COMMITTEE -- TO ME TOO I'M GOING
TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER WE
ARE A SHORT OF A QUORUM SO WE
WILL START AS A SUB COMMITTEE
BUT WE WILL INTERRUPT.
AS SOON AS WE ARE ABLE TO GET.
OF THE QUORUM WILL ESTABLISH IT
AND GO FROM THERE -- I WANT --
TO WELCOME MORGAN BRANCH.
HERE -- IT HE WILL BE THE A SO
WHAT COUNSEL THE A COMMITTEE OF
ASSISTANT.
BUT WHAT'S THE EFFECTIVE WAY.
THAT COUNCIL STAFF COUNCIL STAFF
COUNSEL FOR THE REPUBLICAN
MEMBER.
IS AT SOME POINT PERHAPS OF OUR
COMMITTEE -- AND WE'RE DELIGHTED
TO HAVE YOU WELCOME ABOARD.
WE HAVE SIX ITEMS ON PROPOSED
CONSENT.
THEY ARE FILE ITEMS.
ONE BY -- SENATOR ROTH SB --
SIXTEEN WITH AMENDMENT OF FILE
ITEM FOR SENATOR SKINNER'S SB
TWO THREE FOUR WITH AMENDMENTS
FILE ITEM FIVE SB THREE OH SIX
BY SENATOR MORALE.
FILE ITEM SIX SB SIX THIRTY BY
SENATOR STERN.
FILE ITEM ELEVEN SB SIX FIFTY
TWO BY SENATOR ALAN.
AND FILE ITEM TWELVE SB SIX
EIGHTY BY SENATOR Y. KOWSKI WITH
AMENDMENTS -- WE WILL DO THE
CONSENT CALENDAR AGAIN WHEN WE
HAVE A QUORUM BUT IF ANY OF YOU
ARE HERE ON ANY OF THE BILLS
I'VE JUST IDENTIFIED.
OF THOSE BILLS ARE ON CONSENT --
IF YOU'D LIKE TO STAY AND HANG
OUT WITH US AND WATCH THE REST
OF THE COMMITTEE HEARING WOULD
BE DELIGHTED TO HAVE YOU BUT IF
YOU REALLY HEAR CHEST FOR THOSE
ITEMS.
NO NEED TO STICK AROUND --
BECAUSE THEY WILL BE SUPPORTED
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR SO.
WE'LL TURN NOW -- STARTING --
WITH FILE ITEM.
TEN THIS IS A SENATOR MORNINGS
BILL SB SIX FORTY FIVE ON CIVIL
DISCOVERY.
SENATOR MONNING THE FLOOR IS
YOURS WITH A REMINDER THAT IN
THIS COMMITTEE WE HAVE WITNESSES
TO WITNESSES TO MAIN WITNESSES
TWO MINUTES EACH.
THEN I ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT WILL BE
ASKED TO STEP UP TO THE
MICROPHONE -- DEBTS.
THE STATE WHERE THE BEGINNING OF
THE AUDIENCE AREA IS AND TO GIVE
YOUR NAME AFFILIATION AND OF
COURSE YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE BILL
WILL THEN GO AHEAD AND HERE
OPPOSITION. TWO WITNESSES TWO
MINUTES EACH AND THEN ALL OTHERS
WILL COME TO THE MICROPHONE NAME
AFFILIATION AND THEIR OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL AND THEN WE WILL
OPEN IT UP. FOR DISCUSSION ON
THE DíAS SO WITH THAT.
GOOD AFTERNOON CENTER MONNING
AND WELCOME.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS AND I WANT TO THANK YOUR
STAFF FOR THE YOU AND YOUR STAFF
FOR YOUR WORK ON ON THE ANALYSIS
OF FOR SB.
SIX FORTY FIVE MEMBERS SB SIX
FORTY FIVE PROTECT DYING VICTIMS
WHO SUFFER FROM TO SPECIFIC
DISEASES.
MESOTHELIOMA AND SILICOSIS FROM
DAYS AND DAYS OF ABUSE OF
DEPOSITION QUESTIONING IN CIVIL
CASES.
THIS BILL ADDRESSES A RECURRING
PROBLEM.
THIS PROBLEM EXISTS BECAUSE OF
AN UNINTENDED LOOPHOLE IN
CURRENT LAW.
AB EIGHTEEN SEVENTY FIVE ENACTED
IN TWENTY TWELVE LIMITED MOST
DEPOSITIONS TO SEVEN HOURS THE
SAME IS IN FEDERAL MATTERS.
AB EIGHTEEN SEVENTY FIVE
INITIALLY COVERED ALL CIVIL
CASES BUT AFTER DISCUSSIONS IN
HEARINGS THE LEGISLATURE AMENDED
THE BILL TO INCLUDE VERY SIX
SECTIONS TO THE SEVEN HOUR LIMIT.
EXCEPTIONS FOR EXPERT IN OTHER
SPECIALIZED WITNESSES FOR ALL
EMPLOYMENT CASES AND FOR COMPLEX
CASES.
HOWEVER IT WAS NEVER THE INTENT
TO EXEMPT DYING PATIENTS FROM
THE SEVEN HOUR LIMIT AND SUBJECT
TO THEM TWO DAYS AND DAYS OF
CROSS EXAMINATION.
BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT'S
HAPPENING.
AND IT'S NOT HUMANE.
DESPITE CURRENT LAW DEPOSITIONS
OF END STAGE MESOTHELIOMA
PATIENTS ALMOST ALWAYS INVOLVES
TWENTY HOURS OR MORE OF
QUESTIONING BY DEFENDANTS.
THIS IS BECAUSE CURRENT LAW
INCLUDES A LOOPHOLE WHICH ALLOWS
ONE SIZE FITS ALL CASE
MANAGEMENT ORDERS TO OVERRIDE
EVERYTHING IN THE LAW.
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE
PLAINTIFF IS CLOSE TO DYING.
UNDERSTAND THAT SEVEN HOURS OF
ON THE RECORD INTERROGATION OF A
DYING MESOTHELIOMA WE'RE
SILICOSIS PATIENT IS STRESSFUL
BECAUSE IT GENERATES TAKES A
FULL TWO OR THREE DAYS OF TIME.
TO RECORD THE SEVEN HOURS OF
DEPOSITION.
SB SIX FORTY FIVE DOES NOT
INTERFERE WITH ANY OTHER DETAILS
OF THE COURT'S CASE MANAGEMENT
ORDERS IT ADDRESSES ONLY THE
TIME ALLOWED DEFENDANTS TO
INTERROGATE DYING PATIENTS.
DURING THE DEPOSITION.
NO LIMITS ON INTERROGATORIES SB
SIX FORTY FIVE WOMEN'S
DEPOSITIONS OF DYING
MESOTHELIOMA AND SILICOSIS
PATIENTS TO SEVEN HOURS.
IN ADDITION THE COURT IN ITS
DISCRETION MAY GRANT UP TO THREE
MORE DEPOSITION HOURS UPON
REQUEST BY DEFENSE COUNSEL IN
THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS.
AS LONG AS THE HEALTH OF THE
DEPONENT DOES NOT APPEAR
ENDANGERED BY THE GRANT OF THE
ADDITIONAL TIME.
YOU'LL HEAR FROM MY WITNESSES
MACHEL BROCK MEYER.
SHE WAS AT HER FATHER'S
DEPOSITION IN A TYPICAL CASE HE%
WAS DEPOSED FOR TWELVE DAYS.
HIS ATTORNEYS TRIED TO USE
EXISTING LAW TO LIMIT THE
INTERROGATION BUT THE COURT
APPLIED ITS CASE MANAGEMENT
ORDER AND WOULD NOT ALLOW SUCH
LIMITATION.
THIS MICHELLE WILL REPORT THE
TWELVE DAY DEPOSITION WAS
EXTREMELY DEBILITATING.
YOU ALSO HEAR FROM JEREMY SMITH
OF THE STATE BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF
CALIFORNIA.
WHO REPRESENTS THE VAST MAJORITY
OF WORKERS EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS
AND SILICA?
MEMBERS SENATE BILL SIX FORTY
FIVES IN NARAL BILL THAT WILL
GREATLY HELP VICTIMS OF TWO VERY
SPECIFIC DISEASES BECAUSE THESE
DISEASES ARE EXTRAORDINARILY
PAINFUL AND TERMINAL.
IT WILL SURE THESE VICTIMS ARE
TREATED HUMANELY IN THE CIVIL
JUSTICE SYSTEM.
DURING THE LAST TWO WEEKS OF
THEIR LIVES.
AGAIN ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE AND
WILL DEFER TO THE CHAIR TO HEAR
FROM MY WITNESSES.
THESE FILES IN FRONT OF ME
CONTAIN -- CORD MANAGEMENT
BORDERS THE ARE VERY DETAILED
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDERS BUT WHICH
RECOGNIZE MUCH OF THE WORK IS
DONE THROUGH WRITTEN
INTERROGATORIES.
OFTEN REPEATED BY MULTIPLE
DEFENDANTS ANSWERED BY THE DYING
PLAINTIFF WHO THEN GETS ASKED
THE SAME QUESTIONS ONCE AGAIN.
IN PROTRACTED DEPOSITION AND I
WILL JUST CONCLUDE BY SAYING
THERE IS A SELF INTEREST IN
RUNNING OUT THE CLOCK BECAUSE
THE PLAINTIFF WHO DIES DURING
THE CASE IS ELIGIBLE. FOR
MEDICAL EXPENSES ONLY.
THE PLAINTIFF WHOSE CASE CAN BE
RESOLVED THE FAMILY CAN BE
ELIGIBLE FOR THE PROCEEDS FROM-PAIN AND SUFFERING AWARD.
SO WITH THAT MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS.
WOULD LIKE TO DEFER TO MY
WITNESSES THROUGH THE CHAIR
THANK YOU SENATOR GOOD AFTERNOON --
IF YOU TO START WITH YOUR NAME
AND AFFILIATION.
AND YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES THANK
YOU [inaudible]
I'M.
MY NAME IS MICHELLE ROCK MEYER --
RICHARD LLOYD SMITH IS MY FATHER.
I WORKED AS A DRY WYLER HIS
ENTIRE LIFE.
WE HAVE A PICTURE OF HIM AT HOME
WHEN I WAS YOUNG.
HIS HAIR WAS CRESTING WHITE WITH
DRY WALL COMPOUND WITH MY
BROTHER AND I SITTING IN HIS LAP.
LITTLE DID HE KNOW A GOOD TIME
[inaudible]
OKAY.
LITTLE DID HE KNOW.
THE MATERIAL HE DATED A FOR SO
MANY YEARS WOULD CAUSE HIS DEATH.
AFTER BEING DIAGNOSED WITH
MESOTHELIOMA.
AND BEING TOLD HE ONLY HAD A FEW
MONTHS TO LIVE.
MY FATHER CHOSE TO FILE A
LAWSUIT.
WE DEBATED AND I CONTINUE TO
DEBATE.
WHETHER THE LAWSUIT WOULD BE
WORTH THE STRESS THAT IT WOULD
BRING.
HE WAS A PROUD MAN AND HE
INSISTED THAT WE FIND A
RESPECTABLE ATTORNEY. TO TELL
HIS STORY.
THOUGH HE COULD TELL HIS STORY.
HE THOUGHT MAYBE.
IT WOULD HELP OTHERS.
ALL THE COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE
THAT PUT US BUSTO STROKE
PRODUCTS.
BUSTERS IN DURABLE PRODUCTS.
BECAUSE IT GAVE THEM PROFIT EVEN
THOUGH THE NEW.
IT WOULD INJURE AND KILL THOSE
WHO USE THE PRODUCT.
WE WERE TOLD THIS CASE WOULD BE
AS SIMPLE AS AN ASBESTOS CASE
COULD BE.
THERE WERE TWENTY DEFENDANTS AND
HIS ONLY EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS
WAS WORKING AS A DRY WALL OR THE
DEPOSITION STARTED IN A LOCAL
HOTEL ROOM.
ULTIMATELY -- SHORTLY THEREAFTER
MOVED TO MY HOUSE -- BECAUSE I
CARED FOR MY FATHER AT THE END
OF HIS LIFE.
HIS ATTORNEY ASKED HIM QUESTIONS
TO TELL HIS LIFE STORY
[inaudible]
I'M SORRY.
THE QUESTIONING TOOK EIGHTEEN
HOURS.
I WAS PRESENT FOR ALL OF THE
DEPOSITIONS BECAUSE I WAS MY
FATHER'S CARE TAKER.
MY DAD COULD ONLY US IN SIR
QUESTIONS FOR ABOUT FORTY FIVE
MINUTES AT A TIME.
HE WE NEED TO TAKE BREAKS TO
TAKE MEDICINE ASPIRATE THE MUCUS
THAT CONSTANTLY GATHERED IN HIS
MOUTH FROM HIS LUNGS.
AND USE THE BATHROOM AND TRY TO
GATHER STRENGTH FOR ANOTHER
FORTY FIVE MINUTES OF
QUESTIONING.
DESPITE THOSE DEFENDANTS
INTERROGATED MY FATHER FOR
TWELVE DAYS SPANNING SIX WEEKS.
AS HE WENT IN AND OUT OF THE
HOSPITAL.
INSTEAD OF ASKING HIM STRAIGHT
FOR QUESTIONS LIKE DID YOU USE
MY PRODUCTS.
THEY WERE ASKING HIM QUESTIONS
ABOUT.
WHETHER HE COULD REMEMBER THE
ADDRESS OF EVERY BUILDING HE
EVER STOPPED AND IT WAS CLEAR TO
ME THAT THEIR GOAL WAS TO SEE IF
HE COULD SURVIVE THE DEPOSITION.
HIS ATTORNEY AT A HAVE A VISE US
THAT IF HE DID NOT COMPLETE THE
DEPOSITIONS NO MATTER HOW LONG
THEY LASTED.
BUT A JUDGE WOULD LIKELY EXCLUDE
THE ENTIRE DEPOSITION FROM BEING
USED IN HIS TRIAL.
OUR ATTORNEY EVEN ASKED THE
JUDGE TO LIMIT THE DEPOSITIONS
[inaudible]
TIME.
OF THE DEFENDANTS. TO FOURTEEN
HOURS.
BUT THE DEFENDANT'S WOULDN'T
STOP.
AND THE JUDGE.
DID NOT LIMIT THE TIME.
MY DAD'S ENTIRE GOAL AT THE END
OF HIS LIFE.
HIS FOCUS TO SEE IF HE COULD
FINISH THE UNLESS DEPOSITIONS
[inaudible]
HE DID.
HE DIED A WEEK LATER.
I HAVE A PICTURE.
OF PICTURES OF WINDSOR.
WITH THE WHEN THE BIG DEPOSITION
STARTED.
AND THE LAST DAYS OF HIS TOP OF
US.
THE DEFENDANTS LAWYERS DID THEIR
JOB AND TOOK EVERY STRATEGIC
ADVANTAGE ABOUT THEY COULD.
BUT IT WAS IN HUMANE TO ALLOW
THEM TO INTERROGATE MY FATHER
THIS WAY.
I DON'T WOMEN LAWYERS FOR TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF THE CURRENT RULES.
BUT I HOPE THAT HIS SUFFERING
AND RTELLING.
THE STORY.
CAN HELP CHANGE THE RULES AND
PROTECT OTHERS IN THE FUTURE.
THAT'S WHAT MY DAD HOPED TO DO
BY EVEN BRINGING A CASE.
HE WANTED TO BRING OUT HOW
UNFAIR IT WAS.
THAT HE WAS WORKING WITH A
DANGEROUS.
DEATH INDUCING POISON WITHOUT
ANY WARNING.
HE HPED HE COULD PROTECT OTHER
WORKERS IN THE FUTURE.
AND I HOPE TO HELP THEM AS WELL.
IF THEY ARE DYING AND FACING IN
HUMANE DEPOSITIONS.
I ASK FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN
DOING WITH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH APPRECIATE
YOUR TESTIMONY OBVIOUSLY WILL
LET IT GO A LITTLE LONGER
APPROPRIATELY SO BUT NO NO
NOTHING TO APOLOGIZE FOR
APPRECIATE YOUR STORE.
IF YOU COULD PROCEED IF YOU
COULD DO THIS IN TWO MINUTES
WITH A CHRISTIAN.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE JEREMY SMITH HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE STATE BUILDING
AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL.
WE REPRESENT -- FOUR HUNDRED
FIFTY THOUSAND MEN AND WOMEN --
IN CALIFORNIA -- I'M HERE TODAY
ON BEHALF OF ALL OF THEM TO
ADVOCATE.
ON BEHALF OF THOSE WORKERS WHO
ARE ALREADY IN THE SYSTEM THE
COURT SYSTEM DEALING WITH THESE
ISSUES.
AND ALSO FOR THE THOUSANDS OF
OUR MEMBERS WHO HAVE UNDOUBTEDLY
BEEN EXPOSED TO AN ASBESTOS AND
OR SILICON THEIR CAREERS AND
WILL GET SICK EVENTUALLY.
THE FOLKS WHO ARE STRUCK WITH
THE TWO DISEASES WE ADDRESS THIS
BILL GO THROUGH EXTRAORDINARILY
PAINFUL DEATHS.
MESOTHELIOMA IS AN INCURABLE
CANCER OF THE CHEST WALL LINING
RETURNS DENTISTS USE SURROUNDING
THE LUNGS AND WITH THE TUMOR.
MESOTHELIOMA PATIENTS DIE ON
AVERAGE A YEAR AFTER DIAGNOSIS
AS A TUMOR CRUSHES AND DROWNS IN
FROM THE INSIDE.
IT'S ONLY KNOWN CAUSE IS
EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS.
PHIL BECAUSE THIS.
IS ALSO AN INCURABLE DISEASE
CAUSED BY EXPOSURE TO AND
BREEDING AND SILICA DUST FROM
CUTTING TILE GRANITE OR COURTS
MATERIALS.
SYMPTOMS CAN APPEAR FROM A FEW
WEEKS TO MANY YEARS AFTER
EXPOSURE.
AND TYPICALLY WORSEN OVER TIME
IS SCORING IN THE LUNGS OCCURS.
THERE IS NO CURE FOR SILICOSIS
THE VICTIM EVENTUALLY SUFFOCATES
TO THAT.
THOSE VICTIMS SHOULDN'T BE
VICTIMIZED TWICE NOR SHOULD THIS
THEIR SPOUSES OR CHILDREN
BECAUSE THEY BROUGHT THE
HAZARDOUS ASBESTOS FIBERS ARE
STILL OF THE CRYSTAL HOME ON
THEIR CLOTHES.
THAT ALSO HAPPENS FAMILY MEMBERS
MEMBERS GET SICK FROM THIS
EXPOSURE AS WELL.
THE WORKERS DIDN'T GO TO WORK TO
DIE.
SB SIX FORTY FIVE WAS ABOUT
TREATING THEM HUMANELY IN THEIR
FINAL DAYS WHILE KEEPING THE
PROCESS AS FAIR AS POSSIBLE.
WHAT'S NOT FAIR IS THE PAIN AND
SUFFERING THESE BOOKS AND YOU
ARE JUST FOR DOING THEIR JOBS
WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE HAZARD
SO THEY WERE UNABLE TO AVOID IT.
WHAT'S NOT FAIR IS THE FACT THAT
THEIR LIVES ARE BEING CUT SHORT
THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN
BECAUSE OF NEGLIGENCE OR FAILURE
TO WARN ABOUT THE TOXIC
MATERIALS.
WHAT'S NOT FAIR IS THE
UNNECESSARY STRESS OF ABUSE OF
DEPOSITIONS WHEN THESE VICTIMS
ARE STRUGGLING TO FIND JUST
JUSTICE.
IN A CIVIL COURT SYSTEM AND TO
HOLD ACCOUNTABLE THOSE ENTITIES
THAT BROUGHT THIS ON TO HOLD
THEM ACCOUNTABLE SO THAT OTHERS
ARE NOT VICTIMS IN THE FUTURE.
FOR THESE REASONS WE ARE PROUD
SPONSORS OF THIS LEGISLATION
ROGER I VOTE THANK YOU THANK YOU
VERY MUCH.
YOUR TESTIMONY OTHER WITNESSES
PLEASE IF YOU WOULD COME FORWARD --
NAME AND AFFILIATION PLEASE THE
MANAGER KEITH DONE HERE FOR THE
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF OF OUR
WORKERS PROUD TO BE CO SPONSORS
OF THIS LEGISLATION WE ASK FOR
YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
MY QUEST REPRESENTING DISTRICT
COUNCIL SIXTEEN PAINTERS AND
ALLIED TRADES AND DRY WALL
FINISHERS IN SPECIFIC IN STRONG
SUPPORT THANK YOU.
I'M SURE MEMBERS MIKE MONACAN ON
BEHALF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS A CALIFORNIA STATE HI
CHRIS COUNCIL.
WESTERN STATES COUNCIL SHEET
METAL WORKERS WERE DRIVE OUT
THANK YOU.
THE FUTURE JACKSON MEMBERS MUCH
LIGHTER WITH CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION ALSO IN SUPPORT THANK
YOU.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS LANDRAT ON
BEHALF OF CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF
CALIFORNIA PROUD TO SPONSOR THIS
LEGISLATION WE ARE TO SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
MADAM CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE FRIEND TRIBERG AND
WE THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE
IS PROUD TO SUPPORT THIS BILL.
THANK YOU.
BOTTOM CHAIR SHANE DUSTBIN ON
BEHALF OF THE TEAMSTERS AND THE
MACHINISTS AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
AS CHAIR ALLEN PIERCE -- PURPOSE
IN IN THIS PROCESS WORKERS LOCAL
SIXTEEN RETIREES CLUB AND WE
SUPPORT THIS BILL THANK YOU.
JANUARY TERRACE ON BEHALF OF THE
CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO WITNESSES PLEASE
THE OR ONE WITNESS MISTER BLOWED
IF YOU TAKE A SEAT UP FRONT YOU
CAN YOU CAN STAY.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
AFTERNOON.
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS MIKE
BELOW IT ON BEHALF THE
CALIFORNIA DEFENSE COUNSEL IN
CIVIL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL.
AS WE OPPOSED SB SIX THIRTY TWO
A TWO YEARS AGO.
WE CERTAINLY DON'T DISAGREE WITH
THE GRAVITY OF THE ILLNESS I DID
NOT LOSE A FAMILY MEMBER BUT I
LOST A VERY GOOD FRIEND TO ME IS
A DAILY ONLINE IT'S A GHASTLY
DISEASE AND ALWAYS FATAL.
ALMOST ALWAYS ASSOCIATED WITH
THIS BEST DOES BUT SOMETIMES
IDIOPATHIC.
THE ONLY THING WE DISAGREE WITH
SENATOR MINING ON FUNDAMENTALLY
IS THE NOTION THAT THERE WAS AN
ACCIDENTAL OR UNINTENTIONAL
ELEMENT.
TO THE GOT -- BILL IN TWENTY
TWELVE IN FACT THAT BILL
CAREFULLY EXCLUDED CERTAIN TYPES
OF CASES AND CASES THAT INVOLVE
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDERS AND THAT
WAS DONE WITH THIS BEST DOES IN
MIND.
IN THE HANDFUL OF COURTS IN
CALIFORNIA WHERE MOST OF THE
ASBESTOS LITIGATION OCCURS AND
THAT WOULD BE.
ALAMEDA SAN FRANCISCO LA AND
ORANGE.
JUDGES WHO DO THIS EVERY DAY IN
THE BIG COUNTIES ARE JUDGES WHO
DO NOTHING BUT AS BEST AS
CALENDARS AND THEY HAVE ADOPTED
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDERS WHICH
UNIFORMLY HAVE ADOPTED A TWENTY
HOUR DEPOSITION LIMIT.
IN RECOGNITION OF THE UNIQUE
ATTRIBUTES OF A SPOUSE DOES
LITIGATION.
AND THE FIRST UNIQUE AND MOST
IMPORTANT UNIQUE ATTRIBUTES IS
THAT THESE CASES OFTEN INVOLVE
NAMING DOZENS OF DEFENDANTS IT'S
NOT AT ALL UNCOMMON FOR THIRTY
FORTY FIFTY OR MORE DEFENDANTS.
TO BE NAMED IN IN THIS BEST DOES
CLAIM -- AND THAT OF COURSE IS
1100% WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF
THE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY.
WE DON'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU DON'T
HAVE TO BE IN AS FAST AS
LITIGATOR TO RECOGNIZE THE
PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE OF OF
DEPOSING.%
A PLAINTIFF BY SIX DEFENDANTS AS
OPPOSED TO SIXTY WE SIMPLY DO
NOT BELIEVE THAT SEVEN HOURS OR
TEN HOURS HE IS SUFFICIENT TO
TALK ABOUT THE FORTY OR FIFTY
YEAR HISTORY.
WHICH MIGHT HAVE LED TO THE
EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS IN THESE
CLAIMS IT IS THAT EXPOSURE WHICH
IS ESSENTIALLY THE ONLY ISSUE --
BEFORE THE COURT -- THE TIED TO
HIS BEST DOES IS CLEAR IT IS
WHOSE PRODUCT WAS THE PLAINTIFF
EXPOSED.
TO AND AT ONE TIME THEY WERE
TYPICALLY MILITARY SHIP BUILDING
AND SHIP -- NAVAL OPERATIONS BUT
IT CHANGED OVER TIME THEY CAN BE
DO WHAT YOU DO IT YOURSELF HOME
IMPROVEMENT PEOPLE WHO DEALT
WITH THIS BEST DOES CANING
CONTAINING MATERIALS.
THEY CAN BE PEOPLE WHO CHANGED
THEIR OWN BREAKS THEY'RE KNOWN
AS SHADE TREE MECHANICS AND
SOMETIMES IT TAKES TIME FOR
FIFTY OR SIXTY DEFENDANTS TO GO
THROUGH THE HISTORY AND
DETERMINE.
THE POTENTIAL EXPOSURE BY THE TO
THE DEFENDANT'S PRODUCT AND MANY
TIMES THESE ARE SMALL BUSINESSES
THEY COULD BE A LITTLE HARDWARE
STORE THAT MAY HAVE SOLD AS BEST
AS CONTAINING PRODUCTS.
IT TAKES TIME TO FIGURE OUT
WHOSE PRODUCT WAS THE DEFENDANT
HOW WAS THE PLAINTIFF EXPOSED.
TO SECOND BOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT
IT TAKES TIME FOR THAT AND THE
BURDEN IS ON THE DEFENDANT TO
DEVELOP THE FACTS NECESSARY TO
SUPPORT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MOTION.
THESE OFTEN START WITH DOZENS OF
DEFENDANTS AND BY THE TIME THEY
GO TO TRIAL IF AT ALL THERE'S
ONLY A HANDFUL OF DEFENDANTS
LEFT BECAUSE SOME HAVE
DEMONSTRATED THROUGH DEPOSITIONS
THAT THEIR PRODUCT.
WAS NOT OR COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED.
SO WE THINK THE PRACTICAL
REALITY IS THAT.
YOU COULD.
GIVEN THE NUMBER OF OF
DEFENDANTS NAMED WITHIN THE
DISCRETION OF THE PLAINTIFFS BAR
AND WITHIN THE BURDEN PUT ON THE
ON THE DEFENDANT.
IT TAKES TIME AND JUDGES WHO DO
THIS EVERY DAY HAVE DEVELOPED
THESE CASE MANAGEMENT QUARTERS
THANK YOU ALL WRAP IT UP.
WE HAVE IN THE PAST YOU'VE
ALREADY DONE FOUR MINUTES AND
BECAUSE HE WAS NO ONE ELSE I
GAVE YOU THE FOR BUT THANK YOU
ARE WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH POINT
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU ARE THERE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION OF SO
PLEASE COME FORWARD GIVE YOUR
NAME AND AFFILIATION AT THE
MICROPHONE.
RIGHT NOT SEEING ANY WILL BRING
IT BACK TO THE DíAS I WOULD
LIKE TO JUST START BY SAYING I
APPRECIATE YOUR BRINGING THIS
BILL.
