEY
HAVE A LEGAL DUTY.
BY STRENGTHENING THIS FAILURE TO
PREVENT PORTION OF THE BILL. S.
B. THIRTEEN HUNDRED FIRMS HAD
EMPLOYERS JUST CAN'T SIMPLY SIT
ON THEIR HANDS WHEN THEY LEARN
OF UNWELCOME AND DISCRIMINATORY
CONDUCT THEY MUST TAKE
REASONABLE STEPS TO RESPOND.
THAT COULD INCLUDE THINGS LIKE
SIMPLY TALKING TO AN EMPLOYEE
WERE SENDING THEM AN EMAIL
REMINDING THEM OF THE COMPANY
SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICIES WE
KNOW THAT MANY EMPLOYERS THROUGH
THEIR ZERO TOLERANCE POLICIES.
ARE ALREADY RESPONSIVE TO
HARASSING CONDUCT IN THIS WAY.
BUT THIS BRINGS OUR LAWS IN LINE
WITH THOSE BEST PRACTICES. THIRD
IT STRENGTHENS TRAINING
REQUIREMENTS NOW.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT TRAINING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIRE A TRAINING
FOR SUPERVISORIAL.
A.
STAFF THIS BILL WILL REQUIRE
THAT IT PROVIDE FOR.
COMPANIES O. WITH FIVE OR MORE
EMPLOYEES.
AND IT INCLUDES SUPERVISORS AND
CO WORKERS
AND THAT INCLUDES BYSTANDER
INTERVENTION TRAINING WHICH ARE
TECHNIQUES FOR DE ESCALATION.
AND DISTRACTION WHICH NOT ONLY
DISRUPT BEHAVIOR THIS NEGATIVE
BEHAVIOR BUT CREATE A SENSE OF
SHARED RESPONSIBILITY TO STOP
SEXUAL HARASSMENT. AND IT
RECENTLY MET WITH SOME TRADE
WOMAN.
AND LEARNED A AYE EXCUSE ME I
RECENTLY MET WITH SOME TRAITS
WOMEN. AND LEARNED OF A UNION
CURRICULUM THAT THEY CALL BE
THAT ONE GUY.
WHICH IS ALONG THESE VERY
SIMILAR LINES.
ADDING ENCOURAGING COLLEAGUES TO
BE PART OF THE SOLUTION TO THIS
PROBLEM. AND AGAIN WE DIDN'T IN
THESE HEARINGS WE LEARNED ABOUT
THE EFFICACY OF BYSTANDER
INTERVENTION TRAINING.
NOW IT DOES NOT. REQUIRE A
BYSTANDER TO TAKE ANY ACTION
THERE'S NO LIABILITY IF A BY
STANDARD DOES NOT BUT WHAT IT
DOES IS GIVE THAT BYSTANDER THE
TOOLS.
SO THAT IF THEY DO WANT TO ENTER
INTERVENE THAT THEY HAVE AN
ABILITY TO DO SO. IN A CONFIDENT
AND EMPOWERING WAY.
AND FOURTH THIS CLOSES LEGAL
LOOPHOLES.
THE LEGAL LOOPHOLES PROHIBITING
EMPLOYERS FROM REQUIRING WORKERS
TO SIGN AWAY THEIR ABILITY TO
SPEAK OUT OR THEIR RIGHT TO FILE
A CLAIM AGAINST AN EMPLOYER. AS
A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT OR
CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT.
FOR FOR A WAGER BONUS INCREASE
WHAT'S OFTEN REFERRED TO AS NON
DISPARAGEMENT AGREEMENTS OR.
SNEAKY RELEASES THIS BILL HAS A
NUMBER OF COMPONENTS BUT
COLLECTIVELY IT SEEKS TO PROVIDE
MANY OF THE PROTECTION SAID I
THINK.
MOST OF US ASSUME AND EXPECT
FROM OUR LAWS AND AS FAR AS THE.
SNEAKY RELEASE OR THE DISK NON
DISPARAGEMENT AGREEMENT ARE
WHICH JUST CITE. THE CASE OF
ARMS.
A WARNING STICKER INSISTING MORE
INTERESTING.
WHO'S. CONTROLLING HER REAL HARM
HARVEY WEINSTEIN SAY I WANT TO
FORGET THIS.
NAME THIS PERSON.
BUT IN HIS COMPANIES FOR
DECADES.
PEOPLE WHO WENT TO WORK FOR HIS
COMPANIES EITHER MIRAMAX FOR THE
WEINSTEIN COMPANY'S HAD TO SIGN
A NON DISPARAGEMENT AGREEMENT AS
A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT.
