BROUGH THIS COMMITTEE HEARING IN
ROOM 2100 IN THE SWING SPACE. I
ASK THAT ALL MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE WE PRESENT ROOM 2100
SO WE CAN ESTABLISH OUR QUORUM.
TO BEGIN OUR HEARING BEFORE WE
HEAR PRESENTATIONS ON TODAY'S
AGENDA ITEMS I'M GONNA WE DON'T
HAVE A QUORUM. SO WE'RE GONNA
WE'RE GONNA BEGIN AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE, UM. AND WE'LL TAKE
UP THE CONSENT COUNTER AS SOON
AS WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. UM. SO I
JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT WILL
ALLOW TO PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT AND TO PREMIER WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION ON EACH MATTER.
EACH PRIMARY WITNESS WILL HAVE
TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK AT THE
PRIMARY SUPPORT. I WILL INVITE
OTHER SUPPORTERS, THE STATE
THEIR NAME. THEIR AFFILIATION IN
THEIR POSITION. I WILL DO THE
SAME FOR THE OPPOSITION IF WE
HEAR FROM SUPPORT, AND
OPPOSITION WILL TURN TO COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS IF YOU
WISH TO FURTHER EXPOUND ON YOUR
POSITION ON THE BILL. YOU CAN
SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE COMMITTEE
USING ONE OF THE METHODS
DESCRIBED IN THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE'S WEBSITE.
AH. ALL RIGHT. SO, UM I THINK
THE FIRST BILL IS SENATOR
CORTEZ'S BILL, AND I'M GOING TO
PRESENT SENATOR CORTEZ BILL
SIMON ASKED SENATOR. WELL IF YOU
WOULD DO THE HONORS. OKAY SO
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU SAY THAT'S
A STUFF, SAYING. WHAT'S THE.
OKAY UP. FIRST IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER TWO SP 554 FROM SENATOR
CORTEZ RECOMMENDATION IS DO PASS
AND SENT TO APPROPRIATIONS. AND
WITH THAT, MR CHAIRMAN, WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY, YOU MAY BEGIN.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. UM GOOD
MORNING. I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT
SP 554 ON BEHALF OF SENATOR
CORTEZ AS THE SURVIVORS
PROTECTION ACT IT SPONSORED BY
RESTRAINING ORDERS WITHOUT
BORDERS. I WANT TO THANK ALLISON
MEREDITH IN PARTICULAR FOR HER
WORK ON THIS MEASURE. SB 554
WOULD ALLOW SURVIVORS OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR ARREST MINT
TO PETITION FOR A RESTRAINING
ORDER IN CALIFORNIA COURT,
REGARDLESS OF THE RESIDENCY
STATUS OF THE PETITIONER 25
STATES ARE PETITIONER TO BE, UM,
A NONRESIDENT IN 33 STATES
EXPLICITLY ALLOWS SURVIVOR TO
FILE A PETITION. AND A
PERPETRATOR'S COUNTY. UM, THIS
BILL WOULD PUT CALIFORNIA IN THE
SAME POSITION AS OTHER STATES. I
HAVE TWO WITNESSES HERE TODAY.
ERICA BUSBY, UM SPEAKING SUPPORT
AND NAZEER AKANE WITH
RESTRAINING ORDERS WITHOUT
BORDERS. MR. BUSBY, IF YOU'RE
HERE THANK YOU. COMMITTEE RULES
OR TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES AT TWO
MINUTES EACH. WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. GOOD MORNING CHAIR, VICE
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ERICA
BUSBY AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF
RESTRAINING ORDERS WITHOUT
BORDERS. ALMOST EXACTLY TWO
YEARS AGO. RESTRAINING ORDERS
WITHOUT BORDERS FOUNDER NAUSEA
KHAN WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED.
AFTER HER ASSAULT. SHE WAS
DENIED A RESTRAINING ORDER FROM
BOTH HER RESIDENTS STATE AND THE
STATE SHE WAS ASSAULTED IN
DURING HER COURT CASE IN
CALIFORNIA, SHE FOUND THAT
STATUTE DID NOT DETAIL THE
JURISDICTION THE WAY THAT OTHER
STATES DO, AND DID NOT INCLUDE
NONRESIDENTS SURVIVORS AS
EXPLICIT PETITIONERS FOR
RESTRAINING OR PROTECTION ORDERS
. SURVIVORS WHO OFTEN REPRESENT
THEMSELVES RELY ON STATUTE TO
SUPPORT THEM WHEN THEY TESTIFY
IN FRONT OF A JUDGE OR IN FRONT
OF THEIR PERPETRATOR. THEY RELY
ON IT TO UNDERSTAND THEIR RIGHTS
AND THE STATUTE IS FAILING THEM.
THIS BILL CHANGES THAT IT
SAFEGUARDS CALIFORNIA'S 9
MILLION SURVIVORS AND 250
MILLION ANNUAL VISITORS. IT
WOULD GIVE CALIFORNIA THE
OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN 14 STATES
WITH THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE
RESTRAINING ORDER ACCESS LAWS
AND THE 25 PLUS STATES, WHICH
IMPLEMENT VARIATIONS OF THIS
BILL, INCLUDING HAWAII, WHICH
PASSED ITS OWN VERSION OF SP 554
IN 2023. CALIFORNIA HAS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO REASSURE 46,000
PEOPLE FROM ACROSS THE STATE
NATION AND WORLD WHO SIGNED OUR
CAMPAIGNS PETITION THAT SURVIVOR
SAFETY IS NOT A BASIC RIGHT. BUT
NOT A LUXURY. I HAVE NO NAUSEA
SINCE BEFORE SHE WAS SEXUALLY
ASSAULTED. I'VE SEEN FAMILY AND
FRIENDS STAND BEFORE A JUSTICE
SYSTEM THEY DO NOT FEEL SEEN OR
HEARD BY THE SUFFERING OF SEXUAL
ASSAULT SURVIVORS DOES NOT END
AT THE ON THE BED STREET OR HOME
THEY WERE ASSAULTED IN THE
INJUSTICE FOLLOWS THEM INTO
COURTROOMS WERE BEING DENIED
ACCESS TO SAFETY AND JUSTICE
TRAUMATIZES THEM FURTHER. AS A
STATE. WE HAVE TO STOP REACTING
TO SEXUAL ASSAULT AND START
PREVENTING IT. IT CAN TAKE A
LIFETIME FOR SURVIVOR TO FEEL
SAFE IN THEIR BODY AGAIN, BUT
THIS BILL GIVES THEM THE RIGHT
TO AT LEAST FEEL SAFE IN THEIR
HOME. I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THE
COMMITTEE'S PASSAGE OF SB 554
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TESTIFY AND WERE AVAILABLE FOR
QUESTIONS. GREAT. THANK YOU.
NEXT WITNESS. DID YOU SAY YOU
HAD TO MISS KAHN? ARE YOU? ARE
YOU JUST HERE FOR TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT. OKAY. GREAT
ANY ANYBODY IN THE ROOM TO DO ME
TO TESTIMONY, WHICH SHOULD BE
YOUR POSITION ON THE BILL AND
SUPPORT NAME AND ORGANIZATION?
CASING NONE. ANY WITNESSES HERE
IN OPPOSITION. SEEING NONE. OKAY
NOW, MR MODERATOR, LET'S GO TO
THE PHONES. I'M KIDDING. I'M SO
GLAD WE DON'T HAVE PHONES
ANYMORE. THAT WAS BRUTAL. THAT
WAS RIGHT TOO SOON. OKAY? WELL
NOT FOR ME. IT'S NOT TOO SOON.
ALRIGHT WITH THAT. WE'LL PULL IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. FOR
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS CONCERNS. WE
CAN, BUT WE DON'T SENATOR ASHBY.
WE DO NOT HAVE A QUORUM YET. WE
ARE MISSING ONE THIS
ANNOUNCEMENT TO STAFF AND
MEMBERS IF ONE MORE MEMBER OF
THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
APPEARS, WILL HAVE A QUORUM. SO
DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? OK,
SENATOR NILO. PLEASE. THE ISSUE
OF, UH, ASSAULT. DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE IS A VERY SENSITIVE
ONE. FOR SURE. AND NORMALLY A,
UH, REQUEST FOR A RESTRAINING
ORDER IS LEGITIMATE AND GRANTED.
THERE ARE CASES WHEN AH, THAT IS
ALLEGED AND RESTRAINING ORDER IS
ASKED. UM AS A RESULT OF JUST
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PEOPLE,
PARTICULARLY IN UM, DIVORCES.
AND THIS WOULD INCREASE THE
LIKELIHOOD. OF A RESTRAINT,
RESTRAINING ORDER BEING, UH,
ISSUED AGAINST A PERSON AND
THEREFORE THE PERSON BEING
JUDGED GUILTY WHEN IT IS NOT
NECESSARILY THE CASE BECAUSE OF
THE INCONVENIENCE OF POTENTIALLY
HAVING TO TRAVEL IN THE LIKE I
KNOW THAT, UH, TESTIMONY CAN BE
TAKEN REMOTELY. BUT THAT'S FAR
LESS FROM THAN PERFECT IN TERMS
OF TESTIMONY AND A JUDGE'S
ABILITY TO ASSESS THE TESTIMONY.
UM, HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT?
SO MY UNDERSTANDING THIS BILL IS
IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE CRITERIA
THAT THE COURT WOULD EVALUATE.
IT SIMPLY PROVIDES A
JURISDICTIONAL, UM,
JURISDICTIONS SO THAT, FOR
EXAMPLE, A PERSON FROM OUT OF
STATE IF SOMEONE IS ABUSING THEM
HERE IN CALIFORNIA, THEY CAN
COME TO THE COUNTY IN WHICH THAT
PERSON RESIDES. ASKED THE COURT
IN THAT COUNTY. TO MAKE THE SAME
EVALUATION AS THEY WOULD MAKE IF
THEY BOTH LIVED IN THE SAME
COUNTY USED THAT CRITERIA AND
MAKE A TERMINATION AS TO WHETHER
RESTRAINING ORDER SHOULD ISSUE
OR NOT. THAT'S TRUE. WHAT IF
THE, UM THE PERSON, UH, AGAINST
WHOM THE RESTRAINING ORDER IS
POTENTIALLY BEING IMPOSED. LIVES
IN SAN DIEGO. AND THE PERSON
REQUESTING THE ORDER LIVES IN UM
. READING. SO AND I'M GOING TO
TURN TO THE EXPERT HERE IN JUST
A SECOND. I'LL LET THE EXPERT
RESPOND RATHER THAN ME. YEAH I
THINK IS TO IS TO WHAT? WHAT THE
JURISDICTIONAL CHANGES WOULD DO.
GO AHEAD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
QUESTION, SENATOR. UM, SO
CURRENTLY THE BURDEN IS ON THE
SURVIVOR TO HAVE TO TRAVEL OR TO
TRAVEL TO THE COUNTY OF THE
DEFENDANT OR WHERE THE VENUE
LAWS RIGHT NOW SAY THAT THEY
HAVE TO PETITION WHERE THE
OFFENSE OCCURRED OR THEIR PRIOR
RESIDENTS. THEY SURVIVOR RIGHT
NOW HAS THE BURDEN OF HAVING TO
NAVIGATE THAT DIFFERENT COURT
SYSTEM. AND I HEAR YOU AND
YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT SOUNDS
LIKE THE DEFENDANT WOULD NOW
HAVE TO NAVIGATE THAT
THEMSELVES. A LOT OF SURVIVORS
MYSELF INCLUDED. I'M THE FOUNDER
, RESTRAINING ORDERS AT THE
BORDERS. I'M THE PERSON THAT
ERICA WAS REFERRING TO WITH HER
CASE. UM, I REPRESENTED MYSELF
IN COURT. I DID NOT HAVE AN
ATTORNEY. THE DEFENDANT DID HAVE
AN ATTORNEY AND HE WAS ABLE TO
NAVIGATE THAT COURT PROCESS IN A
WAY THAT I WASN'T ABLE TO
NAVIGATE IT. UM SO WHAT WE'RE
DOING IS WE'RE HAVING, UM, THAT
SHIFTING OF THE BURDEN TO
DEFENDANTS WHO OFTEN HAVE THESE
RESOURCES AND THE SUPPORTS
CURRENTLY BECAUSE SURVIVORS ARE
HAVING TO TRAVEL OF, FOR EXAMPLE
, IN THE EXAMPLE YOU'RE GIVING
WITH READING AND SAN DIEGO, THEY
WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THE SAN
DIEGO COURT SYSTEM. UM THEY ARE
NOT BEING ABLE TO ACCESS THE
RESOURCES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO
THEM. THEIR SUPPORT SYSTEM IS
NOT THERE. WE'RE AMPLIFYING
THEIR TRAUMA. AND THAT WAS THAT
WAS THE CASE FOR ME AS WELL. UM
SO WE'RE LOOKING TO SHIFT SOME
OF THAT BURDEN AND AGAIN, AS
SENATOR AMBERG WAS SAYING WE'RE
NOT TRYING TO, UM MAKE. WE'RE
NOT PUTTING ANY KIND OF CRITERIA
ON THE COURT ON WHY THEY SHOULD
GRANT A RESTRAINING ORDER, WHICH
IS EASING THE ACCESS. I HOPE
THAT HELPS ANSWER THE QUESTION.
UM WELL, WHAT CURRENT LAW. IN
YOUR OPINION, UH, PUTS MORE
BURDEN ON OR POTENTIALLY
BENEFITS. PUTS MORE BURDEN ON
THE ACCUSER AND POTENTIALLY
BENEFITS BENEFITS. THE ACCUSED.
THIS CHANGE DOES JUST THE
OPPOSITE. AND. I DON'T KNOW WHAT
THE APPROACH IS BECAUSE I
HAVEN'T BEEN INVOLVED IN THE
DISCUSSIONS OF THIS BILL NOR THE
ISSUE EXCEPT IN OBSERVING IT.
WITH SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE CLOSE
TO ME AND SEEING THE ABUSE SIDE
OF IT. AH, WHICH I'LL GRANT IS
PROBABLY A MINORITY OF THE
CASES. BUT, UM AND FLIPPING IT.
MAYBE THERE'S A DIFFERENT
APPROACH. THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE
BIT MORE NEUTRAL. RELATIVE TO
THE RIGHTS OF BOTH PARTIES. I
UNDERSTAND, SENATOR ALL SORRY.
GO AHEAD. JUST JUST I'M SORRY.
UM MR CHAIR, WOULD IT BE
APPROPRIATE TO ESTABLISH A
QUORUM? IT WOULD BE. BUT BEFORE
WE DO THAT YOU DIDN'T MENTION
THIS IN YOUR OPENING COMMENTS.
ARE YOU TAKING THE AMENDMENTS
THAT WILL BE DONE IN THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE TRYING
TO SLIDE THROUGH WITHOUT DOING
THAT? OKAY WITH THAT WE ARE
GOING TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
SENATOR UMBERG HERE. WILK
PRESENT PRESIDENT ALLEN. ASHBY
ASHBY HERE, CABALLERO. GONZALES.
GONZALEZ HERE, LAIRD. WEIRD HERE
. MEN IN HERE. NEAL 00 HERE,
STERN WIENER. YOU HAVE A QUORUM?
QUORUM THANK YOU, LITERALLY,
ANILLO. YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?
