MORE. SO UH, THERE'S MEMBERS WHO
WON'T BE HERE FOR A WHILE, AND I
REALIZED THAT WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO START AS A SUBCOMMITTEE
VERSUS THE COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE BECAUSE WE WON'T HAVE
QUORUM YET, BUT THAT'S JUST
BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THIS
TIME OF THE YEAR AND THE
DIFFERENT OTHER COMMITTEES THAT
ARE GOING ON, BUT WE I WILL
GAVEL DOWN NOW IN ABOUT 30
SECONDS.
BUT WHEN YOU LEAVE, I'LL JUST
ADJOURN THE MEETING, OKAY? THE
COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND FISCAL
REVIEW WILL COME TO ORDER. UM
GOOD MORNING, THE SENATE
CONTINUES TO WELCOME THE PUBLIC
IN PERSON AND VIA OUR
TELECONFERENCE SERVICE FOR
INDIVIDUALS WHO WANT TO
PARTICIPATE BY THE
TELECONFERENCE SERVICE. OUR
NUMBER IS 8772. THE ACCESS CODE
IS 736 TO 832. AND AS WE ALWAYS
DO ALL MAINTAIN DECORUM, AS IS
CUSTOMARY, AND ANYONE WHO IS
DISRUPTIVE, MAYBE REMOVED FROM
EITHER THE REMOTE MEETING
SERVICE OR HAVE THEIR
CONNECTIONS MUTED. WE'RE HOLDING
OUR COMMITTEE HERE AT THE STREET
BUILDING ROOM, 1200. AND OF
COURSE, ANY OF THE MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE WHO ARE NOT IN
ANOTHER COMMITTEE RIGHT NOW, I
WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU DID COME
DOWN TO ROOM 1200 SO WE COULD
ESTABLISH QUORUM. BUT IN THE
MEANTIME, WE WILL BEGIN AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE, UM, SO PUBLIC
COMMENT WILL BE HEARD. AFTER ALL
, THE DISCUSSION ITEMS HAVE
BEGUN. AND LET ME JUST SAY WHAT
IT IS THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US
TODAY BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO
MY MOISTURE PACKAGE OF BILLS. WE
HERE TODAY REPRESENT CHANGES TO
THE 23 24 BUDGET AND
ACCOMPANYING TRAILER BILLS AND
AMONGST THE ONES WE'RE HAVING
BEFORE US TODAY INCLUDE A B 104
, WHICH AMENDS THE BUDGET BILL,
THE MAIN PRIMARY BUDGET BILL,
AND THEN AND TRAILER BILLS.
AFTER HEARING ALL THE BILLS, AS
I MENTIONED BEFORE, WILL HAVE
PUBLIC COMMENT PRIOR TO THE
COMMITTEE VOTING. THE BILLS.
INCLUDE TECHNICAL CHANGES, A FEW
ISSUES THAT WERE NOT COMPLETED
IN JUNE AND RATIFICATION OF
VARIOUS BARGAINING UNIT MOU USE.
AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT TO
MY VICE. SURE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MADAM CHAIR AND I GUESS TO
CONTINUE ON COMMENTS I'VE MADE
FROM THE FLOOR. I CAN HARDLY
WAIT TO FIND OUT WHICH BILLS
THAT WE WILL HAVE HERE THAT WILL
HAVE ACTUAL BUDGET IMPACTS. AND
ALSO PERHAPS FURTHER PROGRESS ON
ON CARRYING THE DEFICIT THAT WE
HAVE, AND WILL PROBABLY CONTINUE
TO EXPERIENCE NEXT YEAR AS
REVENUES DETERIORATE A BIT. SO
WITH THAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND I THINK ALL OF US. WE HOPE
THAT REVENUES DO NOT DETERIORATE
AND GIVEN THAT THE REVENUE
STATUS SIDE COMMENTS THAT THE
REVENUES THAT CAME INTO DATE OR
HIGHER THAN WHAT HAD BEEN
PROJECTED, AT LEAST FOR THE
MOMENT, WE'RE IN OKAY SPOT, BUT
OF COURSE, AS WE KNOW THAT COULD
ALWAYS CHANGE. SO UM, THE
PRESENTATIONS WILL BE FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. AND WE
HAVE ERIKA LEE HERE FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. SO MISS
LEE WILL ALLOW YOU TO BEGIN AND
CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A BRIEF
DESCRIPTION OF EACH OF THE BILLS
THAT ARE BEFORE US? AND AFTER
SHE PRESENTS ALL THE BILLS THAT
ARE BEFORE US, THAT'S WHEN WE'LL
OPEN UP FOR DISCUSSION VERSUS
DOING IT AFTER INDIVIDUALLY
AFTER EACH ONE. OKAY SO IF YOU
ANY ANY OF THE THINGS SHE'S
PRESENTING, IF YOU HAVE A
QUESTION THAT OCCURS TO YOU
DURING THE PRESENTATION, MAKE A
NOTE OF IT. SO WHEN I CALL ON
YOU, YOU CAN BRING IT UP, OKAY?
GREAT GO AHEAD, MISS LEE. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR,
VICE CHAIR NILO, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE ERIKA LEE WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE HERE TO
PRESENT ON A PACKAGE OF BILLS
FOR THE 23 24 BUDGET. THE FIRST
IS A BSB ONE OF FOUR, WHICH IS A
BUDGET BILL JR. WHICH INCLUDES
AMENDMENTS TO THE 23 24 AND 22
23 BUDGET ACTS. THIS BILL
PROVIDES AMENDMENTS TO K 12 AND
HIGHER EDUCATION INVESTMENTS
THAT SUPPORT SCHOOL STUDENTS AND
FAMILIES. SPECIFICALLY IT SHIFTS
ROUGHLY 17 MILLION FROM THE
MUNITY COLLEGE BUDGET TO THE
UNIVERSITY OF COLLEGE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA BUDGET TO ENABLE
THE èC TO SUPPORT THE FULL COST
OF THREE INTER SEGMENT OF INTER
SEGMENTAL. AFFORDABLE STUDENT
HOUSING PROJECTS THROUGH THE
ISSUANCE OF èC REVENUE BONDS.
APPROPRIATE 163,000,001 TIME
PROPOSITION 98 GENERAL FUND TO
THE INCLUSIVE EARLY EDUCATION
EXPANSION PROGRAM FOR INCREASING
ACCESS TO INCLUSIVE EARLY
LEARNING AND CARE PROGRAMS FOR
CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES AND
PROVIDES AN EXTENDED ENCUMBRANCE
AVAILABILITY PERIOD FOR THESE
FUNDS. FOR HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES. IT MAKES TECHNICAL
ADJUSTMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
WITH CHILDCARE. PROUD PROVIDERS
UNITED OR C CPU AND THE PARODY
PACKAGE FOR NON REPRESENTED
CHILDCARE PROVIDERS. IT SHIFTS
FUNDING FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH
NURSE CERTIFICATION FEE WAIVERS
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CARE, ACCESS AND INFORMATION TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER
AFFAIRS. EXCUSE ME JUST ONE
POINT IF YOU COULD SPEAK A
LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE.
I DON'T KNOW IF OTHERS ARE
HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME, BUT I
AM HAVING A DIFFICULT BETTER.
OKAY BETTER. WOULD YOU LIKE ME
TO BEGIN FUN BEGINNING OR JUST
CONTINUE? OKAY MUCH BETTER. OK
UM IT INCREASES BY 40,000,001
TIME FEDERAL TRUST FUND
AUTHORITY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO REFLECT
FEDERAL GRANT AWARDS AND
EXTENSIONS. IN RESOURCES. IT
INCLUDES 3.7 MILLION GENERAL
FUND ONE TIME TO ENABLE THE
CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION
BOARD TO SUPPORT COSTS FOR 19
EXISTING STAFF WHO PROVIDE
OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE
STATE FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL
SYSTEM. IT INCLUDES AN
ADDITIONAL 12.2 MILLION GENERAL
FUND FOR THE PINE MOUNTAIN
FOREST FIRE STATION, WHICH IS
NEARING COMPLETION OF THE
CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE
PROJECT. AND HAS BEEN DEEMED
INELIGIBLE FOR LEASE REVENUE
BOND FINANCING FOR BROADBAND. IT
INCREASES THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES
AUTHORITY TO EXPAND A $73
MILLION FEDERAL GRANT FROM THE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS
AND TECHNOLOGY SERVICE,
SERVICING FOR THE NATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION TO
SUPPORT WORK TOWARDS THE
CALIFORNIA MIDDLE MILE BROADBAND
INITIATIVE. BEFORE CORRECTIONS
THAT RE APPROPRIATES THE
REMAINING BALANCE FROM THE
NONPROFIT PERFORMING ARTS GRANT
PROGRAM AND THE CALIFORNIA
VENUES GRANT PROGRAM TO
IMPLEMENT THE PERFORMING ARTS
EQUITABLE PAYROLL FUND TO
PROVIDE GRANTS TO SMALL
NONPROFIT PERFORMING ARTS
ORGANIZATIONS TO HIRE AND RETAIN
EMPLOYEES. IT MENDS PROVISIONAL
LANGUAGE TO EXPAND ELIGIBLE
GRANT RECIPIENTS TO INCLUDE
OTHER ENTITIES THAT HAVE
EXPERTISE IN PROVIDING LEGAL
TRAINING TO LEGAL AID PROVIDERS
OR PUBLIC DEFENDERS. AND THIS
BILL MAKES OTHER TECHNICAL AND
CLARIFYING CHANGES. MOVING ON TO
THE NEXT BILL. A B S B 1 35 THE
SAFETY TRAILER BILL. THIS BILL
EXTENDS THE AUTHORITY TO USE
REMOTE HEARINGS AND SPECIFIED
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BY ONE
ADDITIONAL YEAR. IT AUTHORIZES
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO
ADJUST THE AMMUNITION
AUTHORIZATION FEE VIA THE
REGULATORY PROCESS. IT PROVIDES
DOJ THE NECESSARY AUTHORITY TO
CONFORM WITH FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR
SHARING SUBSEQUENT SUMMARY
CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION.
AND MOVING ON TO THE NEXT BILL.
A BSB 1 37, THE HEALTH TRAILER
BILL. THIS BILL EXTENDS A
MORATORIUM ON THE NEW DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUED HOSPICE
LICENSES BY ONE YEAR. IT
REQUIRES THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES AUTHORITY DIRECTOR AND
CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER
APPOINTMENTS TO BE SUBJECT TO
CONFIRMATION BY THE STATE SENATE
. IT CLARIFIES THAT BOTH
PRESCRIPTION AND OVER THE
COUNTER DRUG PRODUCTS MAY BE
DEVELOPED OR MANUFACTURED
THROUGH CALERA X. IT AUTHORIZES
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE
SERVICES TO RAISE LICENSING AND
CERTIFICATION FEES ASSESSED UPON
RESIDENTIAL AND OUTPATIENT
SUBSTANCE USED TO SORT OF
PROGRAMS BY UP TO 5% ANNUALLY
BEGINNING IN 27 28 AND REQUIRES
THE DEPARTMENT TO DEVELOP A FEW
WAIVER PROCESS FOR FACILITIES
EXPERIENCING FINANCIAL HARDSHIP
. BUT JULY 1 2024. AND THIS BILL
INCREASES FEDERAL TRUST FUND
EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY BY 56
MILLION TO REFLECT AN EXTENSION
OF A PREVIOUSLY AWARDED
SUBSTANCE USED TO SORT OF
PREVENTION AND TREATMENT BLOCK
GRANT TO PROVIDE SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE
INDIVIDUALS. THE NEXT BILL IS A
BSB 1 38 HUMAN SERVICES. THIS
BILL PROMOTES EQUITY WITHIN THE
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICE SYSTEM BY
ESTABLISHING MORE UNIFORM
PROCEDURES AT REGIONAL CENTERS
AND EXAMINING ACCESS TO COME AND
SUPPORTS AND GENERIC SERVICES
ACROSS THE STATES. IT
ESTABLISHES A COMPLEX NEEDS
RESIDENTIAL ACUTE CRISIS PROGRAM
TO SERVE INDIVIDUALS WITH CO
OCCURRING INTELLECTUAL AND
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES AND
MENTAL HEALTH HEALTH DIAGNOSES.
EVERY APPROPRIATE 27.4 MILLION
IN ONE TIME. FEDERAL AMERICAN
RESCUE PLAN ACTOR ARPAIO FUNDING
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES EARLY
INTERVENTION SERVICES PROGRAM,
ALSO KNOWN AS EARLY START.
APPROPRIATION EXTENDS UNTIL
MARCH, 31ST OF 2025 AND THE
LIQUIDATION PERIOD FOR FUNDS
ENCUMBERED BY SEPTEMBER, 28TH.
2023 CODIFIES THE DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATIONS BUSINESS
ENTERPRISES PROGRAM FOR THE
BLIND WORKERS COMPENSATION SELF
INSURANCE PROGRAM, AND THIS BILL
MAKES OTHER TECHNICAL AND
CLARIFYING CHANGES. MOVING ON TO
A BSB 1 40 CHILDCARE. THIS BILL
IMPLEMENTS EARLY CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION RELATED PROPOSALS TO
RATIFY THE JUNE 30 2023
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE AND
CHILDCARE PROVIDERS UNITED SEE
CPU AND TO PROVIDE PARODY FOR
NON REPRESENTED SUBSIDIZED
CHILDCARE AND PRESCHOOL
PROVIDERS. THE CCP YOU AGREEMENT
AND PROPOSED PARITY PACKAGE FOR
NON REPRESENTED PROVIDERS
REFLECTS THE COST OF CARE PLUS
RATES CHANGED A PART TIME AND
FULL TIME DEFINITIONS AND
EXTENDS CHILDCARE AND PRESCHOOL
REIMBURSEMENT FLEXIBILITIES. IT
ALSO INCLUDES 70 MILLION FOR
ALTERNATE ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT
AGENCIES TO CONDUCT CCP RELATED
WORKLOAD. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT
BILL. A BSB 1 41, THE T K
THROUGH 12 EDUCATION AND TRAILER
BILL. THIS BILL PROVIDES A
WAIVER FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR TO
TEACHER RATIO REQUIREMENT FOR
PARADISE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
FOR THE 21 22 FISCAL YEAR
THROUGH THE 23 24 FISCAL YEAR.
IT AUTHORIZES THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO
RECOVER OVER ALLOCATED LEARNING
RECOVERY. EMERGENCY BLOCK GRANT
FUNDS FROM LOCAL EDUCATIONAL
AGENCIES VIA PRINCIPAL
APPORTIONMENT OFFSET REALLOCATES
FUNDS BASED ON THE REVISED
APPROPRIATION AMOUNT AND REPORTS
ANY UNCOLLECTABLE AMOUNTS TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND THE
LEGISLATURE. BY JANUARY 31ST
2024. EXEMPT LOCAL EDUCATIONAL
AGENCIES OPERATING AND EXPANDED
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM
FROM PENALTIES WHEN THEY ARE
CLOSED DUE TO SPECIFIED
EMERGENCY CONDITIONS. IT
AUTHORIZES UNTIL JULY 1 OF 2024
ANY HOLDER OF A SUBSTITUTE
TEACHING CREDENTIAL OR PERMIT TO
TEACH FOR UP TO 60 CUMULATIVE
DAYS FOR ANYONE ASSIGNMENT WITH
THAT CREDENTIAL OR PERMIT. THIS
FLEXIBILITY WAS ORIGINALLY
GRANTED IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID
19 PANDEMIC. AND SUNSET ON JULY
1 OF THIS YEAR. THE K 12 OMNIBUS
TRAILER BILL ALSO MAKES SEVERAL
CLARIFYING CHANGES AND CORRECT
STATUTORY REFERENCES. MOVING ON
TO THE NEXT BILL. A BSB 1 42,
THE HIGHER EDUCATION OMNIBUS
TRAILER BILL. THIS BILL SHIFTS
THE AUTHORIZATION AND SUPPORT
FOR THREE INTER SEGMENTAL
PROJECTS FROM THE CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY COLLEGE BUDGET TO THE
èC BUDGET, IT ESTABLISHES
INTENT TO SEEK A STATEWIDE LEASE
REVENUE, BOND OR OTHER FISCAL
APPROACH TO SUPPORT APPROVED
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
PROJECTS NO LATER THAN THE
ENACTMENT OF THE 24 25 BUDGET.
IT ALSO AUTHORIZES THE COMMUNITY
COLLEGES TO RETAIN ANY CASH
PROVIDED TO SUPPORT THEIR
PROJECTS UNTIL THE LADDER OF
EITHER JUNE 29TH 2024 OR THE
PASSAGE OF THE 24 25 BUDGET. IT
EXPANDS INSTITUTIONAL
ELIGIBILITY FOR THE GOLDEN STATE
TEACHER GRANT PROGRAM PROGRAM
AND CAPSULE PERCENTAGE OF
APPROPRIATED FUNDS THAT CAN
SUPPORT AWARDS FOR CALIFORNIA
RESIDENTS THAT WOULD BE CAPABLE
OF RECEIVING A $10,000 AWARD,
AND FINALLY, IT REQUIRES A
SCHOLARSHIP INVESTMENT BOARD TO
PARTNER WITH THE L. A UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF
EDUCATION TO EXPLORE WAYS TO
INCREASE PARTICIPATION IN THE
CALKINS PROGRAM. THROUGH
ADDITIONAL DATA SHARING. MOVING
ON TO THE NEXT BILL. A BSB 1 43
, THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT TRAILER
BILL. THIS BILL EXTENDS THE
CURRENT ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY
MINIMUM WAGE FOR GOAT HERDERS
FROM JANUARY. 1 2024 TO JULY 1
2026. IT REQUIRES THE DEPARTMENT
OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN
CONSULTATION WITH THE EMPLOYMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO
CONSULT WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND
SUBMIT A REPORT TO THE
LEGISLATURE BY JANUARY. 1 OF
2026. AND THE CONDITIONS OF
SHEEP HERDERS AND GOAT HERDERS
TO INFORM FUTURE DISCUSSIONS. IT
ALSO INCLUDES AN APPROPRIATION
OF $1 MILLION SPECIAL FUNDS FOR
BOTH DEPARTMENTS TO COMPLETE
THIS REPORT. BILL ALSO REQUIRES
THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING FINANCE
AGENCY TO SUBMIT A REPORT TO THE
LEGISLATURE BY MARCH 1 2024 AND
VARIOUS OPTIONS TO FUND THE
CALIFORNIA DREAM FOR ALL
PROGRAMS. AND MAKES CHANGES TO
THE EXISTING PROGRAM TO TARGET
ASSISTANCE TO FIRST GENERATION
HOMEBUYERS AND LOWER INCOME
INDIVIDUALS. IT EXPANDS THE
ELIGIBLE RECIPIENTS OF RESOURCES
PROVIDED BY THE WOMEN IN
CONSTRUCTION PRIORITY UNIT
WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS TO INCLUDE
ALL PRE APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS.
IT CONFORMS CALIFORNIA LAW TO
FEDERAL LAW REGARDING REGARDING
PORTABILITY OF PROFESSIONAL
LICENSES FOR SERVICE MEMBERS AND
SPOUSES THAT WENT INTO EFFECT
JANUARY 1 OF 23. IT EXTENDS THE
EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY POST
GRADUATE PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS
TRAINING LICENSE THAT EXPIRES
BETWEEN JUNE 1, 2023 AND
DECEMBER 31ST 2023 TO MARCH 31ST
2024 AND THE BILL EXTENDS THE
GOVERNOR'S COVID 19 EXECUTIVE
ORDER, WHICH WAVED VARIOUS
REQUIREMENTS OF EXISTING LAW
RELATED TO THE BAGLEY KEENE AND
BROWNE X AND THE UTILIZATION OF
TELECONFERENCING. THE WAIVER
ENDED AT THE END OF THE LAST
FISCAL YEAR. THIS BILL EXTENDS
IT TO DECEMBER 31ST OF THIS
YEAR. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT BILL
. A BSB 1 48. THIS IS THE
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR
VARIOUS BARGAINING UNITS. THIS
BILL RATIFIES AND FUNDS
MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATION AND
BARGAINING IN ITS 12, THE CRAFT
AND MAINTENANCE ENGINEERS, 19,
THE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
PROFESSIONALS AND NINE
BARGAINING UNITS REPRESENTED BY
THE SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION. THIS BILL
ALSO FUNDS PAYMENTS AND PAY
DIFFERENTIALS FOR BARGAINING
UNITS, 13 AND 19, THE STATIONARY
ENGINEER, STATIONARY ENGINEERS
AND HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
PROFESSIONALS, AS WELL AS
STATUTORILY REQUIRED GENERAL
SALARY INCREASES FOR BARGAINING
UNIT FIVE OR HIGHWAY PATROL AND
JUDGES. THE 1.2 BILLION
APPROPRIATION. INCLUDED IN THIS
BILL IS 596.2 MILLION GENERAL
FUND, UM, PROVIDES 9 896 MILLION
FOR RANK AND FILE EMPLOYEES AND
262 MILLION FOR EXCLUDED
EMPLOYEES. THE NEXT BILL A BSB 1
51 IS THE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING WITH BARGAINING
UNIT SIX. THIS BILL CAN RATIFIES
AND FUNDS THE MOU BETWEEN THE
ADMINISTRATION AND BARGAINING
BARGAINING UNIT SIX. THE
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE
OFFICERS HIS ASSOCIATION. THE
MOU TERM IS TWO YEARS 29, THE
296 MILLION GENERAL FUND AND
APPROPRIATION. INCLUDED IN THESE
BILLS PROVIDES 230.8 MILLION
GENERAL FUND FOR RANK AND FILE
EMPLOYEES AND 66.1 MILLION
GENERAL FUND FOR EXCLUDED
EMPLOYEES. AND MOVING ON TO THE
LAST BILL. A BSB 1 52 CRIMINAL
BACKGROUND CHECKS. TRAILER BILL
. THIS BILL CLARIFIES EXISTING
LAW FOR SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS TO
OBTAIN FEDERAL CRIMINAL HISTORY
, BACKGROUND CHECK INFORMATION
FOR STATE EMPLOYEES AND
APPLICANTS FOR LICENSURE TO
CONTINUE REGULAR OPERATIONS AND
UPHOLD ITS REGULATORY DUTIES.
THESE CHANGES WILL BRING THE
IMPACTED STATE AGENCIES INTO
COMPLIANCE WITH US FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
REQUIREMENTS AND ALLOW THEM TO
CONTINUE OBTAINING THE REQUIRED
BACKGROUND CHECKS. AND WITH THAT
THAT IS THE PRESENTATION OF THE
BUDGET PACKAGES THE BILL THE
BUDGET PACKAGE AND BUILDS BEFORE
YOU THANK YOU. YEAH THANK YOU
VERY MUCH BEFORE WE GO ANY
FURTHER. I THINK WE'LL BE ABLE
TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM. SO LET'S
CALL THE ROLL. SENATOR SKINNER,
NILO BOEDKER. DOLLY FOR ALSO
EGGMAN GROVE LAIRD. ACQUIRE
MENTAL BAR MEN, NEWMAN OR
TROUBLE HERE, PADILLA ROTH,
SEYARTO SMALLWOOD CUEVAS. WE
HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM AND
WE CAN ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS, BUT
PERHAPS THE L. A. OH, COULD
PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION WE WITH
REGARD TO THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS THERE WAS
NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR THE LAO TO
PROVIDE THEIR FINANCIAL REVIEW.