BEFORE THEY EVEN GOT WALKED IN
THE DOOR THEY HAD TO AGREE TO
SILENCE
WHICH FRANKLY HAS BEEN THE
SOURCE OF PERPETUATING THIS KIND
OF BEHAVIOR. FOR WILL OF THE
VARIETY OF INDUSTRIES FOR
DECADES AND IT MUST STOP. SO
WITH THAT I HAVE WITH ME TODAY.
ARUSHA A BETA.
TONI.
ENTER MARINO.
GYMBOREE EXCUSE ME WITH TONY
CHAIR THAT I HAVE IT RIGHT
ARMENIA KALRA MIA I AM SO SORRY.
I AND YOU HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE
ME BEFORE AND SO I APOLOGIZE.
HAVE WITH HER LAW PROFESSIONAL
LAW CORPORATION TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF THESE BILLS AND.
THERE ARE IN PARTICULAR OUR TO
THE ISSUE OF SOME THE SNEAKY
RELEASE AND NON DISPARAGEMENT
AGREEMENTS WHICH.
CAN SEEM SOMEWHAT ABSTRACT BUT
THEY HAVE BEEN A VERY MUCH A
SOURCE OF PERPETUATING THIS
BEHAVIOR AND WE'VE GOT TO PUT AN
END TO IT SO WITH THAT I WOULD
ASK YOU RIGHT VOTE.
THANK YOU.
THINKING IT THANK YOU SENATOR
JACKSON AND I GOOD AFTERNOON
MEMBERS ON TONY ARMY I'M PAST
CHAIR AND CURRENT MEMBER OF THE
CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION. AND WE'RE HERE
TODAY TO TALK ABOUT AN ASPECT OF
THIS BILL.
REGARDING THE WHAT IS TERMED
SNEAKY RELEASES AND NON
DISPARAGEMENT ON THIS IS A
MATTER THAT. OF MY CLIENT HERE
OF MARIA SAY IS HERE TO TALK
ABOUT HER REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE
AS TO WHAT HAPPENED TO HER WHEN
SHE WAS DEPLOYED. AT A LARGE
COMPANY THAT EMPLOYED.
THOUSANDS OF CALIFORNIA WORKERS
IN WHICH THEY WERE REQUIRED TO
NOT ONLY SIGN. UP.
PROVISIONS THAT PREVENTED THEM
FROM TALKING BADLY AND
DISPARAGINGLY ABOUT THE EMPLOYER
AND THEIR SUPERVISORS AND ANYONE
THAT THE COMPANY.
BUT ALSO TO SIGN DOCUMENTS AND
CONNECTIONS WITH BONUSES AND PAY
RAISES AND ANY KIND OF
EMPLOYMENT STATUS CHANGE IN
WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE TO SIGN AN
AGREEMENT OR SIGNED A RELEASE
THAT'S BAD THAT ALL THEIR CIVIL
RIGHTS CLAIMS. AND EVEN THEIR
SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
WERE-WAVES SO THAT THEY CAN GET
THEIR
LITTLE BONUS ARE THERE LOOKED
OVER THEIR SLIGHT PAY RAISE.
AND SO IN THIS MATTER WIN THIS
CASE WAS BROUGHT TO LITIGATION.
WE REPRESENTED FOR EMPLOYEES
ACTUALLY FIVE WOMEN WHO WERE
SEXUALLY HARASSED.
AGREE JUST ACTS OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT. BUT THESE RELEASES
WERE SET FORTH IN BROUGHT FORTH
AND ALL THESE HARASSMENT CLAIMS
WERE DISMISSED.
BECAUSE EMPLOYEES DID NOT KNOW
WHAT THEY WERE SIGNING AND THEY
WERE PUT IN THE CONTEXT OF
BONUSES AND RELEASES. BONUSES
AND AND PAY RAISES AND THEY HAVE
TO SIGN THOSE IN ORDER TO GET
THAT.
.
WE HAVE MORRISSEY HERE IS GOING
TO TALK ABOUT HER REAL LIFE
EXPERIENCE AND WHAT SHE WENT
THROUGH AFTER FOUR YEARS OF
LITIGATION. AND.
WE'RE HERE TODAY TO HOPEFULLY.
MAKE SURE THAT THIS TYPE OF.
TACTICS BY THAT BY BIG DEFENSE
AND EMPLOYERS WILL NOT CONTINUE.
THANK YOU.
OKAY I'D LIKE TO START OUT BY
SAYING THANK YOU I KNOW IT'S
TIME TO GO SO THANK YOU FOR
STICKING AROUND IN WAITING FOR.
US THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME
AND I LIKE TO THINK SENATOR
JACKSON TONY AND A LOT OF THE
WOMEN SITTING BEHIND ME. WHO
HAVE RESTORED MY FAITH IN OUR
JUDICIAL SYSTEM IT'S REALLY
REFRESHING TO BE HERE TODAY AND
IT MEANS A LOT?
I'M SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THIS
BILL IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T
REALLY BENEFIT ME PERSONALLY TO
BE HERE.
AT THIS POINT. I WISH IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN PASSED A FEW YEARS AGO
WHEN I WAS HERE MAYBE SOME OF
YOU REMEMBER ME.
BUT IT.
.
IT'S IMPORTANT A IT REALLY.
WHERE DID KIND OF PATCH OF? A
LOOPHOLE IN THE LAW THAT HAS
BEEN EXPLOITED I DON'T KNOW BY
HOW MANY. I ONLY KNOW OF ONE
INSTANCE BUT IT WAS A BIG
COMPANY AND IT'S. FRANKLY VERY
FRIGHTENING THAT THAT OCCURRED.
I WOULD LOVE TO TELL YOU MY
STORY WOULD LOVE TO TELL YOU THE
DETAILS OF WHAT HAPPENED TO ME
AT THAT COMPANY. BUT I'M NOT AT
LIBERTY TO DO SO.
I DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT.
AND I WISH THAT I DID.
BECAUSE IT'S VERY MUCH MY STORY.
AND.
IT.
IT'S IT'S REALLY.
IRRELEVANT HOW LONG IT WENT ON
BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT.
MY ENTIRE EMPLOYMENT LASTED
FOUR MONTHS HAD THIS COMPANY I
QUIT. IT WAS AWFUL IT WAS
ABSOLUTELY EARTH SHATTERING WE
EAT DE HUMANIZING. TO BE
EMPLOYED AT THIS COMPANY IT HAS
TAKEN ME CLOSE TO EIGHT YEARS OF
UNRAVELING.
TO UNDO AND AND REFLECT ON ALL
THE THINGS THAT THIS MAN WAS
ALLOWED TO TAKE FROM ME.
WHAT REALLY PISSES ME OFF IS
THAT HE TOOK MY VOICE?
I DON'T THINK THAT CALIFORNIANS
IT SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO THIS
KIND OF A LOOPHOLE. IT'S A
SMALL.
I A.
I DON'T KNOW WHY.
I'M JUST A PERSON RAIN I'M NOT A
LAWYER.
THE I AND THESE RELEASES HAVE
BEEN ENFORCED IT COST ME MANY
YEARS OF LITIGATION TO GET THEM
STRUCK DOWN IN MY CASE.
AND I I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS
BILL PASSED I THINK IT'S A
BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
I'M I'M ASKING YOU TO PROTECT
CALIFORNIANS AT WORK.
THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT.
PRETTY CLEAR CHARLOTTE THE
CALIFORNIA PLANET LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION IN STRONG SUPPORT
KNOWING JUST A PERSON. EXIST
UNDER EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES AND
THE STRONGER CALIFORNIA
ADVOCATES NETWORK IN STRONG
SUPPORT.
SHE AN INCIDENT GROWING AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN
CALIFORNIA CHAPTER IN SUPPORT.
GETTING GARY LEGALLY THAT WHERE
CONCERNS FOR IT.
MANDY BENSON WITH WORK EQUITY
AND MJ BENSON CONSULTING AND
SUPPORT.
BRITNEY MCCARTHY WITH WORK
EQUITY AND STRONG SUPPORT.
ANY NICOSIA'S OF THE COUNCIL ON
AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS
CALIFORNIANS STRONG SUPPORT.
NIKITA RACE I'M IN STRONG
SUPPORT.
PAMELA LOPEZ WITH WORK EQUITY IN
SUPPORT.
JURY MEMBERS KEVINBIG AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION A
CALIFORNIA ALSO INSTRUCT
SUPPORT.
WE'RE NAY MARROW HERE YOU
CALIFORNIA ALSO IN SUPPORT.
PARADE DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION.
HE'S STILL HERE.
WE'LL GET.
HELLO. PACKING AND MARK CURTIS
WITH CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE WE ARE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB AND THIRTEEN
HUNDRED AND AGAIN THIS THAT HAS
BEEN LABELED A JOB KILLER FOR
US.