I'M GOING TO PROVE THAT I'M A
DAD THAT I HAVE EYES IN THE BACK
OF MY HEAD, SENATOR ASHBY. THANK
YOU BE VERY BRIEF. NOW THAT WE
HAVE A CHOIR, UM I'D LOVE TO
MOVE THE ITEM. AND IT ALSO LIKE
TO THANK YOU FOR BRAVELY NOT
ONLY SHARING YOUR STORY AND
BEING WILLING TO SHARE IT
THROUGH YOUR TEAM IN YOUR
ORGANIZATION BUT TO BE THE KIND
OF PERSON WHO TAKES THAT
EXPERIENCE TO MAKE A CHANGE TO
HOW BENEFIT MORE PEOPLE. WHO
UNFORTUNATELY WILL END IN THE
SAME POSITION AS YOU THE SYSTEM
SHOULD. LEND ITSELF TO THE
VICTIMS SO THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY
RIGHTEOUS, AND I APPRECIATE IT.
AND THANK YOU, UM, CAN I HAVE A
MOMENT TO RESPOND TO THE
SENATORS? COMMENT FROM BEFORE,
PLEASE. OKAY THANK YOU. UM, I
JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE INTENT
OF OUR BILL IS TO EVEN THE
PLAYING FIELD AND NOT TO, UM,
NOT TO MOVE THE JUSTICE SYSTEM
IN FAVOR OF THE SURVIVOR. WE'RE
JUST LOOKING TO INCREASE RIGHTS
FOR SURVIVORS SO THAT WE'RE NOT
TAKING OUT THE THAT THAT COURTS
GET TO DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO
ISSUE THE RESTRAINING ORDER. AND
OF COURSE, IF A COURT DECIDES
THAT THEY DON'T HAVE
JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT,
THEN THEY SURVIVOR WOULD STILL
HAVE TO GO TO THE DEFENDANT'S
COURT AND PETITION FRUSTRATING
ORDER THERE. SO REALLY, WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS JUST EVEN
THE PLAYING FIELD RIGHT NOW AND
ONE THAT'S GEARED. TOWARDS THE
FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS. THANK YOU
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY
ONE POINT, THE DEFENDANTS STILL
NEEDS TO RECEIVE NOTICE AND
STILL BE SERVED. ABSOLUTELY.
ALRIGHT, URGENT. I VOTE. SO
THAT'S YOUR CLOTHES, MY CLOTHES
WITH THAT? CALL THE ROLL. THIS
IS FILE ITEM NUMBER TWO SB 554.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED THE
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS UMBERG.
HAMBURG I WILK ALLEN. ASHBY,
ASHBY. I CABALLERO. GONZALEZ
GONZALEZ, I, LAIRD LAIRD. I MEN,
MEN. I NILO OH, NO STERN.
WIENER. 6 TO 1 WITH MEMBERS
MISSING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
CALL IT OR, UM, WE'RE GOING TO
PUT THE BILL ON CALL. BUT THE
BILL THE BILLS OUT, BUT WE'LL
LEAVE IT ON CALL FROM FROM
MISSING MEMBERS, RIGHT? SIX
DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA PUT IT
OUT YET. I THINK WE'RE JUST
GOING TO PUT ON CALL, RIGHT. SO
ALL RIGHT, MR CHAIR. THANK YOU.
YES WOULD YOU ENTERTAIN A MOTION
FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA? I WOULD
WANT TO. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO
THANK SENATOR WILK FOR NOT
MOVING TO AMERICA. I'M GLAD HE'S
STILL HERE. ONE NUMBER TWO.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR
GONZALEZ. SENATOR GONZALEZ IS
FILLING IN TODAY. UM SHE IS A
RETURNING MEMBER OF THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMUNITY. YES THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT, UM AND SENATOR
LAIRD, HIS MOVE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. UM MADAM SECRETARY, IF
YOU WOULD CALL THE ROLL. HAMBURG
I WILK WILK, I ALAN ASHBY,
ASHBY. I CABALLERO GONZALES.
CONCERNED THANK YOU. CONSULT
LAWYERS. I LAYERED MEN. NINE ILO
HØI STERN. YES. STERN WIENER.
YEAH 7 TO 0 WITH MEMBERS
MISSING. ALRIGHT. WE'LL PUT THAT
ON CALL. NEXT WE'RE GOING TO
TURN TO ITEM NUMBER THREE. SB 8
TO 7 BY SENATOR GLASER AT CES
PRESENT. CENTER GLASER FLOOR IS
YOURS. THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO
PRESENT THIS BUILDING TODAY AND
I WANTED TO COMMEND AND THANK
THE COMMITTEE STAFFER PREPARING
AN EXCELLENT ANALYSIS. DETAILS
THE HISTORY IN THIS IN THIS
SPACE, BUT THIS BILL IN AND
SIMPLICITY APPLIES OUR EXISTING
STATUTORY AUTHORITY THAT WE
GRANTED THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION'S INSPECTOR
GENERAL TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
AT THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ER AREA
RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM. IT
PROVIDES THE BART I G INSPECTOR
GENERAL WITH EXPLICIT ACCESS TO
RECORDS AND PROPERTY. ACCESS TO
CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS UNLESS
STATE LAW EXPLICITLY PRECLUDES
ACCESS. CONSULTATION WITH
STAKEHOLDERS AND PROPOSING A
COUPLE OF CHANGES. UNDER THE
EXISTING STATUTORY REQUIREMENT
FOR CALTRANS, THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL CAN APPLY CRIMINAL
PENALTIES. UH, IT'S FOLKS DON'T
COOPERATE. AS DETAILED IN THE
JUDICIARY ANALYSIS. I'M
PROPOSING TO REMOVE CRIMINAL
PENALTIES. FROM THE BILL IN 2020
. I HAD TO BUILD THAT DID NOT
HAVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES. IT DID
HAVE SUBPOENA POWER TO MAKE SURE
THEY COULD GET THE INFORMATION
THAT THEY NEEDED. SO WHILE I'M
REMOVING CRIMINAL PENALTIES NOW
I'VE TALKED WITH THE POLICY
CHAIR HAPPENS TO BE HERE
STAKEHOLDERS THAT I AM GOING TO
CONTINUE TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT
SUBPOENA POWER, SOMETHING THAT
SHOULD BE PUT BACK IN THE BILL,
SO I JUST WANT TO KNOW THAT ON
THE RECORD SECONDLY, I'M
PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT THAT
ANYONE SUBJECT TO AN
INVESTIGATION OR MAY BE SUBJECT
TO DISCIPLINE AS A PART OF AN
INVESTIGATION WOULD BE AFFORDED
WEINGARTEN RIGHTS. THAT'S THE
ABILITY TO HAVE REPRESENTATION
THERE AT THAT. MEETING OR THAT
INTERVIEW. I WANT TO NOTE THAT
THERE ARE ONGOING DISCUSSIONS
THAT BART IS HAVING WITH
STAKEHOLDERS AND THE EXISTING
INSPECTOR GENERAL ABOUT A
CHARTER THAT WOULD CODIFY THAT
OFFICE'S RESPONSIBILITIES. IT'S
BEEN IN DISCUSSION AND DEBATE
SINCE 2022. THEY HAVEN'T BROUGHT
THAT ACROSS THE FINISH LINE, BUT
WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT THEY WILL
CONTINUE TO HAVE THOSE EARNEST
DISCUSSIONS AND CODIFY THE POWER
OF THAT OFFICE, WHICH WE ALL
KNOW AND WANT FOR PROPER FISCAL
OVERSIGHT AND WITHOUT
RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR YOUR I
VOTE TODAY. ALL RIGHT. UM LET'S
TURN TO SUPPORT WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. POLICE APPROACHED THE
MICROPHONE. SEEING NO ONE
APPROACHING THE MICROPHONE. UM
ALRIGHT. UM WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. SAYING NO ONE
APPROACHED THE MICROPHONE IF
ANYONE WISHES TO PROVIDE FOR ME
TO TESTIMONY, PLEASE APPROACH
THE MICROPHONE, SAYING NO ONE
APPROACHED THE MICROPHONE. LET
ME JUST ASK SENATOR GLASER.
YOU'VE ACCEPTED THE COMMITTEE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. YES SIR.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. UM THESE
AMENDMENTS THAT WILL BE
PROCESSED IN THE BUILT, UH,
AFTER THE BILL PASSES THE
COMMITTEE AND WHILE THE BILL IS
STILL IN THE SENATE, CORRECT
THAT'S CORRECT. UM OKAY
QUESTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
YES CENTER. GONZALES JUST WANNA
THANK SENATOR GLASER AGAIN. HE
WORKED VERY HARD ON THIS BILL. I
KNOW IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO HIM
AND WE'LL CONTINUE CONVERSATIONS
ON THOSE ISSUES. BUT THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR SITTING DOWN WITH
FOLKS AND BEING AMENABLE TO
THOSE AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
SEEING NONE. IS THERE A MOTION
SENATOR WILLIAM WHAT WAS THE
BILL? ALL RIGHT, WOULD YOU GET
HER CLOSE CENTER GLASER? THANK
YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN
YOUR I VOTE TODAY. ALRIGHT?
MADAM SECRETARY. IF YOU CALL THE
ROLL THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER
THREE SB 8 TO 7. THE MOTION IS
TO PASS THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS. HAMBURG HAMBURG.
I WILL I. ALAN ASHBY CABALLERO.
GONZALEZ GONZALEZ, I LAYERED I
CAME IN. HIÆN AYE NILO HØI STERN
WIENER. 7 TO 0 WITH MEMBERS
MISSING. ALRIGHT 70 PUT THAT ON
CALL NEXT. SENATOR GLASER'S BILL
. ITEM NUMBER FOUR SB 869. THANK
YOU, UM THIS FEEL ALONG WITH THE
NEXT BILL THAT YOU WILL HEAR
FROM ME? WERE PIECES OF
LEGISLATION THAT I WORKED HARD
ON LAST YEAR. BUT IN
CONSULTATION WITH THE POLICY
COMMITTEE AND STAKEHOLDERS, I
DECIDED TO CALL IT CALL IT A TWO
YEAR BILL TO GIVE A LITTLE EXTRA
TIME TO DO MORE WORK. AND SO
THAT APPLIES TO THIS BILL. AND
THE NEXT ONE. BUT THIS BILL, UM,
BY THE WAY, I'M ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WERE SUGGESTED
FROM SENATE BANKING THAT I THINK
IS ON YOUR DOCKET TODAY. AS
SMALL BUSINESS BORROWERS HAVE
INCREASINGLY STRUGGLED TO ACCESS
TRADITIONAL BANK LOANS. THEY
HAVE RESORTED TO ALTERNATIVE
FORMS OF FINANCING TO START TO
MAINTAIN AND TO GROW THEIR
BUSINESS. UNFORTUNATELY THE GAPS
IN CALIFORNIA'S COMMERCIAL
FINANCING LAW HAVE ALLOWED SOME
THAT ACTORS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
SMALL BUSINESS BORROWERS. IT'S
NOT NOT LIKE THE OLD DAYS WHERE
YOU GO INTO A BRICK AND MORTAR
BANK AND SAY I NEED SOME MONEY,
AND THEN THEY TALK ABOUT THE
TERMS. MOST OF THE LENDING ON
THE TODAY IS ON THE INTERNET,
AND IT'S A IT'S A DIFFERENT
PLAYING FIELD THAT MANY OF US
HAVE. GROWING UP BAD AND USED TO
SO THIS BILL TRIES TO LEVEL THE
PLAYING FIELD FOR LOAN AND NON
LOAN PRODUCTS BY REQUIRING
LICENSOR FOR BROKERS AND
COMMERCIAL FINANCE PROVIDERS. IT
ALSO REGULATES PREDATORY BROKER
PRACTICES, AND IT CLOSES A
LOOPHOLE IN CALIFORNIA'S
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FINANCING
LAW. IT REGULATES PREDATORY
BROKER PRACTICES BY BY REQUIRING
BROKERS TO PROMINENTLY DISCLOSED
THE AVERAGE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE FOR
FINANCING THAT THEY PUT CLIENTS
INTO IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, SO
BORROWERS CAN COMPARE BROKERS
AND THAT'S A KEY ELEMENT OF
TRYING TO MAKE SURE IT'S A FAIR
PLAYING FIELD FOR BORROWERS IS
THAT WE'VE NOW CREATED UNDER THE
LAW THAT THIS COMMITTEE AND THIS
LEGISLATURE PASSED. SIX YEARS
AGO. TO CREATE A STANDARD RATE
IN WHICH TO COMPARE, UH,
PROPOSAL TO UNTIL THEN MONEY TO
YOU, AND THAT'S THE ANNUAL
PERCENTAGE RATES THE SAME ON
YOUR CREDIT CARD. WHEN YOU SEE
THAT RATE AND YOUR CREDIT CARDS
WHAT'S THE THAT MONEY IS GOING
TO COST YOU AND THAT YOU CAN
COMPARE AND THAT NOW IS
APPLICABLE TO COMMERCIAL
LENDING. UM. I WANT I WANT TO
MENTION AND I DON'T HAVE TO GO
INTO DETAIL AND THOSE PEOPLE
WANT TO KNOW MORE, BUT I'M
CLOSING A LOOPHOLE. TO PROHIBIT
ANY ACTION THAT CAN BE CONSTRUED
AS A MISSION OF JUDGMENT. WHICH
PROHIBITS BORROWERS FROM LEGAL
REPRESENTATION IF THEY DEFAULT
ON A LOAN. THERE ARE CONTINUING
CONVERSATIONS. ABOUT A PART OF
THE BILL THAT REQUIRES BROKERS
TO DISCLOSE FINANCING HISTORY. I
MENTIONED THAT JUST A MOMENT AGO
I COMMIT TO CONTINUING TO WORK
WITH OPPOSITION WITH
STAKEHOLDERS TO ENSURE THAT
BORROWERS ARE PROTECTED, BUT WE
HAVE A FAIR STANDARD IN WHICH
THEY CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO
WITH ME TODAY. I HAVE TWO
WITNESSES HEIDI PICKMAN ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION FOR MICRO ENTERPRISE
OPPORTUNITY. ALSO KNOWN AS CAMEO
AND LOUIS CANDIDATES. PECK WHO
IS THE SENIOR FELLOW AT THE
NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT
COALITION, FORMER FINTECH SMALL
BUSINESS FINANCING EXECUTIVE
THAT RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
RIVAL TODAY. THANK YOU, MA'AM.