BUT WE DO HAVE A DRAFT AS I
UNDERSTAND IT. OF THAT TODAY,
AND PERHAPS THEY MIGHT HAVE
COMMENTS ON OTHER PORTIONS OF
THE PROPOSAL. SO. SURE GOOD
MORNING CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS CAROLYN SHOE WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE. WE
RECEIVED THE TENTATIVE
AGREEMENTS FOR LOCAL 1000 AND
UNITS SIX OVER THE WEEKEND. AND
AS THE VICE CHAIR REFERENCE, WE
PUT TOGETHER AN INITIAL
ASSESSMENT FOR THE COMMITTEE'S
REVIEW. TO BETTER UNDERSTAND
THAT WAS TENTATIVE AGREEMENTS
AND THERE IMPLICATIONS. WE
HIGHLIGHT A FEW ISSUES FOR THE
COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER. AS PART
OF THE ANALYSIS, WE STILL ARE
GOING TO BE CONDUCTING OUR
TYPICAL REVIEW, AS REQUIRED BY
STATUTE STATUTE GIVES US A
MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS TO DO THAT
ANALYSIS, SO WE'RE IN THE MIDST
OF CONDUCTING THAT BEFORE THE
HOUSES VOTE ON THE FLOOR WITH
REGARD TO THESE AGREEMENTS IN
TERMS OF SOME HIGH LEVEL
COMMENTS, I CAN OFFER A COUPLE
OF THEM. MY COLLEAGUE, MR
SCHROEDER CAN ALSO ADD ON THE
FIRST IS JUST A POINT ABOUT
TIMING. THIS THIS IS AN ISSUE
THAT CONSISTENTLY OCCURS WITH
REGARD TO THE TENTATIVE
AGREEMENTS IN WHICH THE
LEGISLATURE RECEIVES THE
TENTATIVE AGREEMENTS FROM THE
ADMINISTRATION, REALLY, WITH
VERY LITTLE TIME TO ANALYZE THEM
, UNDERSTAND THEIR POTENTIAL
IMPACTS AND CONSIDER WHETHER OR
NOT THE LEGISLATURE WISHES TO
RATIFY THEM. IN THIS CASE, YOU
KNOW, YOU KNOW WE RECEIVED THEM
THE AGREEMENTS SATURDAY
AFTERNOON. WHICH WAS ABOUT A
WEEK AFTER OUR UNDERSTAND WE
UNDERSTAND THE ADMINISTRATION
REACHED THOSE TENTATIVE
AGREEMENT SO AGAIN JUST REALLY
CONSTRAINED TIME PERIOD FOR THE
LEGISLATURE TO UNDERSTAND THESE
AGREEMENTS, AND THEIR
ACCUMULATIVE EFFECT IS TO IS TO
INCREASE STATE COSTS BY ABOUT $2
BILLION. SO IN THE CONTEXT OF
THE BUDGET, THAT'S A VERY LARGE
BUDGET CHANGE PROPOSAL,
ESSENTIALLY THAT THE LEGISLATURE
HAS GIVEN AND THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE HAS JUST GIVEN A FEW
MINUTES. EXCUSE IMMUNITY A FEW
DAYS TO REVIEW AND UNDERSTAND
BUT I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MY
COLLEAGUE, MR SCHROEDER, FOR
MAYBE SOME MORE SPECIFIC
COMMENTS ABOUT THE COMPENSATION
STUDIES AND OTHER ISSUES. GOOD
MORNING. NICK SCHROEDER. THE
SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE RAISE
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE
COMPENSATION STUDIES. UM
SPECIFICALLY, IT'S RELATED TO
KIND OF TWO POINTS. ONE IS THAT
THE AGREEMENTS PROVIDE A LOT OF
SPECIAL SALARY ADJUSTMENTS. MORE
THAN IS TYPICAL FOR M O. U. S.
AND SOME OF THE CLASSIFICATIONS
WOULD RECEIVE THE SPECIAL SALARY
ADJUSTMENTS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN
THE COMPENSATION STUDIES OR WERE
PART OF OCCUPATIONS THAT WERE
FOUND TO BE COMPENSATED ABOVE
MARKET. AND SO FOR THOSE
CLASSIFICATIONS, WE THINK THAT
THERE OUGHT TO BE JUSTIFICATION
FOR THE PAY INCREASES. BUT THE
ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT GIVE ANY
JUSTIFICATION OTHER THAN IT IS
THE PRODUCT OF NEGOTIATIONS AT
THE BARGAINING TABLE. THE SECOND
POINT ABOUT COMPENSATION STUDIES
IS RELATED SPECIFICALLY TO UNIT
SIX. THEY USED COLLEGE ARE USED
A METHODOLOGY. THOSE DEVELOPED
AT THE BARGAINING TABLE
NEGOTIATED BETWEEN CCPOA AND THE
STATE TO DEVELOP ITS
COMPENSATION STUDY. AND AS WE
INDICATED OUR ANALYSIS OF THE
COMPOSITION, STUDIES
METHODOLOGIES QUITE FLAWED. IT
RELIES ON COUNTY GOVERNMENTS AS
THE COMPARATIVE LAWYERS WHO ARE
NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF WHERE
UNITS SIX MEMBERS ACTUALLY WORK
. IN FACT, TWO OF THE SIX
COUNTIES INCLUDED IN THE
COMPENSATION STUDY. I HAVE NO
UNIT SIX MEMBERS WHO ACTUALLY
WORK THERE. IN ADDITION, THE SIX
COUNTIES THAT WERE INCLUDED ARE
AMONG THE HIGHEST COST OF LIVING
COUNTIES OF THE STATE WITH HIGH
MEDIAN HOUSING PRICES, WHEREAS
WHERE MORE THAN A MAJORITY OF
UNISEX MEMBERS ACTUALLY WORK OUR
RURAL COUNTIES WITH LOWER COSTS
OF LIVING, SO WE DON'T FEEL THAT
THE UNIT SIX COMPENSATION
STUDIES OF REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE
OF EMPLOYERS TO IT THAT WE CAN
USE AS A COMPARISON. AND ALSO
THE ELEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THEY'RE INCLUDED IN THE
COMPENSATION STUDY ARE NOT
REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT UM OUR
LARGE ELEMENTS OF THE UNISEX
CONVERSATION. IN PARTICULAR, IT
OMITS OVER TIME, WHICH IS A VERY
LARGE COMPONENT OF UNITS. SIX
COMPENSATION. UM AND THEN ALSO
WE HAVE SOME RACISM ISSUES JUST
WITH THE HOW THEY QUANTIFY
SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF
CONVERSATION LIKE PENSIONS AND
OTHER RETIREMENT BENEFITS THAT
WE THINK WE'RE NOT DONE
CORRECTLY. SO IN TOTAL, WE THINK
THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD NOT
RELY ON THE UNISEX COMPENSATION
STUDY TO ASSESS WHETHER CURRENT
COMPENSATION LEVELS FOR UNISEX
ARE APPROPRIATE OR NOT, UM YEAH.
THEY JUST PRESENTED THEIR
OPINION ON THIS, AND I WAS
HOPING THEY MIGHT HAVE.
SO I WILL CONTINUE TO ALLOW
SENATOR NEAL OH, TO HAVE THE
FLOOR FOR THE QUESTIONS AND I
WILL START EIGHTH LIST GIVEN,
BUT LET ME APOLOGIZE. I WAS NOT
HERE STUCK IN THE ELEVATOR FOR A
LITTLE BIT, UNFORTUNATELY, BUT
THAT WAS OKAY. GOOD. FINALLY
MOVED. UM THAT WAS A KIND OF
WEIRD EXPERIENCE. BUT WHATEVER.
UM BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
YOU HAVE NOW. PRESENTED ALL THAT
YOU NEED TO PRESENT ON ALL OF
THE THINGS BEFORE US. YES MADAM
CHAIR. I HAVE A GREAT SO I WILL
ALLOW SENATOR NEAL, CAN YOU AND
I WILL TAKE A LOOK PUTTING
TOGETHER A LIST. YES, I AM NOW.
OKAY? GO AHEAD. UM PERHAPS THE
LAO MAY HAVE COMMENTS ON OTHER
BILLS, TOO, BUT WITH REGARD TO A
FEW QUESTIONS THAT I HAD UM,
SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE
SIGNIFICANT INCREASE. Tð FEES
CHARGED TO PROVIDERS BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE
SERVICES. IF I UNDERSTAND
CORRECTLY, THIS, UH THE ORIGINAL
REQUIREMENTS CAME OUT OF A 2014
LEGISLATION. AND SINCE THAT
THERE HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANT
INCREASES IN REQUIREMENTS THAT.
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE
SERVICES IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
OVERSEEING PROVIDERS AND SINCE
THEN, NO, THEY HAVE HAD
SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN STAFFING
AND RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE OF IT
, BUT NO INCREASE IN FEES. AND
IF I UNDERSTAND ONE TIME THE
GENERAL FUND BACKFILLED, BUT MY
QUESTION HAS TO DO GOING BACK TO
THE BEGINNING WITH ALL OF THE
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND IT
SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASING FEES
AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT,
ALLOWING THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO
UNILATERALLY WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE
APPROVAL, INCREASE THE FEES BY
5% EACH YEAR, WHICH I FIND
TROUBLING IN AND OF ITSELF. HAS
THERE BEEN ANY THOUGHT TO GO
BACK AND REVISIT THE INCREASE
RESPONSIBILITIES TO SEE IF
THEY'RE REALLY NECESSARY? AND
THEREFORE PERHAPS NOT IMPOSE THE
SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN FEES ON
PROVIDERS. SINATRA TO WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SO IN
TERMS OF THE COSTS OF PROGRAM
COSTS TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM.
THE PROGRAM ITSELF IS REQUIRED
TO BE FULLY FUNDED BY FEES
ASSESSED UPON RESIDENTIAL AND
OUT PATIENTS PROVIDERS, AND FOR
SEVERAL YEARS, THE DEPARTMENT
HAS NOT. RECEIVED ENOUGH REVENUE
TO SUPPORT THESE PROGRAMMATIC
COSTS IN ORDER TO MEET THE
PROGRAM COSTS NEEDS. UM THERE
WAS A REQUEST AS PART OF THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET TO INCREASE
FEES, AND THAT IS THE THIS IS
THE PROPOSAL WHERE IT WAS
LANDED, SO THOSE 5% INCREASES
WILL SUFFICE TO COVER THE COST
OF DOING BUSINESS INCREASES
EVERY YEAR COSTS FOR SALARIES
AND WAGES AS THOSE INCREASE OVER
TIME. SO THIS WILL BASICALLY
ALLOW THIS PROGRAM TO, UH, PEACE
SUPPORTED WITHOUT GOING INTO ANY
DEFICIT. UM PERHAPS I DIDN'T
EXPLAIN MYSELF WELL ENOUGH. I
UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THE REASON
FOR THIS IS BECAUSE OF
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT
HAVE BEEN ADDED SINCE INITIAL
ENACTMENT IN 2014. CREATING AN
NEED FOR INCREASED PERSONNEL IN
THE DEPARTMENT TO OVERSEE THE
PROVIDERS, AND, UH, HAS HAS
THERE BEEN ANY THOUGHT TO GO
BACK AND REVISIT THE ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS. I THINK IT'S 14
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS SINCE
THE INITIAL LEGISLATION IN 2014
SO AS TO REDUCE THE BURDEN ON
THE DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE
REDUCE THE NEED TO INCREASE
FEES. OKAY? THERE IS EXISTING
STATUTE THAT I THINK
INCORPORATES WHAT YOU'RE
SUGGESTING MR VICE CHAIR, AND I
THINK THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS
ASSESSING THESE FEES AGAIN. IT
IS UP TO 5% AND IT CREATES A
FLEXIBILITY SO ONE IT TAKES INTO
ACCOUNT, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY DO
OVER COLLECT ON FEES DO YOU NEED
TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO THEIR
INCREASE INTO IT IS NOT A FLAT
5% EVERY YEAR. IT IS AN UP TO
GIVE THE DEPARTMENT THAT SPACE
TO REALLY ASSESS WHAT ARE THE
COSTS OF THE RUNNING THE PROGRAM
TO YOUR POINT, SIR, AND THEN
ALSO TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ARE
THERE AREAS WHERE COSTS MIGHT BE
LESS THAN THE 5% FEE INCREASED
NEEDED, SO IT'S REALLY JUST THE
FLEXIBILITY TO INCREASE SHOULD
PROGRAMMATIC NEED, UM REQUIRE AS
SUCH, BUT IF THERE ARE YEARS IN
WHICH THEY DON'T HAVE THAT
INCREASED NEED BECAUSE THEY HAVE
DONE AN ASSESSMENT OR COSTS ARE
NOT INCREASING UP TO 5% IT DOES
INCLUDE THAT FLEXIBILITY, SO IT
IS REALLY A CEILING HERE, WITH
ANYTHING ABOVE THAT WOULD
REQUIRE LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL
DEFINITELY WOULD, AND I WOULD
SUGGEST THAT PERHAPS WE OUGHT TO
REVISIT THOSE ISSUES TO SEE IF
THEY ARE TOTALLY NECESSARY. I
REALIZED I STILL LEGIT. IT'S A
LEGISLATIVE ISSUE, BUT I WAS
WONDERING IF YOU HAD AN OPINION
ON THAT. SIMILARLY THE
UNILATERAL AUTHORITY GIVEN TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ONE OF
THE OTHER BILLS RECOGNIZES THE
FACT THAT THE EXISTING FEE WITH
REGARD TO THE AMMUNITION ISSUE
IS NOT COVERING THEIR COSTS. OF
OVERSIGHT, AND PERHAPS WE OUGHT
TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT
COST CONTROL, RATHER THAN JUST
ALLOWING THE AG TO INCREASE THE
FEE ON ON THEIR OWN, WHICH,
AGAIN I FIND TROUBLING, UM WITH
REGARD TO THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
AND UNIVERSITY, CALIFORNIA.
HOUSING ISSUES. UM, THIS. THE
STATE HAD PROVIDED FUNDING TO
COMMUNITY COLLEGES FOR HOUSING
NEEDS, WHICH THEY TYPICALLY HAVE
NOT DONE IN THE PAST, AND I
THINK THAT WAS A GOOD THING.
THEN I WASN'T HERE WHEN THAT WAS
AUTHORIZED, BUT NOR WHEN IT WHEN
THE CLAWBACK WAS AUTHORIZED, BUT
ESSENTIALLY, WE'RE TAKING THE
MONEY. BACK FROM THE COMMUNITY
COLLEGES AND IN RETURN FOR THAT
NUMBER ONE WITH REGARD TO THREE
OF THEM HAVING A JOINT PROJECT
BETWEEN THREE YOU SEASON THREE
COMMUNITY COLLEGES FOR HOUSING
NEEDS, WHICH MAKES IT UP FOR
THOSE THREE COMMUNITY COLLEGES.
BUT FOR THE REST OF THEM, IT'S
AN INTENT TO PROVIDE A STATEWIDE
, UH, PROGRAM OF LEASE REVENUE
BONDS FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES TO
USE THAT TOOL TO, UH THAT THAT
TOOL TO FINANCE HOUSING. UM.
FIRST OF ALL, THEY WOULD HAVE TO
BORROW THE MONEY AND THEN PAY IT
BACK SO IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT
THAN THE STATE HAVING GRANTED
THEM THE FUNDS IN THE FIRST
PLACE, WHICH DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A
TOTALLY FAIR EXCHANGE, BUT MAYBE
I'M MISSING SOMETHING. YES AND
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. A
LOT OF, UM DIFFERENT ACTIONS
WENT INTO THAT. AS YOU STATED
THERE WERE THAT WOULD THE STATE
WAS MORE FLUSH WITH ONE TIME
SPENDING WE DID PROVIDE? UM UH,
DOLLARS FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR
BOTH. WE'LL ALL SEGMENTS èC CSU
AND THE COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND
AS YOU RECALL, WE WERE
ATTEMPTING TO BRIDGE THE GAP
BETWEEN 30/30 BILLION DOLLAR
FISCAL DEFICIT IN THE CURRENT
YEAR, AND PART OF THAT SOLUTION
WAS TO TAKE THOSE ONE TIME FUNDS
AND TO SWAP THEM WITH BORROWING
WITH AND SO IN THE CASE OF THOSE
THREE COMMUNITY COLLEGE PROJECTS
, YOU SEE WILL BE PROVIDING èC
LEAST REVENUE BONDS OR SORRY.
THE U. C WILL BE BONDING FOR
THAT AND THE INTENT IN THAT
INCLUDED IN THIS BUDGET PACKAGE
IS TO REALLY LOOK AT WAYS THAT
WE CAN SEEK A STATEWIDE LEASE
REVENUE BOND TO PAY FOR THOSE
OTHER FUNDS, AND IT REALLY IS
THE BALANCE BETWEEN THESE PRO
TRYING TO FULFILL THESE PRIORITY
PROJECTS AND GET THEM DONE AND
NOT KEEP THEM NOT NOT STALL
THEM. THERE'S ALSO I WOULD STATE
BUDGET BILL LANGUAGE, WHICH
AUTHORIZES FINANCE TO INCREASE
FUNDS TO PARTICULAR PROJECTS
THAT THAT PARTICULAR DOESN'T
HAPPEN SO PROJECTS MAY PROCEED
IN THE CURRENT YEAR. AND SO
BECAUSE OF THIS THE STATUS OF
THE GENERAL FUND THAT WAS A
SOLUTION AS PART OF THE 2023
BUDGET PACKAGE TO TAKE, UH,
PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE CASH
FUNDED AND SWITCH THEM TO OTHER
FUNDS. BORROWING IF I UNDERSTAND
THE RIGHT UP THAT I SAW THE
FUNDS THAT ARE, UM, CLAWED BACK
FROM THE COMMUNITY COLLEGES.
THIS BILL CLARIFIES WHEN IT HAS
TO BE REPAID, BUT THAT THAT
MONEY IS BEING RE ALLOCATED TO
THE èC INSTITUTIONS FOR HOUSING
NEEDS, OR DID I MISUNDERSTAND
THAT? I WOULD HAVE TO TURN TO MY
COLLEAGUE WHO I BELIEVE IS ON
THE LINE CHRIS FERGUSON TO ASK
FOR OR TO GIVE YOU SOME MORE
SPECIFIC DETAILS ON THAT. CHRIS
CHRIS FERGUSON WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. SO THE
FUNDING THAT'S BEING SHIFTED
BETWEEN THE èC BUDGET AND THE C
C C BUDGET WAS DESIGNED TO
SUPPORT THE ONGOING COST OF
THOSE PROJECTS. SO WE'RE JUST
SHIFTING IN ONE HAND, WE'RE
SHIFTING TO BE OF THE PROJECTS
OVER TO YOU. SEE YOU SEE WHAT
ISSUE THE MONSTERS SUPPORT THE
PROJECTS AND THE FUNDS WE WILL
BE PROVIDING TO èC WOULD
CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THOSE
PROJECTS. AND THEN THE SECOND
COMPONENT WOULD BE, UM, THAT
ORIGINALLY, THE STATED ENVISION
USING LOCAL HAVING LOCALS ISSUE
, UM REVENUE BONDS TO SUPPORT
THE PROJECTS. AND NOW WITH THIS
TRAILER BILL WOULD DO IS INSTEAD
OF LOCALS ISSUING IT WOULD STATE
INTENT FROM THE STATE TO SEEK A
STATEMENT SOLUTION. SO THE FUNDS
THAT ARE BEING REPAID BY THE
COMMUNITY COLLEGES THAT HAD BEEN
ALLOCATED IN THE PREVIOUS BUDGET
YEAR IS GOING STRICTLY BACK TO
THE GENERAL FUND TO COVER
EXISTING DEFICITS. OKAY? YEAH,
THE SO THERE'S REALLY TWO
COMPONENTS. ONE WAS ONE OF THE
COMPONENTS IN THE BUDGET WAS
DESIGNED TO PROVIDE ONGOING
SUPPORT SO THAT THE PROJECTS
COULD CONTINUE UNDER REVENUE
BONDS STRUCTURE. WHAT WE ARE
ASKING DISTRICTS TO DO IN TERMS
OF RETURNING FUNDING. IT WAS THE
ACTUAL ALLOCATIONS THAT WOULD BE
INSTEAD FINANCE THAT WOULD HAVE
INSTEAD BEEN FINANCED WITH
REVENUE BOMBS, WHICH WERE NOW
SAYING INTENT IS FOR THE STATE
ISSUE. A STATEWIDE LEAST REVENUE
ONE. MADAM CHAIR. UM UH, SENATOR
LAIRD. DO YOU HAVE THE CHAIR OF
THE SUBCOMMITTEE? AND I THINK
SOME OF THIS DISCUSSION HAS BEEN
AROUND THE AROUND THE ISSUE AND
NOT HITTING AT IT DIRECTLY AT
SOME OF THE QUESTIONS AND I AM
PREPARED TO EXPLAIN THIS CLEARLY
, AND THAT'S WHY I GOT IN LINE
EARLY AND JUST FOR SENATOR NILO
SATISFACTORILY IN A GOOD PLACE.
I MET WITH ONE OF YOUR COMMUNITY
COLLEGE PRESIDENTS RIGHT BEFORE
THIS HEARING, AND WHENEVER I CAN
GET A CHANCE, I WILL EXPLAIN. IT
CLEARLY, OKAY? AND I APPRECIATE
THAT. I PROBABLY NEED SOME
EXPLANATION. SO ONE MORE
QUESTION ON THIS WITH REGARD TO
LEASE REVENUE BONDS, WHO WOULD
THE LESSEE BE HERE? YOU'RE NEXT
ON THE LIST. I WOULD JUST
REITERATE WHAT MY COLLEAGUE MR
FERGUSON SAID THAT THIS WAS IT
IS A MOVE FROM LOCALS. BONDING
TO THE INTENT IS THAT THE STATE
WOULD PROVIDE THAT FUNDING SO IN
WE WILL BE WORKING TOWARDS SOME
SOLUTIONS IN THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET TO DEAL WITH THIS, BUT
THE INTENT IS THAT THE STATE
WOULD NOW BE VERSUS LOCALS
PROVIDING THAT SUPPORT TO
COLLEGES. WELL THE POINT OF
LEASE REVENUE BONDS IS THAT
THERE IS A LESSEE, WHO IS
SEPARATE FROM THE PAYER OF THE
DEBT, AND I DON'T SEE HOW
THERE'S A SEPARATION THERE. BUT
PERHAPS THAT'S A DISCUSSION FOR
A DIFFERENT TIME BECAUSE WE'VE
USED MISUSED LEASE REVENUE BONDS
. I FIND CONTINUALLY SINCE I
LEFT HERE, BUT AS I SAID,
PERHAPS THAT IS A DISCUSSION FOR
ANOTHER TIME AND DIFFERENT
CONTEXT. LEAVE THAT AS MY
QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT. OKAY?
SO I DO HAVE A LIST AND I
REALIZED THESE, OBVIOUSLY I'M
MAKING A LIST BASED ON MEMBERS
INDICATING THEY WANT TO ASK
QUESTIONS. AND OBVIOUSLY WHEN
YOU'RE ON ONE DISCUSSION. A LOT
OF PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE THAT KEEP
SO I KNOW IT'S AWKWARD BECAUSE
YOU MAY WANT TO SORRY YOU A
MEMBER HERE MAY WANT TO REVISIT
THIS VERY DISCUSSION, BUT
FORTUNATELY WE DO HAVE I DO HAVE
MR LAIRD, SENATOR LAIRD AS NEXT
ON THE LIST SO HE CAN DO THAT
CLARIFICATION, BUT LET ME LET
YOU ALL KNOW NOW WHO I HAVE ON
THE LIST AND THE ORDER. OKAY SO
I HAVE SENATOR LAIRD, FOLLOWED
BY SENATOR ROTH. FOLLOWED BY
SENATOR DURAZO, FOLLOWED BY
SENATOR CUEVAS, FOLLOWED BY
SENATOR MCGUIRE, FOLLOWED BY
SENATOR MENJIVAR. OKAY. AND THEN
I WILL HAVE SENATOR SEYARTO
ALRIGHT. OKAY AND SENATOR MEN
AND PADILLA GREAT. SO SENATOR
LAIRD, THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MADAM CHAIR AND I'M GOING TO TRY
AS BRIEFLY AS POSSIBLE PUT
CLARITY TO THE ISSUE THAT WAS
RAISED BY SENATOR NEAL. OH AND
WHAT HAPPENED WAS IS OVER TWO
YEARS. WE APPROPRIATED $3.5
BILLION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION,
HOUSING AND THREE SEGMENTS IN
VARIOUS ITERATIONS OF THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET. HE
WANTED TO ELIMINATE THAT. THE
SOLUTION TO NOT DO THAT AFTER WE
PUSHED BACK STRONGLY WAS TO GO
AHEAD WITH WHAT WAS THERE AND DO
IT WITH BONDS SO THAT THE COST
OF THE BUDGET WAS ONLY ONE YEAR
OF THE BOND INTEREST PAYMENTS AS
OPPOSED TO THE ENTIRE COST OF
THE OF THE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS FOR THE HOUSING
PROJECTS. AND THE DIFFERENCE IN
RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION IS
THAT THEY ORIGINALLY JUST WANTED
TO SAVE MONEY FROM THE PRIOR
AUTHORIZATION OF 3.5 BILLION BY
CUTTING IT BACK 750 MILLION OR 1
BILLION, AND INSTEAD 750 OR 1
BILLION OF PROJECTS IS FUNDED.
