OKAY, LET'S GET STARTED. THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS,
PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT WILL COME TO ORDER.
GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. HAPPY
MONDAY MORNING. WE HAVE FIVE
BILLS ON TODAY'S AGENDA TO, FILE
ITEM TWO, WHICH IS SB 1468 BY
SENATOR OCHOA. BOGH IS PROPOSED
FOR CONSENT. SO WE WILL GET TO
THAT WHEN WE CAN ESTABLISH A
QUORUM. WE'LL WAIT ON ROLL CALL
TIL WE GET A FEW MORE FOLKS
HERE, AND WE WILL PROCEED WITH
HEARING SOME MEMBERS. AND THEN
WE'LL TAKE MOTIONS WHEN THE TIME
IS APPROPRIATE. SO, SENATOR
CORTESE, I SAW YOU WALK IN. ARE
YOU READY TO GET US STARTED?
SENATOR CORTESE, YOU HAVE ONE
BILL TODAY, SB 1015. GO AHEAD
WITH YOUR OPENING STATEMENT
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
WELL, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
AND SENATORS, THANKS FOR
ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT SB 1015
TÊ TODAY, 1015 SB 1015 WILL HELP
CALIFORNIA BUILD AN ADEQUATE
NURSING WORKFORCE THAT REFLECTS
THE DIVERSITY OF OUR STATE. IT
WILL INCREASE TRANSPARENCY IN
THE MANAGEMENT OF CLINICAL
EDUCATION PLACEMENTS FOR NURSING
STUDENTS TO BECOME A REGISTERED
NURSE, A NURSING STUDENT NEEDS
500 HOURS OF HANDS ON CLINICAL
EDUCATION. IN 2022, A STAGGERING
92 OF CALIFORNIA'S 152 NURSING
PROGRAMS WERE DENIED ACCESS TO
CLINICAL PLACEMENTS. PLACEMENTS
FOR THEIR STUDENTS. COMMUNITY
COLLEGES AND STATE UNIVERSITIES
ARE ACUTELY AFFECTED. SENATOR
CORTESE, WOULD YOU PULL YOUR MIC
A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO YOU
THERE? THANK YOU. THE CLINICAL
THE CLINICAL IMPACTION THREATENS
OUR STATE'S ABILITY TO KEEP THE
NURSING PROFESSION ACCESSIBLE
AND AFFORDABLE TO DIVERSE
COMMUNITIES ACROSS CALIFORNIA.
CURRENTLY, IT IS UNKNOWN HOW
NURSING PROGRAMS MANAGE AND
COORDINATE CLINICAL PLACEMENTS
FOR THEIR STUDENTS AT CLINICAL
SITES. THIS BILL GIVES THE BOARD
OF REGISTERED NURSING THE
AUTHORITY TO COLLECT AND REPORT
INFORMATION ON HOW NURSING
PROGRAMS MANAGE THEIR CLINICAL
PLACEMENTS, INCLUDING HOW THEY
COORDINATE WITH OTHER NURSING
PROGRAMS AND CLINICAL FACILITIES
. IT ALSO REQUIRES THE BOARD TO
STUDY, DEVELOP AND RECOMMEND
STANDARDS FOR CLINICAL
PLACEMENTS TO ALL NURSING
PROGRAMS. SB 1015 TAKES THE
FIRST STEPS TO ADDRESS THE
GROWING ISSUE OF AN INEQUITABLE
ACCESS TO CLINICAL PLACEMENTS
FOR NURSING STUDENTS, AS THE
STATE FACES A NURSING SHORTAGE,
WE MUST ENSURE EQUITABLE ACCESS
TO CLINICAL EDUCATION FOR BOTH
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE NURSING
INSTITUTIONS. WITH US TODAY TO
TESTIFY, WE HAVE KATHY KENNEDY
FROM THE CALIFORNIA NURSES
ASSOCIATION AND ERIC BACH FROM,
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY. AND
AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE,
VOTE. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM
YOUR LEAD WITNESSES. PLEASE
STATE YOUR NAME. ORGANIZATION
AND YOU'LL HAVE A COUPLE MINUTES
HERE ON THE BILL. ALL RIGHT.
GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS
CATHERINE KENNEDY. I'M PRESIDENT
OF THE CALIFORNIA NURSES
ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTING OVER
100,000 REGISTERED NURSES ACROSS
THE STATE AND CNA AS A PROUD
SPONSOR OF SB 1015. I'VE BEEN A
REGISTERED NURSE FOR WELL OVER
40 YEARS, AND I ALSO SERVE ON
KAISER HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE
EDUCATION AND TRAINING COUNCIL
CLINICAL EDUCATION IS AN
ESSENTIAL PART OF ANY NURSE'S
EDUCATION, AND IT IS CRITICAL
THAT ALL OF CALIFORNIA'S FUTURE
NURSES HAVE CLINICAL PLACEMENT
OPPORTUNITIES. NURSING SCHOOLS
REPORT THAT THE INABILITY TO
SECURE CLINICAL PLACEMENTS WAS
THE NUMBER TWO REASON FOR NOT
ENROLLING MORE STUDENTS. THIS
BILL IS A COMMON SENSE REFORM
THAT WILL HELP ENSURE EQUITY AND
TRANSPARENCY IN CLINICAL
PLACEMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL
OF CALIFORNIA'S NURSING
STUDENTS. IT TAKES IMPORTANT
FIRST STEPS TO ADDRESS THE
PROBLEM OF DECREASING AND
INEQUITABLE ACCESS TO CLINICAL
EDUCATION PLACEMENTS, WHICH HAS
BEEN AN ACUTE PROBLEM FOR OUR
COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND CSU
NURSING PROGRAMS. THIS BILL
WOULD CODIFY THE BOARD OF
REGISTERED NURSING REQUIREMENTS
TO COLLECT, ANALYZE, AND REPORT
CLINICAL PLACEMENT INFORMATION,
AND THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
STATE AUDITOR'S RECOMMENDATION
THAT THE BURN COLLECT
INFORMATION TO ASSESS CLINICAL
PLACEMENT CAPACITY. THE BILL
WILL ALSO HAVE THE BURNS NURSING
AND WORKFORCE EDUCATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE TO ANALYZE THE ISSUE
AND RECOMMEND STANDARDS TO THE
BURN TO ENSURE THAT EQUITABLE
ACCESS TO CLINICAL PLACEMENTS
OCCURS. IN OTHER WORDS, THIS
BILL WILL HELP ENSURE CALIFORNIA
HAS THE CAPACITY TO NOT ONLY
TRAIN ENOUGH NURSES TO MEET OUR
STATE NURSING WORKFORCE NEEDS,
BUT TO ALSO MAINTAIN SAFE
STAFFING LEVELS IN OUR HEALTH
CARE FACILITIES. IF CONTINUED
UNCHECKED. CNA NURSES FEAR THIS
PHENOMENON WILL EXACERBATE AN
UNEVEN PLAYING FIELD FOR PUBLIC
NURSING EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND
PUBLIC NURSING SCHOOLS ARE VITAL
IN KEEPING THE NURSING
PROFESSION AFFORDABLE AND
ACCESSIBLE TO ALL CALIFORNIANS.
MORE BURN OVERSIGHT ON CLINICAL
PLACEMENTS WILL HELP ENSURE THE
NURSING WORKFORCE REFLECTS
CALIFORNIA'S DIVERSE PATIENT
POPULATION. SO CNA URGES THE
COMMITTEE TO VOTE YES ON SB
1015. THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. DID YOU
WANT TO TESTIFY AS WELL? I DO,
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, ERIC
BAKER, DIRECTOR OF STATE
RELATIONS FOR THE CSU
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE. THE CSU IS
THE LARGEST NURSING PROGRAM IN
THE STATE, ENROLLING NEARLY 9000
NURSING STUDENTS AT THE BSN,
MASTER'S AND DOCTORAL LEVEL,
PRODUCING NEARLY 3000 NURSING
DEGREES EACH YEAR. HOWEVER MORE
CAN STILL BE ACHIEVED AS THE
STATE SEEKS TO GROW THE NUMBER
OF NURSES IN CALIFORNIA. THE
BIGGEST BARRIER TO INCREASING
ENROLLMENT CAPACITY IN NURSING
PROGRAMS IS THE LIMITED NUMBER
OF CLINICAL PLACEMENTS FOR
NURSING STUDENTS. AS THE
ANALYSIS NOTES, STUDENTS ARE
REQUIRED TO HAVE A COMBINATION
OF ACADEMIC CLASSROOM
PREPARATION AS WELL AS CLINICAL
EXPERIENCE AS PART OF THEIR
TRAINING, WHICH IS WHY THE CSU
IS PLEASED TO SUPPORT SENATE
BILL 1015 BY SENATOR CORTESE,
WHICH WOULD PROVIDE MORE
INFORMATION ON CLINICAL
PLACEMENTS FOR STUDENTS IN
NURSING PROGRAMS. THE CSU
BELIEVES THAT SB 1015 WILL
CONTINUE TO IMPROVE AND SUPPORT
DATA COLLECTION ON EXISTING
CLINICAL PLACEMENTS, AND
THEREFORE FACILITATE
OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE THE
NUMBER OF CLINICAL PLACEMENTS
AVAILABLE FOR NURSING STUDENTS.
IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO GROW THE
NUMBER OF NURSES THAT WE SEEK TO
ENTER INTO CALIFORNIA'S
WORKFORCE UNTIL THERE IS A
CORRESPONDING INCREASE TO THE
AVAILABLE CLINICAL PLACEMENTS.
ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON
HOW TO COORDINATE AND POSSIBLY
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF CLINICAL
PLACEMENTS WOULD BE BENEFICIAL
TO THE STATE, OUR STUDENTS AND
WILL INFORM FUTURE STATEWIDE
POLICIES AND REGULATIONS. FOR
THOSE REASONS, WE ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. LET'S
SEE IF THERE IS ANYONE ELSE IN
THE ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL. SB 1015,
PLEASE COME TO THE MIC. WE HAVE
REACHED THE ME TOO PORTION OF
THE SHOW, SO YOUR NAME AND
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION ON THE
BILL. ELMER LAZARD, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION
IN SUPPORT. GREAT. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL? SEEING NO ONE COMING TO
THE MIC, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO
OPPOSITION. IF YOU ARE IN
OPPOSITION OF SB 1015, PLEASE
COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. SEEING
NO ONE IN OPPOSITION, WE WILL
BRING IT BACK TO THE MEMBERS FOR
DISCUSSION. SENATOR NILO. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. QUESTION, IN
THE STAFF REPORT, IT SAYS THAT,
IN CONTRAST, OTHER APPROVED
NURSING PROGRAMS SAYS
PARTICULARLY PRIVATE NONPROFIT,
PROGRAMS CONTINUE TO OCCUR
SECURE THE CLINICAL PLACEMENT
SLOTS. WHAT ARE THEY DOING
DIFFERENTLY? AND OBVIOUSLY, IT'S
NOT JUST THE PRIVATE NONPROFITS,
BUT WHAT ARE THEY DOING
DIFFERENTLY THAT OTHERS ARE NOT?
LET ME DEFER TO, TO THE
WITNESSES TO RESPOND TO THAT TO
THE DEGREE THAT THEY, THEY KNOW
ON THE PRIVATE SIDE. WELL WHAT
WE KNOW AND AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT
WE NEED TO FIND OUT FOR SURE, IS
THAT WHEN YOU HAVE PRIVATE, FOR
PROFIT NURSING PROGRAMS, THEY
ALMOST HAVE LIKE THEY GET A
PARTNERSHIP WITH A HOSPITAL. AND
SO THERE IS THIS PARTNERSHIP
THAT ALLOWS THEM, THEIR STUDENTS
TO BE ABLE TO PLACE ON INTO
CLINICAL PLACEMENT ON, YOU KNOW,
DAYS, LIKE MONDAY THROUGH
FRIDAY. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE
PUBLIC PROGRAM SCRAMBLING LIKE
WEEKENDS WHERE THE NURSING
STUDENTS WOULD HAVE TO COME. SO
OR THERE MAY NOT BE ANY. SO
THERE ARE A LOT OF IT. IS THE
PARTNERSHIP WITH THESE PRIVATE,
NURSING PROGRAMS. I WOULD JUST
SIMPLY ADD IT KIND OF CARRY OFF
WHAT SHE SAID THERE, YOU KNOW,
FOR THE CSU, IT VARIES A LITTLE
BIT FROM OUR 20 CAMPUSES, THAT
OFFER NURSING PROGRAMS. BUT, YOU
KNOW, WE DO FIND OURSELVES
SCRAMBLING TO TRY TO FIND THOSE
PLACEMENTS. WE WERE LIMITED, IN
MANY CASES TO EVENINGS OR
WEEKENDS, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY
ALWAYS COMPORT TO THE STUDENTS
AVAILABILITY AND THEIR TIME. SO
THAT'S A CHALLENGE. AND THEN WE
ALSO ANECDOTALLY HEAR STORIES OF
PLACEMENT. NUMBER OF HOURS BEING
USED BY FOR PROFITS, WHICH IS
CONCERNING IN TERMS OF, THE AS
SENATOR CORTESE MENTIONED, 500
HOURS IS THE REQUIREMENT. BUT
WE'RE HEARING STORIES OF LONGER
THOUSAND, 1500 HOURS FOR THOSE
PLACEMENTS WHICH LOCKS UP
AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOME
PUBLICS. SO THIS TYPE OF
INFORMATION AND THIS REPORTING
WILL HELP SUNSHINE A LOT OF THAT
ACTIVITY. SO WE CAN MAKE SURE
THAT THERE'S A FAIR AND
EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF
PLACEMENTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE,
WHY THE PARTNERSHIPS AND WHY
CAN'T OTHER. AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S
BASED UPON THE WORDING HERE.
IT'S NOT JUST FOR PROFITS. THERE
ARE OTHERS EVIDENTLY ALSO, THAT
I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S
PARTNERSHIPS IN THAT CASE OR
NOT, BUT WHAT'S KEEPING OTHER,
PUBLIC ENTITIES FROM FORMING THE
SAME PARTNERSHIPS, I WOULD JUST
SIMPLY ADD IT'S MONEY. I THINK
ANECDOTALLY, THERE'S INFORMATION
TO SUGGEST THAT SOME FOR PROFITS
ARE PAYING HOSPITALS TO
INCENTIVIZE THEM. THERE'S REALLY
NO INCENTIVE FOR HOSPITALS TO
CREATE THIS SPACE FOR NURSES TO
PARTICIPATE, IT'S A BURDENSOME
IT'S CHALLENGING. IT'S
SCHEDULING IS DIFFICULT, BUT WE
DON'T HAVE THOSE TYPES OF
RESOURCES AS A PUBLIC ENTITY.