YOU KNOW -- LAWYERS DOING THEIR
JOB ARE GOING TO TRY TO
REPRESENT THEIR CLIENTS.
AND THEY WILL.
MEET HOPEFULLY MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IMPOSED
UPON THEM BUT IF THEY ARE GIVEN
AN EXPANSIVE AMOUNT OF TIME THEY
WILL USE IT.
AND CLEARLY.
THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXTEND OUT A
DEPOSITION WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEONE
WHO MAY END UP.
CONFLICTING.
BY WITH CONFLICTING STATEMENTS
WHO WERE NOT AS ACUTELY ON THEIR
GAME IF YOU WILL.
BECAUSE OF THIS DISEASE BOB PART
OF THE GOAL WILL BE TO TRIP THEM
UP TO GET THEM TO SAY THINGS
THAT ARE INCONSISTENT IN PART.
BECAUSE ARE EXHAUSTED AND
THEY'RE IN PAIN.
AND AND AND THERE ARE REALLY
STRUGGLING TO PARTICIPATE -- SO
I'VE SEEN THIS IS AN ATTORNEY I
PRACTICED LAW FOR TWENTY TWO
YEARS I'VE SEEN ALL THE GAMES --
AND I I DON'T BELITTLE THE
BEHAVIOR IT'S PART OF WHAT YOU
DO TO REPRESENT YOUR CLIENT --
BUT AS FAR AS THE COURTS ARE
CONCERNED BY IT'S NOT THE FIRST
TIME THAT WE WILL BE IMPOSING
CERTAIN RULES AND AND
RESTRICTIONS ON THE COURTS AND I
APPRECIATE THAT WE HAVE CASE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BUT I THINK
THAT.
HAS A LEGISLATURE WE HAVE THE
ABILITY TO SET POLICY AND TO
MAKE IT VERY CLEAR.
IF WE ALLOW SEVEN HOURS OF THE
TESTIMONY OF THE DEPOSITION -- I
HAVE EVERY CONFIDENCE THAT THE
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WILL GET
TOGETHER.
AND THEY WILL PREPARE A SEVEN
HOUR DEPOSITION THAT COVERS THE
QUESTIONS THAT OTHERWISE THEY
TAKE FIFTY HOURS. TO A
DEVELOPING AND I CAN THINK OF
WAYS TO DO IT YOU JUST SIMPLY
ASK -- IN X. YEAR.
WHERE WERE YOU WORKING?
COMPANY ABC INDY AND THE LAWYERS
WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
ASSURE THAT THEIR DEFENDANTS.
OF A COMPANY IS MENTIONED IN
THAT ONE SENTENCE AND CAN.
HAVE THAT.
EXAMINATION FOLLOW WITH GROUP
GREATER SPEED AND SENSITIVITY
TOWARDS THE NEEDS OF THESE.
PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEARLY DYING AND
I APOLOGIZE THAT.
YOU HAD TO GO THROUGH THIS BUT
APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY -- I
THINK THAT THIS IS A A
REASONABLE -- BUILD ADDING
ADDITIONAL TIME IF THE DEFENSE.
CAN SHOW BECAUSE AS TO WHY THEY
SHOULD HAVE THAT THREE HOURS.
BUT WE KNOW THAT THESE
DEPOSITIONS WHEN YOU HAVE NEW
LAURIE SHASTA SAME QUESTIONS.
ON BEHALF OF A DIFFERENT
DEFENDANT -- AGAIN MOST LAWYERS
ARE CLEVER ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO
PUT IT ALL INTO A SEVEN HOUR
PACKAGE.
AND CLEVER ENOUGH TO PUT IT INTO
A SEVENTY OUR PACKAGE IF THEY
THINK THAT THAT'S GOING TO
ADVANCE THEIR CLIENTS BECAUSE I
THINK FOR THE LEGISLATURE IT'S
OUR DUTY TO REALLY SAID POLICY
ON WHAT WE ARE GOING TO PERMIT
AND NOT PERMIT SO -- I THINK IT
CREATES REASONABLE LIMITS -- IN
TAYLOR'S THE THE APPLICATION. TO
THOSE WHO HAVE SO LITTLE TIME
LEFT IN WHO ARE SUFFERING VERY
PAINFUL DEATHS BECAUSE OF THIS
HORRIFIC SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES SO.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT I
DON'T HAVE A QUESTION I JUST
WANT TO WILL.
APPLAUD THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL AND AND YOU FOR COMING
FOR ANALYST'S MUST'VE BEEN
EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT AND
FOR THE ALL THE PEOPLE OUT THERE
WHO WERE DEALING WITH THIS
SITUATION AND THEIR FAMILIES.
SO -- IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS SENATOR BORDERS
[inaudible]
YOU.
BY THE WAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR YOUR COMPELLING -- TESTIMONY
I KNOW IT'S EARLY COULD HAVE
BEEN USING -- I'D LIKE TO DIRECT
MY QUESTIONS -- TO SENATOR
MONNING -- IT SEEMS AS IF THIS
IS A IT'S A BALANCE OF DUE
PROCESS.
HOW DO WE LOOK AFTER THE
INTEGRITY OF OUR JUDICIAL
PROCESS?
WHILE ALSO MAKING CERTAIN THAT
DOESN'T UNFAIRLY BURDEN THOSE
WHO ARE ALREADY AGGRIEVED --
WERE NEARING THEIR TIME -- ON
THIS EARTH [inaudible]
AND LIKE ANYTHING AT ALL GOOD
LEGISLATION I THINK HAS A
BALANCED APPROACH.
AND SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS.
I CERTAINLY CAN APPRECIATE THAT
ARE HOW CERTAIN ADVOCATES BY USE
STRATEGIC DELAYS.
IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS.
BUT I JUST HAVE TWO QUESTIONS --
ONE IS WERE THERE ANY TIME
ASSESSMENTS -- OR STUDIES.
OR EXPERT -- IT YEAH ADVICE
OFFERED INTO WHETHER SEVEN TO
TEN HOURS IS APPROPRIATE AS
OPPOSED. TO FIFTEEN OR TWENTY
YES IT'S A FAIR QUESTION THE
ANSWER IS YES.
BUT WE CAME AT IT.
FROM THROUGH THE OTHER LANDS OF
LIFE REMAINING THE QUALIFICATION
IN THIS BILL IS THAT IT DR.
HAS A TESTED THE YOU HAVE LESS
THAN SIX MONTHS TO LIVE AND SO
THE CLOCK IS RUNNING.
THAT PLAINTIFF IS GOING TO DIE
WITHIN SIX MONTHS WE KNOW IN THE
CASE OF MISTER SMITH --
MICHELLE'S FATHER.
HE WAS DEPOSED FOR FOURTEEN
HOURS.
BUT IT SPANNED THIRTY FIVE DAYS
IN A SHE TESTIFIED.
WHEN HE WAS CLOSE TO DEATH HE
COULDN'T SUSTAIN ANSWERING
QUESTIONS FROM MORE THAN FORTY
FIVE MINUTES AT A TIME?
WHAT THIS DISEASE REPLICATE IS
DROWNING THE LUNGS FILL WITH --
WASTE AND IT'S YOU YOU FEEL LIKE
YOU'RE DROWNING SO WE CAME AT IT
FROM.
LESS SIX MONTHS OR LESS TO LIVE.
AND THEN.
AVERAGED THE ANSWER TO YOUR
QUESTION AVERAGE DEPOSITIONS
BEING. TWENTY TO THIRTY HOURS
AND AS THE CHAIR POINTED OUT
OFTEN LOT OF DUPLICATION IN THAT.
SO WHEN WE ARRIVED AT THE SEVEN
HOURS PLUS THREE IT'S IMPORTANT
TO RECOGNIZE THE SEVEN HOURS IS
NOT GENERALLY GOING TO BE.
ONE DEPOSITION PERIOD IT'S GOING
TO EXPAND PROBABLY TWO DAYS
MAYBE THREE DAYS AGAIN BECAUSE
OF THE WEAKNESS.
OF THE DEPONENT -- WE DID
THROUGH NEGOTIATION ANOTHER
STILL OPPOSITION BUT WE'VE TRIED
TO FIND A BALANCE AND WE DO --
DEFERRED THE DISCRETION OF THE
JUDGE TO ADD THREE HOURS -- IN
THAT JUDGE CAN TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION THE CONDITION OF
THE PATIENT.
AND IF IF THE DEFENSE IS MADE A
COMPELLING ARGUMENT.
FACT OF THE MATTER IS.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF QUESTIONS
ASKED BY MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS
RELATING ANSWERS ALREADY
INCLUDED IN INTERROGATORIES.
PLACE OF WORK TYPE OF WORK
ADDRESS OF THE WORKPLACE THE
RELATION OF THE WORK -- IN THOSE
ALL GET REPEATED THEN IN THE
DEPOSITION TO SEE IF THAT DYING
PATIENT.
IS PALM.
IN A PERIOD MAYBE OF IN
COHERENCE -- THEY CAN CONTRADICT
WHAT WAS IN THE WRITTEN
INTERROGATORIES SIR LAND SO I I
I CERTAINLY CAN IMAGINE.
HOW THAT'S?
HOW THAT'S BEEN DONE AND
CONTINUES TO BE DONE -- IT'S
FIND THAT BALANCE -- IN MAYBE
YOU FOUND IT MAYBE NOT -- IT
WOULD BE HELPFUL IS TO FROM MY
STANDPOINT I'M JUST ONE MEMBER
OF THIS COMMITTEE OTHERS MAY
FEEL DIFFERENTLY.
I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE TO SEE A
LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY --
WHILE STILL ACHIEVING THAT SAME
RESULTS -- BUT MY LAST QUESTION
IS.
WHY WOULD WE WANT TO THIS REALLY
LIMITED TO JUST THESE TWO
MEDICAL CONDITIONS?
IF LIFE EXPECTANCY IS IT SIX
MONTHS FOR LASSEN THAT'S
OBJECTIVELY -- DIAGNOSED.
BY A BOARD CERTIFIED -- DOCTOR.
WHY WOULDN'T THIS APPLY TO OTHER
FORMS OF -- CANCER STRICKEN
PATIENTS ORANYONE ELSE
SIMILARLY SITUATED.
IT'S A FAIR QUESTION IN AN
AMENDMENT THAT I MIGHT.
WILLINGLY CONSIDER I THINK THE
REASON WE FOCUSED IN.
ON MESOTHELIOMA IN SILICA IS
BECAUSE WE KNOW THOSE --
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS CAUSED.
SOME DEATHS FROM EXPOSURE THAT
ONCE THE DIAGNOSIS IS MADE IT IS
TERMINAL AND IF WE OPEN THAT ALL.
END OF LIFE LITIGATION -- IT
COULD POSE OTHER QUESTIONS LACK
OF CERTAINTY AND DIAGNOSIS WITH
OTHER CANCER DIAGNOSES AT CETERA.
WE WERE VERY CONFIDENT.
OF WHAT THE COURSE OF OF LIFE
AND DEATH IS WITH EXPOSURE TO
THESE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS SO AND
IN ITS WHERE.
THE PROBLEM IS BEEN IDENTIFIED --
NOT JUST BY.
LAWYERS BUT BY FAMILIES SO ALL
ALL LAST MY FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS
FOR YOU TO CONSIDER.
THAT YOU MAKE THIS.
FOR MEDICAL TERMINALLY DIAGNOSED
MEDICAL CONDITIONS SIX MONTHS OR
LESS.
THAT IS NOT BE LIMITED TO THESE
SPECIFIC TO I THINK IT IS SHOULD
BE ACROSS THE BOARD IN MY
OPINION -- BUT THAT'S UP FOR YOU
TO COME TO CONSIDER.
AND THAT THE OUR RANGE
[inaudible]
BE DOUBLED.
IS LONG AS IT'S NOT DUPLICATIVE.
YEAH I WOULD ACT AS THAT YOU
JUST CONSIDER THAT FOR YOUR OWN
THIRD DIVISION.
THANK YOU CAN BUT I JUST WANNA
BE CLEAR WE'RE NOT GOING TO
NEGOTIATE AMENDMENTS HERE AT
THIS POINT IN TIME YOU CAN
CERTAINLY AMAZON BUTTON TO TAKE
ANY AMERICAN THANK YOU JUST WANT
TO BE CLEAR THAT'S NOT WHAT
WE'RE GONNA DO.
SENATOR -- I APPRECIATE THE
SPIRIT OF YOUR QUESTIONS GLAD TO
INVESTIGATE THOSE IN AND STAY IN
A DIALOGUE WITH YOU -- THE
SECOND SUGGESTION I THINK THE
PROBLEM THERE WOULD BE YOU DON'T
HAVE A JUDICIAL OFFICER IN THE
DEPOSITION.
AND SO DO CLICK IT IF QUESTIONS
START BEING ANSWERED YOU'RE
GONNA HAVE TO HIT THE PAUSE
BUTTON IN THE DEPOSITION.
GO BACK TO THE COURT IN SEEKING
JUDICIAL.
SOME DIRECTION AS TO WHETHER
THEY'RE ASKING -- DUPLICATIVE
QUESTIONS AND THEN FOR THE LIFE
OF THE PLAINTIFF THE PATIENT.
THE METER DOESN'T PAUSE FOR THEM
THEY CONTINUE AND AS I POINTED
OUT BEFORE.
THE WAY THE DAMAGES WORK.
THERE'S ACTUALLY A SELF INTEREST
IN KEEPING.
KEEPING THE DEPOSITIONS GOING AS
LONG AS POSSIBLE I'M NOT
SUGGESTING ANY DEFENSE COUNSEL
DO THAT.
BUT WE DEAL WITH HUMAN NATURE.
AND DOLLARS AND CENTS IN THESE
CASES DAHLE ELDERLY RESERVE MY
JUDGEMENT.
ON THAT THE NEXT EVOLUTION OF
THIS BUT I THINK IT HAS A LOT OF
MERIT AND ONCE AGAIN THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
COMMENTS WE HAVE A QUORUM MADAM
SECRETARY BEFORE WE HAVE YOU
CLOSE SENATOR.
LET'S.
CALL THE ROLL.
JACKSON HERE.
JACKSON HERE GORGEOUS.
THIS THIS IS A QUORUM WORST
ABOLITION OF QUORUM COURT
[inaudible]
YOUR BROTHER.
ORDERS HERE ALLEN.
ALLEN HERE CABALLERO.
MONNING YOUR MORNING HERE STERN
[inaudible]
I'M BURKE WHY CAL SKI HERE I
CASKEY HERE ART WE HAVE
ESTABLISHED A QUORUM AND TO THIS
SO -- IF YOU'D LIKE TO CLOSE AND
THEN THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A
MOTION.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS
AND AGAIN I APPRECIATE THE THE
CHAIRS DIRECTION ON THIS SEASON --
IN SUPPORT AND I ALSO DO
APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS BY
MEMBERS AND WILL CONTINUE TO
EXPLORE.
VIABLE OPTIONS.
IN MY CLOTHES HOWEVER I AM
URGING YOUR AYE VOTE TODAY.
WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS WORK
IN THE LAST SESSION -- AND WE'VE
FURTHER TRIED TO FOCUS.
WE ARE FOCUSED ON THESE TWO
TYPES OF INDUSTRIAL EXPOSURE --
WHERE WE KNOW OF THE PAIN AND
SUFFERING NOT JUST TO THE
PLAINTIFF BUT OF FAMILY MEMBERS --
I THINK WE'VE COVERED MOST OF
THE CONCERNS WITH THE CHAIRS
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS AND IN
THOSE OF MEMBERS -- I REMAIN
COMMITTED TO SAY DO ON ALL
LEGISLATION TO AN OPEN DOOR IN
AN OPEN MIND -- I ALSO WANT TO
THANK THE WITNESSES WHO JOINED
US TODAY AND PARTICULARLY MISS
PROXMIRE FOR SHARING.
HER LOSS IN A VERY DIFFICULT --
FORM TO DO THAT SO WITH THAT
MEMBER SIDE -- CHAIR I VOTE.
THERE'S A MOTION BY SENATOR WHY
CAO SKI THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED
TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
USER CALL THE KALRA.
JACKSON HI JACKSON AYE GORGEOUS
[inaudible]
ALAN.
ALLEN I CABALLERO.
MONNING AYE AYE MONNING AYE
STERN.
STERN AYE AMBERG.
WHY KOWSKI HIGH ACROSS THE I OR
THIRD BILL HAS FIVE VOTES WE
WILL LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN THANK
YOU SENATOR MINING AND THANK YOU
TO YOUR?
WITNESSES AND BEST SELECTING.
ALL RIGHT WE HAVE -- WE GOING
FILE ORDER WHEN WE HAVE MEMBERS
WHO ARE HERE AND WE DO WE HAVE --
A FIRST OFTEN FILE ITEM NUMBER
TWO WATER WE BEFORE WE DO
MISSION -- MISSED MISSED REQUIRE
WHY DON'T YOU -- GO AHEAD AND
COME ON UP AND AS WE DO THAT WE
CAN HAVE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR.
BECAUSE THEIR MOTION -- TO THE
CONSENT CALENDAR THE ITEMS TO
THOSE MEMBERS WHO WERE NOT HERE.
FILE ITEMS ONE FOUR FIVE SIX
ELEVEN AND TWELVE ALREADY SO
PLEASE CALL THE CALL THE ROLL.
JACKSON HI JACKSON I BORDERS.
CONSENT CALENDAR YES.
ORDERS AYE ALLEN.
ALLEN I A COUPLE.
MONNING.
STERN AYE STERN AYE NUMBER.
WHITE HOUSE SKI AYE AYE CASKEY
AYE.
THIS THE CONSENT COUNTING.
RIGHT MONNING AYE RIGHT WILL
LEAVE THAT ROLE OPEN FOR THE
ABSENT MEMBERS WILL GO RIGHT.
DIRECTLY NOW TO FILE ITEM TWO BY
SENATOR MCGUIRE.
ON PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY
ELECTIONS AND AS A REMINDER WE
HAVE TWO WITNESSES -- ON EACH
SIDE TWO MINUTES EACH AND AND
THEN WE WILL OPEN IT UP TO
QUESTIONS AFTER BOTH SIDES ARE
HEARD.
SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED
CENTER MONNING THE FOR A EXCUSE
ME SENATOR REQUIRE THE FLOOR IS
YOURS THANK YOU SO MUCH MANAGER
WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE
CHAIR UP FOR ALL OF HER WORK
ALONG WITH HER FANTASTIC STAFF.
IN A WANT TO SAY HAPPY BIRTHDAY
TO MISTER MONEY IS WELL SO A
GOOD STAFF -- THINNER WIENER AND
HE DOES APOLOGIZE CITY CANNOT BE
HERE TODAY HE'S PRESENTING A
RATHER LARGE HOUSING BUILT THE
MOMENT -- WE ARE HONORED TO BE A
pPRESIDENTIAL TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.
AS WE ALL KNOW MEMBERS
TRANSPARENCY IS A NON PARTISAN
ISSUE IN HIS FOOT -- IT IN ITS
TRANSPARENCY THAT PROVIDES THE
BASIS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY IN OUR
GOVERNMENT. FOR THE PAST FORTY
YEARS -- EVERY US PRESIDENT
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALIKE
HAVE RELEASED THEIR TAX RETURNS.
AND I TO SAY THEY'RE PATRIOTS
THAT THEY PUT THE NATION'S
INTERESTS ABOVE EVERYTHING ELSE.
IN PRESIDENT'S ARE EXPECTED PUT
THEIR OWN INTERESTS DECIDE
WHETHER IT BE BUSINESS TIES OR
RELATIONSHIPS WITH A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT.
AND THEY DO THIS FOR THE GREATER
GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY.
THAT GREATER GOOD IS AMERICAN
SECURITY IN THE PROTECTION OF
OUR PEOPLE.
INCOME TAX RETURNS FROM
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES PROVIDE
VOTERS WITH ESSENTIAL
INFORMATION REGARDING POTENTIAL
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS DEALINGS FINANCIAL
STATUS AND CHARITABLE DONATIONS.
AND WHILE THE RELEASING OF TAX
RETURNS MADAM CHAIR AS PART
CONVERSATION IN OF COURSE DEBATE
IN THE PAST.
ALL CANDIDATES TO RUN HAVE PUT
THEIR DISCOMFORT ASIDE FOR THE
PAST FOUR DECADES BECAUSE THE
RELEASING OF TAX RETURNS HAS
BECOME A TIME HONORED TRADITION
IN OUR DEMOCRACY.
THIS TIME HONORED TRADITION CAME
TO AN ABRUPT HALT IN THIS LATEST
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WHEN
PRESIDENT TRUMP REFUSED TO
RELEASE HIS INCOME TAX RETURNS
THE NINE VOTERS.
THE OPPORTUNITY THE OPPORTUNITY
TO BE ABLE TO FULLY EVALUATE HIS
FITNESS FOR THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESS IN THE UNITED STATES.
SB TWENTY SEVEN INSURERS IT
FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
WILL BE BARRED FROM APPEARING IN
THE CALIFORNIA PRIMARY BALLOT
UNLESS THE RELEASE OF TAX
RETURNS A VOTERS -- PRESSING
ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED
FAR BEFORE ELECTION DAY BECAUSE
UNLIKE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND
FEDERAL APPOINTEES.
PRESIDENTS AS WELL AS THE VICE
PRESIDENT I'D STATES ARE
COMPLETELY EXEMPT FROM CONFLICT
OF INTEREST LAWS THAT MEANS ALL
OF US IS A MEMBER OF THE STATE
LEGISLATURE ALONG WITH LOCAL
ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM.
SANITARY DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS
ABOARD THE SUPERVISORS DISCLOSE
MORE INFORMATION THROUGH
MANDATED CONFLICT OF INTEREST
DOCUMENT FILINGS AND THE
PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT I'D
STATES OF AMERICA.
THERE'S A LOT AT STAKE.
AND NO MATTER WHO THE PRESIDENT
IS THE SHAPE TAX POLICY WHICH
WILL BENEFIT THE RICHEST
AMERICANS.
THERE'S IN SHAPING INTERNATIONAL
POLICY WHICH COULD ENRICH
THEMSELVES.
AND AMERICAN PUBLIC IS NO WAY TO
KNOW BECAUSE FOREIGN INVESTMENTS
AT THIS POINT IN TIME OUR OWN
DICKS DISCLOSE.
NOW PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A STRONG
EXAMPLE OF THE NEED FOR THIS
LEGISLATION BUT MADAM CHAIR I
ASSURE YOU HE'S NOT THE ONLY.
ONE THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT ONE
SPECIFIC PERSON OR POLITICAL
PARTY IT'S MUCH BIGGER THAN THAT.
CALIFORNIA VOTERS DESERVE TO
KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT ALL
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES BEFORE
CASTING THEIR VOTES AS AMERICANS.
AND IF HILLARY CLINTON HAD WON
THE PRESIDENCY WITHOUT RELEASING
HER TAX RETURNS WOULD BE RIGHT
HERE TALKING WITH ALL OF YOU
ABOUT THE NEED FOR THIS BILL.
I'M GOING TO END IT HERE AND
TALK ABOUT WHAT THE BILL'S GOING
TO DO AND THEN MADAM CHAIR WOULD
LIKE TO TURN IT OVER FOR TOO
MANY TESTS MONEY FOR EACH OF THE
FOLKS WERE UP HERE WITH US.
NUMBER ONE THIS BILL WOULD
MANDATE A CANADA FOR PRESENT IN
ORDER TO HAVE HIS OR HER NAME
PLACED ON THE ELECTION BALLOT
THE FILE HIS OR HER INCOME TAX
RETURNS FOR THE FIVE MOST RECENT.
TAXABLE YEARS WITH THE SECRETARY
OF STATE BEFORE THAT ELECTION
WE'RE GRATEFUL THAT MISS MARKETS
HERE WHO IS REPRESENTING
SECRETARY STATE TO DO WHO'S IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
IN ORDER TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL
PRIVACY THE SECTORS STATE WILL
REACT THE INCOME TAX RETURNS A
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.
I'D I'D LIKE TO BE A TO POINT
OUT TO MY RIGHT -- WHAT THIS
WOULD LOOK LIKE WHAT YOU HAVE
ARE TWO SAMPLES BY THE WAY DO
YOU CAN JUST GOOGLE LISTS AND
IMAGES WILL COME UP?
A BOTH PRESIDENT BUSH IN TWO
THOUSAND FIVE AND PRESENT OBAMA
IN.
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT SO SECURITY
NUMBERS ARE REDACTED
CONSIDERATION LIKE PHONE NUMBERS
REDACTED BUT PRETTY MUCH
EVERYTHING ELSE IS THERE FOR THE
PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO SEE.
THIS IS JUST A SAMPLING OF WHAT
IS CURRENTLY ON THE WEB EVEN AS
WE SPEAK.
RETURNS MUST BE AVAILABLE TO THE
PUBLIC ON THE SECRETARY CITY'S
WEBSITE.
AND HAD TO SAY STATES HAVE AN
ESSENTIAL ROLE IN PROVIDING
CHECKS AND BALANCES THE FEDERAL
POLICY.
IN SB TWENTY SEVEN IS SIMPLY A
BALLOT ACCESS REQUIREMENT OF
RELEASING TAX RETURNS AND IT'S
LIKE OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL BALLOT
ACCESS REQUIREMENTS THAT WE
CURRENTLY HAVE NOW.
SO FOR EXAMPLE TO BE A RUN FOR
OFFICE IN CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA
HAS THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO
PUT IN THE SIGNATURE GATHERING
REQUIREMENTS.
WE SET OUR FILING FEES THE
MIDDLE DEADLINES FOR THE
SECRETARY STATE.
EVERYONE WHO HAS TO FILE A TAX
RETURN.
WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THIS LAW.
IF YOU DON'T FILE A TAX RETURN
YOU'RE STILL SUBJECT TO THIS LAW
AND ALLOWED TO BE ABLE TO BE ON
THAT PRIMARY BALLOT.
SB TWENTY SEVEN IS UNLIKE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ABOUT ACCESS
REQUIREMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN
TRIED IN OTHER STATES.
SOME STATES TO TRY TO BE ABLE TO
IMPLEMENT TERM LIMITS ON FEDERAL
OFFICES CLEARLY WE CANNOT DO
THAT IS A STATE.
RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR
LANGUAGE NEXT ONE'S NAME IN THE
BALLOT SCENE AND THEY SERVED TOO
MANY TERMS.
ALL IN IT RIGHT HERE MADAM CHAIR
AND SAY THIS.
THE ETHICS COUNSEL FOR BOTH
GEORGE W. BUSH RICHARD PAINTER.
AND PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
MISTER ICE IN EVERY VIEW THIS
LANGUAGE.
AND THEY DECLARE THAT THEY
BELIEVE IT STANDS THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY TEST.
OTHER PEOPLE CAN DEBATE THE
POINT WHAT BELIEVE WHAT WE
BELIEVE IS USED.
TO PARTISAN EXPERTS AGREE IN
THAT THIS IS THE ABSOLUTE BEST
AND REVIEW THE PUBLIC CAN GET.
I ABBY WOULD HEAR PROFESSOR AT
THE U. S. C. GOLD STILL SCHOOL
OF LAW WILL BE SPEAKING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY AND FOR THE
SECOND TIME TODAY SHE IS EXCITED
TO BE HERE.
DANG SECONDLY WE'VE BEEN
TOGETHER MISS TIFFANY MARK IS A
DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATIVE
AFFAIRS OF CALIFORNIA SECTOR
STATES OFFICE VENTURE THANK YOU
FOR YOUR INDULGENCE.
VERY MUCH WHICH OF YOU IS GOING
TO START WANTED TO GO AHEAD
INTRODUCE YOURSELF YOU'LL HAVE
TWO MINUTES MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE MY NAME IS ABBY
WOULD.
I AM -- AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
OF LAW POLITICAL SCIENCE AND
PUBLIC POLICY AT USC BUT I SPEAK
ON MY OWN BEHALF TODAY.