IT IS JUST FUNDED WITH A ONE
YEAR PAYMENT OF INTEREST. THAT
WAS, I THINK 33 MILLION FOR ONE
SEGMENT, SO IT REALLY LOWERED IT
AND THE BUDGET EXPERIENCE TO THE
SAVINGS BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN
FINANCING, BUT IT WAS AN
OBLIGATION OVER A NUMBER OF
YEARS, AND THEN THERE WAS
SIGNIFICANT PUSHBACK. FOR THE
WAY THAT WAS STRUCTURED IN MANY
WAYS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES WERE
VERY UNHAPPY BECAUSE THEY FELT
THAT THE LEAST BURDEN WAS
SHIFTING TO THEM. WHAT THIS
BUDGET ITEM TO US IS FIXED THE
WHOLE THING. AND THE WAY IT
FIXES IT IS THAT 2022 PROJECTS
APPROVED CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND
INCLUDED ORIGINALLY WAS A
CLAWBACK THAT YOU REFERENCED OF
SOME OF THAT 20 TO 22 MONEY THAT
HAS BEEN PUT OUT IN THE FUTURE.
THAT'S NO LONGER OPERATIVE THE
WAY THAT IT WAS IN THE PREVIOUS
BUDGET AND YOU REFERENCED AND
ONE OF THE PRIMARY PLACES THAT
THAT WAS TRUE AS SIERRA COLLEGE
, WHICH I SUSPECT OVERLAPS WITH
YOUR DISTRICT, AND THEY SORT OF
HAVE BIDS LOCKED IN AND THEN THE
MONEY WAS GOING TO BE CLAWED
BACK AND IT PUT THEM IN THIS
COMPLETELY UNTENABLE POSITION.
SO NOW THE CLAWBACK HAS MOVED
AHEAD AND THEY'RE ALLOWED TO
PROCEED AND THEY WILL PROCEED
AND NOT TRY TO HOLD THE BOND
COSTS. SO IT DOES THE 22. THE
2022 PROJECTS GREAT. THE 2023
PROJECTS IN THE BUDGET OR OR
SORT OF THREATENED AND NOW THE
LANGUAGE ALLOWS THEM TO MOVE
AHEAD WHILE A YEAR FROM NOW AND
I'LL GET TO IN A SECOND, THE
FINANCING MECHANISMS STILL HAS
TO BE DETERMINED. THE 2023
PROJECTS GET GET TO MOVE AHEAD.
AND THEN THERE WERE THREE
PROJECTS THAT WERE INTER
SEGMENTAL GENERALLY BETWEEN THE
èC AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND
THERE WAS THIS WHOLE MESS WHERE
THEY HAD THE QUALIFYING EACH POT
AND IN ONE CASE THAT DIDN'T NOW
THIS RESOLVES THAT ALL THREE OF
THEM CAN MOVE AHEAD AND èC WILL
DO THE BONDING FOR THOSE
PROJECTS AND JUST DO A J. P WITH
THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE OR THE
OTHER INTEREST TO RESOLVE THAT.
AND SO IT RESOLVES ALL THE
OUTSTANDING ISSUES, EXCEPT FOR
ONE IT ALLOWS EVERYTHING TO MOVE
AHEAD, BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO
DECIDE WHAT THE PRECISE BONDING
MECHANISM IS. FOR THOSE THAT
WILL BE BONDS, AND THIS LANGUAGE
SAYS TO THAT HAS TO BE DECIDED.
BY THE TIME THE BUDGET IS
APPROVED NEXT YEAR, SO IF IT
GIVES EIGHT MONTHS TO DO THAT,
AND WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO
BEFORE YOU RAISED IT IS TO JUST
RESTATE ALL THOSE SOLUTIONS AND
ASKED THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT
WHEN THEY CAN'T EMPLOY
PRESENTING THAT SOLUTION BECAUSE
EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE GIVEN TILL
JUNE 30TH OR WHATEVER LIGHTER OR
HOWEVER THE WORDING IS, UM THE
QUESTION IS IN THE IDEAL WORLD.
THEY WOULD RESOLVE IT WITH THE
PROPOSAL IN EARLY BUDGET ACTIONS
IN JANUARY OR RESOLVE IT AND HOW
THEY PRESENT THE BUDGET NEXT
YEAR, EVEN THOUGH ALL THE
COLLEGES CAN MOVE AHEAD. IT
WOULD JUST BE GOOD THAT THERE BE
SOME CERTAINTY AND EVERYBODY
RELAX BECAUSE OF THIS, AND I
THINK THE KEY THING GETS TO ONE
OF YOUR POINTS IS THE REAL
DESIRE HERE WAS NOT TO SHIFT THE
RISK TO COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN
THE BONDING THAT THEY WERE
ORIGINALLY THEY SUBMITTED THEIR
APPLICATIONS BASED ON WHAT THE
ACTUAL COST OF THE PROGRAM WAS.
AND SOME OF THEM FELT LIKE IF
ANY OF THE BONDING COST DEVOLVED
TO THEM. IT DIDN'T PENCIL OUT
THE SAME WAY THAT THEY WERE
GRANTED THE MONEY, AND IT MIGHT
NOT ALLOW THE PROJECTS TO GO
AHEAD. THAT APPEARS TO BE
RESOLVED. SO LET'S OKAY LET'S
HAVE YES. AND THEN THAT FINANCE
REQUESTION OF FINANCE? YES, BUT
HAVE NO ANSWER YOUR OTHER
QUESTION, WHICH IS WHEN CAN WE
LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING YOU BRING
BACK THE SOLUTION. I'LL TURN
THAT QUESTION TO MR FERGUSON,
BUT I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT
THAT THE ADMINISTRATION NEVER
PROPOSED A CUT. IT WAS MORE A
SHIFTING OF THE FINANCING
STRUCTURE. THAT'S JUST IMPORTANT
. IT'S A PRIORITY FOR THIS
ADMINISTRATION TO BUILD THOSE
UNITS, SO I'LL TURN TO MR
FERGUSON FOR RESPONSE ON THE
POTENTIAL TIMING ABOUT YEAH. SO
WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC
TIMELINE TO NOTE TODAY, BUT THE
STRUCTURE WAS DESIGNED SO THAT
AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN PULL THIS
TOGETHER THAT WE WOULD RETURN TO
THE LEGISLATURE WITH A DATE
CERTAIN NO LATER THAN, UM, THE
20TH 4 BUDGET AC MADAM CHAIR. I
WOULD JUST MAKE THE COMMENT.
THAT I THINK IT WOULD BE THE
PREFERENCE OF ANYBODY THAT IS
INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE THAT THEY
DID THIS SOONER RATHER THAN
LATER AND THEN IT SHOW UP EARLY
IN THE PROCESS, AND I APPRECIATE
THE NUANCE. THAT I'LL TRY TO BE
POLITE THAT ONLY FINANCE CAN
UNDERSTAND THAT THAT HAVING A
BILLION DOLLARS NOT BEING THE
BUDGET THAT WAS IN IT BEFORE, IS
NOT A CUT, BUT IT IS WIDELY
PERCEIVED AS A CUT, EVEN THOUGH
IT IS SHIFTED. AND THEN ONE LAST
THING I WAS GOING TO MAKE A
COMMENT ABOUT A SECOND ITEM.
I'LL JUST MAKE IT UNDER A B 1
43. THERE'S THE BAGLEY CANE ACT
, AND I WOULD JUST CALL
EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION TO. WE
WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF A
CONUNDRUM WHERE AS THE
LEGISLATURE WORK, CONSIDERING
BILLS ABOUT WHETHER WE WANT TO
CONTINUE PARTS OF THE EXECUTIVE
ORDERS FROM THE PANDEMIC ON
BAGLEY CANE, AND SOME OF THEM
EXPIRED ON JUNE 30TH, AND ALL
THESE BILLS WOULDN'T GO INTO
EFFECT UNTIL JANUARY, 1ST SO
EVEN THOUGH IT'S STILL IN FRONT
OF THE LEGISLATURE, WHETHER WE
WANT TO DO THAT, AND WHAT THEY
ARE, THIS RESOLVES THAT ISSUE
AND CONTINUES TO BAGLEY KEEN
THINGS TILL JANUARY 1ST TO ALLOW
THE LEGISLATURE TO HAVE THAT
DISCUSSION AND DECIDE ON A
POLICY LEVEL WHETHER THEY WISH
TO CONTINUE. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR I APPRECIATE YOU'RE QUITE
WELCOME, SENATOR LAYERED SO NOW
I WILL GO TO SENATOR ROTH. AND
UH, SENATORS MENJIVAR SEYARTO
MEN IN PADILLA RATHER MENJIVAR
PODIUM IN AND SEYARTO. I DO HAVE
YOU ON THE LIST. OKAY THANK YOU
, MADAM CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO
OFFER A COMMENT ON THE MOU AND
THE L. A S DISCUSSION ABOUT THE
PAY, COMPARABILITY, STUDY AND
FLAWS OR PARENT FLAWS OR
PERCEIVED FLAWS IN THE STUDY,
YOU KNOW? I'VE BEEN HERE A WHILE
AND IN THIS ADMINISTRATION IN
THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. I
HAVE OBSERVED THE USE OF STUDIES
THAT APPEAR TO HAVE DEFICIENCIES
TO SUPPORT PROPOSALS AND
PROPOSITIONS. IT WAS THE FAMILY
LEAVE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE
IMPACT ON EMPLOYERS. AND THERE
WAS A STUDY UTILIZED THERE THAT
IDENTIFIED SOME DEFICIENCIES IN
AND SPOKE ABOUT WE'VE IN OUR
COMMITTEE CONVERSATIONS IN THE
COMMITTEE THAT I'M PRIVILEGED TO
CURRENTLY CHAIR WE SEE STUDIES
USED TO SUPPORT FEE INCREASES IN
SOME OF THOSE HAVE HAD
DEFICIENCIES IN THEM. AND OF
COURSE, PAY COMPARABILITY ON M.
O. U. S AND OTHERS. YOU KNOW
THOSE OF US WHO HAVE HAD
EXPERIENCES PROUD OF THIS, WHERE
WE HIRE EXPERTS AND HAVE STUDIES
DONE. WE KNOW THAT WHEN YOU HIRE
AN EXPERT TO PERFORM A STUDY,
OFTEN YOU GET THE STUDY THAT YOU
PAY FOR AND IN THIS PROCESS THAT
WE GO THROUGH HERE, PARTICULARLY
IN THE AREAS OF M O U. S. WE
SORT OF RELY ON THE
ADMINISTRATION AND THOSE WHO
WHO'S SUBMIT PROPOSALS TO US ON
ENSURING THAT THE BACKUP FOR THE
PROPOSALS IS ACCURATE, AND I
THINK THAT INTEGRITY HAS A HAS A
ROLE. A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THIS
PROCESS, AND IT'S A FAIRLY
IMPORTANT CONCEPT, SO I JUST
WONDER IF MOVING FORWARD AND
PROBABLY LONG AFTER I LEAVE
HERE. IF THERE IS NOT A WAY THAT
WE CAN FIGURE OUT IT WAS
ESTABLISHED A PROCESS. TO
CONDUCT STUDIES WERE THE STUDIES
ARE DONE IN A MORE OBJECTIVE WAY
SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THIS
CONTINUED CONVERSATION ABOUT
DEFICIENCIES IN THE IN THE
STUDIES THAT ARE PRESENTED TO US
AS A BACKUP FOR THE PROPOSALS
THAT ARE OFFERED AND THAT'S JUST
MY COMMENT. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
TO FIGURE THIS OUT. OBVIOUSLY, I
SUPPORT PUBLIC SAFETY PAY
INCREASES, CERTAINLY WHERE
APPROPRIATE, BUT IT WOULD BE
NICE TO HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE
MATERIAL THAT'S PRESENTED TO US
TO SUPPORT THE THOSE INCREASES,
PARTICULARLY IN IN LIGHT OF SOME
OF THE CRITICISM THAT SOME OF US
ARE RECEIVING IN THE NEWSPAPER
AS LEGISLATORS IN THIS
PARTICULAR AREA. SO THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. CERTAINLY, SENATOR
. THE DON'T THINK YOU WERE
ASKING NECESSARILY FOR A
RESPONSE, NEARLY RESPONSE
NECESSARY. THAT WAS THAT WAS
RHETORICAL. I APPRECIATE IT. I
DIDN'T WANT TO CLARIFY. I WASN'T
IN THE ROOM WHEN THE DISCUSSION
ABOUT THE LAOS ANALYSIS, BUT ON
THE, UH FIRST ARE WE ARE HAVING
OUR HEARING TODAY. BUT THESE
BILLS WILL NOT BE BEFORE THE
FLOOR UNTIL NEXT WEEK, AND WE
WILL HAVE THE LAOS ANALYSIS ON
THE OTHER MOU BEFORE THAT VOTE,
SO WE WILL HAVE THAT SO BEFORE
IT GOES TO US ON THE FLOOR, SO I
JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. OKAY AND
NOW I WILL CALL ON SENATOR
DURAZO. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT ONE
OF THE ITEMS IN A B 1 43. AND
THIS IS THE GOAT HERDERS HAVE
SOME QUESTIONS. UM WHAT IS.
SOMEDAY. UM WHAT IS THE MINIMUM
WAGE TODAY FOR WORKERS IN
CALIFORNIA? THE MINIMUM WAGE IN
CALIFORNIA FOR ALL ALL WORKERS
WITH REGARD TO SOME EXCEPTIONS
IS $15.50 AN HOUR. ARE THERE ANY
OTHER WORKERS IN CALIFORNIA
WHERE WE HAVE QUALIFIED THE
HOURLY WAGE FOR 3 79 AN HOUR?
NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. ARE THERE
ANY WORKERS IN CALIFORNIA WHOSE
WAGES HAVE BEEN REDUCED FROM 15
52 3 75 AN HOUR? AGAIN. NOT THAT
I'M AWARE OF. CAN YOU TELL ME
WHY WE ARE BEING ASKED TO REDUCE
WAGES IN CALIFORNIA FOR THIS
GROUP OF WORKERS TO 3 79 AN HOUR
SOME OF THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU
EXTEND THE CURRENT ALTERNATIVE
MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE FOR GOAT
HERDERS THAT WAS ESTABLISHED
LAST YEAR AND EVERYONE 56, WHICH
WAS AGAIN BUDGET TRAILER BUILT
ORIGINALLY SHEEPHERDER
ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE
WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2001 BY THE
INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMMISSION.
AND THEN IT WAS CODIFIED LATER
IN 2001. PRIOR TO 2001. THERE IS
NO MINIMUM WAGE FOR SHEEP
HERDERS. UM AND THEN IT WAS LAST
YEAR AS WE DISCUSSED LAST YEAR
THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS.
THERE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISION THAT GOAT HERDERS WERE
NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME
ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY MINIMUM
WAGES. SHEEPHERDERS, UM WHICH
SUBSEQUENTLY LED TO THE BUDGET
TRAILER BILL THAT EXTENDED THE
SHEEPHERDER MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE
TO GO HERDERS, SO THIS PROPOSAL
WOULD EXTEND THE CURRENT MONTHLY
MINIMUM WAGE FOR GOAT HERDERS BY
2.5 YEARS TO JULY, 1 2026 WOULD
ALSO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND THE
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT TO DO A STUDY. TO
INFORM FUTURE POLICY DISCUSSIONS
ABOUT WHAT THIS SHOULD LOOK LIKE
, AND THAT STUDY WOULD BE DUE
JANUARY. 1 2024 OR 2026 SORRY,
WHICH WOULD INFORM A SIX MONTH
WINDOW FOR US TO EXAMINE THE
SITUATION. SO YOU DON'T HAVE ANY
OTHER INFORMATION OR EXPLANATION
AS TO WHY THIS PARTICULAR GROUP
OF WORKERS SHOULD BE GETTING 3
79 HOURS AS A MINIMUM WAGE?
AGAIN THIS IS JUST AN EXTENSION
OF EXISTING LAW, EXTENDING THE
CURRENT THE CURRENT ALTERNATIVE
MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE THAT IS
SUBJECT TO GOAT HERDERS
ESTABLISHED BY 1 56 LAST YEAR,
EXTENDING IT FOR 2.5 YEARS, AND
IT'S THE SAME ALTERNATIVE
MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE DOES THAT
SHEEP HERDERS TO RECEIVE THAT
DOESN'T REALLY ANSWER MY
QUESTION. UM THE OTHER QUESTION
I HAVE IS, HOW MUCH DID WE
BUDGET FOR THIS STUDY? A REPORT
IN THIS PROPOSAL. WE HAVE 1
MILLION SET ASIDE IN, UM,
SPECIAL FUNDS FOR D R AND D D D
TO COMPLETE THIS REPORT AND
SENATOR DURAZO. I WOULD JUST ADD
THAT IN THE INTERIM, THE 2 TO 2
YEARS PRIOR TO THE REPORTING,
AND THEN THE SUBSEQUENT SIX
MONTHS. WE DO WANT TO LOOK AT
THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS AND
CONSULT WITH STAKEHOLDERS AS
WELL AS TO, UM, ASSESSING
NECESSITY OF THE ALTERNATIVE
MINIMUM MONTH, THE MONTHLY
MINIMUM WAGE, SO JUST TO YOUR
POINT, I THINK THAT THE TIME IS
NEEDED TO REALLY LOOK TO SEE
WHAT IMPACTS. AND TO SPEAK WITH
STAKEHOLDERS SO THAT IT CAN
INFORM FUTURE DECISIONS. OKAY
BUT WE HAVEN'T DONE THIS WITH
ANY OTHER GROUP OF WORKERS. IN
CALIFORNIA. AND WHEN THE INITIAL
ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE
WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE
INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMMISSION,
THERE WAS A PRETTY ROBUST
STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AND REPORT
THAT LED TO THE ALTERNATIVE
MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE. AND THAT
WAS A PROCESS THAT HURTING
INDUSTRY WAS INVOLVED WITH. OKAY
IT'S INTERESTING. YOU SAY THAT
BECAUSE I CHAIR THE BUDGETS OF
FIVE WHICH OVERSEES LABOR AND
THE AGENCIES, AND THIS NEVER
CAME UP AS AN ISSUE. I DON'T
KNOW WHERE THE ROBUST ROBUST
DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE, BUT
CERTAINLY TAKING PLACE IN MY
COMMITTEE. UM I GUESS THE YOU
KNOW A MILLION DOLLARS TO GO
INTO A STUDY WHERE WE'VE HAD
STUDY AND ROBUST DISCUSSION AND
WHATEVER CALLING IT WE'RE
PUTTING MONEY INTO ANOTHER OR
OUR REPORT. WHICH SEEMS TO ME TO
BE GOING INTO ACTUALLY
INCREASING THE WAGES. UM YOU
KNOW, I JUST TO GET AWAY FROM,
YOU KNOW, MOVE ON BEYOND
QUESTIONS WERE BEING ASKED TO
VOTE FOR $3.79 AN HOUR WAGE FOR
AGRICULTURAL WORKERS. THE WAGE
ORDER MAKES IT REALLY CLEAR THAT
THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD BE
GETTING, AND WE ARE REDUCING
MINIMUM WAGE. FROM 15 52 3 79.
AND BEFORE WE EVEN DISCUSS
OVERTIME PAY. WE SHOULD BE CLEAR
ON WHAT THE BASE RATE FOR THESE
WORKERS WOULD BE. UM WE NEED TO
UNDERSTAND THAT WHY IS THERE A
REDUCTION OF THE MINIMUM WAGE
FOR THESE WORKERS? UM YOU KNOW
ARE WE ALWAYS SAY OUR BUDGET IS
A REFLECTION OF OUR VALUES. AND
THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND
THAT A VOTE IN SUPPORT OF A B 1
43 IS A VOTE THAT SUPPORT WAGES
OF 3 79 AN HOUR. I MEAN, IT'S
REALLY CLEAR RIGHT HERE IN FRONT
OF ME. THE 79 REGULAR RATE
STARTING IN 2023. UM WE HAVE
TIME TO FIX IT, ESPECIALLY NOW
THAT WE'VE HEARD THE
ANNOUNCEMENT THAT WE'RE NOT
GOING TO BE VOTING ON IT UNTIL
NEXT WEEK, AND I IN GOOD
CONSCIENCE CANNOT SUPPORT THIS
BILL BECAUSE OF WHAT IT CLEARLY
SETS OUT TO DO. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. THANK YOU, SENATOR
DURAZO. LET ME ASK NOW, SENATOR
SMALLWOOD CUEVAS. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR, SO MY QUESTION IS
ABOUT, UM, BARGAINING UNIT SIX.
ONE OF THE, UM JUST LAST WEEK,
THERE WAS A HEARING THAT THE
WOMEN'S CAUCUS HELPED TO HOST
DIGGING INTO THE SEXUAL ASSAULT.
OF WOMEN HELD IN OUR STATE
PRISON. UM. I AM. REALLY?
CONCERNED. THAT HAS WE'RE
THINKING ABOUT $5000 IN CASH
BONUSES AND I'M YOU KNOW, I'M
NOT SURE AND I'LL SAVE THAT FOR
A SECOND QUESTION. AH! IN ONE
INSTANCE IN THAT HEARING WE
LEARNED ABOUT AND HAVE HAD
CONVERSATIONS WITH STATE PRISON.
LEADERSHIP THAT THERE WAS ONE
OFFICER WHO ASSAULTED 10. OF THE
WOMEN WHO WERE HELD IN THAT
STATE PRISON. ONE OFFICER AND WE
KNOW THAT THAT KIND OF ASSAULT
DOESN'T HAPPEN ALONE. AND
CERTAINLY THAT ONE OFFICER IS
FACING STEEP CHARGES. BUT IT
SPEAKS TO A DEEPER PROBLEM IN
THIS PARTICULAR SECTOR. AND SO
MY QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, WHILE
I UNDERSTAND RECOGNIZE HOW WE
HAVE A NEED TO RECRUIT AND FILL
VACANCIES FOR A NUMBER OF
POSITIONS. HERE AT THE STATE.
WHY WOULD THIS PARTICULAR UNIT
RECEIVER $5000 CASH BONUS AND I
WANT TO BE CLEAR? THAT THERE. IS
SOME WAY TO DETERMINE UM, IF
THESE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS WHO
ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS BONE IS
HAVING ANYWAY BEEN INVOLVED IN
ANY KIND OF DISCIPLINARY ISSUES
ON THERE WORK SITE. UM, I THINK
. WE UNDERSTAND THE NEED. FOR
GOOD JOBS, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO
REWARD BAD. SO I WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE'RE ENSURING THAT
ANYONE BEING ACCUSED
INVESTIGATED. CONNECTED TO ANY
SORT OF LAWLESSNESS. RELATED TO
OUR PRISON SYSTEM, AND
PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO ARE IN
THE CHARGE. OF AH, THESE
PARTICULAR AH MEMBER BARGAINING
UNIT MEMBERS THAT WE ENSURE, UM
THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE
OR REWARDED IN ANY WAY. CAN YOU
EXPLAIN WHAT ARE THE PARAMETERS
AROUND THE BONUSES? I CAN'T
SPEAK TO THE PARTICULAR
INVESTIGATIONS. I WOULD SAY THAT
, UM CDCR ADMINISTRATION TAKES
SERIOUSLY THOSE INVESTIGATIONS.
UM AND IN REGARDS TO THE BROADER
BARGAINING PACKAGE, AS WE ARE
SITTING AT AT AS THE STATE
BARGAINING, WE ARE BARGAINING.
THEY ARE BARGAINING ON BEHALF OF
THEIR ENTIRE UNION. AND AS YOU
STATED THAT STATE IS INTERESTED
IN UM IN RECRUITING AND
RETAINING, UM, A GOOD WORKFORCE
. SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU
BRING UP ARE NOT JUST DISCUSSED
AT THE BARGAINING TABLE BUT ARE
IN FACT PART OF THE MANAGEMENT
AND THE INVESTIGATION FROM THE
DEPARTMENT SIDE AGAIN. I CAN'T
SPEAK TO THAT OR THE PARAMETERS
AROUND WHO IS QUALIFIED. UM I
WOULD JUST SAY THAT AGAIN. THE
ADMINISTRATION TAKES US
ALLEGATIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS
IN VERY SERIOUSLY AND I WOULD
HAVE TO DEFER TO THE DEPARTMENT
AND THE PARTICULAR PROCESSES IF
THEY'RE EVEN ABLE TO DISCUSS
THEM, UM AS THEY'RE
INVESTIGATING, BUT THAT'S AT AT
THIS POINT. I WOULD SAY THAT THE
AGAIN THE BROADER DISCUSSIONS AT
THE BARGAINING TABLE ARE FOR THE
ENTIRE UNIT, AND NOT FOR A
PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS. MHM BUT
YOU SAID THAT THERE WILL BE
DETAILS THAT WILL SORT OF
DETERMINE HOW THESE BONUSES WILL
BE I I'LL TURN TO MY COLLEAGUE
FOR THE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS
ABOUT PERHAPS THE POSITIONS AND
THE, UM THE PARTICULAR $5000
BONUS THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING. TO
AS TO INTENSIFIES DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE THE $5000 BONUS,
REFERRING TO I BELIEVE IS ONE
TIME RETENTION DIFFERENTIAL.