AND SO FOR PROFITS WANT TO MOVE
THROUGH STUDENTS THROUGH THEIR
PROGRAMS. SO THEY CREATE
PARTNERSHIPS IN A WAY THAT HELPS
MAKE IT EASIER FOR HOSPITALS TO
WORK WITH THEM. AND IT IT PUTS A
CHALLENGE ON OUR ABILITY TO
PROVIDE THOSE SPACES. SO THIS
TYPE OF INFORMATION THAT'S BEING
ASKED WILL SUNSHINE THAT SO THAT
WE CAN TRY TO UNDERSTAND HOW
MUCH OF THAT IS REALLY A
PROBLEM. IS IT A BIGGER ISSUE
THAN WE KNOW OF RIGHT NOW? IS IT
A SMALLER ISSUE THAN WE CAN
WORK? BUT AT LEAST IT'S GOING TO
SUNSHINE THE INFORMATION SO WE
CAN MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE RIGHT
POLICIES IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, ONE CONCERN THAT I'D
HAVE IS THAT THE STUDY IS
CONDUCTED IN A FASHION THAT THE
CONCLUSION IS ALREADY KNOWN,
BASED UPON THE TESTIMONY THAT
MAY BE THE CASE, IF THE REASON
FOR THE CLINICAL COMPACTION IS
A, QUOTE, UNEVEN PLAYING FIELD
CREATED BY, RESOURCES ON ONE END
AND NOT AS MUCH ON THE OTHER,
THEN THAT WOULD APPEAR TO BE A
FOREGONE CONCLUSION BEFORE THE
STUDY IS MADE. AND MY CONCERN IS
THAT WE LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD
BY MANDATING THAT HOSPITALS
CAN'T DO THAT, OR OTHERWISE
ATTEMPTING TO DISADVANTAGE THE
FOR PROFIT ENTITIES, TO THEN
ADVANTAGE THE NONPROFIT. I GET
THE PROBLEM WITH THE SOLUTION,
THE PROBLEM THAT EXISTS. BUT I'D
BE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE
DIRECTION THAT THE SOLUTION
WOULD GO, IF I MAY, THROUGH THE
CHAIR, RESPOND TO THAT, IT'S A
GREAT POINT. AND I THINK THE
MOST IMPORTANT THING, MOST, MOST
IMPORTANT RESPONSE RELATIVE TO
THE BILL AS ITS IMPRINT, IS THAT
IT IS CLEARLY A STUDY. IT WILL
COME BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE, I
THINK IF WE REALLY KNEW EXACTLY
WHAT WAS GOING ON, I WOULD HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO PUT A FIXED TIME,
YOU KNOW, FOR RESPONSE. WE
ACTUALLY LEFT THAT OPEN. THERE'S
FAITH, THOUGH, THAT IT WILL COME
BACK. REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT ENDS
UP AFFIRMING OR NOT, THAT IT
WILL COME BACK SOON ENOUGH
BECAUSE, THE, THE NURSING
EDUCATIONAL WORKFORCE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, WHICH TYPICALLY JUST
MEETS TWO TIMES A YEAR, AND
WOULD THEREFORE HAVE A HARD TIME
DOING PROBABLY ANYTHING OTHER
THAN PICKING UP ON ANECDOTAL
ADVICE. IT'S ACTUALLY CREATED A
SUBCOMMITTEE Kò, FOR THIS
PURPOSE THAT WILL BE MEETING
MONTHLY, YOU KNOW, TO TAKE THE
DEEP DIVE IN. SO IT MAY IT MAY
END UP THAT WHAT WE'RE HEARING
ANECDOTALLY ISN'T THE PROBLEM. I
THINK THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE,
WHICH I KNOW YOU UNDERSTAND
FULLY AS A SENATOR AND AS A
LEGISLATOR, IF WE DON'T GET THE
STUDY BACK, THAT BEGINS TO
IDENTIFY, WHERE IT'S REALLY
BROKEN, IT'S GOING TO BE TOUGH
TO RUN ANY LEGISLATION TO FIX
IT, EVEN IF WE THINK WE KNOW
WHAT THE ISSUE IS, BECAUSE, YOU
KNOW, ALL THE WAY DOWN THE LINE
THROUGH COMMITTEE CONSULTANTS
AND EVERY OTHER PART OF THE
PROCESS WILL WE WOULD OTHERWISE
CONTINUE TO BE ASKED, HOW DO YOU
KNOW? HOW DO YOU KNOW FOR SURE?
HOW DO YOU GET BEYOND ANECDOTAL?
SO THIS IS STEP ONE, GET THE GET
THE DATA BACK AT THE INFORMATION
BACK. GET A BONA FIDE STUDY BACK
FROM, FROM THE BOARD ITSELF AND
ITS SUBCOMMITTEE, WE DON'T HAVE
TO ACCEPT IT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T
HAVE TO JUST SWALLOW THE WHOLE
THING. WE'LL HAVE A CHANCE AS A
LEGISLATURE TO COME BACK AND
DEBATE WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH
AND SEE IF WE BELIEVE IT OR NOT.
BUT THIS IS THE FIRST STEP. SO I
THINK, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN AN
OUNCE OF SKEPTICISM HERE IS, IS
IN ORDER. BUT I THINK THE STUDY
AND THE BILL WILL, YOU KNOW,
WILL WILL DELIVER ON ON THE
PROMISE THAT SKEPTICISM IS A
GOOD THING GOING INTO SOMETHING
LIKE THIS. OKAY. SENATOR CORTEZ,
ONE ONE ADDITIONAL POINT. SURE.
AND THEN I'M GOING TO TAKE ROLL
AFTER THAT SO THAT WE CAN HIT A
QUORUM, GO AHEAD. OKAY. THE DATA
IS GOOD. WHAT WE DO WITH THE
DATA AND ANY BIAS THAT MIGHT
EXIST IS ALSO IMPORTANT. AND I
WILL TELL YOU, WHEN I WORKED
WITH THEN ASSEMBLYMAN PORTANTINO
ON PRIVATE POST-SECONDARY,
REGULATORY REGULATION FOR, THAT
THERE WAS IN THE DISCUSSION
THERE WAS A DEFINITE BIAS
AGAINST FOR PROFIT, INSTITUTIONS
, FOR WEAKNESSES OR CRITICISMS
THAT FRANKLY, EQUAL, EXISTED
ALMOST EQUALLY IN THE, IN STATE
INSTITUTIONS. BUT IT WASN'T
DISCUSSED THERE. IT WAS
DISCUSSED AS SOMETHING TO BE
GUARDED AGAINST IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE REGULATIONS
. AS THERE IS A THERE IS A BIAS
AGAINST NOT FOR PROFIT EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS THAT ISN'T
OUTWARDLY STATED. I AM OUTWARDLY
OUTWARDLY STATING IT NOW. AND IF
THAT BIAS OVERTAKES THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA, I'M
DOUBLY SKEPTICAL. WELL FAIR
ENOUGH. AND YOU KNOW, LIKE I
SAID, HOWEVER, THE STUDY COMES
BACK IN WHATEVER CONDITION IT
COMES BACK IN RELATIVE TO THAT
ISSUE, I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY
BEFORE EVER INTRODUCING ANOTHER
BILL IF I'M ASKED TO SIT DOWN
WITH YOU, SENATOR, AND TALK
ABOUT HOW TO COLLABORATE ON THAT
AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S AN
UNBIASED, UNBIASED
IMPLEMENTATION BILL GOING
FORWARD. BUT AGAIN, WE'RE SAFE
HERE IN THE SENSE THAT THIS IS
NOT THE IMPLEMENTATION BILL.
IT'S JUST THE STUDY. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION. I'M GOING TO ASK
IF WE CAN DO A ROLL CALL HERE
AND ESTABLISH A QUORUM. ASHBY
HERE. ASHBY HERE. WHEN HERE.
ALVARADO. GIL HERE. ALVARADO.
GIL. HERE. ARCHULETA. HERE.
ARCHULETA. HERE BECKER. DODD
HERE. DODD. HERE. EGGMAN GLASER.
MENGIBAR. NILO. HERE. NILO HERE.
ROTH. CUEVAS. CUEVAS HERE. WILK.
PRESENT. WILK. PRESENT GREAT.