SORRY THANK YOU. CHAIR AMBERG
AND VICE CHAIR WELCOMED MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE CAN USE A
STATEWIDE NETWORK OF 400
BUSINESS SERVICE PROVIDERS AND
COMMUNITY LENDERS AND A STRONG
SUPPORTER OF SB 869, ALONG WITH
1000 OTHER ORGANIZATIONAL
MEMBERS OF OUR COALITION THAT
SUPPORTS THIS BILL. WE COMMEND
SENATOR GLASER, THE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATURE AND GOVERNOR NEWSOM
FOR LEADING THE COUNTRY AND
RESPONSIBLE SMALL BUSINESS
LENDING PACKED PRACTICES. SB 869
CONTINUES THIS LEADERSHIP. IT
DOES THREE THINGS, AS THE CENTER
MENTIONED REGULATES PREDATORY
PRACTICES BY BROKERS LEVELS, THE
PLAYING FIELD BETWEEN NON LÀ
BETWEEN LOAN AND NON LOAN
PRODUCTS AND CLOSES LOOPHOLES IN
OUR CURRENT LAW, WORKING
BACKWARDS CALIFORNIA'S
TRANSPARENT PRICE DISCLOSURE
REGULATIONS ARE GROUNDBREAKING,
AND THE LEGISLATURE VOTED
UNANIMOUSLY LAST YEAR TO MAKE
THEM PERMANENT. THEY STILL
CONTAIN A FEW LOOPHOLES THAT CAN
ABLE BAD ACTORS TO QUOTE
MISLEADINGLY LOW PRICES AND
POLICE THEMSELVES SELVES AND
SLAPPED THEIR OWN WRISTS. SB 869
DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THIS NEEDED
FIX AND CLOSES SEVERAL OTHER
LOOPHOLES THAT NEW YORK STATE
CLOSED WHEN IT PASSED ITS
DISCLOSURE LAWS THAT WERE BASED
ON CALIFORNIA'S SMALL BUSINESSES
NEED ACCESS TO CAPITAL ALONE TO
NON LOAN PRODUCT THEY KIND OF
DON'T DISTINGUISH NECESSARILY,
AND THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
SHOULDN'T EITHER AND SHOULD
TREAT NON LOAN PRODUCTS THE SAME
AS LOAN PRODUCTS. SB 869 TAKES
AWAY THE UNFAIR ADVANTAGE THAT
UNREGULATED NON LOAN FINANCING
COMPANIES HAVE OVERREGULATED
LENDERS BY PROVIDING ALL TYPES
OF SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING
COMPANIES WITH THE SAME ROLES TO
PLAY BY HALLMARK OF MARKET
COMPETITION. ADDITIONALLY THE
BILL PRESENTS SEVERAL OTHER
PREDATORY PRACTICES THAT THE
SENATOR MENTIONED ABOUT SKIRTING
BANDS ON CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
AND CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIALITY
CLAUSES THAT BULLY SMALL
BUSINESSES FROM SPEAKING OUT,
VICTIMIZE CLOSING THESE
LOOPHOLES IN CREATING A
COMPETITIVE MARKET FOR SMALL
BUSINESS FINANCE WILL CATALYZE
GOOD LENDING TO SMALL
BUSINESSES. THE OPPOSITION WANTS
TO NARROW THE BILL, SO LOOPHOLE
REMAINS AND THEY REMAIN
UNREGULATED. THEY'RE THE SAME
OPPOSITION WHO UNSUCCESSFULLY
SUED CALIFORNIA LAST YEAR TO
OVERTURN OUR TRANSPARENCY PRICE
DISCLOSURE REGULATIONS. THE SAME
REGULATIONS, THIS LEGISLATOR
VOTED UNANIMOUSLY. GO AHEAD AND
WRAP IT UP. I AND I'M DONE
ALRIGHT, WRAPPED. RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANKS.
NEXT ONE. OKAY? HONORABLE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS LUIS KATE.
IT'S PECK. I'M A SENIOR FELLOW
AT THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY
REINVESTMENT COALITION, WERE
PART OF THE RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS
LENDING COALITION, WHICH
INCLUDES BOTH FOR PROFIT
FINANCING COMPANIES AND
NONPROFIT ADVOCATES AND AS PART
OF THE COALITION OF OVER 1000
ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORTS THIS
BILL. PERSONALLY I'M ALSO A
SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING
EXECUTIVE FORMERLY AND A FORMER
APPOINTED MEMBER OF THE CFPB'S
CONSUMER ADVISORY BOARD. SMALL
BUSINESSES TODAY ARE ROUTINELY
STEERED BY BROKERS INTO
UNNECESSARILY EXPENSIVE
FINANCING BECAUSE IT PAYS THE
BROKER HIGHER FEE. THIS ECHOES
ONE OF THE CAUSES OF THE
SUBPRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS AS
SENATOR MEN OBSERVED IN THE
HEARING YESTERDAY. UM UH IN
FACT, REPORTS DESCRIBE SUBPRIME
MORTGAGE BROKERS WHO LOST THEIR
MORTGAGE BROKERING LICENSES
AFTER THAT CRISIS, JUST MOVING
OVER TO THE TOTALLY UNREGULATED
WILD WEST OF SMALL BUSINESS
FINANCING, BROKERING. I'D LIKE
TO WALK YOU THROUGH AN
ADVERTISEMENT THAT WAS JUST
PASSED OUT. THANK YOU FROM A
MERCHANT CASH ADVANCE COMPANY TO
BROKERS. THE FINANCING COMPANY.
THE MERCHANT CASH BONDS COMPANY
IN THIS AD OFFERS BROKERS TRIED
EVEN TO ATTRACT THE BROKER'S
BUSINESS. HUGE COMMISSION
PAYOUTS THE FINANCING COMPANY
OFFERS BROKERS MAX UPSELL 12
POINTS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE
FINANCING COMPANY QUOTES A PRICE
TO THE BROKER. FOR A GIVEN SMALL
BUSINESS AND THAT BROKERS THEN
PERMITTED TO TURN AROUND AND UP
SELL THE BORROWER. THEY CAN ADD
A HIDDEN FEE AS HIGH AS THEY
BELIEVE THE BARBER MIGHT TAKE UP
TO 12% IN THIS CASE, A 12%
BROKER FEE WE SEE 15 COMMONLY AS
WELL. THE ADVERTISEMENT GOES ON
TO ASK BROKERS WITH A DEAL THIS
GOOD. WHY WOULD YOU EVEN
CONSIDER SUBMITTING YOUR DEALS
ELSEWHERE? IN OTHER WORDS, THE
FINANCING COMPANY IS EXPLICITLY
TRYING TO AVOID COMPETITION, NOT
BY LOWERING THEIR PRICES, SO
BORROWERS CHOOSE THEM, BUT BY
OVERCHARGING BORROWERS SO THAT
THE FINANCING COMPANY CAN PAY
THE BROKERS HUGE COMMISSION
PAYOUTS. THIS BILL WOULD ALLOW
THE FBI TO LICENSED BROKERS SO
THAT SMALL BUSINESSES CAN SEEK
ACCOUNTABILITY. IF MISTREATED.
IT WOULD ALSO HELP SMALL
BUSINESSES DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN
BROKERS OFFERING AFFORDABLE
PRODUCTS. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT. UH,
OPPOSITION. I'M JUST GONNA DO IT
QUICK TWEENER MARGARET GLADSTEIN
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE SECURED
FINANCE NETWORK. WE ARE NOT
SUPPORTING A PROPOSED WE ARE
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR, AND I
APPRECIATE HIS COMMITMENT TO
KEEP WORKING WITH US. CONCERNS
ABOUT SECTION 22265 ALREADY.
THANK YOU. UM, LET'S GO TO
OPPOSITION. GOOD MORNING CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, CHRIS ROSE ON
BEHALF OF RAPID FINANCE AND
CAPITALS WITH RESPECTFUL OPPOSED
UNLESS AMENDED POSITION. FIRST
OF ALL, THANK YOU TO SENATOR
GLAZER AND TO HIS STAFF FOR THE
MANY MEETINGS THAT WE'VE HAD AND
THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATIONS OF OUR
AMENDMENTS, AS CONVERSATIONS
HAVE BEEN PRODUCTIVE AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO MORE. I WANT TO
STRESS THE FACT THAT CAPITALISTS
AND RAPID, WE SHARE THE SAME
GOALS. AS THE AUTHOR AND HIS
SPONSORS. WE HARDLY SUPPORT THE
LICENSOR OF PROVIDERS OF
COMMERCIAL FINANCING PRODUCTS IN
A MANNER THAT'S EQUIVALENT TO
THE LICENSOR OF THOSE PROVIDING
COMMERCIAL LOANS. SECONDLY WE
SUPPORT THE COMMERCIAL FINANCING
BROKERS TO BE LICENSED IN THE
SAME MANNER AS A LICENSOR OF
ENTITIES PROVIDING BROKERAGE OF
COMMERCIAL LOANS AND LASTLY, WE
SUPPORT ADDING ROBUST
PROTECTIONS TO CALIFORNIA LAW
ENSURING CONSUMER PROTECTION.
FROM THE UNSCRUPULOUS BEHAVIOR
OF, UM COMMERCIAL FINANCING
BROKERS HOW TO ACCOMPLISH THIS
IS THE REAL TRICK, AS YOU ALL
KNOW, AS CRAFTERS OF POLICY, WE
STILL HAVE SOME DIVIDE ON HOW TO
DO THAT. BUT WE'RE HAVING GOOD
CONVERSATIONS, AND WE'RE
THANKFUL FOR THAT. SO THANK YOU
SO MUCH AGAIN OPPOSING THIS
AMENDED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
NEXT. GOOD MORNING CHAIR
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
PAT JOYCE ON BEHALF OF FORWARD
FINANCING, A SALES BASED
FINANCING COMPANY THAT WOULD
FALL INTO THE PROVIDER BUCKET
UNDER THIS PROPOSED LICENSING
FRAMEWORK. WE HAVE AN OPPOSING
LAST AMENDED POSITION. I'D LIKE
TO ACKNOWLEDGE FROM THE COMMENTS
FROM YESTERDAY'S COMMITTEE
HEARING SINCE SOME OF THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE HERE
TODAY. I THINK THE TRICK HERE IS
HOW DO YOU BALANCE AND EFFECTIVE
LICENSING FRAMEWORK WITH
EFFECTIVE REGULATIONS AND
EFFECTIVE REQUIREMENTS WHILE
AVOIDING CONSTRAINING THE SUPPLY
OF CAPITAL IN THE MARKET? AND
THATS THE TRICK. AND HOW DO YOU
WEIGH THAT? AND I THINK RIGHT
NOW, THE WAY THE BILLS CURRENTLY
WRITTEN IS IT'S OUT OF WHACK AND
NEEDS TO BE REBALANCED. SO I
THINK MOVING FORWARD. WE HAD
THOSE CONVERSATIONS. AND HOW DO
YOU GO ABOUT DOING THAT? UM
THERE'S STILL SOME OUTSTANDING
ISSUES, BUT WE DO APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR TAKING THE AMENDMENTS
REFERENCE IN THE ANALYSIS,
ESPECIALLY THE REMOVAL OF THE
JUDICIARY DUTY REQUIREMENT.
THANK YOU. UM AND, UH, AS IT
RELATES TO THE OTHER KIND OF
STICKING POINT IS THE LOWEST ÁP
ARE THAT THE BROKERS REQUIRED TO
DISCLOSE THE ANALYSIS REFERENCES
THAT ACKNOWLEDGES MORE WORK TO
BE DONE. SO LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE BILL, SPONSORS
AND AUTHOR AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT,
LET'S NOW TURN TO YES. SUPPORT
OR OPPOSE IN BETWEEN CAROLINE
BILL HUNTER ON BEHALF OF REVENUE
BASED FINANCIAL COALITION AGAIN.
WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THE BILL,
BUT WE'LL BE LOOKING FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR OF THE
BILL CONTINUES TO MOVE THROUGH
THE PROCESS. ALRIGHT THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT UM SO NOW
LET'S TAKE ME TO TESTIMONY. GIVE
US YOUR NAME, YOUR AFFILIATION
AND YOUR POSITIONS, SUPPORT
OPPOSE OR IN BETWEEN, ALL RIGHT?
UM THOSE WHO WISH TEST FIGHT AND
ME TO FASHION. PLEASE APPROACH
THE MICROPHONE, SAYING NO ONE
APPROACHED THE MICROPHONE. LET'S
NOW TURN TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. QUESTIONS
SEND THEM IN, THEN SENT ANIELLO
WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE HEARD THIS
BILL YESTERDAY IN BANKING AND
JUST WANT TO REITERATE SOME OF
THE COMMENTS I MADE. UM I DID
CUT MY TEETH EARLIER IN MY
CAREER WORKING AT, UM AS A
POLICY ADVISOR AROUND THE TIME
WHEN WE HAD THE SUBPRIME
MORTGAGE CRISIS. AND A LOT OF
THE PRODUCTS THAT WE'RE SEEING
TODAY. UH TARGETED SMALL
BUSINESSES REALLY DO RESEMBLE
BOTH IN SUBSTANCE AND IN SOME OF
THE MARKETING TECHNIQUES WHAT WE
SAW DURING THAT CRISIS, AND IT'S
VERY TROUBLING IS ONE OF THE
REASONS I AUTHORED SB 666 LAST
YEAR TO TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF
THE JUNK FEES AND OPAQUE PRICING
THAT WE SEE IN THE SAME SPACE,
AND I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
TO START TO GET A HANDLE ON THIS
WHAT WE'VE ALWAYS SEEN IN THESE
TYPES OF FINANCING MARKETS IS
THE CAPITAL GHOST, UNREGULATED
SPACES. IS REGULATORY ARBITRAGE
AND AS MUCH AS WE WANT TO SAY
THAT MARKETS ALWAYS WORK. WE'VE
SEEN TOO MANY EXAMPLES OF PLACES
WHERE CONSUMERS GET TAKEN
ADVANTAGE OF, AND THIS IS A
SPACE WHERE IN CALIFORNIA A LOT
OF THE SMALL BUSINESSES ARE
OWNED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE
IMMIGRANTS, WHERE MAYBE THEY'RE
NOT THE MOST SOPHISTICATED
ACTORS. ENGLISH MAY NOT BE THEIR
FIRST LANGUAGE. I'VE SEEN IT IN
MY DISTRICT, AND I JUST THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT. WE GET A HANDLE
ON THIS NOW. I DO WANT TO
REFLECT THE COMMENTS MADE BY MR
JOYCE THAT THIS IS, UM YOU KNOW,
IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET THE
BALANCE RIGHT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE NOT JUST CONSTRAINING
ACCESS TO CAPITAL AND ACCESS TO
CREDIT FOR THESE TYPES OF
BORROWERS, BUT BUT THAT BEING
SAID, I THINK THIS IS AN
APPROPRIATE FIRST STEP TO TRY TO
CREATE A LICENSING SCHEME. I
THINK WE NEED TO START
ADDRESSING THIS. WE'RE HEARING
ANECDOTALLY AND I SUSPECT THE
DATA WILL COME SOON. FAR TOO
MANY EXAMPLES OF GROSSLY ABUSIVE
TACTICS AND PRODUCTS. SO I WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR AND WOULD
MOVE THE BILL THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. ALREADY THANK YOU, SENATOR
YELLOW. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. UM
I WAS IN THE MEETING YESTERDAY.
SO IT'S DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN.
AND, UH, FOR THOSE OF YOU, WHO
WERE PRESENT YESTERDAY. I
APOLOGIZE FOR THE REDUNDANCY,
BUT I DO WANT TO REPEAT WHAT I
SAID YESTERDAY. FIRST OF ALL, IF
REGULATIONS ARE, UM UH, TOO
RESTRICTIVE OR CONFUSING. THE
END RESULT OF THAT APPROACH TO
REGULATORY. UH, WRITING IS A
RESTRICTION RESTRICTION IN
WHATEVER SUPPLY OF THE PRODUCT
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO REGULATE.
SO WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT
THAT. AND UH, TO THAT POINT THE.
SUBSTITUTE FOR THE JUDICIARY,
RESPONSIBILITY, THE STATEMENTS
AND THE BILL. AS I SAID
YESTERDAY, IS UM. TO ME
IMPOSSIBLE, BUT AT LEAST
DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND. AND
JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS ALL, UM,
READ IT THAT COMMERCIAL
FINANCING BROKER OWES A DUTY OF
CARE TO AND HAS A DUTY TO ACT IN
THE HIGHEST GOOD FAITH TOWARDS A
POTENTIAL RECIPIENT, INCLUDING
THE DUTY TO EXERCISE THE UTMOST
HONESTY AND INTEGRITY TOWARDS
THE POTENTIAL RECIPIENT. I JUST.
WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME ENFORCING
THAT ON EITHER SIDE OF IT, QUITE
FRANKLY, AND RELATIVE TO THE, UH
UM, THE A P R ESTIMATION. UM
WHAT IS NOT IN THE BILL AND IS
MENTIONED BY SOME IS THAT MAYBE
DISCLOSURE THAT REALLY NEEDS TO
BE MADE IS WHAT THE COMPENSATION
IS TO THE BROKER. FOR PROVIDING
THE LOAN, AND, UH, ANY BORROWER
THAT SAW THAT KIND OF
COMPENSATION COMPARED TO
SOMETHING ELSE WOULD HAVE TO
QUESTION IT. AND TO THAT POINT I
ALSO SAID YESTERDAY THAT I HAVE
LOTS OF EXPERIENCE ON BEING THE
BORROWER'S SIDE OF LOANS. AND
QUITE FRANKLY, MY ASSUMPTION IS
THAT THE PERSON THAT I'M DEALING
WITH HOWEVER NICE AND REPUTABLE,
ITTY ORGANIZATION IS THEY DON'T
HAVE MY BEST INTERESTS AT HEART.
