THE SENATE BUDGET SUB-COMMITTEE
NUMBER FIVE ON CORRECTIONS,
PUBLIC SAFETY, JUDICIARY, LABOR
AND TRANSPORTATION WILL COME TO
ORDER. GOOD MORNING. WE ARE
HOLDING OUR COMMITTEE HEARINGS
HERE IN THE CAPITOL. I ASK ALL
MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMITTEE BE
PRESENT IN ROOM 112 SO WE CAN
ESTABLISH CORPS AND BEGIN OUR
HEARING. TODAY WE WILL COVER THE
BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY
CORRECTIONS OR BS AND THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH. THE STATE IS
FACING A SIGNIFICANT DEFICIT
THIS YEAR AND WE WILL LOOK
CAREFULLY AT ALL DEPARTMENTS
UNDER SUB FIVE AS WE FIGURE OUT
HOW TO SOLVE THE BUDGET PROBLEM
LAST WEEK, I DID. SAY THAT I AM
LOOKING FOR UP TO 15% REDUCTIONS
BECAUSE THAT IS THE MAGNITUDE OF
THE DEFICIT THE STATE IS FACING.
WE ARE NOT EXPECTING CUTS AT THE
LEVEL FOR, UM AT THAT LEVEL FOR
EVERY DEPARTMENT, ESPECIALLY NOT
CUTS THAT WILL HARM VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS, AND THE STATE HAS
RESERVES IN OTHER WAYS TO
ADDRESS THE DEFICIT, BUT THE
BOTTOM LINE IS THAT WE ARE
LOOKING FOR LARGER REDUCTIONS TO
SOLVE THIS BUDGET PROBLEM, AND
WE EXPECT ALL DEPARTMENTS TO
CONTRIBUTE TO FIND EFFICIENCIES
AND REDUNDANCIES THAT WE CAN,
UM, THAT CAN BE ELIMINATED AND
WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
THE AS WE DO IT. TO ENSURE WE
HAVE TIME FOR EVERYTHING ON
TODAY'S AGENDA, INCLUDING PUBLIC
COMMENTS, WHICH WILL TAKE, UM ON
ALL ITEMS AT THE END OF THE
HEARING. WE ARE ASKING
PRESENTERS TO KEEP THEIR
TESTIMONY UNDER FIVE MINUTES WE
DO KEEP TIME. I WOULD ALSO ASK
MY FELLOW COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO
KEEP THEIR COMMENTS AND
QUESTIONS CONCISE. UM YOU KNOW,
BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WOULD JUST
LIKE TO ASK IF THERE ARE ANY
MEMBERS THAT HAVE ANY OPENING
COMMENTS. SEEING NONE. LET'S
ESTABLISH A QUORUM CONSULTANT.
PLEASE CALL ROLL. SENATOR WHA
HERE, SENATOR DIAZO, SENATOR
NEWMAN, SENATOR SARTO. THE
QUORUM WAS ESTABLISHED. THANK
YOU. LET'S BEGIN WITH OUR FIRST
ISSUE ISSUE NUMBER ONE
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW WE'LL HEAR
FROM KATHLEEN HOWARD, THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BOARD
OF STATE AND COMMUNITY
CORRECTIONS, AND YOU WILL HAVE
FIVE MINUTES GOOD MORNING, MADAM
CHAIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
HAVING ME. IT'S NICE TO MEET
YOU. I'M KATIE HOWARD. I'M THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE B S¼
èC èC, AND I'M HAPPY TO
PROVIDE A DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW.
I'M GOING TO FOCUS A BIT ON OUR
PROGRAMMATIC RESPONSIBILITIES
TOUCH ON SOME NUMBERS AND THEN
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE IS
HERE AS WELL TO TALK ABOUT
PROPOSED, UM, SOLUTIONS IN OUR
BUDGET THIS YEAR. SO THE B S¼
èC FOR SHORT, UM HAS BEEN, UM
HAS HAS FOUR MAJOR AREAS OF
RESPONSIBILITY. WE INSPECT, UM
COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
FOR BOTH ADULTS AND ALSO ACROSS
THE ENTIRE STATE, AND WE
PROMULGATE THE REGULATIONS FOR
THE OPERATION OF THOSE
FACILITIES. UM WE HAVE A REGULAR
REVISION PROCESS TO THOSE
REGULATIONS. WE ALSO ADMINISTER
THE TRAINING STANDARDS FOR LOCAL
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS AND, UM,
ASSESS COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE
TRAINING STANDARDS. UM WE HAVE A
VERY SIGNIFICANT, UH, GRANTS
DIVISION AS WELL. JUST IN TERMS
OF DOLLARS AND YOU'LL SEE THAT I
WANT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR THE,
UH, REALLY GOOD SUMMARY IN
TODAY'S AGENDA. UM, JUST TO
TOUCH ON OUR OUR GRANT. UM,
FUND. AMOUNTS AND LIKE I SAID
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE IS HERE TO
DESCRIBE SOME OF THE PROPOSED
SOLUTIONS THIS YEAR IN BROAD
CATEGORIES OF OUR GRANT FUNDING.
WE HAVE ALMOST $430 MILLION IN
ONGOING STATE GRANTS ARE ONE
TIME STATE GRANTS AT THE MOMENT
TOTAL ABOUT 320 MILLION, UM ARE
ONGOING FEDERAL GRANTS ARE ABOUT
57 MILLION, AND THEN OUR LOCAL,
UM, CONSTRUCTION GRANTS ARE ARE
SORT OF A DIFFERENT KIND OF
CATEGORY BECAUSE THEY'RE LEASE
REVENUE BOND FUNDING. UM AND
OVER THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
ADMINISTRATION HAVE TASKED THE
BS WITH A VARIETY OF GRANTMAKING
RESPONSIBILITIES. I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT
PARTICULAR PROGRAMS, UM, TURNING
JUST FOR A MOMENT BACK TO THE
OVERARCHING SUMMARY OF THE B S¼
C'S RESPONSIBILITIES WE HAVE THE
INSPECTIONS AND REGULATIONS THE
TRAINING STANDARDS FOR LOCAL
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS. VERY
SIGNIFICANT GRANTS PROGRAM. UM,
WE ALSO HAVE A RESEARCH
DIVISION, DOING A LOT OF WORK
CONNECTED WITH GRANTS AND OTHER
A COLLECTION RESPONSIBILITIES UM
, AND THE FACILITIES
CONSTRUCTION DIVISION. SO THAT'S
A LIGHTNING FAST SUMMARY OF THE
B S¼ èC, UM, PROGRAMMATIC
RESPONSIBILITIES AND Dð Ó F.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO PICK IT UP?
THANKS. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MADAM CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS CYNTHIA
MENDOZA. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
UM IS, UH KATIE MENTIONED THE B
S¼ èC èC PROVIDES STATEWIDE
LEADERSHIP CO ORDINATION AND
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE NECESSARY
TO PROMOTE EFFECTIVE STATE AND
LOCAL EFFORTS AND PARTNERSHIPS
WITHIN CALIFORNIA'S CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEMS, AND IT PROMOTES
LEGAL AND SAFE CONDITIONS FOR
THE INCARCERATED AND STAFF IN
LOCAL DETENTION FACILITIES. THE
B S¼ èC èC CURRENTLY HAS FIVE
PROGRAMS, AND KATIE MENTIONED
THOSE, UM, TO FACILITATE ONGOING
OPERATIONS. A 2425 SUPPORT
BUDGET INCLUDES A TOTAL OF 356.7
MILLION AND OF THAT AMOUNT 100
AND 72.6 MILLION AS GENERAL FUND
. UM, WHICH IS ROUGHLY ABOUT
HALF OF THAT TOTAL SUPPORT
BUDGET. GOVERNOR'S BUDGET TO
BUDGET PROPOSALS WERE INCLUDED
FOR THE BOARD THE RE
APPROPRIATION OF THE MEDICATION
ASSISTED GRANT PROGRAM AND THE
TRANSFER OF JUVENILE JUSTICE
PROGRAMS TO THE OFFICE OF YOUTH
AND COMMUNITY. UM, RESTORATION
UH, THE B. THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET
ALSO INCLUDED SEVERAL PROPOSALS
TO ADDRESS THE ANTICIPATED
BUDGET SHORTFALL. THEY INCLUDED
$100 MILLION LOAN FROM THE
CANNABIS TAX FUND TO THE GENERAL
FUND. UH, SECONDLY, A PAUSE OF
THE 2425 ADULT REENTRY GRANT OF
57 MILLION AND THAT FUNDING
WOULD BE RESTORED OVER THE
SUBSEQUENT THREE YEARS AND SPLIT
EQUALLY OF 19 MILLION, UM EACH
YEAR. UM AND, UH, 2526 A FUNDING
SHIFT FOR THE CALIFORNIA
VIOLENCE INTERVENTION AND
PREVENTION PROGRAM, KNOWN AS CAL
VP, WHICH WOULD SHIFT THAT
FUNDING FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO
THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED GUN AND
AMMUNITION TAX FUND, WHICH WAS
ESTABLISHED BY A B 28, WHICH
WOULD PROVIDE UP TO 75 MILLION
ANNUALLY TO THE BS èC FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF CALVI. UM NEXT
WOULD BE THE ELIMINATION OF THE
THIRD AND FINAL YEAR OF FUNDING,
WHICH IS █40 MILLION FOR THE
PUBLIC DEFENDER PILOT PROGRAM.
FIFTH WOULD BE THE ELIMINATION
OF THE ANNUAL 835,000 FOR THE
PROUD PARENTING GRANT PROGRAM,
AND LASTLY, THE ELIMINATION OF
AN ANNUAL 7.9 MILLION IN FUNDING
FOR THE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
PARTNERSHIP PLANS AND WITH THAT
TURN IT OVER. THANK YOU. WE'LL
GO TO THE L A Ó. NOTHING UM, DO
YOU GUYS HAVE ANY OTHER FURTHER
COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT, UH,
COLLEAGUES, WOULD YOU GUYS HAVE
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? UH,
SENATOR DE RAZO. YEAH, UM THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, JUST ON THE
PUBLIC DEFENDER PILOT PROGRAM. I
AM REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE
IMPACT THAT THIS IS GONNA HAVE
ON OBVIOUSLY COMMUNITIES, POOR
COMMUNITIES, AND WE HAVE A UM
THINK OF VERY LOPSIDED WAY OF
FUNDING OUR PROSECUTORS AND
PUBLIC DEFENDERS. AND THIS SEEMS
LIKE IT'S GOING TO MAKE IT EVEN
WORSE THAT THIS YOU KNOW THAT
GAP BETWEEN WHAT WE PROVIDE FOR
PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD LEGAL
DEFENSE AND YET FACE UH, AN A
MUCH, MUCH HIGHER. I THINK
THERE'S A THERE WAS A CHART HERE
SOMEWHERE. UM SO COULD YOU
ADDRESS THAT? HOW DO WE DEAL
WITH THAT? BECAUSE AND MY IN OUR
SENSITIVITY TOWARDS THE BUDGET
AND OUR PROBLEMS WITH THE BUDGET
STILL, UM, I'M LOOKING OUT FOR
WHO ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE
WHO'S GOING TO BE HARDEST HIT BY
ANY SHIFT, CHANGE REDUCTION OR
DELAY OR ELIMINATION ALTOGETHER?
VERY WORRIED ABOUT THAT.
UNDERSTANDING THAT QUESTION,
SENATOR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
AND I'M GONNA ASK DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE TO COMMENT FURTHER. BUT
JUST JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT THIS
PROPOSAL IS UNDERSTANDING THAT
THERE ARE REAL CONSEQUENCES TO
ANY REDUCTION. UM, THIS IS THE
THIRD YEAR OF A PILOT PROGRAM,
AND IT WAS NOT A DECISION THAT
THE ADMINISTRATION CAME TO
EASILY. IT WAS MORE OF JUST
SCANNING. YOU KNOW ALL OF THE
POTENTIAL WAYS IN WHICH SOME
SAVINGS COULD BE ACHIEVED. AND I
ASK CINDY TO SAY MORE. I'M NOT
SURE I COULD SAY ANYTHING BETTER
THAN WHAT KATIE MENTIONED. UM IT
WASN'T AN EASY DECISION, AND WE
LOOKED FOR FUNDING THAT HAD NOT
BEEN DISTRIBUTED YET, SO IT WAS
A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION IN
TERMS OF PULLING BACK ANY, UM,
FUNDING THAT WAS NOT YET
OBLIGATED. BUT THIS WAS THIS WAS
SUBMITTED AND IT'S BEEN IT WAS
THEY WERE ACTING ON AS AS IF
THEY WERE GOING TO GET THE
MONEY, RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
YEAH WE YEAH. WE HAD TAKEN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS OF ASKING
COUNTIES IF THEY WANTED YEAR
THREE FUNDING. WE HAD THAT IN
PROCESS AND THAT'S OF COURSE.
NOW ON HOLD WHILE THE BUDGET YOU
KNOW, NEGOTIATIONS ARE BEING
WORKED THROUGH. SO AGAIN, MY
CONCERN IS HOW PEOPLE WILL END
UP MORE PEOPLE END UP
INCARCERATED. MORE PEOPLE WILL
JUST NOT HAVE THE BENEFITS OF
PUBLIC DEFENSE. AND THAT WILL
COST MAYBE WE OUGHT TO BE
LOOKING AT WHAT IT COST IS GONNA
BE ON THE OTHER END OF, UH, OF
THIS. THANK YOU. SENATOR NEWMAN.
THANK YOU, SO I ACTUALLY WANT TO
ADD ON I SHARE. SENATOR ROSA'S
CONCERN ABOUT THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER PILOT PROGRAM. AND YOU
THE YOU'VE INDICATED THAT, UM
MANY OF THE RECIPIENTS HAD
ALREADY MADE PLANS. UM AND SO,
TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS WAS A
THIRD YEAR OF A PILOT, UH, YOU
KNOW, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MAY
UNDERMINE THE GOALS OF THE PILOT
TO ELIMINATE THE THIRD YEAR. UM
AND SO WHAT? WHAT A
COMBINATIONS, IF ANY, UH, CAN BE
MADE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT THE
GOALS UH BENEFITS OF THE PILOT
PROGRAM ACTUALLY REALIZED IN THE
IN THE ABSENCE OF FUNDS FOR THE
THIRD YEAR OF A THREE YEAR
PROGRAM. UM GOOD QUESTION AND
KIND OF A DIFFICULT QUESTION. WE
WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO, UM,
ATTEMPT TO MEASURE AND ASSESS
THE BENEFITS THAT CAME FROM THE
FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE PILOT
PROGRAM. IT IS $100 MILLION THAT
HAS GONE OUT, YOU KNOW, FOR YEAR
ONE AND YEAR 2 50 MILLION IN
EACH YEAR, SO THERE WILL BE
MEANINGFUL INFORMATION THAT CAN
COME TOGETHER AND INFORM,
PERHAPS, UM, FUTURE PRIORITIES
IN THIS AREA. BUT THERE'S NÓ
EASY WAY TO SAY IT IT. IT
CERTAINLY MEANS THAT THE YEAR
THREE ACTIVITIES THAT COULD HAVE
BEEN FUNDED WOULD WOULD NOT BE
FUNDED AND THE ADDITIONAL DATA
AND IMPACTS COULDN'T BE
ASSESSED. I. I HOPE THAT MAKES
SENSE. IT DOES. I GUESS IT JUST
DOESN'T BODE WELL FOR SORT OF
THE LARGER GOALS AROUND THE
PILOT PROGRAM AS IT RELATES TO
POGO DEFENDERS. THANK YOU.
SENATOR CæA. THANK YOU. MY
QUESTION RELATES TO THE, UH,
CALVET PROGRAM. UH, IT IT HAS.
IT SAYS THAT THE $9 MILLION
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND, BUT THAT'S
NOT THE BUDGET FOR Kò VÆ. THAT
WAS, THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER
AUGMENTATIONS TO THAT THERE HAVE
BEEN IN RECENT YEARS. SENATOR
YES, UM, THE GUN VIOLENCE AND
VIOLENCE. INTERVENTION
PREVENTION EFFORTS HAVE BEEN A
HUGE PRIORITY FOR, UM, THIS
GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE. SO
OVER THE RECENT YEARS, I DON'T
HAVE ALL THE NUMBERS RIGHT HERE
IN FRONT OF ME. BUT THERE WERE
VERY SIGNIFICANT AUGMENTATIONS
MADE TO CALVI. SO HISTORICALLY,
IT'S BEEN 9 MILLION A YEAR, BUT
A FEW YEARS AGO, CINDY PROBABLY
HAS IT READY. THERE WAS A $200
MILLION ADDED, AND THAT'S WHAT I
WAS GETTING AT NOW WHEN THEY SAY
IT'S ELIMINATING THE BASELINE
AMOUNT. IS IT THE 9 MILLION OR
ALL OF THAT? AND I ONLY RELYING
ON THE TAX. YES. SO THE 200
MILLION WAS, UM, A 200 MILLION
AUGMENTATION OVER THREE YEARS.
THIS WOULD BE THE LAST YEAR OF
THAT FUNDING THAT FINAL AMOUNT,
BUT THERE IS AN ONGOING AMOUNT
OF 9 MILLION IN THE IN THE
GENERAL FUND, AND SO ESSENTIALLY
, UM, NEXT YEAR, THE ONLY THING
THAT WOULD EXIST HAD WE NOT DONE
ANYTHING IS 9 MILLION GENERAL
FUND. SO SO WE'RE PROPOSING, UM,
NOT IN THE NEXT YEAR, BUT THE
FOLLOWING YEAR THAT WE WOULD,
UH, SHIFT THE FUNDS FROM THE TO
THE 75 MILLION, UM, UP TO 75
MILLION FROM THE GUN AND
AMMUNITION TAX FUND. OK AND
WE'RE WE'RE REALLY CONFIDENT
ABOUT THE 75 MILLION BECAUSE
THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT
PROGRAM IN IN RELATION TO
ACTUALLY DIRECTLY IMPACTING GUN
VIOLENCE AND COMMUNITIES THAT
THAT ARE IMPACTED BY IT, AND IN
IT WAS ACTUALLY SOLD TO US AS A
WE'RE GOING TO BOLSTER THIS
PROGRAM. NOT REPLACE ONE WITH
THE OTHER AND IT LOOKS TO ME
LIKE ALL WE'RE DOING IS
REPLACING ONE FUNDING WITH THE
OTHER AND IT STAYS AND IT STAYS
WHERE IT IS, AND THE FUNDING FOR
THAT PROGRAM WILL BE DEPENDENT
ON WHETHER WE ACTUALLY GAIN $75
MILLION A YEAR IN TAXES. SO IF
WE'RE ELIMINATING THE BUDGET FOR
THE BASELINE BUDGET FROM OUR
GENERAL FUND, WE'RE GONNA HAVE
TO COME BACK IN FUTURE YEARS.
AND IF THEY DON'T MAKE THE
AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY NEED FOR
THIS PROGRAM TO ACTUALLY BE
SUCCESSFUL. WE'RE NOT GOING.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL,
AND WE'RE JUST THROWING MONEY
DOWN THE DRAIN. SO THAT'S MY
CONCERN WITH THAT, THAT
PARTICULAR UM PART OF THE CUTS.
ANYWAY AND THEN, UH, CANNABIS
TAX FUND, THE CANNABIS INDUSTRY
IS STRUGGLING MIGHTILY. IS THIS
GOING TO IMPACT THE PARTS THAT
THIS FUND IS SUPPOSED TO BE
HELPING THE ENFORCEMENT AND
THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. THIS IS AN
ALTERNATE OVER TO KATIE. THIS IS
NOT ANTICIPATED TO IMPACT ANY OF
THE GRANTEES. THANK YOU. RIGHT
UM, I DO. WANNA ASK. WE HAVE
HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT B S¼ èC.
