AFTERNOON.
THIS IS THE TIME SET FOR THE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO
MEET.
OUR WE WILL GO AHEAD NOW AND
ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
MADAM SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL JACKSON HERE JACKSON HERE
BORDERS.
ORDERS HERE ALLEN CABALLERO.
ZERO HERE JONES.
JONES HERE MORNING.
MORNING HERE STERN.
AMBERG Y. KOWSKI.
ALL RIGHT WE HAVE A QUORUM.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW TO THAT FILE
ITEM NUMBER THREE AB TWENTY
EIGHT TO EIGHTEEN EXCUSE ME.
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER GONZALEZ HAS
BEEN PULLED.
WE HAVE ELEVEN ITEMS ON PROPOSED
CONSENT.
SO IF YOU ARE HERE.
ON ANY ITEM PAY CLOSE ATTENTION
BECAUSE IF IT'S ON CONSENT YOU
WON'T NEED TO STAY IN LESS YOU
HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO DO TODAY
IT'S COOLER IN HERE THAN IT IS
OUTSIDE YOU MIGHT.
YOU'RE ALWAYS WELCOME. ELEVEN
ITEMS ARE.
FILE ITEM NUMBER ONE AB FORTY
SIX BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER CARILLO.
FILE ITEM FIVE AB THREE TWENTY
EIGHT BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
MAIENSCHEIN.
FILE ITEM SEVEN AB FOR SEVENTY
THREE BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER MIND
TRYING.
FILE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT THAT'S AB
SIX TWENTY TWO BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER
CHAN.
FILE ITEM TEN AB SIX NINETY TWO
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER MAIENSCHEIN
FILE ITEM ELEVEN AB ELEVEN
SEVENTY NINE BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BLANCA RUBIO.
FILE ITEM TWELVE AB TWELVE OH
THREE BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
O'DONNELL.
FILE ITEM THIRTEEN AB TWELVE
THIRTEEN BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER CHAN.
FILE ITEM FOURTEEN AB THIRTEEN
SIXTY ONE BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
OBERNOLTE.
FILE ITEM FIFTEEN AB SIXTEEN
THIRTY SEVEN BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
SMITH.
AND FILE ITEM SIXTEEN A. B.
EIGHTEEN SEVENTEEN BY THE
ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
PLEASE DON'T ASK ME TO RECITE
THAT AGAIN.
BUT WE DO OF ELEVEN ITEMS ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR AND I WOULD
ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
THAT'S SO MOVED BY SENATOR
MONNING MADAM SECRETARY PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR.
JACKSON HI JACKSON I BORDERS.
OR JUST AYE ALLEN. ZERO I JONES.
JONES I MONNING.
MONNING AYE STERN.
AMBERG WHITE HOUSE SKI.
ALL RIGHT THAT THE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR HAS FIVE VOTES WE WILL
LEAVE THE UC -- CONSENT CALENDAR
OPEN FOR OUR ABSENT MEMBERS AND
HOPEFULLY WE WILL HAVE THEM
JOINING US SHORTLY.
WITH THAT WE WILL NOW TURN TO
THE REMAINING MEASURES ON OUR
AGENDA THE ARE HEARD IN THIS
COMMITTEE AND FILE ORDER.
THE WAY WE OPERATE THIS
COMMITTEE IS THAT THERE WILL BE
TWO MAIN WITNESSES. TWO MINUTES
EACH FOR SUPPORT AND SIMILARLY
TO MAIN WITNESSES TWO MINUTES
EACH IN OPPOSITION.
WHEN THE MAIN WITNESSES HAVE
BEEN HEARD IN SUPPORT WE WILL
INVITE ALL THOSE OTHERS WHO ARE
IN SUPPORT?
THE PLEASE STEP UP TO THE
MICROPHONE HERE -- TO GIVE US
YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION AND OF
COURSE YOUR INDICATION THAT YOU
ARE IN SUPPORT.
WE'LL DO THE SAME THING THEN
WITH THE OPPOSITION.
AFTER WE HEAR THE TWO WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION THAT THOSE ALSO IN
OPPOSITION WILL STEP UP TO THE
MIKE WITH NAME AND AFFILIATION.
AND THEIR INDICATION OF
OPPOSITION OR IN SOME INSTANCES
WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO STEP UP IN
STRONG NEUTRALITY AND THAT'S
OKAY AS WELL.
SO THE FIRST ITEM TODAY THAT WE
WILL HEAR IS FILE ITEM.
A NUMBER TWO EXCEPT I DON'T SEE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER TANG SO WE WILL
MOVE.
TO FILE ITEM SIX AB FOR EIGHTEEN
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER KALRA.
FILE ITEM SIX COLLEAGUES.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
TIMING MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THERE'S OTHER NO.
AMENDMENTS BEING REQUESTED OR A
TAKEN HERE SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO
PROCEED THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH TIME SURE OF
HIM.
AND MEMBERS AND SANDERS -- AB
FOR A TEAM WITH EXTENDING
EVIDENTIARY PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN EMPLOYEE
AND THE UNION REPRESENTATIVE.
ALTHOUGH IT IS UNFORTUNATE MANY
WORKS TODAY PACE ISSUES
DISCRIMINATION EXPLOITATION
HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION.
EMPLOYEES ASSUME THAT SUCH
COMMUNITY OF OFTENTIMES ASSUME
THAT SUCH COMMUNICATION DISCUSS
BUT THEIR OFFICIAL UNION
REPRESENTATIVE IS CONFIDENTIAL
THAT INFORMATION MAY NOT BE
DISCLOSED THE EMPLOYER OTHER
THIRD PARTIES.
HOWEVER NO STATE STATUTE
PROVIDES US COMMUNICATIONS WITH
AN EVIDENTIARY PRIVILEGE NOTICE
CASE I RECOGNIZE SUCH A
PRIVILEGE.
DOES EXTENZE INCIDENCES OF
SEXUAL ASSAULT HARASSMENT AND
DISCRIMINATION WHERE AN EMPLOYEE
PREFERS TO APPROACH HIS OR HER
YEAR REPRESENTATIVE.
RATHER THAN THE HUMAN RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT.
PRISONERS ARE AN IMPORTANT THIRD
PARTY WHEN THERE'S REASON TO
BELIEVE THAT THE EMPLOYER DOES
NOT HAVE THE BEST INTERESTS.
OF THE EMPLOYEE IN MIND.
DURING A TIME OF THE ME TOO
MOVEMENT AS EMPOWER WOMEN AND
OTHERS REPORT AND SPEAK OUT
ABOUT HARASSMENT THE WORKPLACE
ADDITIONAL CONFIDENTIAL HAVANESE
REPORT THESE INCIDENCES ARE IN
GREATER NEED.
ADDITIONALLY AS YOU SEEN WORKER
PROTECTIONS IN JEOPARDY DO THE
FEDERAL POLICIES IN COURT
RULINGS YOU MUST DO MORE AS A
STATE TO PROTECT CALIFORNIA
WORKERS.
BY ALLOWING EVIDENTIARY
PRIVILEGE TO WORKERS AND UNION
REPRESENTATIVES WE CAN HELP TO
ENSURE THE SAFE PRIVATE AND FULL
DISCLOSURE OF BURKE PURRS
WORKPLACE CONCERNS AND NEEDS.
BUT BEING IN SUPPORT OUR STEVEN
WEBER LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS RECORD
ASKED ME AND JASON CON WELL
REPRESENT REPRESENTATION
SPECIALIST THE CALIFORNIA
FACULTY ASSOCIATION.
THANK YOU TO WITNESSES WHOEVER
WANTS TO GO FIRST TWO MINUTES
PLEASE WE DO KEEP TIME SO TRY TO
KEEP AS CLOSE AS YOU CAN-[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU A GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR
JACKSON AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE MY NAME IS JASON COMMA
I'M A REPRESENTATIONS.
CALIFORNIA FACULTY ASSOCIATION
CFA IS A SPONSOR OF A CO SPONSOR
OF THIS BILL.
IN MY POSITION I RIVER REPRESENT
FACULTY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYMENT
IS BE TO THEIR EMPLOYER.
AND WHEN I DISCUSS ISSUES WITH
OUR MEMBERS I CAN TELL YOU THAT
MOST MEMBERS ASSUME THAT SUCH
COMMUNICATIONS ARE CONFIDENTIAL
AND THAT THAT INFORMATION WILL
NOT BE IN A THIS CLOSE TO THE
EMPLOYER OR OTHER THIRD PARTIES.
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE UNION
COMMUNICATE WITH OUR MEMBERS ON
A NUMBER OF SENSITIVE ISSUES
INCLUDING WORKPLACE DISCIPLINE
GRIEVANCES SEXUAL ASSAULT
HARASSMENT CIVIL RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS AND ANYTHING ELSE YOU
CAN THINK OF IT'S IMPORTANT FOR
OUR WORK IN RESOLVING WORKPLACE
PROBLEMS CHEN UNFILTERED
CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR MEMBERS.
THAT WE KNOW EVERYTHING INVOLVED
IN A SITUATION.
WE FREQUENTLY NEED TO GIVE A
VERY BLUNT ADVICE TO OUR MEMBERS
AND SOMETIMES WE LEARN SOME
REALLY CONCERNING BEHAVIOR THAT
OUR EMPLOYEES ENGAGE IN.
IT IS ONLY BY EIGHT KNOWING
THESE DETAILS THAT WE CAN
ENCOURAGE A FAIR RESOLUTION.