OTHER SEEMS TO BE SOME CONFUSION
AROUND THE CURRENT STATE OF THE
LAW. AND THE PLAYERS ACTUALLY DO
HAVE AN AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO
PREVENT HARASSMENT AND
DISCRIMINATION THEY'RE REQUIRED
TO ACT AS SOON AS A COMPLAINT IS
MADE AND THEY ARE REQUIRED TO
HAVE. PROVISIONS IN THEIR
POLICIES AND HAVE THEM STEPS PUT
IN PLACE REGARDING PREVENTION OF
HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION
NYDIA PH HAS POLICE POWERS
AROUND PREVENTION AND OF
HARASSMENT DISCRIMINATION AND
THEY CAN AND ENFORCE REGULATIONS
SEEKING NON MONETARY RELIEF. AND
OR IF AN EMPLOYER IS NOT TO AND
PREVENTING HARASSMENT AND
DISCRIMINATION SO THIS CAN BE
ANY NON MONETARY AND INCLUDING
INJUNCTIONS. AND ALSO DURING
OUR.
BUT DURING THE AND HEARINGS OUR
UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE
DETERMINATION WAS TO NOT LOWER
THE SEVERE AND PERVASIVE
STANDARD WHAT THIRTEEN HUNDRED
DOES IT'S ACTUALLY A SKIRT
AROUND THE SEVERE PERVASIVE
STANDARD. BECAUSE WHY WOULD
ANYONE ACTUALLY SUPER HARASSMENT
OR DISCRIMINATION WHEN ALL THEY
HAVE TO SUE FOR NOW IS FAILURE
TO PREVENT HARASSMENT OR
DISCRIMINATION ESPECIALLY WITH
THE LANGUAGE OF S. B. IT
THIRTEEN HUNDRED. THAT ONLY
ALLOWS FOR IF AND WHEN LANGUAGE
IF IT CONTINUES THEN IT WOULD BE
HARASSMENT DISCRIMINATION BUT NO
HARASSMENT OR DISCRIMINATION
ACTUALLY HAS TO BE PROVEN. SO AT
UNDER THIS BILL ANYONE CONSUMER
DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AN EMPLOYEE
IT CAN BE ANYONE IF THEY SEE
SOMETHING THEY DON'T LIKE THEY
CAN TELL IT TO THEIR EMPLOYER.
AND THEN THE EMPLOYER OR THEY
CAN TELL TO THE EMPLOYER NOT
THEIR EMPLOYER TO THE EMPLOYER
AND LET THEM KNOW THAT IT WAS
UNWELCOME TO THAT DOESN'T MEAN
THAT THE HARASSMENT HAS TO
ACTUALLY BE HAPPENING TO ANYONE
ELSE. RESEMBLED YOU SAW SOMEONE
GROUP SOMEONE ELSE YOU DIDN'T
KNOW THAT THEY WERE IN A
CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIP PER
THAT'S PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE
STATUTE ARE I MEAN OF THIS BILL
THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO FILE A
LAWSUIT IS BY NOTIFYING THE
EMPLOYER THAT IT WAS UNWELCOME
TO THEM REGARDLESS OF. THE
CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIP DOES TO
KEEP INDIVIDUALS WERE AND AND
THIS WOULD CREATE A CRUSHING
AMOUNT OF LITIGATION THE COURTS
SHOULD NOT BE THE HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOR THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THAT IS
WHAT HUMAN RESOURCES ARE FOR
THESE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE GOING
TO THE EMPLOYER THEY SHOULD BE
FOLLOWING THEIR DUTIES UNDER THE
LAW REGARDING HER AND PER
ENGINE OF PRESENT AND
DISCRIMINATION AND WHEN IT
REACHES A SEVERE AND PERVASIVE
STANDARD YES THE COURTS ACTUALLY
USE SHOULD STEP IN WE. DO NOT
CONDONE HARASSMENT
DISCRIMINATION BUT THE WAY THAT
THIS IS DRAFTED IT WILL CREATE A
CRUSHING MEN OF LITIGATION FOR
EMPLOYERS THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TODAY AND FOR
THE TIME OUTSIDE. IT IS OF
EVERYBODY'S BEEN DOING GREAT
THEY'RE ALL STAYING AT TWO
MINUTES I APPRECIATED THE VERY
QUICK WELL IF I COULD JUST ADD
TO MISS CURTIS'S COMMENTS MISTER
CHAIR I IF YOU. LOOK AT SECTION
TWO OF THE BILL SUBDIVISION QUE.
THE BILL IN ITS INITIAL FORM
ADDED THE SECOND SENTENCE THE
FIRST SENTENCES EXISTING LAW.