THE MY ANALYSIS OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF US BE
TWENTY SEVEN IS THAT UNDER THE
CURRENT CASE LAW THE BILL SHOULD
BE UP UNTIL THIS CONSTITUTIONAL.
WE HAVE NO CASE DIRECTLY ON
POINT -- SOME OF THE EXISTING
CASES WERE NARROWLY DECIDED SO
PREDICTION IS A LITTLE DIFFICULT
BUT THE WEIGHT OF THE EXISTING
PRECEDENT ASK SENATOR MCGUIRE
SAID INDICATES THE COURTS WOULD
RULE THAT SB.
TWENTY SEVEN IS A
CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE
BALLOT ACCESS LAW THAT DOES NOT
CREATE ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
FOR THE PRESIDENCY.
NOW WITHOUT REHASHING ARGUMENTS
ON THE REALLY GOOD MEMO THAT YOU
ALL RECEIVED ALREADY FROM THE
COMMITTEE'S LAWYERS I'M JUST
GONNA USE MY TIME TO BOLSTER A
CASE MADE IN THAT MEMO -- AND I
JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW MY
RESEARCH IS ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE
TRANSPARENCY SO I'M HAPPY TO
KIND OF DISCUSS WHAT WE KNOW
EMPIRICALLY ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF
THESE TYPES OF THINGS.
THE MEMO RIGHTFULLY POINTS TO
THE DICTA IN A CASE CALLED AL
ANDERSON SKEWS ME THE CELEBRATE
ST IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT
SAID.
THAT STATE THE STATE HAS A LESS
IMPORTANT INTEREST IN REGULATING
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS THAN
STATEWIDE OR LOCAL ELECTIONS
BECAUSE THE OUTCOME WILL LARGELY
BE DETERMINED BY VOTERS OUTSIDE
THE STATE'S BOUNDARIES.
THE COMMITTEE'S LAWYERS WERE
RIGHT TO HIGHLIGHT THIS LANGUAGE
BUT IT DOES NOT PRESENT A
SERIOUS THREAT TO SB TWENTY
SEVEN'S CONSTITUTIONALITY.
SB TWENTY SEVEN WOULD REGULATE
ONLY THE CALIFORNIA PRIMARY.
AND ELECTION DECIDED WHOLLY
WITHIN CALIFORNIA.
EVEN IF THE DICTUM FROM ANDERSON
WERE TO APPLY IT MERELY
DISCOUNTS THE STATE'S INTEREST
THAT CALIFORNIA WOULD CLAIM IN
DEFENDING THE LAW THE INTEREST
THAT CALIFORNIA HAS CLAIMED.
ARE THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN UP HELD
REPEATEDLY BY THE SUPREME COURT
AND ALSO INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH
SOMEWHAT SIMILAR FACT PATTERN IN
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT -- WHERE THE
STATE?
REQUIRED CANDIDATES TO FILE TAX
RETURNS OR FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES
THAT WAS STATE CANDIDATES THERE.
I CLOSE MY ADDRESSING PRIOR
COMMENTARY ON SB TWENTY SEVEN IN
THE LAST HEARING ON THIS BILL
MISTER RICHARD WINGER.
RAISE THE ISSUE OF PROCEDURAL
VERSUS SUBSTANTIVE BALLOT ACCESS
PROVISIONS RIGHTLY POINTING OUT
THAT OUR MAIN NINTH CIRCUIT
OPINION ON BALLOT ACCESS FROM A
CASE CALLED SCHAEFER BE TOWNS
AND MENTIONS THE DISTINCTION AND
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THAT
PANEL ON WHICH MY JUDGE SAT.
AND ACTUALLY RICHARD PAINTER
ALSO CLERKED FOR JUDGE IN IN --
NO COURT HAS EXPLAINED HOW WE
DETERMINE WHETHER A BALLOT
ACCESS RESTRICTION IS PROCEDURAL
OR SUBSTANTIVE IN NATURE.
I THINK THAT THAT DISTINCTION IS
ACTUALLY ON HELPFUL IN ABOUT THE
PANEL WOULD AGREE BECAUSE IN
THAT VERY OPINION IT CARVED OUT
AN EXCEPTION. TO THE
IMPERMISSIBLE SUBSTANTIVE
CATEGORY FOR LAWS THAT ESTABLISH
A BASE OF SUPPORT I'M GOING TO
COULD YOU WATCH FIRE I APOLOGIZE
FOR THAT WE'VE DONE A LOT OF
WORK WE HAVE EIGHT EXCUSE ME.
WE HAVE A WE HAVE A FAIRLY.
COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS -- IF
THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS SO
AFTER WE'RE DONE WITH THE
WITNESSES THERE WAS CERTAINLY --
A INVITE FURTHER KERR
CONVERSATION PRE SHAVE YOUR
TESTIMONY THE NEXT WITNESS IF
THE MARK ON BEHALF OF SECRETARY
STATE OUT EXPEDIA WE SUPPORT
THIS MEASURE AS AN IMPORTANT
TRANSPARENCY MEASURE FOR VOTERS.
FOR THOSE REASONS WE ARCHER I
VOTE.
WE HAVE A MINUTE AND FORTY SEVEN
SECONDS HAD ANYTHING FOR THE
WANT TO SAY OR JUST THAT YOU ARE
IN SUPPORT THAT WERE IN ALL
RIGHT VERY GOOD ARE THERE ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF SO
PLEASE STEP FORWARD WITH YOUR
NAME.
AND AFFILIATION.
THANK YOU TERRY JACKSON MEMBERS
MITCH SNIDER WITH CALIFORNIA
LABOR FEDERATION ALSO IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT.
OUR WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
PLEASE STEP FORWARD YOU HAVE TO
WITNESSES TWO MINUTES EACH.
GOOD AFTERNOON IF YOU WILL STATE
YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION AND
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES TO PRESENT.
YOUR CASE EACH ONE OF YOU A
RICHARD WINGER WITH BALLOT
ACCESS NEWS.
WHICH YOU'RE YOU'RE GETTING TO
HANDOUTS ONE IS AN ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OPINION FROM HAWAII.
THING THIS KIND OF A LAW AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND YESTERDAY
THE HAWAII.
HOUSE DEFEATED THE WHOLE LIFE A
BILL SENATE BILL NINETY FOUR THE
SENATE BACK TO COMMITTEE.
THE OTHER HAND OUT IF YOU JUST
LOOK AT THE RIGHT HAND COLUMN.
STATE THIS FORTY CASES HERE IN A
HUNDRED YEARS. FOR A HUNDRED
YEARS EVER SINCE WE'VE HAD
GOVERNMENT PRINTED BALLOTS
STATES HAVE BEEN TRYING. TO
VIOLATE.
WHAT THE FOUNDERS WANTED FOR THE
COUNTRY THE FOUNDERS?
THE THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION
WAS VERY UNDEMOCRATIC BUT IT HAD
ONE RADICALLY DEMOCRATIC ASPECT
TO IT.
ANYONE WHO WAS AGE [inaudible]
TWENTY FIVE AND A CITIZEN COULD
RUN FOR THE HOUSE.
THAT WAS SHOCKING BECAUSE BACK
THEN EVERY SINGLE STATE YOU
COULD BE IN THE LEGISLATURE
UNLESS YOU OWN PROPERTY.
HAMILTON SAID THE TRUE PRINCIPLE
OF A REPUBLIC IS THAT THE PEOPLE
SHOULD CHOOSE WHOM THEY PLEASE
TO GOVERN THEM.
THIS GREAT SOURCE OF FREE
GOVERNMENT POPULAR ELECTION
SHOULD BE PERFECTLY PEER AND THE
MOST UNBOUNDED LIBERTY ALLOWED.
AND LIVINGSTON SAID THE PEOPLE
ARE THE BEST JUDGES WHO WANT TO
REPRESENT THEM. TO DICTATE AND
CONTROL THEM TO TELL THEM HOME
THEY SHALL NOT ELECT IS TO
BRIDGE THEIR NATURAL RIGHTS.
I AM ALL IN FAVOR OF
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.
PUTTING OUT THEIR TAX RETURNS
BUT THIS BILL IS AN ATTACK ON
VOTING RIGHTS.
IT SAYS PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE FOR
PEOPLE WHO WON'T.
NOW IN 2016406% OF THE VOTERS.
CHOSE TO VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO
WOULDN'T RELEASE HIS TAX RETURNS.
THAT'S THEIR RIGHT THIS BILL.
TRAMPLES VOTING RIGHTS THAT'S
THE PROBLEM WITH IT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH NEXT WITNESS
ON POLANSKI.
REPRESENT MYSELF.
I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THE THIS
PROPOSAL ACTUALLY ALSO THE
PREVIOUS ONE ONE FORTY NINE FOR
SOMETIME.
AND THERE'S ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT
LET'S SAY THAT.
I SAID I AM OPPOSING THIS BUT I
THINK THAT TAX RETURNS ALONE --
TOO LITTLE TO INFORM THE
ELECTORATE THAT VOTERS.
THERE'S JUST NOTHING THERE GIVE
ME AN EXAMPLE.
IMAGINE MICHAEL KORIE ALONE HAND
HOW CAPONE DECIDING TO RUN FOR
PRESIDENT.
THEY GIVE YOU THEIR TAX RETURNS
WITH A SMILE.
THEY'VE GOT PEOPLE COVERING THEM.
THEY ARE GOING TO HAND YOU
SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO
INCRIMINATE THEM SO WHAT ARE WE
LOOKING AT WHERE DID THEY MAKE
THEIR MONEY.
HOW MUCH ARE THEY MAKING WHAT
TAX BRACKET -- THE IN.
WHAT IS THAT?
TO THAT SEEMS TO BE A WASTE OF
OUR TIME.
THERE'S ACTUALLY A PROPOSAL THAT
I HAVE.
THAT RESOLVE THE ISSUES OF
TRANSPLANT MAKE THINGS
TRANSPARENT THAT ARE VALUABLE.
DON'T ARE DEFECTED BY LEGAL
CHALLENGES.
THIS THIS IS GONNA BE HARD TO
BELIEVE BUT THE PROPOSAL I HAVE
FOR MAKING CHANGES TO THIS.
SENATE BILL -- TWENTY SEVEN
QUICK START HAVING A SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT.
ON THE TWENTY TWENTY ELECTIONS
BY THE END OF THIS MONTH.
DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TO BE.
IMPLEMENTED.
VOTERS WOULD START RECEIVING
VALUABLE INFORMATION ABOUT
CANDIDATES.
THE RISK OF LITIGATION QUAGMIRES
WITH THE AVOID.
THE SIMPLE IMPROVEMENT IS LOW
COST CREATES NO NEW BARACK
BUREAUCRACY.
HOLD YOUR BREATH.
A SIMPLE IMPROVEMENT WOULD
PROVIDE CANDIDATES WITH A FORMAL
SERVICE.
RATHER THAN ESTABLISH A BALLOT
ACCESS REQUIREMENTS.
A VOLUNTARY BACKGROUND
INVESTIGATION SERVICE WOULD SELL
BOTH.
THE EFFORTS TO KEEP EPIC KASEY
PROBLEM AND LEGAL BATTLE
PROBLEMS.
AND A BE A STRONG DETERRENT.
HI THIS IS THE SENATE CANDIDATE
DETERRENT.
THE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION
WOULD BE COMPREHENSIVE CAPABLE
OF DISCOVERING CRIMINAL
ACTIVITIES WITHOUT RELEASING ANY
PUBLIC INFORMATION.
THIS PUTS THE DESIGNERS
CANDIDATE IN A QUANDARY.
THEY FACE A DILEMMA THEY HAVE
TWO OPTIONS THEY COULD VOLUNTEER
AND HOPE THEY COVERED THEIR
TRACKS WILL WELL.
MEMBERS DISCOVERY SO THAT COULD
PUT HIM IN PRISON [inaudible]
OR UNLIKE DECLINING TO MAKE TAX
RETURNS PUBLIC.
THE THE FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS
IN SOME CASES.
A BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION WOULD
MAKE NO PRIVATE INFORMATION
PUBLIC.
DOES LIMóN.
LEGITIMATE REASONS TO DECLINE OR
ABSENT.
SO IF A CANDIDATE DECLINES TO
VOLUNTEER THE PUBLIC IS VERY
WEAK LIKELY TO AND FOR THAT THEY
HIDING CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES THANK
YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY
I SUGGEST IF YOU HAVE SOME IDEAS
THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO PRESENT.
AT OF SOME OTHER TIME -- TO
SENATOR MCGUIRE -- WELL VERY
VERY VERY INTERESTING CONCEPTS
ALTHOUGH I WOULD SAY THAT --
MISTER CORLEONE IS TAX RETURNS
WOULD BE SUBJECT TO AUDIT.
THAT'S THE WAY OF COURSE.
SOME MIGHT ARGUE MISTER CORLEY
ANI ACTUALLY DID RUN FOR
PRESIDENT TO THIS PAST ELECTION
BUT SOME WOULD ARGUE.
THAT -- THAT TAX RETURNS
REGARDLESS ARE SUBJECT TO AUDIT
AND TO CRIMINAL SANCTION BUT
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY ARE
THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES.
IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL WHO'D
LIKE TO STEP FOR WITH THEIR NAME
AND AFFILIATION ARE THERE ANY
OTHERS.
ALL RIGHT SEEING SEEING NONE ARE
THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE
DíAS.
MR BORDERS OF FALL BY MR STERN.
THANK YOU CENTER REQUIRE -- FOR
YOUR YOUR YOUR STATEMENTS TODAY.
IS THIS.
DOES THIS A PIECE LEGISLATION
APPLY TO THE GOVERNOR OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
THE GOVERNOR'S VOLUNTARILY CAN
BE RELEASING HIS TAX RETURNS BUT
MANDATORILY.
DOES IT WITH THE SUPPLY TO
EXECUTIVE STATEWIDE OFFICERS IN
CALIFORNIA.
NO WOULD NINE HERE'S THE REASON.
WELL ACTUALLY IN ELLISVILLE WENT
LIVE AT NINE OR LET HIM LET HIM
GIVE HIS REASON.
I MEAN IF IT DOESN'T APPLY COULD
YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY DOESN'T
APPLY ACTUALLY VERY QUICKLY SAID --
SO AS IS A MEMBER OF THE
LEGISLATURE OR AS A
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER WE
ALREADY HAVE TO DISCLOSE MORE ON
OUR FINANCES.
UNDER THE PRESENT VICE PRESIDENT
A NIGHT STATES AND WOULD WELCOME --
ANY MEMBER WOULD LIKE BETTER
BRING FOR THE BILL -- TO BE ABLE
TO DO SO BUT THIS SPECIFIC BILL.
IS A VOTER EDUCATION MEASURE FOR
THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU I APPRECIATE YOU
OFFERING THE CLARIFICATION.
I THINK THAT THIS WOULD HAVE A
LOT MORE CREDIBILITY AT LEAST IN
MY OPINION -- NOT JUST WITH ME
BUT I THINK ALSO FOLKS ACROSS
THE BOARD IF WE WOULD ALSO
CONSIDER APPLYING THIS. TO
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA.
SO HAT MIGHT ALSO APPLY TO THE
PRESENT PERSONALLY.
I THINK THE PRESIDENT SHOULD
HAVE DISCLOSED HIS HIS
INFORMATION I THINK THERE'S A
LEGACY AND THERE'S A THERE'S A
PATTERN AND PRACTICE. FOR THAT
IS STEAMED OFFICE THE HIGHEST
OFFICE IN THE LAND I THINK IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN IN GOOD FORM. TO
FOLLOW SUIT BUT THAT'S NEITHER
HERE NOR THERE BUT IF IT'S
SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD
CONSIDER I'M NOT ASKING UNITS
REALLY TO DO SO RIGHT NOW -- THE
CHAIR HAS BEEN.
AS NEEDED -- CLEAR THAT WE'RE
NOT NECESSARILY AMENDING THINGS.
AT AT THIS JUNCTURE BUT I THINK
IT WOULD PROBABLY SERVE
EVERYONE'S INTEREST WELL IF IT
WERE APPLIED STATEWIDE EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS.
AS WELL AS THAT PRINCIPLE
EXECUTIVE NATIONAL OFFICE THANK
YOU AND THAT'S OBVIOUSLY YOUR
OPPOSITION WOULD BE CLEAR WE'RE
NOT.
THESE HEARINGS ARE NOT.
MOMENTS TO NEGOTIATE DIFFERENT
TERMS WE DO THAT IN ADVANCE OF
THE BILLS AND HEARINGS ARE TO
PRESENT THE BILL AS PROFFERED
AND AS OF THE COMMITTEE HAS
REQUESTED AMENDMENTSTHAT ARE
EITHER TAKEN OR NOT TAKEN -- I
WAS GOING TO GO TO SENATOR STIR
BUT I KNOW THE SENATOR ALLEN
YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON SOME
STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE.
BUT I'VE JUST WITH THAT.
WITH SO MUCH RESPECT TO THE
CHAIR I MEAN WE YOU KNOW WE ONLY
GOT THESE LAST TWENTY FOUR HOURS
ABSOLUTELY WE UNDERSTAND HOW.
I MEAN IT IT'S NOT A TYPICAL
[inaudible]
FOR MEMBERS.
TO YOU RAISE CONCERNS AND
SUGGESTIONS AND AND THAT'S
TOTALLY APPROPRIATE BUT WE'RE
NOT GOING TO NEGOTIATE A BACK
AND FORTH WHAT WE DO IS WE SAY --
WOULD YOU CONSIDER EITHER NOW R
IN THE FUTURE -- BUT THE SOME
AMENDMENTS TO THESE MATTERS BUT
OTHERWISE WE'LL BE HERE UNTIL --
NEXT TUESDAY IF WE START
NEGOTIATING THEM HERE SORRY LE
LET ME LOG CLEAR I UNDERSTAND
THAT BUT I THINK THAT'S THE
THINK THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT THE
VICE CHAIR WAS WAS TO MAKING
SOME SUGGESTIONS I GUESS I WOULD
JUST.
I WOULD JUST -- THINK THAT THEY
PERHAPS ONE ONE APPROACH AND I'M
NOT NEGOTIATING THE BILL HERE
BUT I'M JUST.
PUTTING OUT A SUGGESTION.
ARE GIVEN I THINK WHAT WAS VERY
THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS FROM THE
VICE CHAIR. TO GIVE THE
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE THE
OPTION. TO BUY THEIR RELEASE THE
TAX REFORMS OR FILL OUT THE
EQUIVALENT OF THE FORM.
SEVEN HUNDRED SO THAT THAT THEY
WOULD SIGNED UNDER PENALTY OF
PERJURY SO THAT THERE WOULD BE
THE POSSIBILITY OF BOB.
YOU KNOW IF IF THAT WAS HE
CHOICE OF THE CANDIDATE MAY BE
UP TO THEM.
ODD BUT BUT THAT THERE WOULD BE
SOME FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT TO
WHAT WE REQUIRE OF OUR
GUBERNATORIAL AND STATEWIDE
ELECTED [inaudible]
FOLKS.
I JUST WANT TO THROW THAT OUT
THERE AS A SUGGESTION.
THANK YOU AND I MIGHT MENTION AS
THE AS THE SENATOR DID IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT -- OUR
CURRENT GOVERNOR WHEN HE RAN FOR
GOVERNOR.
PRODUCE FIVE YEARS OF HIS PRIOR
TAX RETURN SO HE DID SO
VOLUNTARILY.
AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES SADLY HAS PROMISED -- TO
SUBMIT HIS TAX RETURNS WHEN HE
FIRST.
RAN FOR OFFICE AND THEN SEVERAL
TIMES DURING THE COURSE OF HIS.
CAMPAIGN AND THEN FOLLOWING HIS --
SWEARING IN SO HE HAS ON MANY
OCCASIONS PROMISED TO PRESENT
THEM.
AND ULTIMATELY FAILED TO DO SO
SO JUST AS A FACTUAL MATTER IN
THIS DISCUSSION AS WELL
APPRECIATE THE SUGGESTIONS AND
PERHAPS SENATOR YOU WOULD LIKE.
TO CONTINUE THOSE DISCUSSIONS
GOING FORWARD SENATOR STERN --
THANK YOU AM CHAIR SORRY FOR
INTERRUPTING EARLIER AND SO LET
THE FROM THE PROFESSORS HERE A
LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THIS
PROCEDURE OVERSEAS SUBSTANTIVE.
DISCUSSION BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY
MAY PERTAIN TO WHAT THE VICE
CHAIR IN CENTER ALLEN OR TALKINGABOUT AS WELL IN TERMS OF HOW
HOUSE OR TO NARROWLY CONSTRAINED
WE MAKE THE THE AMBIT THAT WILL
NEVER WHATEVER CANADA HAS TO GO.
TO THROUGH IS THAT IT IS THAT A
FACTOR IS SORT OF THIS THIS SORT
OF EQUAL TREATMENT IDEA RIGHT.
GOVERNOR DIDN'T HAVE TO RELEASE
TAX RETURNS IT'S A VOLUNTEER BUT
THE PAST TO FILL AN EMPTY PC
FORM.
SEVEN HUNDRED SO JUST IS IS THAT
SIX LEGALLY SIGNIFICANT OR YEAH
CLUES YOU HAVE FROM THE THAT IS
THAT'S CLUE I THINK WE HAVE THE
FIFTH CIRCUIT CASE APPLYING TO
TO STATE.
ELECTED OFFICIALS RATHER THAN
THE PRESIDENT -- WHERE THAT THE
CHOICE WAS GIVEN BETWEEN A
DISCLOSURE FORM THAT SEEM TO
HAVE PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING THAT
THAT TAX RETURN HAD? FOR A TAX
RETURN.
AND THAT WAS UP HELD -- YEAH AND
SO I I MEAN I THINK THAT'S WHY I
THINK IT'S ON DECENT FOOTING
HERE -- PART OF THE
JUSTIFICATION FOR UPHOLDING IT
WAS ABOUT REVEALING CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST IS THE SAME KIND OF
THING THAT THE SENATORS BEEN
TALKING ABOUT SO.
IT SEEMS POSSIBLE TO ME BUT INTO
WAR THAT THAT THAT'S IT WAS IN
OR THAT'S RIGHT YEAH PATHWAYS
AND WHO.
IN THE HELL THAT'S RIGHT.
YEAH ON THE PROCEDURE IN
SUBSTANCE THING JUST TO KIND OF
WRAP THAT UP IF YOU'RE WILLING
TO LET ME -- I JUST WANT TO
POINT OUT THAT THE THE THE SOME
OF THE THINGS ABOUT HELD DON'T
REALLY FIT PROCEDURE.
OKAY SO I THAT'S WHY I THINK THE
DISTINCTIONS NO GOOD -- EVEN
THOUGH IT IS THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SO REQUIRING TO BE PEOPLE TO
QUIT THEIR FEDERAL JOBS BEFORE
RUNNING FOR OFFICE DOESN'T
STRIKE ME AS PROCEDURAL.
REQUIRING PEOPLE IN THIS IS THE
NINTH CIRCUIT CASE -- UP HOLDING
A LAW REQUIRING ARIZONA'S
ELECTED OFFICIALS TO WAIT UNTIL
THE FINAL YEAR OF THEIR TERM TO
RUN FOR FEDERAL OFFICE.
SO THOSE DON'T FEEL PROCEDURAL
TO ME RIGHT AND SO THAT WAS
SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN
THE LAST -- COMMITTEE HEARING
AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT
I BROUGHT THAT TO BEAR.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH APPRECIATE
THE QUESTION PRE SHEET THE
ANSWER.
BY OTHERS MOTION THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TESTIMONY.
SENATOR GORE WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE.
MANAGER I JUST WANTED TO SAY
THANK YOU SO MUCH OF FOR THE
ABILITY TO PRESENT TODAY I WILL
BE FOLLOWING UP WITH A VICE
CHAIR ON THIS ISSUE.
HI IS WELL IN ONCE HE THANK YOU
FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK WHEN
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE.
ON THIS MISSION.
OCEAN IS SO DO PASSED THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS A MAN SECTOR
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL JACKSON HI
JACKSON AYE FORGES. FOR JUST
KNOW ALAN.
ALLEN I A COUPLE EURO.
MONNING.
MONNING AYE STERN.
STERN AYE UMBERG.
QUITE HEALTHY HI BUT BECAUSE HE
I THE BILL HAS FIVE VOTES FIVE
TO ONE WE WILL LEAVE THE ROLE
OPEN THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
YOUR TESTIMONY APPRECIATED.
AND I'M SURE WE MAY SEE YOUR
NAME ON THE BRIEFS YOU MAKERS
PREFER GOING TO THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT ON THIS.
A LOT OF ALL RIGHT WE WILL --
AGAIN TO GO IN FILE ORDER BUT
THAT MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
WILL BE ASKED TO WAIT UNTIL
AFTER.
NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE
TESTIFIED SO WE HAVE HERE --
LET'S SEE SENATOR SKINNER IS NOT
HERE -- BUT WE DO HAVE -- SHE'S
ON CONSENT EXCUSE ME -- WE DO
HAVE -- UP NEXT WOULD BE SENATOR
DRAWS SO WHO IS NOT HERE.
BUT WE DO HAVE SENATOR GLAZER SO
SENATOR GLAZER IF YOU'D LIKE TO
STEP FORWARD.
THIS IS FILE ITEM.
NINE SB.
SIX FORTY FOUR GOOD AFTERNOON
SENATOR AND AGAIN REMINDER
WITNESSES TWO MINUTES -- TO TO
KEY WITNESSES -- MAIN WITNESSES
AND SUPPORT. TO MAIN WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION VERY GOOD.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE
ARE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU WILL BE
TAKING [inaudible]
THAT'S CORRECT.
HI MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS THANK YOU
FOR TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR --
THIS LEGISLATION I'M HAPPY TO
ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS ON PAGE
FIVE OF THE ANALYSIS.
THIS BILL WOULD PROVIDE RENTAL
RENTAL RELIEF TO ACTIVE DUTY
MILITARY SERVICE MEMBERS ACTIVE
DUTY.
BASED IN CALIFORNIA BY REDUCING
THE AMOUNT OF SECURITY DEPOSIT.
SERVICE MEMBERS ARE REQUIRED TO
PAY TO MOVE INTO A RENTAL UNIT --
THIS BILL WOULD ALSO PROHIBIT
LANDLORDS FROM DISCRIMINATING
AGAINST SERVICE MEMBERS. FOR
HAVING TO PAYLESS SECURITY
DEPOSIT.
MY STAFF AND I ARE STILL
EXPLORING WAYS TO ENFORCE THIS
BUT WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE.
WE DO HAVE A HOUSING CRISIS IN
CALIFORNIA WHICH MAKES IT
PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT FOR
SERVICE MEMBERS TO FOR THE UP
FRONT COST.
OF MOVING INTO A RENTAL UNIT IN
OUR STATE.
WITH MILITARY BARRACKS BECOMING
SCARCER THE NEED FOR SERVICE
MEMBERS TO FIND HOUSING IN THE
COMMUNITY FOR THEIR STATION
BECOMES MORE COMMON AND
NECESSARY.
NOW THOSE SERVICE MEMBERS
RECEIVE A BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR
HOUSING FROM THE MILITARY.
MANY SAY IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO
COVER THE UP FRONT COSTS OF
RENTS IN CALIFORNIA.
AND ALTHOUGH THE SERVICE MEMBERS.
I IN CALIFORNIA RECEIVER A
LARGER ALLOWANCE DUE TO THE HIGH
COST OF LIVING.
WHEN SERVICE MEMBERS FROM OTHER
STATES MOVED TO CALIFORNIA IT
OFTEN TAKES MONTHS FOR THE
INCREASE ALLOWANCES TO KICK IN?
SERVICE MEMBERS RESORT TO LOANS
AND OTHER FORM OF CREDIT TO PAY
THEIR SECURITY DEPOSIT AND FIRST
MONTH'S RENT.
AND THIS LEGISLATION ADDRESSES
THIS ISSUE.