I'VE THREE RECENT AREAS TO SHARE
WITH YOU THAT ILLUSTRATE THE
NEED FOR PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN UNION
REPRESENTATIVES AND MEMBERS --
IN THE FIRST SCENARIO RECENTLY
AT TWO SEPARATE ARBITRATIONS WE
LEARNED THAT THE LONG BEACH
STATE ADMINISTRATION AND THE
SACRAMENTO STATE ADMINISTRATION
COME THROUGH THE EMAILS OF
FACULTY MEMBERS TO FIND THEIR
CORRESPONDENCE WITH UNION
REPRESENTED.
REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS.
THIS YEAR'S YOU LAWYER COMMENTED
THAT THERE IS NO PRIVILEGE
BETWEEN A MEMBER IN THERE SEE IF
A LEADERS AND ADVOCATES.
AND BY DENYING PRIVILEGE THE CSU
WAS ABLE TO TAKE THESE EMAIL
CORRESPONDENCES OUT OF CONTEXT I
MIGHT ADD AND PRESENT THEM AT AN
ARBITRATION.
THE SECOND SCENARIO A CFA FIELD
STAFF MEMBER AT SAN JOSE WAS
SERVED WITH A SUBPOENA FOR ALL
FOR EMAILS WITH THAT AGAIN WHO
IS SERVICING THE CSU FOR CIVIL
RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.
THAT LITIGANT ENGAGED IN
NUMEROUS EMAILS A CFA ABOUT HER
EMPLOYMENT RIGHT AS A FACULTY
MEMBER THIS YEAR'S YOU GOT ALL
OF THEM BECAUSE THE FIELD STAFF
MEMBER COULD NOT AVOID COMPLYING
WITH THE SUBPOENA.
AND THEN JUST RECENTLY ABOUT A
MONTH AGO WE ARE ISSUED SUBPOENA
BY LATE AGAIN ASKING FOR
INFORMATION ABOUT GRIEVANCES
FILED BY ANOTHER CFA MEMBER WHO
WAS NOT INVOLVED IN LITIGATION.
IF UNIONS COULD AFFORD AN ARMY
OF IT LAWYERS THIS WOULD NOT BE
AN ISSUE.
REPRESENTATION BUT
REPRESENTATION WORK IS PERFORMED
BY FACTORY VOLUNTEERS AND TRAIN
STAFF MOST OF WHOM ARE NOT
ATTORNEYS.
BUT TO MY COLLEAGUES ARE
ATTORNEYS BUT I AM NOT AND THAT
MEANS THAT THE COMMUNICATION
BETWEEN MY COLLEAGUES IN MEMBERS
IS PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
BETWEEN ME IN THOSE MEMBERS IS
NOT.
AND THAT MEANS THAT OUR MEMBERS.
WE'LL HAVE PRIVILEGE ONLY IF
THEY GET ASSIGNED THE RIGHT
UNION REPRESENTATIVE.
I THANK YOU A LOT OF TIMES TO
OUR NEXT WITNESS THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS STEVEN WEBER AND THE
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS MANAGER WITH
ASSN CALIFORNIA I WANNA BEGIN BY
THANKING THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
KALRA FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON THIS
BILL.
AND TAKING THE COMMITTEE
CONSULTANT FOR THE CONTINUE
DILIGENT WORK.
THE COMMITTEE IS WELL AWARE OF
THE PUBLIC POLICY CONCERNS A
GIVE RISE TO A COULD TURN CLAIM
PRIVILEGE.
THE LEGISLATURE HAS DECIDED
THEIR SUBSTANTIAL SOCIAL
INTERESTS THAT JUSTICE IS BEST
SERVED WHEN A CLIENT IS A
TRUSTING RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR
ATTORNEY.
THERE'S A COMPLETE TRANSFER
INFORMATION WITHOUT THE CHILLING
EFFECT BROUGHT UPON BY CONCERNS
OF CONFIDENTIALITY.
THAT SAME POLICY INTEREST EXISTS
IN EMPLOYEE UNION REPRESENTATIVE
RELATIONSHIP.
WHEN A UNION REPRESENT EMPLOYEE
GOING THROUGH A PROCESS THAT ARE
LEGAL FRAMEWORK HAS CREATED?
SIXTY VICE AND GUIDANCE OF THEIR
UNION AGENT.
THAT AGING IS LEGALLY REQUIRED
TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE UNDER THE
DOCTRINE OF FAIR REPRESENTATION.
LIKE THE ATTORNEY CLIENT
PRIVILEGE THERE'S COMPELLING
POLICY INTEREST IN ENSURING THAT
EMPLOYEE CAN FREELY IN
COMPLETELY SHARE PRIVATE
INFORMATION OF THEIR CHOOSING
WITH THEIR REPRESENTATIVE.
WHEN IT WHEN EMPLOYEES A VICTIM
OF HARASSMENT OR DISCRIMINATION
THEY SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO SHARE
THAT INFORMATION WITH THE
REPRESENT OF THE DAY FEEL
COMFORTABLE WITH?
WITHOUT THE CONCERNED THEIR
PRIVATE CONVERSATION HAD WELL
SEEKING HELP COULD BE PUBLICLY
REVEALED.
CONFIDENTIALLY A COMPANY CHARITY
CREATED BY THE PRIVILEGE WILL
FURTHER THE SENSE OF TRUST
BETWEEN THE POLICE AND THEIR
UNION.
ENCOURAGING COMPLETE SHARING OF
INFORMATION WILL HELP UNION
REPRESENTATIVES MAKE MORE
COMPLETE AND ACCURATE
RECOMMENDATIONS DISCOURAGING
NUMBER TERM NON MERITORIOUS
CASES.
LEADING TO MORE EFFICIENT AND
EQUITABLE EDUCATION.
GIVEN INJURY PRIVILEGE CREATED
MAYBE FOR A TEENS NARROWLY
TAILORED.
IT TOUCHES ARBITRATIONS OR THE
COURT ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OR
AGENCY PROCEEDINGS.
IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IT DOES
NOT ATTACH.
THE COMMUNICATIONS IN
FURTHERANCE OR EIGHT OF A CRIME
OBVIOUSLY IT DOES NOT ATTACH.
IF THE IF IT'S COMMUNICATION
BETWEEN EMPLOYER UNION
REPRESENTATIVE BUT OUTSIDE OF
THE SCOPE OF THE ROLE OF
REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYEE OR NOT
TRANSMITTED IN CONFIDENCE.
THAT IT DOES NOT ATTACH.
IF IT'S AN EMPLOYER RUN
WORKPLACE INVESTIGATION IT'S
OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF A BEFORE
EIGHTEEN AND THE EVIDENCE FOR
PRIVILEGE WOULD NOT ATTACH.
AB FOURTEEN IS A TIGHTLY DRAFTED
BILL BY ENCOURAGING COMPLETE
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN EMPLOYED
REPRESENTATIVE IT WILL BE TO
SWIFTER MORE ACCURATE AND MORE
JUST EDUCATED PROCESSES.
I PROTECT BY PROTECTING TRUST ON
POWER THOSE THAT ARE VICTIMS OF
HARASSMENT OR DISCRIMINATION
SEEK HELP.
WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THE
COMMITTEES TIME AND RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR A VOTE THANK YOU VERY
MUCH OTHER WITNESSES IF YOU JUST
GIVE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION
AND I'M SURE THIRTY QUESTIONS
WILL BE INVITING YOU BACK TO THE
TO THE SHOCK HOUSES THE SERVICE
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION
ALSO IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
MICHAEL YOUNG WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION WHEN
THE CO SPONSORED THE BILL ALSO
YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT PLEASE.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS
MEGAN SUPERS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS AND THE WRITERS
GUILD OF AMERICA WEST IN SUPPORT
THANK YOU.
ARE YOU GROWING WE HAVE THE
CALIFORNIA FACULTY ASSOCIATION A
CO SPONSOR AS RIVAL.
THANK YOU.
THE BAKER WITH THEIR NEW
DISSOCIATES FOR THE PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERS IN CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
JACK SOME OF THE CALIFORNIA
NURSES ASSOCIATION HERE IN
STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
RIGHT NOW SOME WITH THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES -- I JUST
WANT TO REGISTER SUPPORT ON
BEHALF OF ASKED ME COUNCIL FIFTY
SEVEN WHICH IS WHEN THE
CHRISTMAS.
THANK YOU.
SACRAMENTO MAY HAVE THE
CALIFORNIA THAT A CONFERENCE OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS HERE IN
STRONG SUPPORT [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
BREMBO HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
IN STEP FORWARD.
THE FUTURE MEMBERS TING
HUTCHINGS REPRESENTING THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL I'M YOU
KNOW.
PRIMARILY WE'RE CONCERNED THAT I
UNDER THIS MEASURE THE STATE
WOULD BEGRANTING A LEVEL OF A
PRIVILEGE.
YOU KNOW REALLY REALIZE FOR
SPECIFIED PROFESSIONALS
ATTORNEYS FOLKS IN THE MEDICAL
PROFESSION AND YOU KNOW ALL OF
WHICH REQUIRE SOME SORT OF AN
OLD QUALIFICATION -- OTHER THAN
FAMILIAL PRIVILEGE -- YOU KNOW
SUCH AS A SPOUSE -- SECONDARILY
OUR CONCERNS REALLY ALIGNED WITH
THOSE OF FORMER GOVERNOR BROWN
WHEN HE VETOED A SIMILAR MEASURE
THAT -- DESPITE WHAT -- WAS
ARTICULATED BY THE SPONSORS AND
THAT WAS RESIDE IN THE ANALYSES
WE DO BELIEVE THAT IT COULD --
INHIBIT AN AGENCY'S ABILITY TO
CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS INTO
WORKPLACE MISCONDUCT -- YOU KNOW
CITY OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT OR
OTHER OTHER THINGS THAT THAT
HAVE BECOME.