THAT'S UP TO $10,000 JUST 5000
PER YEAR. IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S
FOR SPECIFIC LOCATIONS AND THE
EMPLOYEES THERE. WHILE INCLUDED
IN THE. IN THE SPECIFICS ARE
INCLUDED IN THE MOU ITSELF, AND
I DON'T HAVE THEM RIGHT IN FRONT
OF ME, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT
WHILE THE ADMINISTRATION
CONSIDERS DIFFERENT VARIABLES
FOR WHY THESE INSTITUTIONS MAY
HAVE A HARD TIME FILLING
POSITIONS, THEY MAY INCLUDE
LOCATION, NUMBER OF INCIDENTS OR
TYPE OF INSTITUTION LIKE THE
LEVEL OF SECURITY, AND THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT IS TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT WITH THE STATE'S
INTERESTS AND ALSO THE
BARGAINING UNIT. CENTRAL NO, I
APPRECIATE THAT RESPONSE. IT
DOESN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. ON
WOULD LIKE TO GET INFORMATION ON
ENSURING THAT ANY OF THOSE
OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THE
INVESTIGATION FOUND TO BE IN ANY
WAY IMPLICATED IN THESE KINDS OF
ASSAULTS AND LAWLESSNESS THAT
THEY WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR
THE $10,000. BONUS WE WILL
FOLLOW UP WITH YOU WITHOUT THANK
YOU. MY NEXT QUESTION JUST
FOLLOWING UP ON MY COLLEAGUE'S
COMMENTS ABOUT THE 1 43. I HAD
THE UNFORTUNATE EXPERIENCE OF
TALKING WITH THEM. SOME YOUNG,
UH WORKERS WHO ARE EXPLAINING
THAT THEY ARE, UM ARE NOW
INSTEAD OF BUYING A DOZEN OF
EGGS. THEY'RE BUYING INDIVIDUAL
EGGS BECAUSE THE CARTON OF EGGS
AT THE CORNER STORE IS 10 99
WITH TAX. AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
AGRICULTURAL WORKERS, MANY OF
THEM IMMIGRANT PERUVIAN VERY,
VERY LOW INCOME. WE CAN'T WAIT
FOR A STUDY TO DETERMINE WHETHER
3 79 AN HOUR IS ADEQUATE. WE
KNOW 3 79 AN HOUR IS NOT
ADEQUATE. UM MY QUESTION IS. OUR
STATE MINIMUM WAGE IS A WAGE
THAT WE ALL SUPPORTED IT IS
CODIFIED. WHY DOES IT NOT? WHY
DOES IT IT NOT PERTAIN TO THESE
WORKERS DIRECTLY? I'M NOT SURE
WHY THERE NEEDS TO BE A STUDY TO
DETERMINE WHAT THE MINIMUM WAGE
THAT WE HAVE. AS THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AGREED TO NOT APPLIED
TO THESE WORKERS, PARTICULARLY
IN, YOU KNOW, AN INFLATIONARY
PERIOD, STILL RAISING INTEREST
RATES AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. WE
STILL SEE A LOOMING RECESSION
AND WE KNOW THAT AT ANY MOMENT
AS WE MOVE TOWARDS THE PRECIPICE
, THESE ARE GOING TO BE THE
WORKERS WHO ARE MOST IMPACTED
THE VERY, VERY, VERY LOW INCOME.
YES SO THE CURRENT ALTERNATIVE
MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE FOR SHEEP
HERDERS WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2001
. IT'S RISEN EVERY YEAR OR WHEN
THE MINIMUM WAGE IS INCREASED BY
A LIKE PERCENTAGE LEADING TO
SENATOR DURAZO NOTED 3 79 A YEAR
FOR A MONTH FOR AN HOUR FOR 2023
. THIS SO THIS PROPOSAL WOULD
EXTEND THAT CURRENT LAW. UM
SHEEP HERDERS, UM, ARE ALREADY
SUBJECT TO THE ALTERNATIVE
MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE. UP UNTIL
LAST YEAR, IT WAS ASSUMED THAT
GOAT HERDERS WERE ALSO SUBJECT
TO THE SAME ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY
MINIMUM WAGE. 1 56 EXTENDED THAT
ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE
IN STATUTE TO GO HERDERS, SO THE
SHEEP HERDERS AND GOAT HERDERS
RECEIVED THE SAME ALTERNATIVE
MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE. UNDER A B
1 56 COME JANUARY, 1 2024, THE
ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE
WOULD NO LONGER APPLY TO GOAT
HERDERS. HOWEVER SHEEPHERDERS
WILL CONTINUE WITH THE
ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE
. UM, SO THIS REPORT THAT WE'RE
ASKING FOR WOULD LOOK AT BOTH
SHEEP HERDERS AND GOAT HERDERS.
ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE
, SEE THE NECESSITY OF IT IF
THERE NEEDS TO BE A
DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN URBAN
AND RURAL, BECAUSE IN SOME URBAN
AREAS, THEY MAY BE ABLE TO WORK
HOURLY WAGES ALSO BEING ABLE TO
SEE WHETHER ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY
MINIMUM WAGE IS BEING ABUSED. IN
SOME OF THESE URBAN AREAS WHERE
WORKERS ARE WORKING HOURLY. SO
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HOPING TO
GATHER OUT OF THE STUDY IN THE
TWO YEAR STUDY AND BEING ABLE
TO, UM TO REACH SOME OF THESE
WORKERS WHO ARE IN MORE REMOTE
AREAS, SO I GUESS MY CONCERN IS
THAT THERE'S NOT LIKE A GOAT
HERDER. FOOD. OR GROCERY STORE.
THERE'S A GOAT HERDER. MEDICAL
FACILITY OR SHEEP HERDER IN
THOSE WORKERS HAVE TO LIVE IN
THE ECONOMY THAT WE'RE ALL
LIVING IN. SO I SO ARE BEING ON
BUDGET COMMITTEE. THE HARDEST
PART FOR ME IS JUST HOW WE'RE
TRYING TO DEAL WITH
HOMELESSNESS. HOW WE'RE TRYING
TO DEAL WITH FOOD SUBSIDIES. HOW
WE'RE TRYING TO WE CAN'T DO. WE
CANNOT. THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN
DO TO HELP WORKER THAT IS MAKING
3 79 AN HOUR THERE IS NOTHING I
AM. I GUESS MY THE POINT I'M
MAKING IS THAT WE CAN, AND I
MEAN, WHEN I JUST HEARD SHEEP
AND HER IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WOW,
WHAT A JOB. IT SEEMS SO BUCOLIC
, RIGHT? YOU KNOW YOU'RE HERDING
SHEEP, BUT THEY LIVE IN
CALIFORNIA'S ECONOMY, WHICH IS
ANYTHING BUT BUCOLIC, RIGHT?
IT'S HARD AND WHEN FOLKS ARE
HAVING TO PICK EGGS OUT OF A
CARTON TO BUY THEM BECAUSE THEY
CAN'T AFFORD THE CARTON, WE
DON'T HAVE TIME TO STUDY. FOR
WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE PAID MORE
THAN 3 79 AN HOUR. IT'S
UNFORTUNATE, BUT THIS IS THE
REALITY THAT WE LIVE IN. I'M I
WANT US TO REALLY LOOK AT HOW WE
CAN CREATE A SURVIVAL WAGE
BECAUSE THAT'S BASICALLY THIS IS
THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT. WE'RE
NOT EVEN AT A MINIMAL WE'RE AT A
SURVIVAL WAGE. AND THAT IS NOT A
HUMAN WAGE, SO I JUST WANT TO UM
MAKE SURE THAT. WE STAND BY THE
MINIMUM WAGE IS THAT WE PAY IN
CALIFORNIA BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST
A WAGE THAT ARBITRARY SO THAT
PEOPLE CAN HAVE A CHANCE TO
LIVE. SO WITH THAT I WOULD LIKE
TO SEE HOW Ó. WE MAINTAIN THE
HUMAN DIGNITY. OF ALL WORKERS,
BUT PARTICULARLY THESE WORKERS.
BECAUSE 3 79 IS UNDIGNIFIED
WITHOUT I AGREE WITH MY
COLLEAGUES AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
A CHANGE IN A SHORTENING OF THIS
REPORTING PERIOD AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF A WAGE THAT
WORKERS CAN SURVIVE ON A TURN TO
SENATOR ROTH JUST BECAUSE HE HAS
A CLARIFYING QUESTION ON THIS,
AND THEN I WILL KEEP GO BACK TO
OUR LIST, WHICH IS MCGUIRE AND
FOLLOWED BY MENJIVAR AND THAN
OTHERS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
JUST A QUICK FOLLOW UP TO WHAT
MY COLLEAGUE WAS TRYING TO GET
AT. YOU KNOW, MY NOTES INDICATE
THAT IN JANUARY OF 2001, THE
STATE MINIMUM WAGE DESIRE SET
WAS SIX HOURS AND 25 CENTS AN
HOUR. THERE IS A PROCESS TO
ADJUST THE MINIMUM WAGE. I DON'T
REMEMBER WHEN THE UH, INDUSTRIAL
WELFARE COMMISSION WAS DEFUNDED
OR WHETHER IT WAS BACK IN PLAY
OR WHO DID WHAT IN 2001.
ALTHOUGH I DID PRACTICE IN THIS
AREA, I JUST HAVE BEEN UP HERE
SO LONG, MY BRAIN IS ATROPHIED.
THERE'S SOMEBODY, THOUGH, CAN
TELL US WHY WHOEVER DID IT IDEA
DE IR SOMEONE ELSE? ADJUSTED THE
MINIMUM WAGE FOR THESE FOR THIS
GROUP OF EMPLOYEES TO 3 79 AN
HOUR AS OPPOSED TO $6.25 AN HOUR
AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN
ENLIGHTEN US. HAS SO PRIOR TO
2001. THERE WAS NO MINIMUM WAGE
FOR A SHEEP HERDERS OR GOAT
HERDERS. THEY WERE, THEY'RE
EXEMPT FROM THE FEDERAL MINIMUM
WAGE. THEY WERE ALSO EXEMPT FROM
STATE MINIMUM WAGE. SO THERE WAS
NO THERE WAS NO WAGE ORDER THAT
COVERED THEM AND IN 2001, THE
INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMMISSION
ESTABLISHED THE ALTERNATIVE
MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE FOR SHEEP
HERDERS. UM AND THERE MUST HAVE
BEEN A HEARING THERE WERE WAGE
BOARDS. IN THOSE DAYS THERE WERE
TRANSCRIPTS AND THERE WAS A
STATEMENT FOR THE BASIS FOR THE
DECISION. CAN YOU TELL?
ENLIGHTENED MY COLLEAGUES TO MY
RIGHT AS TO WHAT THE BASIS FOR
THE DECISION WAS TO MAKE IT
$3.79 AN HOUR AS OPPOSED TO 6 25
. I DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE
HISTORY IN FRONT OF ME. BUT THE
INITIAL ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY
MINIMUM WAGE THAT'S BEEN
ADJUSTED WHENEVER THE MINIMUM
WAGE THAT THE STATE MINIMUM
WAGES INCREASE, THE ALTERNATIVE
MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE HAS BEEN
INCREASED BY LIKE PERCENT. BUT
THE INDUSTRIAL WELFARE
COMMISSION PROCESS WAS A ROBUST
PROCESS WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND
EMPLOYERS REPRESENTED AND THAT'S
WHAT LED TO THE ALTERNATIVE
MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE BACK IN
2001, ALTHOUGH THAT WAS YOU KNOW
20 TO FOLLOW UP, SINCE YOU WILL
PROBABLY HAVE ACCESS TO THE
TRANSCRIPTS AND THE MATERIAL
THAT WE DON'T SINCE I DON'T HAVE
. I THREW OUT ALL MY TRANSCRIPTS
. MAYBE SOMEONE CAN GET BACK TO
MY COLLEAGUES AS TO WHAT THE
STATEMENT OF THE BASIS SAID, AND
WHAT THE BASIS FOR THE
ADJUSTMENT WAS. AND THEN MY LAST
QUESTION WITH THE PATIENTS IN MY
CHAIR IS HOW DOES THIS RELATE? I
THOUGHT WE RE ESTABLISHED THE
IWC AND WAGE BOARDS. AND HOW
DOES THIS ISSUE RELATES TO THAT?
AND SO, YES, THAT'S CORRECT. THE
2023 BUDGET DID REEF REFUND THE
IWC AND DID SET THE ORIGINAL
ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE
. HOWEVER THE TIME THAT IT WOULD
TAKE FOR THE INDUSTRIAL WELFARE
COMMISSION TO CONDUCTED ITS WAGE
ORDER. IS UNKNOWN, GIVEN THAT
WE'RE JUST RESTARTING IT. UM
ADDITIONALLY, THE CURRENT
ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE
UNDER CURRENT STATUTE WITH
SUNSET IN JANUARY, 1 2024, WHICH
WOULD IMMEDIATELY SUBJECT THAT
HURTING INDUSTRY TO THE CURRENT
STATE MINIMUM WAGE. WHICH WOULD
RESULT IN GOAT HERDERS MAKING
AROUND $190,000 A YEAR. IS IT
THE ADMINISTRATION'S
CONTEMPLATION THAT THIS
SHEEPHERDER ISSUE GOAT HERDER
ISSUE WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF
ANALYSIS AND REVIEW AND DECISION
BY THE IWC. WE DON'T HAVE ANY
ANY COMMITMENT OR COMMENT ON
THAT RIGHT NOW. OKAY WELL, THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I'M ROSS OUT.
UH HUH. THANKS SO I'M AN ALLOW
SENATOR NEWMAN TO ASK A QUESTION
ON THIS. AS LONG AS IT'S A BRIEF
QUESTION, AND THEN I WILL GO TO
MY LIST AND PLEASE SENATOR
NEWMAN. THANK YOU. NO PRESSURE.
UM SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, SO
THEY'RE THERE FOR THE SAKE OF
GETTING THIS CONVERSATION BACK
ON TRACK, AND WE'LL MOVE ON.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN AN
ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY MINIMUM
WAGE. NOW YOU CAN BREAK THAT
DOWN. WHAT HOURLY WAGES GO AHEAD
. MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE. THIS IS
MY 0.79 IS ESTABLISHED BY
DIVIDING THAT MINIMUM MONTHLY
WAGE BY THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
HOURS IN A MONTH AND TO BE CLEAR
THAT THAT YOU KNOW WERE YOU PAY
BY THE MONTH TO THESE WORKERS,
AND AGAIN, I DON'T POSITION. I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT QUESTION
ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE OWED. BUT
THEY'RE NOT PAID BY THE HOUR,
RIGHT? THAT'S A THAT'S AN
ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY MINIMUM
WAGE. YOU CAN DO THE CALCULATION
BUT FACT IS, THEY'RE PAID 24
HOURS A DAY, RIGHT BECAUSE
THEY'RE IN REMOTE LOCATIONS. SO
THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE A
WORKER IS RECEIVING ON AN HOURLY
BASIS. 3 79. THIS IS THEIR
EFFECTIVE HOURLY WAGE RIGHT
BECAUSE THEY'RE PAID FOR THE
WHOLE MONTH, AND THAT INCLUDES
ALL OF THE TIME THEY'RE ON THE
JOB TO INCLUDE SLEEPING, EATING,
ETCETERA BECAUSE THEY ARE
SEPARATE CATEGORY WORKERS. IS
THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. I
THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
DISCUSSION. WE SHOULD HAVE A
DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THE
APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY
MINIMUM WAGES BUT TO REDUCE IT
TO A AN HOURLY WAGES IS A BIT
MISLEADING. WHAT I SAID THAT'S
NOT ACCURATE. WE MAKE A DECISION
THAT CATEGORIES OF WORKERS WERE
GOING TO TOLERATE A MONTHLY PAY,
BUT BUT BASICALLY EVERYBODY HAS
PAID HOURLY. YOU MAY BE EXEMPT
FROM OVERTIME. IT'S AN OVERTIME
ISSUE. WE MAKE A DECISION
WHETHER THAT MONTH AGAIN, I
DON'T HAVE POSITION, BUT THAT'S
THE BASIS FOR THE EXEMPTION.
CORRECT THAT THESE ARE THESE ARE
EFFECTIVELY MONTHLY WORKERS.
ALRIGHT WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO
THE LIST. CLEARLY, THERE'S
PERHAPS BACK TO TRULY BUDGET
ISSUES. WELL, LET'S GO BACK TO
THE LIST. I HAVE SENATOR MCGUIRE
SENATOR MENJIVAR, SENATOR
PADILLA SENATOR MEN, SENATOR
SEYARTO, SENATOR BECKER. THANK
YOU SO MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. I'LL
BE LESS THAN 60 SECONDS IN. IF
IT'S ALRIGHT WITH THAT THE
COMMITTEE ON THIS ISSUE I'M JUST
GOING TO FOCUS ON THE STUDENT
HOUSING. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU
TO THE CHAIR CHAIR SKINNER INTO
THE SUB CHAIR CHAIR LAYERED FOR
THEIR WORK ON THIS. IT IS DEEP
CONCERN, ESPECIALLY FOR
COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN OUR NECK
OF THE WOODS, WHO LITERALLY
OPENED UP THEIR HOUSING TWO
WEEKS AGO, 10 MILLION WAS
ALLOCATED BY THE STATE AND THAT
POTENTIAL CLAWBACK WOULD HAVE
THROWN THEM FOR AN ABSOLUTE
LOOPS SINCE THEY CANADA AND
THOSE FUNDS TO BE ABLE TO
ACTUALLY OPEN UP THE DOORS, AND
IT'S ONE OF THE FIRST COMMUNITY
COLLEGE STUDENT HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE NOW BEEN
OPEN UNDER THIS PROGRAM. SO THAT
ADDITIONAL GRACE PERIOD IF YOU
WILL TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT THAT
LONGER TERM SOLUTION IS GREATLY
APPRECIATED AND ENSURING THAT
THAT CLAW BACK IS NOT AN
ADVANCED REALLY APPRECIATE.
EVERYONE HAS WORKED ON THAT TO
KEEP THAT KEEP EACH OF THOSE
COMMITTEE COST DISTRICTS HOLD.
THANK YOU. GREAT THANK YOU.
SENATOR MCGUIRE'S SO NOW SENATOR
MENJIVAR. I WILL BE LONGER THAN
60. SECONDS TO WORRY. YOU
OBVIOUSLY WOULDN'T BE THE ONLY
ONE SENATOR NEAL. I THINK I
AGREE WITH YOU ON ONE OF THE
FIRST THINGS EVER THIS THIS
SESSION. YOU'RE RIGHT. THIS
SHOULD THIS CONVERSATION WE'RE
HAVING SHOULDN'T BE ON BUDGET,
GOAT HERDER SITUATION SHOULD BE
THROUGH POLICY. I DON'T THINK
THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE
EVEN VOTING ON HERE. I WANT TO
LINE MY COMMENTS TO SENATOR
DURAZO AND SENATOR SAMANTHA
CUEVAS ON THIS ISSUE. WE LOOK AT
INDIVIDUALS, EVEN IF WE DO THE
CALCULATIONS FOR A MONTHLY
SALARY AND SO FORTH, EVEN IN
THOSE CATEGORIES WERE ALWAYS
ELEVATING THEIR SALARY BECAUSE
WE KNOW WE RECOGNIZE THEY'RE
GOING TO BE WORKING 24 HOURS
LIKE OUR FIREFIGHTERS, 12 HOUR
SHIFTS LIKE OUR HEALTHCARE
WORKERS AND SO FORTH, SO LEAVE
IT AT THAT. I AGREE WITH HIM
THERE ON UNIT SIX. YOU KNOW THIS
? WE HEARD FROM LAO THIS FLAWED,
SKEWED MYTHOLOGY TO GET THE
NUMBERS THAT WE WANTED, AND YOU
MENTIONED THAT IT'S TO
INCENTIVIZE THESE WORKERS TO GET
INTO THESE ROLES, BUT IN FACT,
IT SHOWS THAT WE'RE PUSHING AWAY
CANDIDATES FROM BEING TRAINED
BECAUSE THERE IS AN EXCESSIVE
AMOUNT OF INTEREST. WE'RE SEEING
THAT THE VACANCY RATE OF THESE
EMPLOYEES HAS ACTUALLY DECREASED
FROM THE LAST REPORT THAT CAME
OUT SO IT'S NOT NEEDED. TO
FURTHER INCENTIVIZE SINCE PEOPLE
ALREADY WANT TO BE IN THESE
ROLES, IN FACT, COMPARED TO ASK
ME IS UNIT 19, WHERE SOCIAL
WORKERS WERE ONLY GIVEN AN
APPROXIMATE MIRROR 3% INCREASE
COMPARED TO WHAT WE'RE DOING FOR
OUR CDCR INDIVIDUALS TO ME AND
MAKE SOME SENSE IF WE'RE
STRUGGLING TO FIND MORE MENTAL
THERAPISTS COMPARED TO THIS
OTHER ROLE, WHY WOULDN'T WE
FURTHER INVESTED IN AND INVEST
IN A CATEGORY THAT I'VE REPEATED
OVER AND OVER AGAIN. WE'RE
ASKING TO BE IN EVERY SINGLE
CORNER LIKE A 7 11 AND RELATED
TO UNION 19 MOU MY ONE OF MY
QUESTIONS. THERE IS WHY SOCIAL
WORKERS HAD APPROXIMATELY ONLY
3% INCREASE VERSUS SCHOOL
PSYCHOLOGISTS THAT SIGN
APPROXIMATELY 10. INCREASED
RATES. I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED
WITH THAT THEN SINCE THEY DO
SIMILAR WORK EDUCATION
DIFFERENT, BUT I THINK THE
DISPROPORTIONATE INCREASES IN
EACH ONE OF THEM IS A LITTLE
CONCERNING VOTED. THAT'S MY
FIRST QUESTION. SEE IF THERE'S
ANY CLARIFYING INFORMATION AS TO
WHY THERE IS THAT BIG OF A GAP
IN INCREASES FOR THESE TWO
CATEGORIES. I'LL HAVE TO GET
BACK TO YOU WITH SPECIFIC
DETAILS. SIR, I DON'T KNOW IF
YOU HAD A LITTLE BIT MORE. OKAY
OKAY. YOU'LL GET BACK TO ME ON
THAT ONE IN REGARDS TO A BSP, 1,
38 AND ACCOMPLISHED NEEDS
RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM. I SHARE
SOME THREE. SO THIS WAS THE
CONVERSATION THAT WAS HAD IN MY
SUB. I JUST WANT TO SHARE WITH
YOU LIKE GOING BACK AND FORTH
WITH THE DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTRATION ON THIS. WE WERE
VERY CLEAR. I MADE IT VERY
CLEAR. THAT WE WERE LOOKING TO
STEP AWAY FROM JUST THE OUTDATED
FORMS THAT WAS USED FOR
TREATMENT AND WE THOUGHT WE HAD
AGREED ON A PLAN. I'M HAPPY WITH
THE LANGUAGE NOW, BUT I DO WANT
TO SHARE WITH MY COLLEAGUES THAT
IN BETWEEN THAT THEY CAME BACK
TO US AND SAID, WE WANT TO
RESTRAIN OUR PATIENTS BECAUSE
THAT'S PART OF TREATMENT.
CONVERSATIONS THAT WEREN'T
INCLUDED IN SUB THREE THAT WERE
ACTUALLY TRYING TO HAPPEN BEHIND
OUR BACKS. IT'S VERY UPSETTING.