IT'S IMPORTANT NOTE THAT SERVICE
MEMBERS HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD
OF CONDUCT.
THAT THEY MUST COMPLY WITH -- IN
THEIR PERSONAL LIFE THAN.
ANY OTHER CIVILIAN.
IF THEY DO NOT MEET THIS
STANDARD THEY CAN BE REPRIMANDED
BY THEIR COMMANDING OFFICER OR
THE MILITARY. FOR EXAMPLE
SERVICE MEMBERS ARE REQUIRED TO
MEET ALL THEIR FINANCIAL
OBLIGATIONS EVEN RENTAL
CONTRACTS.
IF THEY DO NOT THEY CAN BE
REPRIMANDED AS I SAID BY THAT
COULD THEIR COMMANDING OFFICER
OR A MILITARY COURT THEY COULD
BE DEMOTED.
HAVE RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON THEM
OR EVEN DISCHARGED FROM THE
MILITARY SERVICE.
THESE PROVISIONS PROVIDE A
HIGHER STANDARD FOR SERVICE
MEMBERS IN ORDER FOR THEM TO
MEET THEIR FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS.
THIS LEGISLATION SUPPORTED BY
MANY DIFFERENT VETERAN GROUPS
INCLUDING AMERICAN GI FORUM AND
THAT'S AND THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF VETERANS SERVICE
AGENCIES AND WITH THAT MADAM
CHAIR I RESPECTFULLY ASK THREE
RIVALS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH CHAU
WITNESSES PLEASE YOUR NAME
AFFILIATION AND TWO MINUTES.
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS MY NAME IS RICK ALLY
ALLY I AM WITH READ GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS WOULD.
THE AMERICAN GI FORUM -- BATES
DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
VETERANS AID SERVICE AGENCIES.
AND CALIFORNIA STATE COMMANDERS
VETERANS COUNCIL WHICH IS
COMPRISED OF TWENTY TWO BETTER
AND ORGANIZATIONS ALL OF WHICH
ARE IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL --
SIX FORTY FOUR I WANT TO START
BY THINKING SENATOR GLAZERS FOR
BRINGING THIS LEGISLATION THAT
WILL HELP SERVICE MEMBERS
FORWARD.
THIS BILL WILL REDUCE THE AMOUNT
OF SECURITY DEPOSIT SERVICE
MEMBERS HAVE TO PAY FOR RENTAL
UNITS.
BY ONE MONTH.
THE MILITARY ORGANIZATIONS I
REPRESENT BELIEVE THAT THE BRAVE
MEN AND WOMEN WHO SERVE OUR
COUNTRY IN OUR BASE IN
CALIFORNIA MERIT YOUR HIGHEST
CONSIDERATION FOR THE RENTAL
RELIEF.
THAT THIS BILL PROVIDES.
IT IS NOT EASY TO MOVE TO A
DIFFERENT STATE ON A SHORT
NOTICE AFTER LEAVING SOMEWHERE
ELSE FOR YEARS.
BUT SERVICE MEMBERS TO DO IT.
AND THEY DO IT BECAUSE THEY
UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR
COMMITMENTS TO THE ARMED FORCES
MEANS.
WHAT IS MORE DIFFICULT FOR
SERVICE MEMBERS UNDER FAMILIES
EAST TO AND? TO ENSURE IS THAT
STRESSFUL PROCESS OF FINDING
HOUSING IN A SHORT PERIOD OF
TIME.
WHEN THEY ARE TOLD TO COME TO
CALIFORNIA THIS PROBLEM IS
COMPOUNDED BY THE LACK OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING?
SERVICE MEMBERS MUST HAVE SOME
KIND OF RELIEF.
I AM AWARE I AM UNAWARE OF ANY
OTHER PROFESSION WHERE IF YOU DO
NOT RELOCATE TO WORKER TOLD YOU
COULD LOSE YOUR JOB.
THIS BILL IS A FAIR IN NECESSARY
APPROACH TO MITIGATE IN THE
PROBLEMS SERVICE MEMBERS FACE
WHEN THEY MOVED TO CALIFORNIA.
THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY
JUSTICE CODIFIES THE STANDARD OF
CONDUCT THAT SERVICE MEMBERS
MUST FOLLOW WHICH PROVIDE
SUFFICIENT PROTECTION FOR
LAMBERT.
LOOKING TO RECOUP ANY LOSS OF AS
MENTIONED BEFORE IF FINANCIAL
OBLIGATIONS ARE NOT MET.
SERVICE MEMBERS CAN FACE AMIR AT
OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS THIS
FROM SERVICE MEMBERS TO FIX OUR
FINANCIAL PROBLEMS.
THIS BILL IS A HELPFUL TOOL TO
ADDRESS THE PROBLEM SERVICE
MEMBERS FACED DURING THESE
HISTORIC HOUSING CRISIS WE URGE
YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS BILL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY NEXT WITNESS PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE MY NAME IS KATRINA
JOHNSONAND I AM A WIFE TO AN
ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE MEMBER AND I
AM TESTIFYING TODAY OF MY OWN
ACCORD.
I AM HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB SIX
FORTY FOR THE SERVICE MEMBER
RENTER PROTECTION BILL PROPOSED
BY SENATOR GLAZER.
AS OF TWO THOUSAND EIGHTEEN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAD THE
HIGHEST POPULATION OF ACTIVE
DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL WITH
OVER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY FOUR
THOUSAND AS OF TWO THOUSAND
NINETEEN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY
AREA HAD THE HIGHEST COST OF
LIVING WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.
AND EXCEEDED THE SECOND HIGHEST
STATE BY OVER 15%.
THE QUANTITY OF MILITARY HOUSING
HAS BEEN INSUFFICIENT TO MEET
THE DEMAND AND OFTEN REQUIRES
MILITARY PERSONNEL TO RELY ON
HOUSING WITHIN THE LOCAL
COMMUNITY.
UNFORTUNATELY IT IS COMMON
PRACTICE FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
WITHIN THE BAY AREA TO REQUIRE A
SECURITY DEPOSIT.
EQUAL TO TWO MONTHS OF RENT.
THE COST OF LIVING AND LIMITED
NOTICE OF MILITARY ORDERS TO
RELOCATE RESULT IN MILITARY
FAMILIES REQUESTING PAY ADVANCES
AND EMERGENCY LOANS TO SECURE
BASIC NEEDS.
A SOLDIER RECENTLY AT CAMP PARKS
DISCLOSED THAT HE HAD TO TAKE
OUT TO LOANS IN REQUEST TO PAY
ADVANCE FOR THE ELEVEN THOUSAND
DOLLARS THAT HE HAD TO PAY. FOR
FIRST MONTH'S RENT AND A
SECURITY DEPOSIT.
IN TWO THOUSAND EIGHTEEN MY
FAMILY WAS NOTIFIED THAT WE HAD
TO RELOCATE AND LESS THAN THREE
MONTHS TO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
OUR BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING
IN EL PASO TEXAS WAS ONE
THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY
TWO DOLLARS WITH A TWO HUNDRED
AND 67% INCREASE TO FOUR
THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND
THIRTEEN DOLLARS FOR THE COST OF
LIVING IN THE BAY AREA.
HOWEVER THIS INCREASE DID NOT
OCCUR FOR OVER TWO MONTHS AND
ULTIMATELY FORCED ME TO CASH OUT
MY RETIREMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF
EL PASO.
THE PAY FOR THE DIFFERENCE UNTIL
THE HOUSING ALLOWANCE WAS
ADJUSTED. ONE OF THE MOST
COMFORTING BENEFITS FOR RENTAL
PROPERTY OWNERS IS THAT MILITARY
PERSONNEL REPRESENT A
SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER FINANCIAL
RISK.
THAN ODINARY TENANTS DUE TO THE
STEADY INCOME AND LEGAL
REQUIREMENTS TO SATISFY
FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS.
MY HUSBAND AND I CURRENTLY HAVE
A MILITARY FAMILY RENTING OUR
HOME IN TEXAS WHICH TO BE HONEST
WAS A SIGNIFICANT RELIEF.
BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT IN THE
EVENT THAT THE FAMILY IS UNABLE
TO PROVIDE PAYMENT FOR ENGAGING
DESTRUCTION OF OUR PROPERTY WE
MERELY SPEAK WITH THE RENTER'S
COMMANDER AND WE BEGIN WORKING
WITH THE MILITARY. FOR FINANCIAL
RECRUITMENT AT THE VALUE OF
DEFAULT OR DESTRUCTION IT TRULY
REMOVES A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
BURDEN AND STRESS FROM THE
PROPERTY OWNERS.
AS YOU CONSIDER SB SIX FORTY
FOUR I ASK THAT YOU TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THE UNIQUE NATURE OF
ACTIVE DUTY PERSONNEL.
AND THE BURDEN THE EXORBITANT
SECURITY DEPOSITS HAVE A
MILITARY FAMILIES.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TESTIFY BEFORE YOU TODAY I WOULD
BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY MUCH APPRECIATED THE
THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT YOU.
INJURE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT IF YOU'D STEP FOR NAME
AND AFFILIATION PLEASE I GREG
HAYES ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
VETERANS SERVICE AGENCIES WERE
GREATLY APPRECIATE SENATORS
AUTHORSHIP OF THIS BILL AND
APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT AS WELL
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
HERE I THINK THERE'S A GOOD
AFTERNOON.
GOOD AFTERNOON -- JACKSON AND
MEMBERS -- CREAM GREASY ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS -- HERE
TODAY IN OPPOSITION SB -- SIX
FOUR FOUR CURRENTLY THERE TWENTY
FOUR STATES INCLUDING NEW YORK --
THAT ALLOW A RENTAL PROPERTY
OWNER TO ASK FOR SECURITY
DEPOSIT FOR RESIDENTIAL RENTAL
PROPERTY IN ANY AMOUNT THAT THE
CHOOSE -- IN SHARP CONTRAST --
CALIFORNIA FEATURES A MORE
BALANCED APPROACH CAPPING THE
SECURITY DEPOSIT AMOUNT THAT MAY
BE COLLECTED BY RENTAL PROPERTY
OWNER.
THIS LONG STANDING LAUNCHERS
THAT TENANTS ARE NOT ASKED TO
PAY AN INORDINATE SECURITY
DEPOSIT AMOUNT WHILE ALSO
ENSURING THAT A PROPERTY OWNER
HAS ENOUGH OF A DEPOSIT IN PLACE.
SHOULD DAMAGE OCCURRED OF THE
UNIT.
HOWEVER SB SIX FOUR FOUR ALTERS
THIS RESTRICTION BY DRASTICALLY
REDUCING THE SECURITY DEPOSIT
AMOUNT THAT MAY BE COLLECTED FOR
MILITARY PERSONNEL.
E. R. IS VERY SUPPORTIVE OF
EFFORTS TO PROVIDE HOUSING
ASSISTANCE TO MILITARY PERSONNEL --
AND NOTES AGAIN -- THAT MILITARY
PERSONNEL CURRENTLY RECEIVE A
MONTHLY NON TAXABLE HOUSING
ALLOWANCE KNOWN AS BASIC HOUSING
ALLOWANCE OR B. H.. FOR HOUSING
EXPENSES IN ADDITION TO THEIR
BASE PAY.
B. H. IS BASED ON A MEMBERS
RANKED DEPENDENCY STATUS AND
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION. FOR EXAMPLE
IN DUBLIN CALIFORNIA WHICH IS
THE CITY THAT WAS CITED IN THE
ANALYSIS.
MILITARY PERSONNEL RECEIVE UP TO
FORTY SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS PER
MONTH IN NON TAXABLE HOUSING
ASSISTANCE IN ADDITION THEIR
BASE PAY.
MILITARY PERSONNEL MAY ALSO
APPLY FOR WHAT IS KNOWN AS
ADVANCE PH -- IF THEY NEED
ADDITIONAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE
WHEN MOVING INTO A NEW RENTAL
UNIT.
SEE OURS OF COURSE SENSITIVE TO
THE HOUSING NEEDS OF OUR
MILITARY PERSONNEL BUT IS
APPREHENSIVE ABOUT CHANGING
LONGSTANDING LAW THAT WOULD
FURTHER LIMIT THE RENTAL
PROPERTY OWNERS ABILITY TO
RECOUP LOSSES FOR DAMAGE DONE TO
UNIT -- THE COMMITTEE MAY WISH
TO CONSIDER MAKING SB SIX FOUR
FOR A DISTRICT BILL WITH A
SUNSET DATE WHICH WOULD PROVIDE
THE LEGISLATURE AS WELL AS OTHER
INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS.
THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESS THE
EFFECTS OF THE BILL IN A
PARTICULAR GEOGRAPHIC AREA --
THE CONSIDERATION OF STATEWIDE
APPLICATION.
HOWEVER THIS TIME SEE OUR MOST
OPPOSE THIS BILL THAT IS BEFORE
YOU TODAY AND RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST A NO VOTE ON THIS
MEASURE THANK YOU SO MUCH THANK
YOU VERY MUCH ARE THEE ANY
OTHER WTNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL.
HI TING IN HEARING NONE WILL
BRING THE BILL OF THE ISSUE BACK
TO THE DIE IS SENATOR UMBERG --
THANK YOU CENTER GLAZER THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY I
APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEINGHERE AT
THE OUTSET BUT THERE'S SEVERAL
COMMITTEES MEETING AT SAME TIME.
FIRST OF THE YEAR REPRESENTATION
THAT BATES GOES UP TO FORTY
SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS A MONTH.
IT IS OFFENSIVE THE THAT'S FORGENERAL OFFICERS IT'S NOT FOR
THE NINETY NINE POINT 9% OF
MILITARY PERSONNEL.
LET ME JUST GET THAT OUT OF THE
WAY -- SECONDLY IS IT HERE'S MY
CONCERN MY CONCERN IS THAT.
BECAUSE ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY OR
ANY THE VETERANS OR OTHERS ARE
NOT A PROTECTED CLASS THE WHAT
LANDLORDS ARE GOING TO DO IS
SIMPLY NOT RENT TO MILITARY
PERSONNEL THAT'S AN EASY WAY OUT.
AND SO THEN WE'RE GOING TO
EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM BECAUSE
MILITARY PERSONNEL ARE GOING TO
HAVE TO ACTUALLY PAY MORE.
SO IF WE SIMPLY SAY YOU CAN'T
PUT A CERTAIN AMOUNT DOWN THE
SECURITY DEPOSIT WITH THE
LANDLORD'S GONNA SAY IS.
OKAY THEN I'M GONNA CHARGE YOU
THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS MORE.
MONTH MONTHLY THE PROBLEM YOU'VE
IDENTIFIED AS A SERIOUS ISSUE IN
A PARTICULARLY IF YOU'RE MOVING
FROM MOST PLACES THE COUNTRY TO
CALIFORNIA WILL COST OF LIVING
COSTS RENT IS.
SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER YOU KNOW
ONE REMEDY IT IN AND OF COURSE
WE DON'T CONTROL THE MILITARY.
IS.
TO SOMEHOW MAKE SURE THAT BE A
H. FOLLOWS THE SOLDIER SAILOR
MARINE WHATEVER IT MAY BE SO
THERE'S NOT A TIME LAG -- AND
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE LEVEL OF
ASSISTANCE THAT IS AVAILABLE
RIGHT NOW BUT I'M VERY VERY
CONCERNED THAT WHAT WE'RE GOING
TO DO HERE IS WE'RE GOING TO
CREATE A SITUATION.
WHERE LANDLORDS ARE GOING TO
DISCRIMINATE I THINK LANDLORDS
TODAY LEAST IN OUR AREA IN
ORANGE COUNTY?
DO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MILITARY
PERSONNEL BECAUSE THEY ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT FOR EXAMPLE
DEPLOYMENTS AND THAT KIND OF
THING.
SO I'M I AM QUITE CONCERNED THEY
WERE GONNA EXACERBATE THAT -- IT
THAT THE PERMISSION OF THE CHAIR --
YES PLEASE IF YOU ARE APPRECIATE
THAT YES THANK YOU SENATOR
UMBERG -- FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL --
OF FEEDBACK AND CERTAINLY
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ACTED A
MILITARY IS IT IS AN ISSUE
IRRESPECTIVE OF THIS BILL.
AND I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT
AND IT'S INCUMBENT UPON THE
STATE TO TAKE STEPS TO ENSURE
THAT WE PROTECT OUR ACTIVE DUTY
SERVICE MEMBERS AND SO.
WHEREVER THAT DISCRIMINATION IS
OCCURRING WE SHOULD ACTIVELY.
TALK ABOUT WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN
ENFORCE OUR RULES THIS BILL
WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT YOU
CANNOT.
AND IF THERE ARE VIOLATIONS OF
IT -- UPON ENACTMENT I THINK IT
REQUIRES OUR OUR SPECIAL
ATTENTION OKAY I REALLY -- I I I
I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE
CAN'T.
LEAVE BEHIND IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR
FORM AND I DO BELIEVE SENATOR
UMBERG THERE IS A PROVISION IN
HERE AN ANTI DISCRIMINATION
PROVISION WITHIN THIS
LEGISLATION.
SO APPRECIATEYOUR YEAH
OBVIOUSLY YOU KNOW YOU'VE BEEN
THERE AND DONE THIS I SUSPECT OR
OUR FURRY WELL AWARE OF IT --
BUT THERE IS THAT ANTI
DISCRIMINATION CLAUSES AND
PERHAPS OF THE BILL DOES A MOVE
FORWARD THERE CAN BE ADDITIONAL
PROTECTIONS.
BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF THESE
SECURITY DEPOSITS AND THE FACT
THAT THE MONEY DOESN'T COME IN
FAST ENOUGH TO ALLOW YOU TO GET.
RE LOCATED I THINK IS A
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM WHICH YOU'RE
OF COURSE YOU'VE IDENTIFIED IN
YOUR BILL BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT
THAT CLAUSE THERE IS AN ANTI
DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE AND WOOD.
SENATOR A WHITE KOWSKI ASKING
THE NEXT QUESTION I'LL TRY TO
FIND IT FOR YOU.
ON TO MY COLLEAGUES QUESTION WHY
NOT JUST SICK EXTEND THESE LOWER
A SECURITY DEPOSIT STILL ALL
RENTERS YOU KNOW YOU'VE YOU'VE
SINGLED OUT IT WITH A A DESIRE
TO HELP OUT THE MILITARY FOLKS
WHICH BY THE WAY I'M A
BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEY SO.
PEOPLE ON ACTIVE SERVICE TO GET
THE FILE BANKRUPTCY YOU KNOW
THAT IT'S NOT MEETING THEIR
FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS THEY HAVE
ALL THE RIGHTS THAT ALL THE
OTHERS -- MEMBERS PEOPLE LIVE IN
CALIFORNIA HAS SO WITH THAT
ASIDE WHY NOT USE PROPER DOWN TO
ONE MONTH -- FOR APARTMENT AND
SPREAD THAT TO ALL PEOPLE ARE
CHARGING I GET THE OPPOSITION
WOULD HATE THAT MORE RIGHT.
BUT IT SEEMS MEDIA ANALYSIS
TALKS ABOUT THAT AS A AS A
POTENTIAL BENEFITS.
WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE CHAIR.
PLEASE SIR PLEASE PROCEED.
AT CENTER WHITE HOUSE YOU THANK
YOU FOR YOUR FOR YOUR QUESTION.
AT THE A SERVICE MEMBER HAS AN
OBLIGATION THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN
ANY OTHER CIVILIAN -- AND THE
THAT THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO
THE MILITARY CODE WHICH MAKES IT
CLEAR THAT THAT THERE IS AN
EXPECTATION OF CONDUCT WHICH IS
ENFORCEABLE IN THE MILITARY NOT
IN CIVIL COURT.
BUT IN THE MILITARY -- AND THAT
IS THEY CAN UP TO LOSING YOUR
POSITION IN THE MILITARY FOR A
VIOLATION OF THAT CODE IT'S A
VERY SERIOUS OBLIGATION -- AND
IT'S AN ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATION
AND I I'M.
FIVE EARLIER UNFORTUNATELY --
FOR A CIVILIAN THERE IS NO SUCH --
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM IN PLACE --
THAT MATCHES ANYWHERE NEAR WHAT
WOULD BE REQUIRED OF AN ACTIVE
DUTY SERVICEMEMBERS SO WELL I
THINK YOUR POINT IS --
THOUGHTFUL ONE ABOUT HOW WE CAN
CARE FOR EVERYONE IN TERMS OF
THEIR UNIQUE FINANCIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES ALTHOUGH IT RISKS
BEING RESPECTFUL FOR THE THE
LIABILITY ISSUE ON THE LANDWARD
SIDE -- THIS IS THIS IS A UNIQUE
CLASS AND THERE'S AN ENFORCEABLE
PROVISION UNDER THIS UNIQUE
CLASS THAT WOULD NOT BE IN PLACE
FOR CIVILIAN.
YEAH I JUST I CAN'T UNDERSCORE
THE THE FACT THAT THAT ACTIVE
MEMBERS CAN FILE BANKRUPTCY
THOSE RIGHTS AND THAT WHEN YOU
WHEN YOU SUGGEST THAT THEY HAVE
TO MEET OUR OBLIGATIONS THEY
HAVE TO DRESS APPLICATIONS
BECAUSE I'VE HAD COMMANDING
OFFICERS.
TELL ME IS THE ATTORNEY FOR
THESE FOLKS THAT WE WE DON'T
WANT THEM TO NOT ANSWER THE
LETTERS TO NOT ADDRESS THE DEBT
PROBLEMS THAT THEY HAVE TO DO
THIS IN AN ACCEPTABLE -- A
REMEDY WHAT UNDERNEATH THOSE
PARAMETERS ARE THE FILE
BANKRUPTCY AND TO PAY NOBODY.
NOBODY SO WHILE IT IT'S
SUGGESTED THAT THEY PAID THEY
THEY ADDRESS THE THING I JUST
THINK THAT THERE IS.
A BENEFIT FOR ALL RENTERS TO
REFER ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
EXCEPT TO ALL THESE BENEFITS AND
I THINK IT'S A CHERRY SUGGESTED
THE TWENTY ONE DAYS IS IS A LONG
TIME FOR ANYBODY TO WAIT TO GET
THEIR MONEY BACK AFTER THEY'VE
CHECKED OFF ALL THE BOXES.
ARE I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WOULD
BE A BRILLIANT BILL.
BUT IT MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE
PROBLEM A LITTLE BIT BEYOND
CHEST THE THE ISSUES HERE IF I
COULD TO RESPOND.
CENTER I'M BURKE ON PAGE THREE
OF THE BILL ALIGNS TWENTY TWO
THROUGH.
TWENTY SEVEN A LANDLORDS FROM
NOT REFUSED TO ENTER INTO A
RENTAL AGREEMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY WITH A PROSPECTIVE
TENANT TO WAS A MILITARY SERVICE
MEMBER.
BECAUSE THIS PARAGRAPH PROHIBITS
THE LANDLORD FROM DEMANDING
RECEIVING A GREATER AMOUNT OF
SECURITY THAN THAT WHICH IS
ESTABLISHED IN PARAGRAPH.
ONE AND AS THE ANALYSIS NOTES --
AND AND I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE
SENATOR ALLENRECITE CHAPTER AND
VERSE ALL THE ANALYSES BECAUSE
HE IS CORRECT THAT THEY DID.
THE HASN'T HAD A WHOLE LOT OF
TIME TO MEMORIZE THEM BUT AS IS
SUGGESTED AS IS SUGGESTED IN THE
ANALYSIS UP PERHAPS AN
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM WOULD BE
AN APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION
GOING FORWARD IT JUST SIMPLY
PROHIBITS IT BUT THERE IS NO.
ACTUAL MECHANISM IN THERE SO
CENTER I'M PRODUCING TO HAVE.
ANOTHER QUESTION PLEASE GO AHEAD.
SO MADAM CHAIR I TAKE YOUR POINT --
IN.
I'M NOT SURE -- TO CENTER ALAN'S
POINT TO HOW YOU AND FORCE IT
BUT BUT WITH THE CAVEAT HERE
THAT SAYS.
BECAUSE THIS PARAGRAPH PROHIBITS
THE LANDLORD FROM DEMANDING
RECEIVING GREATER AMOUNT.
OF SECURITY YOU KNOW PERHAPS IT
WOULD BE BETTER TO STRIKE THAT
CLAUSE ANOTHER WORDS YOU JUST
CAN'T DISCRIMINATE BASED ON
SOMEONE'S MILITARY STATUS SO.
IF YOU TAKE OUT BY CLAUSE
THERE'S NO NEED TO PROVE THAT
THE DISCRIMINATION IT IS A
RESULT OF SOMEHOW.
BEING REQUIRED PROVIDE AND IN
ADDITIONAL SECURITY DEPOSIT.
SO.
WONDERFUL IDEA AND THERE IS A
BILL THAT SENATOR HILL WILL BE
PRESENTING TO THIS COMMITTEE SB
TWO TWENTY TWO WHICH I BELIEVE
ADDRESSES THAT EXACT ISSUE.
SO.
AS A FOLLOW ON ONE OF THE
CHALLENGES IS THAT THE AND I
KNOW I AM.
DEEPLY CONCERNED BECAUSE
EXPERIENCES NOT PERSONALLY BUT
WITH FOLKS PARTICULARLY IN THE
LOWER ENLISTED RANKS -- WHERE
THERE IS RAMPANT DISCRIMINATION
IN BOTH HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT
BECAUSE OF ONE'S MILITARY STATUS
OF SPOUSAL STATUS OF SOMEONE IN
THE MILITARY SORT OF IN THE
OPPOSITE OF THANK YOU FOR YOUR
SERVICE RIGHT?
RIGHT THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE
WE JUST DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU A
DOLLAR OR HOUSING -- SO I I I'M
NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT TO DO BUT
I I AM.
THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF
THIS BILL COULD BE MORE DRAMATIC
THAN THE THAN THE ACTUAL ISSUE
WE'RE TRYING.
TO ADDRESS HERE AND I AM CURIOUS
AS TO WHETHER OR NOT.
THERE'S SOME SORT OF PROVISION
THAT THAT SO FOR EXAMPLE -- A
GENERAL OFFICERS NOT ANY PROBLEM
MEETING ANY SECURITY DEPOSIT
REQUIREMENT.
AT A PRIVATE FIRST CLASS MAY
WELL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM
MEETING THAT KIND OF AN
OBLIGATION.
SOUL I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A
WAY TO TELL YOU WHAT I'LL
SUPPORT THE BILL BUT I I WANT TO
WORK WITH YOU. TO TRY TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE DON'T CREATE A
PROBLEM OF OR AT LEAST
EXACERBATE A DEBATE A PROBLEM
THAT EXISTS.
YEAH THANK YOU SENATOR UMBERG I
APPRECIATE THAT.
CONCERN AND THE RECOGNITION THAT
PERHAPS GOING FORWARD -- THIS
THIS ISSUE CAN BE ADDRESSED
BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY YOU YOUR
EXPERIENCE WITH THE MILITARY --
IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO
TAKE.
INTO ACCOUNT AS WELL AND TO
APPRECIATE YOUR DOING THAT
OBVIOUSLY THE BILL IS DESIGNED
TO TRY TO ASSIST.
NOT TO OF SIR BLOCK OUR MEN AND
WOMEN WHO ARE SERVING OUR
COUNTRY AND FOR WHOM WE CLAIM WE
CARE DEEPLY -- SO.
APPRECIATE THAT AND HOPE THAT
YOU WILL COMMIT -- IN YOUR CLOSE
TO CONTINUING TO WORK ON THIS
MEASURE.
THE SENATOR MONNING AND THEY
WILL LET YOU GO AHEAD AND CLOSE.
AGAIN I APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR
BRING THIS FORWARD AND I DO
APPRECIATE THESE RECENT COMMENTS
OF CONCERN OF AN AND INTENDED.
CONSEQUENCE OF DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST MILITARY MEMBERS.
RED RIGHT UP FRONT WITHOUT IT
BEING ARTICULATED.