QUITE HEIGHTENED OVER THE LAST
COUPLE OF YEARS -- WE WANT TO BE
ABLE TO TRY AND GIVE FOLKS THAT
THAT WORK FOR OUR CITIES THE
ABILITY.
TO ASCERTAIN ALL THE INFORMATION
AVAILABLE -- RATHER THAN -- HAVE
OF FOLKS INVOKE A PRIVILEGE ON
OTHERS THAT COULD BE WITNESSES
TO A PARTICULAR SITUATION I YOU
KNOW THAT THE SPONSORS HAD
MENTIONED THAT YOU KNOW IT IS
ASSUMED THAT -- PEOPLE THAT THAT
WHEN THEY SPEAK TO THEIR SHOP
STEWARD -- THAT -- THAT IT IS
PROTECTED IT IS PRIVILEGE I
THINK OF A MORE SIMPLE APPROACH
WE DID BE SIMPLY TO EDUCATE YOUR
EMPLOYEES -- THAT IT IS NOT
PROTECTED WE THIS LEGISLATURE'S
GRANTED THE ABILITY FOR UNION
EMPLOYEE ORIENTATIONS FOR ALL
EMPLOYEES -- COULD BE A PERFECT
OPPORTUNITY TO WALK THROUGH SOME
OF THE DO'S AND DON'TS -- GIVEN
THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY FOR OUR
ARE.
REPRESENTED MEMBERS TO TWO IN
LESS THE SERVICES OF THEIR
ATTORNEY -- WHERE THERE THAT IT
PRIVILEGE IS -- ENJOYED -- SO WE
DO FOR THOSE REASONS AGAIN WE
BELIEVE MR MEASURES UNNECESSARY
WILL INHIBIT INVESTIGATIONS IS
NOT REQUIRE.
ANY SPECIFIED EDUCATION A
MINIMAL QUALIFICATIONS WITHOUT
WORK.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU NEXT WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS LEAH
SILVERTHORNE WITH CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
CATCHING PROPOSES THIS BILL
BECAUSE AS MY COLLEAGUE
SUGGESTED IT WOULD EXTEND ABROAD
PRIVILEGE TYPICALLY RESERVED FOR
HIGHLY REGULATED INDUSTRIES SUCH
AS LAWYERS DOCTORS THERAPISTS.
AND FOR SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP
SUCH AS SPOUSES DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE WORKERS AND CLERGY.
ADDITIONALLY UNLIKE THE ATTORNEY
COMPLEX CLIENT PRIVILEGE WHICH
HAS BEEN.
EXPRESSED BY THE PROPONENTS
BILLS DRAFTED SUCH THAT IT WOULD
ALLOW UNION REPRESENTED TO
PROHIBIT NON UNION EMPLOYEES WHO
ARE NOT PART OF THAT EMPLOYEE
AGENT RELATIONSHIP OF SPEAKING
TO OTHERS.
AND CAN ALSO INTERFERE WITH
EMPLOYER INVESTIGATION AND ISSUE
SUCH AS HARASSMENT.
ATTORNEYS DOCTORS AND MENTAL
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS ARE HIGHLY
REGULATED BY THE STATES AND
COURTS IN THE APPLICATION OF THE
PRIVILEGE THE SCOPE OF THE
PRIVILEGE AND COULD BE HAULED
BEFORE THE COR A REGULATORY BODY
IF THEIR CONDUCT IS NOT PROTECT
THEIRCLIENTS.
NO SUCH PROTECTION IS
CONTEMPLATED BY THIS BILL IN
ADDITION A PRIVILEGE SUCH AS
THIS IS NARROWLY CIRCUMCISED IN
CERTAIN CIRCUMSCRIBED.
IN THE DIFFERENT DIFFERENT WORDS
IN THE CONTEXT OF ITS.
CLIENT PRIVILEGE [inaudible]
MY INTO CONTEXT OF AN ATTORNEY
CLIENT PRIVILEGE FOR EXAMPLE TO
ONLY THOSE COMMUNICATIONS
NECESSARY FOR THE GIVING LEGAL
ADVICE AND DOES NOT APPLY TO FAX
UNDERLYING THE COMMUNICATIONS.
NO SUCH NARROWING IS INCLUDED IN
THIS BILL MANNER SOME GOOD PLANS
IN THERE THEY COULD MAKE NOT
GOING TO TODAY -- THIS POLICY
REASONS THAT THE POLICY REASONS
REYES BY THE PHONE IT'S NOT
APPEAR TO RISE TO THE LEVEL OF
THE SPECIAL ELATIONSHIP SUCH AS
MARRIAGE RELIGION OR DOMESTIC
ABUSE OR TRAUMA SITUATIONS
CONTEMPLATED BY THE THE
PRIVILEGES.
CODIFIED STATUTE WILL ALSO LEAD
TO DIFFICULTIES IN LITIGATION
AND NOT LITIGATION LIKE BECAUSE
WHERE IS MY PROPONENT SUGGESTED
THAT THIS ONLY ATTACH IS IN
LITIGATION ARBITRATION
PROCEEDINGS.
IS NECESSARY TO CONTINUALLY
ASSERT A PRIVILEGE IN ORDER TO
MAINTAIN IT OR RISK WAIVER PRIOR
TO THIS THE FILING OF A
LITIGATION OR ARBITRATION. FOR
THESE REASONS AND OTHERS CAL
CHAMBER RESPECTFULLY OPPOSES A
BEFORE EATING -- MUCH I I SWEAR
THAT THE CHAMBER T. TEACHES ITS
LOBBYIST TO SPEAK FASTER THAN A
SPEEDING BULLET.
WELL I THINK I CAUGHT MOST OF IT
SO.
THANK YOU OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION NAME AND AFFILIATION
PLEASE HEAR ABOUT JUST AT THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL
BUSINESS OFFICIALS.
I WOULD LOVE TO AND THERE MAY BE
A QUESTION FOR YOU BUT WE'RE NOT
GOING TO CREATE ANY EXCEPTIONS
AT THE MOMENT THANK YOU OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
AND I'M SURE MEMBERS MIKE BELOW
FOR CIVIL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION IN
A OPPOSITION THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS MARIA SPERBER ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION THANK
YOU.
IN BREAKING WITH THE ASSOCIATION
OF CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE
DISTRICTS ALSO IN OPPOSITION
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON JOSH DUGGAR
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
AND TODAY ON BEHALF OF
COLLEAGUES AT THE SPECIAL
DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION IN THE
URBAN COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA.
OPPOSE FOR THE REASONS STATED
THANK YOU THANK YOU WAS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION.
ANYONE IN NEUTRALITY.
ALL RIGHT SEEING NON -- SURE I
SURE DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
ALL RIGHT WE'LL START WITH THE
VICE CHAIR AND THEY WILL GO OVER
TO SENATOR ON BURKE.
I THINK MOST OF MY CONCERNS HAD
PROBABLY ALREADY BEEN
ARTICULATED BY FOLKS WHO MIGHT
FALL ON THE OTHER SIDE ON THIS
ISSUE -- I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE
TO HAVE -- UNION OFFICIALS AND
WORKERS HAVE A FREE FLOW OF
COMMUNICATION -- MY CONCERN
THOUGH IS ELEVATING THAT TO A
LEVEL THAT.
IS NORMALLY AFFORDED TO
PROFESSIONS LIKE MEDICINE OR LAW --
OR RELIGIOUS LEADERS.
I'M AFRAID THAT IF WE WERE TO
EXTEND IT.
THEN THIS WOULD LITERALLY OPEN
UP THE GATES FOR PRIVILEGES
ACROSS THE BOARD.
BECAUSE IF THIS WERE TO HAPPEN
TODAY OR IS A MOVES THROUGH THE
PROCESS -- WOULD NOT A NON
REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE WHO SEEKS
INFORMAL COUNSEL.
FROM SOMEONE ALSO.
USING THE SAME ARGUMENTATION.
THAT I WANT TO HAVE THE FREE
FLOW OF IDEAS IN SEEK ADVICE
FROM THOSE IN A FORMAL OR
INFORMAL CAPACITY.
I DON'T KNOW WE COULD HOW WE
COULD ARGUE.
THAT NO THIS EXCLUSION IS GOOD
BUT THIS ALLOWING ON REPRESENTED
EMPLOYEES.
FROM HAVING THAT SEEM FREE FLOW
OF INFORMATION HOW WOULD BE ABLE
TO STOP THAT EITHER.
I THINK THIS IS.
A UNIQUE SITUATION BUT THE
CONSEQUENCES OF EXTENDING THIS
PRIVILEGE I THINK COULD BE VERY
DANGEROUS.
BECAUSE I THINK WAS MENTIONED
BEFORE.
THIS IS BEEN.
PRUDENCE AT CERTAIN -- CERTAIN
PROTECTIONS HAVE BEEN PUT INTO
PLACE.
THEY ARE HIGHLY REGULATED THEY
DO REQUIRE CREDENTIALS LICENSING
SO ON AND SO FORTH.
BUT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
THOSE QUALIFICATIONS AND AND
PROFESSIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
DON'T DON'T APPEAR TO BE S. AS
STRICT -- IS THERE ANOTHER WAY
FORWARD.
THAT CAN ALLOW FOR A FREE FLOW
OF INFORMATION MAYBE I'LL ASK
THE THE AUTHOR -- WHEN YOU WENT
THROUGH THIS PROCESS DID YOU
CONTEMPLATE ANY OTHER OPTION
OTHER THAN?
EXTENDING THE PRIVILEGE IN SUCH
A WAY THAT WOULD BE MORE
POWERFUL THAN THE EXISTING
ATTORNEY CLIENT.
THAT'S WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW
YOU'VE EXTENDED THAT PROTECTION.