I WANT TO THANK MY TEAM THAT
CONSULTANTS FOR FIGHTING FOR
THIS, BUT I DO WANT TO SHARE
SOME DISAPPOINTMENT THAT EVEN
SUB THREE WE AGREED ON SOMETHING
AND SOMETHING WAS TRYING TO BE
CHANGED EVEN PAST THAT. I'M
HAPPY THAT WE PUT LANGUAGE HERE
THAT SAYS SPECIFICALLY THAT
EMERGENCY THAT RESTRAINTS ARE
ONLY GOING TO BE USED IN
EMERGENCY. BUT THEY WERE TRYING
TO INCLUDE THIS AS PART OF
TREATMENT. WE'VE HEARD THE
HORROR STORIES OF INDIVIDUALS
WITH COMPLEX NEEDS BEING
ISOLATED, BEING RESTRAINT.
ENDLESS AMOUNT OF HOURS. I'M
GLAD WE'RE ABLE TO PUSH BACK,
BUT I DID WANT TO MAKE NOTE TO
OUR COLLEAGUES THAT THEY WERE
TRYING TO SQUEEZE THAT IN THERE
AS LANGUAGE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU
WANTED TO RESPOND TO THAT. SURE
THANK YOU, KATE. PERMANENT
FINANCE. I THINK I JUST WANT TO
CLARIFY THAT WE WEREN'T TRYING
TO, UM, SQUEEZE SOMETHING AND
PULL A FAST ONE. I THINK THERE
WAS SOMETHING THAT THROUGH
DISCUSSION AT THE DEPARTMENT
WITH THEIR PROGRAM, FOLKS THAT
YOU KNOW IT WAS IT WAS SOMETHING
THAT WE HAD PROPOSED WITH
ALLEGED CONSULTANTS FOR
DISCUSSION. NOT SOMETHING THAT
WE WERE TRYING TO UM, JUST
SQUEEZING WITHOUT HAVING THAT
CONVERSATION WITH YOU GUYS, BUT
I THINK WE HEARD YOU KNOW THE WE
HEARD YOUR CONCERNS AND WE'VE
PULLED OUT, YOU KNOW, UM,
LANGUAGE BACK, BUT I THINK JUST
TO BE CLEAR THAT IS THAT IS FOR
A NICE INTERMEDIATE CARE
FACILITY. THOSE ARE TREATMENTS
THAT ARE INCLUDED, BUT I THINK
WE'VE COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH
TO INCLUDE PROHIBITIONS ON THE
USE OF RESTRAINTS IN THE
LANGUAGE, SO THAT'S CLEAR AND SO
JUST AGAIN. WE WEREN'T TRYING TO
JUST SNEAK SOMETHING IN. I THINK
WE WERE OPEN TO THE DISCUSSION
AND WE PUT IT FORWARD AND WE
HAVE THE DISCUSSION AND WE FIND
OUT WHERE WE ARE TODAY. AYE. OUR
STAGE STRONG IN MY, UM MY
STATEMENT, UM, ON THAT ISSUE. DO
YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ON
THAT? I DID YOU JUST, UH, JUST
YOU SAID THAT RESTRAINTS WERE
PART OF TREATMENT RESTRAINTS ARE
NEVER PART OF TREATMENT
RESTRAINTS ARE A TOOL FOR
PROVIDERS TO BE ABLE TO TAKE
CARE OF THE PROBLEM. THEY'RE
NEVER PART OF A TREATMENT PLAN.
THERE IS NO TREATMENT PLAN THAT
SAYS THAT WE WILL RESTRAIN THIS
PERSON FOR THE BETTERMENT OF
THEIR CARE. IT IS A TOOL THAT IS
USED IN FACILITIES SOMETIMES
WHEN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO
USE ANY OTHER KINDS OF TOOLS, SO
IT'S BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE
CLEAR IT IS NOT A TREATMENT. IT
IS AN INTERVENTION. MADAM. SURE.
CAN I GIVE A FELLOW OTHER SUB
THREE COLLEAGUES HERE. I JUST
WANT TO CONCUR WITH REMARKS,
MADAM CHAIR AND I JUST WANT TO
RE CONCUR WITH THE REMARKS FROM
THE BUDGET SUBJECT, THREE CHAIR
AND SOMEBODY WHO HAS BEEN A
SOCIAL WORKER FOR A LONG TIME.
MY COLLEAGUE FROM STOCKTON'S
BEING ON BUDGETS OF THREE I
REMEMBER THAT SPECIFIC COMMITTEE
HEARING AND THE HORRIFIC STORIES
THAT WERE TOLD AND I CONCUR WITH
MY COLLEAGUE FROM STOCKTON THAT
IT IS RESTRAINTS ARE NEVER A
PART OF TREATMENT. UM AND IT CAN
BE USED AS A TOOL TO KEEP PEOPLE
SAFE. BUT IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE
24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A
WEEK, AND THE HORRIFIC STORIES
THAT WE HEARD ABOUT IT NEEDS TO
BE USED VERY RARELY, IF AT ALL,
UM AND I AGREE AGAIN. IT'S NOT A
PART OF TREATMENT, AND IT SHOULD
BE A POLICY COMMITTEE AND NOT IN
A VEGETARIAN OR BUILT. MADAM
TRIP. I JUST HAVE ONE MORE
QUESTION. AND THEN SO THAT'S ON
THAT. AND THEN I'D LIKE TO MOVE
OVER TO A BSB 1 37. I'M LOOKING
FOR SOME CLARIFYING LANGUAGE
REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF SOME
PROVIDERS TO WORK IN THE
CLINICAL CURSES SETTINGS IN
PARTICULAR, IF YOU CAN JUST
CLARIFY, UM, UNDER REMOVAL OF
MARRIAGE FAMILY THERAPIST BEING
INCLUDED SOME ASSURANCE YOU CAN
PROVIDE ME IN ENSURING THAT THEY
WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO WORK IN
THE SETTINGS THAT THIS IS I
GUESS. I DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU
MY LANGUAGE. I JUST WOULD LIKE
TO HEAR FROM YOU ON WHAT THAT'S
LOOKING LIKE, UM, AND THE NEED
TO REMOVE THEM. TOTAL DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE JUST TO CLARIFY THE
INTENT OF THIS LANGUAGE WAS TO
ALIGN WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS
IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT WE DON'T
JEOPARDIZE FEDERAL FUNDING. UM
THE LANGUAGE ITSELF DOES NOT
PROHIBIT MARRIAGE, FAMILY
THERAPIST OR ANY OTHER PROVIDERS
FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE
INTERPLAY INTERDISCIPLINARY
TEAMS. SO LONG AS THE REQUIRED
PROVIDERS ARE ON THERE, SO
THAT'S WHAT THE LANGUAGE DOES
SEEKS TO JUST CLARIFY SO THAT WE
CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO DRAW DOWN
FEDERAL DOLLARS. PERFECT THAT'S
WHAT I HEARD. I JUST NEEDED TO
GET REASSURANCE, SO IT'S SAFE TO
SAY THAT THEY'LL WHOEVER IS THE
POINT PERSON WILL BE WORKING
WITH OUR MARRIAGE FAMILY
THERAPIST TO PROVIDE EVEN
FURTHER ASSURANCE THAT THEY WILL
CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO WORK
THERE. THIS IS JUST THE FLOOR
AND NOT THE CEILING. THAT'S THE
CORRECT ASSESSMENT. THE
DEPARTMENT WILL CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH STAKEHOLDERS AS THEY ALWAYS
HAVE TO ENSURE THAT THEY
UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE STILL
ABLE TO PARTICIPATE AND PROVIDE
SERVICES IN THESE FACILITIES.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU. LET US CONTINUE.
SENATOR PDF, FOLLOWED BY SENATOR
MEN FOLLOWED BY SENATOR SARTO
AND THEN I DO HAVE THE OTHERS ON
THE LIST, BUT I WILL READ THEM
ALL. GO AHEAD VERY MUCH, MADAM
CHAIR AND FIRST AND FOREMOST,
JUST RETURNING TO MAYBE 1 43 AND
THE CONVERSATION AROUND GOT
ORDERS. I WOULD JUST STATE FOR
THE RECORD THAT SOME OF MY
INITIAL QUESTIONS WERE ASKED AND
ANSWERED BY SENATOR ASO. BUT AND
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. GIVEN
THE TESTIMONY FROM STAFF, IT
SEEMS CLEAR THAT SOME OF THE
URGENCY AROUND HAVING THIS IN A
BUDGET TRAILER WITH RESPECT TO
TIME FRAME AND AVOIDING A
SUNSETTING PROVISIONS ON EARLIER
ALTERNATIVE MONTHLY COMPENSATION
FOR THIS CLASSIFICATION OF
WORKERS IS REALLY A MINOR FISCAL
IMPACT ISSUE. I THINK SOMEBODY
TESTIFIED SOMETHING THAT IF WE
HAD THE MINIMUM STANDARD THAT
OTHERWISE APPLIES, THERE'S AN
EXPIRATION THE EXEMPTION. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL
GIVEN THE CLASSIFICATION OF WORK
OF A GOAT HERDER, MAKING 190 K.
THERE'S A PART OF THE SOCIAL
EQUITY PERSON IN ME THAT SAYS
WELL, WOULDN'T THAT BE AMAZING?
EVEN SYMBOLICALLY, BECAUSE THERE
ARE A LOT OF OTHER FOLKS THAT DO
OTHER SORT OF 24 7 JOBS THAT
CERTAINLY ARE VERY HIGHLY
COMPENSATED. AND I'M NOT SAYING
THAT TO BE ABSURD, BUT I'M
DISAPPOINTED. CERTAINLY AS THE
SUB CHAIR HERE WHERE THIS GOT
SORT OF STUCK AT THE LAST MINUTE
THAT THE EX, YOU KNOW, IT
WOULDN'T BE THE FIRST TIME THAT
WE WOULD SEE SUBSTANTIVE PATHS
TO POLICY REMEDIES OR POLICY
REMEDIES THEMSELVES BE PART OF
THE FRAMEWORK OF THE TRAILER. I
AM SURE ALL MY COLLEAGUES WOULD
REALIZE THAT THAT'S NEVER
HAPPENED BEFORE, AND I'M
CONCERNED THAT WE DIDN'T TAKE
THE OPPORTUNITY HERE TO HAVE
CONTENT, AT LEAST ON A PATH TO
ADDRESSING THE POLICY
IMPLICATIONS HERE SINCE WE WERE
LOOKING AT WC PROCESS THAT
EXISTED AND THEN DIDN'T EXIST
AND WILL EXIST AGAIN. AND IT'S
BEEN SINCE 2001 TO ADDRESS THE
FUNDAMENTALS HERE BECAUSE WE ARE
A VICTIM OF OUR OWN MONSTER TO
BE CANDID, MADAM CHAIR AND
COLLEAGUES. WE HAVE CREATED A
CONFLICT BETWEEN ECONOMIC
PRESSURES TO NOT HIRE AS MANY OF
THESE WORKERS SEASONALLY OR
OTHERWISE TO AVOID COSTS. WE'RE
NOW IN A SITUATION THAT THE TIME
FRAME WAS NOT USED TO MAKE A
RESOLUTION TO THIS FUNDAMENTAL
FRAMEWORK, BUT RATHER JUST TO
EXTEND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN
AVOIDING THE SUNSET SO THAT OUR
OTHER MINIMUM WAGE PROVISIONS
WOULDN'T APPLY. IT JUST SEEMS TO
ME FRANKLY, LIKE A MISSED
OPPORTUNITY. BECAUSE THE LAST
THING WE NEED TO BE SIGNALING
INTENTIONALLY OR OTHERWISE, AT
THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT IN TIME,
PARTICULARLY IN THE COMING DAYS
ABOUT FARM WORKERS AND
AGRICULTURAL WORKERS AND
SEASONAL WORKERS IS SOMETHING
THAT ANYONE COULD MISCONSTRUE OR
MISCONSTRUE OR INTERPRET
CORRECTLY OR NOT THAT THESE
WORKERS ARE UNDERVALUED. THAT
THEY'RE NOT VALUED AS OTHERS AND
THAT THIS IS AN EXPLOITIVE
CONSTRUCT THAT WE HAVE CREATED,
POTENTIALLY, AND ONE THAT
DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO BE CANDID
IN SOME RESPECTS, SO I'M JUST
DISAPPOINTED THAT WE ENDED UP
HERE TO BE HONEST AND I'M
DISAPPOINTED REMAINS IN THE
TRAILER. UM IT'S SORT OF
SURPRISING EVEN IN THE
CONVERSATIONS IN JUNE. THERE WAS
SOME SUGGESTION THERE MIGHT BE
SOME SUBSTANTIVE PATH. THAT'S
PART OF THE PACKAGE THAT WOULD
ADDRESS THIS THAT AT LEAST
REASSURE FOLKS WHO ARE GOING TO
ADDRESS THE FUNDAMENTAL POLICY
QUESTION HERE AT SOME POINT, AND
THAT OPPORTUNITY WAS MISSED. AND
I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT IN THE
RECORD. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
THANK YOU, SENATOR PADILLA,
SENATOR MINT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. I APPRECIATE THAT. UM I
JUST WANT TO ECHO SOME OF THE
CONCERNS RAISED BY MY COLLEAGUES
ABOUT, UM SOME OF THE DIFFERENT
ASPECTS OF THIS AND I REALIZED
THE BUDGET IS A HUGE DOCUMENT.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE OKAY.
THESE ARE PARTICULARIZED ITEMS,
BUT I THINK THEY'RE IMPORTANT TO
EMPHASIZE. I GUESS MY QUESTION
GETS A LITTLE BIT MORE PROCESS
AND I WAS CONCERNED BY THE
COMMENTS RAISED BY LAO THAT WITH
RESPECT TO THE M O. U. S THAT
THESE HAD BEEN NEGOTIATED AND
AGREED UPON A FULL WEEK BEFORE
THEY WERE RELEASED TO OUR SIDE,
AND YOU KNOW, IT DOES FEEL LIKE
WE'RE GETTING JAMMED. THESE ARE
COMPLICATED DOCUMENTS IN
AGREEMENTS. THERE WERE A LOT OF
QUESTIONS RAISED IN THIS LAO
ANALYSIS. AND I GUESS MY FIRST
QUESTION IS REALLY JUST WHY THE
DELAY? WHY NOT GET THIS TO US
EARLIER, SO WE WOULD HAVE MORE
TIME TO FLESH OUT. WHAT SEEMED
TO BE LIKE SOME MEANINGFUL
CONCERNS. THANK YOU FOR THAT
QUESTION, I WOULD SAY ON BEHALF
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF KELLY CHAR
THAT ONCE AGREEMENT IS MADE AT
THE TABLE, IT TAKES DAYS TO GO
THROUGH. UM BASICALLY ALL THE
COST ING'S AND ALL OF THE, UM,
THE LANGUAGE TO GET THOSE MOU S
TOGETHER. AND SO PART OF THAT
WAS THE WORKLOAD, NOTHING MORE.
AND A LOT OF IT IS THE TIMING.
THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HAPPENED
AT THE TABLE DO TAKE TIME.
SOMETIMES AS WE ALL KNOW, WEEKS,
MONTHS AND SO COMING DOWN TO THE
END OF THE WIRE, I THINK THERE
ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE
LEFT FOR COMPLETION. AND SO A
LOT OF IT IS JUST HAPPENING AT
THE TABLE. AND THEN ONCE THAT
AGREEMENT DOES HAPPEN, IT DOES
TAKE SEVERAL DAYS BEFORE, UM
KELLY JR IS ABLE TO PRODUCE THE
DOCUMENTS, BUT WE ARE BEING
ASKED TO VOTE ON THIS PARTICULAR
SET INLAYS WHETHER TO FUND THEM
OR NOT, UM AND WE ARE YOU KNOW,
AT THE END OF THE DAY WE'RE
CØNG. WELL PARTNER. I GUESS THE
QUESTION IS, WHY NOT AT LEAST
GIVE A HEADS UP TO OUR SIDE? SO
THEY HAVE TIME TO FLESH THIS
OUT. I SEE CONCERNS RAISED, BUT
I UNDERSTAND THE LAW DOESN'T
HAVE TIME TO FULLY FLUSH THESE
OUT. YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF
DIFFERENT TYPES OF EMPLOYEES
COVERED BY THIS BARGAINING THEY
SET OF VALUES. SOME OF WHICH
SEEM LIKE, PERHAPS THEY MAY NOT
NEED THE SAME TYPES OF INCREASES
, SOME OF WHICH MAY NEED BIGGER
INCREASES. THESE CONCERNS WERE
RAISED BY THE LA AND I JUST I'M
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT. YOU KNOW,
I'VE BEEN HERE ALMOST THREE
YEARS NOW AND JUST TO SEE THIS
CONSTANT AH, WE CREATING A FIRE
DRILLS WHERE WE DON'T GET THE
INFORMATION TO THE LAST MINUTE
AND THIS IS MY THIRD BUDGET
PROCESS IS THE THIRD TIME I'VE
SEEN THIS TYPE OF STUFF HAPPENED
AND I'D LOVE TO HEAR THE
RESPONSE. BUT I JUST THINK IT
WOULD BE VERY HOPEFUL FOR THIS
BODY TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY
WEIGH IN ON A BUDGET AND A SET
OF VALUES WHICH ARE GOING TO
HAVE DRAMATIC CONSEQUENCES ON
OUR OVERALL FISCAL HELP FOR THE
NEXT FEW YEARS. INCLUDING OUR
HIRING OF KEY EMPLOYEES WITHOUT
HAVING TO JUST LIKE SHOTGUN IT
IN THE DARK BECAUSE WE WERE KEPT
IN THE DARK FOR MOST OF THE
PROCESS, BUT I'D LOVE TO HEAR LÀ
AS RESPONSE. CAROLINE TO
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE. SO
AS AS THE SENATORS ARE AWARE THE
AGREEMENTS BEFORE YOU EXPIRED ON
JUNE 30TH SO TO SOME EXTENT, AS
AS MY COLLEAGUE, MS LEE
MENTIONED THE DELAY IN
DELIVERING THE AGREEMENT
REFLECTS THE FACT THAT THE
BARGAINING UH, DID NOT OCCUR
UNTIL LATER IN THE CALENDAR YEAR
. SO THERE WAS SOME PUSH LATER
IN THE CALENDAR YEAR. WHY THE
PARTIES DID NOT MEET UNTIL LATER
IN THE CALENDAR YEAR IS NOT
ANYTHING WE HAVE INSIGHT INTO,
HOWEVER, WE HAVE SUGGESTED TO
THE LEGISLATURE. TO REALLY SET A
POLICY TO NOT CONSIDER
AGREEMENTS THAT COME TO THEM IN
SUCH A LATE FASHION. THE
EXPIRATION OF THE AGREEMENTS IS
A KNOWN DATE. THE KELLY JAR IS
NOW ON A ROUTINE CYCLE FOR
CONDUCTING THE COMPENSATION
STUDIES. EVERY UNIT WILL HAVE A
COMPENSATION STUDY EVERY TWO
YEARS. THE LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR
IS WELL KNOWN MONTHS IN ADVANCE
, SO THE PARAMETERS ARE THERE TO
FACILITATE. THE AGREEMENTS TO
COME FORWARD AND TIMELY FASHION
BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE. IT'S
REALLY ON THE BARGAINING UNITS
IN THE ADMINISTRATION TO BEGIN
THAT PROCESS AT A TIME THAT WILL
ALLOW THEM TO REACH AN AGREEMENT
IN TIME FOR THE LEGISLATURE'S
TIMELY CONSIDERATION, AND JUST I
SKIMMED THE REPORT. BUT IF YOU
COULD JUST REITERATE WHAT YOU
SEE IS POTENTIALLY SOME OF THE
MAJOR CONCERNS. WE SHOULD BE
LOOKING AT THESE IN THE U. S.
SURE SO, UH, AS YOU ALREADY
MENTIONED THE TIME AND ENSURING
THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE IN ITS
DELIBERATIVE PROCESS TO CONSIDER
SUCH A LARGE BUDGET CHANGE
PROPOSAL OF ABOUT $2 BILLION IN
THE SECOND BY THE TIME THE
SECOND YEAR OF THESE AGREEMENTS
TAKE EFFECTS. WE ALSO RAISE SOME
ISSUES WITH REGARD TO
COMPENSATION STUDIES AS AN
OVERARCHING COMMENT, I WOULD SAY
THAT WE REALLY, UH, FIND THAT A
SOUND METHODOLOGY IS CRITICAL AS
SOME OTHER MEMBERS HAVE. HAVE
REFERENCE TO ENSURE THAT
COMPARABLE EMPLOYEES ARE BEING
COMPARED TO THE STATE'S
WORKFORCE SO THAT COMPETITIVE
COMPENSATION CAN BE OFFERED. WE
HAVE TWO MORE SPECIFIC COMMENTS
WHEN IT COMES TO COMPENSATION
STUDIES. THE FIRST IS THAT
ENSURING THAT SPECIAL SALARY
ADJUSTMENTS SO ADJUSTMENTS TO
PARTICULAR CLASSIFICATIONS ARE
EITHER JUSTIFIED WITH THAT
COMPENSATION, STUDY OR OTHER
INFORMATION FROM THE
ADMINISTRATION. WE ARE NOT WE
WERE NOT PROVIDED ANY
INFORMATION FROM THE
ADMINISTRATION TO JUSTIFY THE
SPECIAL SALARY ADJUSTMENTS THAT
WERE PROVIDED THAT DID NOT HAVE
ANY COMPENSATION STUDY
INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THEM
, AND THEN WE HAVE A SPECIFIC
COMMENTS REGARDING THE UNIT SIX
COMPENSATION STUDY, WHICH HAS
COMPARATOR ZOO THAT WE DO NOT
FIND REFLECT THE DISTRIBUTION,
THE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS IN THE
STATE. UM WE ALSO WOULD KNOW ON
THE UNIT SIX TENTATIVE AGREEMENT
THAT THERE IS A NOTABLE CHANGE
IN RETIREMENT BENEFITS POLICY IN
WHICH UNIT SIX WOULD RECEIVE
EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THEIR
4 TO 841 K PLAN. A ONE TIME
INSTALLMENT OF I THINK, $475 AND
THEN AN ONGOING 1% OF PAY BASE
PAY ON AN ONGOING BASIS, AND THE
STATE HAS NOT ENGAGED IN
EMPLOYER SPONSORED 41 K
CONTRIBUTIONS ON A IN THE PAST.
THERE IS ONE EXCEPTION TO THIS
TO EXCLUDED EMPLOYEES IN THE
EARLY TWO THOUSANDS. BUT THIS IS
A FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT IN THE
STATES RETIREMENT POLICY, WHICH,
AS YOU ALL KNOW, HAS REALLY BEEN
FOCUSED ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO
CALPERS DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS.
THANK YOU. OKAY, OKAY. ALL RIGHT
, SENATOR SEYARTO, FOLLOWED BY
SENATOR BECKER, FOLLOWED BY
SENATOR GROVE OCHOA FOLK. OKAY
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THIS MY
TWO QUESTIONS ARE GOING TO BE
REGARDING A B 1 40 THE CHILD
CARE SECTION. AND THE FIRST
QUESTION IS WHAT WAS THE IMPETUS
TO CHANGE PART TIME DEFINITION?
FROM 30 HOURS A WEEK TO 25 HOURS
A WEEK. WHEN EVERYBODY ELSE IT'S
A 40 HOURS A WEEK DEFINITION.
KIND OF ALONG THE LINES OF SOME
OF THE OTHER DISCUSSIONS WE'VE
BEEN HAVING WHY? WHY ARE THEY
BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY IN
TERMS OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A FULL
TIME EMPLOYMENT? BECAUSE THAT
THAT ITSELF IS WHAT? 105 MIL RU
$105 MILLION EXTRA FOR THE
STATE. IN STATE COSTS FOR QUITE
A YEAR YEAR AND A HALF. SO CAN
SOMEBODY ENLIGHTEN ME ON THAT
ONE? YES THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION. GABBY SANTORA
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. I WOULD
JUST START TO FOR CLARITY. THIS
CHANGE IN PART TIME DEFINITION
IS PART OF THE AGREEMENT THAT
THE STATE HAD REACHED SWISS CCP
. YOU, UM AND JUST ONE NOTE FOR
TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE MERIT
OF THE CHANGE. IT'S OUR
UNDERSTANDING THAT PRODUCING.