SO I I WILL LOOK FORWARD TO THE
AUTHORS COMMITMENT TO TRYING.
TO SOLVE THAT CHALLENGE THANK
YOU.
ALL RIGHT -- SENATOR -- GLAZER
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE THANK
YOU MADAM SURE THANK YOU MEMBERS
FOR THE THOUGHTFUL REVIEW OF THE
BILL I CERTAINLY DIED TO COMMIT
TO WORKING WITH CENTER -- BURKE
AND THE COMMITTEE ON THIS ISSUE
OF DISCRIMINATION NO ONE WANTS
TO SEE THAT AND IT'S A IT'S A
BROADER PROBLEM THAT MAYBE CAN
BE SOLVED OR HELP BY THIS BILL
MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO
WORK ON TOGETHER BUT I'M VERY
COMMITTED.
TO ADVANCING THAT I WANT TO SEE
A COUPLE OF THE THINGS IN MY
CLOTHES.
AT THAT THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS HAS HAD
GREAT CONCERN FOR OUR ACTIVE
DUTY MILITARY AND I APPRECIATED
THAT THE BILL DOES WORK FOR THEM
TODAY BUT IT'S NOT OUT OF A
GREAT -- SUPPORT AND COMMITMENT
I'VE HAD WONDERFUL CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE WITH THEIR ORGANIZATION
ABOUT THIS BILL.
AND I APPRECIATE THE
CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT THAT
WE'VE HAD AND MAYBE WE CAN STILL
FIND SOME COMMON GROUND AS THE
BILL.
WAS FOR BY ONE APPRECIATE THE
THE COMMITMENT THEY'VE MADE TO
OUR OUR SERVICE MEMBERS -- I AM
OPEN TO AN ISSUE OF A SUNSET TO
MAKE SURE WE THE BILL HAS TO BE
WORKING OR ELSE WOULD IT'S NO
GOOD SO -- AND WILL THAT'S AN
OPTION GOING FORWARD POTENTIALLY --
TO SEE HOW IT WORKS OVER A
PERIOD OF TIME AND EVALUATED I'M
NOT OPPOSED TO THAT AND IT MAY
BE A REMEDY THAT WE EXPLORE -- I
WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO KATRINA
FOR TELLING HER STORY AND FOR
HER SERVICE FOR HER FAMILY -- TO
OUR COUNTRY THANK YOU TO RAQUEL
VERY REPRESENTATION OF ACTIVE
AND VETERANS GROUPS I APPRECIATE
THAT VERY MUCH THANK YOU
COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDERATION OF
THE BILL.
THANK YOU OUR EYES HER MOTION.
THE MOTION BY SENATOR MONNING
THE MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED
TO SENATE VETERANS AFFAIRS SO
THERE MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY.
TO FURTHER REVIEW WOULD
APPRECIATE YOUR OPENNESS.
TO CONSIDERING A ADDITIONAL
OPTIONS HERE AND THANK YOU ALL
FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
A MAN SECTOR PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL JACKSON BY JACKSON AYE
FORGES. FOR JUST BY ALAN
[inaudible]
CABALLERO.
MORNING.
MONNING AYE STERN.
I'M BURKE.
NUMBER FIVE WHAT CAL SKI.
BY KATHY.
OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH [inaudible]
FOR CLASS.
VOTE COUNT IS FOR TWO ZERO WILL
HOLD THE ROAD ROLE OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS.
AND WE WILL NOW GO TO FILE ITEM
SEVEN BY SENATOR TO RISE SO SB.
FOUR NINETY FIVE AND AGAIN I
WOULD LIKE TO JUST A REMINDER --
WITNESSES TO WITNESSES.
MAIN WITNESSES IN SUPPORT TWO
MINUTES EACH -- WE'VE GONE A
LITTLE BIT OVER OCCASIONALLY BUT
IT WOULD IF WE COULD KEEP IT TO
THE TWO MINUTES.
AND THAN OTHERS WHO ARE IN
SUPPORT WILL STEP UP TO THE
MICROPHONE GIVE THEIR NAME AND
AFFILIATION INDICATING SUPPORT.
AND THEN WE DO THE SAME THING
OVER AGAIN WITH THE OPPOSITION.
SO WITH THAT GOOD AFTERNOON
SENATOR RUSS I THINK THIS IS
YOUR FIRST BILL BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE.
BEEN HERE BEFORE YES THE FIRST
ONE ARE WELL WELCOME THANK YOU.
I THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE -- A
VERY SIMPLE BUT VERY VERY
IMPORTANT CHANGE THAT WE WOULD
LIKE TO MAKE.
AS THE FOUR NINETY FIVE
PROHIBITS TE COURT.
FROM CONSIDERING THE SEX EITHER
MAN OR WOMAN.
GENDER IDENTITY GENDER
EXPRESSION OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION
OF A PARENT.
LEGAL GUARDIAN OR RELATIVE.
IN DETERMINING THE BEST INTEREST
OF THE CHILD FOR THE PURPOSE OF
GRANTING CUSTODY OKAY.
IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT TO
INCLUDE THIS UNDER CALIFORNIA
LAW CHILD CUSTODY DETERMINATIONS
ARE GOVERNED BY THE QUOTE
UNQUOTE BEST INTEREST STANDARD.
A BEST INTEREST DETERMINATION IS
A HOLISTIC ANALYSIS.
IT REQUIRES CONSIDERATION OF THE
HEALTH THE SAFETY AND THE
WELFARE OF A CHILD.
THENATURE AND AMOUNT OF CONTACT
WITH EACH PARENT AND OTHER
FACTORS.
THE SEX GENDER EXPRESSION GENDER
IDENTITY.
OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF A
PARENT.
LEGAL GUARDIAN OR RELATIVE HAVE
NOTHING TO DO WITH AN
INDIVIDUAL'S ABILITY TO LOVE AND
CARE FOR THEIR CHILD.
AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT BE
CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING
CUSTODY -- MEMBERS AND MADAM I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
AND WE HAVE TWO WITNESSES --
HERE TODAY REBEKAH BIRMINGHAM OF
LONG BEACH BAR ASSOCIATION AND
MANDY TAYLOR OF THE WOMEN'S
FOUNDATION OF CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S
POLICY INSTITUTE -- REBEKAH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH GOOD
AFTERNOON WELCOME.
GOOD AFTERNOON THANK YOU SENATOR
DORADO MADAM CHAIR COMMITTEE
MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS REMA BIRMINGHAM I
PRESIDENT ELECT OF THE LONG
BEACH BAR ASSOCIATION WE
REPRESENT MANY PARENTS IN FAMILY
LAW GUARDIANSHIP AN ADOPTION
PROCEEDINGS -- THE BEST INTEREST
OF THE CHILD IS THE LEGAL
STANDARD IN MAKING THESE
JUDICIAL.
DETERMINATIONS I'M HERE TODAY TO
ASK YOU TO AMEND FAMILY CODE
SECTIONS. THIRTY ELEVEN THIRTY
TWENTY AND THIRTY FORTY TO MAKE
CLEAR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE
CHILD FACTORS.
ARE BIASED FREE.
A BEST INTEREST AND ALICE'S
COVERS MANY FACTORS THESE
INCLUDE.
THE MOST IMPORTANT THE HEALTH
THE SAFETY THE WELFARE OF A
CHILD.
THE EMOTIONAL TIES BETWEEN
PARENT AND CHILD APPEARANCE
ABILITY TO CARE FOR THEIR CHILD.
EMOTIONALLY AND PHYSICALLY THE
CHILD'S TIES TO THEIR HOME AND
THEIR COMMUNITY AND OTHER
RELEVANT FACTORS UNDER.
SB FOUR NINETY FIVE THIS WILL
NOT CHANGE.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE IS OLD
CONTROLLING CASE LAW THAT ALSO
PERMITS A COURT TO CONSIDER
IRRELEVANT FACTORS SUCH AS THE
LGBT Q. STATUS OF A PARENT.
THE LEAD CASE REGARDING DON
HETEROSEXUAL PARENTS FROM
NINETEEN EIGHTY EIGHT IS
MARRIAGE OF BIRDS SOL.
WHICH ALLOWS THE COURT EVEN
TODAY TO CONSIDER.
THE SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF THE
PARENT.
APPARENT SEX OR SEXUAL
ORIENTATION IS A RELEVANT TO A
BEST INTEREST ANALYSIS IT'S TIME
TO CLARIFY THE CASE LAW AND
BRING THE LAWN TO CONFORMITY
WITH SCIENCE.
WHICH OVERWHELMINGLY SHOWS THAT
HAVINGAN LGBT Q. PARENT DOES
NOT HARM A CHILD.
THIS FACTOR SHOULD BE REMOVED
FROM CUSTODY DETERMINATION SO
THAT EVERY PARENT IS VIEWED
EQUALLY.
I ALSO KNOW THAT AS DRAFTED THIS
LEGISLATION WILL MAKE THE LAW
BIAS FREE WITH RESPECT TO EVERY
PARENT.
NOT JUST LGBT Q. PARENTS.
ELIMINATING THESE -- RELEVANT
FACTORS FROM A BEST INTEREST
ANALYSIS WILL BENEFIT LITIGANTS
MANY OF WHOM ARE PROBE HER.
WITH CLEAR AND PLAIN LANGUAGE ON
THE FACE OF THE STATUTE IT WILL
MOSTLY.
BENEFIT CHILDREN BY REDUCING THE
ACRIMONY IN CHILD CUSTODY
DETERMINATIONS.
WE ASKED TODAY FOR YOUR VOTE --
TO MOVE SB FOUR NINETY FIVE
THANK YOU VERY MUCH NEXT WITNESS.
HELLO MADAM CHAIR PERCENT AND
COMMITTEE MEET MEMBERS MY NAME
IS MANDY TAYLOR AND I'M HERE TO
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON SB FOUR
NINETY FIVE BY IS FREE CHILD
CUSTODY.
I AM A SOCIAL WORKER AN ADVOCATE
A MEMBER OF THE QUEER AND TRANS
COMMUNITY AND A PARENT OF AN
AMAZING KID.
WHEN MY DAUGHTER WAS AN INFANT I
LEFT MY ABUSIVE BOYFRIEND AND
FILED FOR FULL CUSTODY TO ENSURE
HER SAFETY? FOR THE LAST
THIRTEEN YEARS I HAVE HAD FULL
PHYSICAL CUSTODY AND THE FAMILY
COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY ENFORCED
SUPERVISED PARENTING TIME FOR MY
CO PARENT.
OR CHILD SAFETY AND WELL BEING
WAS PARAMOUNT TO ME.
BECAUSE OF THAT FOR YEARS DURING
THE LENGTHY CUSTODY PROCESS I
DID NOT FEEL SAFE COMING OUT
ABOUT MY SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
MY EX HAD MADE HIS BELIEFS ABOUT
LGBT Q. PEOPLE VERY CLEAR AND I
KNEW THAT I CAN EXPECT
RETALIATION IF HE KNEW MY SEXUAL
ORIENTATION.
I WAS A SINGLE PARENT WITH AN
INTENT I HAD NO COLLEGE DEGREE.
I WAS IN A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
PROGRAM TRYING TO DEAL WITH MY
TRAUMA.
I WAS ON WELFARE AND ATTENDING
SCHOOL FULL TIME I DIDN'T HAVE
THE MONEY TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY OR
THE TIME AND KNOWLEDGE TO
RESEARCH CASE LAW.
IF I COULDN'T GUARANTEE AN
UNBIASED JUDGE MEDIATOR OR
OPPOSING COUNSEL BEING OUT WAS
TOO MUCH OF A RISK TO MY
DAUGHTER'S SAFETY.
I WAITED THREE YEARS TO BE
PUBLICLY OUT I WAITED UNTIL I
FINISH SCHOOL I WAITED UNTIL I
WAS SOLIDLY MIDDLE CLASS.
I WAITED UNTIL I CAN AFFORD AN
ATTORNEY I WAITED UNTIL I HAD
COMMUNITY THAT HELPS ME FEEL
SAFE.
NO ONE ELSESHOULD HAVE TO WAIT
BECAUSE OF FEAR.
BY CODIFYING IN CLARIFYING CASE
LANDA STATUTE YOU HELP PROTECT
CHILDREN BY INSURING THE BIAS
AND DISCRIMINATION HAVE NO PLACE
WHEN DETERMINING THE BEST
INTERESTS OF A CHILD.
BY PUTTING THESE PROTECTIONS
INTO THE FAMILY CODE YOU REDUCE
BARRIERS FOR LOW INCOME PARENTS
AND SOME MORE SUPPORT
COMMUNITIES BY PROVIDING EASIER
TO ACCESS PROTECTIONS.
ALL CHILDREN DESERVE TO FEEL
LOVE.
SAFE AND CARED FOR IN THEIR OWN
HOME THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY OF MUCH APPRECIATED
OTHER WITNESSES PLEASE IN
SUPPORT IF YOU'D STEP FORWARD TO
THE MICROPHONE WITH YOUR NAME
AND AFFILIATION PLEASE.
AYE ENGRAM ACLU OF CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
TAMMY MARTIN WITH THE QUALITY
CALIFORNIA SPONSORED THE BILL IN
STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
HELLO ROSARIO BRIAN NOR CAL
MENTAL HEALTH AMERICA ND THE
OUT FOR MENTAL HEALTH PROJECT IN
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
VIDEO BORN REPRESENTING AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS AND
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
DR DANIEL GILL RELIANCE YEAH --
AND HERE'S THE PROCESS IN
SUPPORT [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
MERCY GONZALEZ ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL
WORKERS IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
I KNOW WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY ARE
THERE ANY PEOPLE HERE IN
OPPOSITION ALL RIGHT.
LET'S BRING IT BACK TO THE DYESS
SENATOR MONNING.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD.
CHRISTIAN THAT TESTIMONY -- OF
THE WITNESSES PARTICULAR YOUR
TESTIMONY IN SHARING YOUR
CIRCUMSTANCE -- MY QUESTION GOES.
TO HAD IS THE IN OPERATION.
HAVE YOU OVERCOME INHERENT BIAS
OF A JUDGE NGUYEN.
THE JUDGE MAYBE DOESN'T
ARTICULATE A BIAS MAYBE I'M
DIRECTING THIS TO THE ATTORNEY --
WITNESS.
IS THERE ANY MECHANISM THAT
WOULD NOT PUT IN FRONT OF A
JUDGE CERTAIN.
PERSONAL OR FAMILY INFORMATION
SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR IS THAT.
AVAILABLE TO A JUDGE WHO'S
MAKING A DETERMINATION -- THANK
YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR QUESTION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION.
THERE'S AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
BEFORE A JUDGE.
DOES THE ANALYSIS FOR BEST
INTEREST.
AND IT IS NOT A SECRET WHO'S GAY
OR NOT GAY IT'S NOT LIKE THAT.
BUT IT'S NOT A CATEGORY THAT THE
COURT CAN CONSIDER IS INHERENTLY
SUSPECT OR SOMEHOW DEFECTIVE.
SO IN THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING
THE COURT CAN CERTAINLY HEAR
ABOUT ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATE OR
EVEN SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IF IT'S
SIGNIFICANT TO THE CHILD CUSTODY
DETERMINATION.
THIS DOESN'T HAMPER THE COURT AT
ALL IT JUST CLEANS UP BIRDS ALL.
I APPRECIATE IT AND IT GOES FROM --
BISSCHEN TO THE COURT CAN'T
CONSIDER -- YES YOUR HONOR
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT IS -- A MAY
CONSIDER.
THANK BUT WHY.
IT THANK YOU AGAIN I'LL BE
SUPPORTIVE IN LEAD TO MOVE AT
THE APPROPRIATE TIME THANK YOU
SENATOR.
QUICK QUESTION.
I THINK I'M MAYBE ASKING THE
SAME QUESTIONS THAT CENTER
MORNING ASKED [inaudible]
BY.
I'M QUOTING SAYS IT'S REFERRING
TO WAS THE CHIEF IN AND BIRDS
ALL.
THESE CASE USES THESE CASES WILL
GENERALLY PROTECTIVE OF THE
RIGHTS OF NON HETEROSEXUAL
PARENTS.
LEAVE OPEN THE POSSIBILITY.
THAT HOMOSEXUALITY MAY BE
CONSIDERED.
A FACTOR.
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION.
THAT THE LAW.
MAY BE LOCATED ELSEWHERE
PREVAILING LAW.
HAD DONE AWAY WITH THAT AS OF
FACTORS THAT.
IN MY MISSING SOMETHING -- NOT
ALONE SENATOR AND THANK YOU FOR
YOUR THOUGHTFUL QUESTION.
WE WERE SHOCKED TO FIND THIS
LITTLE.
HOLE IN THE LONG.
IT IS STILL ON THE BOOKS NADLER
IS STILL GOOD LAW CHAFIN STILL
GOOD LAW OTHER HORRIBLE CASES
THEIR OLD CASES.
BIRDS DAHLE IS THE LAST TIME
ANYBODY HAS SPOKEN ON THIS AT
THE THE LAW LEVEL THERE THAT'S
CASE LAW.
AND IT'S NOT TERRIFIC FOR LGBTQ
PEOPLE SO THIS.
STATUTE WOULD MAKE IT VERY VERY
CLEAR IN LANGUAGE THAT'S JUST
PLAIN.
BAD ODD THE SAYS GENDERED
HETEROSEXUAL MAN.
WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE SAME WAY
AS LGBT Q. PARENTS EVERYBODY'S
TREATED THE SAME.
OKAY BUT WERE NOT AWARE OF ANY.
ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY ACTIONS
WERE COURTS HAVE USE THAT AS A
AS A FACTOR IN THEIR
DETERMINATION.
THE REASON I'M HERE IS BECAUSE
OF THE COLLECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF
THE LONG BEACH BAR.
LA COUNTY HAS STATISTICALLY
ABOUT 31% OF THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SO WE
HAVE LOTS OF OPPORTUNITY. TO
LITIGATE THESE MATTERS -- MANY
DO NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF
APPELLATE COURT CASES BUT
THERE'S PLENTY OF ANECDOTAL
EVIDENCE.
THAT PARENTS WILL USE WHAT THEY
CAN TO BEAT ON EACH OTHER.
IN DIFFERENT COUNTIES ARE VERY
CONSERVATIVE AND THIS JUST TAKES
AWAY SOMETHING THAT ESCALATES --
AN ALREADY DIFFICULT SITUATION
FOR CHILDREN.
INTO AN ACRIMONIOUS EVENT.
THANK YOU THANK YOU AND I WANT
TO THANK YOU ALSO FOR BRINGING
THIS SITE STARTED PRACTICING LAW
AT A POINT IN TIME WE'RE WOMEN
WHO -- CAME OUT OR WERE.
OUTED AS LESBIANS WERE JUST BY
VIRTUE THAT STATUS LOSING THEIR
CHILDREN FREQUENTLY TO ABUSIVE.
OTHER PARENTS BUT CHOSE THEIR
STATUS SO I THINK WE'VE COME A
LONG WAY THIS I THINK WILL HELP
ENSURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE THIS
ISSUE BEFORE US.
IT'S MY HOPE THAT THE COURTS
WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO DO SOME
TRAINING ON THIS FOR THE
IMPLICIT BIAS THAT DOES.
OF THE SADLY CONTINUE TO EXIST
IN SOME AREAS.
IN THE AREA OF LGBT Q..
L. G. B. T. LGBT Q. PARENTING
AND WE OBVIOUSLY NEED TO TO
CORRECT THAT AND HOPEFULLY.
YOU MIGHT CONSIDER SOMETHING IN
THE LEGISLATION GOING FORWARD IF
IT SHOULD PASS BUT CERTAINLY WE
HAVE A MOTION NOW.
WHICH IS TO DO PASS.
OF THE TO THE SENATE FLOOR --
MADAM SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL.
JACKSON HI JACKSON AYE FORGES
[inaudible]
ALAN [inaudible]
CABALLERO.
MONNING.
MONNING EYES STERN.
I'M BURKE.
NUMBER I WHITE HOUSE.
WHITE HOUSE HE AYE ALL RIGHT THE
BILL HAS -- THREE VOTES AND WE
WILL PLACE IT ON CALL. FOR VOTES
EXCUSE ME AND WE WILL STILL HOLD
THE ROLE OPEN FOR THE ABSENT
MEMBERS SENATOR Y. KOWSKI EUROPE.
WE HAVE TWO BILLS LEFT THANK YOU
SO SO MUCH SENATOR ROSS SO AND
AND WITNESSES APPRECIATE YOUR
TESTIMONY.
WE HAVE TWO BILLS LEFT SENATOR
WHITE HOUSE SKI AND THEN I HAVE
A BILL TO PRESENT -- IF WE COULD
TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR ABSENT
MEMBERS ARE AWARE THAT WE ARE IN
THE LAST TWO BILLS THAT WOULD BE
MOST APPRECIATED.
ALREADY HE IF WE JUST WAIT TILL
THE DOORS CLOSE.
PART AND BEFORE WE START I JUST
WANT TO MAKE A NOTE THAT --
APOLOGIES THAT THE ANALYSES DID
NOT.
INCLUDE IN IT VIRTUALLY DID NOT
INCLUDE THE FACT THAT THERE IS
OPPOSITION FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY
MANAGERS.
I IT WAS SUBMITTED IN A TIMELY
FASHION OF THEIR OPPOSED TO THE
BILL AT THE CHEST WAS
INADVERTENTLY NOT INCLUDED.
SO -- WE I WANTED TO MAKE NOTE
OF THAT RIGHT UP FRONT AND
CERTAINLY APOLOGIZE FOR THAT ARE.
CENTER WERE CASKEY THE FLOOR IS
YOURS THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR
FIRST OFF I ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENTS ON PAGE FIFTEEN OF
THE ANALYSIS AND THANK THE
COMMITTEE FOR IMPROVING THE BILL
WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS.
SB THREE TWO THREE WILL
STRENGTHEN THE DEMOCRATIC
GOVERNANCE IN CALIFORNIA IS OVER
FIFTY FIVE THOUSAND HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATIONS.
SOME OF THE MEMBERS HERE HAVE
HEARD A VERY SIMILAR FAILED THE
LAST YEAR UNFORTUNATELY.
HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION BOARDS A
CONTINUE TO MANIPULATE ELECTIONS
BY FAILING TO NOTE THAN TO
NOTICE AN ELECTION FAILING TO
DELIVER BALLOTS ALL RESIDENTS
AND THROWING OUT VALID BALLOTS
SOMETIMES THEY DON'T EVEN HOLD
ELECTIONS AT ALL.
THIS IS DONE TO EXCLUDE
DISENFRANCHISES OTHER RESIDENTS
IN THE COMMUNITY WHO ASKED TO
CHALLENGE THE EXISTING REGIME.
H. AWAY BOARDS CAN FIND
HOMEOWNERS TAKE THEM TO COURT
AND EVEN FOR CLOSE ON THEIR
HOMES SO THESE BOARD MEMBERS --
ELECTIONS ARE NO SMALL MATTERS
WITH ME IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
IS A JUDGE TOM CERTAIN AND
MARJORIE MURRAY FROM THE CENTER
OF CALIFORNIA.
H. AWAY ALONG THE URCHIN AYE
VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH -- WITNESSES
TWO MINUTES TEACHER IF YOU WOULD
GO AHEAD AND PROCEDURE HONOR IF
YOU'D LIKE.
TO START THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE --
MY NAME IS TOM SIR I'M ON THE
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE
SPONSORING ORGANIZATION.
AND I LIKE TO JUST POINT OUT
THAT EVERY PROPOSED PROVISION IN
THIS BILL.
IS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS VERY REAL
PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT.
TO THE CENTERS ATTENTION
REPEATEDLY BY HOMEOWNERS.
FROM ALL AROUND THE STATE YES WE
HAVE SEEN THIS BILL BEFORE.
AND THE THERE'S JUST -- ONE
INSTANCE I WOULD LIKE TO SINGLE
OUT.
AND THAT IS THE COMPLAINTS WE
RECEIVE ABOUT -- HOMEOWNERS WHO
HAVE BROUGHT A CHALLENGE TO AN
ELECTION.
OR WHO ARE SEEKING ACCESS TO
ASSOCIATION RECORDS AND HAVE
BEEN DENIED.
AND WHAT THEY TELL US IS THAT
THEY HAVE TAKEN THEIR CASE TO
SMALL CLAIMS COURT.
AND IN MANY CASES HAVE ACTUALLY
WON THE CASE WERE TOLD YOU KNOW
YOU YOU'RE CORRECT THERE WAS A
MISTAKE HERE.
AND BUT THE RELIEF PROVIDED.
WAS MAYBE THE THE FINE CENTER
ASSOCIATE BUT THERE'S NO.
I INJUNCTIVE RELIEF THERE'S NO
ORDER THAT THE DOCUMENTS BE
PRODUCED THERE'S NO ORDER THAT
THE ELECTION.
BE INVALIDATED.
AND SO THAT IS THE REASON WHY
THAT ONE PROVISION IS IN THERE
TOWARDS THE END WHERE WE TALK
ABOUT.
SMALL CLAIMS ANOTHER OF JUDICIAL
MATTERS THAT MANDATES THE COURT
TO INVALIDATE AN ELECTION.
IF THERE IS MISCONDUCT.
LARA VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE OR
THEIR OF RULES HAS BEEN FOUND.
ABSENT OF THE ASSOCIATION
CARRYING THE BURDEN OF
ESTABLISHING THAT THE MISTAKE
WAS ON INTENTIONALLY DID NOT
AFFECT THE OUTCOME [inaudible]
MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN -- FROM.
MANY YEARS ON THE BENCH I'VE
BEEN HEARING SMALL CLAIMS CASES.
OF FOR OVER FIFTEEN YEARS I
CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
A AS A BE A COMMISSIONER FROM
SPIRIT COURT IN ALAMEDA COUNTY.
AND I ALSO CHAIRED THE JUDICIAL
COUNCILS.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SMALL CLAIMS AND
LIMITED CASES FOR FIVE YEARS.
AND BASED ON THAT EXPERIENCE I
BELIEVE THAT THE REASON THIS
MANDATE IS NEEDED [inaudible]
IS THAT.
SMALL CLAIMS JUDGES ARE NOT USE
TO GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S COMMON
THE DONE.
IN FACT THERE'S A PROHIBITION
UNLESS THERE'S A SPECIFIC
STATUTE AND OFTENTIMES.
THE JUDGE MAY OR MAY NOT EVEN
KNOW ABOUT THE PROVISION BUT
THEY'RE RELUCTANT TO GET INTO
THAT AREA AND CIVIC.
EXCUSE ME THE GUIDANCE THAT THIS
MANDATE PROVIDES A IS VERY
IMPORTANT TO GET ACTUAL RELIEF.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH THANK YOU
APPRECIATE YOUR TEST BY MARJORIE
MARIE CENTER FOR CALIFORNIA
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LAW.
AND THE FIRST OF ALL I WANT TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR ITS
EXTREMELY DETAILED ANALYSIS
WHICH REALLY LAYS OUT THE ISSUES
THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY --
WE WERE A MEMBER OF THE ORIGINAL
WORKING GROUP IN TWO THOUSAND
FIVE THAT CRAFTED THE EXISTING
LAWS GOVERNING HOMEOWNER
ASSOCIATION ELECTIONS.
AND THE TITLE OF THOSE STATUTES
WERE FAIRNESS AND INTEGRITY IN
ASSOCIATION ELECTIONS FOR GOOD
REASON.
THAT THERE WAS SO MUCH OF ABUSE.
SO THAT WAS AN EFFORT TO CLEAN
UP ELECTIONS AND I THINK WE HAVE
GONE A LONG WAY TOWARDS DOING
THAT HOWEVER IN THE INTERVENING
YEARS.
SINCE TWO THOUSAND SIX WHEN THEY
BECAME LAW WE HAVE UNFORTUNATELY --
DOCUMENTED TOO MANY ABUSES.
REGARDING THE INABILITY OF
PEOPLE TO RUN FOR A BOARD SEAT
OR EVEN TO GET A BALLOT TO VOTE
IN AN ELECTION.