SENATOR. ARCHULETA THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR, OBVIOUSLY. AND I
GUESS THIS GOES TO YOUR
REPRESENTATIVE. SENATOR, YOU
MUST HAVE HAD SOME SURVEYS,
CONDUCTED SOME INFORMATION, SOME
BACKGROUND THAT YOU'VE
DISCOVERED THAT THERE IS AN
EQUITY INEQUITY HERE. BUT, YOU
KNOW, I'M TOTALLY FOR 150% FOR
THE FACT THAT WE NEED MORE
NURSES, BUT WE NEED THEM FROM
ACROSS THE COMMUNITIES. WE NEED
TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD. I'VE
GOT THAT. SO CAN YOU SHARE SOME
OF THE, THE DATA THAT YOU MAY
HAVE FOUND, THAT YOU FOUND THAT
IT WAS SO NECESSARY THAT THAT WE
HAVE TO BRING THIS UP AND
OBVIOUSLY, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
DONE IT IF YOU DIDN'T FIND THE
INFORMATION. CAN YOU SHARE THAT
WITH US A LITTLE BIT? SURE. YOU
KNOW, I'VE BEEN WORKING AS A
NURSE FOR 44 YEARS, AND I
STARTED OFF AT AMERICAN RIVER
COLLEGE, COMMUNITY COLLEGE, AND
BACK THEN WE DIDN'T HAVE THE,
THERE WERE PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS
IN NURSING. BUT NOW WHAT WE'RE
SEEING IS THAT BECAUSE IT IS SO
HARD FOR, PEOPLE THAT MAY NOT
HAVE THE FUNDS TO GO TO NURSING
PROGRAMS, THE PUBLIC, THE
COMMUNITY COLLEGE, AND THE CSU'S
ARE MORE AFFORDABLE THAN THE FOR
PROFIT NURSING PROGRAMS THAT
WE'RE SEEING NOW. AND WHAT ENDS
UP HAPPENING IS THAT BECAUSE,
AGAIN, AS MY COLLEAGUE WAS
SAYING, THERE'S NOT THE MONIES
THERE IN PUBLIC COLLEGES TO
INCREASE CAPACITY OF NURSING
STUDENTS BECAUSE, AGAIN, YOU
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
NURSES THAT YOU DO HAVE,
STUDENTS THAT YOU DO HAVE ARE
ABLE TO GET THROUGH THEIR
CLINICAL PLACEMENTS SO THAT THEY
CAN MOVE ON TO TAKE THE BOARD
AND THEN WORK AS AS A REGISTERED
NURSE. AND THAT'S REALLY LIMITED
BECAUSE AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE
THE, YOU KNOW, THE COMMUNITY
COLLEGES AND THE CSUS DON'T HAVE
THE, THE, THE MONEY, WHEREAS YOU
HAVE PRIVATE INSTITUTES THAT
CHARGE AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF
MONEY. I'VE SEEN ONE COMMUNITY,
AN ADN PROGRAM DOWN IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA THAT CHARGES OVER
$40,000 A YEAR FOR THEIR TWO
YEAR PROGRAM. THAT'S A LOT OF
MONEY. SO THEN THEY ABSOLUTELY
NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE
NURSES, THOSE NURSING STUDENTS
ARE ABLE TO GET THROUGH SO THAT
THEY CAN TURN AROUND AND TAKE
THEIR THEIR NCLEX EXAM. SO, YOU
KNOW, FOR THE PUBLIC
INSTITUTIONS, THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT. IT'S NOT REALLY AN EQUAL
PLAYING FIELD IF THERE IS THOSE
COLLABORATIONS. AND AGAIN, THIS
IS A STUDY JUST TO SEE IF WHAT
WE'RE SEEING IS TRUE. BECAUSE WE
HAVE NOW NURSES THAT WENT
THROUGH A PROGRAM, A PRIVATE
NURSING PROGRAM THAT ARE IN A
HOSPITAL AND THEY'RE HAVING TO
SIGN A CONTRACT TO SAY, WE'RE
GOING TO PUT YOU THROUGH A
PRECEPTOR PROGRAM AND YOU HAVE
TO STAY FOR THREE YEARS. AND IF
YOU DO NOT STAY FOR THOSE THREE
YEARS, YOU'RE GOING TO PAY BACK
THAT PRECEPTOR PROGRAM FUNDS
THAT WE USE TO PUT YOU TO TRAIN
YOU TO WORK IN OUR FACILITY. SO
IT BECOMES THIS AGAIN, NOW YOU
HAVE A NURSE THAT IS HAS THIS
HUGE DEBT, AND THEY HAVE TO STAY
IN THAT HOSPITAL BECAUSE THEY
WENT THROUGH A PRIVATE PROGRAM.
SO I'M JUST, YOU KNOW,
ANECDOTALLY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE
SEEING, WHAT WE'RE HEARING. AND
SO THIS IS THE REASON WHY I
THINK THAT THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR
THE BRN TO BE ABLE TO COLLECT
THAT DATA AND REALLY SEE WHAT'S
GOING ON, BECAUSE A LOT OF THE
KIDS THAT WANT TO GO TO SCHOOL
DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS. AND WHERE
CAN THEY GO? THEY START OFF AT
THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE OR IN THE
CSU SYSTEM. AND WE REALLY WANT
THOSE FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO STAY
IN CALIFORNIA AND GO TO THE
PROGRAMS HERE IN OUR STATE,
INSTEAD OF HAVING TO GO TO
NEVADA OR WHERE ELSE, TO GO TO
NURSING SCHOOL, BECAUSE WE DON'T
HAVE THE CAPACITY. I HOPE THAT
MAKES SENSE. AND I'M ASSUMING
THAT BY BRINGING THIS STUDY
FORWARD, WHEN IT'S COMPLETED,
IT'LL SHOW THE INEQUITIES, IT'LL
SHOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT. BUT WE CAN'T UNLESS WE
FIND AND COMPLETE THE STUDY.
WITH THAT, I WILL MOVE IT AT
APPROPRIATE TIMES. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR
MENGIBAR. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. SENATOR CORTEZ, THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR BRINGING THIS BILL,
YOU YOU SPOKE ABOUT STORIES THAT
ARE PERSONAL TO ME. I HAVE A
COUSIN ABOUT SEVEN YEARS AGO.
WAITING LIST AFTER WAITING LIST.
AFTER WAITING LIST AT PIERCE
COLLEGE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
BECAUSE THEY HAD NO MORE SPACE
FOR HER UNTIL SHE ENDED UP
SWITCHING HER CAREER BECAUSE SHE
HAD NO ABILITY TO PAY FOR A
PRIVATE SCHOOL OF ANOTHER COUSIN
WHO IS IN HER FIRST YEAR AT A
PRIVATE NURSING SCHOOL, WHO TOOK
OUT THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS OUT A LOAN, BECAUSE SHE
WANTED TO BE A NURSE AND SHE
COULDN'T WAIT FOR THE PUBLIC
PROGRAMS AND I KNOW HOW
IMPORTANT IT IS FOR INDIVIDUALS
WHO WANT TO BE IN THIS CAREER.
ANOTHER, MY SISTER IN LAW, ALSO
HAD TO PAY FOR THIS PRIVATE
SCHOOL, AND SHARED SOME SIMILAR
STORIES THAT YOU BROUGHT UP
TODAY. SO THANKFUL FOR YOU TO
BRING THIS UP AND I'M HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL. THANK YOU. GO
AHEAD, SENATOR ALVARADO. GIL,
THANK YOU. CHAIR, SENATOR
QUINTUS. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS UP, I NOTICED IN THE FOR
THIS BILL, THE STUDY YOU
OUTLINED A MINIMUM OF TOPICS
THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THIS
STUDY, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO
EMPHASIZE THAT, AS AS I LOOK AT
SOME OF THE GAPS IN WORKFORCE
ACROSS MY DISTRICT, PARTICULARLY
IN RURAL AND MOUNTAIN REGIONS,
ACCESS TO, TO SCHOOLS, NURSING
PROGRAMS IS LIMITED, AS ARE THE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THOSE
PLACEMENTS. SO I'M WONDERING, AS
YOU LOOK AT THE MINIMUM,
INCLUDING THAT ABILITY TO,
CREATE STANDARDS OR STRATEGIES
FOR RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT IN
THOSE RURAL AREAS THAT ARE, WE
DON'T HAVE A LOT OF DENSITY OF,
OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
. SO IT'S NOT OUTLINED IN HERE,
BUT I DO THINK THAT THIS IS
GOING TO BE A COMPREHENSIVE
STUDY BILL THAT YOU'RE PUTTING
FORWARD, AND I'D LOVE TO SEE
SOME, SOME DATA AND FACTS ABOUT
THE RURAL COMMUNITIES. YEAH.
THROUGH THE CHAIR WOULD BE HAPPY
TO CONTINUE TO PURSUE THE ISSUE
OF RURAL VERSUS URBAN AS WE'VE
SEEN WITH THE HOSPITAL SYSTEM
AND SO FORTH. IT SEEMS LIKE
EVERY COMMITTEE I GO INTO THESE
DAYS IS, IS, KIND OF PIVOTING
OFF THAT DISCUSSION. SO I
UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR IT. I
DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD DO THAT
INFORMALLY OR IF WE NEED TO PUT
SOMETHING IN THE BILL, BUT WE
WILL LOOK INTO THAT GOING
FORWARD. AND IF WE NEED TO, YOU
KNOW, AMEND SOME LANGUAGE IN
JUST TO MAKE SURE IT'S COVERED,
THANK YOU. I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOU
TO ENSURE THAT IT'S COMPLETE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SENATOR
CORTEZ, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
YEAH. THANK YOU. AND, YOU KNOW,
SENATOR ARCHULETA'S QUESTION AND
I APPRECIATE THE WILLINGNESS TO
MAKE THE MOTION, THE BOARD OF
REGISTERED NURSING DOES AN
ANNUAL SURVEY. IT'S TOLD US THAT
WE HAVE THIS PROBLEM. THE
NUMERICAL PROBLEM THAT WE TALKED
ABOUT, IT'S REALLY WHAT WE KNOW
AT THIS POINT. AND WITH THAT BIG
OF A GAP, 92 VERSUS 152, IT JUST
CALLS FOR LET'S GO FIND OUT WHY
THAT'S HAPPENING. AND, YOU KNOW,
WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO, TO TRY
TO, YOU KNOW, DISCRIMINATE
BETWEEN, FOR INFORMATIONAL
PURPOSES, DATA PURPOSES, RURAL
VERSUS URBAN. AND SO FORTH, BUT
WITH THAT, WE APPRECIATE ALL THE
HELP LOOKING AT THIS FROM THE
COMMITTEE AND THE DISCUSSION
TODAY. AND I'D RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE. GREAT. THANK
YOU. SENATOR CORTEZ. THIS MOTION
IS DUE PASSED TWO SENATE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
LET'S CALL THE ROLL. ASHBY. AYE.