THAT IS NOT JUST HELD BY THE
CLIENT IT'S NOW HELD BY.
THE OTHER PRINCIPLE.
AND THAT'S JUST THAT'S A
STRIKING DEVIATION.
OFF FROM THE ATTORNEY CLIENT
RIGHT THERE SO YOU'RE ASKING FOR
MORE PROTECTIONS THAN ARE GIVEN
TO LEARN A PROFESSIONS.
BUT IN THE PROCESS AND YOU
THOUGHT OF ANY OTHER WAY THAT
THIS.
IS PROTECTIONS COULD BE
ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT.
PLEASE.
CHAIR.
THANK YOU THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR
THINKING SENATOR -- I WANT TO
START BY SAYING THAT.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING NEW.
THIS PROVISIONS EXIT IS THIS A
NUMBER OF OTHER STATES.
OUT FOR FORTY YEARS IS BECAUSE
THIS IN NEW YORK.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE
APPROPRIATE WAY TO APPROACH
SYSTEM AND IT IS IT IS
DISTINGUISHABLE FROM ATTORNEY
CLIMBS ATTORNEY CLIENT THE
ATTORNEY.
HAS THAT SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITY
TO THAT CLIENT.
AND IN THIS CASE BOTH THE UNION
AGENT AND UP THE WORKER HOUSE
BEING REPRESENTED.
THERE'S NO DOUBT THE AGING ALSO
HAS RESPONSIBLE THAT WORKER BUT
THE THERE'S ALSO RESPONSIBILITY.
TO THE LARGER ENTITY RIGHT AND
SO.
IN AND BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT
TO THE COMMENTS FROM UP OUR
REPRESENT LEAGUE IS THAT THE
CITIES.
WHEN WAS ON THE SOUND IS CITY
COUNCIL?
THE SUGGESTION THAT SOMEHOW.
THE CITY WAS LOOKING OUT FOR THE
BEST INTEREST OF THE EMPLOYEE.
YOU KNOW I I JUST DON'T THINK
IT'S FACTUAL I THINK WERE
FINDING MORE MORE CONTENTION
THAT'S EXISTING.
BETWEEN OF THE MANAGEMENT
WHETHER IT BE PRIVATE SECTOR OR
PUBLIC AND THE WORKER AND SO
THAT'S WHY THAT PROTECTION NEEDS
TO BE THERE FOR BOTH.
ENDS OF THIS COMMUNICATION
BECAUSE OFTEN TIMES THE
COMMUNICATIONS BEING USED
AGAINST ALL WORKERS.
WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO I THE
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE COMES
DOWN TO A WHOLE WIDE SLEW OF
ISSUES THAT NOW?
ARE BEING MORE AND MORE
[inaudible]
THE THE AGGRESSIVELY OF
CONFLICTED WITH THE IN IN THIS
DAY AND AGE.
THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE THAT THIS
IS NARROWLY TAILORED AS
NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROTECTING THAT RELATIONSHIP.
HOW WOULD THIS BE DIFFERENT?
IF YOU HAD AN ON REPRESENTED
EMPLOYEE WHO SOUGHT THE INFORM
INFORMAL COUNCIL.
OUR REGARDING WORKPLACE ISSUE
SHOULD THAT INDIVIDUAL BE
AFFORDED PROTECTION TO PROMOTE.
FREE DISCOURSE OF THOUGHTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS.
THROUGH THE CHAIR AT OUT -- I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT THE UNION REPRESENTATIVE
HAS A LEGAL OBLIGATIONS
REPRESENT.
MEMBERS AND NON MEMBERS ALL
WORKERS ARE COVERED UNDER THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
SO REGARDLESS IF YOU'RE A MEMBER
OF THE UNION OR IF YOU'RE NOT A
MEMBER IF YOU'RE COVERED UNDER
THAT.
SELECT BARGAINING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE THE YOUR PRESENT IT
HAS A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO
REPRESENT YOU IN THOSE MATTERS I
THINK THAT'S A DISTINCTION FROM
AN EMPLOYEE TALKING.
TO SOME THIRD PARTY TO GET
ADVICE WORDS -- TO TO TO GAUGE
INTEREST OR THINGS LIKE THAT
THAT THAT THAT A LEGAL
OBLIGATION REPRESENTATION
WOULDN'T EXIST IN THAT MATTER SO
IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS SENATOR
UMBERG.
YOU RAISE AN INTERESTING POINT
JUST -- SUMMER KALRA YOU'D SAID
THAT THERE IS IF I UNDERSTOOD
YOU CORRECTLY THERE IS A DUTY TO
THE INDIVIDUAL WHO COMMUNICATES
TO THE AGENT.
IS THAT RIGHT THAT'S CORRECT AND
THEN AT THAT AGING HAS A DUTY TO
THE UNION AS WELL IS THAT RIGHT.
AND SO IT IS IN IN THIS
HYPOTHETICAL THAT'S A
RESPONSIBILITY TO BUT NOT THAT
THE PRIVILEGES NOT FOR THE I'M.
I'M IN GENERAL THERE'S
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE UNION BUT
THIS CASE THAT THIS PRIVILEGES
BETWEEN.
IN REPRESENTATIVE AND THE WORKER
HAND IN PLACE.
AND SO IT'S A TWO WAY BE.
A MOTHER BARBARA THERE'S THERE'S
NOT EXPENSE A PRIVILEGE TO THE
ENTIRE ORGANIZATION ALL THIS ALL
THE WORKERS.
OKAY LOOK LET ME ASK YOU A
HYPOTHETICAL IT'S BASED ON REAL
EVENTS.
SO IF TO EMPLOYEES EMPLOYEE ONE
LET'S ASSUME AS A WOMAN EMPLOYEE
TO LET'S ASSUME IS A MAN.
PLOY ONE REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT
THAT EMPLOYEE TO IS CALLED HER
SIX TIMES THE PREVIOUS DAY. FIVE
TIMES A DAY BEFORE THAT FOUR
TIMES THE BEFORE THAT SHE'S NOT
RESPONDED EMPLOYEE TO HAS MADE.
INAPPROPRIATE OVERTURES TO HER
EMPLOYEE TO HIS VISITOR HOUSE A
NUMBER OF TIMES THE LAST FOR
FIVE DAYS.
EMPLOYEE ONE THE WOMAN REPORTS
AT THE MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT.
IS CONCERNED AND THEY DISCIPLINE
EMPLOYEE TO EMPLOYEE TO GOES TO
HIS UNION AGENT AND SAYS.
I'M NOT HARASSING HER I DON'T
CONSIDER THESE PHONE CALLS AND
VISITS TO HER HOME TO BE
HARASSMENT AND I INTEND TO
CONTINUE TO DO EXACTLY THAT
BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT IF I
CONTINUE THIS BEHAVIOR THAT THIS
WOMAN EVENTUALLY.
WILL SEE THE LIGHT AND BASICALLY
HAVE A RELATIONSHIP.
SO THE QUESTION IS IS THE UNION
AGENT WHO HAS RECEIVED THIS
DISCLOSURE DOES HERE SHE HAVE
ANY DUTY TO EMPLOYEE NUMBER.
ONE SO IN OTHER WORDS DOES DOES
THE UNION AGENT THEN HAVE ANY
DUTY TO COME FORWARD. TO SAY
THAT THIS EMPLOYEE IS GOING TO
CONTINUE THIS BY ALL ACCOUNTS
OTHER THAN UNION THE OTHER THAN
EMPLOYEE TWOS.
HARASSMENT OF EMPLOYEE NUMBER.
ONE THERE'S NOT A IN THE
PROPOSED BILL THERE'S THERE'S
NOT A DUTY TO AN ACID BUT THE
PRIVILEGE WOULD NOT ATTACHED IF
THERE WAS IT WAS AN ON GOING --
CRIMES SO IF THERE WAS CITY ROSE
LEVEL OF BEING CRIMINAL BY THEN
DID YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A DUTY TO
REPORT BUT THEY WERE THERE WOULD
BE NO PROTECTION.
UNDER THE PRIVILEGE EXIT THE
THIS IS NOT A CRIME WELL IT
COULD BE A CRIME THIS IS
STALKING.
WELL IT IS CLEAR THAT THE REFS
BUT THERE'S THERE'S A THERE'S A
QUESTION THERE AS TO WHAT LEVEL
WHAT RISE THE LEVEL.
OF A CRIME AND WHO MAKES THAT
DETERMINATION.
SO THE SECOND QUESTION THEN IS.
IF IT EVEN ATTORNEY RECEIVES A
COMMUNICATION AND THE ATTORNEY
DISCLOSE IT RIGHT.
SO BY THE WAY EVEN IF IT'S A AN
OUT AND OUT THE THE ATTORNEY IS
ONLY REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE IF
THERE'S GOING TO BE IMMINENT
BODILY HARM OR SOME OTHER.
SERIOUS HARM.
THERE'S NO INDICATION AS HARM
HERE THE QUESTION IS IS LET'S
SAY THAT UNION AGENT THEN SAYS
YOU KNOW WHAT I AM GOING TO
PROTECT EMPLOYEE NUMBER.
ONE I'M GOING TO INFORM EMPLOYEE
NUMBER ONE THAT THIS PERSON IS
CAN GOING TO CONTINUE TO HARASS.
YOU IS THERE ANY SANCTION THAT
IS APPLIED TO THE UNION AGENT
FOR EXAMPLE AN ATTORNEY WHO
DISCLOSE AN ATTORNEY CLIENT
PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION THEN CAN
BE POTENTIALLY BEEN DISBARRED SO
IS THERE ANY.
SANCTION IT CAN BE APPLIED TO
THE UNIONREPRESENTATIVE.