THIS DEFINITION CAN ALLOW
PROVIDERS TO MORE EASILY SUPPORT
AND TAKE ON FAMILIES WHO HAVE
NEEDS IN THE ORDER OF THIS THESE
HOURS PER WEEK, SO THIS IS
REALLY AN INTEREST OF ALLOWING
PROVIDERS TO BETTER SUPPORT
FAMILIES. $105 MILLION A YEAR
AND A HALF. THE, UM SORRY TO, UM
, TO CLARIFY THE ESTIMATED
ANNUAL COST OF CHANGING THIS
DEFINITION IS ABOUT 39.5
MILLION. FOR THIS YEAR. FOR THIS
IS 35 MILLION FOR THIS YEAR AND
70 FOR NEXT CORRECT SO THAT THE
PLAN IS TO IMPLEMENT THIS CHANGE
BY THE MIDDLE OF THIS FISCAL
YEAR, BUT THE ANNUAL ONGOING
COST WOULD BE 39.5 MILLION. THAT
DOESN'T CLEAR CLARIFY WHY WE'RE
DOING THAT. IT JUST CLARIFIES
WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. AND
IT'S GOING TO COST MORE AND
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO
HELP MORE PEOPLE BECAUSE THAT'S
GOING TO TALK. WE'RE GOING TO GO
DOWN TO THE NEXT SECTION HERE.
THE HOLD HARMLESS REIMBURSEMENT
EXTENSION. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE
OF DOING THAT? SURE SO AGAIN.
THIS IS A ANOTHER ELEMENT OF THE
AGREEMENT THAT WAS REACHED
BETWEEN THE CPU AND THE STATE.
THIS IS ALSO AGAIN AN INTEREST
OF BEING ABLE TO ALLOW PROVIDERS
TO BETTER SUPPORT FAMILIES.
THERE ARE FAMILIES WHO DO HAVE
VARIABLE SCHEDULES AND, UM,
ABSENT THIS FLEXIBILITY, IT
MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR PROVIDERS
TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ON FAMILIES
WITH VARIABLE SCHEDULE SO WE
DON'T WANT TO BE ABLE TO, UM WE
WANT TO BE ABLE TO MINIMIZE
BARRIERS FOR FAMILIES WITH
VARIABLE SCHEDULES TO GET ACCESS
TO CARE. BUT WHAT BUT WHAT THIS
IS DOING IS IT'S REIMBURSING
BASED ON A CONTRACT AMOUNT. NO
MATTER HOW MANY KIDS YOU WIND UP
HAVING IN YOUR CLASS OR YOUR
CARE. SO WE'VE BEEN FOR THE LAST
TWO YEARS. WE'VE BEEN TALKING
ABOUT THE DIRE NEED TO INCREASE
THE AMOUNT OF SPIT SLOTS FOR
KIDS. AND THIS DOESN'T SEEM TO
BE GOING IN THAT DIRECTION. IN
FACT, IT DISINCENTIVIZE IS THAT
. FOR THE STATE CONTRACT ID
CHILDCARE WORKERS BECAUSE THEY
DON'T HAVE TO HAVE AS MANY KIDS
IN THERE TO GET THE
REIMBURSEMENT THAT THEY NEED, OR
THEY WOULD LIKE. CERTAINLY SO I
, YOU KNOW, UM THE
ADMINISTRATION SHARES AN
INTEREST WITH THE LEGISLATURE TO
MAXIMIZE AND EXPAND CARE. THAT'S
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE OUR MULTIYEAR
PLAN TO EXPAND THE NUMBER OF
SUBSIDIZED CHILDCARE SLIDES BY
200,000 OVER A MULTIYEAR PERIOD
AGAINST THE INTENT IS NOT TO
RESTRICT IT, BUT TO ALLOW MAKE
IT EASIER FOR PROVIDERS TO
PROVIDE ACCESS TO CARE FOR
FAMILIES WHO HAVE VARIABLE
SCHEDULES, BUT THAT NUMBER IS
NOT TIED TO THE AMOUNT OF SLOTS.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S NOT TIED.
IT'S TIED TO THE AMOUNT OF SLOTS
, BUT IT'S NOT TIED TO THE
AMOUNT OF KIDS IN THOSE SLOTS.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE SLOTS CAN GO
EMPTY. THEY'RE STILL GETTING
PAID FOR THOSE WHERE? WHERE IS
THE ADVANTAGE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE
STRUGGLING TO GET THEIR KIDS?
INTO A DAYCARE. AND. WE HAVE
SLOTS AVAILABLE, BUT THERE'S NO
INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO FILL THEM
BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY GETTING
PAID FOR. UM I WOULD SAY, JUST
SORT OF A BROAD COMMENT. I THINK
THAT AGAIN, BUT THE FIELD AS
WELL HAS A SHARED INTEREST IN
YOU KNOW, PROVIDING ACCESS TO
CARE FOR CHILDREN. UM, SO I
THINK IT'S YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF
, UM, BALANCING ANY POTENTIAL
BENEFITS OR COSTS OF THIS POLICY
CHANGE, I THINK FROM THE
MINISTRATIONS PERSPECTIVE THAT
OVERALL IT'S EXPANDING ACCESS TO
CARE. RIGHT WELL, I STRUGGLED TO
MAKE THAT CONNECTION BECAUSE
THIS DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S
INCENTIVIZING THAT AT ALL. AND
IN OTHER WORDS, THIS PROGRAM
THIS PART SHOULD PROBABLY COME
TO A SUNSET BECAUSE THIS WAS FOR
COVID. THIS WAS FOR WHEN
PRESCHOOLS WERE TRYING TO
SURVIVE BECAUSE NO KIDS WERE
COMING INTO THE CLASS. THAT'S
WHAT THIS IS FOR, AND THAT'S NOT
THE CASE ANYMORE. WE HAVE A
BUNCH OF KIDS OUT THERE. BUNCH
OF PARENTS STRATEGY IN MY
DISTRICT. WE HAVE PARENTS ALL
OVER THE PLACE TRYING TO FIND
PLACES FOR THEIR KIDS. AND THEY
CAN'T AND WE'RE NOT
INCENTIVIZING THIS SO YOU KNOW,
THAT'S THAT'S A STRUGGLE I HAVE
WITH SOME OF THE PRESCHOOL PARTS
OF THIS IS IT'S MEANT. I DON'T
KNOW HOW THEY THINK IT'S GOING
TO BE HELPFUL, BUT IT'S NOT
HELPFUL IN THE REAL WORLD. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING MY
QUESTIONS. I APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU, SENATOR SARTO. WE
WILL NOW GO TO SENATOR BECKER
FOLLOWED BY SENATOR GROWTH
FOLLOWED BY SENATOR OH, COBURG,
AND I THINK I'M JUST LEARNING
FOLKS THAT, UH, OBVIOUSLY, WE
WANT MEMBERS TO ASK THEIR
QUESTIONS AND TO GET THERE. THIS
IS IMPORTANT FOR WE ARE TAKING
THIS VOTE TODAY. WE'RE NOT
TAKING THE VOTE ON THE FLOOR
UNTIL NEXT WEEK. WE'RE TAKING
OUR VOTES IN THE COMMITTEE
TODAY, BUT I ALSO WANT TO ALERT
THAT WE DO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS
STILL, AND I THINK FOR A VARIETY
FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, I HAVE
ALREADY BEEN INFORMED BY VARIOUS
FOLKS THAT THEY HAVE
OBLIGATIONS. AT NOON THAT THEY
ARE NOT ABLE TO, UH WHATEVER. SO
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO. WE WILL
HAVE TO END BY NOON. SO JUST
ALERTING ANYWAY, SENATOR BECKER
GROVE, YOUR BOOK. THANK YOU
FIRST COUPLE. QUICK COMMENTS. UM
. I AM GLAD THAT WILL BE DOING
THE WE'RE MOVING FORWARD ON
STUDENT HOUSING. JUST ONE THING
I ALSO BROUGHT UP IN OUR
COMMITTEE. JUST MAKE SURE WE'RE
CONTINUE TO LOOK AT PUBLIC
PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS TO FUND
THESE WAS ON THE FOUNDATION
BOARD FOR 15 YEARS, U. C. MERCED
AND WE COMPLETED A 2020 PROJECT
TO DOUBLE SIZE THE CAMPUS. IT
WAS THE 1.2 BILLION LARGEST
PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IN
THE COUNTRY FOR SOCIAL
INFRASTRUCTURE COMPLETED ON TIME
AND ON BUDGET. AND CONSIDERED A
GREAT SUCCESS AND MAKE SURE THAT
WE CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THOSE AS
WE FUND GOING FORWARD. 1 43
PEOPLE ALREADY MENTIONED. YOU
KNOW, IT SHOULDN'T TAKE TWO
YEARS TO DO THIS. THIS STUDY IN
MY MIND, I DON'T KNOW WHY IT
WOULD TAKE US TWO YEARS TO DO
THAT. UM, SENATOR, MAN, I DID
WANT TO BRING UP ON THE MOU
CENTER. MEN. BROUGHT UP. YOU
KNOW, THESE ARE SUBSTANTIAL. IMO
US. WE'RE TALKING. I BELIEVE IN
OUR BUDGET BRIEF. I BELIEVE THEY
SAID $4 BILLION ACTUALLY
INCREASES YOU SAID $2 BILLION.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT IS OVER
THAT PERIOD, BUT TO BE GIVEN SO
LITTLE TIME TO REVIEW THE M O.
U. S IS DEFINITELY OF CONCERN.
UM AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ON
AND 1 51 IN PARTICULAR. I'VE
ALWAYS BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE.
THESE WORKERS, I MEAN, THESE ARE
VERY DIFFICULT, UH, CONDITIONS
AND VISITED A NUMBER OF PRISONS
AND SEEING THE CONDITIONS THAT
THEY'RE WORKING ON. AND THE
NEED. VEGETABLE CLARIFY YOU SAID
ON THE 41 K. YOU SAID THIS IS
THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE
CONTRIBUTED DIRECTLY TO A 41 K.
YES WE DID ASK THIS QUESTION TO
KELLY CHAR. OUR UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT THERE WAS A PERIOD IN THE
EARLY NINETIES WHERE EXCLUDED
EMPLOYEES. SOME EXCLUDED
EMPLOYEES DID GET TEMPORARY
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM FROM THE
STATE TO 401K PLANS, BUT WE ARE
NOT AWARE OF ANY COLLECTIVE
BURNING AGREEMENTS THAT INCLUDED
THIS TYPE OF PROVISION IN THE
PAST. THIS IS JUST CLARIFY. THIS
IS 501 TIME AND THEN 1% SO
PEOPLE MAKE ON AVERAGE 110 K.
THIS WOULD BE LIKE WITH $1100 A
YEAR, THEN CONTRIBUTION. UM
YEAH. I MEAN, THAT IS, AS YOU
SAID, THIS IS A CITY OF CHANGE
TO OUR POLICY, SO I'M VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRECEDENT. I
DON'T NO ONE HERE GETS 41 K
CONTRIBUTIONS. UM BUT CONCERN
THAT PERHAPS PRESIDENT I DID YOU
KNOW, I CAN'T HELP. I ALSO
NOTICED THAT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT
THAT THAT WOULD CHANGE WOULD
MAKE IS BASICALLY EQUAL TO, UM
WOULD I BE ASKING FOR, UM IN
REDUCING THE MARKET ON PRISON
CANTEEN? RIGHT NOW. WE MARK A
PRISON CANTEEN ITEMS WHEN
AVERAGE 65% SOME AS HIGH AS 200%
AND JUST TO REDUCE THAT MARK IT
DOWN TO 10% WOULD SAVE $26
MILLION FOR FAMILIES THAT
ALREADY STRUGGLING OFTEN GOING
TO DEBT TO MAKE SURE LOVED ONES
HAVE BASIC SANITARY AND HEALTH
PRODUCTS. BUY TOOTHPASTE, SO.
RHETORICAL QUESTION. I ASSUME
THE ADMINISTRATION WILL BE
SUPPORTING THAT MEASURE IF IT
GETS TO THE GOVERNOR'S DESK
BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
REALLY THE SAME AMOUNT THERE
JUST FOR THAT SORT OF SMALL
PIECE OF THIS, SO SENATOR BECKER
COULD I JUST MAKE A COMMENT ON
FOLLOWING UP IN THE L. A 401K
CONTRIBUTION OF SAVINGS? AND,
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT HOW KELLY
CHART LOOKS AT THIS AND OTHER
ADMINISTRATION LOOKS AS AT THIS
IS IT'S ANOTHER COMPENSATION
TOOL, AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT
DOES NOT CREATE LIABILITY FOR
THE STATE. BUT IS IT A CREATIVE
WAY FOR, UM TO BE CONSIDERED AT
THE TABLE, SO I JUST WANTED TO
PUT THAT OUT THERE UNDER
UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS, BUT IT
IS SOMETHING THAT WE LOOK AT AS
ANOTHER COMPENSATION TOOL.
ANOTHER TOOL IN THE TOOLKIT IS
NOT FOR THESE WORKERS,
PARTICULARLY ABOUT JUST BUT IT'S
NOT A TOOL THAT WE'VE USED
BEFORE. SO IT'S A NEW TOOL THAT
WE'RE PUTTING INTO THE TOKEN,
WHICH SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE
USED MANY TIMES IN THE FUTURE.
IF WE UM, PUT IT IN HERE, SO
THAT'S THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS.
I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO REVIEW
AND AS YOU SAID, WE SAID, WE
JUST GOT THIS VERY, UM, VERY
RECENTLY. SO I MAY SUPPORT THOSE
TODAY BUT RESERVE THE RIGHT TO
NOT SUPPORT IN THE FUTURE AS WE
GO FORWARD AND GET A CHANCE TO
DIVE INTO THIS BECAUSE THERE'S A
SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN OUR
COMPENSATION POLICY AS YOU SAID
, AND THAT'S REALLY THE MAIN
CONCERN. I HAVE. THANK YOU.
CENTER GROVE. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. I MAY HAVE A COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS, BUT I JUST WANT TO
MAKE SOME COMMENTS BECAUSE MY
COLLEAGUES DID ASK QUESTIONS. I
DO AGREE BARGAINING UNITS, SIX
WITH MY COLLEAGUE FROM LOS
ANGELES WHERE I SIT ON RULES
WITH HER THAT IF SOMEBODY IS ON
A PIPE OR A SUSPENSION PROGRAM,
AND I REALIZE THAT'S NOT UNDER
YOUR PURVIEW, IT WOULD BE UNDER
THE BARGAINING UNITS PER VIEW. I
DON'T THINK THOSE BONUSES SHOULD
GO TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS. UM I
DON'T AGREE WITH THE
INVESTIGATIVE STATE BECAUSE I
THINK THAT ONCE YOU HAVE A FULL
INVESTIGATION OF SOMEONE'S FOUND
GUILTY, THEN THAT'S ANOTHER
STORY. BUT UNDER INVESTIGATION,
THERE'S A LOT OF FALSE
ACCUSATIONS AS WELL. BUT I THINK
IF YOU'RE ON A PIP OR
SUSPENSION, WE SHOULD ADDRESS
THE BONUS THING. BUT I
UNDERSTAND UNDER THE BARGAIN
UNIT SIX WHY THEY GOT THE BONUS
PROGRAM AND THE REASON WHY IS
BECAUSE, UM THEY WERE SEPARATE
AT A NEGOTIATION. IT'S ONLY A
TWO YEAR TERM SHOULD BE LONGER.
THEY ARE CONTRIBUTING MORE TO
THE RETIREMENT PROGRAM. IT'S
GOING TO BE AN EMPLOYER
CONTRIBUTION AS WELL AS A
INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTION. CORRECT
ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THAT IS
ALSO ONE OF THE CATEGORIES LIKE
FIREFIGHTERS THAT BUT INSTEAD OF
A SEASON OF FIREFIGHTING, THIS
IS A EVERYDAY SINGLE JOB. AND
YOU CAN'T LEAVE IF YOUR
COLLEAGUE IS SUPPOSED TO REPLACE
YOU DOESN'T COME IN. YOU JUST
CAN'T LEAVE THE PRISON. YOU HAVE
TO STAY. IT'S A MANDATORY
REQUIREMENT THAT THEY CAN'T
ABANDON THAT POST. I DON'T KNOW
THE EXACT TERM THAT THEY USE.
BUT UM, YEAH, I DON'T CARE WHAT
YOU GOT GOING ON AT HOME. I
DON'T CARE WHAT YOUR PLANS WERE.
IF YOU'RE THE PEOPLE DON'T SHOW
UP. YOU CAN'T. YOU CAN'T ABANDON
YOUR POST AT THE PRISON AND SO,
UM, I THINK THAT WAS A CREATIVE
WAY FOR THE IOU OR THE CREATIVE
WAY FOR THE NEGOTIATION TO BE
ABLE TO COMPENSATE THOSE PEOPLE
FOR DOING THE WORK THAT THEY DO
INSIDE THE PRISON SYSTEM. SO
THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS ON THAT.
UM I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON A
LITTLE BIT ON THE COMMUNITY
COLLEGE CALLED BLACK CLAW BACK.
I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. I MEAN,
WE ADDRESS THAT ISSUE LAST YEAR
, AND I BELIEVE THIS YEAR IN THE
JUNE BUDGET THAT YOU KNOW, WE
ALL WERE MORTIFIED THAT STUDENTS
WERE SLEEPING IN THEIR CARS THAT
STUDENTS DIDN'T HAVE A PLACE TO
LIVE AND CLIMB BACK THE MONEY
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON
CAMPUSES AND AROUND THAT AREA,
SO I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
WHEN YOU GO TO CHILDCARE AND
ADDRESS A CHILD CARE SYSTEM,
JUST LIKE THE EGGS THAT WERE
BROUGHT UP EARLIER, WE PASSED
LEGISLATION IN THIS BUILDING OR
LEGISLATION WAS PASSED TO
INCREASE THE COST OF EGGS
BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY CALLED
HUMANITY ON CHICKENS, AND
THERE'S MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
THERE'S FARMER JUMPS PULLED OUT
ALL THIS STUFF. YOU THINK WE
HAVE A PROBLEM WITH EGGS? YOU
WAIT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH
PORK IN THE NEXT 3 TO 6 MONTHS,
IT'S GOING TO BE ATROCIOUS. AND
THE COST OF PORK PRODUCTS ARE
GOING TO GO UP EXPONENTIALLY IN
THIS STATE BECAUSE OF THE
LEGISLATION THAT WAS BEST TO
PROTECT PIGS AND GIVING THEM 24
SQUARE FEET, WHICH YOU CAN'T
EVEN MANAGE AS A FARMER. ITS
POLICIES THAT WE PASS THAT
CREATE THE INCREASED COSTS THAT
THAT OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE
DEALING WITH THE SAME WITH
CHILDCARE AND YOU KNOW YOU
UNIONIZE CHILDCARE COST GOES UP
THREE TIMES AND NOW YOU HAVE
POOR FAMILIES IN EVEN NOT POOR
FAMILIES THAT ARE STRUGGLING TO
PAY CHILD CARE. MY DAUGHTER HAS
AN AVERAGE EVERYDAY JOB WITH TWO
KIDS AND THEY PAY $1600 A MONTH
FOR CHILDCARE. IT'S ABSURD. IT'S
OVER A HOUSE PAYMENT. UM AND
THEN WE USE TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO
SUBSIDIZE IT AGAIN, INSTEAD OF
ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSE AND
PROVIDING MORE CHILDCARE
PROVIDERS. WE TRY TO PUT A BAND
AID ON THINGS, AND IT JUST
INCREASES THE COST. SO I WANT TO
SEE THAT THE OTHER ONE OTHER
THING I WANTED TO SAY, AND, UM
IF YOU WANTED TO REPLY OR
COMMENT ON IT, THAT'S FINE. IS
AH! I WILL GET IN THE STUDENT
THING WITHOUT WHICH I ALREADY
DID THE STUDENT I WAS WORRIED
ABOUT THE C C. C AND THE
COMMUNITY COLLEGE CLAW BACK, SO
IF YOU COULD ADDRESS THAT ISSUE,
ARE WE STILL GOING TO FOCUS ON
HOUSING FOR STUDENTS? WITH THIS
CLAW BACK? IT'S GOING TO MAKE
HIM PAY IT BACK SOONER. DID HE
HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO THAT?
MADAM CHAIR, MADAM CHAIR,
SENATOR GROVE IS ASKING ABOUT
THE QUESTION THAT WE HAD A LONG
DISCUSSION ABOUT EARLIER IN THE
HEARING, AND THERE IS NO
CLAWBACK LEFT AND I WOULD BE
HAPPY. TO BRIEF HER OFF MIKE
ABOUT HOW THIS WORKS THAT THAT
WAS RESOLVED AND WE DISCUSSED IT
BEFORE YOU WERE HERE AND I
APOLOGIZE FOR BEING LATE AND
MISS THAT CONVERSATION, SO I
WILL GET THAT INFORMATION FROM
THE FORMER CHAIR OF NATURAL
RESOURCES AND WE I WILL CONCLUDE
MY REMARKS, MADAM CHAIR. THANK
YOU. CERTAINLY SENATOR GROVE AND
DON'T WORRY, WE WOULD NOT CUT
YOU OFF, BUT I THINK SINCE IT
WAS RESOLVED, BUT IF THERE IS
ANOTHER QUESTION ON ANOTHER
ITEM, YOU ARE FREE TO ASK.
ABSOLUTELY OKAY. THANK YOU.
GREAT. YOU'RE WELCOME. ALL
RIGHT, SO WE WILL NOW GO TO
SENATOR OCHOA BOGUE, FOLLOWED BY
SENATOR ROTH. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. I, UM. SO I WANT TO ECHO
. UM UM MY COLLEAGUE'S COMMENTS
WITH REGARDS TO MY COLLEAGUE
FROM BAKERSFIELD. WITH REGARD TO
THE COST OF LIVING IN GENERAL IN
CALIFORNIA AND THE WAGES WHETHER
THE HUMANE OR INHUMANE, I
COMPLETELY AGREE, UM, WITH MANY
OTHER CONCERNS THAT MY
COLLEAGUES HAVE ADDRESSED FROM L
A. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS AND
THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
I'VE OBSERVED THESE PAST 2.5
YEARS AND I SPEAK CONSTANTLY
COMING IN. FROM THE OUTSIDE IS
THAT OUR WAGES ARE NOT GOING TO
MATTER EVERY CONTINUE TO PASS
POLICY THAT INCREASES THE COST
OF LIVING. AND BY THAT, I MEAN,
WHAT POLICIES THAT IMPACT
ENERGY. UM, THAT EVENTUALLY AS
MY COLLEAGUE FROM BEAVER HAS
MENTIONED IN THE PAST ENERGY
ITSELF AND HOW THAT IMPACTS THE
PRODUCTION OF FOOD IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, OR IMPACTS THAT
TRANSPORTATION OF FABRICATION OF
MATERIALS TO BUILD HOMES IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BECAUSE
THAT HAS A RIPPLE EFFECT INTO
EVERYTHING ELSE. AND WHEN WE
ADVOCATE FOR POLICIES ON MINIMUM
WAGE OR ANY OTHER WAGES FOR ANY
OTHER INDUSTRY IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, IT'S STILL NOT
ADDRESSING THE ROOT OF THE
PROBLEM, WHICH IS THE FACT THAT
WE'RE PASSING POLICY THAT
INCREASES THE COST OF LIVING
PRODUCING THINGS OF, UM, OF
EVERYTHING THAT WE CONSUME IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO THAT
CONTINUALLY AND SO WE HAVE TO
START ADDRESSING, AND I OFTEN
SAY THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM OF
THE ISSUES THE CITY, CALIFORNIA
BECAUSE EVEN IF WE COME WITH THE
INTENT OF INCREASING THE WAGES
FOR PEOPLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE
COST OF LIVING INCREASES GUESS
WHO GETS LEFT BEHIND? THOSE ON
FIXED INCOMES AS SENIORS. PEOPLE
THAT ARE INTO LEVEL WAGE WORKERS
, PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. SO
HERE'S EVERYBODY THAT HAS THE
EAR OF THE ADVOCACY GROUPS WHERE
THEY GET THE LIFEBOATS ON, YOU
KNOW, GET READY TO GET ON THE
LIFEBOATS, BUT WE STILL LIVE
LEAVE SEVERAL SEGMENTS BEHIND.
AND IT DOESN'T FIX THE PROBLEM.
AND THAT'S CONCERNING TO ME.
BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE HAS
ADVOCACY GROUPS IN THE YEAR.