ASHBY. AYE. NGUYEN NGUYEN. AYE.
ALVARADO. GILL. AYE. ALVARADO.
GILL. AYE ARCHULETA. AYE.
ARCHULETA. AYE. BECKER. DODD
DODD. AYE. EGGMAN LASER. LASER.
AYE. MENGIBAR. AYE. MENGIBAR
AYE. NILO. AYE. NILO. AYE. ROTH.
SMALLWOOD CUEVAS AYE. SMALLWOOD.
CUEVAS AYE. WILK AYE. WILK AYE.
OKAY, THAT IS TEN EYES. NO NOS.
WE'LL PUT IT ON CALL. THANK YOU,
SENATOR CORTEZ. THANK YOU ALL.
APPRECIATE IT. NEXT UP, I'D LIKE
TO DO CONSENT, IF THAT'S OKAY
WITH MY COLLEAGUES SO WE CAN GET
THAT TAKEN CARE OF. WE HAVE ONE
ITEM ON CONSENT TODAY. THIS IS
SENATOR BOGUE'S BILL. SB 1468,
MOVED BY SENATOR NGUYEN, I
THINK. GREAT. THANK YOU. ASHBY.
AYE. ASHBY. AYE. WHEN WHEN? AYE.
ALVARADO. GIL. ALVARADO. GIL.
AYE. ARCHULETA ARCHULETA. AYE.
BECKER. DODD DODD. AYE. EGGMAN.
BLAZER. BLAZER AYE. MENGIBAR.
MENGIBAR. AYE. NILO NILO. AYE.
ROTH. SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS.
SMALLWOOD CUEVAS. AYE. WILK.
AYE. WILK. AYE OKAY, THAT IS
ALSO TEN TO NOTHING. WE'LL LEAVE
THAT ON CALL AS WELL. THAT'S
CONSENT. AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE
NOW TO SENATOR SMALLWOOD.
CUEVAS, ARE YOU PREPARED? GREAT
AND AS YOU MAKE YOUR WAY UP
THERE TO THE PODIUM, I WILL
INTRODUCE YOUR BILL. SHE IS
PRESENTING ONE BILL TO US TODAY.
SB 1067. WHEN YOU ARE READY,
SENATOR SMALLWOOD CUEVAS,
WELCOME TO YOUR WITNESSES. THANK
YOU SO MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. AND
GOOD AFTERNOON, COLLEAGUES. I AM
PLEASED TO PRESENT SB 1067, AND
THIS WOULD CREATE AN EXPEDITED
LICENSURE APPLICATION PROCESS AT
THE HEALING ARTS BOARDS WITH A
WHICH REGULATE THE LICENSURE AND
REGULATION OF MEDICAL PROFESSION
FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS WHO
CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY INTEND
TO PRACTICE IN MEDICALLY
UNDERSERVED AREAS. SO YOU ALL
KNOW I REPRESENT SOUTH CENTRAL
LOS ANGELES, WHERE WE HAVE SOME
OF THE HIGHEST HEALTH
DISPARITIES, SOME OF THE HIGHEST
MORTALITY RATE DISPARITIES, AND
TOO OFTEN, MANY TIMES, THESE ARE
PREVENTABLE DISEASES. IF PEOPLE
COULD JUST GET CARE, THEIR LIVES
WOULD BE SAVED. AND SO I
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S WORK
WITH ME ON THIS BILL AND MAKING
IT STRONGER. AND WE'LL CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH YOU TO FINE TUNE
AND NARROW AROUND SOME OF THE,
THE SUGGESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
MADE, BUT CLINICS IN MY DISTRICT
SERVE MORE THAN 277,000 PATIENTS
EACH YEAR, WITH ABOUT 81% OF
THESE PATIENTS LIVING UNDER 200%
OF THE FEDERAL POVERTY RATE.
THESE CLINICS AND HEALTH CARE
PROFESSIONALS ARE INVALUABLE TO
THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF MY
DISTRICT AND SO MANY OTHERS.
DECREASED ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE
HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE
DISPARITIES, AS I MENTIONED, AND
WE HAVE TO DO ALL THAT WE CAN TO
ENSURE THAT WE ARE BRINGING IN,
DELIVERING STRONG CARE AND
EXPEDITING THE NUMBERS OF
PROFESSIONALS THAT WE NEED TO
COME INTO OUR COMMUNITIES. BUT
DESPITE SERVING OUR MOST
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES, AS WE
SEE, MANY OF THESE SAME
PROVIDERS HAVE REPORTED HIGH
VACANCY RATES, PROLONGED PERIODS
TO FILL STAFF VACANCIES FOR KEY
POSITIONS LIKE PHYSICIANS,
DENTISTS, NURSE PRACTITIONERS.
WE JUST HEARD ABOUT THE SHORTAGE
IN OUR NURSING SECTOR AND THE
NEED FOR DEEPER STUDY. CLINICS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE HAVE
EXPERIENCED AN AVERAGE WAIT
TIMES OF 26 WEEKS, 26 WEEKS TO
FILL A VACANCY FOR A PHYSICIAN
AND THAT IS LIFE OR DEATH. WHEN
WE THINK ABOUT THE NEEDS,
THERE'S ALSO 18 WEEKS TO FILL A
VACANCY FOR DENTIST OR FOR NURSE
PRACTITIONERS. WAIT TIMES IN THE
LICENSURE PROCESS IS JUST ONE OF
THE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO OUR
MEDICAL WORKFORCE SHORTAGES.
THESE SHORTAGES UNDERMINE
QUALITY CARE AND TIMELY ACCESS,
FURTHER EXACERBATING THE
SUFFERING, QUITE FRANKLY, IN OUR
COMMUNITIES, EXPEDITING LICENSES
FOR PRACTITIONERS WHO PLAN TO
SERVE IN OUR MOST VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS IS A VALUABLE
INCENTIVE TO WORK, AND
PARTICULARLY TO WORK IN
COMMUNITIES IN THE MOST NEED.
RECENTLY, THE MEDICAL BOARD OF
CALIFORNIA, VÀ, AND THIS
COMMITTEE WAS WAS VERY INVOLVED
IN THIS PROCESS, ESTABLISHED
THEIR OWN, EXPEDITED THÀNH
LICENSING PROCESS FOR
APPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS
SERVING IN MEDICALLY UNDERSERVED
AREAS. SB 1067 IS MODELED AFTER
THIS PROCESS TO DIRECTLY BENEFIT
CALIFORNIA'S COMMUNITIES WITH
HIGH NEED FOR ACCESSING QUALITY
HEALTH CARE, JOINING US TODAY TO
PROVIDE TESTIMONY IS DOCTOR
HAKEEM ADENIYI. ADENIYI. THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT, AND CHIEF
CLINICAL OFFICER AT SACRAMENTO
NATIVE AMERICAN HEALTH CARE
CENTER, WHICH IS LOCATED HERE IN
DOWNTOWN SACRAMENTO, AND SARAH
GAVIN, WHO IS THE CHIEF
BEHAVIORAL COMMUNITY HEALTH
OFFICER AT THE COMMUNICARE OLA
HEALTH CENTER, WHICH SERVES
YOLO, NAPA AND SOLANO COUNTIES.
THEY ARE HERE ALSO TO TESTIFY AS
TAYLOR JACKSON WITH CPCA
ADVOCATES. IF THERE ARE
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, WHO IS A
SPONSOR ON THIS BILL? I'LL TURN
IT OVER TO MY WITNESSES. ALL
RIGHT. GO AHEAD TO THE WITNESS.
IS, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS HAKEEM.