NOT IT NOT IN THE LEGISLATION
AND AS YOU POINT OUT CENTER THAT
SANCTION WOULD COME FROM THE A
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION -- NOT
THROUGH THROUGH THAT
ORGANIZATION NOT THROUGH THE LAW.
WE HAVE A GOOD IF YOU'D LIKE
CANCER THAT ARE ON BURKE
MITCHELL CAST OF SERVICE
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION WE
HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO BOTH
EMPLOYEES.
AND THERE HAVE BEEN PLENTY OF
INSTANCES WITH ONE EMPLOYEE
HARASSING ANOTHER -- IF THE
EMPLOYEE WHO IS THE HARASSERS
BREAKING WORKPLACE RULES CLEARLY
BROKEN APOSTLES WE DON'T HAVE AN
OBLIGATION TO REPRESENT THAT
PERSON IF THEY COMMIT CRIMES.
ARE CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF
WORKS WE ADVISE THEM.
ON CERTAIN.
I'M.
ADVICE TO SEIZE BEHAVIOR CERTAIN
THINGS LIKE THAT BUT THEY'RE
CLEARLY IN VIOLATION -- WE MAY
ADVISE THEM THAT THEY'RE GOING
TO GET TERMINATED OR WHATEVER
GIVEN DIRECTION BUT WE ARE NOT.
NECESSARILY. TO REPRESENT
SOMEBODY WHO'S CLEARLY VIOLATING
CERTAIN RULES BOSTIC'S AFTER OUR
OBLIGATIONS TO BOTH EMPLOYEES.
ALL RIGHT SO I I AM.
I'VE TO THAT AND APPRECIATE YOU
SAYING THAT APPARENTLY.
IF IF I COULD ASK THE QUESTION
MADAM CHAIR THEN.
CERTAINLY THROUGH THE CHAIR.
IF THEN SO UNDER THE SUN ARE YOU
JUST DESCRIBED.
THEN USING THE HYPOTHETICAL THAT
I PROVIDED EMPLOYEE ONE BEING
THE WOMAN WHO'S BEING IN MY VIEW
HARASS EMPLOYED TO BEING THE
HARASSER.
THAT THE AGENT THE UNION AGENT
THEN.
WOULD BE ELIGIBLE WOULD BE --
AND WITH THERE'S A DUTY BUT
THERE'D BE NO SANCTION IF THE
UNION AGENT THEN INFORMED OTHERS
OF THIS HARASSMENT IS GOING TO
CONTINUE [inaudible]
WELL.
I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THIS ONLY.
DEALS WITH SUBPOENA POWERS.
SO.
I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE YOUR WITH
YOUR QUESTION AS I THINK.
SO HERE'S OUR LET ME JUST
CAPSIZE MY TWO CONCERNS CONCERN
NUMBER ONE IS.
IF IF NOT RISING TO THE LEVEL OF
IMMINENT.
HARM PHYSICAL HARM WHETHER OR
NOT THERE THERE COULD BE SOME
SORT OF MODIFICATIONS SO THAT TO
THE EXTENT THAT.
THE UNION AGENT RECEIVES
COMMUNICATION THAT WOULD
INDICATE THAT THERE'S GOING TO
BE SOME OTHER CONTINUING HARM
NUMBER ONE NOT RISE IN THE SAME
LEVEL IS REQUIRED TO BE
DISCLOSED BY AN ATTORNEY.
AND THEN NUMBER TWO THAT SORT OF
THE FLIP SIDE OF THIS IS IT IF
THE IF THE COMMUNICATOR BELIEVES
THAT THERE IS A PRIVILEGE THAT
IS SACROSANCT -- THAT IF THAT
UNION REP THEN REVEALS THAT
INFORMATION FOR WHATEVER REASON
THAT THERE BE SOME SANCTION
OTHER THAN.
THERE THERE BE SOME SANCTION
PROVIDED IN THE LAW MUCH IS
THERE IS FOR AN ATTORNEY.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR THANK YOU
I THINK INCLUDE CLARIFY FOR ME
IF I'M WRONG I THINK WHAT YOU
WOULD HAVE IN THIS INSTANCE IS
THE AGENT SAYING.
THERE IS NO PRIVILEGE HERE
BECAUSE YOU WERE VIOLATING
WORKPLACE RULES ENSURED A
SUBPOENA ISSUE FOR THIS
INFORMATION.
OUR I WOULD HAVE TO RESPOND SO I
THINK PART OF THIS IS THE
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN AGENT AND
WORKER.
SO THAT THERE IS CLARITY AS TO
WHAT THE AGENT CAN AND CANNOT DO
BUT IF THE WORKER [inaudible]
WORKPLACE RULES.
POTENTIALLY ACTING IN A CRIMINAL
MATTER THERE IS NO PROTECTION
FOR A SUBPOENA AND IF I'M NOT
MISTAKEN THE THE AGENT WOULD SO
ADVISED THE WORKER THAT THERE IS
NO SUCH PRIVILEGE ATTACHING TO
THIS COMMUNICATION.
AND WOULD YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M
WRONG ON THAT.
I'M SURE I BELIEVE YOU'RE RIGHT
AS IT RELATES TO CRIMINAL
MATTERS YES.
THE UNION DOES HAVE AN
OBLIGATION REPRESENT THE
EMPLOYEE THROUGH THE FOUR
CORNERS THE CONTRACT TO A DEGREE
BEEN SICK ISSUE AT THE WORKPLACE
IS THAT YOU CAME IN LATE OR
HERE'S AN ISSUE.
LIKE THAT BUT ONCE IT WANTS TO
ELEVATE SO CRIMINAL MATTER AT
THE END THAT SEPARATE NOW I'D
LIKE YOU TO RESPOND I THINK THAT
THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION BY
SENATOR UMBERG YOU'VE GOT.
CONFLICTING ISSUES HERE BETWEEN.
INDIVIDUAL A AN INDIVIDUAL BE
BOTH SEEKING ASSISTANCE FROM
THEIR AGENTS.
I AM ASSUMING THEY'RE DIFFERENT
AGENTS ARE NOT THE SAME WHAT IS
THE ROLE IN THIS LEGISLATION IF
ANY.
OF THE AGENT THE SERVI ARMED.
NOT VICTIMS INDIVIDUAL BE THE
SECOND THE THE THE ONE WHO WAS
ARGUABLY HARASSING WHICH IS
ARGUABLY A CRIMINAL MATTER BUT
LET'S SAY IT DOESN'T RISE QUITE
TO THAT LEVEL BUT IT IS.
A WORK FORCE VIOLATION WHAT IS A
RESPONSIBILITY THE AGENT AT THAT
POINT.
I'M NOT SURE I FULLY UNDERSTAND
IF IT RELATES TO A DUTY TO
NOTIFY EMPLOYEE A OR IF IT'S A
DUTY TO REPRESENT EMPLOYEE A I
BELIEVE THAT YOU KNOW NO NO THE
QUESTION IS IT REALLY EMPLOYEE
BE.
THE ONE WHO WAS ACKNOWLEDGE
SHE'S GONNA KEEP MAKING THOSE
PHONE CALLS BECAUSE THIS WOMAN
JUST NEEDS MORE PERSISTENCE IN
ORDER TO YOU KNOW. TO TO REALIZE
WHAT A WONDERFUL IDEA THIS GUY
IS -- BUT YOU'VE GOT SOMEONE WHO
IS.
VIOLATING YOUR RULES PROBABLY
WORKPLACE ENGAGEMENT RULES AND
CERTAINLY ARGUABLY THE TALKING.
AS A CRIMINAL MATTER WHAT IS THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THAT
INDIVIDUAL'S AGENT.
UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.
I BELIEVE IN YOU.
AND THE REPRESENTED AT FROM FROM
ATTY CORRECT CAN CORRECT ME IF
I'M WRONG I BELIEVE ASSUMING
THAT EMPLOYEE BEES KINDA DOESN'T
RISE TO CRIMINAL.
RIGHT AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
NOW WE'RE JUST -- ISOLATING THIS
TO A WORKPLACE ISSUE AND NOT A
HYPOTHETICAL WORKPLACE ISSUE NOT
I'M GOING TO MY CALL HER AGAIN
TOMORROW BUT ISSUES THAT HAVE.
HAPPENED IN THE PAST THAT I
BELIEVE THE ONLY WOULD HAVE BEEN
OUT WILL HAVE APPLICATIONS
REPRESENT THAT EMPLOYEE OR
WORKPLACE GRIEVANCES.
AND WE'RE ALL SET THE LIST WE%
HAVE TO REPRESENT EMPLOYEE A AS
WELL.
NOW IT'S TO THE EXTENT THAT
EMPLOYEES BE KIND OF A RISE OF
CRIMINAL THAT I BELIEVE AT THAT
POINT IS WHEN OUR OBLIGATION --
TO TO WAIVE PRIVILEGE WOULDN'T%
EXIST AS YOUR AS THE BILL IS
CURRENTLY REPRESENTED BUT
ASSUMING AGAIN THAT IS JUST A
WORKPLACE ISSUE WORLD TO A
WORKPLACE HARASSMENT SYSTEM HE
THE INAPPROPRIATE EMAIL OR WENT
TO AGREEMENTS PRICES.
UNION WOULD STILL REPRESENT THAT
EMPLOYEE IN THAT MANNER. EIGHT
TO SET TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION
ENTER OVER.
I ASSUME THAT TO BE THE CASE.
ONE SECOND I'M JUST CURIOUS AS
TO HOW THIS WOULD PLAY OUT IN
THE REAL WORLD WHERE YOU HAVE.
TO EMPLOYEES BOTH UNION MEMBERS
ONE HARASSING THE OTHER WHICH IS
IS WAS POINT OUT NOT UNUSUAL
SITUATION.