UM ONLY HAVE THEIR BEST
INTERESTS AT HEART AND ALSO
THESE CONTRACTS THAT PEOPLE ARE
SIGNING OUR UNILATERAL CONTRACTS
THAT IS THERE WRITTEN BY, UM,
THE PARTY PROVIDING THE LOAN IN
THIS CASE, AND, UH, GOOD LUCK
AND TRYING TO GET LANGUAGE OF IT
CHANGED AND SO CAVEAT EMPTOR IS
THE BEST APPROACH FOR ANYBODY
WITH THESE LOANS. THAT'S WHAT I
WOULD ADVISE ANY SMALL BUSINESS,
BUT UM, I KNOW SENATOR GLACIER
AND I TRUSTED HE'LL CONTINUE TO
WORKING ON IT. AND SO I SUPPORT
THE BILL AT THIS POINT. THANK
YOU, DIELLO. OTHER QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS SEEING NONE. OH I'M
SORRY, SENATOR WILK. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR. OKAY, ACTUALLY, CENTER
NILO HIT ON. YOU KNOW MY
CONCERNS ON THE BILL, SO I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT IT TODAY.
REASON WHY I'M SUPPORTING YOU
TODAY IS BECAUSE I TRUST YOU AND
I KNOW YOU'LL CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH THE OPPOSITION AND TRY TO
FIND THAT SWEET SPOT THAT
BENEFITS EVERYBODY. SO THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, UM,
SAYING NO FURTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS, SENATOR LASER. WOULD
YOU LIKE CLOTHES? WAS SENATOR
NILO KIND OF HIT THE SOME KEY
POINTS THAT YOU KNOW WE'VE BEEN
WORKING HARD ON, WHICH IS THAT
WE DON'T WANT AMBIGUITY IN THE
SPACE WANTS SOMEONE WHO'S A
LENDER OR BROKER TO KNOW WHAT
THE RULES ARE AND NOT HAVE IT BE
IN SQUISHY SPACES, AND THAT'S
WHAT WE HAVE WORKED ON, AND WE
WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON MY
COMMITMENT TO DO THAT. I DIDN'T
KNOW IT AT THE BEGINNING. THIS
IS JOINT AUTHORED BY SENATOR
RAMON, THE CHAIR OF OUR BANKING
COMMITTEE, WHO HER AND HER STAFF
WORKED ON THE BILL AND WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH ME ON THIS
BILL IS IF IT GOES FORWARD TODAY
, I WANT TO NOTE THAT ACCESS TO
CAPITAL IS VERY IMPORTANT. WE
DON'T WANT TO DRY IT UP. IT'S A
PART OF CREATING A ROBUST RETAIL
COMMUNITY, BUT I ALSO WANT TO
EMPHASIZE IN MY CLOTHES THE
POINT THAT SENATOR MEN HAS MADE,
WHICH IS THAT THAT THE FOLKS
THAT ARE BORROWING MONEY THEY
DON'T HAVE AN M B A IN FINANCE,
BUT SOME FOLKS DO AROUND THIS
TABLE. YOURS ISN'T ACCOUNTING.
ALL RIGHT, BUT I THINK YOU SPOKE
YESTERDAY IN THE HEARING ABOUT
THINGS THAT KEPT YOU UP AT NIGHT
WHEN YOU WERE MAKING THESE
BORROWER DECISIONS AND YOU'RE A
VERY SOPHISTICATED BUSINESSMAN.
UM BUT A LOT OF THE FOLKS OUT
THERE THAT THEY JUST HAVE A
DREAM, AND I HOPE TO PROVIDE FOR
THEIR FAMILY. AND YOU ALL HAVE
BEEN INTO SO MANY SHOPKEEPERS
SPACES TO SEE THE WONDERFUL,
VIBRANT COMMUNITY THAT THAT IS
OUR SMALL BUSINESS RETAIL SECTOR
AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEY YOU KNOW, WITH THAT? WE SET
THE TABLE RIGHT? THEY'RE GOING
TO MAKE CHOICES AS TO WHAT THEY
SERVED. BUT WE WANT TO SET THE
TABLE RIGHT SO THEY CAN BE
TREATED FAIRLY. AND HONESTLY,
THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL
WITHOUT RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY
VOTE. THANK YOU, SENATOR GLASER.
ALRIGHT UM, MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE PROMOTION OF
SENTIMENT MOVES. ALRIGHT, UM
SEXUAL, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER FOUR SB
869. THE MOTION IS TO PASS THE
APPROPRIATIONS NUMBER. NUMBER
GUY WILK I ALAN ASHBY, FBI
CABALLERO. COUPLE YEARS OLD. I
GONZALES GONZALEZ. I LAYERED
LAYERED. I'M IN. I MEAN, I KNOW
HELLO. HØI STERN WIENER. SEVEN
OR SORRY. 8 TO 0 WITH MEMBERS
MISSING. ALRIGHT WE'LL PUT THAT
ON CALL. ALL RIGHT, THE FINAL
BILL AND SENATOR GLASER DAY HERE
AT SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS
NUMBER FIVE SB 875. THANK YOU.
CHAIR AND BERGEN. THIS CONTINUES
MY WORK TO TAKE THORNY ISSUES
THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND A LONG
TIME AND TRY TO FIND A PATHWAY
FORWARD. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE
ANALYSIS, YOU'LL SEE THE HISTORY
OF LEGISLATION IN THIS AREA GOES
BACK YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS.
UM FIRST, I WANT TO ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. UM AS WE
ALL KNOW THAT IF YOU HAVE A AN
ELDERLY MOM, DAD FRIEND. THAT'S
GONNA NEED EXTRA HELP THAT
NAVIGATING THE PROCESS OF
FINDING A SAFE SETTING. FOR AN
AGING. FAMILY MEMBER OR FRIEND
WHO NEEDS HELP IS VERY, VERY
CHALLENGING. NOW IN THAT SPACE,
THERE ARE REFERRAL AGENCIES.
THAT CAN ASSIST AND MAKING
PLACEMENT DECISIONS AND MANY
CIRCUMSTANCES. NOW THESE
AGENCIES TRY TO MATCH UP. UH THE
SERVICES THAT ARE OUT THERE, UH,
BASED ON AN AND A EXAMINATION OF
THAT PERSON'S NEEDS, THE SENIORS
NEED AH, AND THEY HAVE CONTRACTS
WITH VARIOUS FACILITIES THAT TO
TRY TO DO THAT SOMETIMES AND
VERY SHORT ORDER, BECAUSE
SOMETIMES WHEN THAT CRISIS
HAPPENS, IT'S IMMEDIATE. MAYBE
THEY'RE IN THE HOSPITAL. MAYBE
THEY WENT TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM.
AND YOU HAVE THE REALIZATION
THAT THEY NEED THAT EXTRA THAT
EXTRA HELP. SO UM, REFERRAL
AGENCIES ARE COMPENSATED.
THEY'RE COMPENSATED BY THE
FACILITY IF A PERSON CHOOSES
THAT FACILITY UM AND, UH BUT IN
THE LANDSCAPE OF REGULATION AND
LAW TODAY, IT REALLY IS ALMOST
NO OVERSIGHT. OR DISCLOSURE
ABOUT THAT INTERACTION IN THAT
RELATIONSHIP. UM A PERSON
DOESN'T NECESSARILY KNOW HOW
THAT PERSON IS BEING
COMPENSATED. UM AND IN THE
CURRENT LAW TODAY, THERE'S SOME
VERY MINIMAL PROVISIONS THAT
PROVIDE A REQUIREMENT THAT, UH,
REFERRAL AGENCIES DON'T SEND
SOMEONE TO AN UNLICENSED
FACILITY AS AN EXAMPLE. SO THIS
BAR. THIS BILL RAISES THE BAR.
TO PROTECT SENIORS BY CREATING A
LICENSING REQUIREMENT FOR
REFERRAL AGENCIES ALSO PROPOSES
TO BAN CERTAIN PRACTICES, AND IT
REQUIRES REFERRAL AGENCIES TO
GIVE CONSUMERS IMPORTANT
DISCLOSURES BEFORE REFERRING
THEM TO A FACILITY. THAT MEANS
TO EXPLAIN SPECIFICALLY WHAT
THOSE ARE IN THIS BILL. IN TERMS
OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION
WANTED BANDS. REFERRAL AGENCIES
FROM HAVING ANY DIRECT OR
INDIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST IN
ANY MEDICAL FACILITY DOING
BUSINESS WITH THE LICENSEE. YOU
CAN DO THAT TODAY. CAN'T DO
THAT. UNDER THIS BILL, NUMBER
TWO. IT REQUIRES BACKGROUND
CHECKS OF REFERRAL AGENCY
EMPLOYEES THAT HAVE DIRECT
CONTACT WITH CONSUMERS. NOT
REQUIRED TODAY WOULD BE REQUIRED
UNDER THE BILL. IT REQUIRES
REFERRAL AGENCIES TO HAVE
LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE
REQUIRED PROHIBITS A REFERRAL
AGENCY. FROM HOLDING THEIR
CONSUMER CONSUMERS POWER OF
ATTORNEY OR PROPERTY FOR THAT
CONSUMER. AND IT REQUIRES
REFERRAL AGENCIES TO CEASE
MAKING REFERRAL. TO A CONSUMER
IF THEIR CONSUMER REQUESTS.
ADDITIONALLY IT REQUIRES
REFERRAL AGENCIES TO DISCLOSE TO
CONSUMERS WHAT CONDITIONS THE
REFERRAL AGENCY WILL BE PAID A
REFERRAL FEE BY THE FACILITY NOT
REQUIRED TODAY. HOW FAMILY MAY
REQUEST THE REFERRAL AGENCY
DECEASED CONTACT WITH THE FAMILY
AND CEASE REFERRALS. IT REQUIRES
A LINK TO AH, THE DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES WEBSITE FOR
INFORMATION ON INSPECTIONS,
COMPLAINTS AND CITATIONS OF
FACILITIES REQUIRES A
DESCRIPTION OF THE REFERRAL
AGENCIES SERVICES THEIR PRIVACY
POLICY. STILL IN A STATEMENT
ABOUT THAT, THAT THAT THEIR
PERSONAL INFORMATION MAY BE SOLD
OR SHARED. AND HOW A PERSON CAN
OPT OUT OF THAT. UH HUH. AND A
STATEMENT THAT THAT THE LIST
PROVIDED IS NOT COMPREHENSIVE.
OF ALL OPTIONS AVAILABLE FOR
RESIDENTIAL CARE IN THEIR AREA,
BUT IT HAS A LINK TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF ASIANS SOON TO BE
RELEASED WEBSITE FOR MORE
INFORMATION SO THEY CAN COMPARE
FACILITIES. LAST YEAR, I
INTRODUCED THIS BILL WITH ONLY A
DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT ONLY A
DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT AFTER
FEEDBACK FROM THE OPPOSITION. I
AGREED TO AMEND IT TO INCLUDE
THIS LICENSE YOUR STRUCTURE.
EXPLICIT LANGUAGE ABOUT
LIABILITY REQUIREMENTS TO
PROVIDE A WRITTEN DISCLOSURE,
NOT JUST A VERBAL DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENT THAT THAT
DISCLOSURES I SHOULD BE IN THE
SAME LANGUAGE IN WHICH THE
LICENSING NEGOTIATES A REFERRAL.
OKAY, BUT I KNOW I HAVEN'T
SATISFIED EVERYBODY, AND WE MET
YESTERDAY WITH SOME OF THE
OPPOSITION TO TALK ABOUT WAYS IN
WHICH WE CAN TRY TO MARRY ARE
SIMILAR INTERESTS AND LET ME
MENTION ONE LAST THING.
HISTORICALLY YOU LOOK AT THE
VETOES ON THESE BILLS IN THE
PAST. GOVERNOR, BROWN VETOED THE
BILL. UM. BECAUSE HE SAID THAT
IT WENT TOO FAR AND HE DIDN'T
WANT LICENSURE. AND SO THIS THAT
WAS THE REASON THAT HE DIDN'T
LIKE THE BILL THAT WAS PUT ON
HIS DESK. SENATOR EXCUSE ME.
GOVERNOR NEWSOM VETOED THE BILL
AND FELT THAT HE NEEDED THERE
NEEDED TO BE GREATER CONSUMER
DISCLOSURES. WHICH WERE
ATTEMPTING TO DO HERE, AND I
KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO SATISFY
HIM. BUT THIS BILL IS GOING TO
BE PLACED ON HIS DESK. SO THAT'S
SOME IMPORTANT HISTORY IN THIS
LONG TRAIL OF WORK TO TRY TO
PROVIDE SOME PROTECTION ON THIS
VERY STRESSFUL SITUATION WHERE
YOU HAVE A FAMILY MEMBER OR
FRIEND. WHO NEEDS EXTRA HELP? UM
. AND YET THE LAW IS VERY MHM
MINIMALISTIC AT BEST OF
PROTECTIONS ON DISCLOSURE AND
ANY KIND OF LICENSURE OF THOSE
WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THIS
REFERRAL SPACE. SO WITH THAT I
HAVE FOLKS HERE TO TESTIFY IN
FAVOR. APPRECIATE HEARING TAKING
THE TIME TO HEAR THIS LONGER
EXPLANATION THAN YOU MIGHT BE
USED TO. MONICA MILLER
REPRESENTS ACT EIGHT AND CLIFF
BERG, REPRESENTING A PLACE FOR
MOM. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR
MEMBERS, MONICA MILLER,
REPRESENTING ACT EIGHT. MY CLAIM
IS A CONSUMER DRIVEN
ORGANIZATION WHO ON STARTED
WORKING ON THIS BILL? UH, MANY
YEARS AGO. I BELIEVE FOUR YEARS
AGO, UM, WITH ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S,
THEN UM, IAN CALDERON ON MY
ORGANIZATION REALLY BELIEVE
STRONGLY THAT CONSUMERS NEED TO
HAVE PROTECTIONS. THEY WORK WITH
FAMILIES WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO
IDENTIFY AND PUT A LOVED ONE
INTO A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY
FOR THE ELDERLY AND REALLY FELT
LIKE THERE WEREN'T A LOT OF
PROTECTIONS ON THE BOOKS AND
DISCLOSURES MADE TO CONSUMERS
AND AS A RESULT BROUGHT THIS
PIECE OF LEGISLATION TO ME. I
THEN ON FORTUNATELY, WAS ABLE TO
WORK WITH THE INDUSTRY TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE BILL COULD BE
IMPLEMENTED. IT MADE SENSE FOR
US TO COME TOGETHER. AND WHEN WE
INITIALLY STARTED THIS
CONVERSATION, IT WAS ALL OF US
HAVE VETO AUTHORITY OF WHAT WAS
GOING INTO THE BILL. WE WANTED
TO MAKE SURE THE INSURANCE
REQUIREMENTS WERE ACCEPTABLE TO
SOME OF THE SMALLER HOMES THAT
THEY COULD MEET THOSE INSURANCE
REQUIREMENTS. WE WANTED TO MAKE
SURE THAT THERE WERE PROPER
DISCLOSURES. WE WANTED TO MAKE
SURE THAT THERE WAS THE ABILITY
FOR A FAMILY ONCE THEY HAVE MADE
A DECISION, REGARDLESS OF WHAT
THAT DECISION IS, BECAUSE THAT
IS SOLELY UP TO THEM. WHERE THAT
THEY CHOOSE. THE REFERRALS THAT
WERE SENT TO THEM BY THE
REFERRAL AGENCY IS WHETHER THEY
WENT ONLINE AND FOUND OUT THE
CITY THEMSELVES WHETHER THEY
DECIDED TO HIRE AND IN HOME
WORKER. THOSE DECISIONS ARE
SOMETHING THAT THE FAMILY NEEDS
TO MAKE ON THEIR OWN, AND WE
WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT HE'S
CONTACT. WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS
AFFORDED TO THEM SO THEY
WOULDN'T CONTINUE TO GET EMAILS,
PHONE CALLS ETCETERA, HAVING
PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED THIS WITH
ONE OF MY LOVED ONES WITH MY
MOTHER IN LAW. IT'S A VERY
CHALLENGING TIME YOU'RE STANDING
IN, UH, A ROOM IN AN EMERGENCY
ROOM WHERE A SOCIAL WORKER IS
HANDING YOU A PHOTOCOPY OF A
PHOTOCOPY OF A PHOTOCOPY. I
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO LOOK FOR
FROM MY MOTHER IN LAW. I HAD
NEVER HAD TO GO THROUGH THIS.