AND THEN THE MOST RECENT
AMENDMENTS ADD THE THIRD
SENTENCE AND IF I COULD JUST.
GUIDE YOU TO IT.
CENTER JACKSON INDICATED THAT.
THE FIRST.
MAIN SECTION OF THIS BILL IS T
PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO THE COURTS
AND I'M GONNA. RESPECTFULLY
SUBMIT THAT BUT I THINK THAT
THERE'S A LOT OF AMBIGUITY IN
AND. FORGOTTEN SAID AND HERE'S
WHY. IF YOU READ THE SECOND
SENTENCE IT SAYS THE PLAINTIFF
IN AN ACTION ALLEGING UNLAWFUL
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE IS NOT
REQUIRED TO PROVE THAT THE
PLAINTIFF IN DIRT AND THEY'VE
STRUCK SEXUAL SO IT'S ONLY IT'S
ALL HARASSMENT OR
DISCRIMINATION.
SO IN THE FOR THE SECOND SENSE
WITH THE FIRST ONE ADDED BY THIS
BILL.
REQUIRES NO SHOWING OF HARM TO
THE INDIVIDUAL IS MISS CURTIS
INDICATED.
IN THE THIRD SENTENCE IT SAYS IT
SHALL SUFFICE TO THE FOR THE
PLAINTIFF TO SHOW THAT THE
EMPLOYER KNEW THAT THE CONDUCT
WAS UNWELCOME TO THE PLAINTIFF.
SO THAT THIRD SENTENCE BEING
ADDED BY THE MOST RECENT AMENDED
VERSION.
SEEMS TO SAY THAT WELL NOW
YOU'VE GOT TO SHOW THAT IT WAS
ON WELCOME TO THAT INDIVIDUAL
PLAINTIFF.
BUT AGAIN HAS THAT INDIVIDUAL
ACTUALLY BEEN IN SOME WAY.
HARASSED OR DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST.
OKAY SO I I THINK THERE'S PURE
LACK OF GUIDANCE TO THE COURTS
AND THERE'S A GREAT AMBIGUITY
BECAUSE THE FIRST.
ADDITION SAYS YOU DON'T HAVE TO
SHOW THAT YOU ENTERED ANY
HARASSMENT OR DISCRIMINATION.
BUT THEN IT SAYS THAT YOU HAD TO
SHOW WAS ON WELCOME TO THE
PLAINTIFF I DON'T KNOW HOW
THAT'S PROVIDING GUIDANCE. BUT
TO THE COURT WHETHER YOU'RE
CRITICAL OF THE SEVERE OR
PERVASIVE STANDARD THAT HAS BEEN
UTILIZED.
THE OTHER THING IS THAT IN
SECTION FOUR I THINK WE
RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH.
THE PROPONENTS WE THINK THAT.
.
YOU KNOW DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSES
ARE GOING TO HAVE AN ADVERSE
IMPACT ON POTENTIAL SETTLEMENTS
AND WE THINK THAT THERE'S AS
WE'VE REYES WAS CENTER JACKSON
AND HER STAFF. A CONCERNED ABOUT
BUSINESSES THAT ENGAGE IN SELF
AUDITS.
AND YESTERDAY WE HAD.
CONTINUE DISCUSSIONS AND WE DO
APPRECIATE THE TIME THAT CENTER
JACKSON AND HER STAFF AND
COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN.
BLESS YOU SENATOR I HAVE
PROVIDED TO US THE LASSES IN
SECTION FIVE IN SUBDIVISION
INCLUSION.
VERY QUICK CONCLUSION WE HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT THE EXCEPTION THE
NOTWITHSTANDING SECTION NINE
NINE NEED OF THE CIVIL CODE AND
IMPOSING THE VERY STRONG HOW
HEAVY. STANDARD ON THE AWARD OF
ATTORNEY'S FEES TO DEFENDANTS IN
THESE ACTIONS
I GARY MUCH.
WE HAVE OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
FRIDAY.
SO ONCE AGAIN NICOLE RICE
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURES A
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION WE ARE IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL FOR THE
REASONS STATED. BUT WE HAVE ALSO
AND RAISED AN ADDITIONAL POINT
THAT I JUST LIKE TO BRIEFLY I'M
PUT BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ABOUT
THIRTY SECONDS THIRTY SECONDS
HEARING THOUGH. OKAY.