SO -- IN MY TESTIMONY I REALLY
ONLY WANT TO STRESS ONE POINT.
AND THAT IS -- WHY SHOULD WE
CARE ABOUT ASSOCIATION ELECTIONS
IN THE FIRST PLACE?
MAINLY BECAUSE AND I'M HERE I'M
KICKING OFF -- A SECTION OF THE
ANALYSIS WHICH IS THAT HOMEOWNER
ASSOCIATIONS ARE NOT COUNTRY
CLUBS.
THEY'RE NOT NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATIONS ARE PUT ON
BARBECUES THEY ARE AS THE
APPELLATE COURTS HAVE RULED
REPEATEDLY.
THESE ARE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES
THAT HAVE POWERS THAT OFTEN
EXCEED THOSE OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES AND COUNTIES.
THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS ANALYSES
OF BILLS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE
IT PARTICULARLY THE ELECTION
BILLS.
HAVE ALSO REPEATED THIS THE
HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS ARE
QUAYSIDE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES
WITH EXTRAORDINARY POWERS OVER
THE LIVES AND PROPERTY OF THE
PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE.
HAD I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT
THAT HOW WE ARE NOT ALONE IN
THIS BELIEF.
IT'S A CURIOUS TO US IN FACT
IT'S BAFFLING THAT THE OPPONENTS
OF THE BILL ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE
SAME THING.
IF YOU LOOK AT MARKETING
MATERIALS FROM THE COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION'S INSTITUTE.
IT SAYS THINGS LIKE COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATIONS ARE DEVELOPED IN
OPERATE IN AN INTER GOVERNMENTAL
SYSTEM COMPOSED OF UNITS OF
LOCAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS
ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
THEIR MARKETING MATERIAL SAY THE
REASON THAT PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE
IN HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS IS
THAT THEY ARE A FORM OF
DEMOCRACY.
IN WHICH LEADERS ARE ELECTED BY
THEIR NEIGHBORS.
SO EVEN THE OPPONENTS OF THE
BILL AGREE WITH US THAT
HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS ARE A
FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
AND THAT THE CODE OF THE
ELECTIONS THAT ARE CONDUCTED IN
THEM NEED TO REACH THE SAME
STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS AND
INTEGRITY BUT WE EXPECT OF OTHER
FORMS OF GOVERNMENT IN
CALIFORNIA THANK YOU FOR THAT I
RESPECTFULLY RESPECTFULLY.
ASK FO AN AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT IF YOU'D STEP FORWARD TO
THE MICROPHONE NAME AND
AFFILIATION PLEASE I ENGRAM ACLU
OF CALIFORNIANS SUPPORT THANK
YOU.
THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT.
ALL RIGHT WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION [inaudible]
GOOD AFTERNOON.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE LOUIS BROWN ON BEHALF
OF THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS
INSTITUTE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE
ACTION COMMITTEE -- IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL AS WE
WERE UP IN OPPOSITION SB TWELVE
SIXTY FIVE LAST YEAR WHICH WAS
VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR.
WE GOT BY GOVERNOR BROWN STATING
IT WAS A ONE SIZE FITS ALL
APPROACH THAT DOESN'T WORK FOR
ALL ASSOCIATIONS.
AND WE AGREE WITH THAT THERE ARE
OVER FIFTY TWO THOUSAND
ASSOCIATIONS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
A 54% OF THOSE ARE LESS THAN
TWENTY FIVE UNITS 70% OR LESS
THAN FIFTY UNITS. 53% OF THE
ASSOCIATIONS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA HAVE A BUDGET OF LESS
THAN ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND
DOLLARS.
AND THEN.
SLIGHTLY MORE THAN HALF OF THOSE
ASSOCIATIONS.
ARE NOT EVEN MANAGED BY
PROFESSIONAL MANAGERS THERE
VOLUNTARY BOARDS THAT HAVE TO
COMPLY WITH THE DAVIS STIRLING
ACT SO.
ARE ONE OF OUR MAJOR CONCERNS
WITH THIS BILL JUST LIKE WITH
LAST YEAR'S BILL IS THAT IT'S
GOING TO CREATE MORE COMPLEXITY.
MORE CONFUSION MORE MISTAKES
WHICH WILL ULTIMATELY END UP IN
MORE LITIGATION.
SPECIFICALLY IN SOME OF THE
POINTS OF THE BILL THAT WE'VE
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IN LAST
YEAR MADAM CHAIR YOU YOU
RIGHTFULLY POINTED OUT AND WE
APPRECIATED YOUR STATEMENTS
ABOUT.
THE IMPORTANCE OF A MEMBER
STAYING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR
ASSESSMENT AND THAT IS ONE OF
THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY
SOMEONE SIGNS UP TO DO -- BUT
THE AMENDMENT AS THEY CAME FOR
THE BLL AND IS THERE IN RIGHT
NOW JUST ADDRESSES REGULAR
ASSESSMENTS.
NOT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS THE BILL
ALSO ADDS TO A VERY COMPLEX --
PROCESS OF IN INDEPENDENT.
INTERNAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
WE BELIEVE EXISTING LAW
ADDRESSES THE ISSUE OF OF THE
FAILURE TO PAY ASSESSMENTS RIGHT
NOW AND SHOULD ADEQUATELY
ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT ARE
FACED IN THIS BILL -- IT ALSO IN
INCLUDES THINGS AND WE JUST
THINK IN FACT.
AREN'T PRACTICAL MORE TIMES THAN
NOT PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO RUN
FOR THE BOARD OF THESE
ASSOCIATIONS WE ARE STRUGGLING
TO FIND CANDIDATES FOR THESE
ASSOCIATION FOR TRUTH NOW THE
BILL SAYS. THIRTY DAYS PRIOR TO
THE BALLOT EVEN BEING MAILED WE
HAVE TO SUBMIT IN SEND OR NOTICE
A LIST OF THE CANDIDATES THAT
ARE ON THAT.
MORE TIMES THAN NOT IN MANY
ASSOCIATIONS WE DON'T EVEN KNOW
THE CANDIDATES THIRTY DAYS
BEFORE THE BALLOT SERBIAN MAILED
TO HAVE THAT.
JUST ONE OR THE POINT JUST TO GO
TO THE ONE SIZE DOESN'T FIT ALL.
EXISTING LOSSES TABULATIONS ARE
TO BE READ IT TO BE.
COUNTED IN AN OPEN MEETING.
WERE WONDERING WHY THAT'S NOT
SUFFICIENT THIS BILL WAS STATE
THE TABULATIONS HAVE TO BE
COUNTED.
AT A MEETING IT'S ACCESSIBLE TO
ALL MEMBERS FOR AT COMMON AREA
PROPERTY OF THE ASSOCIATION.
I LIVE IN AN ASSOCIATION SEVENTY
TWO FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY IS
SEVENTY TWO SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES THE ONLY COMMON AREA
PROPERTY WE HAVE ANY ASSOCIATION
ARE THE STREETS.
SO WE COMMONLY.
COUNT THE BALLOTS THAT THE
PRESIDENT'S HOUSE BECAUSE THAT'S
WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS OKAY WITH
DOING.
THIS BILL WOULD NOT ALLOW THAT
TO HAPPEN IN INSTEAD WOULD
REQUIRE OUR ASSOCIATION.
HAVE TO GO RENT PROPERTY OFF THE
PROPERTY TO HAVE THIS TYPE OF
MEETING.
THANK YOU BILL JUST DOESN'T FIT
ALL THE ASSOCIATIONS IN THE
STATE WILL ASK FOR NO VOTE THANK
YOU VERY MUCH NEXT WITNESS PLACE.
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE MY NAME
IS TOM FREELY ON THE PRESIDENT
AND CEO OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY
MANAGERS.
MORE CALMLY NOTICE CA CM.
I'M SURE THANK OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE
MEANT TO PURCHASE.
CCM AGREES THAT FAIR
REPRESENTATION IS CRITICAL. TO
SUCH A MODEL OF GOVERNANCE.
HOWEVER BECAUSE OF THIS MODEL.
IT IS ALSO.
EQUALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE BASIC
KENNEDY QUALIFICATIONS IN PLACE.
GIVEN THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS A
VOLUNTEER BOARD MEMBER DECISIONS
ON ALL HOMEOWNERS PERSONAL AND
FINANCIAL INTERESTS.
AS YOU KNOW EXISTING LAW ALREADY
CONTAINS A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF
HOMEOWNER PROTECTIONS WITH
RESPECT TO ELECTIONS.
H. AWAY IS VERY GREATLY.
AND APPLYING A ONE SIZE FITS ALL
APPROACH IS ILL ADVISED.
AND THE VERY REASON THIS BILL
WAS VETOED ONCE BEFORE
[inaudible]
CCM UNEQUIVOCALLY REJECTS.
ANY ON REASONABLE DOES
QUALIFICATIONS.
HOWEVER CA SAMPLE LEAVES THAT
ESPECIALLY IN THE SITUATION OF
AN H. AWAY.
WHERE THEY ARE GOVERNED BY
VOLUNTEER HOMEOWNERS THAT IN
ORDER FOR THIS MODEL OF
GOVERNANCE TO WORK?
THERE MUST BE PARTICULAR
VIGILANCE.
WITH RESPECT TO QUALIFIED BOARD
MEMBERS TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS
OF THE OWNERS.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE MADAM
CHAIR WE APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE WE
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE
AUTHOR OF THIS BILL AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO THE OPPORTUNITY. TO
HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS.
THE REASON IS THAT IT JUST
POINTED OUT WE REPECTFULLY
REQUEST A NO VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OTHER OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION IF YOU'D
STEP FORWARD PLEASE NAME AND
AFFILIATION.
YES A STEVE CREWS ON BEHALF THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION OPPOSITION WE
SUBMITTED A LETTER IN PERSON
ARGUMENTS REFLECTED IN HOUSES AS
WELL THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION OUR
BRING IT BACK TO THE DíAS.
LET ME START WITH THE QUESTION.
OF MY CONCERN LAST YEAR WHICH
WAS -- IDENTIFIED WAS THAT -- OF
PEOPLE GONNA RUN I THINK THEY
NEED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH --
THEIR SSESSMENTS AND YOU DID
TAKE THAT AMENDMENT THERE'S A
CONCERN THAT IT WAS JUST GENERAL
ASSESSMENTS ND NOT.
ALL THE ASSESSMENTS ARE AND I
SUSPECT YOU HAVE AN EXPLANATION
FOR THAT SENATOR.
YES THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR LAST
YEAR WE THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING
ABOUT DEMOCRACY THAT YOU DON'T
HAVE TO FILE YOUR TAXES YOU
DON'T HAVE TO PAY YOUR TAXES TO
RUN FOR CITY COUNCIL OR FOR THIS
POSITION.
YOU CAN BE A SENATOR NOT PAY
YOUR TAXES NOT FIRE TAXES SO WE
THOUGHT IN HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION HEY IF YOUR
DELINQUENT THAT'S PART OF YOUR
CAMPAIGN THE DID BUT IN ORDER TO
TRY.
TO REMOVE SOME OF THE OPPOSITION
WE WENT AHEAD AND SAID YOU HAVE
TO PAY YOUR REGULAR ASSESSMENTS
THE STUFF THAT YOU DEBTS
NORMALLY ASSESSED IT'S THE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHEN YOU GET.
THEY COULD BE A COUPLE HUNDRED
DOLLARS SHOULD BE THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS ON A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
THAT TAKES YEARS THIS POST BE
PAID OVER YEARS WE JUST THOUGHT
THAT WAS UNFAIR.
TO TAKE KICK SOMEBODY OUT OF OF
ELIGIBILITY THEY STILL HAVE TO
RUN FOR THE ELECTION.
THAT'S THE WAY WE THOUGHT TO THE
CITED THERE'S YOU KNOW AGAIN IS
MY WITNESSES HAVE SAID.
THIS IS A SERIES OF YEARS OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE TRENCHES
WHO HAVE BEEN.
NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEMOCRATIC
PROCESS WE DIDN'T JUST MAKE THIS
UP.
THANK YOU AS SENATOR UMBERG
TEACHER OF QUESTIONS THANKS JUST
A QUESTION -- AS WHAT FIRST A
COMMENT OF ONE OF THE SCARIEST
EXPERIENCES OF MY ENTIRE
ELECTORAL LIFE WAS WHEN MY WIFE
SAID SHE WANT TO RUN FOR THE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BOARD.
OF BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S A
CHALLENGING IT AND AND I APPLAUD
YOU.
FOR LEAVING THIS CHALLENGING
AREA BUT IT AS TO MISTER BROWN'S
COMMENT CONCERNING -- THE NOTICE
WHERE YOU WHERE THE HOMEOWNER
ASSOCIATION IS RECRUITING
CANDIDATES HAVING A DIFFICULT
TIME.
WHAT WHAT WHAT?
WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON SOME
SORT OF [inaudible]
MODIFICATION.
WELL JUST IN GENERAL COMMENTS WE
HAVE HAD.
AN UNBELIEVABLE AMOUNT OF
CONVERSATIONS WITH OPPOSITION
LAST YEAR AND THIS YEAR SO FAR
THAT THERE'S A NEW PLAYER SO I
WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THE
DISCUSSIONS ON THE THIRTY DAYS
NOTICE BEFORE THE ACTUAL
ELECTION ALL HAVE.
THE JUDGE.
THEY ARE THE ORIGIN OF THAT
PROVISION IS THAT WE HAVE
COMPLAINTS THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY.
SUBMIT THEIR NAME IN NOMINATION
AND THEN SOMEHOW DON'T END UP ON
THE BALLOT.
AND SO ARE OF WAY OF ADDRESSING
THAT IS TO HAVE.
THIS REQUIREMENT THAT.
WHOEVER IS GOING TO BE ON THAT
BALLOT MUST BE PUBLICIZED IN
ADVANCE SO THAT GIVES THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE WHO WAS
LEFT OFF THE COMPLAIN AND
CORRECT.
AND THERE'S THE PROVISION IS
THAT THE INSPECTOR ELECTIONS IN
THIS AND MAKE THAT CORRECTION
WITHIN TWO BUSINESS DAYS THAT'S
THE REASON FOR THAT ADVANCE.
OF KERN HIGH.
THAT'S A TOUGH ISSUE -- LET
LESLIE -- AS A LITIGATOR FOR A
LOW HOW MANY YEARS I'VE OFTEN
THOUGHT JUDGES DIDN'T KNOW THE
LAW TO THOSE RULED AGAINST ME
AND I'M PLEASED THAT YOU WOULD
ADMIT THAT HERE TODAY JUDGE
THANK YOU.
SMART SMART ANSWER -- YES CENTER
BORCHERS.
I YOUR HONOR -- HI CAN YOU CALL
MENTAL FURTHER ON YOUR EARLIER
STATEMENTS THAT INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF IS NOT WITHIN.
THE TOOLS OF OUR SMALL CLAIMS
COURT.
IS SO IS THAT BECAUSE THEY DON'T
HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY OR IS
IT A CULTURAL ISSUE OR IS IT.
A JURISDICTION ISSUE.
IT'S IT'S JURISDICTIONS IN THE
STATUTE OF THIS.
THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT.
DOES NOT HAVE INJECTED POWER
UNLESS THERE IS A SPECIFIC
STATUTE GRANTING THAT AFFORD THE
GOT IT ALL RIGHT.
IF THERE WERE ISSUES IN THE PAST --
WITH AN H. AWAY.
NOTHING WOULD PRECLUDE THAT
INDIVIDUAL OR INDIVIDUALS FROM
SEEKING RELIEF IN SUPERIOR COURT.
THAT A CORRECT IT'S A MATTER OF
ACCESSIBILITY OKAY.
SO IN ONE OF THE WAYS THAT YOU
INCENTIVIZE AND ALLOW THAT TO
HAPPEN IS RECOVERY OF ATTORNEYS
FEES.
YES.
AND IS THAT A NEW A NEW CREATION
OR IS AL ONCE ALREADY AVAILABLE
[inaudible]
YES.
I'M SORRY.
THROUGH THE CHAIR.
NEWS HURT WHAT WAS ACT DIRECTED
ANY PARTICULAR WITNESS SHE WAS
FEW SEEM VERY IMPASSIONED HI.
GO AHEAD AND GIVE US YOUR ANSWER
THAT.
DR.
SENATOR JACKSON.
NO THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT A NEW
PROVISION THAT WAS PART OF THE
ORIGINAL STATUTE FROM -- TWO
THOUSAND FIVE THAT.
IF A HOMEOWNER CONSULTED WITH AN
ATTORNEY TO GET ASSISTANCE TO
PREPARE THE PLEA PLEADINGS.
BUT THE HOMEOWNER COULD REQUEST
REIMBURSEMENT OF THOSE FEES FROM
THE COURT AT THE TIME THAT THEY
FILED.
AT THE TIME THE CASE WAS HEARD.
SO THAT IS ON THE BOOKS RIGHT
YES RIGHT NOW OKAY -- LASTLY.
I'VE HAD EXPERIENCE WITH A
CHOICE AND THEY CAN BE.
CHALLENGING THIS IS THE TO SAY
THE LEAST -- I THINK BY AND
LARGE I THINK THE THE ADVOCATE
ON THE TWO SPOKE -- PROBABLY
SPEAKS FOR THE MAJORITY GETTING
PEOPLE TO RUN IS NOT ALWAYS EASY
BUT YOU DO HAVE THOSE H. AWAY IS
THAT.
PEOPLE ARE VERY -- VERY EXCITED
AND AND PASSION ABOUT THE THEIR
COMMUNITIES SO IT CAN BECOME
MORE POLITICIZED IN YOU WOULDN'T
OTHERWISE -- NORMALLY EXPECT BUT
I WANTED TO ASK THE SIR WHAT
CASF LIKE OWSKI.
YOU'VE BEEN IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH
THE BE I A AND THE MANAGERS
ASSOCIATION IS THERE MORE COMMON
GROUND.
THAT YOU THINK COULD BE ACHIEVED
THAT WOULD REMEDY SOME OF THE
CONCERNS THAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY
MOVING FORWARD.
WALL MADAM CHAIR.
I HAVEN'T HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH
THE B. I A I DID NOT GET A PHONE
CALL OR ANY NOTICE I SAWTHAT
THEY SENT A LETTER TO THE THE
CHAIR I SAW IT YESTERDAY SO I
LOOK FORWARD TO THAT FIRST
CONVERSATION -- WE'VE GONE BACK
AND THE BILL IS SLIGHTLY
NARROWER THAN IT WAS LAST --
LAST TERM OVER THE COURSE OF
LAST YEAR I TOOK SEVERAL
AMENDMENTS TO NARROW IT DOWN.
THE OPPOSITION IS STILL NOT
HAPPY WITH THAT BUT I WOULD SAY
THAT THAT'S A FAIR --
REPRESENTATION OF WHERE WE WERE
THE BILL TWELVE SIXTY FIVE
INTRODUCED LAST YEAR SO.
SO I SUSPECT THAT YOU WILL KEEP
WORKING IN THE GOAL IS ALWAYS TO
TRY TO FIND A COMMON GROUND IN
THIS IS AN AREA WERE.
CENTER Y. CASKETS FROM WORKING
FOR QUITE SOME TIME SO WHY I'M
SURE THAT YOU'LL CONTINUE WITH
THAT SENATOR ALLEN.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT I
REMEMBER BY THE WAY I I WANTED
TO COMMEND THE STAFF ON THE THIS
EXCELLENT AND DETAILED ANALYSIS --
YOU KNOW I THIS IS A BILL I'VE
ACTUALLY STRUGGLE WITH QUITE A
BIT THE I. MEMBER OF H. AWAY AS
WELL -- YOU KNOW.
IT -- BOLTON REALLY I I GUESS I
JUST CAN'T HELP BUT FEEL AS
THOUGH BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME.
BAD ACTORS IN THE MIX AND
THEY'RE UNDER QUICKLY ARE.
I THEY WERE.
THE DAY WE ARE TRYING TO COME UP
WITH THE IN THE WORDS THE
GOVERNOR ONE SIZE FITS ALL
APPROACH THAT COULD POTENTIALLY
INCREASE COST STAGE ALWAYS I
MEAN I I WOULD BE ANNOYED IF.
I LIVE LONGER NATURE WAY BACK IN
SANTA MONICA AND YOU KNOW.
RUNS WELL AND I GUESS I GUESS
I'M I WOULD BE ANNOYED IF TO SEE
MY H. O. E. A. FEES GO UP
BECAUSE THE MANAGEMENT COMPANIES
ARE GOING -- TO ARE GOING TO BE
A SAY THAT IN ORDER TO MEET THE
NEW REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATE WITH
THIS BILL -- THEY'RE GONNA HAVE.
TO THAT'S GONNA THEY'RE GONNA
CURRENT MORE COSTS AND
LIABILITIES AND I AND THAT'S I
DON'T DISAGREE THAT THERE ARE
SOME BAD ACTORS OUT THERE BUT I
JUST WONDER WHETHER THERE IS A
MORE.
INCISIVE WAY OF OF ADDRESSING
THE PROBLEM YOU'RE TRYING TO
ADDRESS WITHOUT.
IMPOSING THIS NEW SET OF
REQUIREMENTS ON OLLIE TWO WAYS
MOST OF WHICH ARE OPERATING.
PERFECTLY DECENTLY WITHOUT ANY
COMPLAINT.
I MEAN I USING THE NUMBERS ONE
H. AWAY BOARD -- THAT WHAT THE
COST WOULD BE TO IMPLEMENT THE
PROVISIONS THE STOMACH RIVER WE
TALK ABOUT DEMOCRATIC SAFEGUARDS
THAT WE HAVE HERE THERE COSTS
WAS THREE DOLLARS PER MEMBER OF
THE H. AWAY SO I THINK THAT
THAT'S A FAIR.
AND REASONABLE COST FOR PEOPLE
TO TO PAY TEN ORDER HAVE AGAIN.
I'M NOT SAYING ALL FIFTY FIVE
THOUSAND H. AWAY SIR BAD AND
THEY DON'T THEY DON'T SEND OUT
THEIR BALLOTS THEY DON'T PROVIDE.
NOTICE THEY DON'T ALLOW PEOPLE
TO PARTICIPATE IN THE IN THE
ELECTIONS BUT IN.
THERE ARE PROBLEMS SO THIS IS
WHY WE PASS LOSSES THAT WE SET A
NEW FLOOR THIS IS THIS IS THE
FLOOR THAT YOU MUST -- FOLLOW
[inaudible]
GET IT.
YEAH I KNOW I I GET THAT I GUESS
I MEAN THAT I BOUGHT THE THE
FOLKS FROM SERVICE YOUR FROM
[inaudible]
HI CLOCK.
THAT YOU'RE FROM CRACK Là LOUIS
OKAY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING TO
DRASTICALLY INCREASING CAUSES IN
SUPPRESSING VOTER PARTICIPATION
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHEN
YOU WROTE THAT IN YOUR LETTER.
THROUGH THE CHAIR THE GERMS
EXCUSE ME MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE LOUIS BROWN ON
BEHALF CAL COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION'S INSTITUTE OF
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE ACTION
COMMITTEE -- TO SPECIFIC ISSUES --
ONE RIGHT NOW -- A CHOICE ARE
ALLOWED TO ESTABLISH ELECTION
RULES -- AND WITHIN THOSE
ELECTION RULES AND WHEN THEY CAN
DETERMINE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF
A MEMBER.
HAS THE BILL AS WRITTEN -- IF WE
WERE -- TO ELECT TO ORDER PUT IN
OUR PROCESS THAT SOMEONE COULD
BE DISQUALIFIED FOR THE FAILURE
OF PAY ASSESSMENTS.
THE BILL SO THAT WE CAN ONLY DO
THAT THROUGH AN AMENDMENT TO OUR
BIOS.
MEMINTA THE BYLAWS ACTUALLY
SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE YOUR
ATTORNEY DO WHICH HAS SOME COST
AND THEN.
REQUIRES ANOTHER ELECTION AN
ELECTION AND HAS TO BE PASSED
BASED ON THE PERCENTAGE IN THE
BYLAWS SO THAT CHANGE ALONE IF
IF YOU HAVE WITHIN YOUR ELECTION
RULES.
A PROHIBITION MAKING SURE THAT
EVERYONE IS IN GOOD STANDING
AROUND FOR THE BOARD WOULD NOW
HAVE TO BE PUT THROUGH YOUR BY
LAWS.
THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL COSTS WE
BELIEVE THAT THE BILL STILL
ALLOWS FOR THE ELECTION
MATERIALS TO BE COPIED.
AND AS A RESULT OF THAT WE
BELIEVE THAT THAT WILL HAVE A
SUPPRESSION ON VOTER
PARTICIPATION BECAUSE PEOPLE
HAVE ACCESS.
NOT ONLY TO THE BALLOT STILL
HAVE ACCESS TO THE SIGN ALMOST
EVERYONE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND
THAT THE ELECTION PROCESS FOR AN
H. AWAY REQUIRES YOU.
WHEN YOU GET YOUR MATERIALS YOU
PUT A?
YOU SEE YOU MARK YOUR BALLOT.
YOU PUT THAT IN AN ENVELOPE
SEALED THAT ENVELOPE.
PUT THAT IN A NOTHER ENVELOPE TO
WHICH YOU SIGN.
AND SO WHILE WE MADE AN ISSUE
LAST YEAR DEALING THAT THE BILL
SPECIFICALLY STATED.
THAT ALL OF THOSE MATERIALS
COULD BE COPIED.
AMENDMENT WAS MADE TO MAKE THOSE
PART OF THE ELECTION MATERIAL OR
MAKE THOSE PART OF THE
ASSOCIATION RECORDS.
AND THEN IT HAS WORDS IN THE
BEGINNING OF IT SAYS EXCEPT FOR
PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE.
THE SIGN BALLOT DESIGNED
ENVELOPES.
CAN BE COPIED.
SO WE BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE
KNOWING THAT THEIR BALLOTS IN
THEIR SIGNATURES CAN BE COPIED
AND IN SMALL COMMUNITIES WHERE
YOU CAN PUT ALL OF THAT TOGETHER
WILL ONLY CREATE MORE DISTRUST.
AND RESULT IN IT MAKING IT MORE
DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE SELECTION.
THOSE ARE TWO EXAMPLES THANK YOU
VERY MUCH -- OTHER ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS -- I'M
SORRY CENTER OUR ROOM TO DO THAT
YOU'RE I MEAN THAT THAT SEEMS
LIKE A BIT OF A STRETCH RIGHT IN
WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WOULD
INVOLVE.
GOV FRAUD THAT WOULD BE
PROSECUTABLE AND VERY PRETTY
CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE LAW.
TO TO PORTUGAL SIGNATURES AND IS
THAT WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING THEY
DON'T I AM I MISSING YOUR THAT
WE ARE SUGGESTING SIR TO THIS
YEAR.
WELL I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS
BUT I'M SORRY I WASN'T WHAT
EXAGGERATE WHY DON'T YOU CLARIFY
VERY BRIEFLY IF YOU WOULD.
BECAUSE THAT IS SO THAT'S IF
THAT WERE THE CASE THAT WOULD BE
OF CONCERN.
WE BELIEVE THAT JUST THE FACT OF
PEOPLE KNOWING THAT THAT THEIR
SIGNATURES COULD BE COPIED -- I
UNDERSTAND.
AND PEOPLE'S CONCERN.
PRIVACY MATTERS EXCEPT FOR THAT
THAT WOULD RESULT IN FEWER
PEOPLE PARTICIPATING IN AN
ELECTION SO.
IF WE MAY BE PERHAPS HAVE THE
SENATOR Y. KOWSKI RESPOND TO
THOSE CONCERNS IN HIS CLOTHES.
I WOULD LOVE TO WE THINK WE FIX
THE PROBLEM WE SAID THE COULDN'T
COPY THIS SIGNATURES THE
ELECTION MATERIALS WOULD BE
DIFFERENT.