SHE WAS YOUNG. SHE WAS ONLY 68.
AND WE KNEW SHE COULD NO LONGER
LIVE ALONE AND CARE FOR HERSELF.
SHE HAD A CAT. SHE HAD SOME
MEMORY CARE ISSUES. AND SOME
OTHER THINGS THAT NEEDED TO BE
ADDRESSED. SHE WANTED TO BE IN A
ROOM BY HERSELF. SHE DIDN'T WANT
TO HAVE A ROOMMATE. SHE WANTED
TO HAVE HER OWN. YES SO ANYHOW,
WE URGE YOUR SUPPORT TODAY ON
THIS LEGISLATION AND THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME. AND THANK YOU FOR
YOUR STAFF AS WELL. ALL RIGHT,
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MR CHAIRMAN WENT FIRST OF ALL I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR AND HIS
STAFF FOR ALL THE WORK HE'S PUT
INTO THIS BILL SPENDING THE LAST
YEAR. UM WORKING WITH THOSE WHO
HAVE CONCERNS AND WANT TO
CHANGES TO THE BILL, BUT I WOULD
SAY BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION FOR
SOFTNESS SPILL CLEARLY IS A HUGE
STEP FORWARD FOR CONSUMER
PROTECTION IN CALIFORNIA. THERE
IS MINIMAL LINE, CALIFORNIA AS
IT GOES TO REFERRAL AGENCIES. IN
FACT, THERE ARE ONLY TWO CODE
SECTIONS IN THE HEALTH AND
SAFETY CODE. ONE BASICALLY SAYS
A PLACEMENT AGENCY OF WHICH A
REFERRAL AGENCIES A SUBCATEGORY
CAN'T SEND SOMEONE TO AN
UNLICENSED FACILITY. THE OTHER
BASICALLY SAYS YOU CAN'T SEND
SOMEONE WHERE THEY WON'T GET
APPROPRIATE MEDICAL CARE. OTHER
THAN THAT THERE IS NO REGULATION
. SO YOU MIGHT SAY. HEY, WHY DID
MY CLIENT A PLACE FOR MOM? UM
JOINED FORCES WITH MONICA'S
CONSUMER GROUP ON THIS BILL?
WELL BECAUSE THEY THEY THINK
IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO
PROTECT CONSUMERS. PLACE FOR MOM
IS DEDICATED TO HELPING FAMILIES
FIND THE RIGHT FACILITY FOR A
FAMILY MEMBER. IT'S AN IMPORTANT
NATION OR SOCIETY. I THINK TODAY
MANY OF US HAVE EXPERIENCES.
MONICA DID THE SITUATION OF
HAVING A LOVED ONE. A FAMILY
MEMBER WHO NEEDS CARE. I
PERSONALLY GOT A CALL FROM A
EMERGENCY ROOM IN LAS VEGAS THAT
MY MOM WAS IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM
THAT SHE WAS OKAY. BUT SHE
NEEDED TO BE PUT IN THE FIRST
PLACE WHERE SHE COULD GET SOME
SUPPORT. UM AND I HAD TO BUILD
UP THE NEXT DAY AND COMMITTEE
AND WASN'T ABOUT TO GET ON AN
AIRPLANE AND FLY TO LAS VEGAS
COULDN'T DO IT, BUT I WAS ABLE
TO USE A UM, REFERRAL AGENCY.
UH, CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE IS
STRUGGLED FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
WE STARTED WORKING ON THIS BILL
IN 2015 SENATOR MENDOZA
INTRODUCED IT, UM SENATOR GLASER
JUST BILL RETAINS THE SPIRIT AND
THE ESSENCE OF THOSE BILLS BY
REQUIRING A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER
OF DISCLOSURES TO FAMILIES AND
INTERACT WITH REFERRAL AGENCIES
SO THAT THEY KNOW WHAT THE
REFERRAL AGENCY DOES SO THAT
THEY KNOW HOW THEY'RE
COMPENSATED. SO THEY KNOW WHAT
THEIR RIGHTS ARE. THE BILL ALSO
ADDS EXTENSIVE ADDITIONAL
PROTECTIONS AND NEW RIGHT TO
CEASE CONTACT THE AMENDMENTS
THAT WENT IN BEFORE SENATE HUMAN
SERVICES COMMITTEE GREATLY
EXPANDED CONSUMER PROTECTIONS AT
THE REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE. THANK YOU AND WE URGE
YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HMM.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S TURN TO THE
OPPOSITION. UM WE'LL GET TO THE
ME TOO. IN A SECOND. THOSE IN
OPPOSITION PLEASE COME TO THE
MICROPHONE. GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS YASMINE PILLARD ON
BEHALF OF JUSTICE AND AGING.
WE'RE HERE AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO SB 875. I WANT TO
THANK THE SENATOR AND HIS STAFF
FOR THEIR ONGOING CONVERSATIONS
WITH US AND APPRECIATE THAT WILL
CONTINUE TO HAVE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS. UM AS YOU'VE
HEARD FROM THE AUTHOR AND THE
SPONSORS, THERE IS A NEED TO
BETTER PROTECT CONSUMERS WHO USE
REFERRAL AND PLACEMENT AGENCIES
FOR OUR CFCS. EXISTING LAW
PROHIBITS AGENCIES PRINT FROM
PROVIDING AN APPROPRIATE
PLACEMENTS BUT DOES LITTLE ELSE.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE THINK THAT
THEY'RE CURRENTLY WOULDN'T SP
875 HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE
MORE HARM DUE TO CONFUSING TERMS
, AMBIGUITY AND SOME MINIMAL
ENFORCEMENT. UM WE ALSO STRONGLY
URGE AND OPT INTO THE SELLING OF
A PERSON'S PERSONAL DATA RATHER
THAN AN OPT OUT. THE PRIMARY
BUSINESS MODEL OF THESE REFERRAL
AGENCIES IS THAT FACILITIES
COMPENSATE THEM TO MAKE
REFERRALS TO INDIVIDUALS AND
FAMILIES. SB 875 REQUIRES THAT
DISCLOSURES ARE MADE TO
CONSUMERS ABOUT THE NATURE OF
THAT COMPENSATED REFERRAL, BUT
WE THINK RIGHT NOW THAT THOSE
DISCLOSURES ARE STILL
INADEQUATE. THE BILL REQUIRES,
UM, THAT THEY DISCLOSE THAT THEY
RECEIVE COMPENSATION FOR
REFERRAL BUT FAILED TO DISCLOSE
THAT NONPAYING FACILITIES ARE
BEING WITHHELD. SO THIS LEAVES
CONSUMERS WITH LESS CHOICE AND
INCOMPLETE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
OFFERS BEING PRESENTED TO THEM,
OFTEN IN TIMES OF CRISIS, AND
THIS WAS A KEY ISSUE IN THE
GOVERNOR'S VETO OF THE PREVIOUS
BILL. A BEFORE 99. THE OTHER AND
SPONSORS HAVE ARGUED THAT BY
ADDING OUR CFCS TO THIS PRE
EXISTING LICENSING SCHEME THAT
THEY'RE GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND,
TO REGULATE THEMSELVES.
UNFORTUNATELY WE THINK THAT THIS
LICENSING SCHEME IS INADEQUATE
AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED. UH WE
THINK THAT THE LICENSING
REQUIREMENTS HERE IN THE BILL
ARE NOT MUCH MORE THAN
INFORMATION THAT IS ALREADY
AVAILABLE THROUGH THE STATE'S
BUSINESS REGISTRATION
PROCEDURES. AND THAT THE THIS
LICENSING PROCESS LACKS
SUFFICIENT SCRUTINY FOR WHO CAN
RECEIVE A LICENSE. AND FINALLY,
WHILE WE'RE APPRECIATIVE THAT
THE AUTHOR HAS AGREED TO ACCEPT
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, UM
WE'D STILL AGAIN DON'T BELIEVE
THOSE ARE COMPREHENSIVE ENOUGH
TO ENSURE THAT CONSUMERS ARE
AWARE THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER
FACILITIES THAT BETTER SUIT
THEIR NEEDS, BUT THEY'RE NOT
BEING TOLD ABOUT THEM BECAUSE
THOSE FACILITIES AREN'T GETTING
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN OF
BURKE AND MEMBERS OF THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
BLANCA CASTRO. I AM THE STATE
LONG TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN FOR
CALIFORNIA AND I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE 35 LONG TERM CARE
OMBUDSMAN PROGRAMS. AND OVER 600
CERTIFIED LONG TERM CARE
OMBUDSMAN REPRESENTATIVES. WE
ADVOCATE. FOR RESIDENTS WHO ARE
CURRENTLY IN RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITIES FOR THE ELDERLY. AND
THE REASON I'M HERE TODAY IS WE
SEE FIRSTHAND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN
AN INDIVIDUAL IS PLACED IN A
PLACEMENT THAT IS NOT MEETING
THEIR NEEDS THEY CAN'T AFFORD.
THEY HAVE MEMORY CARE COMPLEX
NEEDS. THEY'RE UNDERSTAFFED.
THEY'RE NOT EVEN IN THE
COMMUNITY AND THEY'RE NOT EVEN
SERVING OR THEY DON'T SERVE
CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE. LGBTQ
PLUS RESIDENTS. CURRENTLY THERE
ARE ABOUT 740 69, LICENSED RC
F'S IN CALIFORNIA. SENATE BILL
875 IS STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS.
IT IS NOT READY FOR PUBLIC
POLICY. OUR MAIN CONCERNS, AND
WE MET WITH EVERYONE OF THE
STAFF. ON YOUR ON THIS COMMITTEE
AND REALLY APPRECIATE MEETING
WITH SENATOR AMBERG YESTERDAY,
SENATOR GLASER YESTERDAY. BUT I
HAVE TO SAY THAT REAL
REGISTRATION AND REAL LICENSING
INCLUDES THINGS SUCH AS. WHAT IS
YOUR OPERATIONAL PLAN? MAKING
SURE THERE ARE STAFF THAT ARE
QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE AND REFER
PEOPLE TO A LICENSED REFERRAL.
UH PLACEMENT THAT MEETS ALL
THEIR NEEDS. MAKING SURE THAT
EACH LICENSEE CAN FURNISH NOT
ONLY FISCAL SUSTAINED BACKGROUND
AND SUSTAINABILITY BUT MAKING
SURE THAT THE REFERRAL AGENCY
THAT THEY HAVE ARE USING
FACILITIES THAT THEY KNOW WHAT
THEIR RECORD IS. HAVE THEY BEEN
CITED. ARE THEY UNDERSTAFFED? DO
THEY HAVE INFECTION CONTROL A
NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS THAT ARE
NOT IN THIS BILL. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. WE ARE URGING YOU TO
PLEASE VOTE. NO WE KNOW IT'S
GOING TO GO THROUGH, BUT IT IS
NOT READY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ALRIGHT LET'S NOW
TURN TO THOSE WHO WISH TO
PROVIDE THEIR NAME, THEIR
POSITION AND THEIR AFFILIATION.
SO I ASSUME ON BEHALF OF
DISABILITY RIGHTS, CALIFORNIA
AND WE ARE OPPOSED.
UNFORTUNATELY. GOOD MORNING.
FIRST MR BERG SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN
ON THAT PLANE. I THINK. HIS MOM.
ROXANNE GOLD, REPRESENTING SIX
BEDS .ORG. IT'S AN ASSOCIATION
OF SMALL SIX BEDS ARE FEWER
RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES FOR
THE FOR THE ELDERLY IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, HEATHER
HARRISON WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ASSISTED LIVING ASSOCIATION IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF THE CONSUMER
DISCLOSURE. THANKS. THANK YOU.
AMBER KING WAS LEADING EDGE
CALIFORNIA ALSO IN SUPPORT,
ALRIGHT, SEEING NO ONE ELSE WHO
WISH TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OR
OPPOSITION. WE'RE GONNA BRING IT
BACK HERE TO THE COMMITTEE
QUESTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
UM SEEING NO QUESTIONS BY
SENATOR CABALLERO. UM. SENATOR
GLASER. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE
YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, AND
I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE BILL.
BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT
SOME OF THE OPPOSITION IS IT
DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH. UM AND SO
I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE WILLING TO
CONTINUE DISCUSSIONS. UM KEEP IT
FAIR AND HAVE IT MAKES SENSE. UM
BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR. YOU'RE
THE WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING ON
THIS. I THINK THIS IS REALLY
IMPORTANT. UM BECAUSE FAMILIES
REALLY ARE IN CRISIS WHEN THEY
NEED THIS INFORMATION. RESPOND
TO THAT CHAIR. YES GO AHEAD. I
HAVE ASKED THE OPPONENTS FOR
SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS AND AT THIS
STATE I GOT A LITTLE MORE
SPECIFICITY AND THE TESTIMONY
TODAY BUT YESTERDAY AND BEFORE
HAVING GOTTEN SPECIFICS, AND
I'VE ASKED HIM TELL ME WHAT
OTHER CONSUMER PROTECTIONS WE
CAN HAVE. AND SO I THANK YOU FOR
WHAT YOU'VE SAID IN A VERY
COMMITTED TO CONTINUE TO FIGHT,
FIND A WAY TO DO BETTER.
ALREADY. THANK YOU. OTHER
QUESTIONS. COMMENTS UM YOUR
EMOTION. ZERO MOVES THE BILL.
ALRIGHT GLASER, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? JUST WANT TO SAY THAT
THE LANGUAGE IN THE MEASURE JUST
SO THAT PEOPLE ARE DIDN'T
MISUNDERSTAND SOME OF THE
TESTIMONY. THERE IS LANGUAGES,
SAYS THE LIST PROVIDED IS NOT
COMPREHENSIVE, OF ALL OPTIONS
AVAILABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY IN YOUR AREA. THAT'S A
REQUIREMENT DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENT THAT'S IN THE BILL
TODAY WITH THAT. IT'S A TOUGH
PLACE TO LEGISLATE AND I'M OPEN
FOR ANY, UH, ANY FOLKS WHO WANT
TO JOIN IN THIS EFFORT, UH, AS
IT HAS A LONG HISTORY AS THE
ANALYSIS SHOWS WITH FOUR
DIFFERENT AUTHORS OVER EIGHT
YEARS. BUT I APPRECIATE IT IF
YOU CONTINUE TO LET ME WORK ON
THIS BILL GOING FORWARD WITH
THAT RESPECTFULLY ASTRONAUT
VOTE, SENATOR GLASER, MADAM
SECRETARY CALLED ROLL THIS IS
FILE ITEM NUMBER FIVE SB 875.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED THE
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS HAMBURG. I
WILK I, ALAN. ASHBY ASHBY. AYE.