SO ARE ISSUE HAS TO DO WITH THE
BYSTANDER INTERVENTION TRAINING
AND HOW CREATING A SEPARATE
INDEPENDENT TRAINING REQUIREMENT
WILL EXTEND LIABILITY TO
EMPLOYERS AND AND SPECIFICALLY
IN OUR CASE IN MANUFACTURING. WE
THINK THAT IT'S AN APPROPRIATE
ROLE FOR THE EMPLOYER TO INFORM
THEIR EMPLOYEES ON HOW TO
IDENTIFY SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND
OTHER GRASSROOTS IN THE
WORKPLACE. AND ALSO TO GIVE THEM
INFORMATION RELATED TO REPORTING
THAT ACTIVITY UP THROUGH A SOUP
OF HIS ORIEL TRAIN. HOWEVER WE
DON'T AGREE WITH.
WHO MOTIVATING AND ENCOURAGING
INDIVIDUALS TO ENGAGE IN THESE
POTENTIALLY HOSTILE SITUATIONS
BECAUSE WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT
THE LIE BELIEVE THAT COULD
EXTEND NOT ONLY TO THE EMPLOYER
BUT ALSO TO THE EMPLOYEES? AND
CO WORKERS THAT THEY'VE COME TO
THE ADA SO FOR THOSE REASONS WE
HAVE ADDITIONAL OPPOSITION THANK
YOU.
PAGE BACK TO NORMAL A NAME
ORGANIZATIONS. JOHN LEWIS THE
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
INDEPENDENT BUSINESS
REPRESENTING SMALL BUSINESS
OWNERS FOR WHOM LITIGATION IS A
SERIOUS ISSUE ALSO OPPOSED.
THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
KATIE HANSON OF THE CALIFORNIA
RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION WERE HERE
IN OPPOSITION.
BRIAN LITTLE CALIFORNIA FARM
BUREAU FEDERATION OPPOSITION.
MIKE FOLLOWED FOR THE CALIFORNIA
EMPLOYMENT LAW COUNCIL. HAVE
ALSO BEEN ASKED TO INDICATE THAT
THE CIVIL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA'S SUPPOSED THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. COLLEAGUES ANY
QUESTIONS.
DO I HAVE A MOTION.
SOME OF.
YOU I HAVE A CLOSING STATEMENT
YES FOR A VERY BRIEFLY.
.
YOU KNOW WE'RE TRYING VERY HARD
TO WORK OUT WHAT I THINK ARE
FAIR AND REASONABLE CONCERNS BY
THE OPPOSITION I WILL CONTINUE.
TO DO SO AND.
WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE.
.
SPONSORS OF THE BILL.
I. DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THIS
CONCERN ABOUT THAT YOU DON'T
HAVE TO BE A YEAH.
A PLAINTIFF TO INACTION.
OR THAT SOMEONE TO WHOM THIS
BEHAVIOR HAS OCCURRED WE'VE GOT
IN HERE.
.
AT THAT THE IT SHALL SUFFICE FOR
THE PLAINTIFF TO SHOW THE
EMPLOYER KNEW THAT THE CONDUCT
WAS UNWELCOME TO THE PLAINTIFF.
SO NOT TO SOME THIRD PARTY TO
THE PLAINTIFF THAT THE CONDUCT
WOULD MEET THE LEGAL STANDARD
FOR HARASSMENT OR DISCRIMINATION
IF INCREASED AND SEVERITY AND
BECAME OR BECAME PERVASIVE. AND
THAT THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO
TAKE ALL REASONABLE STEPS TO
PREVENT THE SAME OR SIMILAR
CONDUCT FROM OCURRING. THOUGH
THAT IS AN AMENDMENT WE TOOK SO
I'M ASSUMING THAT CONCERN WAS
FOR PRIOR LANGUAGE. BUT THE ONLY
SOMEONE WHO IS AN AGGRIEVED
PARTY CAN SO THAT'S OF STANDING
ISSUE AND AND YOU'VE GOT TO BE
HAVE BEEN.
THE RECIPIENT OF THE HARASSING
BEHAVIOR.
THE.
LET'S SEE WHAT WAS THE OTHER
ONE.
.
THE SETTLEMENT ISSUE BUT THIS IS
NOT A BILL ABOUT.
AGREEMENTS XIN SETTLEMENT NON
DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS THIS IS
ABOUT DISPARAGEMENT.
THIS OCCURS Y. YOU ARE STILL IN
EMPLOYEES.
SO THE SETTLEMENT ISSUE I THINK
SENATOR LEYVA HAS A BILL ON THAT
THIS IS ABOUT AND IN THE WHAT
THIS WOMAN COULDN'T TALK ABOUT.
WAS EXTRAORDINARY HARASSMENT.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT THAT SHE
INCURRED DURING THE LIMITED FOR
MONTHS THAT SHE WAS EMPLOYED BY
A SCOUNDREL WHOSE COMPANY IS
GONE OUT OF BUSINESS.