C'S GRANT ADMINISTRATION,
INCLUDING CLAWING BACK FUNDING
FROM COMMUNITY ORGS. UM HOW IS B
S¼ èC èC ADDRESSING THESE
CONCERNS AND ENSURING THAT
ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES ARE NOT
PREVENTING THESE ORGS FROM
CONTINUING THEIR WORK. UM SO I
I'M I'M AWARE THAT THE
LEGISLATURE IS HEARING FROM SOME
OF THE COMMUNITY-BASED
ORGANIZATIONS THAT, UM HAVE HAD
DIFFICULTY WITH GRANT
ADMINISTRATION ISSUES. MUCH OF
THAT WOULDN'T BE APPROPRIATE FOR
ME TO DISCUSS HERE IN PUBLIC
BECAUSE THIS HAS TO DO WITH, UM
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS FOR
SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED AND
PUBLIC CONTRACTS. CORRECT YES,
BUT I'M JUST FUNDS CORRECT. YES.
OK SO WHAT IS THE CONCERN THAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? UM
DISCUSSIONS ONGOING RIGHT NOW,
WITH GRANTEES WHO WERE NOT ABLE
TO MEET THE CONTRACT
REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF HOW
INVOICES WERE SUBMITTED, AND
THESE SORTS OF THINGS WE ARE
WORKING UM, VERY CLOSELY WITH
GRANTEES TO WORK THROUGH THE
ISSUES AND ATTEMPT TO REACH
RESOLUTIONS THAT WORK. I WOULD
IF IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR ME
TO ADD THAT THIS IS A SMALL
NUMBER OF GRANTEES. MOST OF THE
GRANTEES ARE, UM DOING VERY GOOD
WORK OUT IN THE FIELD AND ARE
ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE GRANT
ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS. UM
THOSE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO
MEET ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE
IN VARIOUS STAGES OF NEGOTIATION
, AND IN SOME LIMITED NUMBERS OF
CASES, THERE HAVE BEEN REQUESTS
FOR MONEY TO BE RETURNED TO THE
STATE WHEN IT HAS NOT BEEN
PROPERLY USED BY GRANTEES AND
ROUGHLY HOW MANY ORGS UM,
PROBABLY AROUND 10 TO 15 RIGHT
NOW ARE IN. UM THIS THIS STAGE
OF THE PROCESS OF WORKING
THROUGH I. I DO JUST WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT THIS. UH, LAST WEEK WE
HAD A MEETING IN èC Dð èC R
STATED THAT THEY HAVE 12
CONTRACTORS AND ROUGHLY 700
SUBCONTRACTORS. UM, JUST THE
AMOUNT OF OVERSIGHT NEEDED, UH,
FOR ALL OF THOSE SUBCONTRACTORS,
AND I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU GUYS
HAVE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF
ORGANIZATIONS YOU GUYS WORK
WITH, AND POTENTIALLY EVEN
ADDITIONAL SUBCONTRACTORS, AND
WE DON'T HAVE TO GET INTO IT. UM
I THINK THAT'S EXTREMELY
PROBLEMATIC IF WE DON'T HAVE
GOOD OVERSIGHT OVER THESE
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE PROVIDING
THESE SERVICES NUMBER ONE NUMBER
TWO IS THE FACT THAT YOU KNOW, A
LOT OF THE EFFORT HAS BEEN WHERE
FUNDS HAVE BEEN DIVERTED. UM,
FROM FROM THE LET'S SAY
TRADITIONAL MODEL TO GO MORE
INTO THE COUNTIES TO GO INTO THE
JAILS TO BE IN THE COMMUNITY AND
SO FORTH. UM AND WE HAVEN'T
NECESSARILY SEEN UH YOU KNOW,
JUST EFFICIENCY MODELS,
ESPECIALLY WHEN WE KNOW THAT
THERE'S MORE COMMUNITY. IT'S NOT
IN RURAL AREAS, NECESSARILY
THINGS LIKE THAT. SO I DO JUST
I'M JUST GONNA STATE. THIS IS
THAT, UM AS WE ARE WORKING WITH
THESE ORGS, UM AND MAYBE THERE
ARE TEMPLATES SET UP FOR THESE
ORGS TO BE ABLE TO, UM, YOU
KNOW, HIGHLIGHT THEIR FINANCES
THEIR BILLING THEIR THIS AND
THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE
DIFFICULT AT ALL. YOU KNOW,
THERE'S A LOT OF ONLINE TOOLS
AND SO FORTH, SO THERE SHOULD BE
A UNIFORM PROCESS AND THIS
SHOULD BE STREAMLINED. IT'S A
LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY TO PUT
PEOPLE IN INVESTIGATING WHAT'S
GOING ON HELPING WHAT'S GOING ON
CHANGING WHAT'S GOING ON
MONITORING WHAT'S GOING ON AND
MUCH MORE. SO I'M JUST, UH,
ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS LIKE THIS
SHOULD BE STREAMLINED
IMMEDIATELY. SO I'M JUST GOING
TO STATE THAT AND WE CAN MOVE ON
TO THE NEXT. UM ITEM. THANK YOU.
DEFINITELY ISSUE NUMBER TWO
PROPOSED REDUCTIONS IN PUBLIC
DEFENSE PILOT PROGRAM. WE'RE
GOING TO HEAR AGAIN FROM YOU.
UH, YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES
AS WELL. OK I, I BELIEVE WE'VE
COVERED THAT. OH, SKYLER. EXCUSE
ME. UM MY NAME IS SKYLER, MILES
CLINTON. COBB I REPRESENTING THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. UM SO THE
PUBLIC DEFENDER PILOT PROGRAM
WAS CREATED TO INCLUDE THREE
YEARS OF FUNDING TOTALING TO 150
MILLION, OR $50 MILLION PER YEAR
FOR THREE YEARS TO BE USED FOR
INDIGENT DEFENSE PROVIDERS,
INCLUDING PUBLIC DEFENDERS AND
OTHER QUALIFIED ENTITIES THAT
PROVIDE INDIGENT DEFENSE FOR
CERTAIN CRIMINAL MATTERS DUE TO
THE ANTICIPATED BUDGET SHORTFALL
, THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET PROPOSES
TO REDUCE THE THIRD YEAR OF
FUNDING FOR THE PILOT PROGRAM
WHILE RETAINING ABOUT $100
MILLION FROM COHORT. AND COHORT
TWO FROM BUDGET YEARS OR FOR
FISCAL YEAR. SORRY UH, 2021
THROUGH 2022 AND 22 THROUGH 2023
. THIS APPROACH ALLOWS FOR THE
STATE TO FUND $100 MILLION FOR
THE PILOT PROGRAM AND THE B S¼
èC èC WILL CONTRACT WITH A
VENDOR TO EVALUATE THE PROGRAM
RESULTS WHILE REDUCING THE FINAL
YEAR OF FUNDING LAST YEAR DUE TO
BUDGET CONSTRAINTS, A PROPOSAL
WAS BROUGHT FORTH TO ELIMINATE
THE THIRD YEAR OF FUNDING.
HOWEVER, $40 MILLION WAS RETAIN.
TO CONTINUE THE PROGRAM FOR 2020
THREE, UH, THROUGH 2024 THIS
YEAR TO ATTAIN A BALANCED BUDGET
. A PROPOSAL INCLUDED IN THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET TO ELIMINATE
THE THIRD OR WAS INCLUDED TO
ELIMINATE THE THIRD YEAR FUNDING
. SORRY UM THE DECISION TO
INCLUDE THIS ITEM IS NOT BASED
ON THE MERITS OF THE PROGRAM. UM
BUT BECAUSE THE FUNDING IS
LIMITED IN TERMS IN NATURE AND
HAS NOT YET BEEN SPENT, SO YOU
KNOW, IT'S BEEN INCLUDED IN OUR
PACKAGE OF SOLUTIONS. UM,
HOWEVER, SINCE THIS RECEIVED
$100 MILLION IN 2021 AND 2022
AND 2022 THROUGH 2020. THREE UM
IT CAN BE EVALUATED AND FURTHER
DETERMINATIONS CAN BE MADE ABOUT
CONTINUING. UM, THIS PROGRAM IN
THE FUTURE. THANK YOU. HE, LEO.
ANY OTHER REMARKS FROM YOU, NÓ,
UH, SENATOR DE RAZO. THANK YOU.
UH AND I JUST WANT TO ADD SOME
OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS
PROVIDED TO US, UM 88% OF THE
PEOPLE THAT WERE RESENTENCED
UNDER THIS PROGRAM WHERE PEOPLE
OF COLOR WITH AFRICAN AMERICAN,
UH, COMPRISING THE LARGEST SHARE
OF 45% THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE
OF THE BENEFIT OF THIS PROGRAM.
414 PEOPLE RECEIVE REDUCED
SENTENCES ARE RESULTING IN A
REDUCTION OF 2186 HOURS OF
INCARCERATION AND $30 MILLION IN
SAVINGS, SO THIS IS NOT ONLY AN
ISSUE OF DOLLARS. SINCE █30
MILLION IN SAVINGS, BUT WE ARE
TAKING AWAY $40 MILLION IT. IT
JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THERE.
BUT THE SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT'S
NOT COVERED HERE IS WHAT ABOUT
CASES IN PROGRESS RIGHT NOW? ARE
THEY GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO YOU
KNOW, CONTINUE THEIR DEFENSE TO
AS NEEDED THE YEAR TWO FUNDS ARE
STILL OUT IN THE FIELD AND
WORKING, SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT THAT THAT WORK WOULD
CONTINUE, YOU KNOW,
UNINTERRUPTED. BUT THE
ADDITIONAL WORK THAT WOULD HAVE
BEGUN IN YEAR THREE IS WHERE THE
REDUCTIONS PROPOSED. ALL RIGHT,
SEEING NÓ FURTHER QUESTIONS.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO ISSUE NUMBER
THREE ALLOCATION THREE CANNABIS
TAX FUND, UH, SPECIAL FUND LOAN.
WE'RE GOING TO HEAR AGAIN FROM
KATIE. KATIE, YOU HAVE FIVE
MINUTES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
SENATOR. UM SO YES, THE CANNABIS
LOAN IS A $100 MILLION LOAN. UM
AND, UH, THE IMPORTANT THING TO
MAYBE HIGHLIGHT IN THE PROP 64
OF THE CANNABIS GRANT THAT THE B
S¼ èC ADMINISTERS OUR GRANT
FOCUSES ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND
SAFETY IMPACTS, UM, OUT IN THE
FIELD AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR
ELIGIBILITY FOR THE 64 GRANTS
THAT WE ADMINISTER. UM INITIALLY
PER THE INITIATIVE, UH, THAT THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT COULD
APPLY THE FUNDING WHETHER CITIES
OR COUNTIES, UM, HAD TO ALLOW
BOTH RETAIL SALE AND CULTIVATION
BOTH INDOOR AND OUTDOOR
CULTIVATION OF CANNABIS, LEGAL
INDOOR OUTDOOR CULTIVATION AND
THAT REALLY SEVERELY LIMITED THE
NUMBER OF CITIES AND COUNTIES.
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ACROSS THE
STATE WHO WERE ELIGIBLE, SO I
THINK THE SHORT VERSION IS TO
SAY THAT OVER THE YEARS SINCE
PROP 64 WAS ENACTED, AND THE
EXCISE TAXES HAVE BEEN COLLECTED
, UM SOME FUNDING HAS, UM, YOU
KNOW, SORT OF GATHERED UP. OVER
THE YEARS WE HAVE PUT MULTIPLE
RSPS OUT. THERE'S REALLY GOOD
WORK GOING ON IN THE FIELD RIGHT
NOW, AND THIS PROPOSED LOAN DOES
NOT AFFECT CURRENT GRANTEES. UM
AND THEN WE WILL BE ABLE TO GET
RIGHT BACK TO WORK AND PUT MORE
GRANTS OUT INTO THE FIELD. UM,
AFTER THIS LOAN THANK YOU. WE'LL
HEAR FROM E A Ó. FROM A
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. MEMBERS
OF THIS COMMITTEE. SENATOR RAO.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I DON'T
THINK THIS WAS FLAGGED, BUT IS
IT? UM APPROPRIATE WHEN
SOMETHING THAT WAS FUNDING THAT
WE GOT THROUGH A VERY SPECIFIC
LANGUAGE AND PROP 64 COULD BE
USED IN A DIFFERENT WAY FROM
WHAT THE VOTERS VOTED ON. SO IS
THAT AN ISSUE AND WHY NOT? èC
Ó L. YEAH. THIS IS SKYLER BILES
AGAIN FROM FINANCE. SO TO ANSWER
THAT QUESTION, I WOULD SAY THAT
A FEW COURT OPINIONS DECIDED
AFTER THE GREAT RECESSION
APPROVED SPECIAL FUNDS LOANS,
DESPITE SIMILAR STATUTORY
LANGUAGE GOVERNING THE SPECIAL
FUND. UM LIKE YOU, UH, LIKE
WE'VE DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT
EARLIER. UH, WE THINK THAT THOSE
CASES APPLY TO THE CANNABIS TAX
FUND LOAN SINCE THE LOAN IS
TEMPORARY, UM, AND USE OF EXCESS
FUNDS AS OPPOSED TO AN
APPROPRIATION OR EXPENDITURE OR
TRUE USE OF THE FUNDS. UM, IN
ADDITION, OTHER SPECIAL FUND
LANGUAGE EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS
GENERAL FUND LOANS. UH, SO THE
FACT THAT THE VOTERS DID NOT
INCLUDE SUCH A PROHIBITION ON
PROP 64 MEANS THAT THEY DID NOT
INTEND THAT RESTRICTION. THANK
YOU. SENATOR SIERRA SO WHEN ARE
THEY PAYING IT BACK? DO THEY
SPECIFY THAT? UH, CYNTHIA MENON
SAID YES. IT IS SPECIFIED. UM
IT'S IT WON'T BE IN THE NEXT
BUDGET YEAR, IT WILL START IN
2526 AND 2627. AND IT WILL BE 50
MILLION EACH YEAR. SHOULD THE
BOARD NEED THE FUNDS SOONER THAT
THE REPAYMENT CAN BE CHANGED CAN
BE MOVED UP, OK, BECAUSE WE'RE
ANTICIPATING LARGE BUDGET
DEFICITS IN THOSE YEARS ALSO SO
NOT CONFIDENT THAT THIS IS GOING
TO GET PAID BACK. SO FOR THE
FULL YEAR, UM PROP 64 THE
REVENUE GENERATED FOR, UH
THROUGH THE CANNABIS TAX. UM,
HOW MUCH IS IT PER YEAR? THE
CANNABIS TAXES HOW MUCH PER YEAR
IT'S TAX VARIES PER YEAR. SO UM,
THE BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY
CORRECTIONS IS IN, UM WHAT THEY
CALL ALLOCATION THREE. SO AFTER
ALL COSTS AND OTHER ALLOCATIONS
ARE MADE IN, UM, ALLOCATION ONE
AND TWO THE ALLOCATION. THREE
FUNDS ARE THEN DISTRIBUTED IN
THE BOARD, I BELIEVE GETS 20%
THAT'S CORRECT REMAINING FUNDS.
OK AND ROUGHLY. WHAT IS THAT
NUMBER? I BELIEVE IT'S BEEN IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 80 MILLION
ANNUALLY, SENATOR BUT WE CAN
FOLLOW UP TO BE SURE I'M GIVING
YOU THE RIGHT NUMBER ON THAT FOR
HOW MANY YEARS NOW? I THINK THE
FUNDING STARTED COMING IN IN
THAT LEVEL AND IN ABOUT 19. OK,
SO WHAT ANALYSIS HAS THE
ADMINISTRATION DONE ON IF THIS
IS ALLOWABLE USE OF FUNDS UNDER
PROP 64. AND THAT WAS THE, UM
THE RESEARCH INTO WHAT SIMILAR
FUNDS THAT PROVIDED SIMILAR
STATUTE FROM OTHER PROPOSITIONS
THAT PROVIDED AUTHORITY FOR A
FUND. UM UH, LOAN SUCH AS THIS
SO BASED ON THOSE SIMILARITIES
OF COURT DECISIONS. UM THERE'S
THE BELIEF THAT THE CANNABIS TAX
FUND CAN BE USED IN THIS MANNER
BECAUSE IT'S NOT A TRUE USE OF
THE FUNDS. IT'S NOT AN
EXPENDITURE OF THOSE FUNDS.
THESE FUNDS WILL BE REPAID TO
THE TO THE BALANCE. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE
NEXT ITEM ITEM NUMBER FOUR POST
RELEASE. COMMUNITY SUPERVISION.
FUNDING. UM WILL HAVE KATIE
PRESENT AGAIN. IF I COULD. I'D
LIKE TO TURN OVER TO DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE. SO THIS IS SKYLER
MILES AGAIN WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE. THE POST RELEASE
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION ACT OF
2011 AUTHORIZED THE èC Dð èC R
TO RELEASE CERTAIN INCARCERATED
INDIVIDUALS, UH, TO COUNTY
SUPERVISION, UH, POST RELEASE
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION AS A FORM
OF SUPERVISION PROVIDED TO AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS BEEN RELEASED
FROM A CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
INSTITUTION, UH, TO THE
JURISDICTION OF A COUNTY AGENCY,
UM, IN 2016, CALIFORNIA VOTERS
APPROVED PROPOSITION 57, WHICH
PAROLE CONSIDERATION FOR
NONVIOLENT FELONS UPON
COMPLETION OF THEIR PRISON TERM,
UH FOR THEIR PRIMARY OFFENSE. IT
ALSO ALLOWS THE èC Dð èC R TO
AWARD A SENTENCE CREDITS FOR
REHABILITATION, GOOD BEHAVIOR OR
EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS WHEN
PROPOSITION OR 57 WAS APPROVED
MORE INDIVIDUALS RELEASED FROM
PRISON EARLIER AND CAUSED THE P
èC OR PR èC S¼ POPULATION TO
INCREASE BEYOND WHAT THE
COUNTIES WERE FUNDED FOR AS A
RESULT. ADDITIONAL FUNDING WAS
PROVIDED TO COUNTY PROBATION TO
ADDRESS PROPOSITION 57 IMPACTS.
FUNDING IS DETERMINED ANNUALLY
TO ASSIST WITH THE ADDITIONAL
INDIVIDUALS RELEASED TO POST
RELEASE COMMUNITY SUPERVISION.
OR UM PR èC S¼. UM AS FAR AS
THE CALCULATION GOES, UM, TO
DETERMINE THE FUNDING FOR COUNTY
PROBATION DATA FROM THE èC Dð
èC R IS USED ON THE ESTIMATED
ADDITIONAL PR èC S¼ RELEASES
FOR THE EXPANDED, UM NONVIOLENT
PAROLE PROCESS AND IS ADDED TO
THE ESTIMATED PR èC S¼, UH,
RELEASES FOR ENHANCED CREDITS.
THE SUM IS MULTIPLIED BY THE PER
OFFENDER RATE TO DERIVE THE
ANNUAL COSTS PER COUNTY OF THE
PRC. S¼ IMPACTS OUR NATURALLY
DECLINING AT THIS POINT, BUT
BASED ON THE DATA WE RECEIVE
THERE ARE STILL IMPACTS DUE TO
PROPOSITION 57, THE 2024 25
GOVERNORS BUDGET ESTIMATES A
$4.4 MILLION GENERAL FUND TO, UM
COUNTIES BASED ON THE INCREASED
POPULATION BEING RETURNED TO THE
COUNTY. TO PROPOSITION 57 FOR
REFERENCE THE BUDGET ACT OF 2022
ALLOCATED $20.9 MILLION TO
COUNTY PROBATION. THE BUDGET ACT
OF 2020 THREE ALLOCATED $9.3
MILLION. WHAT WE ANTICIPATE FOR
THIS YEAR IS LESS THAN HALF OF
WHAT WAS PROVIDED LAST YEAR.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, Ó.