I'M A UX, UCSF TRAINED FAMILY
AND COMMUNITY MEDICINE
PHYSICIAN, AND AS MENTIONED, I
SERVE AS THE CHIEF CLINICAL
OFFICER AT SACRAMENTO NATIVE
AMERICAN HEALTH CENTER AND FQHC,
OR FEDERALLY FEDERALLY QUALIFIED
HEALTH CENTER, LOCATED IN
SACRAMENTO, SOUTH SACRAMENTO,
AND DEL PASO HEIGHTS OF A
NEIGHBORHOOD IN SACRAMENTO, I'VE
BEEN SERVING IN THE COMMUNITY
FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS AND HAVE
WORKED AT SNAC FOR THE PAST FOUR
AND A HALF YEARS, STARTING JUST
A COUPLE OF MONTHS PRIOR TO THE
PANDEMIC, I ALSO GET THE BENEFIT
OF SERVING AS THE CHAIR OF THE
CALIFORNIA PRIMARY CARE
ASSOCIATION PEER NETWORK FOR
SUPPORTING BLACK COMMUNITIES. SO
PHÐ COMMUNITY HEALTH IS ALL THAT
I KNOW, HAVING WORKED AT AND
RECRUITED CLINICAL STAFF FOR
FQHCS IN SAN FRANCISCO, VALLEJO,
YUBA CITY, MARYSVILLE AND NOW
SACRAMENTO, I'M INTIMATELY AWARE
OF THE WORKFORCE SHORTAGES. AND
IF I'M HERE JUST TO STRESS THE
IMPORTANCE OF SB 1067 AND HOW IT
CAN HELP US CLOSE THE GAPS, THE
INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH CARE
IMPROVEMENT II IS AN
ORGANIZATION WHOSE MISSION IS TO
IMPROVE HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE
WORLDWIDE, AND THEY HAVE A
QUINTUPLE AIM THAT HIGHLIGHTS
FIVE SECTIONS. THE NEED TO
IMPROVE THE PATIENT EXPERIENCE,
IMPROVE POPULATION HEALTH,
REDUCE HEALTH CARE COSTS,
IMPROVE CARE TEAM WELL-BEING AND
ADVANCE HEALTH EQUITY. BY
PRIORITIZING THE RECRUITMENT OF
HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS IN
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS, SB
1067 CAN HELP US ACHIEVE EACH OF
THESE GOALS ONE IMPROVING THE
PATIENT EXPERIENCE HEALTH PLANS
OFTEN REQUIRE US TO ESTABLISH
CARE WITH ALL OF OUR PATIENTS
WITHIN 9120 DAYS, AND IF THEY'VE
BEEN IN THE HOSPITAL WITHIN
SEVEN DAYS. BUT IT'S OFTEN IT
OFTEN TAKES UP TO SIX MONTHS FOR
HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS TO GET
THE LICENSE TO PRACTICE. THIS IS
A HUGE MISALIGNMENT AND
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE FOR OUR
PATIENTS. EXPEDITING THE
LICENSING PROCESS ALLOWS
PATIENTS TO GET THE CARE WHEN
THEY WANT IT AND WHERE THEY WANT
IT, WHICH WILL UNDOUBTEDLY
IMPROVE THEIR PATIENT
EXPERIENCE. IMPROVING NUMBER
TWO, IMPROVING POPULATION
HEALTH. OUR ZIP CODES ARE BETTER
PREDICTORS OF OUR HEALTH
OUTCOMES THAN OUR GENETIC CODE,
WITH UP TO 60% OF OUR HEALTH
SOLELY DETERMINED BY WHERE WE
LIVE. GETTING MORE CLINICIANS
INTO THESE ZIP CODES TO ADDRESS
OUR PATIENTS VARIOUS CLINICAL
NEEDS AND HELP IMPROVE THE
HEALTH OF THEIR OVERALL
COMMUNITY. OKAY, I WANT TO MAKE
SURE ALL OF YOUR WITNESSES HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK THAT. DO
YOU HAVE A FINAL WRAP UP
COMMENT? I'D SAY THE LAST PART.
SO ULTIMATELY, THE REASON WHY
WE'RE DOING ALL THIS IS ONE, TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE MOM WHO HAS A
SUSPICIOUS MASS ON THEIR
MAMMOGRAM CAN GET CARE TO THAT
THE ELDER WHO WANTS TO SPEND
TIME WITH THEIR GRANDKIDS IS
ABLE TO GET CARE FOR THEIR LUNG
CONDITION. AND THREE, FOR THE
ABUELITA TO HAVE, HAVE THE
MEDICATIONS TO PREVENT HER
STROKE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. AND THANK YOU FOR THE
GOOD WORK. YOU'RE DOING ALL
ACROSS THE REGION. WE APPRECIATE
YOU. WELCOME. GOOD MORNING,
MADAM CHAIRWOMAN. AND MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS SARAH GAVIN. I AM THE
CHIEF BEHAVIORAL AND COMMUNITY
HEALTH OFFICER AT COMMUNICARE
OLA. WE ARE AN FQHC SERVING MORE
THAN 55,000 PATIENTS ACROSS
THREE COUNTIES AT YOLO, SOLANO
AND NAPA COUNTIES. I AM ALSO A
LICENSED MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
THERAPIST AND A LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL CLINICAL COUNSELOR
WITH ALMOST 20 YEARS OF CLINICAL
EXPERIENCE IN UNDERSERVED AREAS,
AND I'VE BEEN WITH COMMUNICARE
ONLY AS AN FQHC SINCE 2007. AND
I'M HERE TODAY TO ALSO
RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR SUPPORT
OF SB 1067. AS THE SENATOR SAID,
THERE IS A HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE
SHORTAGE IN OUR STATE.
HISTORICALLY, THIS SHORTAGE HAS
DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTED
UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS WHO
ACCESS SAFETY NET SERVICES FROM
FQHCS COMMUNITY CLINICS AND
RURAL HEALTH CENTERS. AND OF
COURSE, DURING THE COVID 19
PANDEMIC, THE WORKFORCE SHORTAGE
WORSENED WHEN BURNOUT
CONTRIBUTED TO MASS RESIGNATION
IN HEALTH CARE AND AS SAID IN A
RECENT SURVEY, OUR COMMUNITY
HEALTH CENTERS REPORT HIGH
VACANCY RATES, PROLONGED PERIODS
OF TIME TO FILL STAFF VACANCIES
FOR KEY LIFE SAVING POSITIONS.
AND I WILL SAY ANECDOTALLY, MANY
HEALTH CENTERS ARE FACING
VACANCIES THAT GO ON FOR MONTHS,
IF NOT YEARS. AND PART OF THIS
IS BECAUSE OF THE BACKLOG AND
THE CHALLENGES WITH THE HEALING
ARTS BOARDS WHO LICENSE A
PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANTS,
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH PRACTITIONER,
NURSES AND OTHER HEALTH CARE
PROVIDERS IN CALIFORNIA, THEY
HAVE LENGTHY BACKLOGS FOR
PROCESSING APPLICATIONS FOR
LICENSURE WITH PREVENT, WHICH
PREVENTS PROVIDERS FROM JOINING
THE HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE IN A
TIMELY MANNER. THIS HAS LEFT US
ALL IN AN UNTENABLE AND
CHALLENGING POSITION WHEN IT
COMES TO RECRUITING. I WANT TO
SPEAK TO BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
SPECIFICALLY. ARE THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DELAYS IN
PROCESSING APPLICATIONS FORCE US
TO MAKE A DIFFICULT CHOICE? WE
CAN EITHER HIRE CLINICIANS
BEFORE THE APPLICATION IS
PROCESSED AND COVER THEIR
SALARIES WHILE WE WAIT, AND
BEFORE WE CAN BILL FOR SERVICES
BEFORE THEY CAN SEE PATIENTS,
WHICH IS SOMETIMES MONTHS LATER.
OR WE CAN WAIT TO HIRE
CLINICIANS UNTIL THEIR PAPERWORK
IS APPROVED, WHICH OFTEN MEANS
LOSING THOSE CANDIDATES TO
EMPLOYERS WHO CAN AFFORD TO PAY
SALARIES WITHOUT BILLING.