AFTER FINALLY HIT THIS PATTERN
OF BEHAVIOR.
THAT.
AND SHE CAN APPARENTLY CANNOT
DISCUSS IT.
IT WILL KEEP THE GENERAL.
PARA AND DID THIS IS SORT OF A
HARVEY WEINSTEIN TYPE SITUATION.
AND THERE ARE SO DARN MANY OF
THESE AND ONE YOUNG WOMEN IN
PARTICULAR. EIGHTEEN NINETEEN
YEARS OLD THEIR FIRST JOBS.
ARE WORKING FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE
KNOWN.
ABUSERS.
AND THEY CANNOT TALK ABOUT THIS
OR THEY'VE GIVEN UP THEIR RIGHTS
IN EXCHANGE FOR A SMALL RAISE
OVER A SMALL BONUS IN A PIECE OF
PAPER O. SIGN HERE AND THAT'S
WHY WE CALL THEM SNEAKY
RELEASES.
WE GOTTA STOP THE ACT
SO THIS IS NOT ABOUT SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENTS ASSIST ARE GOING TO
IMPEDE ANY OF THIS SIZE. EFFORT
TO SETTLE CASES AND I WILL
COMMIT I GOTTA I DON'T TOTALLY
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONCERN WAS
I THINK WE'VE ADDRESSED IT BUT
I'M CERTAINLY.
WILLING IN AND COMMITTED. TO
WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION HERE
SO THAT.
I DON'T THINK WE'LL EVER GET
THEIR SUPPORT BUT I THINK THAT
WE CAN MAKE THIS A GOOD BILL TO
PROTECT AGAINST THIS. SYSTEMIC
SEXUAL HARASSMENT THAT WE ARE
EXPERIENCING AND THAT THESE
BRAVE WOMEN AND MEN HAVE COME
UP.
AND TALKED ABOUT IN THEIR LIFE
EXPERIENCE WE'VE GOT TO DO
BETTER WITH THAT I WOULD ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE THANK YOU SENATOR
JACKSON I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE
OBSERVATION AND THAT IS THAT I
APPRECIATE. THE SPIRIT AND
EVERYTHING YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.
I JUST FEEL THAT.
OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY IS
STILL THERE STILL A DIVIDE HERE
AND I'LL BE VOTING NO JUST LIKE
IT DID IN THE LAST BILL FOR THAT
PURPOSE. AND IF YOU CAN BRING
THIS UP AND AND GET THEIR
AGREEMENT EVEN THOUGH YOUR THAT
SKEPTICAL YOUR SKEPTICAL ABOUT
THAT BUT I I'LL BE THERE THERE
THERE.
SO DRIVE A MOTION OR TO THE
EFFORT.
I HAVE.
TO MOTIONS.
I RIGHT BECAUSE GIVE MOVES.
AND MADAM CLERK I WANT TO READ
THE ROLE.
THE MOTION IS THE PASTOR
APPROPRIATIONS JACKSON AYE
JACKSON AYE MORE LOCK NO BLOCK
NO ANDERSON.
ANDERSON NO HERTZBERG HERTZBERG
AYE MONNING. MONNING AYE STERN
STERN AYE WIECKOWSKI.
I WAY BECAUSE HE AYE MOVE THE
CONSENT CALENDAR.
I THINK WE HAVE A FIVE TWO THAT
WE WILL EVEN MOVED TO CALL ON
THAT WERE DONE THANK YOU.
THEN I WHAT THE CHAIR.
AND CALENDAR. AND ALL THE
REMAINING.
SO TO BE CLEAR ON A FIVE TO VOTE
THAT BILL IS SO.
LET US GO BACK CALL THE
CONCERNED COUNTY WE HAVE A
MOTION BY SENATOR WIECKOSKI.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
JACKSON HIGH JACKSON I AM MORE
LOCK BLACK AYE ANDERSON ANDERSON
AYE HERTZBERG. HERTZBERG AYE
MONNING. MONNING AYE STERN STERN
AYE WIECKOWSKI.
BECAUSE HE AYE INCIDENT
CALENDARS SHOUTS SHIPMENT IS
HERO WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH
THE ROLE ONE TIME.
AND TO OPEN THE ROLE FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS ON FILE ITEM.
TO AND THE MOTION IS A TO PASS
TO.
TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING WITH
AMENDMENTS TO BE TAKEN IN THAT
COMMITTEE.