CAITLIN O'NEILL WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE. WE
RECOMMEND REJECTING THIS
PROPOSAL AND TO EXPLAIN THAT I
WILL JUST EXPAND A SLIGHTLY ON
SOME OF THE HISTORY THAT
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE DISCUSSED.
SO IN 2011 RESPONSIBILITY FOR
SUPERVISING ABOUT HALF OF PEOPLE
RELEASED ANNUALLY FROM STATE
PRISON WAS SHIFTED FROM STATE
PAROLE TO COUNTY PROBATION
DEPARTMENTS. THAT POPULATION IS
CALLED THE POST RELEASE.
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION POPULATION
. WHICH OR PRC S¼ FOR SHORT, UM,
THE STATE PROVIDES COUNTIES WITH
A PORTION OF ANNUAL STATE SALES
TAX REVENUE TO PAY FOR THESE
RESPONSIBILITIES, AS WELL AS
OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES THAT WERE
REALIGNED AT THE TIME. PROP 57
APPROVED IN 2016 IS CAUSING
PEOPLE SOME PEOPLE TO BE
RELEASED FROM PRISON EARLIER
THAN OTHERWISE, WHICH MEANS THEY
ARRIVE AT COUNTY PROBATION
DEPARTMENT CASELOADS EARLIER
THAN OTHERWISE. IT ALSO MEANS
THEY LEAVE COUNTY PROBATION
DEPARTMENTS CASELOADS EARLIER
THAN OTHERWISE. BUT THERE'S
THEY'RE GETTING THERE.
ESSENTIALLY WHILE OTHER FOLKS
ARE STILL FINISHING UP THEIR
SUPERVISION TERM, SO IT CREATES
A LITTLE BIT OF A NEAR TERM.
TEMPORARY UH, TRAFFIC JAM, IF
YOU WILL, UM IN OTHER WORDS, IT
TEMPORARILY INCREASES. WORKLOAD
FOR PROBATION DEPARTMENTS, BUT
IT'S NOT AN OVERALL NET INCREASE
IN WORKLOAD OVER TIME. HOWEVER
THE SALES TAX THAT SUPPORTS THIS
RESPONSIBILITY DOESN'T GET
FORWARD MOVE FORWARD IN TIME. SO
THERE'S BEEN WAS A CONCERN IN
THE PAST THAT COUNTIES MAY FACE
SOME CASH FLOW ISSUES IN IN
SUPERVISING THIS, PO, UH,
POPULATION. UM AND SO THIS, UH,
IN RESPONSE TO THOSE CONCERNS,
THE STATE HAS PROVIDED A SERIES
OF ONE TIME AUGMENTATIONS TO
SUPPORT THAT TEMPORARY INCREASE
CAUSED BY PROP 57. SO WE
RECOMMEND REJECTING FOR TWO
REASONS. THE FIRST IS WE THINK
THAT UM, WE FIND IT UNLIKELY
THAT COUNTIES ARE CONTINUING TO
NEED THIS FUNDING FOR CASH FLOW
REASONS BECAUSE THE PRC S¼
POPULATION IS ESSENTIALLY BACK
TO WHERE IT WAS BEFORE PROP 57.
I'D ALSO NOTE THE TAX REVENUE
FOR THIS. THIS UM RESPONSIBILITY
HAS INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY OVER
THE YEARS, UM AND GIVEN THE
STATE'S BUDGET PROBLEM, WE THINK
THAT DEDICATING NEW GENERAL FUND
TO THIS PURPOSE WOULD COME AT
THE EXPENSE OF PREVIOUSLY
IDENTIFIED PRIORITIES AND DON'T
FIND IT TO BE SUFFICIENTLY
JUSTIFIED FOR PRIORITIZING.
RESOURCES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
ANY REBUTTALS? UM COUNTIES WERE
NOT FUNDED FOR THIS ADDITIONAL
PR èC S¼ POPULATION. UH, WE
BELIEVE THERE IS ONGOING NEED
BASED ON PROJECTIONS THAT WE
RECEIVE, UM WE ANTICIPATE A
NATURAL REDUCTION TO THE POINT
WHERE THERE ARE NÓ IMPACTS, BUT,
UM, WE'RE JUST NOT THERE YET. WE
ARE SEEING THAT DECLINE, BUT NOT
THERE YET. OK, UM, ANY MEMBERS
FROM THE COMMITTEE? ALL RIGHT?
UH, GIVEN THAT THE PR èC S¼
POPULATION HAS DECLINED TO
PREPOSITION 57 LEVELS. UH WHY IS
THIS FUNDING STILL NECESSARY,
THOUGH? BASED ON THE DATA WE
RECEIVE. WE ARE STILL SEEING
THOSE IMPACTS. OK AND IS THERE
EVENTUALLY AN ASSUMPTION THAT
THESE THIS FUNDING WILL BE CUT?
YES. WHEN UM CURRENT PROJECTIONS
ARE IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS. AND
AS WE'VE SEEN IN THE LAST COUPLE
OF YEARS, IT WENT FROM 20
MILLION TO 9 MILLION TO 4
MILLION FOR THE BUDGET YEAR. SO
WE ARE SEEING THAT GENERAL TREND
DOWNWARD, CONSIDERING THAT WE
HAVE THIS FISCAL CLIFF, UM, WHY
NOT TRY TO IMPLEMENT IT EITHER
IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO. THE
ADMINISTRATION FEELS STRONGLY
THAT COUNTIES SHOULD BE FUNDED
FOR THE ADDITIONAL SERVICES. OK?
WITH A MINIMIZED POPULATION.
WITH A MINIMIZED POPULATION. OK?
WILL MOVE ON TO ISSUE NUMBER
FIVE DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW FIRST
WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL, STARTING WITH
SHELLY CURRAN. YOU WILL HAVE
FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. UH
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
ADDRESS YOU THIS MORNING AND
YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT OF THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH. MY NAME IS
SHELLY CURRAN. I'M THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
COURTS, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND THE COURT
SUPPORT THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET
PROPOSAL, AND WE RECOGNIZE THE
HARD FINANCIAL SITUATION THAT
THE STATE IS IN RIGHT NOW. WE
KNOW THAT ALONG WITH THE REST OF
STATE GOVERNMENT, WE NEED TO BE
PART OF THE SOLUTION TO THE
STATEWIDE BUDGET DEFICIT. THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET INCLUDES
RETURNING UNSPENT JUDICIAL
BRANCH FUNDS AND DEFERRING
FUNDING FOR SEVERAL CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS WHILE STILL PROTECTING
ESSENTIAL FUNDING FOR OUR
CRITICAL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES.
WE APPRECIATE THAT THE BUDGET
PROPOSAL CONTINUES TO PROTECT
CORE OPERATIONS FOR THE JUDICIAL
BRANCH BY PROPOSING TO ELIMINATE
THE SUNSET DATE FOR REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS, INCREASING THE
TRIAL COURT FUND BALANCE CAP AND
MAINTAINING FUNDING FOR
DECLINING FINES, FEES AND
PENALTY REVENUES. ADDITIONALLY
THE BUDGET CONTINUES TO SUPPORT
RESOURCES FOR SELF REPRESENTED
LITIGANTS AND THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE CARE ACT. WITH A FORWARD
TO CONTINUING TO WORK WITH YOU
ALL ON THE BUDGET PROPOSAL, AS
IT MAKES ITS WAY THROUGH THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR
OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS,
AND WE PROMISE AND ARE COMMITTED
TO BE TO BE GOOD PARTNERS.
THROUGH ALL OF THIS. I NOW TURN
IT OVER TO, UH, OUR FINANCE
DIRECTORS LET GO, THEODOROS, WHO
WILL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE
BUDGET? UH AND MORE DETAIL
REGARDING THE SPECIFIC PROGRAMS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SHELLEY.
UM, YES, IN TERMS OF THE BUDGET,
UM, OVER $5 BILLION.03 BILLION
OF THAT FROM THE GENERAL FUND.
INCLUDING ABOUT 800 MILLION OF
FINE AND FEE REVENUES THAT WE
COLLECT, UM, OF THOSE RESOURCES
ABOUT 80% GOES TO THE TRIAL
COURTS TO SUPPORT THEIR
OPERATIONS, UM, IN TERMS OF A
FINER POINT ON THE REDUCTIONS.
UM THERE'S $75 MILLION TRANSFER
FROM THE TRUCK OR TRUST FUND TO
THE GENERAL FUND. UH, $5 MILLION
RELATED TO SOME EMERGENCY
FUNDING AND ALSO SOMETHING THAT
WILL BE DISCUSSED IN GREATER
DETAIL LATER IN THE AGENDA IS
RELATED TO A RETURN OF $20
MILLION FOR FIREARMS
RELINQUISHMENT PROGRAM. UH, WANT
TO TURN OUR ATTENTION TO A
PROPOSAL REGARDING FUND BALANCE
RESERVES THAT SHELLY HAD
MENTIONED. UH, THE PROPOSED
BUDGET, UM INCLUDES TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE TO INCREASE THE FUND
BALANCE CAP TO 5% AND WE FROM 3%
SO A MODEST INCREASE, BUT AN
IMPORTANT INCREASE FOR THE TRS.
AND WE HAVE DAVID YAMASAKI HERE
FROM THE UM ORANGE SUPERIOR
COURT WHO CAN PROVIDE US THE
BENEFITS OF THE STATE AND THE
TRIAL COURTS AND ACCESS TO
JUSTICE FROM THAT INCREASE.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. UH,
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS. I SPEAK
THIS MORNING ON BEHALF OF THE
COURT EXECUTIVES ADVISORY
COMMITTEE REPRESENTING ALL OF
THE COURT, SUPERIOR COURTS IN
CALIFORNIA, UH, DURING GOOD
FISCAL YEARS, WE RELY HEAVILY ON
THE USE OF THOSE RESERVES. IT
HELPS US ACHIEVE OUR OBJECTIVE
OF MAINTAINING COURT HOURS,
KEEPING OUR DOORS OPEN AND OUR
COURTROOMS FUNCTIONING. THOSE WE
OFTEN TIMES TURN TO THOSE
RESERVES TO HELP US, UH,
MAINTAIN SERVICE LEVELS. BOTH
THE COURTROOMS AND OUR FRONT
COUNTERS BY BACKFILLING, UH,
POSITIONS EARLY. UH, WHEN WE
LEARN THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE
VACANT, BUT ALSO IN HELPING US
INVEST IN TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE'RE OPERATING VERY
EFFICIENTLY DURING VERY LEAN
ECONOMIC TIMES. WE ALSO VERY
HEAVILY RELY ON THOSE RESERVES.
OFTENTIMES UM, WE EXPERIENCED
SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES THAT ARE
UNEXPECTED. UH AND WE ALWAYS,
UH, INVEST VERY QUICKLY TO
MAINTAIN LEVELS BY BACKFILLING
POSITIONS VERY QUICKLY. UM AND,
UH UH, IT IS ALSO A VERY, VERY
IMPORTANT, UH, RESOURCES, UH,
THAT WE ALSO TURN TO WHEN WE
EXPERIENCE SIGNIFICANT
CHALLENGES THAT ARE
UNANTICIPATED LIKE EMERGENCIES,
FLOODS, FIRES, UM, THINGS OF
THAT SORT THAT HAPPEN
UNEXPECTEDLY, UH, IN, UH,
THROUGHOUT THOSE EXPERIENCES,
UH, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO MAINTAIN
SERVICES VERY EFFECTIVELY BY
USING THOSE SCARCE. UM SOMETIMES
WE DO EXPERIENCE A LITTLE BIT OF
SAVINGS, AND IT ALLOWS US TO PUT
MONEY IN OUR RESERVES FOR THESE
CRITICAL TIMES IN HELPING US,
UH, HELP THE FINANCIAL
CHALLENGES THAT CURRENTLY ARE
FACING THE STATE. THANK YOU. L
Ó. I FINANCE NOTHING, UH,
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, SENATOR
SAYRE. THANK YOU. SO IN TALKING
TO A LOT OF, UH, YOUR VARIOUS
COURT SYSTEMS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE, YOU KNOW EVERY THE ONE
THING THAT RESONATES WITH
EVERYBODY IS THEY HAVE A SEVERE
SHORTAGE OF JUDGES, ESPECIALLY
DOWN SOUTH IN OUR IN OUR REGION
AND THAT'S CLOGGING UP THE
COURTS. AND WHEN THAT CLOGS UP
THE COURTS, IT BACKS EVERYTHING
ELSE UP. AND THAT COSTS US MORE
MONEY. SO YOU KNOW ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
A LITTLE BIT BETTER GRASP ON IS
HOW MUCH MONEY DOES IT ACTUALLY
TAKE TO RUN THE COURTS SO THAT
ARE HIGHLY EFFICIENT, IN OTHER
WORDS, SO WE CAN FILL THE
JUDGESHIPS AND ALL THAT. IT JUST
SEEMS WE'RE WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE
MONEY AROUND JUST TO BARELY
SURVIVE. AND UM, AND THE COURT
SYSTEM IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT PART
OF OUR OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR,
YOU KNOW, MOVING THROUGH AND
PEOPLE ALLOWING, YOU KNOW,
GETTING THEIR JUSTICE AND ALSO
FOR, UH, PEOPLE THAT, UM ARE, UH
, FRANKLY, IN TROUBLE, UM, TO
GET THERE YOU KNOW, GET THEIR,
UH, ISSUES HEARD AND MOVED ALONG
SO THEY CAN AND WE'RE NOT. IT
DOESN'T SEEM IT'S BEING VERY
EFFICIENT. SO YOU KNOW, IS THIS
BUDGET JUST CONTINUING TO KEEP
US TREADING WATER? UM IS THERE
ANY ROOM IN HERE FOR US TO
ADDRESS THE LONG STANDING ISSUES
OF THESE SHORTAGES OF JUDGES? UM
HOW ARE WE GOING TO ADDRESS
THOSE, UM, WITHIN THIS BUDGET?
SENATOR IF I MAY, UM I VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE THE QUESTION AND THE
COMMENTS. UM WE CONTINUE TO
ADVOCATE FOR FUNDING JUDGESHIPS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE AS YOU AS
YOU NOTE. IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT
CRITICAL ISSUE FOR THE BRANCH.
WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THE VERY
TRYING BUDGET TIMES. UM WE HAVE
BEEN PROGRESSING TOWARDS
EFFICIENCIES WITHIN THE COURTS.
THAT'S A REGULAR TOPIC OF
CONVERSATION AMONG THE PRESIDING
JUDGES IN THE COURT EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS, ONE PIECE, UM OR OR
ONE UH, PROPOSAL THAT IS IN
FRONT OF, UM, INCLUDED AS A
TRAILER BILL. LANGUAGE IS THE
EXTENSION OF REMOTE PROCEEDINGS.
WE HAVE FOUND THAT REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS DO SUPPORT
EFFICIENCIES. THEY'RE VERY
BENEFICIAL FOR, UM, UH,
INDIVIDUALS WHO NEED TO COME TO
THE COURTS. SO THAT IS ONE THING
THAT WE WOULD WE WOULD ASK
DURING THESE, YOU KNOW, TRYING
BUDGET TIMES, UH, SUPPORT FOR
THAT PROPOSAL. I KNOW THAT'S ON
THE AGENDA. AND AS FAR AS YOU
KNOW, JUDGES ARE CONCERNED, WE
APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT THE
GOVERNOR IS DOING IN IN
APPOINTING JUDGES, AND WE DO
CONTINUE TO HAVE THE CRITICAL
NEED FOR JUDGES THROUGHOUT THE
STATE, ESPECIALLY IN SOME OF
THESE, UM, AREAS THAT ARE
GROWING SIGNIFICANTLY THROUGHOUT
THE STATE. SO WE WILL CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH ALL OF YOU ON THAT,
UM, AND HOPE THAT, UH, FUNDING
WILL BECOME AVAILABLE FOR
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL
OFFICERS. ALL UP TO THAT, WITH
THE WITH THE INCORPORATION OF
CARE COURT AND YOU KNOW THE PROP
57 REALIGNMENT AND ALL OF THAT,
UM, RESENTENCING FOR PEOPLE THAT
IS THAT'S CREATED A WORKLOAD.
AND IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT OUR
BUDGET HAS ALLOWED US TO RESPOND
TO THAT WORKLOAD. IN OTHER WORDS
, WE'VE GIVEN YOU A JOB, BUT WE
HAVEN'T GIVEN YOU THE RESOURCES
TO DO IT. AND UM AND SO AT SOME
POINT WE HAVE TO COME TO GRIPS
WITH AND I KEEP HEARING. YOU
KNOW THIS TRYING BUDGET YEAR WE
HAVE MORE MONEY THAN WE HAD FOUR
YEARS AGO. COMING INTO THE STATE
. WE JUST DON'T KNOW HOW TO
SPEND IT RIGHT. AND UH AND SO,
YOU KNOW, THIS IS A PRIORITY.
THIS SHOULD BE A PRIORITY, AND
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO BETTER
IS PRIORITIZE THINGS THAT ARE
IMPORTANT THAT I'LL ACTUALLY
SAVE US MONEY IN THE LONG RUN.
BY UNCLOGGING A SYSTEM AND
GETTING PEOPLE THROUGH IT. AND
UH AND I FEEL LIKE WE'RE JUST
TREADING WATER ON THIS,
ESPECIALLY IN THE JUDICIAL
SYSTEM. SO THANK YOU. I
APPRECIATE AND IF YOU HAD A
RESPONSE TO THAT, THAT'S FINE.
I. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, SENATOR
SARDO. THOSE ARE GREAT WORDS,
ESPECIALLY FOR OUR BUDGET
COMMITTEE BECAUSE WE'RE ON THE
SAME PAGE. SO WE HAVE ANY OTHER
COMMENTS FROM OUR COMMITTEE
MEMBERS? NÓ NONE. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. UM I DO WANNA SAY
THAT. YOU KNOW, WE ARE LOOKING
TO AGAIN, UM, ENSURE THAT WE ARE
CUTTING WHERE WE CAN. WE NEED A
LITTLE BIT MORE AFFIRMATIVE AND
PROACTIVE ACTION FROM EVERY
SINGLE DEPARTMENT TO SEE WHERE
THERE'S DUPLICATIVE SERVICES,
THINGS THAT CAN BE STREAMLINED
AND MORE EFFICIENT. I WILL ALSO
SAY THAT FOR AN AVERAGE PERSON,
UM, IN REGARDS TO THE JUDICIAL
SYSTEMS. A WHOLE, UM, TE
TECHNOLOGY IS VERY IMPORTANT AND
THE HOURS OF OPERATION AREN'T
CONDUCIVE TO, UH, AN EVERYDAY
PERSON'S REAL WORK TIMES, RIGHT?
SO IF YOU GUYS ARE ONLY OPEN
BETWEEN 9 TO 5, NOBODY CAN
ACTUALLY ENGAGE WITH YOU GUYS.