00 I, GONZALES GONZALEZ. I
LEERED CHIME IN MEN I NILO HØI
STERN WIENER. YOU HAVE 8 TO 0
WITH MEMBERS MISSING. ALRIGHT
WE'LL PUT THAT ON CALL. THANK
YOU, SENATOR GLASER. NEXT I SAID
IRWIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PATIENCE. UM I KNOW THIS IS AN
ISSUE YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR
A LONG TIME. UM THE FLOOR IS
YOURS. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIRMAN. I WOULD LIKE TO
FIRST SAY, I ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENTS. AND I WANT TO THANK
YOU, MR CHAIRMAN, YOUR STAFF
CAUCUS STAFF AND ALSO THINKING
ALL THE OUR SPONSORS AND ALL THE
OTHERS WHETHER THEIR SUPPORTERS
OR OPPONENTS OF THE BILL FOR
THEIR EFFORTS TO COMING TOGETHER
, AND WITH THAT EFFORT, WE HAVE
COME TO THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE
TODAY WILL BE ACCEPTING. AND I
JUST GOT THE LANGUAGE AND I
SIGNED IT JUST TO MAKE SURE AND
SO WERE HANDED OVER TO STAFF AND
A FEW MINUTES. THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS REFLECTS THE LANGUAGE
THAT HAS BEEN AGREED UPON BY
EVERYBODY. AND I BELIEVE THAT
WITH THIS ADOPTION THESE
LANGUAGES, UM THE OPPOSITION TO
THIS MEASURE WILL BE NOW WE
MOVE. HOWEVER THE TIMING OF THIS
UM WELL THE TIMING OF MY WRITING
OF THIS SPEECH YESTERDAY AND ME
RECEIVING THIS RIGHT NOW WE WILL
BE READY AND COMMITTED TO, UH,
I'VE SIGNED THE AMENDMENTS AND
WILL BE READY TO PRESENT TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. AS WE
MOVE FORWARD. UM WITH THE BILL
AS PROPOSED TO BE THE AMENDED SB
65 CLARIFIES AND EXPANDS THE LAW
RELATIVE TO HANDLING BLOOD
SAMPLES THAT ARE TAKEN FROM
NEWBORN BABIES DURING GENETIC
SCREENING TEST IS FOR TRADABLE
INHERITED CONDITIONS AND
DISABILITIES. CURRENT LAW
MANDATES THAT INFANT BORN IN
CALIFORNIA SCREEN FOR INHERITED
CONDITIONS THAT CAN BE AFFECTED
IF IDENTIFIED EARLY SB 6 TO 5
DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE THE
CURRENT LAW REGARDING THE
SCREENING TESTS. HOWEVER, THE
CURRENT LAW IS REDDER. NOT
COMPLETELY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT CAN
AND WILL BE DONE WITH THE
LEFTOVER BLOOD SAMPLES AFTER THE
SCREENING TEST HAS BEEN
COMPLETED. AND BEING KNOWN TO
MOST PEOPLE, INCLUDING MYSELF.
CALIFORNIA CURRENTLY RETAINS AND
STORED THESE BLOOD SAMPLES FOR
ANY POINT IN DENVER INDEFINITE
PERIOD OF TIME AND ALLOWS THEM
TO BE USED BY RESEARCHERS. SB 65
WERE NOW ALLOWED PARENTS TO OPT
OUT OF THE PROCESS OF RETAINING
STORY AND USING THE BABY'S
BLOOD. BABY'S BLOOD FOR RESEARCH
PURPOSES IF THEY CHOOSE. NOT TOO
SO THIS REALLY GIVES THE PARENTS
THE OPTIONS THAT AFTER THAT'S
BEEN USED BY THE STATE THAT THE
PARENTS CANNOT DECIDE WHETHER
THE STATE SHOULD BE ABLE TO
RETAIN THE BLOOD SAMPLE
INDEFINITE. UM I HAVE HERE WITH
ME TODAY. MISS VALUE NOBLE,
PRESIDENT OF THE CALIFORNIA
HEALTH COALITION, OBVIOUSLY
ADVOCACY GROUP HERE TO TESTIFY,
AND I WANT TO THANK HER FOR
TRAVELING HERE TO THIS HEARING
AND FOR HER TIRELESS EFFORTS TO
MAKING SURE THAT WE CONTINUE TO
MOVE FORWARD AND HOPEFULLY MAKE
SP 262625 SUCCESSFUL AND SIGN.
UM IF I CAN AT THIS TIME, MR
CHAIRMAN, LLAMAS NUMBER TO SPEAK
FLOOR'S YOURS. HONORABLE CHAIR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE I'M
VALERIE, NOBEL PRESIDENT AND CO
FOUNDER OF CALIFORNIA HEALTH
COLLISION ADVOCACY, PROUD
SPONSOR OF SB 65. IT IS IN
STATEWIDE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION
THAT WORKS TO PROTECT CONSUMER
OPTIONS FOR RELATED TO HEALTH
CHOICES EACH YEAR OVER 400,000
NEWBORNS IN CALIFORNIA UNDERGO
MANDATORY SCREENING FOR A
VARIETY OF GENETIC DISEASES. THE
NEWBORN SCREENING PROGRAM IS AN
IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURE
THAT ENSURES EARLY DETECTION OF
POTENTIALLY FATAL CONDITIONS.
AND AS THE SENATOR SAID, THIS
BILL AS B 65 IN NO WAY CHANGES
THE MANDATORY NATURE OF THE
PROGRAM. IT CONTINUES TO BE
MANDATORY. THE CALIFORNIA BIO
BANK HOUSES MILLIONS OF RESIDUAL
NEWBORN BLOOD SPECIMENS THAT ARE
AVAILABLE FOR ONGOING RESEARCH
INTO GENETIC DISEASES. THE
NEWBORN SCREENING PROGRAM AND
THE BIO BANK ARE VITAL BUT
TRANSPARENCY AND ADEQUATE
PROTECTIONS FOR GENETIC PRIVACY
ARE LACKING. IN CALIFORNIA. THE
RESIDUAL BLOOD SAMPLES FROM
NEWBORN SCREENING BECOMES THE
PROPERTY OF THE STATE, AND
THEY'RE STORED INDEFINITELY IN
THE BIO BANK, THIS POLICY OF
STORING THE SAMPLES INDEFINITELY
BEGAN OVER 40 YEARS AGO. THE
SAMPLES ARE MADE AVAILABLE TO
RESEARCHERS, INCLUDING THIRD
PARTIES, ALTHOUGH MOST PARENTS
AND GUARDIANS ARE AWARE OF THE
GENETIC TESTING THAT IS
PERFORMED ON THEIR NEWBORNS,
THEY ARE POORLY INFORMED ABOUT
WHAT HAPPENS. TO THE RESIDUAL
BLOOD SAMPLES AFTER THE TESTING
IS COMPLETED, OF PARENTS
SURVEYED. 78% DID NOT KNOW THAT
THE SAMPLES ARE STORED
INDEFINITELY, AND 92% DID NOT
KNOW THAT THE SAMPLES COULD BE
USED FOR RESEARCH BY THIRD
PARTIES. CURRENTLY, A PARENT OR
GUARDIAN IS NOT ABLE TO OPT OUT
OF THE STORAGE AND MEDICAL
RESEARCH DONE ON THE RESIDUAL
BLOOD SAMPLES AT THE TIME. THE
SAMPLE IS TAKEN. AFTER THE
SAMPLES TAKEN, THEY CAN REQUEST
TO THE BACK. THEY CAN PUT IN A
REQUEST TO THE BIO BANK, ASKING
THAT THE RESIDUAL NEWBORNS
SAMPLE BE DESTROYED. BUT THE
POLICY IS A THAT IS A POLICY OF
THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH, AND IT'S NOT
PROTECTED BY ANY CODES OR
REGULATIONS. FURTHER THERE HAS
BEEN A GROWING CONCERN OVER THE
USE OF RESIDUAL BLOOD SAMPLES BY
LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR PURPOSE
PURPOSES OF PURSUING SUSPECTS,
WHICH MIGHT UNDERMINE THE TRUST
PARENTS HAVE IN THE NEWBORN
SCREENING PROGRAM. THE USE OF
THE RESIDUAL SAMPLES FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT WRAPPING UP, PLEASE.
OKAY UM WELL, WE'VE BEEN WORKING
WITH THE OPPOSITION. WE'VE COME
TO AN AGREEMENT. AS A SENATOR
SAID SO. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN I VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
OTHERS IN SUPPORT. SAYING NO ONE
ELSE APPROACHED THE MICROPHONE.
OPPOSITION. UH MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS, MEGAN LOPER ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL
ASSOCIATION AS THE SENATOR AND
HER SPONSOR, SAID, WE APPRECIATE
THE WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO
DO WITH YOUR COMMITTEE STAFF
WITH THE SENATOR AND HER STAFF
AND THE SPONSORS AND THE
CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
IS ABLE TO GO NEUTRAL WITH THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WILL BE TAKEN
AND APPROPRIATIONS AND HERE TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU
FOR THE WORK. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. GOOD MORNING GEORGE
STORIES WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, ECHOING THE
COMMENTS OF THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER
, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS,
BUT THE C M A WILL GO NEUTRAL
WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT
APPROACH AS WELL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. I WOULD CORDANI
WITH THE CALIFORNIA CHILDREN'S
HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, ECHOING MY
COMMENTS OF THE PREVIOUS
SPEAKERS. THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION, AND
WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE
NEW BUILDING PRINT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIRMAN, ROXANNE GOULD, ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN NURSES
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. HELLO KELLY MCMILLAN ON
BEHALF OF THE CHILDREN,
ESPECIALLY CARE COALITION. WE
WERE OPPOSED TO THE VERSION OF
THE BILL CURRENTLY IN PRINT, BUT
APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THE
AUTHOR AND THE COMMITTEE ON THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS,
PARTICULARLY TO REMOVE THE OPT
IN A REQUIREMENT FOR CAROLCO
SCREENING. ONCE THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS ARE IN PRINT, WE WERE
PREPARED TO MOVE TO A NEUTRAL
POSITION. ALREADY THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO
TESTIFY, SAYING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACHED MICROPHONE. LET'S NOW
TURN THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS. SEEING NO
QUESTIONS OR CENTER COVIELLO
CORRIERO MOVES THE BILL. CENTER
NGUYEN CLOSE AGAIN. THANK YOU
FOR ALL OF OUR PARTNERS HERE
TODAY AND ALSO FOR YOU YOURSELF,
MR CHAIRMAN AND THE STAFF FOR
HELPING US GET INTO WHERE WE
ARE, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
MOVING FORWARD AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I KNOW YOU
WORKED VERY HARD ON THIS, AND I
APPRECIATE YOUR FLEXIBILITY
COMING TO A PLACE WHERE WE
BALANCED PRIVACY RIGHTS AND
PUBLIC HEALTH. SO WITH THAT,
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN SB 65. THE MOTION IS TO
PASS THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS.
HAMBURG I WILK I ALAN ASHBY, FBI
, CABALLERO CABALLERO. I
GONZALEZ GONZALEZ. I LAYERED
LEERED. I'M IN. MAN I MILO MILO,
I STERN WIENER. 8 TO 0 WITH
MEMBERS MISSING GOING TO PUT
THAT ON CALL. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. I SEE SENATOR PADILLA
HERE, SENATOR PADILLA. SENATOR
PADILLA IS OUR PENULTIMATE
AUTHOR. UM. SENATOR WA HOB IS
OUR FINAL AUTHOR. SENATOR
PADILLA. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT SP
764. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS. IT'S CERTAINLY MY
PLEASURE FIRST TO PRESENT TO USB
764 CHILD CONTENT CREATOR RIGHTS
ACT WOULD LIKE TO NOTE AND BEGIN
BY ACCEPTING COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS, WHICH WILL BE TAKEN
AN APPROACH AND THANK THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR YOUR
COLLABORATION. SENATE BILL 764,
THE CHILD CONTENT CREATOR RIGHTS
ACT WOULD REQUIRE FAMILY CONTENT
CREATORS AS DEFINED OR
COMPENSATED FOR FILMING THEIR
MINOR CHILDREN AND MORE THAN 30%
OF THEIR CONTENT TO SET ASIDE A
PERCENTAGE COMMENSURATE. WITH
THAT PERCENTAGE OF THE CONTENT
PRODUCED WITH THE BENEFIT OF THE
MINOR WHEN THEY REACH THE AGE OF
MAJORITY. CURRENTLY AS MANY OF
YOU KNOW. CALIFORNIA LAW IS ONE
OF THE FIRST IN THE NATION
NEARLY MORE THAN THREE QUARTERS
OF A CENTURY AGO TO PROTECT
CHILDREN IN THE COOGAN ACT. BUT
THIS ACT ONLY APPLIES TO MINORS,
PERFORMING AND PRODUCTION WHO
ARE UNDER CONTRACT. DOES NOT
APPLY TO WHAT WE NOW KNOW TO BE
VLOGGING AND BLOGGING CONTENT,
AND THIS NEW STATUTE DEFINES IT
AS SUCH CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING
LAW. THE RISE OF SOCIAL MEDIA
HAS SEEN FAMILY CONTENT CREATORS
EXPLODE IN POPULARITY, WITH MANY
PARENTS FILMING THE DAILY LIVES
AND EARNING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
OR MORE IN REVENUE SPONSORSHIPS.
AND ADVERTISING. SOME OF THEM
REGULARLY INCLUDE THEIR CHILDREN
AND THEIR CONTENT, FILMING
INTIMATE DETAILS OF THEIR
PERSONAL LIVES FOR AN AUDIENCE
OF MILLIONS TO SEE. THIS
OBVIOUSLY RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN WHO ARE
DRAFTED INTO THIS EMERGING
ENTERTAINMENT LANDSCAPE. VIDEOS
ABOUT PEAK MOMENTS SUCH AS
HOMES, PREGNANCY BIRTHS, NEW
BABIES GET MORE VIEWS
INCENTIVIZING FAMILIES TO POST
MORE AND MORE VIDEOS OF THEIR
CHILDREN. WHICH OBVIOUSLY ASIDE
FROM THE POTENTIAL FOR FINANCIAL
EXPLOITATION MAY HAVE NEGATIVE
IMPACTS ON THE CHILD'S WELL
BEING FROM AN EMOTIONAL AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL STANDPOINT. HMM SB
764 APPLIES COULD ENACT
PROTECTIONS AND MORE IN A MODERN
MODERN ENTERTAINMENT AND
BLOGGING CONTENT CREATORS AND
TODAY'S REALITY. LAST YEAR,
ILLINOIS ENACTED LEGISLATION TO
PROTECT THE FINANCIAL FUTURE OF
THESE YOUTH CONTENT CREATORS.
BUT CALIFORNIA WHO HAS BEEN A
WORLD LEADER IN THIS SPACE HAS
YET TO DO SO. AS SOCIAL MEDIA
BECOMES MORE INTEGRATED INTO OUR
DAILY LIVES AND A GROWING SHARE
OF THE ENTERTAINMENT LANDSCAPE.