TYPICALLY THEY'RE PUT ON THE
WEBSITE SO PEOPLE CAN SEE WHAT.
THE PEOPLE ARE SAYING WHAT THE
GOING TO DO WITH THAT BUT I WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK IF.
WE THOUGHT THAT THE LANGUAGE IS
ENOUGH TO SAY YOU CAN'T COPY THE
SIGNATURES SO THAT WAS A CONCERN
THAT PEOPLE MAY HAPPEN THAT --
THE MADAM CHAIR.
I WISH NOBODY A VETO MESSAGE
FROM THE GOVERNOR TO SAYS ONE
SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL BECAUSE
THEN YOU'RE PUT INTO IT
ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE DEALING
WITH.
DEMOCRACY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
PEOPLE PARTICIPATING IN ONE IN
FOR CALIFORNIANS LIVE IN THE
HOMEOWNERS IS A CESSATION SO I
HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE GOVERNOR'S
VETO MESSAGE THAT A ONE SIZE
DOESN'T FIT ALL WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT.
HAVING PEOPLE PARTICIPATE IN A
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION NOT BEING
LEFT OUT FROM MAKING DECISIONS
ON WHERE THEY LIVE THERE'S AN
UNBELIEVABLE AMOUNT OF FOLKS
THAT LIVE IN THESE ASSOCIATIONS
AND SOME OF THEM ARE JUST.
CUT OUT YOU KNOW BECAUSE THE
RULES THE COUNTRY CLUB FOLKS SAY
THESE ARE THE RULES AND WE'RE
NOT GONNA ALLOW YOU TO
PARTICIPATE SO ON BEHALF OF
THOSE ONE IN FOR CALIFORNIANS.
TO LIVE IN THE H. WAYS OUR
REGION I VOTE AND I WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE
OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU AND AND I THINK THAT --
THIS IS A VERY TOUGH ISSUE TO
THE EXTENT THAT.
MANY OF THESE ASSOCIATIONS ARE
WELL RUN AND THEY REPRESENT AND
AND REFLECT DEMOCRACY.
UNFORTUNATELY THERE ARE SOME
THAT ARE RUN LIKE LITTLE
FIEFDOMS AND THOSE ARE THE ONES.
THAT -- WE'RE TRYING TO GET AT A
AND I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN WORKING
HARD ON THIS SO WITH THE
ASSURANCE THAT YOU WILL CONTINUE
WORKING ON THIS I WOULD
CERTAINLY -- SUGGEST THAT WE
ALLOW YOU TO KEEP KEEP.
KEEP THE FIGHT OUT THERE BECAUSE
IT IS A IT IS YOU KNOW PEOPLE'S
HOMES ARE VERY VERY ARE PROBABLY
THE MOST IMMEDIATE.
REFLECTION OF THEIR ABILITY TO
HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER THEIR
LIVES.
AND THAT'S WHAT DEMOCRACY CALLS
FOR SO WITH THAT -- DO WE HAVE A
MOTION.
MOVE BY SENATOR MINING THE
MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED TO
SENATE HOUSING SO THIS ISSUE
WILL CONTINUE.
UNDER DISCUSSION IN THAT
COMMITTEE -- IF THE COMMITTEES --
DECIDES.
TO CONTINUE ITS PROGRESS AND
WITH THAT MADAM SECRETARY PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL JACKSON HI JACKSON
AYE A BORDERS [inaudible]
ALAN.
ALLEN I CABALLERO.
MONNING.
MONNING AYE STERN.
UMBERG UMBERG BY WHITE HOUSE SKI
BY KELSEY AYE RIGHT YOU HAVE OF
FIVE VOTES THE WE WILL HOLD THE
ROLE OPEN FOR THE ABSENT MEMBERS
THERE'S ONE MORE ITEM -- WHICH
IS MY MEASURE.
OF FILE ITEM.
FILE ITEM.
THREE SB ONE SEVENTY ONE AND THE
GAVEL.
THOSE TO MISTER VICE CHAIR
[inaudible]
YEAH [inaudible]
RIGHT
.
IN THESE ARE BACK TO BACK.
INITIALLY SAYS INTEREST.
SOMEONE [inaudible]
I THANK.
OKAY SO LOOKS LIKE WE ARE MOVING
ON TO SB.
ONE SEVEN ONE BY SENATOR --
HANNAH BETH JACKSON -- SENATOR --
COUPLE OF PRELIMINARY.
ITEMS -- DO YOU ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENT SET FORTH IN COMMENTS
SEVEN ON PAGE ELEVEN OF THE
ANALYSIS.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE TAKEN THIS
AMENDMENT YES AND SO WITH THAT --
OF I WILL ACCEPTANCE IN AUTHORS
AMENDMENT.
THE COMMENT AND NUMBER SEVEN I
BELIEVE THAT ALSO INCLUDES THOSE
AMENDMENTS INCLUDE THE
AMENDMENTS THAT YOU AGREE TO
TAKING CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL
IN THE SENATE THAT IS CORRECT
OKAY ALL ADOPTED INTO THE BILL
AND I AM ACCEPTING THEM AS
AUTHORS AMENDMENTS ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU WITH THAT BEING SAID
THE THE CHAIR OR THE TO ME THE
FLOORS ALL YOURS THANK YOU VERY
MUCH MR VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS
TODAY'S EQUAL PAY DAY.
IT'S THE DAY THAT REPRESENTS HOW
FAR INTO THE NEXT YEAR.
WOMEN MUST WORK. TO EARN WHAT
MEN DID THE PRIOR YEAR
[inaudible]
SO ESSENTIALLY.
WHITE WOMEN IN PARTICULAR HAVE
WORKED THREE MONTHS TO RAGE THE
PAY THAT.
MEN HAVE RECEIVED AS OF DECEMBER
THIRTY FIRST OF THE PRIOR YEAR.
SO I THINK IT'S FITTING WE'RE
HERE TODAY FOR THE PRESENTATION
OF A BILL THE CLOTHES THAT WAGE
GAP.
THIS IS -- THE WAGE GAP
RESULTING IN AN ESTIMATED
SEVENTY EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS IN
LOST WAGES FOR WOMEN IN
CALIFORNIA EVERY YEAR.
SO.
THINK ABOUT THAT NUMBER SEVENTY
EIGHT ACTUALLY POINT SIX BILLION
DOLLARS.
CLEARLY THE WAGE GAP HURTS WOMEN
pECONOMY.
AND AGAIN THAT IS WHITE WOMEN
WOMEN OF COLOR FARE EVEN WORSE
FOR AN AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMAN
SHE HAS TO WORK TILL AUGUST
TWENTY SECOND. TO MAKE WHAT
WHITE MEN HAD MADE IN THE PRIOR
YEAR.
AND FOR LATINOS.
THEY WORK UNTIL NOVEMBER. TO
MAKE WHAT.
MEN HAD MADE IN THE PRIOR YEAR --
AS AS HAS MENTIONED -- I'M
ACCEPTING THOSE AMENDMENTS --
SPECIFICALLY THEY WILL CLARIFY
THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THE
FEDERAL E. O. ONE REPORT. TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT
AND HOUSING HERE IN CALIFORNIA
SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE BILL.
SO LONG AS SAID EO ONE REPORT
CONTAINS THE SAME OR
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR DATA.
THAT IS REQUIRED BY THIS BILL
AND THE OBAMA -- FORM WHICH IS
THE BASIS OF THIS BILL DOES IN
FACT DO THAT -- IT'S ALSO ADDS
WE HAD A CLARIFYING AMENDMENT
REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF
EMPLOYER.
AS WELL AS SOME OTHER TECHNICAL
CHANGES.
THIS MEASURE IS A BILL TO FIGHT
PAY DISCRIMINATION WITH DATA
WITH INFORMATION.
BECAUSE WHEN IT COMES TO PAY
EQUITY FOR WOMEN AND MINORITIES
WE CANNOT FIX WHAT WE DO NOT
KNOW.
THIS MEASURE REQUIRES THAT
EMPLOYERS WITH A HUNDRED
EMPLOYEES OR MORE SUBMIT A PAY
DATA REPORT ANNUALLY TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT
AND HOUSING.
OUTLINING THE COMPENSATION AND
HOURS WORKED OF EMPLOYEES BY
GENDER.
BY RACE.
BY ETHNICITY AND BY JOB CATEGORY.
THE GOAL IS TWO FOLD.
FIRST TO ENCOURAGE EMPLOYERS TO
ANALYZE THEIR OWN PAY PRACTICES
AND ALLOW FOR SELF CORRECTION IN
OTHER WORDS PUTTING A MIRROR IN
FRONT OF THEIR OWN PAY PRACTICES.
BECAUSE I SUBMIT THAT MOST
EMPLOYERS.
DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE
DISCRIMINATING AND DO NOT INTEND
TO DISCRIMINATE I CANNOT IMAGINE
AN EMPLOYER WAKING UP IN THE
MORNING SAYING.
GOODNESS THIS MORNING I WANT TO
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST WOMEN'S PAY.
BUT THERE IS IMPLICIT BIAS THAT
WE NEED TO LOOK IN THE MIRROR TO
IDENTIFY AND THAT'S WHAT THIS
BILL CALLS.
FOR AND THE SECOND IS TO ALLOW
THE DEPARTMENT OF FAIR
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING TO GATHER
IMPORTANT DATA.
THAT ALLOWS THEM TO SEE PATTERNS
OF WAGE DISPARITIES IN JOB
CATEGORIES.
JOB CATEGORIES BECAUSE THAT'S
WHAT THIS BILL CALLS FOR IT
DOESN'T PINPOINT -- EMPLOYEE A
VERSUS EMPLOYEE BE.
IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF WHETHER
OR NOT THESE PEOPLE ARE BEING
PAID EQUALLY FOR SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR WORK WHAT IT DOES IS IT
LOOKS IN VARIOUS JOB CTEGORIES.
SUCH AS A ADMINISTRATIVE
ASSISTANT.
SUCH AS MIDDLE MANAGER AND IF IT
SEES THAT EMITTED FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS ARE
80% WOMEN.
AND THAT THEY ARE IN THE LOWER
PAYING JOB CATEGORY IT WILL HELP
THEM RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS
DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON
VARIOUS CATEGORIES.
SO IF THEY NOTICE DEVIATIONS OR
ALL LIARS IN ONE PARTICULAR
INDUSTRY FOR EXAMPLE WHERE ONLY
15% OF YOUR HIGHER PAID WORKERS
ARE WOMEN.
THAT'S AN OUT LIAR AND IT WILL
ALLOW THEM TO DIG DEEPER INTO
WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS --
DISCRIMINATION GOING ON IN THAT
PARTICULAR -- UNLAWFUL
DISCRIMINATION GOING ON IN
WITHIN THAT PARTICULAR INDUSTRY
OR BUSINESS SO.
THE BILL IS MODELED CLOSELY
AFTER EFFORTS THAT WERE MADE ON
THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
RECOGNIZING THAT UNEQUAL PAY IS
OFTEN HIDDEN. TO EMPLOYERS AND
EMPLOYEES AS I'VE MENTIONED THE
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCED A
PROPOSED REVISION TO A
DEMOGRAPHIC REPORT THAT LARGE
EMPLOYERS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTING
FOR OVER FIFTY YEARS.
THE EO ONE FORM.
HAS BEEN IN USE FOR FIFTY YEARS
THIS IS NOT A NEW FORM.
BUT WHAT WE WILL DO IS SIMPLY AT
INCLUDE THE REPORTING OF PAY
DATA.
BY RACE AND GENDER BEGINNING.
IN -- THE INTENT OF THE BILL
ACTUALLY FEDERALLY WAS TO BEGIN
IN.
TWENTY EIGHTEEN WHEN THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION CAME INTO --
OFFICE IT SIMPLY RENEGED ON THIS
PROPOSAL NOW THIS WAS A THIS WAS
A FORM THAT HAD BEEN SEVERAL
YEARS IN THE MAKING STAKEHOLDERS
FROM ALL DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES
WERE BROUGHT TOGETHER. TO TRY TO
COME UP WITH A FORM WHICH SIMPLY
ALLOWS US TO IDENTIFY.
WHETHER IN WHY AND HOW GENDER
BASED DISCRIMINATION WAGE
DISCRIMINATION WAS TAKING PLACE
AND WE KNOW THAT IT IS BECAUSE
WOMEN ARE MAKING LESS.
THAN MALE COUNTERPARTS SO AUGUST
TWENTY SEVENTEEN THE BILL WAS
PULLED.
IT THE NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW
CENTER SHOOT.
ARGUING THAT THE OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET LACK COULD
CAUSE TO STAY THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THIS MEASURE.
THIS MONTH THIS PAST MONTH I
SHOULD SAY A FEDERAL JUDGE
ORDERED THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
TO MOVE FORWARD WITH COLLECTING
THIS IMPORTANT DATA.
CITING THE EXTENSIVE PREPARATION
STUDY AN IMPORT THE WENT INTO
THE CREATION OF THIS DATA
REVISION.
AND DECLARING THAT THE OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET'S DECISION
TO HALT THE PROGRAM WAS
ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.
IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE DECISION
COULD BE APPEALED BUT NOT NONE
THE LESS HERE IN CALIFORNIA.
WE KNOW THAT THE COLLECTION OF
THE IDENTICAL PAY DATA REQUESTED
UNDER THIS BILL IS NOW UNDER WAY
AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL IN THIS
MEASURE INSURERS THE DATA.
IS ALSO IN THE HANDS OF OUR
STATE AGENCIES I THINK -- IT'S
WORTH NOTING THAT YESTERDAY I
WAS HONORED TO PARTICIPATE IN A
PRESS EVENT -- FOR EQUAL A PAY
DAY WITH THE FIRST PARTNER THE
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND MEMBERS
OF THE COMMISSION ON THE STATUS
OF WOMEN AND GIRLS WERE THIRTEEN
COMPANIES.
LARGE COMPANIES ANNOUNCED THEY
WERE PLEDGING TO DO THEIR OWN
ANNUAL -- COMPANY WIDE TO PAY
ANALYSIS.
AND EIGHTEEN T. -- BEING BE A
NUMBER OF LARGE COMPANY SAID YOU
KNOW WHAT.
WE WANT TO LOOK TO SEE WE
BELIEVE THAT WE ARE NOT
DISCRIMINATING BUT WE ARE GOING
TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS
BECAUSE IF WE ARE THEN WE WANT
TO CORRECT THAT PROBLEM.
SO -- I AM DELIGHTED AND COMMEND
THESE COMPANIES FOR THEIR
LEADERSHIP BUT WE NEED THE SELF
EVALUATION AND SELF CORRECTION
TO BE SYSTEMIC.
IF WE HOPE TO CLOSE THE WAGE GAP
ONCE AND FOR ALL THERE ARE
ESTIMATES THAT SAY IF WE DON'T
START DOING THIS PRO ACTIVELY.
IT'S GOING TO BE A HUNDRED YEARS
BEFORE WE END UP WITH EQUAL PAY
THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE -- SO.
THE I LET ME JUST TAKE A COUPLE
MINUTES TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE
MISINFORMATION THAT IS OUT THERE
TO KNOW 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.
I'VE TAKEN -- AN UNUSUAL STEP
FOR ME -- AND PROHIBITED --
ACCESS THROUGH PUBLIC RECORDS
ACT DISCLOSURE THE GOAL HERE IS
TO CORRECT NOT TO SHAME.
AND I THINK THAT IS A VERY
IMPORTANT CRITERIA.
THE LIMITING A PUBLIC
AVAILABILITY OF THE REPORTS IS
SIMILAR TO WHAT OCCURS AT THE
FEDERAL LEVEL WHERE THEY HAVE
HAD NO ISSUES WITH ON TOWARD
DISCLOSURE OF THIS DATA FOR THE
FIFTY YEARS THAT IT HAS BEEN --
REQUIRED CENSUS FORM HAS BEEN
REQUIRED THE DATA WILL PROVIDE A
BIRD'S-EYE VIEW ONE PAY
DISPARITIES IN OCCUPATIONAL
SEGREGATION BUT IT DOESN'T GO
DEEP IN AN ATTEMPT TO COMPARE
ONE PERSON'S SALARY VERSUS
ANOTHER.
WE HAVE THE FAIR PAY ACT WHICH
WILL LOOK AT THE SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR WORK TO IDENTIFY WHETHER
PEOPLE ARE BEING PAID THIS LOOKS
A JOB CATEGORIES.
AND INCENTIVIZE HIS COMPANIES TO
CORRECT ANY KIND OF JOB A GENDER
DISCRIMINATION THAT EXISTS IN
OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES -- SO
WITH THAT -- HI THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT MEASURE TO TRUST
SIMPLY IDENTIFY WHERE WE ARE
WHERE WE HAVE GONE ASTRAY -- AND
TO CORRECTED AND TO DO SO IN A
WAY -- HOPEFULLY WHERE COMPANIES
WILL VLUNTARILY MAKE THOSE
CORRECTIONS WE DO HAVE THIRTEEN
COMPANIES THAT ALREADY STEPPED
UP. TO DO THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE --
REPLICATED THROUGHOUT OUR STATE
SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THAT
SEVENTY EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS
THAT'S LEFT ON THE TABLE THAT
WOULD OTHERWISE GO INTO OUR
LOCAL ECONOMY FOR THE GOODS IN
THE SERVICES THAT FAMILIES NEED.
FOR THEIR FOR THEMSELVES FOR
THEIR FAMILIES AND TO HELP
CONTINUE KEEPING OUR ECONOMY
GOING.
SO WITH THAT I HAD TO WITNESSES
HERE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF
THE MEASURE THANK YOU VERY MUCH --
IF -- TO MEMBERS OR THAN TO
GUESS COULD TO INTRODUCE
THEMSELVES.
I THANK YOU MISTER VICE COULD
PLEASE KEEP IT TOO IS A BE
WONDERFUL -- MEMBERS AMERICA
YOUR SHE HARD WITH THE
CALIFORNIA PLUMMET LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION WE ARE PROUD CO
SPONSORS OF SB.
ONE SEVENTY ONE I JUST WANT TO
EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF WHAT
THIS DATA WILL PROVIDE A NO THE
OPPOSITION'S ARGUMENT IS THAT
THIS IS GOING TO MAKE THESE
REPORTS ARE GOING TO MAKE IT
LOOK LIKE THEY'RE EQUAL PACKED
VIOLATIONS WOULD REALLY NOT
EXIST BECAUSE IT WON'T ALLOW.
THESE REPORTS ONE ALLOW FOR
THOSE BONA FIDE FACTORS THAT
COULD JUSTIFY.
A WAGE DISPARITY BUT I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT PAY
DISCRIMINATION REALLY IS NOT
JUST ABOUT COMPARING EMPLOYEE A
WHO IS A WOMAN VERSES EMPLOYEE
BE WHO'S A MAN.
DOING SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR WORK
WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IS THIS
ISSUE OF OCCUPATIONAL
SEGREGATION AND HOW OTHERS
HIRING PRACTICES AND PATTERNS
THAT RESULT IN WOMEN AND PEOPLE
OF COLOR.
SYSTEMICALLY BEING PAID LESS
OVERALL OR BEING OVER
REPRESENTED OVER CONCENTRATED
AND LOWER LOWER PAID JOBS -- SO
WE'VE ALREADY SEEN COMPANIES
LIKE SALES FORCE THE GAPS
STARBUCKS DO THESE PAY AUDITS
VOLUNTARILY AND IT HAS ALLOWED
THEM TO YOU LOOK AT WHERE THE
WAYS JUST DISTRIBUTIONS ARE WHAT
THE WAGE PATTERNS ARE.
AND AND FIGURE OUT OUR WOMEN AND
PEOPLE OF COLOR BEING.
OVERLY REPRESENTED IN THESE
LOWER PAID JOBS AND 80% OF ALL
WAGES ARE GOING TO A HANDFUL OF
WHITE MEN.
AND DOES THAT MEAN THAT THERE'S
AN EQUAL PAY VIOLATION NOT
NECESSARILY BUT IT DOES MEAN
THAT THOSE COMPANIES SHOULD BE
TAKING A CLOSER LOOK AT THE
RECRUITMENT ARE HIRING THE
PROMOTION PRACTICES.
TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING
WHY IT THOSE PATTERNS EXIST AND
WHAT THEY CAN DO BETTER -- THREE
YEARS AGO THIS WEEK THE DAY
AFTER EQUAL PAYDAY -- THERE WAS
NEARLY THREE HUNDRED FEMALE
ATTORNEYS WHO SETTLED ONE OF THE
LARGEST PAY DISCRIMINATION CASES
AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE.
AND FARMERS INSURANCE USED A PAY
GRADING SYSTEM WHERE THE
ATTORNEYS MADE BETWEEN GRADE
THIRTY SIX AND FORTY AND IN
THROUGH THIS LITIGATION THEY
TOOK A THEY WERE ABLE TO GO
HIGHER LEVEL LOOK AT THIS PAY
DATA AND THEY FOUND THAT.
MOST OF THE WOMEN WHO CAME IN
CAME IN AT GREAT THIRTY SIX MOST
OF THE MEN THAT CAME IN CAME IN
AT GREAT.
THIRTY SEVEN THAT WOMEN WERE
NINE TIMES AS LIKELY TO BE IN A
LOWER PAY GRADE TO THE MEN AND
THAT WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE THAT
THE PAY GRADE ITSELF WOMEN WERE.
DISPROPORTIONATELY AT THE BOTTOM
AND OF THE PAY GRADE AND MEN
WERE DISPROPORTIONATELY AT THE
TOP AND SO THAT'S THE KIND OF
HIGH LEVEL PAY DATA THAT THESE
REPORTS ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO
PROVIDE.
JUST THE OTHER THING THE
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT HOUSING
WILL ALSO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT
TRENDS WITHIN AND ACROSS
INDUSTRIES SO HOW DO WAY AGE
PATTERNS IN THE TECH SECTOR
COMPARED TO WAGE PATTERNS IN THE
HEALTHCARE SECTOR.
WHO HOLDS THE HIGHEST PAYING
JOBS WHO HOLDS THE LOWEST PAYING
JOBS WHICH WILL ALLOW US?
TO CREATE SOME POTENTIAL POLICY
INTERVENTIONS TO ADDRESS THESE
ISSUES OF BROADER OCCUPATIONAL
SEGREGATION'S WHERE THEY MAY
EXIST.
THAT WE THINK THAT AGAIN YOU
CAN'T FIX WHAT YOU CAN'T SEE AND
SO WE STRONGLY URGE YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD AFTERNOON SHANNON SMITH
CROWLEY REVERSING THE AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN
OF CALIFORNIA.
WILL TRY AND KEEP MY COMMENTS
BRIEF -- IN TODAY'S EQUAL PAY
DAY AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
UNIVERSITY WOMEN HAS A LOT OF
DATA AND A LOT OF THE VETERANS
HERE HAVE HAVE HEARD THIS BEFORE.
BUT WHEN NUMBER WE DON'T TALK
QUITE A BIT AS MUCH ABOUT IS
THAT THERE ARE STUDIES THAT SHOW
HOW MUCH.
OF THE PAY DISPARITY IS TO
OUTRIGHT BIAS OR DISCRIMINATION.
AND AS THE SENATOR SAID THERE'S
PROBABLY NOT THAT MANY PEOPLE TO
WAKE UP IN THE MORNING SAFE.
DAMMIT I'M GOING TO DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST WOMEN TODAY.
IT'S 6212%.
SO THAT'S 8294% OF EMPLOYERS
AREN'T INTENDING. TO
DISCRIMINATE IT LIKELY IS
PERPETUATION OF STATUS QUO.
BECAUSE WE HAVE LOOKED AT THINGS
LET ME GIVE YOU A REALLY BRIEF
ANALOGY IN TERMS OF THE POWER OF
DATA MOST OF YOU HAVE HEARD
ABOUT.
THE NUMBERS OF MATERNAL DEATHS.
AND WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO IN
CALIFORNIA REDUCE THE NUMBER OF
MATERNAL DEATHS BY MORE THAN
HALF.
IN A HANDFUL OF YEARS BECAUSE OF
DATA.
WE LOOK AT THINGS LIKE FOUND OUT
40% OF HOSPITALS DIDN'T HAVE A
HEMORRHAGE PROTOCOL IN PLACE.
THAT WAS NUMBER ONE LEADING
CAUSE OF DEATH IT'S NOW NUMBER.
THREE WE'RE SIX OUT OF A HUNDRED
THOUSAND WOMEN DIE IN CHILDBIRTH
IN CALIFORNIA.
THE US IS ABOUT 25% THAT'S
BECAUSE WE MADE THE DECISION. TO
USE DATA TO LOOK AT THIS.
THIS IS GOING TO BE THE A VERY
MINIMAL IMPACT FOR EMPLOYERS.
AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL THEY TOOK
GREAT CARE TO LOOK AT WHAT IT
WAS GOING.
TO TAKE FOR EMPLOYERS TO
IMPLEMENT THIS AND I BELIEVE I
MIGHT BE A FEW CENTS OFF BELIEVE
BELIEVE IT'S AN ADDITIONAL FOUR
HUNDRED AND THIRTY SIX DOLLARS.
FOR EMPLOYER.
ADD THIS VALUABLE DATA THIS
COMBINED WITH THE INFORMATION
THAT JUST CAME OUT YESTERDAY.
THE COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF
WOMEN AND GIRLS PROVIDING
EVERYONE THE TOOLS TO BE ABLE TO
SOLVE EXAMINED IS WHAT WE NEED
SO THAT IT IS NOT A HUNDRED OR A
HUNDRED AND ONE YEARS BEFORE WE
CLOSE THE GAP.
WE ASK FOR A VOTE THANK YOU VERY
MUCH I DO WE HAVE ANY -- MET ANY --
FOLKS HERE IN SUPPORT.
IF YOU COULD PLEASE INTRODUCE
YOURSELF AND STATE YOUR
AFFILIATION I ENGRAM ACLU OF
CALIFORNIANS SUPPORT.
JUST BARTOLO WESTERN CENTER ON
LAW AND POVERTY IN SUPPORT.
WHICH DUGGAR CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION ALSO IN SUPPORT.
KAPANEN'S GO FRIENDS COMMITTEE
ON LEGISLATION CALIFORNIANS
STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH DO WE HAVE
ANY -- OPPOSITION IN THE RECORD.
IF YOU COULD PLEASE THE YES.
GOOD AFTERNOON GOOD AFTERNOON
MORE CURTIS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY WE
ARE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB ONE
SEVEN ONE AGAIN THIS IS SIMILAR.
TO A MISTER AS SENATOR JACKSON'S
BILL FROM LAST YEAR -- AND WE DO
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS AS SHE
IS KEPT IN THE BILL THAT WERE
NEGOTIATED LAST YEAR HOWEVER WE
STILL HAVE REMAINING CONCERNS
AND THAT'S WHY WERE IN A STILL
IN OPPOSITION -- WE DO
UNDERSTAND THAT TO THEIR THE
INTENT OF THE BILL IS TO COLLECT
THE INFORMATION IN AGGREGATE
FORM HOWEVER AGAIN THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT IS STILL
CONCERNING TO S. OF ONE BECAUSE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
DID SUPPORT THE EQUAL PAY ACT
WHEN IT WAS SIGNED BY THE
GOVERNOR.
AND WE DO A A SUPPORT THE IN A
WEEK WILL PAY IN GENERAL AND
THAT IS UNLAWFUL AND WHEN THERE
IS UNLAWFUL WAGE DISPARITY.
AND WHILE THE INTENT OF THIS
BILL IS TO COLLECT AGGREGATE
DATA THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE
EQUAL PAY ACT WAS TO ACTUALLY
COMPARE JOBS IT'S A JOBS.
THAT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
TO EACH OTHER RATHER THAN SIMPLY
CATEGORICAL JOB TITLES AND SO
OUR CONCERN IS IS THAT YOU WANT
TO HAVE WAGE DISPARITY YOU WANT
TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOMEONE
THAT HAS BEEN WITH YOUR COMPANY
FOR THIRTY YEARS.