IT'S THE POST FIVE OR ONLINE OR
SELF HELP OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT,
THAT WE CAN KIND OF TAKE A LOOK
AT SO AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE IF WE
CAN. UM I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE
GONNA TALK ABOUT A PROGRAM. UM
BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE CUTTING COSTS, NOT
INVESTING CONSTANTLY IN
SOMETHING AND INCREASING COSTS
RATHER THAN ANYTHING ELSE. GO
AHEAD. THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH
, MADAM CHAIR, SO WE HAVE
INVESTED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
OUR RESOURCES. UH, RECOGNIZING
THAT THE COMMUNITY REALLY, UH,
BENEFITS IMMENSELY BY REMOTE
SERVICES. AND UM, APPEARING IN
BETWEEN ON THEIR BREAKS, PERHAPS
FOR CERTAIN HEARINGS, SO WE'VE
ENDEAVORED TO ALLOW DOCUMENTS TO
BE FILED ELECTRONICALLY ALLOW
PEOPLE TO APPEAR IN COURT FOR
SOME OF THE TRAFFIC MATTERS. UH,
REMOTELY, UH, AND ACKNOWLEDGING
THAT SERVICE LEVELS CAN BE CAN
REACH MORE PEOPLE WHEN WE CAN
PROVIDE THEM ONLINE, SO WE'VE
MADE SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS IN
THIS AREA. PRECISELY FOR THE
REASONS THAT YOU STATED IT
BENEFITS MANY, MANY PEOPLE, OK,
AND HAVE YOU GUYS BEEN SAV FUNDS
. WE SAVE FUNDS WHERE WE CAN,
AND THERE ARE EFFICIENCIES THAT
ARE GAINED. WE CAN CERTAINLY,
UM, SERVE MANY MORE PEOPLE
REMOTELY. UM THEN WE CAN IF
THEY'RE WAITING IN LINE, SO WE
RECOGNIZE THE BENEFIT THAT, UM
PEOPLE GAIN BY, UH, YOU KNOW, UM
, APPEARING USING TECHNOLOGY,
AND I THINK THAT'S A UNIVERSE
THAT WE'RE LIVING IN RIGHT NOW.
UM I JUST WANNA SEE THAT WHEN
WE'RE UTILIZING TECHNOLOGY THAT
THERE'S A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
DONE IN THE SENSE OF WHAT ARE WE
CUTTING TECHNOLOGY IS SUPPOSED
TO MAKE EVERYTHING MORE
STREAMLINED, FASTER, MORE
EFFICIENT. IT ALSO MEANS TO SAVE
MONEY, RIGHT? THAT'S THE END ALL
BE ALL GOALS, SO I JUST WANNA
MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING THAT AND
MAKING IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE.
ESPECIALLY FOR VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES. UM, AND SO FORTH.
SO, I, I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT.
THANK YOU. RIGHT WE ARE GONNA GO
ON TO ISSUE NUMBER SIX REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
A TRACY KENNING DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
UM, JUDICIAL COUNCIL OFFICE OF
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS WILL HAVE
FIVE MINUTES. WE DO TIME. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. GOOD MORNING
AGAIN. YES I'M TRACY KENNY WITH
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL. I JUST
WANTED TO GIVE THE COMMITTEE
SOME BRIEF INFORMATION ON THE
PROPOSED TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE
TO ELIMINATE THE SUNSET DATES ON
THE REMOTE PROCEEDINGS.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS CURRENTLY
SET TO EXPIRE THIS YEAR AND NEXT
YEAR. I WANT TO BEGIN BY GIVING
A BRIEF HISTORY OF HOW WE GOT
HERE AND BEGIN BY NOTING THAT
COURTS WERE UTILIZING REMOTE
APPEARANCES BY TELEPHONE FOR
MANY YEARS BEFORE THE COVID
PANDEMIC OCCURRED IN A RANGE OF
CASES, BUT AS WE KNOW THE
PANDEMIC EMERGENCY FORCED COURTS
TO EXPLORE NEW WAYS OF USING
TECHNOLOGY TO ACCESS TO THE
COURTS WITHOUT ENDANGERING
PUBLIC HEALTH. AND THE COUNCIL
PROVIDED AUTHORITY FOR SUCH
PROCEEDINGS VIA THE ADOPTION OF
EMERGENCY RULES. I THINK IT'S
FAIR TO ASSUME THAT IF THE
PANDEMIC HAD NOT OCCURRED, THEN
COURTS WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH
SLOWER TO INCORPORATE VIDEO
REMOTE PROCEEDINGS INTO THEIR
REGULAR OPERATIONS. BUT THE
PANDEMIC DID RESULT IN RAPID
INNOVATIONS AND THE COURTS AND
ATTORNEYS, JUSTICE PARTNERS AND
THE PUBLIC WERE ALL ABLE TO SEE
IN REAL TIME THE MANY BENEFITS
OF PROVIDING REMOTE ACCESS TO
COURT PROCEEDINGS WHEN
APPROPRIATE. THE LEGISLATURE
TOOK NOTE OF THESE BENEFITS AND
STEPPED IN TO PROVIDE STATUTORY
AUTHORITY FOR CIVIL REMOTE
PROCEED. IN 2021 AND CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS IN 2022, BUT BECAUSE
OF CONCERNS ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION
CHALLENGES, THESE STATUTES HAD
SHORT SUNSETS, WHICH WERE AGAIN
BRIEFLY EXTENDED IN TRAILER BILL
LEGISLATION LAST YEAR. BEFORE
HIGHLIGHTING SOME OF THE
BENEFITS TO THE PUBLIC OF REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS. I WANT TO NOTE THAT
REMOTE PROCEEDINGS ARE ALWAYS
OPTIONAL, AND A COURT CAN NEVER
REQUIRE A PERSON TO APPEAR
REMOTELY. IN ADDITION, A
DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE
WHILE THEY CAN OPT TO APPEAR
REMOTELY IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES,
REMOTE WITNESS TESTIMONY IN A
CRIMINAL CASE REQUIRES THE
DEFENDANT'S CONSENT AND IS NEVER
ALLOWED IN FELONY TRIALS AND
LAST YEAR IN TRAILER BILL
LEGISLATION, NEW PROVISIONS WERE
ENACTED TO PROVIDE DUE PROCESS
PROTECTIONS FOR CIVIL COMMITMENT
AND JUVENILE JUSTICE PROCEEDINGS
SO THAT THE SUBJECT OF THOSE
PROCEEDINGS WOULD HAVE THE
ABILITY TO CONSENT TO RE REMOTE
WITNESS TESTIMONY AND REQUIRE IN
PERSON TESTIMONY WHEN THEY
DESIRED IT TO THEIR DUE PROCESS
AND LIBERTY INTERESTS. I ALSO
WANT TO NOTE THAT THE COURT HAS
THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE AN
IN-PERSON APPEARANCE WHENEVER IT
IS NEEDED, AND IF THERE ARE
AUDIBILITY ISSUES OR OTHER
TECHNOLOGICAL GLITCHES THAT
CANNOT BE RESOLVED QUICKLY OR IF
THE COURT DETERMINES THAT A
PARTY IS BEING INTIMIDATED OR
COERCED, THE COURTS WILL
CONTINUE THE PROCEEDING AND
DIRECT THE PARTIES TO COME IN
PERSON. THE REMOTE PROCEEDING
STATUTES ALSO REQUIRE THAT
COURTS HAVE A MEANS FOR THE
COURT REPORTER TO ALERT THE
COURT IF THERE ARE ISSUES WITH
MAKING THE RECORD JUST AS THEY
DO IN IN PERSON PROCEEDINGS, THE
DATA THAT WE COLLECTED ON A
REMOTE PROCEEDINGS SHOWS THAT
THIS IS AN OPTION THAT THE
PUBLIC WANTS. WE'VE WE HAVE AS
YOUR ANALYSIS NOTES, WE ARE
CONDUCTING MILLIONS OF THESE
PROCEEDINGS OVER THE LAST COUPLE
OF YEARS AND WE EACH BUSINESS
DAY WE ESTIMATE APPROXIMATELY
10,000 REMOTE HEARINGS TAKE
PLACE IN THE COURTS, SAVING
COURT USERS AT LEAST 2.5 MILLION
TRIPS TO THE COURTHOUSE
ANNUALLY. WE ALSO COLLECT USER
EXPERIENCE DATA FROM EACH
PARTICIPANT WHO USES THE
ZOOM.GOV PLATFORM. BOTH COURT
EMPLOYEES AND COURT USERS AND
OVER 95% OF THESE PARTICIPANTS
HAVE HAD A POSITIVE EXPERIENCE.
OVER THE TWO YEARS THAT WE'VE
BEEN COLLECTING THIS DATA, THE
SATISFACTION RATES HAVE REMAINED
STABLE AND RESPONSES HAVE BEEN
PROVIDED BY MORE THAN 111,000.
PEOPLE OF WHICH 65% OF THESE
WERE COURT PERSONNEL. THIS DATA
DEMONSTRATES THAT COURT STAFF
AND THE PUBLIC ARE
OVERWHELMINGLY SATISFIED WITH
THEIR EXPERIENCE USING REMOTE
TECHNOLOGY. THE JUDICIAL BRANCH
HAS SEEN THE MANY BENEFITS. OF
THESE REMOTE PROCEEDINGS. IT'S
VERY EXPENSIVE TO COME TO COURT
AND IN MANY COUNTIES, THE
DISTANCES ARE LARGE AND PUBLIC
TRANSIT OPTIONS LACKING THE
REMOTE OPTION HELPS PRESERVE
ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR MANY
CALIFORNIANS AND VULNERABLE
COURT USERS BY REDUCING TIME AND
EXPENSE FOR THEM WHEN THEY WOULD
OTHERWISE LOSE TIME FROM SCHOOL
OR WORK AND WOULD INCUR TRAVEL,
CHILD CARE AND PARKING COSTS FOR
SHORT HEARINGS AND APPEARANCES,
PARTICIPANTS IN COLLABORATIVE
JUSTICE, COURT PROGRAMS AND
DIVERSION PROGRAMS PARTICULARLY
BENEFIT AS THEY HAVE REGULAR
APPEARANCES, AND THE ABILITY TO
APPEAR REMOTE ALLOWS THEM TO
CONTINUE IN THEIR WORK
OBLIGATIONS. FINISH THEIR
PROGRAM WITHOUT HAVING TO COME
INTO COURT. IT ALSO HELPS THE
MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS WHO
SERVE THEM TO BE ABLE TO
PARTICIPATE IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS
AND CONTINUE TO SERVE OTHER
CLIENTS. COURTS ARE CONTINUING
TO WORK TO IMPROVE THE REMOTE
EXPERIENCE AND TO ENSURE THAT
REMOTE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS
PROTECT THE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
OF LITIGANTS. THE COUNCIL WILL
SOON BE CONSIDERING MINIMUM
TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS THAT WILL
APPLY TO ALL REMOTE PROCEEDINGS
THAT WERE DEVELOPED PURSUANT TO
A STATUTORY DIRECTIVE REQUESTED
BY OUR LABOR PARTNERS. THESE
STANDARDS ARE DESIGNED TO ENSURE
THAT A VERBATIM RECORD CAN BE
PREPARED ACCURATELY. THE
LEGISLATURE HAS INVESTED $65
MILLION IN THE LAST TWO BUDGET
YEARS ON THE TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE
THIS HAPPEN, AND THE PROPOSED
TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE WILL
PROVIDE THE BRANCH AND THE
PUBLIC WITH PERMANENT AUTHORITY
SO THAT INVESTMENT IS SECURED.
WE HAVE NEARLY FOUR YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE USING REMOTE
REGULARLY AND WHILE ANY CHANGE
OF THIS NATURE COMES WITH
IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES THE
POPULARITY OF THIS OPTION AS
WELL AS THE U USER SATISFACTION
DATA SHOW US THAT WE NEED TO
MAINTAIN THIS TOOL THAT PROVIDES
ACCESS TO JUSTICE ON A PERMANENT
BASIS. THANK YOU 15 SECONDS TO
SPARE. SO KUDOS TO YOU. YOU
KNOW, I JUST LOVE THAT
EVERYONE'S GOING FASTER. UH, L,
A Ó. NOTHING FINANCE. NOTHING
UH, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
SENATOR DE RAZO, MADAM CHAIR.
I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS ISSUE
SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THIS
COMMITTEE FOR FOUR YEARS NOW,
AND WE HAVE HAD, UM INFLICTING
TO SAY THE LEAST, TESTIMONY AND
INFORMATION PROVIDED US FROM THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE COURTS.
PEOPLE IN THE COURTS, THE
PROFESSIONALS IN THE COURTS AND
ESPECIALLY TESTIMONY FROM THOSE
PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE COURTS,
REALLY, THEIR GOAL IS TO MAKE
SURE THAT THERE IS A RECORD. THE
RECORD IS SO IMPORTANT TO
EVERYBODY'S CASE. ANYBODY HERE
IN THIS ROOM WOULD WANT A CLEAR
RECORD. I DON'T CARE WHAT THE
ISSUE IS. BUT I SEE FROM HERE.
UH, OF 5.1 MILLION PROCEEDINGS
AT A RECORD CREATED 1.6 MILLION
PROCEEDINGS HAD NÓ RECORD
CREATED. I MEAN, THERE ARE SOME
REALLY OBVIOUS ISSUES HERE THAT
NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, AND I
UNDERSTAND BECAUSE I I'VE WORKED
MY ENTIRE LIFE IN COMMUNITIES
THAT ARE POOR THAT DON'T HAVE
RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THEM LIKE
THE REST OF US AND TO PUT THEIR
POVERTY AS A REASON FOR NOT
PROVIDING AN ACCURATE RECORD IS
WRONG. WE NEED TO GIVE THEM THE
SAME RESPECT THAT WE WOULD WANT,
WHICH IS WE WANT A RECORD. SO UM
, THAT'S JUST SORRY, OPENING
REMARKS HERE. BUT I, I DO HAVE A
QUESTION YOU MENTIONED THE, UM
THE TE THE FUNDING THAT WE'VE
APPROVED FOR THE TECHNOLOGY. UM
UH, I THINK THE LAST AMOUNT WAS
$33 MILLION. SO I'D LIKE TO KNOW
WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF
NOT THE MINIMAL TECHNOLOGY
STANDARDS FOR THE USE OF REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS. THE MINIMUM
STANDARDS WILL BE GOING TO THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL AT ITS MEETING
ON MARCH 15TH FOR APPROVAL. UM,
THEY THEY BECOME EFFECTIVE APRIL
1, AND WE'RE HOPING THAT COURTS
CAN IMPLEMENT THOSE BY JULY 1 OF
THIS YEAR. OK UH AND HOW DO YOU
EXPECT TO ADDRESS THE DIGITAL
DIVIDE FOR COURT USERS? I MEAN,
WE THAT'S A THAT'S A BIG REALITY
. WE HEARD I'VE HEARD STORIES OF
, UH, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO DON'T
HAVE, UH OR THEIR GOD FORBID
THAT THERE BE A LOST CONNECTION.
UH IN THE REMOTE, YOU KNOW,
WHILE THEY'RE IN THEIR IN THE
PROCEEDING, THEY LOSE THE
INTERNET CONNECTION OR THERE ARE
PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE BECAUSE THEY
DON'T HAVE HOMES WHERE THEY CAN
GO OFF. AND UH, THEIR OWN
SEPARATE, UH, BEDROOM. UH THOSE
THINGS HAPPEN. SO HOW DO WE
THAT'S A REALITY AND TO MAKE
PEOPLE CHOOSE BETWEEN, OK, I
DON'T HAVE TO GO TO WORK TODAY.
BUT I HAVE TO DO THIS IN A PLACE
WHERE I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE
POTENTIALLY AN ACCURATE RECORD.
UM THAT'S THAT'S NOT A CHOICE.
WE WANT PEOPLE TO MAKE. SENATOR
I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. I
THINK THAT THERE THERE ARE
LARGER QUESTIONS OF, YOU KNOW,
INTERNET ACCESSIBILITY AND
DIGITAL DIVIDE AGAIN. THIS IS AN
OPTION SO PEOPLE ARE CHOOSING
WHICH WAY THEY WANT TO APPEAR IN
THESE PROCEEDINGS. AND SO WE,
THE OPTION TO COME TO COURT IS
ALWAYS AVAILABLE, IF PEOPLE
PREFER THAT AND THEY DON'T FEEL
LIKE THEIR TECHNOLOGY CAN WORK.
OUR DATA SHOWS THAT FOR THE MOST
PART, THE TECHNOLOGY IS WORKING
SUCCESSFULLY FOR FOLKS AND WE
ARE NOT NEEDING TO CONTINUE A
LOT OF CASES. UM, YOU KNOW,
THERE ARE OFTENTIMES WHEN PEOPLE
WOULD HAVE TROUBLE GETTING TO
COURT. THEIR BUS WOULD BE LATE
AND THEY WOULD MISS THEIR
APPEARANCE AND CONTINUANCE AS A
RESULT, SO THIS IS ALLOWING, YOU
KNOW, IN MORE CASES THAN NOT
FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE
AND APPEAR IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS
REMOTELY WHEN THEY WOULD HAVE
HAD A REAL OBSTACLE BEING ABLE
TO APPEAR AT ALL WITHOUT THE
REMOTE OPTION, SO WE DO THINK
THAT OVERALL THIS IS EXPANDING
ACCESS. I THINK THERE ARE, YOU
KNOW. VARIOUS OPTIONS THAT CAN
BE PURSUED PARTNERS IN, UM THE
COMMUNITY WHO CAN HELP US BY
PROVIDING ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY.
BUT YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THESE
PLATFORMS CAN BE ACCESSED VIA,
YOU KNOW, A SMARTPHONE, AND SO
THEY THE USE OF VIDEO REMOTE HAS
REALLY ALLOWED IT TO BE MUCH
EASIER FOR FOLKS TO PARTICIPATE
REMOTELY. BUT WE'VE BEEN DOING
THAT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THE
MINIMAL TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS
YET, SO THE MINIMUM TECHNOLOGY
STANDARDS WERE DESIGNED TO
ENSURE THE VERBATIM RECORD COULD
BE PREPARED MOST ACCURATELY, AND
THEY WERE PREMISED ON A PILOT
PROGRAM THAT CAME OUT OF SANTA
CLARA COUNTY, WHERE THE
COURTROOM REPORTER WAS ACTUALLY
REMOTE IN THE PROCEEDING, AND SO
THE TECHNOLOGY WAS DESIGNED FOR
REMOTE CORE REPORTING AND TO GET
TO THAT STANDARD, I THINK THAT
WE THE COURTS NEED TO GET THE
INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO HEAR
THESE CASES. AND SO IF THERE ARE
ISSUES OR PROBLEMS WITH REMOTE
PROCEEDING. THEN THE COURTS ARE,
YOU KNOW, PAUSING THOSE
PROCEEDINGS TO EITHER RESOLVE
THOSE ISSUES OR CONTINUE THE
CASE TO BE IN PERSON. BUT WHAT I
THINK THAT BEFORE THE PANDEMIC,
I THINK A LOT OF JUDGES WOULD
HAVE SHARED YOUR HESITATION AND
SAID, YOU KNOW, THERE'S JUST TOO
MANY PROBLEMS. WE JUST NEED
PEOPLE IN COURT IN PERSON, AND
THEN THEY HAD THE EXPERIENCE OF
IT. WORKING RELATIVELY
CONSISTENTLY AND REALIZED HOW
MUCH IT BENEFITED THE PUBLIC
THAT WE SERVE AND FELT THAT
OVERALL. PRESERVING THIS OPTION,
WHICH IS ONLY AN OPTION IS
CRITICAL. TO ENSURING THAT THE
PUBLIC HAS A REAL ABILITY TO
APPEAR IN THE COURT PROCEEDINGS
THAT IMPACT THEM. WELL, WE HAVE
HAD TESTIMONY FROM THE CO
REPORTERS. WE'VE HAD TESTIMONY
FROM THE INTERPRETERS WHO
DESCRIBE IT VERY DIFFERENTLY. UM
AND SO I THINK THAT POINT OF
VIEW AND THAT EXPERTISE NEEDS TO
BE A PART OF THIS AND AN ONGOING
BASIS, NOT JUST MAKE A DECISION
AND EXCLUDE WHAT THEY HAVE TO
SAY. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE IN THE
COURTROOMS, AND THEY DON'T HAVE
ANY REASON NOT TO, YOU KNOW,
PROVIDE US WITH, YOU KNOW
INFORMATION AS TO WHAT IS GOING
ON IN THOSE COURTROOMS, SO I'M
REALLY, REALLY CONCERNED. I
CONTINUE TO BE CONCERNED. AT THE
LEAST I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU
HAVE SPECIFIC MEETINGS WITH
THESE PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE
THERE AND WHO WANT TO BE THERE
AND, UM, SO THAT THERE IS MORE
CONTINUOUS CONVERSATION TO SOLVE
THIS AND NOT JUST GO ONE WAY OR
THE OTHER. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. THANK YOU. UM, I. I DO
ALSO JUST WANT TO RAISE. UH, A
COUPLE POINTS NUMBER ONE.