MANY OF THE LEGISLATURES IN
ORDER TO ADDRESS ISSUES THAT
ACTUALLY COST THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. AN INCREASE IN
LIVING. I JUST WANTED TO PUT
THAT ON THERE AND JUST PLANT A
SEED THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE
WAY WRONG. BUY IT. WE'RE ONLY
ADDRESSING A BAND AID. WE'RE NOT
ADDRESSING THE ROOT ALL WITH
GOOD, INTENSE. I'VE NEVER
QUESTIONED THE INTENT OF MANY OF
THE POLICIES THAT WE PASS. FOR
WHATEVER THE REASONS MAY BE
EITHER. MANY OF THEM ARE
GOODWILL, BUT THE EXTENT TO
WHICH WE'RE EXPECTING A LOT OF
THESE ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED IN A
SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. AND WHAT
THEY COST TO IMPLEMENT. GUESS
WHAT WHETHER WE SUBSIDIZE IT
THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT OR
THROUGH PASSING THE BILL OR THE
BUCK TO THE CONSUMERS. WE'RE NOT
GOING TO FIX THE ISSUES AT HAND
. AND SO, UM, WE'RE BEING JUST
PIGEONHOLE ON HOW WE FIX THE
ISSUES, BUT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT
IT HOLISTICALLY FROM AN UMBRELLA
HIGHER LOOK AS TO WHY WE'RE IN
THE PICKLE THAT WE'RE IN. HAVING
SAID THAT I WOULD LIKE TO REFER
TO 1 43 BIO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.
AND I DO HAVE SOME PREPARED
COMMENTS ON THAT. UM WHILE I
SUPPORT SOME OF THE PROVISIONS
OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE GENERAL
GOVERNMENT TRAILER BILL UM AND I
DON'T SUPPORT A COUPLE. I THINK
THAT THE FACT THAT IT INCLUDES
CONFIRMING STATE LAW, FEDERAL
LAW ALLOWING MILITARY SERVICE
MEMBERS AND SPOUSES TO WORK
UNDER PROFESSIONAL LICENSE
ISSUED BY ANOTHER STATE, WHILE
IN CALIFORNIA, MILITARY ORDERS
IS COMMENDABLE. THERE ARE OTHER
CONCERNS THAT I SAW WITHIN THIS
BILL, BUT TO THE GENERAL POINT
THAT SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST
TAKE A MOMENT TO TALK ABOUT THE
SINGLE SUBJECT RULE. WHICH CAN
BE FOUND IN CALIFORNIA'S
CONSTITUTION. THAT STATES QUOTE
A STATUE OF CHILDREN BRACE BUT
ONE SUBJECT WHICH SHALL BE
EXPRESSED IN ITS TITLE STATUTE
EMBRACES HIS SUBJECT NOT
EXPRESSED IN ITS TITLE. ONLY THE
PART NOT EXPRESSED HIS BOYD IN
ORDER TO SATISFY THE SINGLE
SUBJECT. RULE ITEMS IN A BILL
MUST BE REASONABLE GERMAN TO A
COMMON THEME, PURPOSE OR SUBJECT
. IT MUST BE EATEN UP BE
EXCESSIVELY GENERAL IN NATURE.
WHILE THE LEGISLATURE HAS
APPLIED THIS RULE LIBERALLY OVER
THE YEARS, TRADITIONS, RULES AND
PROCESS ARE IMPORTANT IN THE
SENATE, AND I WANT MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC TO BE AWARE THAT
BILLS WITH TITLES LIKE GENERAL
GOVERNMENT, WHICH ADDRESS THE
BROADER WAY OF SUBJECTS MAY NOT
MEET THE SINGLE SUBJECT RULES.
STANDARD CHALLENGED THE REASON I
SHARE THAT WITH YOU TODAY IS
BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I
APPRECIATED MY FIRST TWO YEARS
WAS SERVING UNDER THE GUIDANCE
AND, UM I SAID COLLABORATION OF
SENATOR, UM NIELSEN, WHO IS VERY
MUCH ON PROCESS AND BEING THAT
WE ARE UM. KIND WORDS, UM, KIND
OF WAY OF SAYING IT. WE'RE IN A
VERY DISPROPORTIONATE
REPRESENTATIVE LEGISLATURE. UM.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE AND KNOW
THE PROCESSES UNLESS WE START
SPEAKING TO THEM. NEW MEMBERS
WON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROCESSES
WERE. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE
PROCESSES, UM AS HOW THEY SHOULD
BE DONE, AND IT WAS SOMEONE WITH
MUCH MORE EXPERIENCE AND
BACKGROUND THAT ACTUALLY WOULD
ENLIGHTEN ME AS TO WHAT WAS AND
HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE, AND SO I
JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
HAD IN OUR RECORDS TO THE
PUBLIC. BE AWARE SO THAT WE
COULD HAVE IT ON RECORD SO THAT
MY NEW COLLEAGUES IN THE
LEGISLATURE COULD BE AWARE OF
THE PROCESSES AS WE MOVE FORWARD
AS HIS PASSING ON THE BATON OF
KNOWLEDGE IN THE LEGISLATURE.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK
YOU, SENATOR. OH COBURG. ALLOW
ME TO TURN NOW TO SENATOR ROTH.
THANK YOU, MADAM TRIAL. MAKE
THIS QUICK, YOU KNOW. AS A GUESS
I'LL CALL MYSELF A FORMER LABOR
ATTORNEY WITH A FAIR AMOUNT OF
LABOR CONTRACT NEGOTIATION
EXPERIENCE. I HAVE TO TELL YOU
THAT IN THE 11 YEARS AND I'M NOW
COMPLETING EVER SINCE I GOT
HERE. I'VE BEEN BOTHERED BY THIS
MOU PROCESS AND THE
LEGISLATURE'S ROLE IN THAT
PROCESS. YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE
NOT AT THE TABLE. WE'RE NOT
BRIEFED AS TO PROGRESS OR THE
ISSUES AND UH, AT SOME POINT
POPS THESE POP THESE IMO US AND
WERE ASKED TO APPROVE THEM,
SOMETIMES WITH ACCURATE AND
COMPLETE DATA. SOMETIMES, I
GUESS PERHAPS NOT. UM YET WE'RE
ASKED TO TAKE A VOTE, SOMETIMES
ON SHORT NOTICE. AND THEN WE
TAKE THE HEAT IN THE PRESS. I
JUST READ AN EDITORIAL IN MY
LOCAL NEWSPAPER YESTERDAY OR
TODAY, UM, SUGGESTING TO ME WHAT
I SHOULD BE DOING ON THESE M O
U. S. AND SOMETIMES I PAY
ATTENTION TO THOSE EDITORIALS,
AND SOMETIMES THEY DON'T. BUT I
GUESS MY QUESTION IS THIS GIVEN
THE YES. THE FACT THAT AT LEAST
SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES AND I
JOINED THEM FEEL A LITTLE JAMMED
THIS YEAR ON SOME OF THESE M O.
U. S. I ASSUME THAT THE M O U. S
OR AT LEAST SOME OF THE EXISTING
IN MY USE CAN BE EXTENDED BY THE
GOVERNOR DESPITE AND THE PARTIES
DESPITE THE EXPIRATION DATE.
UNTIL WE WERE PREPARED TO VOTE
IF WE PUSH THIS VOTE OFF UNTIL
JANUARY OF 2024 IN ORDER TO GET
BETTER DATA IN ORDER TO VALIDATE
THE COMPENSATION, STUDY OR
STUDIES AND TO HAVE A MORE
THOROUGH ANALYSIS BY THE LAO AND
A MORE THOROUGH DISCUSSION BY
ALL OF US. WHY NOT? AND DID THE
ADMINISTRATION CONTINUE TO
CONSIDER DOING SO IN THIS CASE?
GIVEN THE SHORT TIME THAT WE'VE
HAD TO DEAL WITH ANY OF THIS
STUFF. YES AND I WOULD JUST
REVISIT MY COMMENT THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN IN
CONVERSATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS
WITH THE UNIONS WHILE THAT HAD
MOU IS UP THIS YEAR, AND IT
REALLY IS A TWO WAY STREET, THE
BARGAINING UNIT HAS TO AGREE
THAT THERE'S A LOT OF
NEGOTIATION THAT GOES ON BACK
AND FORTH. AND THE TIMING OF IT
IS, UM KIND OF WHAT IT IS. WE
DO, TRY TO PUSH AND
UNDERSTANDING THE BUDGET PROCESS
WHEN WE ARE AT THE TABLE,
REMINDING THE PARTNERS THAT
THERE ARE CERTAIN DATES THAT
NEED TO BE MET. AND SO YOUR
POINT ABOUT DEFERRING THIS TOO
LATER. GENERALLY I WOULD SAY
THAT MOST OF OUR STATE M O U. S
HAVE EVERGREEN CLAUSES SO THEY
WOULD CONTINUE AND BEYOND.
THEY'RE EFFECTIVE EXPIRATION
DATE. UM, BUT THERE ARE SOME, UM
ITEMS IN, MOU SAID THE FOR
EXAMPLE. STATE HEALTH BARGAINING
UNITS DON'T HAVE AUTOMATIC UM
INCREASES WHEN STATE HEALTH
COSTS GO UP BARGAINING UNITS
MIGHT WANT THEY MAY HAVE A
PREFERENCE AND THEY MAY HAVE
MORE INCENTIVE TO COME IN SOONER
AS AN EXAMPLE, IF THIS WERE A
TWO PARTY AGREEMENT, AND THAT'S
ALL IT WERE THAN I WOULDN'T
CARE, BUT THE PROBLEM IS, IT MAY
BE A TWO PARTY AGREEMENT, BUT IT
REQUIRES THE LEGISLATURE TO
APPROVE. UNFORTUNATELY, AND THAT
SHOULD REQUIRE ALL PARTIES TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE AN
ACCURATE DATA FULLY VALIDATED
AND A FULL OPPORTUNITY TO
DISCUSS SO I'M NOT SUGGESTING
THAT WE DO THAT THIS YEAR, AND I
WON'T BE AROUND THAT MANY MORE.
BUT ONE OF THESE DAYS SOME
LEGISLATURES GOING TO SAY YOU
CAME TO US TOO LATE, SO YOU
BETTER EXTEND YOUR M O. U. S.
AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE IT UP
NEXT YEAR BECAUSE I GATHER
THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT WE
HAVE A VOTE ON THESE M O U S
RIGHT NOW. BECAUSE WE GET TO
DECIDE OUR AGENDA. CORRECT.
THAT'S CORRECT. OK WELL MESSAGE
HOPEFULLY, MESSAGE RECEIVED ON
THE NINTH AND 10TH 4 BE PREPARED
TO VOTE FOR HIM THIS YEAR, BUT I
THINK I THINK IT FOLKS NEED TO
BE MORE CONSIDERATE OF OUR
SCHEDULE AND OUR TIMELINE AND
THE OTHER ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO
DEAL WITH AT THIS POINT IN TIME
IN THE LEGISLATIVE CYCLE AGAIN,
WE DO TRY TO STRESS THAT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. SORRY YOU'RE WELCOME,
SENATOR. IT'S ABOUT TO CALL YOU
, NIELSEN. I'M SO SORRY, SENATOR
NEAL. OH, IT HAPPENS. AND I TAKE
THAT WITH THE GREATEST DEGREE OF
COMPLIMENT. JIM'S BEEN A GOOD
FRIEND OF MINE FOR MANY YEARS. I
JUST WANT TO ECHO COMMENTS THAT
HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH THIS.
PROCESS PARTICULARLY SENATOR
SHOW BOGAN, SENATOR ROSS AT THE
END, UM I FIND THIS A
FRUSTRATING PROCESS. I'VE SAID
THAT BEFORE, AND THE GOAT HERDER
ISSUE AND IN PARTICULAR, THAT
BILL IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY
WE SHOULD NOT BE TAKING UP
STRICTLY POLICY ISSUES IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE BUDGET. AND THAT
BILL IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE
MULTI SUBJECT RULE VIOLATION.
THERE IS THERE'S FOUR SEPARATE
POLICY ISSUES IN THAT BILL, AND
I HEARD SOME FRUSTRATION WHICH I
SHARE ABOUT THE BLUNT STATEMENT
BEING JAMMED BY THE
ADMINISTRATION AND AS SENATOR
ROTH INDICATED, AT SOME POINT,
PERHAPS A LEGISLATURE JUST WON'T
LET THAT HAPPEN. I LOOK FORWARD
TO THAT DAY. UM I WILL THERE.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF BILLS THAT
I WILL BE SUPPORTING. THAT MIGHT
SEEM SOMEWHAT IN CONGRESS, BUT I
JUST POINT OUT THAT RALPH WALDO
EMERSON SAID. FOOLISH
CONSISTENCY IS THE HOBGOBLIN OF
LITTLE MINDS, AND I DON'T WANT
TO BE A LITTLE MIND WHEN I CAST
SUPPORT ON A COUPLE OF ISSUES,
BUT BY AND LARGE I THINK THE
PROCESS NEEDS A LOT OF WORK. AND
SO FOR THAT REASON, I WILL BE
OPPOSING THE VAST MAJORITY OF
THESE PROPOSALS. THANK YOU
MEMBERS FOR YOUR QUESTIONS AND
DISCUSSION. WE ARE GOING TO GO
TO PUBLIC COMMENT NOW, UM,
PUBLIC COMMENT. I APPRECIATE
THAT ARE RATHER PUBLIC. WHO
WANTS TO COMMENT? I APPRECIATE
THAT. THERE ARE MANY OF YOU.
HOWEVER I AM GOING TO NEED TO
TAKE A VOTE ON THESE BILLS
BEFORE NOON BECAUSE OF THESE
OTHER OBLIGATIONS SO I WOULD ASK
THAT YOU WILL BE AS BRIEF AS
POSSIBLE SO THAT WE CAN HEAR
FROM AS MANY AS POSSIBLE.
APPRECIATE IT. THANKS. GO AHEAD.
AND I WILL CUT FOLKS OFF IF THEY
AREN'T BRIEF. I'LL TRY TO SET A
GOOD EXAMPLE DANA CORRODE ARM ON
BEHALF OF THE TRANSFORMATIVE IN
PRISON WORK GROUP REPRESENTING
85 COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS
PROVIDING REHABILITATIVE PROGRAM
IN CDCR, COMMENTING ON THE UNIT
SIX MOU JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT
THE AMOUNT AGREED UPON IN THAT
AGREEMENT WOULD BE 16 TIMES THE
AMOUNT THAT WE SPEND ON
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMMING IN
THE PRISON SYSTEM AND FIVE TIMES
THE AMOUNT THAT WE SPEND ON
FOOD, CLOTHING, EDUCATION,
COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY AND
REHABILITATION IN THE
CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM, SO WE
CANNOT BE CLAIMING TO MOVE OUR
CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM IN DIFFERENT
DIRECTION. WE'RE STILL VASTLY
OVERSPENDING ON SECURITY AND
UNDER INVESTIGATION,
REHABILITATION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHRISTINA SALA SALARY
CALIFORNIANS TOGETHER. JUST WANT
TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE UPDATED
DEFINITION OF LONG TERM ENGLISH
LEARNER BECAUSE WITH THE UPDATED
LANGUAGE, IT WILL BE A BETTER
REFLECTION OF WHO YOU STUDENTS
ARE. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MATT, EASILY REPRESENTING THE
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION. I JUST
LIKE TO THANK THE GOVERNOR'S
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE FOR THE REASONABLE DEAL
THAT I BELIEVE WE GOT. AND ONE
THING I'D PARTICULARLY LIKE TO
POINT OUT IS PERHAPS THE SINGLE
MOST IMPORTANT PROVISIONS IN THE
BILL IS THE MENTAL HEALTH AND
WELLNESS INCENTIVE. WE
DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THAT
BECAUSE THERE AREN'T MANY
PROFESSIONS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THAT EXPERIENCED THE
SAME LEVEL OF STRESS AND THE
REQUIRED CONSTANT MAINTENANCE OF
A HIGH LEVEL OF AWARENESS AT ALL
TIMES, DAY IN AND DAY OUT. THE
JOB TAKES A HEAVY TOLL ON OUR
MEMBERS AND SADLY THIS YEAR
ALONE IN 2023. WE'VE HAD EIGHT
MEMBERS THAT HAVE COMMITTED
SUICIDE SO FAR IN THE YEARS, NOT
UP YET AND UNFORTUNATELY, THIS
IS NOT A UNIQUE YEAR, SO WE
DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THAT AND
GETTING A DEAL THAT RECOGNIZES
THE DIFFICULTIES THAT ARE
MEMBERS STRUGGLE WITH. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. LETICIA GARCIA
ON BEHALF OF THE RIVERSIDE
COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
ON TWO ISSUES ON A B 1 40 EARLY
EDUCATION. WE JUST WANT TO
THANK, UM THE ALL THE PARTIES
INVOLVED FOR THE TWO YEAR
EXTENSION ON THE REIMBURSABLE
RATES. WE PERCEIVE THIS AS THE
LIFELINE FOR MANY OF OUR
PROVIDERS TO STAY OPEN AND NO
LONGER SEE MORE PROVIDERS OF
EARLY EDUCATION CLOSE. AND THEN
IN RELATION TO A B 1, 42 AND CAL
KIDS. WE APPRECIATE THE CREATION
OF A PILOT PROGRAM IN ORDER TO
INCREASE DATA SHARING BETWEEN
SCHOLARS SHARE AND TO ELIA'S,
INCLUDING RIVERSIDE COUNTY
OFFICE OF EDUCATION TO IMPROVE
OUTREACH AND PARTICIPATION RATES
IN THE COLLEGE SAVINGS ACCOUNT.
SO THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS POLIO ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
AND MARYLAND AND BREED. I JUST
WANT TO SAY THANK YOU AND THE 1
40 THREES FOR THE INCLUSION OF
THE REDEVELOPMENT LANGUAGE FOR
HUNTERS POINT THAT'S GOING TO
GET 10,000 UNITS BUILT BUILT.
QUICKLY WE HOPE AND MOST OF IT'S
GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE. IT'S NOT
JUST GOING TO HELP. SAN
FRANCISCO IS GOING TO HELP THE
ENTIRE BAY AREA IN THE ENTIRE
STATE. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING
CHAIR AND MEMBERS IS RAQUEL
YOFFIE ON BEHALF OF THRIVING
FAMILIES, CALIFORNIA FORMERLY
KNOWN AS KAPPA. WE WOULD LIKE TO
EXPRESS OUR GRATITUDE TO THE
LEGISLATURE FOR DESIGNATING
FUNDING AND SP 104 TO FUND THE
AGREEMENTS IN THE NEWLY RATIFIED
SEE CPU AGREEMENT WILL ALSO
FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY AGENCIES
TO CONTINUE ENROLLING,
SUPPORTING AND LIFTING UP
FAMILIES. THIS BUDGET PACKAGE
REFLECTS THE NEED TO CONTINUE
MAKING FAMILIES WHOLE AND STABLE
WITH MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO
CHILDCARE WILL PROVIDING MUCH
NEEDED STIPENDS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
PAY TO PROVIDERS WHO ARE THE
BACKBONE OF A HEALTHY AND
STABLE. TO ME. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR MORNING,
MADAM CHAIR, LUIS MARTIN DAY ON
BEHALF OF THE BAY AREA COUNCIL
CONSIDERED COALITION AND MUCH OF
THE EU INDUSTRY TO EXPRESS OUR
OPPOSITION TO REVERTING THE $50
MILLION FOR A D U CONSTRUCTION
THAT'S IN THE CURRENT BUDGET AND
PROPOSED TO BE ELIMINATED UNDER
SP FOUR. AND MAYBE ONE OF FOUR
FIRST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
CHAMPIONING THAT MONEY IN THE
FIRST PLACE, AND FOR ALL THAT
YOU'VE DONE ON AFFORDABLE
HOUSING POLICY. BUT THIS IS SOME
OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE MONEY THE
STATE SPENDS ON AFFORDABLE
HOUSING MONEY. I'M SORRY I'M
AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY. THE
$100 MILLION A COLLEGE OF FAITH
HAS ALREADY ENCUMBERED HAVE GONE
TO 2,402,480 40% OF WHICH ARE
LOCATED IN DISAGREE ECONOMICALLY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES. 60%
OF THE MONEY HAS GONE DIRECTLY
TO LOW INCOME FAMILIES IN THE
REST OF IT HAS GONE TO MIDDLE
INCOME FAMILIES. THIS PROGRAM
HAS BEEN A HUGE SUCCESS AND
URGED THE LEGISLATURE TO
CONTINUE IT. THANK YOU. HI GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR SKINNER AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS DANIEL CHERYL
ON BEHALF OF STU LOCAL 1000. WE
ON A B 1 48. WE ARE ENCOURAGED
BY THIS TENTATIVE AGREEMENT AND
WOULD JUST LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT
HOUSE HOW THIS AGREEMENT
PROTECTS THOUSANDS OF STATE
WORKERS THROUGH COMPENSATION,
WAGE EQUITY ADJUSTMENTS. AND
HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS. STIPENDS
WE URGE YOU TO SUPPORT 1, 48 AND
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, REBECCA
KALINA ON BEHALF OF THE
COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITY
COALITION. WE WANT TO THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR YOUR WORK ON THE
AFFORDABLE STUDENT HOUSING
SOLUTION. WE DO SUPPORT WHAT IS
CONTAINED IN A B 1 42 THAT WILL
ALLOW CRITICAL PROJECTS TO MOVE
FORWARD. IT WILL HELP MEET
STUDENT BASIC NEEDS, AND IT WILL
HELP TO ADDRESS THE STATES
CRITICAL AFFORDABILITY CRISIS
HERE FOR HOUSING, SO WE DO
APPRECIATE THAT WE LOOK FORWARD
TO CRAFTING THE DETAILS OF THAT
STATE ISSUED LEAST REVENUE. NEW
BAND AND THANK YOU AGAIN FOR
YOUR SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, NINA
BOOTH, E I'M THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF EVERY CHILD,
CALIFORNIA WE ARE STATEWIDE
NONPROFIT THAT SUPPORTS
SUBSIDIZED EARLY CARE AND
EDUCATION PROGRAMS. MY CONTENT
COMMENTS TODAY ARE RELATED TO A
B 1 40 THE EARLY CARE AND
EDUCATION TRAILER BILL, JUST
WITH GREAT APPRECIATION FOR THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE
ADMINISTRATION FOR REALLY
PRIORITIZING EARLY CARE AND
EDUCATION NEEDS AND THROUGH THE
CCP, YOU BARGAINING AGREEMENT,
INCLUDING ALL CHILDCARE PROGRAMS
AS PART OF THAT WE ARE VERY
UNDER RESOURCED EARLY SYSTEM,
AND SO THESE INVESTMENTS ARE
VERY MUCH NEEDED. I WOULD,
HOWEVER, URGE THE RE EXAMINATION
OF THE CONTRACT RATE PERCENTAGE
FOR THE COST PLUS RATES AS THIS
IS BELOW THE CURRENT STANDARD
FOR ADJUSTMENTS, AND
UNFORTUNATELY THE FUNDING WILL
NOT BE SUFFICIENT IN ORDER TO
PROCESS THE PAYMENTS IN A TIMELY
AND ACCURATE MANNER. SO REALLY
ENCOURAGE THE RE EXAMINATION OF
THAT PERCENTAGE. THANK YOU. AND
AGAIN IF I COULD GET AS BRIEF AS
POSSIBLE, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO
HAVE TO CLOSE OFF TO BEGIN THE
VOTE PROCESS. GO AHEAD. THANK
YOU, MA'AM CHEROKEE'S DONE ON
BEHALF OF THE GO COALITION
SUPPORTING THE ADMINISTRATION'S
EFFORTS ON 1 43 TO MAKE SURE
THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO
CONTINUE TO BE A SERVICE OF
FIGHTING FIRE AND CLIMATE CHANGE
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WE
APPRECIATE THE DIALOGUE THAT'S
TAKING PLACE AND LOOK FORWARD TO
PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS TO
GET A WAGE ORDER DETERMINATION
IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS.
THANK YOU. WOULD YOU SAY THIS?
GOOD MORNING CHAIR MEMBERS. I'M
JULIET TERRY WITH THE CHILD CARE
RESOURCE CENTER. WE WOULD LIKE
TO THANK THE ADMINISTRATION FOR
THE ACCOMPLISHED ACCOMPLISHMENTS
MADE THROUGH THE NEGOTIATIONS
MADE OF THE CHILDCARE PROVIDERS
YOU UNITED UNION AS MADE EVIDENT
IN A B 1 40 CCRC SUPPORTS THE
MAJORITY OF FEATURES OF 1 40.