MORE PAY VERSUS SOMEONE THAT HAS
ONLY BEEN THERE FOR TWO WEEKS
AND WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO
CONTINUE TO ALLOW THAT
ADDITIONALLY THE COMPANIES THAT
HAVE PLEDGED TO DO THIS HAVE
DONE THIS ON THEIR OWN.
AND THAT'S PART OF THE EQUAL PAY
ACT THAT'S CURRENTLY THE LOSS OF
COMPANIES ARE TAKING A DEEP DIVE
THEY ARE TAKING A LOOK ATTHEIR
CURRENT PAY PRACTICES WE WANT
THAT TO CONTINUE BUT WHY NOT
INCENTIVIZE COMPANIES TO DO THAT.
THIS IS THEIR INFORMATION THEY
HAVE THE INFORMATION IT'S NOT
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE YOU
YOU CAN'T KNOW UNTIL YOU FARM
AND WHAT YOU DON'T SEE.
IT'S THEIR INFORMATION SO AS
LONG AS THEY'RE LOOKING AT IT
THEY CAN DO THAT AND SO
CURRENTLY UNDER THE LAW WE DO
UNDERSTAND THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
HAS OR THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE
NOW REINSTATED THE EO ONE PAID
AT A REQUIREMENT WE ARE UNDER
THE ASSUMPTION THAT THAT WILL BE
APPEALED HOWEVER IF IT'S NOT.
THEN THAT INFORMATION SHOULD GO
TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHICH
DOES HAVE DIFFERENT PROTECTIONS
AND DIFFERENT STANDARDS AGAIN
THIS IS A NEW NATIONAL
POTENTIALLY ADDITIONAL REPORTING
REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE
IN THE BILL INCLUDING THE FACT
THAT THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE
AGREED UPON TODAY TO BE TAKEN.
THE SAME OR SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR WHICH MEANS THE
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT
COULD MAKE -- INTERPRET THEIR
OWN REQUIREMENTS INTERPRET THIS
BILL TO BE DIFFERENT THAN THE E.
A ONE REPORT ITSELF THE YOU
COULD HAVE TO STILL COMPLY WITH
TWO DIFFERENT REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS.
BASED ON CALIFORNIA LAW AND THEN
BASED ON FEDERAL LAW AND FINALLY
OUR CONCERN IS IS THAT THIS BILL
IS PREMATURE GIVEN THE FACT THAT
THE PAY EQUITY TAX FORCES NOT
COME OUT WITH THEIR
RECOMMENDATIONS AT THIS POINT
AND SO FOR THAT.
PURPOSE WE FEEL THAT IT SHOULD
BE -- PENDING DEPENDING ON WHAT
THE EO ONE POLICY ADD TURNS OUT
ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND THEN
ALSO DEPENDING ON WHAT THAT
REPORT SAYS THANK YOU SO MUCH WE
APPRECIATE THE TIME.
WELL MISTER CHAIRMAN MADAM CHAIR
SORT OF MY BACK TO YOU.
A CHRISTMAS KAYLEE ON BEHALF OF
COUNTY -- AND CALIFORNIA BUILDS
ASSOCIATION WE WORK DILIGENTLY
WITH.
CENTER JACKSON SEVERAL YEARS AGO
ON THE ADOPTION OF SENATE BILL --
THREE FIFTY EIGHT I WON'T
BELABOR THE POINTS THAT MISS
CURTIS MAY BUT I'D LIKE TO ADD.
SOMETHING -- THE AUTHOR NOTED
THAT THIS BILL IS PATTERNED
AFTER THE FEDERAL LAW AND NOTED
THAT.
DESPITE HER DEEP CONCERNS WITH
TAKING THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT --
EXEMPTION OF LANGUAGE THAT --
THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY PROBLEMS
AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL BUT I WOULD
YOU KNOW THEN WE HAVE VERGE.
ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT THAT
WAS SUGGESTED IN THE PRIOR
POLICY COMMITTEE IN THE LABOR
COMMITTEE -- THAT PATTERNS
FEDERAL LAW WHICH IS THAT IF
ANYONE -- DISCLOSES THE
INFORMATION AT THE EEOC.
THAT IS SUBJECT TO A MISDEMEANOR
AND FIVE THOUSAND DOLLAR PENALTY.
OF THE LABOR COMMITTEE DID
SUGGEST SIMILAR LANGUAGE FOR A
VIOLATION AND THE ONLY A FINE OF
A THOUSAND DOLLARS WE WOULD LIKE
TO SEE THAT LANGUAGE INSERTED.
AND IS MISS CURTIS NOTED IN THE
SUBDIVISION AFT LANGUAGE WE'D
LIKE IT A LITTLE TIGHTER AND TO
BE DEEMED. TO BE IN COMPLIANCE
WITH SO LITTLE STRONGER LANGUAGE
THAN THAT WHICH IS NOTED IN YOUR
COMMENTS SEVEN ON PAGE ELEVEN
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE
INTERESTED PARTIES -- WISHING TO
EXPRESS OPPOSITION OF THIS ITEM
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND
AFFILIATION.
IT'S YOUR TURN MEMBERS MICHAEL
LOAD ON BEHALF THE CIVIL JUSTICE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA IN A
POST.
GOOD AFTERNOON MISTER CHAIR
MEMBERS MATTHEW ON WITH WESTERN
GROWERS ALSO OPPOSED.
GOOD AFTERNOON KATIE HANSON WITH
THE CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION WE ARE ALSO HERE IN
OPPOSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON BRIAN LITTLE
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU
FEDERATION OPPOSITION THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER MEMBERS WISHING
MEMBERS THE PUBLIC WISHING TO
SPEAK SAYING NONE BRING IT BACK
TO THE FLOOR -- I THINK I'LL
START OFF WITH A COUPLE OF
COMMENTS AND CERTAINLY GO AROUND
THE ROOM.
WE HEARD FROM -- ONE OF THE
PRESENTERS THAT THIS IS MODELED
AFTER THE FEDERAL -- OF PRACTICE
IN PLACE -- IS THERE AN ISSUE
HERE BUDGET SIMPLY MIRRORING
THAT.
IS THERE ANY CONCERN ABOUT
MAKING AN IDENTICAL ARE NEAR
IDENTICAL.
WELL THE THE FORM THAT WE'RE
LOOKING AT IS THE SAME FORM THAT
THEY'RE USING ON THE FEDERAL
LEVEL AT THIS POINT IN TIME IN
OUR LEGISLATION.
MAKES IT CLEAR THAT -- SO LONG
AS THE FEDERAL.
REGULATIONS CONTINUE AS THEY
EXIST THAT WE ARE HAPPY TO
CONTINUE USING THAT FEDERAL FORM.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO PREDICT
GOING FORWARD WITH THIS
ADMINISTRATION BUT I DO KNOW
THAT THE FORM THAT THEY'RE USING
IS OF THE IS IS ONE THAT.
IS DESIGNED TO GET TO THE
PROBLEMS.
THAT EXIST NATIONALLY AND
CERTAINLY EXISTS HERE IN
CALIFORNIA SO WE'RE VERY HAPPY
TO USE THAT FORM THAT WAS YEARS
IN THE MAKING.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS
JUST THROWN TOGETHER -- ENDED IT
WILL AGAIN COSTS ABOUT FOUR
HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR COMPANY AND
THESE ARE COMPANIES OF MORE A
HUNDRED OR MORE EMPLOYEES SO.
FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS IS PROBABLY
LUNCH FOR ONE OR TWO OF THE
EXECUTIVES HIGHER ETHICAL
RESERVE MY QUESTIONS OF FOR
AFTER SENATOR UMBERG DID YOU
WISH TO COMMENT.
THANK YOU -- BUT MANAGER WHO.
WHO HAS ACCESS TO THE ACTUAL
DATA IT'S IDENTIFIABLE BY EITHER
COMPANY OR OR PERSON?
SO IN OTHER WORDS YOU'VE YOU'VE
YOU'VE YOU PROVIDE THE FORM
SOMEBODY.
OR SOME MACHINE SEIZE THE ACTUAL
FORM BY COMPANY.
WHO IS THAT IS WHO IS THAT AND
WHO ELSE BESIDES THE RECIPIENT
HAS ACCESS?
IT'S ONLY GOING TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF FROM WOMEN HOUSING
SO IT WOULD JUST BE A A STAFF.
PERSON FOR YOU IF THE AGE OKAY
SO THAT PERSON THEN.
PUTS IT INTO SOME DATABASE RIGHT.
BY DESPITE CATEGORY IS IT IS IT
THEN I'VE LEARNED A NEW WORD
HERE PSEUDONYMOUS IS IT CAN YOU
IDENTIFY CAN YOU IDENTIFY THE
COMPANY ONCE IT'S INPUT INTO
SOME DATABASE.
THE BILL ITSELF DOESN'T GO
THROUGH THAT NEXT STEP OF WHAT
HAPPENS AFTER COLLECTING BECAUSE
I THINK AT THIS POINT RIGHT NOW
WE'RE JUST.
THE FOCUS IS ON ACTUALLY HAVING
THE COMPANY'S COMPILE THE DATA
AND LOOK AT THE DATA THEMSELVES.
SO WE HAVEN'T EVEN GONE TO THAT
NEXT STEP IN TERMS OF WHAT THE
DIP DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT
HOUSING GOING TO DO IN TERMS OF
CREATING REPORTS AGGREGATING
DATA.
BUT REALLY IT'S LOOKING LOOKING
AT THE REPORT ITSELF AND JUST
SEEING WHETHER THERE ARE
PATTERNS THAT WARRANT.
FURTHER SCRUTINY.
AND IF IT IF THEY SEE I'M SORRY
VENTURETHE THE THE INITIAL
COMPILATION IS GOING TO BE
SECTOR WIDE WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT
IDENTIFYING A PARTICULAR COMPANY.
THE FIRST MEASURE IS TO SEE
WHETHER THERE ARE CERTAIN
SECTORS WHERE.
WE SEE A GREATER DISCRIMINATION
AN OCCUPATION -- AND AND THEN --
YOU KNOW KIND OF GO FROM THERE
TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO
RESOLVE THE YOU KNOW THOSE
DISPARITIES AND TRY -- TO GET
COMPLIANCE -- BUT THERE'S NO.
SORT OF MAGNIFYING GLASS THAT IS
GOING TO BE IMPOSED -- AS WE TRY
TO IDENTIFY WHERE THE WHERE THE
GREATER DISPARITIES ARE.
IS EXCESSIVE BOWL BY LITIGANTS
SO FOR EXAMPLE SOMEONE FILES A
FEE HOW CLAIM IT IS AN
INFORMATIONAL INFORMATION
ACCESSIBLE BY LITIGANTS.
AT THIS POINT THE ONLY LITIGANTS
ARE FISHHAWK REMEMBER WITH WE'RE
NOT TALKING ABOUT.
PAGES WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
PAY DISCRIMINATION WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT.
JOB SEGREGATION THEY'RE
DIFFERENT ISSUES WHICH I KNOW
THE CHAMBER KEEPS TRYING TO
CONFLATE.
BUT THE EQUAL PAY LAW IS VERY
DIFFERENT IT COMPARES AND ONE
EMPLOYEE VERSUS ANOTHER BASED
UPON THE SAME OR SIMILAR -- A
JOB OF RESPONSIBILITIES -- THIS
LOOKS AT MAJOR CATEGORIES SO IF
YOU THINK ABOUT IT THIS IS THE
THIRTY THOUSAND FOOT LEVEL WE'RE
NOT DOWN AT THE MICROSCOPIC
LEVEL BUT BUT BUT FOR EXAMPLE
LET'S SAY FILE A CLAIM ON BEHALF
OF SOMEONE ALLEGING.
DISCRIMINATION PAY OR STATUS
WHATEVER IT MAY BE CAN I GET
ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION BY
COMPANY.
SO.
ALL RIGHT SO I SAID THE GRANITE
OR HOW DO I GET THAT INFORMATION
IT WOULD AND THESE ARE
NEGOTIATIONS WE HAD LAST YEAR
WITH THE OPPOSITION AS WELL THAT
THE NORMAL RULES OF DISCOVERY DO
APPLY SO AND THESE EO ONE
REPORTS.
YOU KNOW RIGHT NOW THEY'RE IN
THE MIDST OF BEING REVISED BUT
HAVE FOR FIFTY PLUS YEARS
PROVIDED DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
AND THOSE A YEAR ONE REPORTS
HAVE BEEN DISCOVERABLE ALREADY
FOR DECADES NOW.
SO IT WOULD JUST FOLLOW THE THE
SAME RULES AS AS IT HAS EXISTED
FOR DECADES THAT IT WOULD BE
DISCOVER DISCOVER BLUES DOESN'T
ADD ANY NEW LEVEL OF
ACCESSIBILITY.
ALL RIGHT WELL IT DOESN'T APPLY
TO PUBLIC ENTITIES RIGHT ONLY
PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS THERE ARE.
AT THE END ONLY FOR PROFIT ARE
ALSO NOT FOR PROFIT.
IT DOES NOT.
NO IT DOESN'T SPECIFY COMPANIES
ONE HUNDRED MORE EMPLOYEES AGAIN.
AGAIN REMEMBERING THAT THE THE
THE REAL PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO
GET THE COMPANY TO DO A SELF
EVALUATION AND TO CORRECT.
AT THAT POINT TIME IF AT AND
THEN TO PROVIDE THE DATA.
IF A COMPANY SELF EVALUATION
CORRECTS WERE DONE.
IF IN LOOKING AT THIS THERE ARE
SECTORS WHERE THERE IS REAL
SUBSTANTIAL DISCRIMINATION.
THE AT THE D. FBIHAT LEAST AS
WE ENVISION IT WILL HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DIVE A LITTLE BIT
DEEPER TO FIND OUT WHY.
AND AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT
THERE COULD BE ABSOLUTELY
PERFECTLY GOOD REASONS -- THAT
THE EMPLOYEE THAT TAT THAT THAT
IT'S COMPANIES BEEN IN BUSINESS
SINCE EIGHT THIRTY YEARS.
AND THAT FOR TWENTY FIVE OF
THOSE THIRTY YEARS THEY HAVEN'T
EXPANDED SO THE SAME EMPLOYEES
OF THEIR THEY TEND.
TO BE MORE LIKELY TO BE MALE --
AND THAT WHEN THEY BRING IN NEW
EMPLOYEES SHOULD SAY THEY BRING
IN SOME FEMALE EMPLOYEES BUT
BECAUSE THE MALE EMPLOYEES HAVE
BEEN THERE FOR TWENTY FIVE YEARS
HAVE MORE EXPERIENCE AT CETERA
WHICH ARE ALL LEGITIMATE.
BASIS UPON WHICH PAY CAN BE
DISPARATE.
THEN YOU'RE DONE THERE AS WELL.
BUT IF THEY'RE IF AS THEY LOOK
AT THIS THEY DISCOVERED THAT.
SAID THERE IS SEVERE
DISCRIMINATION HI AND PEOPLE ARE
WHITE MEN AND ARE BEING PAID
MORE AND THE WOMEN ARE IN THE
LOWER PAYING JOBS AT BIG SUR
QUESTION WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO
TRY.
TO REDUCE THAT DISPARITY.
HIRE MORE PEOPLE PROMOTE THEM IT
AGAIN THE GOAL IS TO GET. TO
CLOSE THE GAP NOT TO SUE PEOPLE
BUT THAT BUT THAT IS AVAILABLE
AS IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN UNDER THE
EO.
ONE GOLD MY IGNORANCE FOR ONE
SECOND IS THERE A PUBLIC SECTOR
EQUIVALENT OF THIS SO FOR
EXAMPLE YOU KNOW PAY DISPARITY.
ISN'T JUST.
OF RESERVE THE PRIVATE SECTOR SO
IF IF.
MY YEAH IT'S PUBLIC INFORMATION
PUBLIC PUBLIC EMPLOYERS THEIR
INFORMATION IS PUBLIC WE CAN GO
AND FIND OUT WHAT EVERYBODY IN
THIS BUILDING IS PAID BECAUSE IT
IT'S A MATTER OF PUBLIC
KNOWLEDGE.
WHERE AS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
THERE'S NO OBLIGATION TO REPORT
THAT INFORMATION BUT?
OKAY I'M SORRY.
WAS GOING TO MAKE ONE COMMENT
ACTUALLY THERE WAS AN ARTICLE
TODAY ABOUT THE MILITARY.
AND THE ONE OF THE BENEFITS
ABOUT THE MILITARY IF YOU CAN
PULL UP ALL OF THE DATA AND YOU
CAN SEE AND YOU YOU SEE THAT
THERE'S NOT A PAY DISPARITY.
BETWEEN THE GENDERS SO I THOUGHT
YOU WOULD IN PARTICULAR WOULD
APPRECIATE.
THAT WELL THERE IS A PAY
DISPARITY MY WIFE ALWAYS WAS ONE
RANK ABOVE ME ONLY BECAUSE I WAS
SMARTER BETTER LEADER AND THEY
DISCRIMINATE ON THAT BASIS.
BUT SHE WAS ON SHE WAS AT A
HIGHER GRADE LEVEL RIGHT SO IT'S
EQUAL PAY DISPARITY THAT WAS
MENTIONED IS WHEN THEY'RE YOU'RE
BOTH ON THE SAME LEVEL.
THAT'S ACTIONABLE.
THAT WAS TO THE EQUAL PAY LAW
BUT BUT THE QUESTION THE
QUESTION IS IS THAT I GET YOUR
POINT THAT YOU CAN IF YOU WANT
YOU CAN LOOK AT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
AND IF YOU'VE GOT THE TIME
ENERGY.
AND INTEREST YOU CAN LOOK AT THE
TORN FORTY THOUSAND EMPLOYEES
AND SEE AND DO THE SAME KIND OF
BREAK UP OUR PUBLIC SECTOR.
ENTITIES REQUIRED TO COMPILE IT
SO THIS IS MORE ACCESSIBLE.
AND AND NOT I'M NOT TALKING
ABOUT PER SCHOOL DISTRICT BUT SO
YOU CAN DO THE SAME KIND OF
ANALYSIS IS EASILY [inaudible]
MY MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT NONE
THERE'S A DIFFERENT E. E. O.
REPORT I WANT TO SAY IT'S LIKE A
E. O. FOR ITO FIVE THAT
GOVERNMENT.
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ENTITIES HAVE TO PROVIDE.
SO IT'S IT'S DIFFERENT BUT THAT
IS GENERALLY WHY THAT
INFORMATION IS MORE PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE IT IS REPORTED ON BUT
IN A DIFFERENT FORM.
IF YOU CAN GET YOUR FOR ZERO
FOUR THANK YOU THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER -- BOARD MEMBERS.
ALL RIGHT -- COUPLE COUPLE
QUESTION BEFORE WE AND ON VOTE
ON THE SECTION -- I THINK --
CENTER ON BURKE HAD IT HAS A
GOOD POINT AND IT'S GOOD TO KNOW.
THAT THERE'S NOT A STATE
EQUIVALENT TO THIS EVEN THOUGH
APPARENTLY THERE'S ANOTHER FORM
THAT DOES PROVIDE THE SAME --
AGGREGATED INFORMATION THAT I
THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO KNOW --
THE CONFIDENTIALITY I THINK WE
HEARD FROM ONE OF THE OF FOLKS
WHO PROVIDED TESTIMONY THAT.
THERE IS A PENALTY ATTACHED TO
THE DISCLOSING OF THIS
INFORMATION -- IN IS IT HAS THAT
BEEN INCORPORATED -- THE THE
PENALTY -- ASSUMES THAT THERE'S
OF A PROBLEM WE'VE NEVER HAD A
PROBLEM I'M NOT INCLINED TO MAKE
IT A MISDEMEANOR FOR EMPLOYER
DOESN'T COMPLY WE REALLY DON'T
HAVE ANY WE ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISM AT MECHANISM OTHER
THAN AN INJUNCTION TO GET THEM
TO APPLY WITH ATTORNEYS FEES.
I DON'T WANT TO MAKE PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO A CRIMINAL
PENALTY -- FOR ED FOR RELEASING
INFORMATION THEN WHAT HAPPENS IS
WE WON'T GET THEM TO COMPLY
BECAUSE WHO WANTS TO BE SUBJECT
TO CRIMINAL SANCTION -- SO I
THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT HEAVY
HANDED IN EXCESSIVE IF WE DO SEE
THAT THERE ARE YOU KNOW PEOPLE
RUNNING OUT TO SHARE THAT
INFORMATION WHICH WE HAVE NEVER
SEEN IN THE PAST.
THEN CERTAINLY WE COULD CONSIDER
SOMETHING BUT MAKING IT A
MISDEMEANOR I THINK IS IS
EXCESSIVE AND I THINK IT WILL
ALSO -- DISCOURAGE EMPLOYEES
FROM DOING THEIR JOB FOR FEAR OF
BEING SUBJECTED TO THAT.
SO -- MY LAST COUPLE POINTS ARE.
MY CONCERN IS THAT WE ARE
CREATING AN OPPORTUNITY -- FOR
LITIGATION OR CLASS ACTION --
AND I THINK -- IF YOU IF THE
TRUE INTENT IS AS WE'VE HEARD TO
MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE THE PLOT
THE LOOK AT THE PLAYING FIELD IS
LEVELED.
AND WHETHER IT'S DIRECTLY OR
OVER A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.
OF THAT WE FIND WAYS.
TO PROTECT THOSE THAT
PARTICIPATE IN THIS TYPE OF OF
PROGRAM -- HOW DO YOU THINK THAT
THERE COULD BE [inaudible]
CORRECTIVE ACTION.
MEANING THAT IF THERE IS ANY
INDUSTRY OR THERE'S A SPECIFIC
BUSINESS.
THAT REVEALS THROUGH THERE ARE
THREE THEIR DATA ARE THE
ESSENTIALLY.
IMMUNIZED DURING THIS PERIOD
WERE CORRECTIVE ACTION IS BEING
PURSUED.
WILK.
YOU'RE ASSUMING THAT THIS IS.
DISAGGREGATED INFORMATION AND
IT'S IT IS NOT.
THE I I THINK.
YOUR EMPHASIS IS NOT IN A PLACE
WHERE MY EMPHASISES MY EMPHASIS
IS TO GET COMPLIANCE.
AND IT IS MY HOPE AND
EXPECTATION THE COMPANIES WILL
VOLUNTARILY COMPLY WHEN THEY'RE
TOLD THEY'RE IN FOR THAT THEY
THAT THEY ARE IS A SIGNIFICANT
PAY DISPARITY.
AND WILL DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN
TO CLOSE THAT GAP THAT'S THE
GOAL THAT'S THE REASON THAT I
DIDN'T DO A PUBLIC SHAMING.
THERE WAS LEGISLATION LAST YEAR
THAT WOULD HAVE MADE ALL THIS
INFORMATION PUBLIC THAT IS NOT
MY INTENT MY INTENT IS TO GET
COMPANIES TO SELF REFLECT.
AND THEN IF THERE IS A CONTINUES
TO BE A PROBLEM DEPARTMENT OF
FAIR EMPLOYMENT HOUSING ARE THE
AGENCY THAT IS CALLED UPON TO DO --
THE THE FOLLOW UP WORK TO GET
COMPLIANCE -- WHERE WERE YOU
WERE CHEST?
TRYING TO FIND THE BEST WAY TO
CORRECT HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF
DISCRIMINATION.
IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME BY
THAT SELF REFLECTION AND THEN BY.
HAVING THE DEPARTMENT OF FAIR
EMPLOYMENT HOUSING WORK WITH
THESE COMPANIES TO GET THEM TO
COMPLY [inaudible]
OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH WITHOUT ANY
FURTHER -- REQUEST FOR COMMENT I
THINK WE'LL MOVE ON WE HAVE A
MOTION BY SENATOR MONNING -- SO
SB ONE SEVEN ONE ON TO PASS AS
AMENDED TO SENATE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE -- AND ASSEMBLY WILL
CALL FOR THE ROLE.
OF GIVE ME ONE MOMENT -- I'M
SORRY WOULD YES YOU'RE RIGHT
VERY BRIEF PLEASE AGAIN BY I
WOULD CHOOSE TO SIMPLY SUGGEST
THAT THIS IS AN AVENUE THAT WAS
PURSUED BY THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION. TO GET
INFORMATION YOU CAN'T CORRECT
WHICH YOU DON'T KNOW THIS FORM
IS DESIGNED TO PUT A MIRROR TO
VARIOUS COMPANIES IT IS NOT
DESIGNED TO BE PUNITIVE IT IS
DESIGNED TO BE CORRECTIVE THAT
IS MY INTENT THAT IS MY GOAL
THAT IS WHAT I THINK THIS BILL
WILL DO.
AND WITH THAT I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FEAR AYE VOTE.
JACKSON HI JACKSON I BORDERS.
FOR JUST KNOW ALAN.
ALLEN I CABALLERO.
CAREER -- I AM MONNING.
MONEY AYE STERN.
STERN I AM BURKE.
A BURGER I KELSEY.
KELSEY I I'D [inaudible]
WITH.
SO THE RECORD IS SEVEN EYES ONE
NOW.
ALL RIGHT THERE YOU GO THANK YOU
VERY MUCH SEVEN ICE ONE KNOW THE
MEASURE PASSES -- WE'RE GOING TO
OW OPEN THE ROLE ON ALL THE
ITEMS SO THAT ABSENT MEMBERS CAN
CAST THEIR VOTES WE ARE NOW AT
THE CONSENT CALENDAR -- THE VOTE
COUNT IS A SIX TWO ZERO PLEASE
CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS OF THE
EURO [inaudible]
CONSENT. ZERO ALL RIGHT EIGHT
TWO ZERO THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS
OUT [inaudible]
FILE ITEM. TO THE SB TWENTY
SEVEN SENATOR MCGUIRE THE VOTE
COUNT IS FIVE TWO ONE CHAIR
pVOTING I PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS CABALLERO.
HOW HEROES I AM BURKE?
NUMBER BY SEVEN TWO ONE THE BILL
IS OUT.
FILE ITEM THREE SB -- THAT BILLS
ARE EXCUSE ME.
OF FILE ITEM.
SIX OF WHICH IS.
CENTER RIGHT CAO SKIS SB THREE
TWENTY THREE THE VOTE COUNT IS.
FIVE TWO FIVE TWO ZERO PLEASE
CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS WERE
JUST [inaudible]
ALAN.
ALLEN I STERN.
STERN AYE. SEVEN TWO ZERO HELLO
I'M SORRY CABALLERO AYE.
ALL RIGHT [inaudible]
EIGHT NUMBER DESIGN.
US SEVEN TWO ZERO THAT BILL IS
OUT.
FILE ITEM SEVEN IS BEFORE --
NINETY FIVE BY SENATOR -- USE
THE ROD SO SHE'S ME THE VOTE
COUNT IS A FOUR TWO ZERO PLEASE
CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
FORTUS.
ALAN.
ALLEN I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO AYE STERN [inaudible]
STERN BY. SEVEN TO ZERO THAT
BILL IS OUT.
FILE ITEM NINE WHICH IS A FILE
ITEMS SICK OF EXCUSE ME SB SIX
FORTY FOUR BY SENATOR GLAZER.
THE VOTE COUNT IS FOR TWO ZERO
PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS
ALLEN.
ALLEN I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO AYE STERN.
TURN ON A WHITE CAL SKI.
HAS HE LEFT.
ALRIGHT SO THE VOTE COUNT IS --
SEVEN TWO ZERO THE BILL IS OUT.
FILE ITEM. TEN SB SIX FORTY FIVE
BY SENATOR MINING THE VOTE COUNT
IS FIVE TWO ZERO PLEASE CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS GORGEOUS.
CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I AM BURKE.
NUMBER HI. SEVEN TWO ZERO THAT
BILL IS OUT.
THAT CONCLUDES OUR BUSINESS FOR
THE DAY THANK YOU TO ALL FOR
YOUR PATIENCE HERE AND STAFF
COULD WORK ON ALL THE ANALYSES
WE ARE ADJOURNED