SPECIFICALLY I APPRECIATE SANTA
CLAIR COUNTY. IT'S MY COUNTY. SO
I'M ALWAYS HAPPY TO HEAR THAT
THEY'RE DOING WELL, UM, BUT
SPECIFICALLY THE CONCERNS AROUND
AUDIO AND VISUAL QUALITY THAT
WERE BROUGHT UP, UH AS REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS WERE BEING
IMPLEMENTED. UM AND WE ALSO KNOW
THAT THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS
THAT I'D LIKE TO SAY, NUMBER
ONE. NOT EVERYBODY HAS ACCESS TO
INTERNET OR EVEN IF THEY DO
ASSUME THAT THEY HAVE ACCESS AND
VOLUNTARILY, UM, ACCEPT THE FACT
THAT THEY WANT TO DO IT
REMOTELY. AND LET'S SAY THEY'RE
NOT TECH SAVVY, RIGHT? AND
OBVIOUSLY THIS, UH, THE
BANDWIDTH IS LOWER THAN WHAT
THEY EXPECTED, RIGHT? NOT EVEN
UNDERSTANDING BANDWIDTH, RIGHT?
UM AND LET'S SAY THAT THEY WERE
HAVING SOME TECHNICAL
DIFFICULTIES OR THEY WERE
UNDERSTANDING IT, BUT I COULDN'T
CLICK ON A BUTTON OR SOMETHING
WAS GOING ON. AND THEY COULDN'T
EVEN COMMUNICATE IT TO YOU ALL,
UH, IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME,
AND YOU GUYS WERE ASSUMING, UM,
THAT THIS IS GOING SMOOTHLY AND
THEY FELT THAT IT WAS NOT, BUT
WERE UNABLE. AFRAID A LITTLE
SURPRISED. SHOCKED GOING TO
COURT IS, UH, A DAUNTING, UH,
EFFORT IN ITSELF AND SOMETIMES
SCARY IN OTHER WAYS. UM IS THERE
AN OPTION FOR THEM TO SAY? EVEN
AFTER LET'S SAY A DECISION WAS
MADE IN. LET'S SAY A SPEEDING
TICKET. SOMETHING SIMPLE, RIGHT?
UM, THEY'RE LIKE, OH, THAT THAT
WASN'T EXACTLY HOW IT WAS. CAN
THEY REDO THEIR COURT VISIT IF
YOU WILL. THERE'S ALWAYS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST A
CONTINUANCE TO BE HEARD AT A
LATER DATE. IF THEY WERE EVEN
AFTER THEY WERE, LET'S SAY FOUND
GUILTY OR INNOCENT OR A VERDICT
WAS MADE IN SOME CAPACITY. SO IF
THE PROCEEDING CAME TO A
RESOLUTION, THEN THAT WOULD BE A
DIFFERENT SITUATION. THEY WOULD
NEED TO ALERT THE COURT THAT THE
TECHNOLOGY WAS INADEQUATE, AND
THEY WANTED TO CONTINUE IT IN
PERSON. TYPICALLY SO, YES OR NÓ.
SO II. I THINK THAT IF THE COURT
RULED ON THE ISSUE IN A
INFRACTION CASE WHERE SOMEONE
APPEARED REMOTELY, THEN THEY
WOULD HAVE BY APPEARING HAVE
CONSENTED TO APPEAR REMOTELY SO
THAT THEY WOULD NOT GET TO HAVE
A SECOND IN PERSON. REHEARING OF
THE CASE. OK, SO NÓ BASICALLY
RIGHT. UM SO THAT IS A LITTLE
BIT CONCERNING THE REASON WHY I
BRING THIS UP IS FOR IMMIGRANT
COMMUNITIES IN PARTICULAR. UM
ONE. WE HAVE THE INTERPRETATION,
UH, ISSUES, RIGHT? UM EVEN IN
BOTH OF THE COUNTIES THAT I
REPRESENT, WHICH IS LARGELY
DIVERSE INTERPRETERS ARE VERY
SCARCE TO BEGIN WITH. RIGHT UH,
NUMBER TWO. I GET, YOU KNOW,
OBVIOUSLY, I'M A BIG FAN AND
PROPONENT OF TECHNOLOGY, AND WE
HAVE TO JUST BE AWARE OF THE
TECHNOLOGY DOES TAKE ON ITS OWN
LIFE, RIGHT? UM THERE'S A LOT OF
CONCERNS AROUND THE FACT THAT
WITH THE SURVEY ON REMOTE CIVIL
PROCEEDINGS, IT INDICATED THAT
9.5 OF COURT USERS HAD A
NEGATIVE REMOTE PROCEEDINGS
EXPERIENCE RIGHT WHICH YOU KNOW
DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A LOT, BUT
10% IS A GOOD CHUNK OF CHANGE.
RIGHT UM, I'M ASKING FOR A 15%
CUT ACROSS THE BOARD AS AS MUCH
AS POSSIBLE FOR A LOT OF
DEPARTMENTS. UM, AND WE KNOW
THAT'S DAUNTING. SO, UH, 10% IN
ITSELF IS QUITE A BIG NUMBER. IF
YOU PUT IT INTO CONTEXT, RIGHT,
UM SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S A
MINORITY. IT'S A LOT OF PEOPLE
THAT HAD SOME OF THESE ISSUES.
SO UM, I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT
THAT MOVING FORWARD, AND IF
THERE'S TECHNOLOGY OR ANYTHING
LIKE THAT, IF THERE'S MORE
EFFORTS OF LOCAL LIBRARIES, SOME
PEOPLE LIVE IN MORE RURAL AREAS.
SOME PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE HIGH
SPEED INTERNET. SOME PEOPLE DO
NOT KNOW HOW TO USE TECHNOLOGY.
SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT THEY CAN
DO IT, BUT CAN'T DO IT THINK
THAT IT'S GOING TO BE SHORTER?
UM CANNOT. THE MEETINGS AREN'T
SHORT, IT'S NOT EFFICIENT. IT'S
NOT ANYTHING LIKE THAT FOR AN
ARRAIGNMENT. SOME PEOPLE WILL
STAY SEVERAL HOURS FOR HEARING
FOR THEIR COURT CASE. THEY WILL
STAY THE WHOLE DAY UNTIL THEIR
CASE IS HEARD. THERE HAS TO BE
EFFICIENCY MODELS IN THE
STRUCTURE OF THIS AS A WHOLE,
RIGHT. SO IF YOU HAVE AN
APPOINTMENT AT 10 A.M. YOU
SHOULD BE HEARD AT 10 A.M. YOU
SHOULD NOT HAVE TO WASTE EIGHT
HOURS OF YOUR LIFE FOR THIS. SO
I DO JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT
. UM, SO AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
TECHNOLOGY AND EFFICIENCIES,
THIS HAS TO ALSO BE IMPLEMENTED,
RIGHT? UH THAT'S NUMBER ONE
NUMBER TWO IS ALSO, UM HAVE WE
THOUGHT ABOUT EXPANDING NIGHT
COURT. YOU KNOW THE NUMBER ONE
CONCERN. WE HAVE, UM AND I KNOW
NIGHT COURT IS KIND OF AN
OPTION. UH, ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK
IN MY COUNTY. UM IT SHOULD BE
AVAILABLE MORE READILY IN EVERY
SINGLE COUNTY. UM AND EASILY
DONE, UM, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE
AGAIN, 9 TO 5 OF PEOPLE ARE
WORKING AND LET'S BE HONEST
PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO
WORK AT LIKE SEVEN AND COMING
BACK HOME AT AROUND SIX OR
SEVEN. SO WHAT ARE WE DOING IN
THAT FRAME? IF WE'RE TRYING TO
EXPAND REMOTE, WE HAVE A JUDGE
HERNANDEZ, WHO MIGHT BE ABLE TO
PROVIDE SOME, UH SHE'S THE
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE ORANGE
COURT, A SUPERIOR COURT AND
CHAIR OF THE TRIAL COURT
PRESIDING JUDGES ADVISORY
COMMITTEE WHO COULD GIVE US
SOME? MAYBE SOME GREATER INSIGHT
ON ON NIGHT PERSON WOULD LIKE TO
SHOW UP.
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR. THANK
YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK. MY
NAME IS MARIA HERNANDEZ AND I DO
SPEAK ON BEHALF OF OUR TRIAL
COURT PRESIDING JUDGE, UH,
COMMITTEE ADVISORY BODY AS WELL
AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE IN ORANGE
COUNTY. SHORT ANSWER IS WE DO
NOT HAVE IT IN OUR COUNTY. WE
HAVE HAD IT IN PREVIOUS
OCCASIONS. THERE ARE BUDGETARY
RESTRICTIONS I AM GOING TO SHARE
WITH YOU. I AGREE WITH YOU
WHOLEHEARTEDLY. AND I AM SO, UM,
SUPPORTIVE OF ALL OF THE
COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ON
OUR VULNERABLE POPULATIONS AND
THE ABILITY TO SERVE OUTSIDE OF
THE TIME PARAMETERS OF A 9 TO 5.
SPEAKING TO SENATOR DIAZO.
SPECIFICALLY I'VE BEEN IN THE
COURTS SINCE 1991 AS A PUBLIC
DEFENDER, AND THEN ON THE BENCH
FOR THE LAST 18 YEARS, SO THE
VULNERABLE POPULATION THERE IS A
WAY TO DO THE NIGHT COURT. IT IS
A WAY THAT WE HAVE TO AGAIN
UTILIZE EFFICIENCIES. TECHNOLOGY
IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE DOING,
AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS
REMOTE SHORT ANSWER TO YOUR
OTHER QUESTION. THERE IS AN
APPELLATE PROCESS. SO IF A
DECISION IS MADE IN SOME OF THE
OCCASIONS THAT YOU WERE TALKING
ABOUT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY A
RIGHT TO APPEAL DIRECTLY TO US
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OR IN OUR
COURT OF APPEALS. IF THERE ARE
ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE SPOKEN TO
ANSWER ON BEHALF OF MISS KENNY
AS WELL. ALL RIGHT, UM, NOW THE
TRIALS BY WRITTEN DECLARATION IN
PARTICULAR. THIS IS AN ISSUE
THAT I'M ACTUALLY VERY
INTERESTED IN. HENCE THESE
QUESTIONS ARE A LITTLE BIT LONG.
UH THAT'S ONE OPTION FOR A
PERSON WHO IS, LET'S SAY WORKING
AND UNABLE, UM, TO ATTEND, RIGHT
. UM AND DO WE HAVE A POTENTIAL
SURVEY ON HOW MANY OF THEM HAVE
BEEN FOUND GUILTY? AND UH, IS AN
WHAT IS THE PROCESS DO WE WHY DO
WE NOT KEEP TRACK OF, YOU KNOW
JUST THE RATIO OF THAT. I DON'T
KNOW IF WE HAVE A STATEWIDE UM,
A COUNTYWIDE. WE CAN CREATE
THOSE KIND OF NUMBERS BECAUSE
CERTAINLY TRIAL BY DECLARATION
IS AVAILABLE TO ANYBODY. UM AND
SO THOSE NUMBERS COULD BE
COLLECTED AND I DO NOT BELIEVE
WE DO IT AT THE STATE, BUT M,
KINNEY, NÓ AND I. I MEAN,
THERE'S TYPICALLY WHEN WE ARE
COLLECTING DATA ON COURTS OR
COLLECTING, YOU KNOW. HOW MANY
FAILINGS DO WE HAVE? HOW WAS THE
WAS THE CASE RESOLVED, NOT THE
OUTCOME. THE VERDICT OF THE CASE
AND SO THAT THAT'S NOT TYPICALLY
A THING THAT WE MEASURE BECAUSE
WE'RE LOOKING AT THOSE OUTCOMES
CASE BY CASE BY CASE BASED ON
THE SPECIFIC FACTS, 100% BUT I
THINK THAT WE SHOULD ALSO BE
KEEPING TRACK OF THAT, UM,
PRIMARILY JUST TO SEE IF THERE'S
ANY IMPLICIT BIAS, SYSTEMIC BIAS
THERE AND LET'S BE HONEST. OUR
JUDICIAL SYSTEM HAS IT BUILT IN,
UH, SO THAT'S ONE PIECE BUT THEN
NUMBER TWO IS THE FACT THAT I
DON'T THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE
AWARE THAT THERE IS TRIAL BY
WRITTEN DECLARATION AVAILABLE.
TO PEOPLE ALSO IS IT AVAILABLE
IN MULTIPLE DIFFERENT LANGUAGES,
SO IF THE PERSON CANNOT
NECESSARILY WRITE IN ENGLISH,
ARE THEY ABLE TO WRITE IN
SPANISH OR IN? UH, DORI OR ANY
OF THE OTHER LANGUAGES? UM ALSO
THE WEBSITE. I'M JUST GONNA LAY
IT ON THICK FOR YOU GUYS. UM,
THE WEBSITES FOR LITERALLY EVERY
SINGLE, UM COURT SYSTEM THAT I
HAVE TAKEN A LOOK AT IS VERY NOT
USER FRIENDLY. RIGHT UH, WHETHER
THEY'RE LOOKING AT FAMILY COURTS
WHETHER THEY'RE LOOKING AT
TRAFFIC COURT WHETHER THEY'RE
LOOKING AT ANYTHING LIKE THAT IT
IS NOT USER FRIENDLY. IT IS NOT
EASILY ACCESSIBLE. IT IS NOT
WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT'S UM,
CONDUCIVE TO VISUALLY IMPAIRED
INDIVIDUALS. THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM AND I. I JUST REALLY WANNA
UPGRADE THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM AS A
WHOLE TO THE 21ST CENTURY. AND
IT'S NOT JUST REMOTE COURT
PROCEEDINGS. CERTAINLY AND SO
RECENTLY, THERE'S BEEN A
COMPLETE OVERHAUL OF THE WEBSITE
AND I'M SAYING VERY RECENTLY AND
FOR YOUR COUNTY OR FOR OUR
COUNTY AND STATEWIDE AS WELL, UM
, TO BE MUCH MORE USER FRIENDLY
AND TO HAVE IT IN MULTIPLE
LANGUAGE TO YOUR POINT, BECAUSE
THAT IS SOMETHING WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT OUR MOST VULNERABLE
POPULATION. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
THE COMMUNITIES THAT ALL OF US
SERVE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE EQUAL
ACCESS, MEANING MEANINGFUL,
EQUAL ACCESS, SO THAT USER
FRIENDLY ASPECT HAS TO BE
SOMETHING AND AGAIN SITTING HERE
FOR ALMOST 35 YEARS IN A
COURTROOM EVERY SINGLE DAY, UM
THE POPULATIONS THAT WE SERVE
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE WORKING
EFFI. AS BEST WE CAN WITH THE
TECHNOLOGY. I'M RIGHT WITH YOU,
SENATOR. I AM A TECHNOLOGY
PERSON. BUT I ALSO REALIZE WE'RE
DEALING WITH PEOPLE, NOT JUST
NUMBERS. THESE ARE VULNERABLE
PEOPLE COMING INTO OUR COURT
SYSTEM. AND I KNOW OUR NEXT
ISSUE HAPPENS TO BE THE
SELF-HELP WHICH THIS RUNS INTO
THAT OUR SELF HELP CENTERS
BECOME SO CRITICAL IN CORE TO
THE FUNCTIONING OF REACHING OUT
TO THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW HOW TO
USE TECHNOLOGY TO BE ABLE TO
ASSIST THEM WITH THAT, IF
NECESSARY. OK, SO THERE'S TWO
TYPES OF POPULATIONS WHERE
REALLY TALKING WHEN WE SAY
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES, WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES IN THE SENSE OF, UM
POVERTY, RIGHT, AND WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES IN THE SENSE OF
LET'S SAY POTENTIAL IMMIGRANTS
OR MONO LINGUISTIC. UH, LINGUAL,
UM, INDIVIDUALS, UM, AND SO I
THINK THAT THERE'S DIFFERENT
ASPECTS TO THIS. THE TECHNOLOGY
PIECE IS FOR THE BROADER
COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. THE ENTIRE
WORLD IS MOVING IN THAT
DIRECTION. WE DO NEED TO MAKE
BETTER EFFORTS TO MAKE THINGS
EFFICIENT TO STREAMLINE. AND
EASY. UM, AND THERE'S A LOT OF
JARGON. THAT IS IN THESE
WEBSITES THAT ACTUALLY DON'T SAY
MUCH, RIGHT? IT SHOULD BE. DO
YOU HAVE A SPEEDING TICKET? DO
YOU HAVE A FAMILY COURT CASE? DO
YOU? WHATEVER RIGHT, UM, WE I
HAVE NOT SEEN THAT VERY CLEANLY
DEFINED EVEN IN IN ONE OF THE
COUNTIES THAT I REPRESENT, RIGHT
. THE SECOND PIECE IS THE FACT
THAT WE DO KNOW THROUGH POVERTY.
THERE'S UM NATURAL
DISENFRANCHISEMENT. UM,
HAPPENING, RIGHT? SO MAYBE THE
PERSON DOESN'T HAVE INTERNET.
MAYBE THE PERSON DOESN'T HAVE
ANY OF THESE OPTIONS BUT AGAIN,
WORKING WITH YOUR LOCAL CITIES
AS WELL AS COUNTIES, PUBLIC
LIBRARIES, AREAS THAT ARE
AVAILABLE 24 7 THAT HAVE A KIOSK
THAT THEY CAN ATTEND. AND YOU
KNOW, IN SOME OF THESE RURAL
PLACES AND SO FORTH. UM I JUST
WANNA SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE
EFFORT. IF WE ARE FUNDING THESE
SYSTEMS THEY HAVE TO WORK TO THE
21ST CENTURY TECHNOLOGY. BUT SO
THERE HAS TO BE METRICS BEING
TRACKED AND IDENTIFYING WHAT IS
SUCCESS? AND ME WAITING EIGHT
HOURS FOR MY HEARING IS NOT
SUCCESS TO ME, AND IT'S NOT
SUCCESS BY ANY OTHER STANDARD OF
IN ANY INDUSTRY PERIOD, RIGHT?
AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS
IS AN INDUSTRY. SO HOW ARE WE
REALLY MAKING OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM
WORK FOR AN EVERYDAY PERSON? I
CAN I COMPLETELY AGREE 100% WITH
WHAT YOU SAID. WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT JUSTICE DELAYED BEING
JUSTICE DENIED. AND WHAT IS
JUSTICE LOOK LIKE IN ALL OF THE
OTHER COUNTIES, AND I LOOK AT
SOME OF THE RURAL COUNTIES OR
THE GEOGRAPHICS THAT ARE SO
SPREAD OUT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE
THAT TECHNOLOGY AND WHAT MISS
KINNEY SPOKE TO AT THE VERY
BEGINNING? YEAH WE WERE USING
TELEPHONIC PRIOR TO THE COVID
PANDEMIC AND THEN REALLY BLOSSOM
WITH TECHNOLOGY IN THE REMOTE
CAPABILITIES TO DO SO. SO I LOOK
AT IT AT IT IN ITS INY AND YES,
WE ARE PRIORITIZING. WE ARE ALSO
MAKING MORE EFFICIENT, BUT WE
LITERALLY WERE FLYING THE PLANE
AND CREATING IT DURING COVID TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE DID NOT
SHUTTER OUR DOORS THAT WE KEPT
OUR DOORS OPEN EVERY SINGLE DAY
FOR THOSE THAT NEEDED TO COME IN
, AND THOSE POPULATIONS WERE
SPEAKING, OUR MOST VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS THAT YOU ALL HAVE
SPOKEN TO THIS, BUT WE ALSO
WEREN'T IN THE IN THE JUDICIAL
SYSTEM. WE WEREN'T TAKING A LOT
OF CASES EITHER. WE WEREN'T
HEARING IT. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
HOUSING INDUSTRY WHICH ARE BIG
FANS OF MINE, UH, THEY FELT THAT
NONE OF THEIR CASES WERE BEING
HEARD AT ALL DURING COVID. RIGHT
SO I JUST WANNA HIGHLIGHT THIS
AND THIS. I'M I'M GONNA LET YOU
GUYS MOVE ON TO THE NEXT TOPIC.