THE BENCHER BY CONDEMNING THIS
PRIVILEGE.
PREVENT SOME PLAYERS ROUTINE
ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL
COMMUNICATIONS TO SUBPOENA
POWERS.
THERE ARE EVERY SINGLE DAY
WITHIN UNIONS THERE ARE
GRIEVANCES FROM ONE MEMBER TO
ANOTHER THEIR ISSUES THAT THE
UNION HAS PROCESSES FOR
ASSAULTING -- THAT UP THAT THAT
HAVE ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARDS
THAT REPRESENTATION STANDARDS
WHAT HAVE YOU SO THIS REALLY HAS
MORE TO DO WITH THE ABILITY OF
SUBPOENA POWERS BEING USED TO
REVEAL THOSE KEYS COMMUNICATIONS.
AN SO IT'S NOT MEANT TO HIDE
CRIMINAL CONDUCT FOR CERTAIN AND
THE REALITY IS THAT IF ANY
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE DOES TO THE
MANAGEMENT AND PILES COMPLAIN.
THOSE THOSE INVESTIGATIONS WILL
PROCEED JUST AS THEY DO TODAY
UNDER ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES SO
LAST COMMENT HERE AND THEN WE'RE
GONNA GO TO SENATOR Y. CASKE.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND JUST
ADD A FINER POINT ON THIS ARE
JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE.
ONE THE SCENARIO THAT YOU SPEAK
TO IS NOT SPOKEN.
REFERENCE IN THE BILL BECAUSE AS
THE CHIEF THAT AUTHOR RIGHTFULLY
POINTED OUT THE SITUATION TOOK
PLACE ALL THE TIME THIS IS NOT
AN ISSUE.
WHERE WHICH WITHIN THE CONTEXT
OF THIS BILL PRIVILEGE?
PROTECTS OR DOES NOT PROTECT.
YOU A MEMBER THE PRIVILEGE.
WE ARE SPEAKING TO IS TO PREVENT
THE EMPLOYERS FROM USING AN END
RUN AROUND.
WORKPLACE RULES THAT HAVE BEEN
ESTABLISHED BY HERB THAT PREVENT.
FIVE THE EMPLOYER FROM
COMPELLING A UNION AGENT OR A
MEMBER TO DISCLOSE WHAT --
INFORMATION -- IN A WORKPLACE
SETTING WHAT EMPLOYERS ARE DOING
IS TAKING THAT AND THEY ARE
USING.
THE DISCOVERY PROCESS IN
LITIGATION TO GET AROUND THAT
THIS ISSUE.
REALLY IS FOCUSED ON THAT WHAT
HAPPENS IN A SITUATION WHERE WE
GO TO AN ADJUDICATORY
ADJUDICATORY SETTING.
AND I WORKERS.
OR THE EMPLOYER IS LOOKING TO
USED THE DISCOVERY PROCESS TO
OBTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
ABOUT OUR MEMBERSHIP AND
ENGAGEMENT.
YOU KNOW WITH RESPECT THINGS
LIKE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
ISSUES THAT ARE NOT GERMANE TO
WORKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS THIS
WOULD NOT IMPEDE AN EXISTING.
THE EXISTING PROCESS FOR
WORKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS BECAUSE
EMPLOYERS CAN ALL ALREADY CAN
NOT IN IN IN IN A WORKPLACE
SETTING.
COMPEL A UNION AGENT OR MEMBER
UNDER THREAT OF PENALTY OR UNDER
THREAT OF YOU KNOW TERMINATION --
THAT THAT TO TURN THIS
INFORMATION OVER DISHES CLOSES
THE LOOPHOLE THAT EXISTS WITH
RESPECT TO LITIGATION. TO
PREVENT EMPLOYERS FROM USING THE
LITIGATION PROCESS TO DO
SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN NOT DO
IN THE EXISTING COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING FRAMEWORK
CONSTRUCTION WORK THANK YOU
THANK YOU.
SENATOR WHITE HOUSE CAN.
AFTER I DID VOTE FOR THIS BILL
LAST YEAR AND IT MAY IN FACT
CLOSE A LOOPHOLE.
THE V. THE EMPLOYER AND THE
UNION REP BUT I'M CONCERNED IS
THAT THERE'S NO SCOPE ON THIS
PRIVILEGE.
EVERYONE OF THE ATTORNEYS HERE
THERE'S A CRIMINAL CASE WITH
FIVE PEOPLE YOU'RE THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER YOU GET ONE PERSON AND
WE MAY HAVE DIFFERING OPINIONS.
DIFFERENT IN OUR CLIENTS MAY
HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS AND THERE'S
NOTHING IN HERE THAT LIMITS
THAT'S GO FOR THE PRIVILEGE IN
FACT IS THE VICE CHAIR SAYS YOU
GIVE THE UNION REP.
THE PRIVILEGE ALSO SO THAT'S A
CONCERN TO ME AND THE OTHER
CONCERN IS THAT YOU KNOW THESE
UNION WRAPS.
THERE.
TELL ME YOUR SECRETS TELL ME
EVERYTHING THEY COLLECT THESE
THIS THIS CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION IS A WE SAKE DON'T
TELL ME OR AS MY COLLEAGUE
POINTED OUT I CAN BE SANCTIONED
IF I USE THAT SO THERE'S NOTHING
IN HERE.
ABOUT THE EDUCATION FOR THE
PREPARATION OR ALL THESE LITTLE
CONCERNS.
TELL ME YOUR STORIES TELL ME
YOUR YOUR YOUR PROBLEMS AND AND
DEAL WITH THESE.
INTER COMPLEX WHEN THERE'S
SOMETHING WITHIN THE EMPLOYEES
THAT NOW THE WHOLE THE PRIVILEGE
BEFORE THEY'VE NEVER PRIVILEGE
NOW THEY HAVE A PRIVILEGE WHEN
THEY SAY I DON'T NEED TO TELL
YOU AND THAT'S A CONCERN THAT I
DIDN'T CATCH LAST YEAR
[inaudible]
THE BOOK.
SPOT AS OF THE THINK ABOUT JAIL
IS CENTER LOOK AGAIN THIS IS.
THERE ALREADY ARE THESE
COMMUNICATIONS OCCURRING WITHIN
THE CONTEXT YOU TO
REPRESENTATION.
AND THE UNIONS REPRESENT A
NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND THERE'S A
LOT OF ONE OFFS CONVERSATION ONE
OF THAT A DRUG CONVERSATIONS.
THIS REALLY HAS TO THE PRIVILEGE
AGAIN AS WAS STATED BY MISTER
ALLISON OF THE EMPLOYER HAVING
ACCESS TO THESE COMMUNICATIONS
RIGHT IT'S IT'S IT'S SPECIFIC TO
THAT.
IT'S NOT A MATTER OF YOU KNOW
PEOPLE WHO THE THE UNION
REPRESENTATIVE -- HAVING THESE
CONVERSATIONS AND THEN THE
SECOND.
THIS THIS INFORMATION OTHERWISE
IS NOT OUR THAT IS NOT OTHERWISE
ATTAINABLE AT LEAST THROUGH.
OF ANY FORCE PROCEDURE FROM THE
EMPLOYER THAT IS THROUGH THAT SO
THAT THESE COMMUNICATIONS IF
SOMEONE SUBPOENAED.
AND THESE COMMUNICATIONS ARE NOT
PROTECTED THAT THAT IS THE I GET
THIS PAIN APART MADAM CHAIR I
GET TO SOON.
APART BUT BUT WE KNOW IS
ATTORNEYS IF SOMEBODY TELLS ME
SOMETHING AND THERE'S A NON
ATTORNEY ENDER THAT'S NOT A
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION.
JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO BE
ANOTHER TURNING IT HAVE TO BE A
UNION REP.
THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS BILL
THAT EDUCATES THE DOOR A UNION
REPRESENTATIVE SAID THAT'S NOT
WHAT IS IT WHAT IS PRIVILEGE
WHAT IS NOT PRIVILEGED WE KEEP
GOING TO IT'S NOT A CRIME I GET
THAT BUT THERE'S A BUNCH OF
HARASSMENT IN.
IN CHALLENGES IN THE WORK FORCE
IF YOU'RE REPRESENTING EVERYBODY.
THAT WE DON'T DO THAT IN THE LAW
AND THE ON A PRIVILEGE WE
REPRESENT ONE PERSON HEY YOU YOU
RAISE A OF A GREAT POINT I WOULD
NOTE THAT THE SCOPE
REPRESENTATION IS DEFINED IN THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
SO WHEN THE TWO PARTIES WHEN THE
UNION AND THE MANAGEMENT --
ORGANIZATION SET THE TABLE
THAT'S THE DOCUMENT THAT DEFINES
OUR SCOPE REPRESENTATION AND IN
OUR REPRESENTATION IS NARAL TO
THE FOUR CORNERS THAT CONTRACT
SO WHILE MIGHT NOT BE DELINEATED
IN THE BILL.
OBVIOUSLY YOU ONLY HAVE A UNION
IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND THAT
THE DOCUMENT YOU REFERRED TO FOR
YOUR SCHOOL REPRESENTATION.
AND AND MILLIONS ALL THE TIME.
EDUCATE OUR STEWARDS AND EDUCATE --
ARE EVERYTHING IS STAFF WON THE
CONTRACT IN IT IS WILL ASK HE'S
NOT SHOULD ELABORATE AND SAY
IT'S GOOD REPRESENTATION WILL
ALSO BE DELINEATED AND THEIR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING STATUTES
AS WELL SO.
THOSE WILL BE THE DOCUMENTS THAT
WOULD DELINEATE.