HOWEVER WE MUST OPPOSE THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PERCENTAGES
PROPOSED BY OKAY. MAYBE 1 40 FOR
SUPPORT SUPPORT PROGRAMS AND
DISTRIBUTING THESE MONTHLY
STIPENDS. 10% IS INSUFFICIENT
FOR THESE PROGRAMS TO DISTRIBUTE
THESE FUNDS, AND THEY SHOULD BE
BASED ON THE CURRENT CONTRACTING
AMOUNT TERMS OF 17.5% FOR
ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT PROGRAMS AND
15% FOR CENTERS WEEK. SINCERELY
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN MAKING
THESE NECESSARY AMENDMENTS TO
MAINTAIN THE CURRENT LEVELS OF
SUPPORT TO EFFECTIVELY PROVIDE
THESE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES AND
PAYMENTS. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHRISTINE RASCAL ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE AND
FAMILY THERAPISTS. WE GREATLY
APPRECIATE THIS MORNING'S
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE
INCLUSION OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
THERAPIST AND PSYCHIATRIC
FACILITIES, AND WE LOOK FORWARD
TO WORKING WITH THE HCS THIS
AUTUMN AS THEY WORK TO IMPLEMENT
A B 1 37, AND THEREFORE WE
REMOVE OUR OPPOSITION UNLESS
AMENDED POSITION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS MATT CRIMMINS HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS
PROUD TO BE HERE TODAY IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF MAYBE 1 48 IN OUR MOU
THANK YOU. KIMBERLY ROSENBERG
WITH SC HIÂU, KEEPING IT BRIEF
ON A BROAD SWATH OF WORKERS WERE
REALLY APPRECIATE ABOUT THE WORK
ON A B 1041 41 48 WHICH UPLIFT
WORKERS AND I. H S S CHILDCARE
CPU. OF COURSE, WE REALLY
APPRECIATE THE ADMINISTRATION
BUT ALSO A LEGISLATURE AND I'D
BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T MENTION
THE STAFF THAT WORKED TIRELESSLY
TO GET THE LANGUAGE PERFECT AS
WELL AS THE WORK IN BRIDGING THE
GAP FOR OUR STATE WORKERS. SO
THANK YOU. MORNING CHAIR MEMBERS
, JANICE O'MALLEY WITH AFSCME,
CALIFORNIA JUST WANTED TO ALSO
ECHO. UM BUT KIM ROSENBERG HAD
JUST MENTIONED ABOUT CREATING A
PATHWAY TO PRIVATE PAYING
PROVIDERS FOR THE ACTUAL COST OF
CARE AND THANK YOU TO THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE
ADMINISTRATION AND WORKING
CLOSELY WITH OUR CHILDCARE
PROVIDERS ON THAT ALSO WANTED TO
HIGHLIGHT. WE REPRESENT
BARGAINING UNIT 19. THESE ARE
THE HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL
SERVICE WORKERS AT CDCR AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS.
THE RESULT OF MANY MONTHS OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. THE
WORKFORCE HAS CHANGED A LOT
SINCE COVID IN THE VACANCY RATES
HAVE DOUBLED SINCE 2018. WE HAVE
ASKED FOR A MODEST COLA
INCREASES AND THE ESSAYS JUST
FOR BACKGROUND. THESE ARE
PROVIDED TO OUR PSYCHOLOGIST AND
OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS,
CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS,
PHYSICIANS, ASSISTANTS, THESE
POSITIONS ARE REALLY DIFFICULT
TO RECRUIT FOR AND TO RETAIN,
AND SO WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE
ADMINISTRATION'S WORK AT THE
TABLE TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE
ADEQUATELY COMPENSATED. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
ANDREW MARTINEZ COMMUNITY
COLLEGE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA WE
ARE DEEPLY APPRECIATIVE OF THE
CHANGES IN 1 42 WHEN IT COMES TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
COLLEGES AND APPRECIATE THE
ADMINISTRATION IN THE
LEGISLATURES WORK ON THAT. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. I AM NOT GOING TO BE ABLE
TO TURN TO THE PHONE LINES
TODAY, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT
, BUT WE DO HAVE TO BEGIN TO
VOTE PROCESS. ANYONE WHO IS
INTENDING TO CALL US AND WEIGH
IN BY VIRTUE OF THE PUBLIC
COMMENT CAN SEND THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE A LETTER. YOU CAN SEND
US IN WRITING YOUR COMMENTS. AND
AS I MENTIONED THESE BILLS WILL
NOT BE VOTED ON THE FLOOR UNTIL
NEXT WEEK, SO I ENCOURAGE ANYONE
WHO DID NOT YET HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN TO THIS
DISCUSSION TO PLEASE SEND US. WE
HAVE TO DO FIVE. OKAY HAS BEFORE
. OKAY APOLOGIES. UH WE WILL
HAVE FIVE MINUTES OF PUBLIC
COMMENT ON THE PHONE LINES.
MODERATOR KEY UP VERY QUICKLY,
PLEASE. AND WE WILL HAVE FIVE
MINUTES AND FIVE MINUTES. ONLY
THANK YOU. AND PLEASE PRESS 10
AT THIS TIME AGAIN. IT'S 10. AND
WE'LL GO FIRST TO LINE 26. WE'LL
GO TO LINE 28. YOUR LINE IS OPEN
. PLEASE DON'T PRESS THE NUMBERS
AGAIN. YOU'RE YOU'RE ALREADY IN
CUBA AND ANNOUNCE YOUR NUMBER
LINE 21. BYE. 9 21 YEARS. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD MORNING,
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS PAMELA
GIBBS, REPRESENTING THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF
EDUCATION. WE APPRECIATE THE
COMMITTEE'S STAFF AND
ADMINISTRATION FOR THE
CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS TO THE
2023 BUDGET ASKED RELATING TO
THE DIVERSE EDUCATION LEADERS,
PIPELINE INITIATIVES AND MAYBE 1
41 SPECIFICALLY THE AMENDMENTS
ENSURE THAT THE PROGRAM BUILDS
CAPACITY AND PARTNERSHIPS TO
MEET THE NEEDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
CANDIDATES WITH A FOCUS ON
IMPROVING STUDENT OUTCOMES AMONG
PUPILS. THESE PARTNERSHIPS ARE
BETWEEN LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES
, NON PROFIT EDUCATIONAL SERVICE
PROVIDERS AND INSTITUTES OF
HIGHER LEARNING. THESE
PROVISIONS ARE KEY TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BILL AND
BUILDS ON THE PROGRESS OF
ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATURE
HAVE MADE OVER THE YEARS TO
STRENGTHEN THE EDUCATED
WORKFORCE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND ONGOING
ADVOCATES ADVOCACY. NEXT WE HAVE
LINE 25. GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS
JENNIFER BAKER, REPRESENTING THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION FOR
BILINGUAL EDUCATION. I'D LIKE TO
ASSIST THE ATE MY COMMENT WITH
CALIFORNIANS TOGETHER
REPRESENTATIVES THAT TESTIFIED
EARLIER IN SUPPORT OF THE CHANGE
IN DEFINITION FOR THE LONG TERM
ENGLISH LEARNERS AND MAYBE 1 41
. THANK YOU THIS YEAR, 41.
TRANSFERRED AFTERNOON, SAYING
THE NEXT IN CALIFORNIA CLEAN IN
REGARDS TO A V 1 42 PERTAINING
TO THE GOLDEN STATE TEACHER
GRANT PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS. WE,
ALONG WITH OTHER HIGHER
EDUCATION ADVOCATES THE LETTER
WITH SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH ANY
LANGUAGE THAT WOULD ALLOW OUT OF
STATE ONLINE POSTSECONDARY
INSTITUTIONS TO ACCESSIBLE AND
TAKE YOU TO GRANT PROGRAM AND
THE PRESIDENT THIS WOULD SET FOR
FINANCIAL AID ACCESS IN
CALIFORNIA AND THREATENED THE
STATE'S REPUTATION AS A LEADER
AND PROTECTING STUDENTS AND
STUDENT BORROWERS. WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU
CAN SYDOR ALL THE PROVISION THAT
WOULD ALLOW THESE SPECIFIC
INSTITUTIONS ACCESS TO THE
GOLDEN STATE TEACHER PROGRAM IN
81 42. THANK YOU. 9 11 GOLD.
HIGH CHAIR AND MEMBERS. THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL YOUR WORK
MARK ON BEHALF OF CSP, AND I
WANT TO THANK MEMBERS AND
THERE'S UH, FOR THE INCLUSION OF
81 41 EXTENSION FOR SUBSTITUTE,
UM, 60 DAYS AND ALSO FOR THE
ABILITY FOR OUR PART TIME
COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY TO
PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE
THROUGH HELPERS OR COUNSELORS.
THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE 1 42.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU FOR
EVERY LINE 34. IT'S NOT A STORY.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. 34 DIFFERENT. I
DON'T KNOW. MAYBE A SECOND,
MAYBE A MUTE EVIDENCED.
EXCELLENT. I'M BLIND 48. AT THE
END OF SAVINO ASSOCIATION OF
REGIONAL CENTER AGENCIES IN
SUPPORT OF A B 1 38 RELATED TO
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES. WE HAVE
SUBMITTED A LETTER AS WELL,
DETAILING SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF
THE BILL. WE SUPPORT,
PARTICULARLY STANDARDIZATION OF
CERTAIN PROCESSES, WHICH THE
REGIONAL CENTERS HAVE ALREADY
BEEN WORKING ON ME VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND URGE
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. ACTUALLY
HAVE LINE 49. GOOD MORNING,
CORINA LOGAN WITH THE CHILDCARE
. LAWCENTER SPEAKING ON BEHALF
OF MAYBE 1 40 WE ARE SUPPORTING
. WE THINK ALL THE WORK ON THIS
MILK CONDITIONALLY POLICIES. I
DON'T THINK IT'S VITAL THAT WAS
AFFORDABLE BETTER THAN FAMILIES
, ADDITIONAL SUPPORT SUFFICIENT
RESOURCES TO ENSURE TIMELY
PAYMENT AND THE ROLLOUT FOR THE
ENTITLED IMPROVEMENT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. 51. GOOD MORNING,
WENDY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF CHILD AND
FAMILY SERVICES, WERE SUPPORTIVE
OF THE LANGUAGE IN 81 37 ON
PSYCHIATRIC RESIDENTIAL
TREATMENT PROGRAM. CALIFORNIA IS
IN DESPERATE NEED OF PROGRAMS
THAT CAN TREAT YOU FOR MENTAL
HEALTH CRISIS WITH SPACE AND
TREATMENTS DESIGNED FOR THEIR
NEEDS. ADDITIONALLY WE'D LIKE TO
EXPRESS APPRECIATION TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF LEGISLATURE
FOR WORKING WITH US ON CLEANUP
LANGUAGE TO BE ADOPTION
FACILITATOR PROHIBITION. AND
MAYBE 1 38, WHICH WILL TARGET IT
TO UNSCRUPULOUS ADOPTION
FACILITATORS WHILE NOT IMPACTING
OTHER KEY ADOPTION SERVICE
PROVIDERS. THANK YOU. 47 GOOD
MORNING CHEN CHASE FROM THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
CALLING IN SUPPORT OF THE 1 43.
THIS BILL PROVIDES AN EXTENSION
FOR EXPIRING POSITION PLUS
GRADUATE TRAINING LICENSES. WE
APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE
ADMINISTRATION. THIS WILL ENSURE
THAT YOU SEE MEDICAL TRAINEES
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE CLINICAL
CARE TO OUR PATIENTS. ALL THE
MEDICAL BOARD PROCESSES A
BACKLOG OF APPLICATIONS. THANK
YOU. LINE 42. GOOD MORNING,
CHIEF SKINNER AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS STEVEN
MALLORY. AND I'M A PROUD MEMBER
OF CIA. YOUR LOCAL 1000 CALLING
TODAY AND SUPPORT OF THE 10TH
AGREEMENT INCLUDED AN A B 1 48.
THIS CONTRACT IS MUCH NEEDED
INVESTMENT IN OUR CIVIL SERVICE
WORKFORCE, AND I STRONGLY URGE
YOU TO APPROVE IT. WANT TO REACH
THE CENTER? FLORIDA THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME. MODERATOR THIS
NEXT CALLER WILL BE THE LAST
COMMENT. OKAY WE ARE LYING. 46,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. YEP HI. MY NAME
IS SERENA LYNN WAS EDUCATIONAL
ENRICHMENT SYSTEM CALLING AND
STRONG SUPPORT OF A B 1 40. I
JUST WANT TO CALL OUT THAT THE
WOMEN OF COLOR THAT ARE SERVING
CALIFORNIA'S YOUNGEST AND MOST
VULNERABLE YOUR LEARNERS THROUGH
THE CALIFORNIA STATE SUBSIDIZED
SYSTEM OF CARE IS REALLY
IMPORTANT. AND THOSE THOSE
PROFESSIONAL WOMEN IN THEIR
PROFESSIONAL WAGES. ALSO QUALITY
CARE IS EXPENSIVE AND THE REASON
THAT CAREFUL, SENSITIVE QUALITY
RATIOS UM WONDERFUL RATIO IS A
GOOD RATIO AND WHAT IT SHOULD
BE, AND THE EXISTENCE AND
TRANSITIONAL KINDERGARTEN HAS
MADE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO
PROVIDERS TO TRANSITION AND THE
HOLD HARMLESS IS CRUCIAL TO MAKE
SURE WE GET MORE INFANTS.
TODDLERS. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THOSE WHO
ARE ON THE LINE WHO WE WEREN'T
ABLE TO GET TO PLEASE SUBMIT
ANYTHING. IN WRITING YOUR
CONCERNS OR COMMENTS OR SUPPORTS
OPPOSITIONS. WHAT HAVE YOU TO
OUR BUDGET COMMITTEE AND WILL BE
ABLE TO SHARE IT TO OUR MEMBERS
? AND NOW, UH, USUALLY I MAKE
COMMENTS ON VARIOUS PARTS OF
THESE KINDS OF BILLS, BUT
BECAUSE WE NEED TO VOTE, I'LL
SAY JUST IN ADDITION TO MY HAT
IS TO BUDGET I'M ALSO CHAIR OF
THE LEGISLATIVE WOMEN'S CAUCUS,
AND I AM VERY HAPPY ABOUT THE
CHILDCARE BILL BEFORE US AND I
WOULD NOTE THAT WE WILL BE THE
FIRST STATE IN THE NATION TO
PROVIDE TO ESTABLISH A
RETIREMENT FOUND FOR CHILDCARE
WORKERS AND GIVEN THAT ONE OF
THE REASONS THAT WE HAVE A
SHORTAGE OF CHILDCARE, WHICH, OF
COURSE, THE SHORTAGE ALONE MAKES
IT MORE EXPENSIVE IS BECAUSE THE
WORKERS THEMSELVES IF THEY CAN'T
AFFORD TO LIVE ON WAGES, THEN
THEY DON'T GO. THEY DON'T STAY.
QUIT BEING A CHILDCARE WORKER,
AND SO WE NEED MORE CHILDCARE
WORKERS, SO I WANT TO JUST SAY
I'M REALLY PLEASED WITH THAT
NOTE REFRAIN FROM ANY OTHER
COMMENTS AND WE WILL TELL GO TO
ACTING ON THE BILLS, AND THE
FIRST BILL IS A B ONE OF FOUR.
THE BUDGET ACT OF 2023 DO I MOVE
? OKAY SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY
SENATOR LAIRD. WE WILL HAVE ROLL
CALL, PLEASE. I WANT TO AFFORD
THE MOTION IS TO PASS SENATOR
SKINNER, NILO BECKER. I ER I
CAFIERO HØI DOLLY DOLLY! NO ALSO
EGGMAN EDMUND I GROWTH. GROW UP.
NO LAIRD MCGUIRE MCGUIRE I
MENTION BAR MENU BAR I MEN I
NEWMAN I OR TROUBLED BUGNO BADIA
DI I ROTH SEYARTO TOÀN NO
SMALLWOOD CUEVAS. SMALLWOOD
CUEVAS? AYE. RIGHT. I BELIEVE
THAT IS 13 TO 5. I GET THAT
CORRECT. OKAY SO WE MOVE OUT OF
NUMBER 2 81 35 P 1 35 ROLL CALL.
PLEASE BE 1 35. THE MOTION IS TO
PASS SENATORS SKINNER. ALRIGHT I
NEELA, NEELA, NÓ BECKER
CAVALLERO YOUR EYE, DOLLY. ALSO
AMEN. I GROVE. GROVE NO LAIRD
MCGUIRE MCGUIRE I MENTION BAR
MENU, BUT I'M IN NEWMAN HOBO
BAG. NO PODIA THE I RATH. SARTO
NO SMALL, GOOD QUIVERS.
SMALLWOOD CREVASSE? AYE. 13 5.
THE BILL PASSES MADAM CHAIRMAN
OF ITEM NUMBER THREE A. B 1 37
LET'S HAVE A ROLE CALLED IN ON A
B 31 37 37. THE MISSION IS TO
PASS SENATOR SKINNER SCANNER. I
NILO. NO BECKER BECKER I
CAVALLERO DALI DALI NOTES ARE
ALSO EGGMAN SIGMUND I GROVE.
GROUP NO, LAIRD. I AM ACQUIRE.
HI MCGUIRE. I MENTION BAR TO BAR
MEN. NEWMAN NEWMAN. I OCHOA NO
PADILLA. ROTH EYES SARTO HARTONO
. SMALLWOOD QUIVERS SMUGGLED
QUIVERS. AYE. I BELIEVE WE HAVE
A 13 5 VOTE ONCE AGAIN, THAT
BILL PASSES 13 5 MOVE ITEM
NUMBER FOUR A. B ONE B 1 38 WILL
HAVE THE ROLL CALL 38. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS SENATOR
SKINNER, NILO. AYE BECKER BECKER
, I CAVALLERO DOLLY DOLLY! I'D
ALSO SO I EGGMAN HIGHGROVE.
LAYERED I MCGUIRE. MCGUIRE I
MEANT TO BAR THURMOND. I NEWMAN
, UH, BUG GUY PADILLA THE EYE
BROTH BROTH I CR TO CR TÚI
SMALLWOOD QUIVERS SMALLWOOD
CUEVAS. I 18 18 0 CHAIR AND MOVE
ITEM NUMBER FIVE A B 1 40 WE
HAVE EMOTIONAL MAYBE 1 40 CAN WE
HAVE ROLL CALL, PLEASE? MAYBE 1
40. THE MOTION IS STOOP. ASKED
SENATOR SKINNER. I NILO NO
BECKER, CAVALLERO, DOLLY! DRAW
SO EGGMAN GROVE. GROW UP. NO
LAIRD MCGUIRE ACQUIRE. I MEANT
TO BAR MY MEN, NEWMAN, NEWMAN,
OR CHILD BUG BUG NUMBER 18
ADIYIAH ROTH TOÀN NO SMUGGLED
CUEVAS. SMALLWOOD CUEVAS? AYE.
THAT BILL IS 13 3 WILL NOW MOVE
TO A B 1 41 MOTION BY SENATOR
LAIRD. ROLL CALL, PLEASE. PRETTY
ONE. THE MOTION IS TO PASS
SENATOR SKINNER, NILLA BECKER,
CAVALLERO, DALI DALI, ALSO BY
EGGMAN GROVE. LAIRD I'M ACQUIRE
ACQUIRE. I MENTIONED BAR TO BAR
I MEN, NEWMAN I OR TROUBLE I
PADILLA BUT THE BROTH BROTH I
GUARDO EYES. SMALLWOOD CUEVAS BY
. PROVIDING GROW BY BILL HAS 18
VOTES. WE WILL NOW GO TO A B 1
42 MOTION PURSE. SENATOR LAIRD
WILL HAVE ROLL CALL MAYBE 1 42.
THE MOTION IS DUE PAST SENATOR
SKINNER, NILO BECKER, CAVALLERO,
COVER YOUR EYE, DOLLY. THEY'RE
ALSO EGGMAN GROVE. LAIRD ALERT.
I MCGUIRE MCGUIRE I MENTIONED
BAR MENU BAR. I'M IN NEWMAN
TROUBLED BY MEDIA, BUT THE WRATH
II SEYARTO. SMALLWOOD QUIVERS,
SMALLWOOD QUIVERS AYE. CAN YOU
SEE THAT WON THE VOTE ON THAT
ONE. 16 SIR. YES ALRIGHT, SO
THAT VOTES 16 0 BUILDS OUT. WE
NOW HAVE A B 1 43. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION? DON'T MOVE. ALL RIGHT.
SENATOR ROTH MOVES A B 1 43.
LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. MAYBE 1
43 THE MOTION. THERE'S A
QUESTION QUESTION IN TERMS OF
THE VOTE. IS THERE A WAY TO
SEPARATE OUT AN ITEM WITHIN 1 43
. THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH
MULTIPLE SUBJECTS. ANYWAY WE'RE
GOING TO, UH, WE'VE ANSWERED THE
QUESTION WE HAVE BEFORE US A B 1
43 AND ITS ENTIRETY WILL HAVE
THE ROLL CALL. PLEASE BE 1 43.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS IN ORDER.
SKINNER. DANILO VOTING. BECKER
CAVALLERO, DOLLY DOLLY, I SO
ALSO NO EGGMAN O GROVE. I
LAYERED. ALERT I OH, SORRY.
NOBODY DO PIE. OKAY I ACQUIRE
WHERE I MENTION BAR BAR. NO MEN
, MEN. I NEWMAN AND I OR TROUBLE
I PADILLA ROTH. ALRIGHT I SEE
ARTO. SMALLWOOD CRAB, US. IT WAS
11. 11-3 UM MOVE. ITEM NUMBER 91
48 11-3 81 43 IS OUT WILL NOW
TAKE A ROLL CALL ON 1 48 SENATOR
LAIRD'S MOVED 48. THE MOTION IS
TO PASS SENATOR SKINNER NILO.
NO, NO, NO. BECKER. CAVIAR OH,
MY DOLLY! DOLLY! NO DOOR ALSO I
ALSO I EGGMAN. WHAT NUMBER ARE
WE ON? BY SIGMUND I GROVE. LAIRD
MCGUIRE REQUIRE. I MENTIONED BAR
TOMORROW. I'M IN MY NEWMAN
NEWMAN I OR TROUBLE BUGGED.
TODAVÍA HI, BUDDY. I BROUGHT
EYES GERARDO CR DON'T KNOW SMALL
, GOOD. SMALLWOOD CUEVAS
QUIVERS. AYE. ALRIGHT THAT BILL
1 48 HAS 13 I THREE KNOWS WE
WILL NOW MOVE TO THE TENT ITEM.
10 81 51 MOVE, SENATOR LAIRD'S
MOVED 51. THE MOTION IS TO PASS
CENTER SKINNER SKINNER I NILO
BECKER. HI, CAVALLERO. DOLLY
DOLLY! I CARASSO EGGMAN NÓI
GROVE. GROUP I LAYERED, MCGUIRE
MCGUIRE I MENTION BAR BAR. NO
MEN, MEN, NEWMAN I OR TROUBLE
CAMBODIAN WITH TODAVÍA. ROTH
RICARDO SMALLWOOD CUEVAS.
THAT BILL WAS 10. I WISEMAN.
OKAY 10, 10 EYES TO NOSE. THAT
WAS THE 1 51 BILL PASSES. SO NOW
WE WILL GO TO A B 1 52. DO WE
HAVE A MOTION? GREAT. WE WILL
HAVE SENATOR MEN'S MOTION. LET'S
HAVE A ROLL CALL IN A B 1 52 52
. THE MOTION IS TO PASS CENTER
SKINNER SKINNER. I NILO BECKER.
ALRIGHT CAVALLERO HØI DOLLY
DOLLY! I DRAW SO EGGMAN SIGMUND
I GROVE LAYERED MCGUIRE MCGUIRE
I MENTION BAR I MEN I NEWMAN I
OR TROUBLED BY THE DEA, ROTH
CIERTO SMALLWOOD QUIVERS.
SMALLWOOD QUIVERS. I ALRIGHT,
THAT VOTE THAT BILL PASSES WITH
18 EYES IS THAT CORRECT? 18 EYES
MAYBE 1 52 PASSES THAT CONCLUDES
THE WORK OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE
FOR TODAY. I APPRECIATE STAFF
AND ALL THE WORK YOU'VE DONE.
ALSO OF COURSE, OUR DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE AND OTHER STAFF
ADMINISTRATION AND THE PUBLIC
FURTHER INPUT, AND WITH THAT WE
WILL CONCLUDE THIS HEARING
TODAY.