WE NEED TO UPDATE OUR HOT FOR
OUR HARD FOUGHT EXCUSE ME LABOR
PROTECTIONS AND SAFEGUARDS. THE
FINANCIAL FUTURE OF OUR
CHILDREN. SB 764 WOULD RECOGNIZE
THE CHILDREN DESERVE FINANCIAL
PROTECTION AND COMPENSATION FOR
BEING FILMED. AND I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE
FOLLOWING MY LEAD WITNESS WAS MR
ED HOWARD. WITH THE UNIVERSITY
OF SAN DIEGO SCHOOL OF LAW
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY INSTITUTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR MR
HOWARD. WELCOME BACK. THANK YOU,
SIR. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIRMAN,
MEMBERS AT HOWARD ON SENIOR
COUNSEL, THE CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY
INSTITUTE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
SAN DIEGO SCHOOL OF LAW AT FIRST
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
INTRODUCING SUCH A CHILD, AN
IMPORTANT CHILD PROTECTIVE
MEASURE, THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR
ITS SUPERB ANALYSIS IN THE
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS, AND I'M
PLEASED TO HELP ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT.
OTHERWISE WE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR RIVAL. THANK YOU, MR
HOWARD. ALRIGHT, OTHERS IN
SUPPORT. SAYING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACHES THE MICROPHONE.
OPPOSITION THOSE IN OPPOSITION,
PLEASE APPROACH MICROPHONE,
SAYING NO ONE APPROACHED THE
MICROPHONE. THOSE WHO WISH TO
PROVIDE ME TO TESTIMONY, PLEASE
APPROACH SEEING NO ONE
APPROACHES THE MICROPHONE, LET'S
COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS. SENATOR CABALLERO.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR CHAIR. I
REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE
DOING IN THIS BILL, AND, UM I
WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU CONSIDER
GOING FURTHER. UM, TO, UM. SET
UP THE SAME PROTECTIONS IF THE
CHILD IS USED FOR ANY PURPOSE
MINIMUM. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION. I'M JUST
TALKING ABOUT, UM, WHO KNEW
THAT? PARENTS WOULD BE MAKING SO
MUCH MONEY BY POSTING THE LIFE
HAPPENINGS OF THEIR CHILDREN ON
IN THE NEWS ON THE MEDIA WHERE
THE WHOLE WORLD CAN SEE IT, BUT
BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WAYS
THAT THAT, UM MINERS. ARE MAKING
MONEY, AND THE PARENTS HAVE
ACCESS TO THAT MONEY BECAUSE OF,
UM UH, BECAUSE THEY'RE THE
GUARDIANS AND SO IF THEY'RE
INVOLVED IN SPORTS ACTIVITIES IF
THEY'RE INVOLVED IN, UM
DIFFERENT THINGS THAT YOU KNOW,
MUSIC ART, UM, I THINK WE NEED
TO PROTECT CHILDREN IN THAT
REGARD, AND I WOULD SUGGEST I'LL
MOVE THE BILL WHEN IT'S
APPROPRIATE. ALREADY THANK YOU.
YES SENATOR. LEO THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. UM I SUPPORT GENERALLY
WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT I
THINK IT MEANS NEEDS MUCH BETTER
DEFINITION. UM AND MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, UH, IT'S
SILENT WITH REGARD TO HOW MUCH
MONEY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND
IF IT'S JUST A SMALL AMOUNT OF
MONEY, IS IT WORTH DOING THAT?
AND I MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU'RE
WORKING ON AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS
THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. UM THE
OTHER THING IS ALRIGHT, AND
PARTICULARLY SINCE YOU'RE
COMPARING IT TO THE, UH, 1939
LAW WITH REGARD TO CHILDREN, UH,
IN ENTERTAINMENT UNDER CONTRACT.
IF THE VLOGGING AND BY THE WAY,
I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT WAS A
THING. AH AND BUT I UNDERSTAND
IT. AH IF THE VLOGGING IS ABOUT
A FAMILY AND IT'S APPARENT AH,
BASICALLY COMMUNICATING ABOUT
HIS OR HER FAMILY. BUT NOT
NECESSARILY A PARTICULAR CHILD.
UM I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S IN
THAT CASE APPLICABLE UNLESS THE
CHILD IS A PRIMARY PERFORMER IN
THE VLOGGING. AND UH, THAT AS AS
THIS IS PROPOSED, IT DOESN'T
SPECIFY THAT AND I THINK THERE'S
A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE THERE
RELATIVE TO ANY POTENTIAL
COMPENSATION OF A OTHER CHILD,
AND THAT ACTIVITY AND THE LAST
POINT IS THE INCLUSION OF A
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. UM
GENERALLY, I HAVE HUGE ISSUES
WITH THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION
AS IT'S, UH, EXECUTED IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHICH, BY
THE WAY, IS ONLY ONE OF FOUR OR
FIVE STATES IN THE COUNTRY THAT
HAS THIS, BUT THAT POINT ASIDE,
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE
WOULD NEED TO BE A PRIVATE RIGHT
OF ACTION. BECAUSE A PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION IS THE ABILITY
FOR A CITIZEN OR AN ATTORNEY TO
SUE A VIOLATOR OF A STATE LAW OR
REGULATION WITHOUT HAVING TO
PROVE ANY DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE.
BUT THIS IS THE ALLEGATION IF
ACTION WAS TAKEN BY A CHILD, IF
YOU AMEND THE BILL, AS I'M
SUGGESTING THERE WOULD BE A REAL
PROVABLE DAMAGES AND THEREFORE
LEGITIMATE CAUSE OF ACTION. SO I
DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE PRIVATE
ACTION IS RIGHT. A PRIVATE
ACTION IS APPLICABLE IN THIS
CASE, MR CHAIRMAN, SENATOR, I
THINK THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE IS
PROPOSED HERE DOES PROPOSE A
PARTICULAR STATUTORY CAUSE,
WHICH WOULD INCLUDE ACTUAL
PUNITIVE AND COST AH, RECOVERY
OPTIONS FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN
THIS CASE. AND THE AND WITH
RESPECT TO CLARIFY THAT, IN
OTHER WORDS, THE LAW WOULD
SPECIFY. WHAT SOME OF THE
DAMAGES WOULD BE AS OPPOSED TO
THE LEGAL ACTION ON THE COURT,
DECIDING WHAT IT WOULD BE. RIGHT
THE AVENUE OF PETITION PROVIDES
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECOVER
ACTUAL PUNITIVE AND COSTS, WHICH
WOULD WHICH COULD BE POSSIBLE
ANYWAY, DEPENDING UPON THE COURT
ACTION, AND WHAT CORRECT THE
TRIAL ACTION DECIDED, CORRECT.
BUT JUST TO CLARIFY. UM THIS
ACTION MUST BE BROUGHT BY THE
VICTIM AS OPPOSED TO A THIRD
PARTY. CORRECT? ALRIGHT. THAT'S
MY POINT. THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THAT
CASE. NO WELL, WE CAN DEBATE
THAT, BUT BUT IT ADDS ADDITIONAL
INCENTIVE TO NOT VIOLATE THE
LAW. BUT IT DOESN'T PROVIDE FOR
A THIRD PARTY TO BE ABLE TO
ENFORCE THE LAW. WELL THE
APPLICABILITY THAT WHERE THE
STATUTE WOULD BE APPLIED WAS
WHERE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE
CONTENT CREATES, YOU KNOW,
INCLUDES THE IMAGE OF THE MINOR
CHILDREN, AND IT'S THE FOCAL
POINT OF THE CONTACT CONTENT. WE
ARE WORKING, AND WE ARE
ACCEPTING AMENDMENTS THAT WE
WOULD ANTICIPATE TAKING UP AN
APPROACH THAT WOULD BASICALLY
REQUIRE A MINIMUM THRESHOLD OF
REVENUE GENERATED. SO IT WOULD
BE IT WOULD THE INTENT OF THAT
WOULD BE TO BE EXCLUDING
INCIDENTAL, FAMILY ORIENTED
TYPICAL SCENARIOS WHERE PEOPLE
ARE SHARING ON A MORE NARROW
AUDIENCE TYPICAL KINDS OF THINGS
THAT FAMILIES SHARE ON SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORMS. THIS IS
SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO ADDRESS
WHERE THERE IS A THRESHOLD MET
OR ABOVE OF SUBSTANTIAL INCOME
THAT IS GENERATED BASED ON THE
APPEARANCE OF THE MINOR CHILDREN
IN THE CONTENT. ALRIGHT. THANK
YOU OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS,
SO JUST TO BE CLEAR. UM THIS
DOES NOT PROVIDE A RIGHT OF
ACTION ON BEHALF OF MY STAFF.
WHEN I SHOW THEM MY GRANDPARENTS
, MY GRANDKIDS, VIDEOS AND SO
FORTH, RIGHT, MR CHAIRMAN. IT
DOES NOT. AND I TRIED TO CLARIFY
THAT WITH IT RIGHT? OKAY JUST
JUST TO BE CLEAR. ALRIGHT ARE
YOU REQUESTING A SPECIFIC
AMENDMENT? YEAH I JUST WANT TO
BE CLEAR BECAUSE YOU KNOW, I
REALIZED I SUBJECT THEM TO PAINT
SOMETIMES, AND I JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT I'M NOT ACTUALLY
INCURRING. ANY SORT OF LIABILITY
ON MY PART, ALL RIGHT? IS THERE
A MOTION SENATOR MEN MOVES THE
BILL, WOULD YOU CARE TO CLOSE I
WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. UM,
MADAM SECRETARY. IF YOU CALL THE
ROLL THIS IS FIRE. THIS FILE
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT SB 764. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS. HAMBURG I WILK.
NO, ALAN. ASHBY SHOULD BE I
CABALLERO HØI GONZALEZ GONZALEZ.
I LAYERED BLARED. I'M IN MEN. I
NILO STERN. WIENER. YOU HAVE. 6
TO 1 WITH MEMBERS MISSING. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU, SENATOR. CALL OUR
LAST AUTHOR IS HERE. SENATOR
WAHHABIS HERE, UM FOR AND I KNOW
THAT THERE ARE MEMBERS THAT ARE
ENGAGED IN OTHER ACTIVITIES. IF
THEIR STAFF COULD LET THEM KNOW
WE'RE DOWN TO OUR VERY LAST
AUTHOR OR LAST TWO BILLS. SO IF,
UH, WE WOULD BE PLEASED TO HAVE
THEM SHOW UP, ALL RIGHT? FIRST
OFF. HAPPY BIRTHDAY. THANK YOU.
YEAH WE'RE PLEASED THAT YOU'VE
CHOSEN TO CELEBRATE YOUR
BIRTHDAY WITH SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. OF COURSE. NO PLACE
TO BE RIGHT. RIGHT I'M MANY,
MANY MANY MANY WANT TO DO THAT.
ALL RIGHT, UH, FIRST ITEM NUMBER
NINE SB 402. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I ALSO JUST
WANT TO THANK STAFF ARE WORKING
WITH US ON THIS PARTICULAR BILL.
I HAVE ACCEPTED THE GIVEN
AMENDMENTS ON THIS BILL. SB 402
IS A BILL WITH A SPECIFIC GOAL
OF EXPANDING THE NUMBER OF
LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS ELIGIBLE TO
INITIATE A 5150 HOLD, WHICH IS A
72 HOUR HOLD FOR INDIVIDUALS
THAT ARE EXPERIENCING A CRISIS
WITH COUNTY DESIGNATION.
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS
AND THE LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS WORKING WITH THEM
OR ON THE FRONT LINES OF OUR
DISTRICT. AS WELL AS THE REST OF
OUR STATE BUILDING TRUST BASED
RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE FACING
MENTAL HEALTH CHALLENGES.
LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS FOLLOW VERY STRICT
AND SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO
PLACE AN INDIVIDUAL ON UNDER A
5150 HOLD. THE PERSON MUST BE A
DANGER TO THEMSELVES, ONE TO A
DANGER TO OTHERS, AND THREE BE
GRAVELY DISABLED. THESE
REQUIREMENTS ARE MEANT TO
PROTECT INDIVIDUALS AND THE
LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH
PROFESSIONAL LIKE AND ENSURE THE
PERSONAL SAFETY OF SOMEONE
UNDERGOING A CRISIS. JUST LIKE
MEDICAL DOCTORS, THERAPISTS AND
SOCIAL WORKERS TAKE OATHS OF
THEIR PROFESSIONS. THEY ARE
TRAINED EXTENSIVELY TO PROVIDE
RESOURCES AND DEESCALATE MENTAL
HEALTH CHALLENGES AND CONNECT
INDIVIDUALS TO DIFFERENT LEVELS
OF CARE. NOT EVERY SINGLE
PERSON. AH NEEDS THE SAME LEVEL
OF CARE AND LICENSED MENTAL
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS UNDERSTAND
THAT INVOLUNTARILY HOLD IS AN
ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT. SB 402
ENSURES THAT LICENSED MENTAL
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS WHO DON'T
WORK FOR THE COUNTY OR CONTRACT
WITH IT OR ELIGIBLE FOR COUNTY
DESIGNATION TO INSTITUTIONAL
THESE TYPES OF HOLDS AS A LAST
RESORT. WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. NO
WITNESSES TODAY. NO INNOCENT
SUPPORT. ALRIGHT, OPPOSITION. MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS, MICHELE
CABRERA WITH THE COUNTY
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH DIRECTORS
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA. WE
HAD AN OPPOSING POSITION ON THE
ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE BILL. WE
VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE AUTHORS
WILLINGNESS TO AMEND THE BILL TO
ENSURE COUNTY DESIGNATION AND
JUST ARE IN THE PROCESS OF
REVIEWING THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO ENSURE THAT THEY
REFLECT THE INTENT OF THE
AUTHOR, AS WELL AS THE
COMMITTEE'S IN PROVIDING THAT
IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD, AND SO WE
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE AUTHOR
AND APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S
INPUT. AS WELL AS THE PROGRESS
MADE ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. OTHERS. GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS CLAIRE COURT RIGHT ON
THE POLICY DIRECTOR FOR CAL
VOICES. WE ARE RESPECTFULLY IN
OPPOSITION AT THIS TIME, BUT
ALSO IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
AUTHOR. BECAUSE THE BILL IS
MOVING FAST. WE DIDN'T HAVE A
CHANCE TO DO A LETTER JUST FOR
JUDICIARY. WE DO THINK THERE ARE
SOME ISSUES THAT ARE GERMANE TO
THIS COMMITTEE THAT WE DID NOT
HAVE TIME TO RAISE IN A LETTER.
UM, AND SPECIFICALLY, THIS BILL
IS A FUNDAMENTAL ALTERATION TO
THE EXISTING LAW. UM, IT WOULD
AUTHORIZE A VERY LARGE NUMBER
UNKNOWN NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL
PRACTITIONERS TO WRITE HOLDS,
AND THIS DOES RAISE CIVIL RIGHTS
ISSUES AND DUE PROCESS ISSUES
FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THE GOAL IS
TO SUPPLEMENT THE POLICE BY
AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL FOLKS TO
WRITE HOLDS. BUT THE POLICE HAVE
TWO ROLES IN THIS MATTER. ONE
THEY MIGHT DO THE ASSESSMENT AND
ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY PLACED THE
WHOLE BUT THEY'RE ALSO INVOLVED
IN DETENTION AND CUSTODY AND
TRANSPORT. UM, SO AUTHORIZING
ADDITIONAL FOLKS MEANS
ADDITIONAL POLICE INVOLVEMENT.
AND THAT IS OBVIOUSLY WHERE THE
ISSUES WITH USE OF FORCE AND
FOLKS GETTING HURT COME FROM, UM
, WE ALSO RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE
WITH THE AUTHOR A BIT ON THE
QUALITY OF HOLDS ISSUE. UM SHE
WOULD LIKE LICENSED
PROFESSIONALS, TOO. DO THIS
INSTEAD OF POLICE OFFICERS, BUT
WE DO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH
LICENSED PROFESSIONALS WRITING
HOLDS THAT ARE NOT APPROPRIATE.