OUR OBLIGATIONS TO THE EMPLOYEE
WHICH WOULD BE NEGOTIATED WITH
THE EMPLOYER.
SO WOULD YOU BE.
AND AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN
I THINK THE WITH THAT WERE KIND
OF TALKING AT DIFFERENT LEVELS
HERE WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AS
LAWYERS.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS AS THE
RESPONSIBILITIES YOU HAVE
PURSUANT TO A COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH ISN'T
REFERENCED HERE.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT
WORSE IS BILLS SUPPOSED TO GO
NEXT.
SENATE FLOOR -- WE NEED IT I
THINK WE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT
BECAUSE I THINK WE ALL SHARE
THAT CONCERN AND AND SOME OF US
HAVE STARTED FROM THIS
PERSPECTIVE IN SOME OF OVER HERE.
USING OUR EXPERIENCES LAWYERS
WHERE WE DO A VERY SPECIFIC.
NOT ONLY LIMITATIONS BUT
SANCTIONS IF WE DON'T.
RESPECT THAT RELATIONSHIP SO --
I WONDER IF WE COULD.
PERHAPS.
TIGHTEN THAT UP IF THAT IS THE I
I I SHARE THAT CONCERN BUT I
ALSO WAS FOCUSING ON THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING NATURE.
IT SETS THE PARAMETERS BUT
THAT'S NOT IT IS NOT CLEARLY
SPECIFIED IN THE BILL MADAM
CHAIR CENTERS I'M MORE THAN
HAPPY TO TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON
THIS A WORK SPACE AND AND AND
COME TO YOUR SPECIFIC OFFICES AS
WE CONTINUE TO WORK TO CLARIFY.
IT IS DIFFERENT THAN ATTORNEY
CLIENT PRIVILEGE I HAVE
OBVIOUSLY VERY WELL AWARE.
OF THE VERY -- ORTON A TRIP
RELATIONSHIP TO THE ATTORNEY
CLIENT.
PRIVILEGE RIGHTFULLY HAS THIS IS
A DIFFERENT KIND OF OF PRIVILEGE
BUT I THINK THAT WOULD REQUIRE
GREATER CLARITY THAN CURRENTLY
EXISTS TO FOR THE COME FOR THE
SENATE -- THE SENATORS AND SO
I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO GET YOU
TO WORK ON THAT WITH THE
ASSISTANCE OF YOUR YOUR STAFF IS
I I THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY BE
MOST HELPFUL IF YOU WORK
DIRECTLY WITH OUR STAFF WE ALSO
HEARD THIS BILL LAST YEAR -- IT
DID GET TO THE GOVERNOR HE DID
EXPRESS SOME CONCERNS AND I
THINK THAT HAS -- IT ENGENDERED
SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT I
THINK ARE LEGITIMATE -- BUT I'M
NOT BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S
WHAT YOU WERE ANTICIPATING TO BE
A PROBLEM SO IF WE COULD PERHAPS
I'M GONNA ALLOW A COMMENT FROM
THE CHAMBER AND THEN FROM YOU
AND THEN WORK.
WITH YOUR SOME.
THE WILLINGNESS WILL.
PUT THIS OVER PERHAPS A WEEK AND
WILL TRY TO CLEAN THIS UP
BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE ALL.
THE A LITTLE UNSURE OF WHAT THIS
YOU.
SHOULD LOOK LIKE EVEN THOUGH I
KNOW.
WHERE YOU WANT TO GO WITH THIS
SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A
COMMENT?
AND THEN WILL CLOSE WITH YOU SIR
AND AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON
ABSOLUTELY A JUST OUTLOOK I WANT
TO HAVE THE CHAMBER.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR TO CENTER
WHITE HOUSE HE'S POINT I WANTED
TO POINT OUT ALSO THAT UNLIKE
THE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
WHERE WE CANNOT ASSERT.
THAT OUR CLIENTS CANNOT DISCLOSE
THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT WE HAVE
WITH THEM HERE IN THIS BILL THE
CONTEMPLATION IS THAT EITHER
PARTY CAN PROHIBIT THE OTHER
PARTY FROM DISCLOSING THOSE
CONVERSATIONS WITH ANOTHER
CONCERN THAT WE SHOULD ADDRESS
AS WE MOVE FORWARD [inaudible]
OF RESPONSE.
F. F. AS DAUGHTER POINTED OUT
CERTAINLY WILLING TO WORK WITH
THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE --
TO TIGHTEN THE LANUAGE ON THIS.
THE IDEA IS UNIQUE BECAUSE THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FRAMEWORK
IS UNIQUE THE DUTY OF FAIR
REPRESENTATION IS A IS A
DOCTRINE THAT WE AS UNIONS HAVE
TO HEAR TO THAT ATTORNEYS DON'T
NECESSARILY HAVE. TO TO IT HERE
TOO NOR DO ANY OTHER TYPES OF
ALLEGES THAT HAVE BEEN --
GRANTED TO OTHER DIFFERENT
CLASSIFICATIONS OR OR FAMILY
MEMBERS OF LITIGANTS.
YOU KNOW SO THIS IS A UNIQUE
ISSUE CERTAINLY WILLING TO WORK
WITH FOLKS BUT PART OF THE
PROBLEM IS THAT.
IT IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE
SOMEONE IN A DEALING WITH A GAL
WORKPLACE INVESTIGATION.
IF A UNION ARE IS REPRESENTING
ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE
BARGAINING UNIT ONE MEMBER WANTS
TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION OR AS
WELL OKAY WITH.
PRIVILEGE THAT APPLIES TO A
CERTAIN ISSUE BUT IT HAS A
NEGATIVE IMPACT ON EVERYONE ELSE
IN THE BARGAINING UNIT.
WE ARE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR
DEALING WITH THE AFTER EFFECTS
OF THAT THAT'S A PRETTY UNIQUE.
SITUATION THAT ISN'T CONSIDERED
WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE OTHER
PRIVILEGES THAT HAVE BEEN
GRANTED BY TWENTY SIX THAT YOU
THINK UBER YOU AGREED I THINK
THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO TIGHTEN
THIS UP S THATWE RECOGNIZE THE
UNIQUE NATURE OF THIS COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
BUT ALSO PUT IN THE CONTEXT THAT
MAKES SENSE.
AS IT RELATES TO THE OTHER
PRIVILEGES THAT EXISTS SO WITH
THAT.
IF WE COULD THANK YOU ALL FOR
YOUR TIME THINK THIS WAS A HELP
A VERY HELPFUL DISCUSSION AND WE
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU
TO GET THAT.
CLARIFIED THANKS [inaudible]
FOR PUBLICLY.
IS ASSEMBLY MEMBER TING HERE
BECAUSE I KNOW HE'S GOT OTHER
THINGS THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT ON
HIS MIND.
MIKE MIKE MIKE AND YOU'RE DONE
AND YOU'RE ALSO FILE ITEM NUMBER
TWO SO IT IS YOUR TURN ANYWAY
GOOD AFTERNOON.
THANK YOU SO MUCH I'LL ITEM TO
COLLEAGUES.
THANK YOU MEASURE LAST YEAR WE
INTRODUCED AB SEVEN FORTY EIGHT
MY BODY CAMERA TRANSPARENCY BILL
WHICH WAS.
PASSED AND SIGNED INTO LAW BY
GOVERNOR BROWN UNFORTUNATELY DUE
TO THE SEVENTY TWO HOUR RULE
THERE WERE SEVEN WARS THAT WERE
OMITTED.
THAT LEGISLATION WHICH CLARIFIES.
WHEN BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE CAN BE
WITHHELD IN WHEN IT'S RELEASED?
THIS IS CLEAN UP LIKE THIS
LEGISLATION RESPECT FOR US RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH WE DO HAVE A
MOTION AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME
IF YOU BE BRIEF HAPPY TO HEAR
YOUR COMMENTS. TO ME WERE WITH A
CALIFORNIA NEWS PUBLISHERS
ASSOCIATION WE ARE DERIVED VOTE.
THANK YOU.
AND YOUR NUMBER SEVEN BACK OF
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
SUPPORT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT.
ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
SEEING NONE IS THERE ANY
DISCUSSION THIS IS SIMPLY AN
ATTEMPT.
TO PUT BACK INTO LOS SEVEN WORDS
THAT WERE INADVERTENTLY LEFT OUT
AND I DON'T THINK THEY'RE
INCONSISTENT IN ANYWAY OR CREATE
A PROBLEM -- AND WE HAVE A
MOTION ANY ANY COMMENT SING SING
AND HEARING NONE.
OF WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
THAT'S RIGHT THANK YOU VERY GOOD
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
JACKSON BY ACCIDENT I BORDERS.
ALLEN.
ALLEN ICON BUREAU [inaudible]
JONES.
MONNING.
MINING ICE STERN.
STERN AYE UMBERG.
WHITE HOUSE SKI.
ALRIGHT WE HAVE A FOUR TO ZERO
WILL PUT THE MATTER -- ON CALL
THANK YOU ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
OUR NEXT ITEM IS -- FILE ITEM
FOR IS ASSEMBLY MEMBER MEN
TRYING HERE.
IS IT MAIENSCHEIN.
MAINSHOW.
MY APOLOGIES.
FILE ITEM FOR GOOD AFTERNOON
THANK YOU CHAIR AT JACKSON MINE
IS -- MIGHT BE EVEN SIMPLER THAN
MR TANG'S -- AB THREE TWENTY
SEVEN MAKES A STEP.
MAKES THE SIMPLE CLARIFICATION
AND LAW BY ADDING A NEW SECTION
TO THE PROBATE CODE TO ELIMINATE
AMBIGUITY BECAUSE BY THE LENS
CASE.