THE VOTE COUNT IS THREE ZERO
THE CHAIR VOTING AYE PLEASE CALL
THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
BLOCK. MORE LIKE NO ANDERSON
ANDERSON NO HERTZBERG HERTZBERG
AYE MONNING. MONNING AYE FIVE TO
TO THE BILL IS OUT NEXT IS FILE
ITEM FIVE IT'S BE TEN THIRTY
EIGHT THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO
AS AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
VOTE COUNT IS THREE TO ZERO THE
CHAIR VOTING AYE PLEASE CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS BUT A LOT. MORE
LIKE NO ANDERSON. ANDERSON NO
HERTZBERG.
MORNING.
MONNING I.
ALRIGHT THE OF THE BILL SHALL
FORWARD TO.
NEXT A BILL UP IS FILE ITEM SIX
S. B. TEN FORTY FIVE.
OF THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE WITH THE
AMENDMENTS TO BE TAKEN THERE.
THE VOTE COUNT IS FOUR ZERO THE
CHAIR VOTING AYE PLEASE CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS ANDERSON.
ANDERSON NO HERTZBERG. HERTZBERG
AYE STERN.
STERN AYE ALRIGHT SIX TWO ONE
THAT BILL IS OUT NEXT ITEM IS
FILE ITEM.
EIGHT S. B. ELEVEN EIGHTY SIX
THE MOTION IS TO PASS IS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS THE VOTE COUNT
IS THREE TO ONE THE CHAIR VOTING
AYE PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS. ANDERSON.
ANDERSON AYE HERTZBERG.
HERTZBERG AYE STERN.
STERN I.
LET ME SIX.
YEAH ELEVEN EIGHTY SIX ARE A BIT
WELL.
HE IS VICE.
SORRY.
NO NO NO EARLY ON SORRY INSTEAD
IS IF THAT WAS YOU KNOW THIS IS
SENATOR HILLSVILLE.
HELLO I'M SORRY THIS IS.
FILE ITEM DATE.
HARD TO KILL ME TOO. WRITERS
WILL DISAPPEAR.
DID.
ALRIGHT SO. TIGHT HEADLINING ACT
LET'S SO LET'S EXPUNGE THE ROLE.
AND.
WE WILL.
RE VOTE ON.
FILE ITEM EIGHT WITCHES S. B.
ELEVEN EIGHTY SIX.
AND.
BUT SEE WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A
MOTION TO DO THAT DOING.
TO EXPUNGE THE ORANGE PRIVATE
RESPOND WELL AS LONG AS IT IS
I'M HAPPY TO DO IT ALRIGHT SO
WE'LL EXPUNGE THE ROLE.
AND CALL.
THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
ON A FILE ITEM A TWO PASSES
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
A PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS.
ANDERSON NO ANDERSON NO.
STERN.
BY THE VOTE COUNT IS.
FOR.
FOUR TO ONE AND THAT BILL IS
SHAFT.
IT SHOULD BE FORTY TO FORTY TWO
THAT BILL IS AFTER.
SAID.
AND WE HAVE.
TWELVE EIGHTY FOUR IS OUT.
BUT LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS.
TWELVE EIGHTY FOUR THE VOTE
COUNT IS FIVE TWO ONE PLEASE
CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
ANDERSON. ANDERSON NOW BUT FIVE
TO TWO.
I THINK WE GOT EVERYBODY ON THAT
ONE. GLORY AND SO I BELIEVE
WE'VE GOTTEN TAKING CARE OF ALL
OF THE MEASURES.
FILE ITEM TWELVE EXCUSE ME
FILE ITEM TWELVE S. B. THIRTEEN
FORTY THREE THE MOTION IS TO
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS VOTE COUNT AS
FOUR ZERO.
ANDERSON I'M ANDERSON AYE
HERTZBERG HERTZBERG AYE STERN.
STERN AYE SEVEN SEVEN ZERO THAT
BILL IS CHAU REFUSAL AND FILE
ITEM THIRTEEN.
S. B. THIRTEEN NINETY FOR THE
MOTION IS TO PASSED THE PUBLIC
SAFETY THE VOTE COUNT IS THREE
TO ONE THE CHAIR VOTING AYE
PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
ANDERSON.
ANDERSON NO HERTZBERG. HERTZBERG
AYE STERN.
STERN I.
ALRIGHT FIVE TWO TWO THAT BILL
IS OUT.
ANYTHING ELSE NO. I BELIEVE THAT
TAKES CARE OF IT ALL.
WE ARE ADJOURNED THANK YOU THANK
YOU MEMBERS THANK YOU STAFF
THANK YOU