BUT UM, THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE
IS THAT WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO
IMPLEMENT A TECHNOLOGY UPGRADE,
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE IS ONE
DEPARTMENT THAT, UH, IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT HAS
BEEN WORKING ON A TECHNOLOGY
UPGRADE FOR I MUST SAY YEARS NOW
, UM, AND THEY'RE STILL VERY,
VERY LONG LINES OUT THE DOOR. UM
AND IT'S COMPLETELY INEFFICIENT.
AND SO A TECHNOLOGY UPGRADE
DOESN'T PAUSING EVERYTHING IT
MEANS IN PARALLEL, MOVING THIS
FORWARD SIMULTANEOUSLY, AND EVEN
AFTER IMPLEMENTATION ANOTHER
PARALLEL PIECE FOR SOME TIME
BEFORE WE COMPLETELY STOP
SOMETHING THAT IS HOW TECHNOLOGY
IMPLEMENTATIONS WORK. RIGHT SO,
I. I JUST WANNA HIGHLIGHT THAT
AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE,
UH, FOR ANY FUTURE REFERENCE OF
ANYBODY WATCHING, UH, IT CANNOT
BE AN EXCUSE TO OH, WE HAVE TO
WAIT OR YOU KNOW SO FORTH. THERE
ARE CONSULTANTS THAT ARE HIRED.
THERE'S IMPLEMENTATION DONE BY
EXPERTS, NOT BY BUT HE ACTUALLY
DOING THE WORK THAT THEY'RE
HIRED TO DO. SO I JUST REALLY
WANNA EMPHASIZE THAT BECAUSE
THIS IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE
BIGGEST FRUSTRATIONS I HAVE WITH
, UH, BUREAUCRACY. SO UM, THANK
YOU. UH, YES AND SENATOR NEWMAN.
SORRY PRETTY QUICKLY. II. I JUST
WANT TO GO ON RECORD TO SAY, UH,
FIRST, I SHARE MY COLLEAGUE'S
CONCERN ABOUT THE DIGITAL
DIVIDE. UM AND THERE IS THIS
KIND OF INHERENT TENSION BETWEEN
ACCESSIBILITY, ESPECIALLY, YOU
KNOW, FOR SOMEBODY WHO'S NEW TO
THE SYSTEM, UH, AND INTIMIDATED
AND RIGOR, RIGHT? AND SO I THINK
THAT'S IMPORTANT, BUT I, BUT I
ALSO I WANNA PUT A PIN ON ON THE
SPECIFIC CONCERNS OF SENATOR DE
ROO, UH, AS IT RELATES TO THE
COURT, LARGER QUALITY OF THE YOU
KNOW, COURT EXPERIENCE,
ESPECIALLY, UH, THE CONVERSATION
I'VE HAD WITH COURT REPORTERS
AND THEY'RE THEY'RE VERY REAL
CONCERN. I GUESS ABOUT THE
IMPACT ON THEIR WORKFORCE ALWAYS
GOING TO BE THE CASE, BUT MORE
IMPORTANTLY ABOUT THE QUALITY OF
THE RECORD AND THE INTEGRITY OF
THE COURT RECORD. SO YOU KNOW
THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY LARGER KIND
OF POLICY DISCUSSION AROUND ALL
OF THIS, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BUDGET
REDUCTIONS, AND YOU'VE GOT THE
SORT OF THE BRIEF FROM THE CHAIR
TO FIND SAVINGS, I I'D URGE YOU
TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT AS WE
LOOK FOR THOSE SAVINGS ON THOSE
ISSUES, UH, ESPECIALLY AS IT
RELATES TO COURT PROCEEDINGS AND
THE QUALITY OF THE RECORD. THANK
YOU. SENATOR SIERRA. THESE ARE
ALL GREAT, UH, COMMENTS AND THE
YOU KNOW, THE PROBLEM IS, YOU
CAN'T TELL PEOPLE TO DO A 10%
REDUCTION OR 15% REDUCTION AND
THEN MAKE ALL THESE IMPROVEMENTS
TO A PROGRAM. UH, THERE IS NÓ
PERFECT PROGRAM. WE WILL NEVER
COME UP WITH A SYSTEM THAT
SERVES EVERY PERSON THE WAY THEY
NEED TO BE SERVED BECAUSE EVERY
PERSON IS INDIVIDUALLY GOT THEIR
ISSUES AND, UH AND SO WE NEED TO
TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. UH, WHEN
WE HAVE EXPECTATIONS BEYOND WHAT
WE'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE TOOLS
FOR THESE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS TO
DO THEIR JOBS, UM AND THAT'S
PART OF THE PROCESS OF US
PRIORITIZING WHAT IS IMPORTANT
TO US, AND IF THIS IS IMPORTANT
TO US, WE HAVE TO ENSURE THEY
HAVE THE FUNDING TO BE ABLE TO
DO THIS STUFF, UH, TO BE ABLE TO
DO THE PROGRAMMING, UH, TO BE
ABLE TO HAVE THE COURTHOUSE
SPACE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE
TRANSPORTATION IF THEY NEED IT.
UM ALL OF THAT STUFF COSTS MONEY
, AND, UM AND WE SPEND A LOT OF
MONEY IN OTHER PLACES, AND THEN
WE COME TO PLACES OF VERY
IMPORTANT LIKE THIS ONE. AND UH
AND WE'RE WE'RE NOT SPENDING THE
MONEY WE NEED THERE AND YOU
KNOW, SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
WE NEED TO TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION WHEN WE'RE
PRIORITIZING THE FUNDING THAT DO
GET FROM OUR TAXPAYERS. AND UH
AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL WE'LL DO
THAT AS WE GO FORWARD. THANK YOU
. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER MEMBERS
WANTING TO COMMENT? ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON
TO ISSUE NUMBER SEVEN ONGOING
FUNDING FOR COURT BASED
SELF-HELP CENTERS. WE WILL BE
STARTING WITH I'M GONNA MESS UP
THE NAME ZLATKO THEODORE ROVIK,
WHICH YOU DID A GREAT, OK,
PERFECT. THANK YOU REALLY
APPRECIATE IT. YES. LAO FODOROV,
DIRECTOR OF BUDGET SERVICES, THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL. UM JUST WANNA
INTRODUCE THIS, UM, TOPIC AN
IMPORTANT ONE THAT, UM JUDGE
HERNANDEZ HAS ADDRESSED, UM,
RELATED TO SELF-HELP. FUNDING
FUNDING WAS INITIALLY FUNDED IN
THE BUDGET IN 2018 AND IS ON TWO
TIMES NOW BEEN EXTENDED AS
LIMITED TERM FUNDING. UM, THE
BUDGET PROPOSES THAT THIS
FUNDING BE MADE. PERMANENT AND
ONGOING TO SUPPORT THE CURRENT
BASELINE. UM, IF THIS FUNDING IS
NOT NOT CONTINUED, THERE'LL BE
SOME SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON SELF
HELP AND IMPACT ACCESS ON
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS. AND I'M
FIRST GONNA TURN IT OVER TO, UH,
CHARLENE DUBNER, OUR DIRECTOR
OVER OUR CENTER FOR FAMILIES AND
CHILDREN OF COURTS AND THEN, UH,
TO JUDGE HERNANDEZ TO GIVE US
SOME REAL LIFE. UH, IMPACTS OF
THIS PROGRAM AND FUNDING. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR LAO. I
APPRECIATE THAT, UM, THIS
FUNDING IS PART OF A COURT
BUDGETS FOR WHICH PLACE PLACES
SELF-HELP CENTERS IN EVERY COURT
IN CALIFORNIA. UH WE'VE HAD IT
FOR SIX YEARS. IT REPRESENTS 60%
OF THE SELF HELP CENTER FUNDING.
UH, THE FUNDING HAD HAS ENABLED
THE COURTS TO SERVE UP TO 1
MILLION CUSTOMERS AND, UH,
ANNUALLY. SELF HELP CENTERS,
ACTIVITIES AND ACHIEVEMENTS HAVE
BEEN DOCUMENTED IN TWO EXTENSIVE
REPORTS TO THE LEGISLATURE. THEY
DOCUMENT SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES
IN PEOPLE SERVED THROUGH
MULTIPLE MODALITIES. BILINGUAL
SELF-HELP PROVIDERS SERVICES IN
CASE TYPES NEW CASE TYPES SUCH
AS EVICTION AND CONSUMER DEBT.
UM THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
SHOWED THAT FOR EVERY DOLLAR
SPENT 3 TO $4 WAS SAVED. AND
THIS INCLUDED, UH UH I FOR I'M
SORRY. THIS INCLUDED TWO
LITIGANTS WHO OTHERWISE MIGHT BE
MAKING MULTIPLE TRIPS TO THE
COURTS TO GET THEIR BUSINESS
DONE WITHOUT HELP. UM IT SAVES
MONEY IN IN IN ABOUT $100 PER
CASE FOR TRAVEL, DAYCARE AND
LOST WAGES. THANK YOU. IN JUST
ADDING ON FROM THE COURT
PERSPECTIVE AND BEING IN THAT
COURTROOM FOR THE LAST 35 YEARS,
WHEN WE AREN'T ABLE TO ACCESS
THOSE COURTROOMS, THIS IS OUR
FIRST RESPONDER. THIS IS THE
CRITICAL CORE PRINCIPLES FOR
TRIAGING AND ASSISTING THOSE
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS. YOU'RE
TALKING YOUR CHILDREN, YOUR
FAMILIES, YOUR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
VICTIMS. THOSE WHO NEED THAT
ASSISTANCE THAT WON'T GET TURNED
AWAY BECAUSE THEIR PAPERWORK
WASN'T COMPLETED SO THAT IT THEN
ADDS TO THE BACKLOG OF THE
COURTS OF THE PUBLIC, AND I
THINK THAT PUBLIC OR THAT, UM,
ANALYSIS THAT MISS DEPNER JUST
SHARED WITH YOU FOR EVERY DOLLAR
BECAUSE I KNOW PEOPLE ASK US.
WELL, WHAT DOES THAT SAVE US?
EVERY DOLLAR THREE TO $4 IS
SAVED TO THE PUBLIC AND TO THE
COURTS, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY FOR
US AS JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND
THOSE INVOLVED IN THE COURT
SYSTEM TO BE ABLE TO SERVE THE
PUBLIC AT A AT A, UH I DON'T
KNOW WHAT THAT SOUND IS, BUT,
UH, AT A PLACE WHERE WE CAN MEET
THEM AT AND TO ONE OF THE
QUESTIONS. I CAN'T RECALL, UM,
CHAIR CHAIRWOMAN MOSAB IF IT WAS
YOUR QUESTION, UM, BUT WHAT
ABOUT THOSE REMOTE CAPABILITIES
OF KIOSKS? AND WE HAVE KIOSKS
THAT EVERY ONE OF OUR SELF HELP
CENTERS SO IF YOU HAVE REMOTE
FOLKS IN GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS
THAT CAN'T ACCESS THE COURTHOUSE
ASSIGNED TO THEY CAN GO TO A
SELF HELP CENTER AND JUMP ON A
KIOSK AND BE ABLE TO CONNECT
FACE TO FACE. THOSE THOSE ARE
JUST EXAMPLES OF WHY THIS IS SO
IMPORTANT TO CONTINUE FUNDING
AND SERVING ALL OF OUR
COMMUNITY. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR
ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THOSE
TOPICS. THANK YOU. ANITA LEE
WITH THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S
OFFICE. UM SO WE TOOK A HOLISTIC
VIEW RELATED TO THESE PROGRAMS,
AND WE DO HAVE THREE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
COMMITTEE'S CONSIDERATION. OUR
FIRST RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE
LEGISLATURE TO DIRECT JUDICIAL
COUNSEL TO CONVENE A WORKING
GROUP TO ASSESS ALL OF THE LEGAL
ASSISTANCE AND SERVICES PROGRAMS
THAT ARE PROVIDED IN THE STATE
AND TO PROVIDE A REPORT BY
JANUARY OF 2027. THIS REPORT
WOULD ASSESS WHERE THESE
PROGRAMS WERE PROVIDED HOW THE
SERVICES WERE PROVIDED, WHERE
THERE MIGHT BE GAPS IN SERVICES.
AND WHERE IMPROVEMENTS COULD BE
MADE TO AVOID DUPLICATION. AND
SO THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT
BECAUSE THERE'S A WIDE ARRAY OF
THESE TYPES OF PROGRAMS THAT ARE
BEING OFFERED AND THEY OPERATE
SEPARATELY FROM ONE ANOTHER, AND
THEY DO RECEIVE STATE AND OTHER
FUNDING, GENERALLY IN A
PIECEMEAL MANNER. IT DOES
INCLUDE PROGRAMS LIKE THE SELF
HELP CENTERS, BUT OTHER PROGRAMS
THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE
THIS COMMITTEE LIKE THE COUNTY
LAW, LIBRARIES, THE SHRIVER
PROGRAM AND THE EQUAL ACCESS
FUND PROGRAMS, AND SO THEY DO
PROVIDE SOME REALLY STRONG
BENEFITS BECAUSE THEY'RE
PROVIDING THEY'RE PROMOTING
EQUITY BY PROVIDING SERVICES TO
LOWER INCOME INDIVIDUALS WHO
CAN'T FOR ATTORNEYS AND CASES
THAT REALLY IMPACT THEM LIKE
CHILD CUSTODY OR EVICTION CASES.
BUT IN THE EVALUATIONS THAT
DEMONSTRATE THE BENEFIT OF THESE
PROGRAMS, THE BENEFITS CAN BE
DIFFERENT BASED ON THE PROGRAM
THAT'S FUNDED. AND SO THAT
RAISES SOME REALLY INTERESTING
QUESTIONS FOR THE LEGISLATURE IN
TERMS OF WHERE TO PUT THE MONEY
SO THAT IT'S ALIGNED WITH
LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES. AND SO
AN EXAMPLE OF THAT IS, UM, THE
SELF HELP CENTERS WHICH ARE
OFFERED IN ALL TRIAL COURTS,
IMPROVE COURT EFFICIENCY BY
REDUCING DELAYS FROM INCOMPLETE
PAPERWORK OR A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
ABOUT THE PROCESS. IN CONTRAST
TO THE SHRIVER PROGRAM, WHICH
PROVIDES LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO
LOWER INCOME INDIVIDUALS IN 11
COURTS GENERATE SOME OTHER
NOTABLE BENEFITS FOR LITIGANTS.
AND SO EVALUATION OF THAT
INDICATED, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT
SHRIVER ATTORNEYS WERE ABLE TO
REDUCE THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT
PEOPLE HAD TO PAY TO RESOLVE
THEIR CASE. AND SO THAT, IN
TURN, INCREASED THE LIKELIHOOD
THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO FIND
REPLACEMENT HOUSING IN THE NEAR
FUTURE. AND SO THAT'S A
DIFFERENT KIND OF BENEFIT. SO
OUR SECOND RECOMMENDATION IS FOR
THE LEGISLATURE TO ALSO REQUIRE
THIS WORKING GROUP TO DEVELOP A
STRATEGIC FUNDING PLAN, ALSO DUE
IN JANUARY OF 2027, AND THIS
FUNDING PLAN WOULD IDENTIFY HOW
WE COULD MAXIMIZE THE USE OF OUR
EXISTING FUNDING TO ACHIEVE THE
BEST BENEFITS TO MINIMIZE ANY
IMPACTS OF FUNDING REDUCTIONS
AND IDENTIFY PRIORITIES FOR
WHERE ADDITIONAL MONEY COULD GO
SO THAT WE COULD INCREASE
SERVICE LEVELS IN A COST
EFFECTIVE MANNER. AND SO THIS
ONE IS REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE
THERE IS A LARGE AMOUNT OF UNMET
NEED THAT LIKELY WILL BE GROWING
. AND SO AN EXAMPLE OF THAT IS
THAT A 2017 STUDY INDICATED THAT
TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN
ADDITIONAL MONEY COULD BE NEEDED
ANNUALLY IF SELF-HELP CENTERS
WERE GOING TO BE FULLY STAFFED.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE. SORT OF LIKE I
MENTIONED IS THAT THE SER
PROGRAMS CURRENTLY ONLY
AVAILABLE IN 11 COURTS, AND SO
IF YOU THINK ABOUT MAXIMIZING
THE USE OF YOUR DOLLARS THAT CAN
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE
SERVED, WHICH IS PARTICULAR.
IMPORTANT IN A BUDGET SITUATION
THAT YOU FIND YOURSELVES IN
WHERE NEW MONIES MAY NOT BE
AVAILABLE. AND SO OUR FINAL
RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE
LEGISLATURE CONSIDER PROVIDING
THIS REQUESTED FUNDING. UM, 19.1
MILLION, BUT ONLY ON A THREE
YEAR BASIS. YOU ARE GONNA WANT
TO WEIGH THIS AGAINST YOUR OTHER
SPENDING PRIORITIES BECAUSE
GIVEN THE STATE'S BUDGET
SITUATION, ANY INCREASED
SPENDING WILL LIKELY REQUIRE, UM
TO BE OFFSET BY REDUCTIONS IN
OTHER PROGRAMS AND SERVICES. BUT
IF WE EVALUATE THIS ONE ON ITS
OWN MERITS, WE DO FIND THAT IT'S
REASONABLE BECAUSE IT MAINTAINS
EXISTING SERVICE LEVELS AND
PROVEN A REDUCTION IN SERVICE.
BUT THE RECOMMEND AND FOR THREE
YEARS OF FUNDING IS BECAUSE THAT
ASSESSMENT PLAN AND THE
STRATEGIC FUNDING PLAN WOULD BE
DUE IN JANUARY OF 2027. AND SO
THAT WOULD THEN PROVIDE THE
LEGISLATURE WITH THE OPPORTUNITY
TO INCORPORATE ALL OF THAT
INFORMATION INTO ITS FUNDING
DECISIONS IN 2728 TO ENSURE THAT
THE FUNDING WAS MAXIMIZED AND
ALIGNED WITH LEGISLATIVE
PRIORITIES. THANK YOU AND HAPPY
TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU,
UM DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. HENRY
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. THE
RESOURCES PROPOSED THE GOVERNS
BUDGET MAKES PERMANENT TO 90
MILLION GENERAL FUND OF THE
CURRENT LEVEL OF FUNDING, UH, TO
MAINTAIN CURRENT SURFACE LEVELS
FOR THESE SELF HELP CENTERS,
WHICH ENDS THIS FISCAL YEAR.
RECOGNIZE L A Ó S¼
RECOMMENDATIONS CONVENE A
WORKING GROUP TO ASSESS STATE BY
LEGAL RESOURCES AND TO FUND THE
PROGRAM ON A LIMITED TERM BASIS.