THE CASE OF IN TWENTY FOURTEEN
THE CASE OF ONCE FIRST LENDS
HELD A SPOUSAL AT DEATH DONATED
TRANSFERS.
ARE SUBJECT TO THE OBLIGATION
IMPOSED NDER THE FAMILY CODE
THAT'S CREATING AN AUTOMATIC
PRESUMPTION OF UNDUE INFLUENCE
FOR SPOUSAL AT DEATH I TRANSFERS
THIS BILL ESTABLISHES THAT
FAMILY CODE SECTION.
SEVEN TWENTY ONE DOES NOT CREATE
A PRESUMPTION OF UNDUE INFLUENCE
WHEN ONE SPOUSE NAMES THE OTHER
SPOUSE AS A BENEFICIARY OF A
ROGUE WILL TRUST OR OTHER
INSTRUMENT.
MAKING A TRANSFER ON DEATH.
THANK YOU WITNESSES IN SPORTS.
VINCE WHERE A MERGER WITH THE
WEDDING GROUP ON BEHALF
CALIFORNIA LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
TRUSTS ESTATES EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE SPONSOR THE BILL THANK
MISTER MENTION FOR CARRYING IT.
HAPPENED ANSWERING QUESTIONS YOU
MIGHT HAVE.
VERY GOOD.
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
OTHER ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION [inaudible]
MOTION.
MOVE MOVING THE BILL BY SENATOR
JONES ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.
NO I THINK THIS IS -- IMP WE
DON'T NEED TO MAKE THE SYSTEM
ANY MORE COMPLICATED THAN IT IS
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS.
HAS WORKED CONSISTENTLY PRIOR TO
THE WINDS CASE AND WILL DO SO
ONCE WE CLARIFIES SAID THAT'S
CORRECT MANAGER.
ALL RIGHT WE HAVE A MOTION THE
MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE SENATE
FLOOR.
PLEASE SIR WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE THANK YOU IN REQUEST AND
I'VE.
JACKSON HI JACKSON I BORDERS.
OR JUST BY ALAN.
ALLEN I CABALLERO [inaudible]
JONES.
JONES I MONNING.
MONEY AYE STERN.
TURN I AM BURKE [inaudible]
I CASKEY.
ALL RIGHT THE BILL HAS OF SIX
VOTES WE WILL HOLD THE ROLL UP
AND THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THE LAST ITEM IS ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HOLDEN WHO WAS FIRST HERE BUT
YOU KNOW IT'S JUST THE WAY THE
THE DICE ROLL SOMETIMES BUT
THEY'RE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU THIS
IS FILE ITEM. SIX SIX NINE
EXCUSE ME IT'S FILE ITEM NINE AB.
SIX SIX NINE MY UNDERSTAND THERE
ARE NO AMENDMENTS AND NO
REPORTED OPPOSITION SO IF YOU'D
LIKE TO PROCEED GOOD AFTERNOON.
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS -- AB.
SIX SIXTY NINE AUTHORIZES THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO USE A TYPE
OF CELLUM A TOOL CALLED
INSURANCE OF VOLUNTARY
COMPLIANCE OR A. B. C. FOR SHORT.
MULTISTATE CASES INVOLVING
CALIFORNIA THE STATE'S.
OUR SISTER CITY STATES.
COMMONLY USE A. B. C.'S A TO
SETTLE WITH DEFENDANTS OFTEN AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION OR
ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS.
ABC'S ARE GENERALLY ENFORCEABLE
BY THE COURTS UNDER THOSE OTHER
STATES ABC STATUTES.
IN CALIFORNIA HOWEVER THERE IS
NO EXPRESS LEGAL AUTHORITY IN
CALIFORNIA LAW FOR THE AG TO
ENTER INTO AN ABC.
THAT IS ENFORCEABLE BY THE COURT
IF THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT COMPLY
WITH THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT.
WITH A LIMITED EXCEPTION OF
CHARITABLE TRUST CASES.
THIS BILL RIMINI THAT GAP AND
WOULD ALLOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CONSUMER PROTECTION AND OTHER
NON SECURITY RELATED CASES.
THAT ARE ENFORCEABLE THROUGH THE
COURT.
UNDER THIS BILL A. B. C.'S ARE
JUST AS STRONG AS STIPULATED
JUDGMENT AND CAN BE ENFORCED IN
THE SAME WAY.
SB SIX SIXTY NINE WILL HELP
STREAMLINE SETTLEMENTS AND
MULTISTATE CASES AND PREVENT
UNNECESSARY LITIGATION COSTS
THUS ENSURING MORE EFFICIENT USE
OF DOJ RESOURCES.
THE BILL SPONSORED BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.
AND HAS NO OPPOSITION FROM THE
BUSINESS COMMUNITY I
RESPECTFULLY ASK HER OUT.
THANK YOU WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS MARTIN RIGHT
AWESOME WHICH FROM ATTORNEY
GENERAL SERWIS OFFICE PRESENTING
HIM.
I JUST WANT TO THANK THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HOLDEN FOR
PARTNERING UP WITH US ON THIS
BILL DIVIDE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
WITH THIS IMPORTANT TOOL THE ABC.
WHICH WILL INCREASE EFFICIENCIES
WHILE ENHANCING ENFORCEMENT
ABILITIES SB SIX SIX NINE WOULD
PROVIDE GENERAL STATUTORY
AUTHORITY TO THE AG TO DOCUMENT
THE SETTLEMENT OF NON CHARITY
RELATED CASES THROUGH AN ABC.
BY BROADLY AUTHORIZING THE USE
IN CALIFORNIA THIS BILL GIVES
THE AG THE ABILITY AND THE TOOL
THAT CAN PARTICULARLY HELPFUL
AND FACILITATING SETTLEMENTS AND
MULTI STATE CASES WHERE OUR
SISTER STATES ALREADY HAVE THIS
AUTHORITY TO DO SO.
ABC'S CAN SAVE TIME AND
RESOURCES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE
BE CONSUMED IN NEGOTIATING A
STIPULATED JUDGMENT OR IN
LITIGATION IF SUCH NEGOTIATIONS
ARE UNSUCCESSFUL.
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR EITHER.
TWO OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
[inaudible]
ANY WITNESSES [inaudible]
IN OPPOSITION.
SEEING NONE ANY QUESTIONS FROM
THE DíAS.
MOTION BY SENATOR MONNING.
IN NO QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL THE MOTION IS.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO SENATOR
PROBES ASSEMBLY MEMBER HOLDEN
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK HER RIVAL
VERY GOOD.
ALL RIGHT PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
JACKSON HI JACKSON AYE PORGES.
GORGEOUS AYE ALLEN ALLEN ICARLY
EURO.
JONES.
JOHN I'M MONNING.
MONEY AYE STERN.
TURN AYE AMBER.
Y. CASKEY.
IS YOUR SIX TO ZERO WILL HOLD
ROLE OPEN FOR THE ABSENT MEMBERS
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER AND THAT
CONCLUDES OUR BUSINESS FOR TO
DAY I'D LIKE.
TO A WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF
BILLS ON COAL -- AND I THINK WE
IF WE COULD GET THE ABSENT
MEMBERS TO COME WILL CALL THE
ROLL ONE MORE TIME.
AND THEN WE WILL ADJOURN
.
THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
CALENDAR OKAY IS TWO ZERO PLEASE
CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS ALLEN.
ALLEN AYE STERN.
TURN AYE UMBERG CASKEY. ZERO
SEVEN ZERO LEAVE THAT WILL LEAVE
THE ROLE OPEN ON THAT
[inaudible]
FILE ITEM. TO WHICH IS A MOTION
TO PASS THE PUBLIC SAFETY THE
VOTE COUNT IS FOR TWO ZERO
PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
OR JUST CABALLERO.
JONES.
NUMBER WHITE HOUSE SKI.
RIGHT WILL LEAVE THAT ROLE OPEN.
NEXT IS FILE ITEM. FOR THE
MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE SENATE
FLOOR THESE CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS. ZERO NUMBER GRAY CASKEY.
AND ONE LAST.
ITEM WHICH IS FILE ITEM. NINE IS
IN.
YOU PASSED THE SENATE APPROACH
PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
ZERO UMBERG WAY CASKEY
[inaudible]
ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE AN
WE'RE GONNA OPEN THE
ROLES AND CLOSE TO ME AFTER ONE
CALL THROUGH SO WE'RE STARTING
NOW WITH THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS
UMBERG.
NUMBER AYE WHY KELSEY KELSEY ARE
EIGHT NINE TWO ZERO THAT.
THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS OUT --
NEXT IS FILE ITEM TO IT IS TO DO
PASSED TO PUBLIC SAFETY THE VOTE
COUNT IS FORD IS.
ZERO THESE CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS OR JUST COVER HERO. ZERO
I JONES.
NUMBER.
NUMBER I Y. KELSEY.
KELSEY I SEVEN TWO ZERO THE BILL
IS OUT NEXT IS FILE ITEM. FOR BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MAIENSCHEIN AB
THREE TWENTY SEVEN FOLK COUNTY
IS SIX TO ZERO PLEASE CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS. ZERO ZERO I AM
BURKE.
NUMBER THE IOWA CASKEY I KELSEY
I NINE TWO ZERO THAT BILL IS OUT.
NEXT ITEM IS FILE ITEM NINE TO
PASS TO THE SENATE FLOOR BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
EXCUSE ME TO PASS THE SENATE
APPROPRIATE SERVE FILE ITEM NINE
AB SIX SIX NINE BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HOLDEN.
THE VOTE COUNT IS. SIXTY ZERO
PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
ZERO ZERO I AM BURKE NUMBERED I
Y. KELSEY.
KELSEY I NINE TWO ZERO THAT
MEASURES OUT AND WE ARE RICHARD