NEITHER OPTION IS FINANCIALLY
SUSTAINABLE FOR US. AND I WOULD
SAY MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE
SITUATION CREATES SUBSTANTIAL
BARRIERS TO CARE IN ADDRESSING
OUR URGENT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
NEEDS IN OUR COMMUNITIES. WE
HAVE CLINICIANS WHO COULD SEE
PATIENTS RESPOND TO CRISIS,
REDUCE SUFFERING NOW, BUT
INSTEAD WE HAVE TO WAIT MONTHS
WHILE THE LICENSING AGENCIES
PROCESS THE PAPERWORK. OKAY, GOT
A FINAL THOUGHT ON THERE. JUST
SUPPORTING TAKING ACTION IN
EXPEDITING THIS PROCESS FOR
AGENCIES AND MEDICALLY
UNDERSERVED AREAS AND SUPPORT
YOUR I VOTE IN SB 1067. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ARE YOU HERE FOR
TECHNICAL SUPPORT OR DO YOU WANT
TO JUST. ALL RIGHT THEN WE HAVE
REACHED THE PART WHERE IF YOU
ARE HERE TO AGREE AND YOU CAN
COME FORWARD AND MEET TWO
TESTIMONY, SUPPORT THE BILL.
JUST GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR
ORGANIZATION, YOUR POSITION ON
THE BILL. GOOD MORNING. CHAIR
MEMBERS. REBECCA ALCANTAR, ON
BEHALF OF ALTAMED, IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. AND WE
REALLY BELIEVE THIS WILL ADDRESS
THE DISPARITIES AND THE PROVIDER
SHORTAGE THAT WE'RE SEEING
ACROSS THE STATE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, DAN
SEAMAN, ON BEHALF OF WELLSPACE
HEALTH, SERVING SACRAMENTO
COUNTY, EL DORADO, PLACER AND
AMADOR COUNTIES IN SUPPORT.
SQUINT, VIRGINIA. HEDRICK ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
PANETHNIC HEALTH NETWORK IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, NANETTE.
STAR CALIFORNIA CONSORTIUM FOR
URBAN INDIAN HEALTH AND IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OKAY ANYBODY
ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB 1067?
IF NOT, THEN WE WILL MOVE TO
OPPOSITION. IF YOU ARE HERE IN
OPPOSITION OF SB 1067, PLEASE
FEEL FREE TO COME FORWARD. OKAY.
SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL BRING IT
BACK TO THE MEMBERS FOR
DISCUSSION. SENATOR NILO. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR, I AGREE WITH
WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.
COMPLETELY MY PROBLEM IS THAT WE
ALREADY HAVE THREE CLASSES THAT
QUALIFY FOR AN EXPEDITED PROCESS
, AND A COUPLE MORE PROPOSED
THIS YEAR. IF THEY ALL PASS, WE
HAVE SIX EXCEPTIONS. AND THE
PROBLEM IS, THE MORE PRIORITIES
YOU HAVE, THE LESS YOU HAVE ANY
PRIORITIES. THEY ALL COMPETE
WITH EACH OTHER, THERE'S ALSO
THE SMALL ISSUE OF IF A PERSON
COMMITS TO A CERTAIN PRACTICE,
AND THEN DOESN'T COMPLETE THAT
COMMITMENT, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU
ENFORCE THAT, BUT THE ISSUE WE
HAVE IS THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE
IS THE PROCESSING AND WE'RE
ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS THE
EFFECTS OF THE PROBLEM WITHOUT
ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM ITSELF.
AND IT WOULD SEEM TO ME MUCH
MORE EFFECTIVE TO TRY TO FIGURE
OUT WHY WE HAVE THE PROBLEM OF
PROCESSING AND FIX IT. NOW. IT
PROBABLY MEANS RESOURCES. AND I
REALIZE IN TODAY'S BUDGET,
THAT'S A CHALLENGE, BUT I DON'T
KNOW HOW MANY RESOURCES IT WOULD
BE. BUT UNLESS WE ADDRESS WHAT
THE PROBLEM IS, OTHERS WILL
CONTINUE TO COME FORWARD WITH
WHAT THEY BELIEVE ARE CLASSES OF
APPLICANTS THAT ALSO SHOULD BE
GIVEN AN EXPEDITED REVIEW. AND I
DON'T SEE WHERE THAT REALLY GETS
US. ANYWHERE FOR. SO MY RESPONSE
TO THAT IS WE'VE ALREADY DONE AN
EXPEDITED PROCESS, THROUGH THE
CMA BOARD LAST IS HER MIC ON.
YOU GUYS CAN'T HEAR HER VERY
WELL. SO THERE'S BEEN ONE
EXPEDITED. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
IS THAT GOOD? THERE'S BEEN ONE
EXPEDITED PROCESS THAT WE LOOKED
AT LAST YEAR THAT WAS APPROVED
FOR PHYSICIANS. THIS IS ABOUT
HEALING ARTS. THIS WOULD EXTEND
TO DENTISTS. IT WOULD EXTEND TO
NURSES, NURSE PRACTITIONERS. SO
YOU KNOW I CAN'T SPEAK TO OTHER
BILLS. I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO THE
BILL THAT WE HAVE HERE. AND I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO
RECOGNIZE THAT THE PROBLEM WE'RE
TRYING TO SOLVE IS NOT
PROCESSING. THE PROBLEM WE'RE
TRYING TO SOLVE IS COMMUNITIES
THAT ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY
SICKER THAN OTHERS,
DISPROPORTIONATELY UNDERSERVED,
DISPROPORTIONATELY BY LACK OF
ACCESS TO CARE. BEING ABLE TO BE
PRIORITIZED FIRST THROUGH AN
EXPEDITED PROCESS. SO THAT IS
THE PROBLEM THAT THIS BILL SEEKS
TO SOLVE. AND YOU KNOW, I THINK
WE HAVE TO, I'M NOT ONE FOR
TRYING TO SOLVE A PROBLEM THAT
DOESN'T EXIST. SO THE PROCESSING
DOESN'T EXIST AS A PROBLEM. THE
PROBLEM IS REALLY TRYING TO CARE
, FOR, FOR UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES. AND THAT'S WHAT
THIS BILL DOES. BUT WHY DO YOU
HAVE TO HAVE AN EXPEDITED
PROCESS? IT'S BECAUSE WE NEED TO
GET PROVIDERS INTO THESE
COMMUNITIES. I QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE, AND I AGREE WITH THAT.
BUT THE REASON THAT YOU NEED AN
EXPEDITED PROCESS IS BECAUSE THE
PROCESS IS OTHERWISE TOO SLOW.
AND EVIDENCE IS WITH NOW AT THE
END OF THIS SESSION, IF THE
OTHER PROPOSALS ARE SUCCESSFUL,
WE'LL HAVE SIX EXCEPTIONS FOR
THE EXPEDITED PROCESS. THEN WE
NEED TO PRIORITIZE WHICH ONE OF
THOSE IS MORE IMPORTANT, I
GUESS. BUT YOU. THAT'S CHASING
YOUR TAIL. I CAN'T SPEAK TO
THOSE BILLS. I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO
MY BILLS SO THEY EXIST. SO I
HEAR YOUR CONCERN AND I THINK WE
CROSSED THAT BRIDGE. WHEN WE GET
THERE. NOW THE BRIDGE IS HOW DO
WE GET CARE TO THESE COMMUNITIES
AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. AND YOU
KNOW, THIS THIS, AT THIS POINT,
WE HAVE PHYSICIANS WITH AN
EXPEDITED PROCESS. WE THINK THE
OTHER HEALING ARTS PROVIDERS
ALSO NEED TO HAVE THE PROCESS.
AND IF THIS BECOMES AN ISSUE,
I'M HAPPY TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE.
ONCE WE LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENS AT
THE END OF THIS SESSION AND INTO
NEXT YEAR, AND THAT WE WILL
ADDRESS, SHOULD THERE BE A
PROCESS ISSUE, WE WILL ADDRESS
IT. BUT THIS BILL IS JUST SAYING
THAT THE PROCESS PROVIDED TO
PHYSICIANS SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO
OTHER HEALING ARTS BOARDS. ALL
RIGHT. SENATOR ARCHULETA. THANK
YOU, SENATOR, FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY,
THERE'S A GREAT NEED TO SERVE
THE UNDERSERVED AND ESPECIALLY
IN THE MEDICAL FIELD. AND WE
HAVE GREAT ORGANIZATIONS LIKE
ALTAMED, WHO'S BEEN DOING THIS
FOR YEARS AND YEARS. AND THEY,
TOO, ARE TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO
BRING PEOPLE WITHIN THE
COMMUNITY, GETTING THEM IN
SCHOOLS, WHETHER IT BE DOCTORS
AND EVEN TO THE POINT THEY'VE
ASKED TO GO INTO MEXICO TO ASK
DOCTORS TO COME IN AND TEST AND
STUDY AND FINISH UP HERE. SO, I
MEAN, THERE'S SUCH A DIRE NEED
FOR THE UNDERSERVED, NO DOUBT.