HOWEVER WE LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL IS CURRENTLY
NOT FUNDED TO CONVENE THIS WORK
GROUP. UH SO THIS RECOMMENDATION
WOULD LIKELY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL
GENERAL FUND. UH, RESOURCES? UH,
POTENTIALLY IN THE LOW MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS, AND OF COURSE, THIS
IS BEYOND WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN
THE GOVERNMENT'S BUDGET.
ENVISION WE WOULD LIKE TO
CONTINUE TO SUPPORT PROVIDING
ONGOING FUNDING FOR HIS
PROPOSAL. SELF HELP CENTERS ARE
AN INTEGRAL PART OF, UH,
COOPERATIONS, UM, AS THEY
PROVIDE SERVICES TO SELF
REPRESENTED LITIGANTS AND
INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT AFFORD AN
ATTORNEY. ARE PROVIDING ONGOING
FUNDING ALSO HELPS THE COURT
BETTER PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. AND
TO THE EXTENT ADJUSTMENTS, UH,
NEED TO BE MADE TO THE FUNDING.
WE CAN DO SO, UH, FOR THE ANNUAL
BUDGET PROCESS, HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. UM DO
WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? SEEING NONE.
UH, I DO. JUST WANNA ASK THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH IF YOU GUYS
WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO L A Ó
S¼ SUGGESTION TO DEVELOP A
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR LEGAL
ASSISTANCE AND LEGAL SERVICE
FUNDING. YES. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. AT THIS POINT, UM, WE
ARE FOCUSED ON PRESERVING OUR
CURRENT LEVEL OF FUNDING. AND SO
WE APPRECIATE THE RECOMMENDATION
THAT IS MADE IN THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET AND RATHER THAN THE
CONTINUING OF CONTINUATION OF
THE LIMITED TERM NATURE OF THE
FUNDING BECAUSE IT PROVIDES
PROGRAM STABILITY IN TERMS OF,
UM THIS OVERVIEW. UM I MEAN, I
THINK THE ONE OF THE ISSUES IS
RESOURCE LIMITATIONS. BUT WE DO
UNDERSTAND WE ARE PART OF A AN
OVERALL SYSTEM. BUT TO THE
EXTENT THAT THERE IS A DESIRE TO
MOVE FORWARD ON ANY SORT OF
ANALY SUGGESTED BY THE LE Ó. WE
WOULD NEED RESOURCES TO DO THAT.
AND IN THIS GENERAL FUND
ENVIRONMENT THAT MIGHT BE A
CHALLENGE OK AND THEN WHICH
PROGRAMS ARE AVAILABLE TO
UNDOCUMENTED INDIVIDUALS. UM,
I'LL TURN THAT OVER TO RESPOND.
SELF HELP CENTERS ARE, UM AND WE
HAVE, UM AGREEMENTS FOR ANYBODY
WHO IS WORKING IN EQUAL ACCESS
SPACE TO HAVE, UH HAVE, UH,
PERSONNEL WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO
TREAT UH, AN IMMIGRANTS AND NORA
DU NON DOCUMENTED PEOPLE, SO
THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO
UNDOCUMENTED INDIVIDUALS. TO THE
EXTENT THAT THERE ARE ANY
LIMITATIONS, UM, BASED ON SAFE
FEDERAL FUNDING, THERE ARE
AVENUES FOR FOLKS TO HAVE ACCESS
TO SERVICES. UM I'M A BIG
PROPONENT OF SELF-HELP AND THE
ONLINE SERVICES JUST BECAUSE
PEOPLE REALLY DO WORK, THEY
CANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE AS MUCH
TIME AS SOMETIMES YOU GUYS
REQUEST. UM OFF AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE, STREAMLINING IT TO
SENATOR SERA'S PREVIOUS POINTS
IN THE LAST ISSUE. I AGREE THAT
IF WE MAKE THESE INVESTMENTS,
OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO MAKE PROPER
INVESTMENTS THAT HELP THE
COMMUNITY. UM BUT IF WE ARE NOT
MEASURING OUR SUCCESS, UH
THERE'S NÓ POINT OF FUNDING
SOMETHING RIGHT. SO MAKING SURE
THAT ONE WE KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE
WE SERVE. WHAT ARE THE OUTCOMES?
SO WE ALSO ARE ABLE TO
POTENTIALLY TRACK BIAS. UM THAT
LET'S SAY IF ALL ONLINE UH, SELF
HELP OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
WE'RE ALL DENIED DENIED DENIED
FOUND GUILTY, FOUND GUILTY FOUND
GUILTY THAT'S A CLEAR BIAS,
RIGHT? SO WE JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE HAVE THOSE METRICS
AND TRANSPARENCY IN WHAT WE'RE
DOING SO MOVING FORWARD. JUST
WE'VE DONE TWO BENEFIT COST
ANALYSIS RELATED TO THIS FUNDING
THAT WE CAN PROVIDE TO THE
COMMITTEE AT LEAST DEMONSTRATING
WHAT WE HAVE GATHERED. IT MAY
NOT INCLUDE EVERYTHING BUT WE
HAVE DONE. WE HAVE BEEN A COST
BENEFIT. IT'S ALSO JUST AGAIN
THE OUTCOMES OF THE INDIVIDUAL
CASES, TOO, AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL
, RIGHT, SO IF THERE'S 1000
CASES AND YOU KNOW 800 ARE ALL
FOUND GUILTY, YOU KNOW, LET'S
TAKE A LOOK AT EXACTLY WHAT'S
GOING ON. SENATOR Dð RAZO CHAIR.
I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR
THIS SELF HELP CENTERS. UH I
TOOK A TOUR OF A VISIT OF, UH,
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT, UM,
AND WENT THROUGH THAT AND, UH, I
THINK WHAT'S HARD I. I REALLY
APPRECIATE. UM AS THE CHAIR SAID
, THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO,
UM REPRESENT THEM REPRESENT
THEMSELVES. UM, HOPEFULLY AT
SOME POINT WE CAN GET A BETTER
IDEA OF THE QUALITY OF THE SELF
REPRESENTATION AND HOW THAT MAY
NOT BE IDENTICAL TO HAVING AN
ACTUAL ATTORNEY. BUT UM, IT'S
MORE THAN NOT HAVING AN ATTORNEY
, I IT WORRIES ME WHEN I SEE
THAT, UM 90 3% OF TENANTS ARE
UNREPRESENTED, BUT 81% OF
LANDLORDS ARE REPRESENTED THAT
SO IT'S SOME OTHER POINT. MAYBE
WE CAN GET A BETTER IDEA OF HOW
IT RESULTS IN ACTUAL UM, BENEFIT
TO THAT PERSON. YOU KNOW HOW AND
I'M NOT SURE HOW TO MEASURE THAT
SURE. AND SENATOR I WOULD INVITE
ANY OF THE COMMITTEE. UM CHAIR
WILL HAVE ANY OF YOU TO VISIT
WITH US. AS SHELLY SHARED WITH
YOU. WE WANT TO BE PARTNERS IN
THE SOLUTIONS AND YOU'RE
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THE SELF HELP
CENTERS HAVE MULTIPLE WORKSHOPS
BECAUSE SO MANY OF THEM IN THE
MAJORITY ARE ALL SELF
REPRESENTED. LITIGANTS UM AND SO
WE HAVE EVICTION OUR UNLAWFUL
DETAINER WORKSHOPS AT ALL OF THE
DIFFERENT SELF HELP CENTERS. UM
AND DURING THAT METRIC IS SO
IMPORTANT TO US AND I KNOW
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ALSO
COLLECT, AND WE UTILIZE TO MAKE
BETTER POLICY AND BETTER
DECISION. SO AGAIN. I'M I'M
AVAILABLE TO ANY OF THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND WOULD BE
MORE THAN HAPPY TO SIT DOWN AND
SHARE. THANK YOU, UH, WE'LL MOVE
ON TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT PROPOSED
REDUCTION OF THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL FIREARM, RELINQUISHMENT
GRANT. WE'RE FIRST GOING TO HEAR
AGAIN FROM YOU, SIR. IN THIS
INSTANCE WE'RE GONNA TURN TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE TO RESPOND
TO THE PROPOSAL AS WELL AS SOME
OTHER QUESTIONS AS IT RELATES TO
A B 28 IMPLEMENTATION. THANK
YOU. AHEAD. DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. UH, I'LL PROVIDE AN
OVERVIEW OF THIS PROPOSAL AND
THEN, UH, AND TURN IT BACK TO MY
COLLEAGUES JUDICIAL COUNCIL FOR
DETAILS, BUT THE GOVERN BUDGET
DOES INCLUDE A GENERAL FUND
REDUCTION OF 20 MILLION FOR THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL FIREARM FIREARM
RELINQUISHMENT GRANT PROGRAM.
WHEN DETERMINING GENERAL FUND
SOLUTIONS. THE ADMINISTRATION
LOOKED AT AT GRANTS FUNDED ON A
ONE TIME BASIS AND FUNDS THAT
HAVE NOT YET BEEN ENCUMBERED AT
THIS TIME. THIS PROPOSED
REDUCTION REFLECTS THE CURRENT
AMOUNT OF UNENCUMBERED FUNDS FOR
THIS PROGRAM. UH, WE ALSO DID
RECENTLY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION
, UH, CHAPTER OF LEGISLATION A B
28 WHEN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSED
REDUCTION. MAYBE 28 ESTABLISHES
IN A 11% EXCISE TAX ON FIREARM
SALES ALLOCATE █50 MILLION
ANNUALLY TO THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
TO SUPPORT FIREARM
RELINQUISHMENT GRANT PROGRAMS.
UH SO WE, UM A B 28 GOING INTO
EFFECT ON JULY 1 2024, THE BOARD
OF STATE AND COMMUNITY
CORRECTIONS WILL RECEIVE A B 20
FUNDING IN 2024 25. THEN THE
OTHER DEPARTMENTS WILL RECEIVE
ALLOCATIONS IN 2025 26. ONCE
REVENUE DATA IS AVAILABLE TO
DETERMINE HOW MUCH ALLOCATE TO
THIS OTHER DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING
TO THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL. WE ARE
CURRENTLY WORKING ON REVENUE
ESTIMATES, AND WE LIKE TO
PROVIDE AN UPDATE IN THE MAY
REVISION. THANK YOU. AND THEN
I'LL TURN TO MY COLLEAGUE DON
WILL TO RESPOND TO SOME
QUESTIONS THAT THE STAFF HAD
ASKED AND WANTED US TO, UH,
ADDRESS IN TERMS OF THE STATUS
OF THE PROGRAM. MHM. THANK YOU,
UM, THE AGENDA MATERIALS ARE
VERY COMPLETE. THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL HAS UH, CURRENTLY
ENCUMBERED 20 MILLION OF THE
FIREARM RELINQUISHMENT GRANTS TO
EIGHT COURTS THAT WAS THROUGH
TWO SOLICITATION CYCLES.
CONDUCTED A THIRD SOLICITATION
CYCLE THAT, UM RECEIVED A TOTAL
OF $9 MILLION ADDITIONAL
APPLICATIONS FROM SIX ADDITIONAL
COURTS. IN ONE EXISTING COURT.
WE SUSPENDED THAT APPLICATION
CYCLE. UM THE WE HAVE ALSO
SUSPENDED THE SOLICITATION FOR
THE MANDATORY EVALUATION. FOR
THE LEGISLATIVE REPORT. THAT IS
DO AT THE END OF THE PROJECT. WE
DO EXPECT TO INCUR SOME COSTS
THROUGH THE END OF THE EXISTING
AWARD CYCLES TO MANAGE THESE
PROGRAMS AND TO DO THE GRANTS
ACCOUNTING. AND I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU,
Ó. IN ITALY WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST OFFICE. WE
JUST HAVE SOME OVERARCHING
COMMENTS FOR THE COMMITTEE'S
CONSIDERATION. SO CHAPTER 231
DOES GENERALLY IMPOSE A NEW 11%
EXCISE TAX ON THE GROCE. RETAIL
SALES OF FIREARMS. FIREARM
PRECURSOR PARTS, UM, AND
AMMUNITION BEGINNING JULY OF
THIS YEAR. THOSE MONIES ARE
SUPPOSED TO BE COLLECTED AND
SUBMITTED TO THE STATE QUARTERLY
AS IT WAS GOING THROUGH THE
POLICY PROCESS. THE PRELIMINARY
ESTIMATES WERE THAT 159 MILLION
COULD BE GENERATED ANNUALLY.
AFTER DEDUCTING ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS CHAPTER 231 OR A B 28 ALSO
SPECIFIED THAT THESE MONIES BE
USED TO SUPPORT SEVEN SPECIFIC
PROGRAMS AND PURPOSES IN A
PARTICULAR PRIORITY ORDER. UM
CAPPED KIND OF THE AMOUNT THAT
WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EACH OF THOSE
PROGRAMS AND REQUIRED THE
FUNDING FOR ALL BUT ONE OF THE
PROGRAMS BE SUBJECT TO
LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION. AND
SO AS IT RELATES TO THIS ISSUE,
UM THE THIRD FUNDING PRIORITY
SPECIFIED IN THE LEGISLATION WAS
UP TO 15. AND FOR A COURT BASED
RELINQUISHMENT FIREARMS GRANT
PROGRAM, WHICH WAS SOMETHING
THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
MENTIONED. I THINK THE KEY THING
THAT WE WOULD FLAG FOR THE
COMMITTEE IS THAT THE PROPOSED
BUDGET GENERALLY DOESN'T INCLUDE
EXPENDITURES IN 2024 25 OF THESE
REVENUES, AND THAT WOULD ALL BE
PUSHED TO 2526. AND SO AS I KIND
OF MENTIONED THE TAX GOES INTO
EFFECT JULY OF THIS YEAR, WHICH
MEANS THAT MONIES COULD BE
AVAILABLE, AND SO THE
LEGISLATURE COULD CONSIDER
WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO MAKE
APPROPRIATIONS IN 2024 20. FIVE
FOR ANY OF THESE ELIGIBLE
PROGRAMS BECAUSE THAT MIGHT
OFFSET, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
REDUCTION PROPOSED IN THIS ITEM.
THE ONE THING THAT WE WOULD NOTE
IS THAT ACTUAL REVENUES WHEN
THEY COME IN MIGHT BE HIGHER OR
LOWER THAN THAT $159 MILLION
ESTIMATE. SO TO THE EXTENT YOU
WERE INTERESTED IN APPROPRIATING
FUNDING FOR THESE, WE WOULD
SUGGEST, POTENTIALLY MAYBE
APPROPRIATING LESS THAN THE
MAXIMUM AMOUNT JUST IN CASE
REVENUES ARE LOWER THAN
EXPECTED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
FINANCE NOTHING MEMBERS.
SENATORS. YEAH. SO ON THE
RELINQUISHMENT PROGRAM. WE HAVE
NÓ TRACK RECORD NOW BECAUSE WE
HAVEN'T USED THIS MONEY YET. OR
DO WE HAVE THE RELIEF IN WHICH
RELINQUISHMENT PROGRAM IN PLACE
AND HAVE A TRACK RECORD OF HOW
MUCH WE ARE BENEFITING FROM
THAT? UM, THERE ARE A COURTS WHO
ARE FUNDED AND ARE, UM SOME OF
THERE ARE VARIOUS STAGES IN
THEIR PROGRAMS. THEY TAKE A
WHILE TO SET UP BECAUSE IT
INVOLVES MULTIPLE AGENCY
COORDINATIONS. SO WE, UM WE'RE
BEGINNING TO ESTABLISH A TRACK
RECORD. WE ARE IN MAYBE MONTHS,
TWO OF DATA COLLECTION ON WHAT
THEY'RE MANAGING TO. FIREARM
RELINQUISHMENT. OK BECAUSE THIS
IS IN OUR IN TERMS OF OUR GUN
ISSUES. UH, THIS IS ONE PROGRAM
THAT ACTUALLY FOCUSES ON THE
PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO
BE HAVING GUNS AND GETTING THEM
FROM THEM. UH, ONE OF MY
CONCERNS IS ON OUR REVENUE
PROJECTIONS. UH, COMING UP. UM
WELL, IF YOU'RE A SMART PERSON,
YOU'RE YOU'RE GONNA BUY YOUR
STUFF BEFORE THE TAX GOES INTO
EFFECT. AND UH AND THEN, AFTER
THAT, YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING
TO BUY IT IN CALIFORNIA. AND SO
OUR PROJECTIONS ARE GOING TO BE
AFFECTED BY THAT. HAS ANYBODY
TAKEN THAT INTO CONSIDERATION
AND IN TERMS OF WORKING WITH, UH
PERSONS WHO ARE IN GUN SHOPS TO
SEE WHAT THEIR UH UM BECAUSE
THEY'LL HAVE A SURGE BEFORE THE
TAX. AND THEN THERE'LL BE A
PERIOD OF TIME WHERE THEY
PROBABLY WILL HAVE A DROP OFF.
THERE WE GO. UH, EMMA JUNGER
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. UM YOU
KNOW, I AM NOT IN OUR REVENUE
PROJECTION UNIT AT FINANCE, BUT
I CAN DEFINITELY TAKE YOUR
QUESTION BACK AND SEE. UM UH
WHAT THEY TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION WHEN DEVELOPING
THE REVENUE ESTIMATES. I THINK,
AS MY COLLEAGUE MENTIONED, WE
WILL HAVE AN UPDATE IN THE MAY
REVISION, SO WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE
MORE DETAIL TO SHARE WITH YOU.
MY CONCERN IS THAT WE'RE
DEPENDING ON THAT REVENUE TO
FUND SOME VERY IMPORTANT
PROGRAMS. AND IF THAT REVENUE
DOESN'T COME IN THOSE FUNDS
THOSE FUNDS AREN'T THERE AND,
UH, IN THE PROGRAMS WIND UP
GETTING SQUISHED. SO UH, ANYWAY,
UM, I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU
FOLLOW UP WITH, UH, MY OFFICE ON
THAT. AND UH, LET ME KNOW HOW
THOSE PROJECTIONS HAVE COME. YOU
KNOW HOW WHAT THEY CONSIDERED IN
THOSE THINGS. THANK YOU. MOVING
ON TO ISSUE NUMBER NINE CAPITAL
OUTLAY AND FACILITIES. UM YOU'VE
GOT FIVE MINUTES AGAIN. I WILL
AND I'LL BE QUICK AND MAKE SURE
I HAVE TIME FOR MY CLOG
COLLEAGUE. UH, PAULA MCCORMICK
TO COME UP AND TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT SO FIRST, UH, THERE'S THE
AGENDA DOES A NICE JOB OF, UH
UM, LAYING OUT THE THREE ITEMS
THAT ARE BEFORE YOU IN TERMS OF
A NEW COURTHOUSE FOR THE SEX,
THE SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT IN
SUNNYVALE. UM WE HAVE, UH, AN
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF
THE NEW COURTHOUSE. AND FINALLY,
SOME BACKFILL OF SOME DECLINING
FINES AND FEE REVENUES INTO A
CRITICAL STATE COURT FACILITIES
CONSTRUCTION FUND. UM TO SAY
BROADLY THAT OVER THE LAST
DECADE, UM REVENUES IN OUR IN
SOME OF OUR CORE FUNDS, NOT ONLY
JUST THIS FACILITIES FUND BUT
OUR TRIAL COURT OPERATIONS FUNDS
HAVE DECLINED AND THE STATE
POLICY HAS BEEN TO BACKFILL
THOSE THOSE DECLINING REVENUES.