THAT'S WHY THE JUDICIAL END OF
THE SYSTEM EXISTS. AND WHEN I
WAS REPRESENTING FOLKS WE ARE
LOOKING AT ANYWHERE FROM 17% OF
HOLDS TO 26% OF HOLDS THAT WE'RE
GETTING DROPPED THROUGH THE
JUDICIAL SYSTEM AS NOT GOOD
HOLDS, SO THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL
ALTERATION TO THE SYSTEM. IT
DOES RAISE THE DUE PROCESS
PROBLEMS. WE ALSO HAVE A PROBLEM
WITH SYSTEMIC BIAS AND SYSTEMIC
RACISM IN THE IN THE SYSTEM,
INCLUDING IN ALAMEDA COUNTY,
WHICH IS THE SENATOR'S COUNTY,
WHERE BLACK AMERICANS ARE 11% OF
THE POPULATION. BUT 55% OF THE
HOLDS THAT WERE WRITTEN AND
THERE WAS A RECENT LAWSUIT
AGAINST ALAMEDA COUNTY'S JOHN
GEORGE HOSPITAL THAT DISABILITY
RIGHTS SETTLED ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
FOLKS ARE ENDING UP IN THE ACUTE
END OF THE SYSTEM WITH A CLEAR
RACIAL BIAS. AND UM UH, THAT IS
RELATED TO THE LACK OF
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT OTHERS
WHO WISH TO TESTIFY. BROTH WITH
DISABILITY RIGHTS, CALIFORNIA
ALSO HERE ON BEHALF OF MENTAL
HEALTH AMERICA OF CALIFORNIA. WE
ARE OPPOSED. WE APPRECIATE THE
AUTHORS WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH
US AND HOPE TO GET TO AT LEAST A
NEUTRAL. PERHAPS THIS IS
SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, JOHN MCKENZIE,
DOCTORATE OF NURSING PRACTICE
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I NOTICED
IN THIS BILL, AND I DEFINITELY
APPRECIATE THE EXPANSION OF
THOSE THAT, UM MAY HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO, UM, POSITIVE. I'LL
GIVE YOU 30 SECONDS SURE,
ACTUALLY DONE WITH PRIMARY
SUPPORTED OPPOSITION. SO GO
AHEAD. ABSOLUTELY ONE THING I
DID NOTICE IN READING THIS BILL
IS THE WORD NURSE IS NOT LOCATED
ANYWHERE IN ANY OF THESE
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BILL. I WOULD
ENCOURAGE THE WRITER TO
POTENTIALLY INCLUDE LICENSED
PSYCHIATRIC NURSE TO INCLUDE
NURSE PRACTITIONERS AND
PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS THAT HAVE
ACCOMPLISH THE APPROPRIATE
TRAINING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
ALL RIGHT, OTHERS WISHING TO
TESTIFY. SAYING NO ONE
APPROACHING THE MICROPHONE.
LET'S NOW BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
QUESTIONS COMMENTS. SAYING NO
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. IS THERE
A MOTION? SENATOR ASHBY MOVES
THE BILL, ALL RIGHT? SENATE-ROOM
HOB CLOSE. THANK YOU. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE.
I ALSO WANT TO MAKE IT VERY
CLEAR. THIS DOES NOT REMOVE
POLICE OFFICERS FROM THIS
PROCESS. IT JUST ADDS FOR
FRONTLINE STAFF TO ACTUALLY
TACKLE THE ISSUE WE ARE HAVING,
WHICH IS MENTAL HEALTH AS WELL
AS ALLOWING FOR POLICE OFFICERS
TO FOCUS ON CRIMES SUCH AS
RETAIL THEFT, RAPES, MURDERS AND
THINGS LIKE THAT. SO I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE.
THANK YOU, MADAM SECRETARY. IF
YOU CALL THE ROLL THIS IS FILE
ITEM NUMBER NINE S BEFORE OH TO
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED. UMBERG HI, WILK. I ALAN
ASHBY, FBI CABALLERO. COUPLE
YEAR OLD I GONZALES CONSOLE IS I
LAYERED, LAYERED? I'M IN MEN. I
NILO HØI STERN. WIENER 8 TO 0
WITH MEMBERS MISSING. ALRIGHT UH
, OUR LAST BILL BEFORE WE GET TO
OUR LAST BILL, ONE BIT OF
HOUSEKEEPING. UM THERE ARE
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE WHO
ARE ENGAGED IN OTHER LEGISLATIVE
BUSINESS. AND SO WHAT WE'RE
GONNA DO IS ASSUMING THAT THIS
BILL DOESN'T TAKE US ALL THE WAY
TILL NOON. WE'RE GOING TO RECESS
AND THEN I'M GONNA AFTER THIS
LAST BILL, WE'RE GOING TO CALL
THE ROLE FOR ALL THOSE THAT ARE
PRESENT SO THAT THEY CAN VOTE
AND THEN I'M GOING TO COME BACK
AT NOON. UM, AND WE'LL OPEN THE
ROLL ONE MORE TIME. ALL RIGHT,
UH, SENATOR HOB. THANK YOU AGAIN
. I WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS AND SPECIFICALLY ALSO
GIVE A THANK YOU TO THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR HELPING US
WITH THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
I DO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS. UM SO FOR THE MOST
PART, CALIFORNIA AFFORDS ITS
CHILDREN AND SOME OF THE SOME OF
THE WEAKEST PROTECTIONS AGAINST
CHILDHOOD MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED
STATES. DATA SHOWS THAT 90% OF
WOMEN WHO WERE IN CHILDHOOD
MARRIAGES, REPORT PHYSICAL,
SEXUAL OR EMOTIONAL ABUSE.
HOWEVER CALIFORNIA ALSO LACKS A
REAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE NUMBER
OF CHILD MARRIAGES TAKING PLACE
WITHIN THE STATE. CURRENTLY
CHILDREN. IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. UM REQUIRE THE
CONSENT OF ONE PARENT AND A
COURT ORDER TO BE MARRIED. FOR
CHILDREN, A CHILD MARRIAGES ONLY
MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES WITH A
COURT ORDER OR BEING REPORTED TO
THE STATE, LEAVING A SIGNIFICANT
LOOPHOLE FOR MARRIAGE IS LACKING
A COURT ORDER SP 575 CLOSES THAT
LOOPHOLE. THIS BILL DIRECTS
COUNTY RECORDERS TO ISSUE A
REPORT ON ALL CHILD MARRIAGES
BETWEEN 2019 TO 2024 TO THE
STATE REGISTRAR. THIS BILL ALSO
ESTABLISHES A STUDY TO DETERMINE
THE IMPACT OF EXTRALEGAL CHILD
MARRIAGES AND GATHER ESSENTIAL
DATA TO DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF
THIS ISSUE. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU, UH, THOSE IN SUPPORT,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
THOSE OPPOSED. PLEASE APPROACH
THE MICROPHONE. UM ARE YOU
OPPOSED? YES. GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING CHAIR MEMBERS RUTH
FASTEN WITH THE FLU OF
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND ALSO WITH
OUR FRIENDS, THE NATIONAL CENTER
FOR YOUTHFUL I JUST WANTED TO
CONFIRM OUR OFFICIAL REVOCATION
OF OUR OPPOSITION YESTERDAY VERY
MUCH APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR AND
HER STAFF AND THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THEIR HARD WORK. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT
OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS SAYING
NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. LET ME
JUST MAKE A COMMENT. THANK YOU,
SENATOR WAHABI. I KNOW YOU'VE
WORKED VERY, VERY HARD ON THIS
ISSUE. IT'S AN INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT ISSUE. UM YOUNG
PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY YOUNG
WOMEN, WHO ARE BEING FORCED INTO
MARRIAGES IS, UM, SOMETHING THAT
THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE AS IT IS A
POLICY MATTER. UM, I KNOW THIS
IS AN AREA OF GREAT INTEREST TO
YOU, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE US
TRYING TO DEFINE THE ISSUE THAT
THOSE STATE SANCTIONED MARRIAGES
ARE RELATIVELY. ACTUALLY THERE
ARE VERY FEW. BUT OTHER FORCED
MARRIAGES FOR WHATEVER REASON.
CULTURE RELIGION, UM, THAT'S AN
ISSUE AND TRYING TO GET TO THE
HEART OF THIS. WE CAN ADDRESS
THE CHALLENGES THAT'S
COMMENDABLE ON YOUR PART. SO I
THANK YOU FOR THAT CENTER MEN,
RIGHT? I THOUGHT YOU WERE
COMMENTS FROM THE GENERAL
AUDIENCE. I JUST WANTED TO ADD
ON TO THAT, AND I KNOW THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT SOME OF MY
CONSTITUENTS HAVE HAVE PUSHED
PRETTY HARD FOR A FEW YEARS. AND
OBVIOUSLY IT'S TRICKY BECAUSE
YOU DON'T WANT TO PREVENT
LEGITIMATE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
, UM YOU KNOW, PEOPLE THAT MIGHT
BE JUST A YEAR OR TWO APART IN
AGE, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR
TAKING THE AMENDMENTS. UH AND,
UM, THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND
THANK YOU FOR THIS BILL, BECAUSE
THE PROBLEM OF CHILD MARRIAGE
BEING USED AS A WAY TO GET
AROUND STATUTORY RAPE WAS IS A
REAL PROBLEM. AND SO I THINK
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT BILL, SO
MOVE IT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME
HAS MOVED THE BILL. OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS SEEING
NONE. ALL RIGHT, UM, MADAM
SECRETARY. WOULD YOU? I'M SORRY.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? NO. I
APPRECIATE IT. I WILL SAY THAT I
WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR AS WELL
AS THE COMMITTEE STAFF. THIS IS
AN ISSUE THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT
AND SPECIFICALLY, THE REASON WHY
WE ARE TARGETING DATA IS THAT WE
HAVE SEEN DISCREPANCIES IN DATA
FROM NINE MARRIAGES HAPPENING TO
ALL THE WAY TO 23,000 MARRIAGES
HAPPENING IN A SINGLE YEAR. SO I
THINK THAT THIS IS INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT AND AGAIN CLOSES THE
LOOPHOLE. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
MY VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MADAM SECRETARY MOVED BY SENATOR
MEN IF YOU CALL THE ROLL, THIS
IS FILE ITEM NUMBER 10 SP 575.
THE MOTION IS DO YOU PASS THE
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS UMBERG? I
WILK ALLEN. ASHBY FBI, CABALLERO
CABALLERO, I, GONZALEZ GONZALEZ.
I LAYERED. I'M IN MEN. I NILO
STERN. WIENER. 7 TO 0 WITH
MEMBERS MISSING. ALRIGHT, WE'RE
GONNA PUT THAT ON CALL. WE'RE
GOING TO GO THROUGH THE ALL THE
BILLS HERE ONE TIME AND THEN
WE'RE GONNA RECESS UNTIL NOON.
AND I'M GONNA COME BACK THEN.
I'M SORRY. WE'RE GOING TO GO
THROUGH THEM RIGHT NOW. AND THEN
WE'RE GONNA GET IT. YOU GET A
SECOND CHANCE. YES. ALRIGHT,
THANKS. OKAY? SECRETARY. LET'S
GO THROUGH THE ROLL ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. ALLEN
CABALLERO CABALLERO, EYES TURN
WIENER EACH AS YOUR OWN CONSENT
WITH MEMBERS MISSING. ALRIGHT,
WE'RE GONNA PUT THAT BACK ON
CALL. ITEM NUMBER TWO SB 554.
CHAIR VOTING I, ALAN. CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I STERN WIENER. 7 TO 1
WITH MEMBERS MISSING, ALL RIGHT,
WE'RE GONNA PUT THAT ON CALL.
FILE ITEM NUMBER THREE SB 827
CHAIR VOTING. I, ALAN. 00 I
STERN. WIENER EAT 20 WITH
MEMBERS MISSING. ALL RIGHT. PUT
THAT BACK ON CALL. WELL, ITEM
NUMBER FOUR. SB 869 TIER VOTING.
I, ALAN. STERN. WIENER. 8 TO 0
MEMBERS MISSING CALL. FILE ITEM
NUMBER FIVE SB 875 TIER VOTING.
AYE. ALAN STERN WIENER. AH 8 TO
0 MEMBERS MISSING ALL RIGHT. PUT
THAT ON CALL. WELL ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN SP 6 TO 5. TARA VOTING I,
ALAN? STERN. WIENER. EAT 20 PUT
IT BACK ON CALL. FILE ITEM
NUMBER EIGHT. SB 764 CHAIR
VOTING, AYE. ALAN MILO. STERN.
WIENER. ALL RIGHT. 6 TO 1 WITH
MEMBERS MISSING. I PUT IT BACK
ON CALL ITEM NUMBER NINE SB 402.
YOU'RE VOTING I, ALAN. STERN
WIENER 8 TO 0 MEMBERS MISSING
BACK ON CALL. FILE ITEM NUMBER
10 SP 575 CHAIR VOTING I, ALAN.
NEIL Ó. STERN. WIENER. 7 TO 0
MEMBERS MISSING ALRIGHT, WE'LL
PUT THAT BACK ON CALL. SO UM,
WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS IF THE
MEMBERS WHO ARE CURRENTLY
ENGAGED IN OTHER LEGISLATIVE
BUSINESS IF THEY ARE FINISHED
BEFORE NOON, THEN UM, I MAY UH
UH, MY DISCRETION OPEN THE ROLL
EARLIER. BUT IF NOT, WE'RE GOING
TO OPEN THE ROLE AT NOON FOR
FINAL TALLY. ALRIGHT, SO WE'RE
IN RECESS. THANK YOU.
AND SENATOR WIENER HERE, AND I'M
GOING TO ASK THE SECRETARY TO
PLEASE AH! OPEN THE ROLE ONE
LAST TIME. ARE YOU GUYS READY?
YOU GUYS READY? SENATOR ALLEN
SENATOR WIENER. OKAY ALRIGHT.
I'M SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL CONSENT CALENDAR. ALAN ALAN
I STERN WIENER. LIKE WIENER. I
TEND TO ZERO BECAUSE THEN
CALENDAR IS ADOPTED. FILE ITEM
NUMBER TWO SB 554. CHEER VOTING.
I, ALAN. ALAN I STERN. WIENER.
BAUER-KAHAN WIENER? AYE. 9 TO
191 BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM NUMBER
THREE SB 8 TO 7 CHAIR VOTING
AYE. ALAN ALAN ICE TURN. WIENER
WIENER. I TEND TO 00 BILLS OUT.
FILE ITEM NUMBER FOUR. SB 869
CHAIR VOTING. I, ALAN. ALAN I
STERN WIENER WIENER. AYE. 10 TO
00 BILLS OUT. FINAL ITEM NUMBER
FIVE SB 875 TIER VOTING. I,
ALAN. AND I STERN WIENER WIENER.
AYE. 10 TO 0. 10 0 BILLS OUT.
FINAL ITEM NUMBER SEVEN SB 6 TO
5. THEY'RE VOTING AYE. AH! IT'S
8 TO 0 CURRENTLY CHAIR VOTING.
AYE. AH, ALAN. AH STERN. WIENER.
EIGHT TO 00 BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM
NUMBER EIGHT. SB 764 CHAIR
VOTING I, ALAN. ALAN I, MILO.
STERN. WIENER WIENER? AYE. 8 TO
1. 81 BUILDS OUT. ITEM NUMBER
NINE. SB 402 CHAIR VOTING I,
ALAN. ALAN I STERN WIENER
WIENER. I TEND TO 00 BILLS OUT.
WHILE ITEM NUMBER 10. SB 575
CHAIR VOTING I ALAN, ALAN, I
NILO STERN. WIENER WIENER. AYE.
92090 BILLS OUT. THAT IS THE
LAST ITEM WHERE GERMAN THANK
YOU, EVERYBODY.