AND SO THEY'RE ABSENT. THESE
BACKFILL, UH, PROGRAMS WOULD
HAVE TO CEASE AND ACCESS TO
JUSTICE WOULD BE IMPACTED. SO
NOT GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO
MISS MCCORMICK TO TALK ABOUT, UM
, THE MORE DETAIL OF THE
PROPOSALS. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
I'M FOW MCCORMICK, DIRECTOR OF
FACILITY SERVICES AT JUDICIAL
COUNCIL. THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL'S
FACILITIES PROGRAMS MISSION IS
TO PROVIDE UNIFORMLY SAFE,
SECURE AND WELL MAINTAINED COURT
FACILITIES. THE PROGRAM STRIVES
TO OPTIMIZE PREVENTATIVE
MAINTENANCE FUNDING, REDUCE THE
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE BACKLOG AND
REPLACE SUBSTANDARD ANTIQUATED
FACILITIES WITH MODERN
COURTHOUSES. THE FACILITY
PROGRAM COMPLETES APPROXIMATELY
1500 FACILITY MODIFICATION
PROJECTS AND 100,000 MAINTENANCE
SERVICE ORDERS ANNUALLY IN THE
OVER 450 FACILITIES IN THE
PORTFOLIO. CALIFORNIA'S
COURTHOUSES ARE AGING. THE
OLDEST COURTHOUSE IN CALIFORNIA
IS THE 170 YEAR OLD MARIPOSA
COUNTY COURTHOUSE. MORE THAN 30
FACILITIES ARE OVER 100 YEARS
OLD. AN ADDITIONAL 150
COURTHOUSES ARE OVER 50 YEARS
OLD, WITH INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS
THAT ARE AT OR BEYOND THE END OF
USEFUL LIFE. AN ADDITIONAL 142
COURT FACILITIES ARE OVER 35
YEARS OLD AND ANITA RENOVATIONS
OR REPLACEMENT DURING FISCAL
YEAR 20 THREE 24 CAPITAL
PROJECTS FOR SHASTA, GLEN AND
IMPERIAL COUNTIES OPEN TO THE
PUBLIC. ADDITIONALLY THE REAR
SIDE MINI PROJECT IS SCHEDULED
TO OPEN IN JUNE OF 2024. AND
PROJECTS FOR STANISLAUS,
SACRAMENTO, SONOMA AND RIVERSIDE
. INDIO WILL COMPLETE IN FISCAL
YEAR 2425. THESE PROJECTS WILL
ACTIVATE 130 COURTROOMS AND
VACATE 21 SUBSTANDARD
FACILITIES. THE 2425 CAPITAL.
PROJECT REQUESTS INCLUDE DESIGN
BUILD PHASES FOR THE SIX
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN
SUNNYVALE. SANTA CLARA COUNTY
FUNDING IS ALSO REQUESTED FOR
THE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
FOR THE STANISLAUS NEW MODESTA
COURTHOUSE, WHICH WILL COMPLETE
CONSTRUCTION AND FISCAL YEAR
2425. THE 2425 FIVEYEAR
INFRASTRUCTURE PROPOSAL REFLECTS
THE CURRENT FINANCIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES AND WILL
SIGNIFICANTLY SLOW THE
COMPLETION RATE FOR COURTHOUSE
PROJECTS. 10 PREVIOUSLY
APPROPRIATED PROJECTS WILL
COMPLETE CURRENT ACQUISITION OR
DESIGN PHASES AND THEN BE PLACED
ON HOLD. UNTIL A FUTURE FUNDING
YEAR. THERE ARE AN ADDITIONAL 69
OTHER PROJECTS ON THE STATEWIDE
LIST WAITING FOR APPROPRIATIONS.
ADDITIONALLY THE BUTTE JUVENILE
COURT RENOVATION AND COURTROOM
BUILD OUT PROJECTS IN KING
SOUTHERN SAN JOAQUIN COURTS WILL
ALSO COMPLETE DESIGN AND BE
PLACED ON HOLD UNTIL GENERAL F
REVENUE STABILIZE THE FACILITIES
PROGRAM IS POISED TO CONTINUE
PROVIDING ASSET MANAGEMENT
OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, REAL
ESTATE PLANNING AND OTHER
FACILITY SERVICES TO THE COURTS.
YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT OF THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL'S FACILITY
PROGRAM. IS APPRECIATED. AND I'M
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, L. A Ó? NOTHING
FINANCE. NOTHING, MEMBERS.
NOTHING. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
WE ARE MOVING ON TO PUBLIC
COMMENTS, UH, TO ENSURE THAT
EVERYONE HAS A CHANCE TO BE
HEARD. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR
COMMENTS TO 30 SECONDS. AND IF
SOMEONE ELSE HAS MADE A SIMILAR
COMMENT, PLEASE JUST SAY ME TOO.
UH, WE'LL BEGIN PUBLIC COMMENTS
NOW, PLEASE. FIRST PERSON,
PLEASE SHOW UP. YEAH. GOOD
MORNING. BRENDAN WOODS, PUBLIC
DEFENDER OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, AND
I'M HERE TO ASK YOU TO RESTORE
THE FUNDING TO THE PUBLIC
DEFENSE PILOT PROGRAM. PUBLIC
DEFENDERS, THEIR CLIENTS YOUR
CLIENTS, FAMILIES COUNTIES.
THROUGHOUT THE STATE ARE RELYING
AND DEPENDING ON THIS FUNDING
AND THIS PROGRAM ACTUALLY SAVES
THE STATE MONEY. AND ALLOWED TO
COUNTY ALONE IN LESS THAN TWO
YEARS. WE WERE SENTENCED TO
STATE THE STATE 908 YEARS IN
INCARCERATION COST. OUR COUNTY
RECEIVED $4 MILLION AND USING
THE L A Ó S¼ MARGINAL COST. WE
SAVE THE STATE $13.6 MILLION.
THANK YOU. CAN I SAY ONE MORE
THING. GO AHEAD. 90% OF OUR
CLIENTS THAT WERE RESENTED WERE
PEOPLE OF COLOR. PLEASE RESTORE
THE FUNDING. THANK YOU. MY NAME
IS TRACY OLSEN. I'M THE CHIEF
PUBLIC DEFENDER OF YOLO COUNTY.
YOLO COUNTY RECEIVED $568,000 IN
THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE
PILOT. UM GRANT, WE RETURN 5.5
MILLION AS A RETURN ON
INVESTMENT. THE YEAR TWO ENDED
LAST YEAR OR LAST MONTH. IT
ENDED IN MARCH. AND SO RIGHT NOW
, EITHER I'M GOING TO BE
CONTINUING THIS WORK OR I'M
GOING TO BE WRITING LETTERS TO
CLIENTS, TELLING THEM I CAN'T
HELP THEM AND I DON'T KNOW IF
ANYONE THAT CAN SO PLEASE RETAIN
YOUR THREE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, JOHN SOON
WITH THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
UH, POST TO THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
PILOT PROGRAM CUT. I JUST WANTED
TO SHARE THAT, ACCORDING TO THE
STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER, UH, THIS
PROGRAM HAS SAVED THREE $125
MILLION, REDUCING THE STATE'S
PRISON POPULATION, UM, FOR THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, COUNTY
ATTORNEYS, PARALEGALS AND SOCIAL
WORKERS HAVE WORKED TIRELESSLY
TO SECURE THE RELEASE OR
RESENTENCING OR REDUCTION. UH,
SENTENCE REDUCTIONS FOR OVER
2500 RESIDENTS RETURNING OVER
10,000 YEARS OF TIME OF
INCARCERATION. UM AND FINALLY,
WE CURRENTLY HAVE 3000 CASES
OUTSTANDING. THAT WOULD BE
AFFECTED BY THE CUTS OF THIS.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS ELIZABETH
ESPINOSA HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF
FOUR COUNTY BOARDS OF
SUPERVISORS IN THE COUNTIES OF
SANTA BARBARA, VENTURA, CONTRA
COSTA AND RIVERSIDE, AS WELL AS
THE URBAN COUNTIES OF
CALIFORNIA, THE 14 LARGEST
COUNTIES IN THE STATE, ADDING MY
VOICE TO THOSE WHO ARE
ENCOURAGING YOU TO RESTORE THE
FUNDING TO THE PUBLIC DEFENSE
PILOT PROGRAM. THANK YOU. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS PAT MORAN WITH AARON
REID AND ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING
THE ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, WERE OPPOSED TO THE
REMOTE PROCEEDINGS. TRAILER BILL
, UM UNTIL IT IS AMENDED TO
INCLUDE PROTECTIONS FOR COURT
REPORTERS, COURT CLERKS THAT
THERE'S ADEQUATE REMOTE
TECHNOLOGY IN THE COURTROOMS
ONLY 19 OUT OF 125 COURTROOMS IN
ORANGE COUNTY ARE OUTFITTED
ADEQUATELY TO HAVE REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS. WE'RE ALSO OPPOSED
TO GOING FROM 3% TO A 5% RESERVE
CAP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS MIKE BELOTE,
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION,
CALIFORNIA DEFENSE COUNSEL AND
WITH PERMISSION THE CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA ON THE
REMOTE APPEARANCE ISSUE. WE
DON'T DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING. OF
COURSE, THERE SHOULD BE AN
ACCURATE RECORD. OF COURSE, WE
SHOULD LISTEN TO OUR
PROFESSIONALS IN THE COURTROOM,
BUT BY AND LARGE, IT'S WORKING.
IT'S GETTING BETTER. THE
PANDEMIC HAS REFINED IT, UH, IT
IS SAVING MONEY FOR LITIGANTS
AND THE COURT. IT'S GETTING, UH,
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS AND
OPTION MOST PROCEEDING. ARE NOT
JURY TRIALS. MOST ARE ROUTINE,
AND THIS IS ENABLING THEM. THANK
YOU. EMILY BERGFELD, DIRECTOR OF
THE ALAMEDA COUNTY LAW LIBRARY
OVER 600,000. CALIFORNIANS A
YEAR RELY ON THE SPECIALIZED
LEGAL RESEARCH TOOLS, TECHNOLOGY
ACCESS AND ONE ON ONE SUPPORT OF
ASSISTANCE THAT IS AVAILABLE
FREE TO THE PUBLIC ONLY AT
COUNTY LAW LIBRARIES TO LEARN
ABOUT THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS, MEET
LEGAL CHALLENGES, DRAFT LEGAL
DOCUMENTS AND PREPARE FOR COURT
LAW. LIBRARIES HELP THE PUBLIC
WITH THE FULL SPECTRUM OF LEGAL
ISSUES, AND ANYONE IS ELIGIBLE
TO USE OUR SERVICES ON DEMAND
AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION. POLICE
PROTECT THE FUTURE OF EQUAL
ACCESS TO HIGH QUALITY LEGAL
INFORMATION FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS
BY FUNDING CALIFORNIA'S NETWORK
OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARIES. I'M
ROGER WYN, DIRECTOR OF SANTA
CLARA COUNTY LAW LIBRARY. I'M
HERE TO COMMENT. ISSUE NUMBER
SEVEN Kò L LIBRARIES ARE A VITAL
AND UNIQUE PART OF THE LEGAL
SAFETY NET AND THE ONLY RESOURCE
THAT SUPPORTS THE LEGAL RESEARCH
NEEDS OF THE MOST VULNERABLE
CALIFORNIANS. WE PROVIDE SAFE
SPACES, RESEARCH TOOLS, TREES,
NATIVE ISSUE SUCH AS WESTLAW
LEXUS, AND WE PROVIDE GUIDANCE
TO THE U S¼. IN FACT, THE ONLY
ACCESS TO THE LAW THAT MANY
CALIFORNIANS HAVE FOR MINISTRY
PROCESS TO IMMIGRATION TO DRAFT
PLEADINGS MOTION. WE SERVED
OTHERS THAT THEY CANNOT SERVE
THEMSELVES FINDING ONE PIECE OF
LEGAL SAFETY. NOT MEND A LARGE
HOLE THAT EXISTS IN THE REST. WE
APPRECIATE AND SUPPORT
RECOGNITION. THE RESEARCH. UH,
GOOD MORNING, JOSH GALLER ON
BEHALF OF THE CHIEF PROBATION
OFFICERS OF CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT OF THE POST RELEASE,
COMMITTEE SUPERVISION FUNDING
DISCUSSED IN B S¼ èC èC S¼
ISSUE FOUR WHEN A SUBSET OF THE
STATE PRISON POPULATION WITH
PRIOR SERIOUS OR VIOLENT
CONVICTIONS ARE RELEASED EARLY
FROM STATE PRISON AS A RESULT OF
PROPOSITION 57 CREDIT EARNING
ENHANCEMENTS. THE STATE RELIES
ON PROBATION DEPARTMENTS TO BE
SUCCESSFUL WITH THEIR REENTRY
SERVICES AND SUPERVISION. THIS
FUNDING HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO
PROMOTE THAT SUCCESS. THIS IS
NOT A CASHFLOW ISSUE. THIS IS
DIRECT FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS AND
SERVICES FOR THIS POPULATION.
THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION.
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR AND
SENATORS. ERIN NLA, REPRESENTING
GIFFORDS ON BEHALF OF ITEM EIGHT
IN YOUR AGENDA. UM WE URGED THE
REST THE RESTORATION OF THAT
FUNDING AND TO ANSWER UM
SENATORS ARTOS QUESTION IN JUST
ONE COUNTY ALONE. THERE WERE 246
SEIZURES OF FIREARMS, JUST ONE
OF THE EIGHT COUNTIES. WE REALLY
APPRECIATE THE LEGISLATURE'S
SUPPORT IN THE PAST. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING CHAIR
AND MEMBERS REBECCA MARCUS,
REPRESENTING THE BRADY CAMPAIGN
BRADY, CALIFORNIA AND THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION POLICY
CENTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN
DIEGO SCHOOL OF LAW, JUST
ECHOING OUR MY CO THE COMMENTS
OF MY COLLEAGUE FROM GIFFORDS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS. KATHY
SUNDERLAND MCDONALD ON BEHALF OF
THE ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, URGING MAINTENANCE
OF THE THIRD YEAR OF THE PUBLIC
DEFENSE PILOT PROGRAM. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS. I'M MIKE
DOCTOR OFF. I'M A SENIOR STAFF
ATTORNEY AT THE A. èC LU OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA HERE TODAY
ON BEHALF OF A èC LU CALIFORNIA
ACTION TO URGE YOU TO REJECT THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL TO CUT THE
PUBLIC DEFENSE PILOT PROGRAM,
CALIFORNIA IS ALREADY
DANGEROUSLY OUT OF STEP WITH THE
REST OF THE NATION WHEN IT COMES
TO THE PROVISION OF INDIGENT
DEFENSE FUNDING THE PUBLIC
DEFENSE PILOT PROGRAM A MEAGER
AMOUNT WHEN COMPARED WITH OTHER
STATES INVESTMENTS REPRESENTS
THE VAST MAJOR OF STATE FUNDING
FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE IN THIS STATE
. CUTTING THIS FUNDING WILL
EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATE STATE
FUNDING PUBLIC DEFENSE. PLEASE
RESTORE IT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. I'M CHARLENE DEWITT ON
BEHALF OF LEGAL SERVICES OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA IN FAVOR OF
EXPANDING THE ABILITY TO APPEAR
REMOTELY IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS.
THIS HAS BEEN AN ENORMOUSLY
USEFUL TOOL FOR OUR FEDERALLY
FUNDED GRANT FUNDED PROJECT,
ESPECIALLY SINCE WE SERVE 20
THREE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
COUNTIES. THIS IS INCREASE THE
ABILITY OF US TO REPRESENT LOW
INCOME CLIENTS ACROSS OUR
SERVICE AREA AND IMPROVED THEIR
ABILITY TO ACCESS SERVICES,
PARTICULARLY IN REMOTE AREAS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, NAIA HERNANDEZ. I HAVE
MULTIPLE CLIENTS MULTIPLE ISSUES
. I'LL DO MY BEST, UH, FIRST
ISSUE. CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE STATEWIDE
ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE
LAWYERS, PRIVATE PRACTICE AND
PUBLIC DEFENDERS. UM, JUST ECHO
OF PRESERVING THE FUNDING FOR
PUBLIC DEFENDER PILOT PROJECT,
UM, ON THE REMOTE PROCEEDINGS ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA COURT
REPORTERS ASSOCIATION. THEY'RE
ALL STILL A LOT OF
INCONSISTENCIES AND PROBLEMS
WITHOUT REMOTE PROCEEDINGS ARE
BEING HANDLED. IF YOU LOOK AT
THE DATA IN THE REPORT, IT'S A
VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF FOLKS
WHO ACTUALLY HAVE REPORTED, UM,
IN THE DATA. I THINK IT WAS LIKE
TWO OR 3. SO THERE ARE LOT OF
PROBLEMS THAT REMAIN ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF
INTERPRETERS. THERE ARE STILL
PROBLEMS AND ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL JUSTICE.
THERE ARE STILL PROBLEMS WITH NÓ
PROCEEDINGS. THANK YOU. IN THE
COLE WERTMAN ON BEHALF OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS IN SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ALSO
IN OPPOSITION TO THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER. CUT UH THE REALITY IS
THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO RECEIVE
THE FUNDING IN MARCH, AND NOW
THEY HAVE THE OPTION AS TO
WHETHER TO FIRE STAFF AND DELAY
OPTIONS OF JUSTICE FOR PRIMARILY
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, OR, UH,
KEEP GOING AND HOPE THE
LEGISLATURE RESOURCE THE
FUNDING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
SANDRA BORRERO ON BEHALF OF S¼,
èC IU, CALIFORNIA I ALIGN
MYSELF WITH MR MORAN'S COMMENTS
ON REMOTE PROCEEDINGS, AND I
ALSO WANT TO ADD THAT COURTS ARE
EXPERIENCING HIGH VACANCIES AND
CLERKS AND CORE REPORTED
POSITIONS AND BEFORE WE INCREASE
THE RESERVE CAP, WE SHOULD LOOK
AT WHAT COURTS ARE DOING WITH
FUNDING FOR THOSE VACANCIES.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, JAMES
O'MALLEY WITH ASK ME, CALIFORNIA
. WE ALSO REPRESENT CORE
REPORTERS CO. I Tð WORKERS,
COURT CLERKS, ECHOING THE
ECHOING OF THE COMMENTS, UH FROM
, UH PORAN AND SANDRA BARRERO
APPRECIATE THE RECOGNITION FROM
MEMBERS ON THE DÍAS THAT THERE
IS A DIFFERENCE ON PERSPECTIVE
ON REMOTE COURTS, AND WE ARE
JUST ASKING FOR, UH, GUARDRAILS
AND SAFEGUARDS WHEN IT COMES TO
ACCURATE, VERBATIM RECORDS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
CHAIR COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND
STAFF RYAN WARM UNION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES. UM, HERE IN REGARDS TO
ISSUE TWO AND FOUR. YOU KNOW, I
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS EARLIER
FROM SENATOR NEWMAN TO SENATOR
Dð RAO AROUND THE IMPORTANCE OF
FUNDING THE THIRD AND FINAL YEAR
OF THE PUBLIC DEFENSE PILOT
PROGRAM AND ALSO ECHOING THE
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS
. UM AND THEN IN REGARDS TO
ISSUE NUMBER FOUR IN SUPPORT OF
THE FUNDING THE $4.4 MILLION IN
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET
FOR THE POST RELEASE COMMUNITY
SUPERVISION FOR COUNTY
PROBATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
SO HAVING HEARD FROM PUBLIC
COMMENTS MEMBERS. ARE THERE ANY
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? COMMENTS
SEEING NONE. THANK YOU FOR ALL
THE INDIVIDUALS WHO PARTICIPATE
IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY TODAY. IF
YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO TESTIFY TODAY
, PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS OR
SUGGESTIONS IN WRITING TO THE
BUDGET, UH, AND FISCAL REVIEW
COMMITTEE OR VISIT OUR WEBSITE.
YOUR COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
ARE IMPORTANT TO US, AND WE WANT
TO INCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY. THANK
YOU FOR EVERYONE'S
PARTICIPATION. WE CONCLUDE THE
AGENDA FOR TODAY'S HEARING. THE
SENATE, UH, BUDGETS OF FIVE IS
ADJOURNED.