BUT MY CONCERN IS HOW DO YOU, AT
THE END, ASK THEM TO STAY? AND,
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO
WALK AWAY AFTER A YEAR. I MEAN,
IS THERE A COMMITMENT? I GUESS
THAT'S MY QUESTION. IF THERE'S A
COMMITMENT, HOW DO YOU CEMENT
THAT COMMITMENT TO MAKE IT LONG
LASTING? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE LOOKING FOR, NOT SOMEONE
JUST COME IN AND COME OUT. BUT
TO ACTUALLY SERVE THE COMMUNITY.
I'M HAPPY TO HAVE ONE OF OUR
WITNESSES ANSWER THAT TECHNICAL
QUESTION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
SENATOR ARCHULETA. AND I MIGHT
HAVE OUR PROVIDERS ADD ON, BUT,
SOMETHING WE'VE REALLY
DISCOVERED IS ONCE FOLKS GET
INTO COMMUNITY HEALTH AND, AND
HAVE THE EXPERIENCE OF WORKING
WITH FOLKS WITH THE MOST NEED,
THEY ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO
STAY LONG. TERME. AND THAT'S ONE
OF THE GREAT THINGS ABOUT THIS
LEGISLATION. IS IT ALSO REALLY
INCENTIVIZES FOLKS TO COME INTO
OUR FACILITIES. WE MAY MAY NOT
BE ABLE TO COMPETE DOLLAR FOR
DOLLAR WITH, SOME OF THE FOLKS
IN THE HEALTH CARE SPACE WHO CAN
PAY MORE. BUT SOMETHING LIKE
THIS REALLY INCENTIVIZES FOLKS
TO WORK IN COMMUNITY HEALTH. AND
ONCE THEY HAVE THE EXPERIENCE OF
WORKING WITH THESE COMMUNITIES,
WHAT WE FIND IS, IS FOLKS TEND
TO STAY, SO THAT HASN'T BEEN A
BIG CONCERN OF OURS. AND I DON'T
KNOW IF THE OTHER FOLKS WANT TO
ADD ON TO THAT. YEAH. JUST TO
ADD TO THAT, I THINK MANY OF US
ARE BLEEDING HEARTS. SO ONCE WE
GET THERE, WE WANT TO CONTINUE
TO BE THERE. I KNOW MYSELF I CAN
GO LITERALLY ANYWHERE IF I
WANTED TO, BUT THERE'S NO WAY
THAT I WOULD, BECAUSE I KNOW
THAT WE'RE SERVING A POPULATION
THAT REALLY, REALLY NEEDS US IN
SACRAMENTO COUNTY ITSELF, AROUND
70% OF ALL BLACK PEOPLE AND
PEOPLE OF THE AFRICAN DIASPORA
ON MEDI-CAL. SO JUST LOOKING AT
THAT, IF WE'RE UNABLE TO MEET
THE NEEDS THERE, WE CLEARLY ARE
DEMONSTRATING A HEALTH EQUITY
ISSUE. ADDITIONALLY, IN TERMS OF
THE QUESTIONS AROUND RESOURCES,
I'M A FRUGAL PERSON BY NATURE,
IN TERMS OF REDUCING HEALTH CARE
COSTS, AROUND 50 TO 50% OF ALL
EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS ARE
AVOIDABLE. AN AVERAGE, VISIT IN
THE EMERGENCY ROOM IS $2,960.
FOR ME, IF I SEE THE PATIENT,
IT'S $196 GENERALLY ACROSS THE
STATE. THAT'S 7% OF THE COST.
I'M PRETTY SURE WE CAN USE SOME
OF THAT MONEY TO MEET THE NEEDS
IN TERMS OF HELPING TO EXPEDITE,
MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE THE
RESOURCES TO DO THE
CREDENTIALING. THAT'S A PRETTY
BIG DIFFERENCE. OKAY. AND
OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE DISCOVERED
THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT ARE
STILL THERE. MEDI-CAL MEDICARE,
GETTING THE PROFESSIONALS TO
STAY IN THE COMMUNITIES. THAT'S
THAT'S ONE. GOD BLESS YOU FOR
DOING THAT BY THE WAY. BUT
THAT'S THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME. I THINK
THAT THIS WILL OPEN THE DOOR.
NOW, LET'S BE CLEAR. THIS IS NOT
GIVING AN ADVANTAGE. IT'S JUST
IN TAKING THAT APPLICATION AND
SAYING, OKAY, THIS ONE IS READY
TO SERVE IN THE UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES. LET'S GO AHEAD AND
TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. AND BECAUSE
THERE'S PLENTY OF OTHERS, IS
THAT CORRECT? YES, I THINK
THAT'S CORRECT. AND JUST LOOKING
AT IT FROM A SOCIAL JUSTICE
STANDPOINT, WE OFTEN LOOK AT THE
FENCE. RIGHT NOW, OUR GOAL IS TO
TAKE THE FENCE DOWN, NOT TO GIVE
ANOTHER STEP. VERY GOOD. AND
I'LL BE READY TO MOVE THE BILL
WHEN APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK
YOU, SENATOR ARCHULETA. SENATOR
GLAZIER, JUST WANT TO THANK THE
SENATOR FOR HER WORK IN THIS
AREA AND FOCUS. I'M HAPPY TO
MOVE THE BILL TO AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. OKAY SEEING NO
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, SENATOR
SMALLWOOD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU
FOR ALL OF THE GREAT DISCUSSION
TODAY. AND LIKE I SAID, WE WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH COMMITTEE
ON ON THIS BILL AND THIS IS A
DOLLAR AND CENTS. THIS SAVES US
IN THE LONG RUN UNTIL WE HAVE
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. WE'VE GOT
TO CREATE THE INCENTIVES THAT
BRING OUR CAPACITY, OUR SKILLED
PROVIDERS, OUR HEALING ARTS
PROVIDERS INTO THE MOST
UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES BECAUSE
IN THE END, IT SAVES LIVES AND
IT DOES SAVE DOLLARS AND CENTS.
AS THE GOOD DOCTOR SAID. AND
WITH THAT, I ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. OKAY, JUST TWO COMMENTS
FROM ME. FIRST OF ALL, SENATOR
CUEVAS, THANK YOU FOR WORKING
WITH STAFF ON JUST LOGISTICS OF
THE BILL. THE OVERARCHING IDEA
OF THE BILL IS OBVIOUSLY
IMPORTANT, SO THANK YOU FOR
WORKING WITH THEM. I KNOW YOU SO
I KNOW YOU'LL KEEP WORKING ON IT
ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE FINISH
LINE AND THEN JUST ONE POINT OF
PRIVILEGE. ONE OF THE BEST
THINGS ABOUT BEING IN SACRAMENTO
IS THAT I GET TO SEE THE ALL
STAR LINEUPS IN EVERY CATEGORY,
EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE. SO TO THE
THREE OF YOU WHO ARE ALSO SOME
OF YOU, MY FRIENDS, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR WHAT YOU DO IN
THIS CITY AND IN THIS COMMUNITY
EVERY DAY. REALLY GRATEFUL AND
TO SEE YOU HERE FIGHTING FOR THE
NEXT IS VERY MEANINGFUL TO MY
HEART. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH ON
THAT NOTE, WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE
MOTION, MAYBE TWO OVER HERE FROM
SENATOR ARCHULETA AND GLACIER.
CAN WE CALL THE ROLL OKAY.
MOTION IS TO PASS THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. ASHBY
AYE. AYE. ASHBY. AYE. NGUYEN
ALVARADO. GIL. ALVARADO. GIL.
AYE ARCHULETA. AYE. ARCHULETA.
AYE. BECKER. DODD DODD. AYE.
EGGMAN. EGGMAN. AYE. GLASER
GLASER. AYE. MENGIBAR. AYE.
MENGIBAR. AYE. NILO ROTH.
SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS AYE.
SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS AYE. WILK AYE.
WILK AYE. OKAY. THAT'S SORRY.
THAT'S NINE YESES. NO NOS. WE
WILL KEEP THAT OPEN ON CALL.
THANK YOU. SENATOR THANK YOU,
LADIES, AND THANK YOU TO YOUR
WITNESSES. HAVE A GREAT WEEK.
ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON. WE HAVE
HAD ONE ITEM REMOVED JUST TO
MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, SENATOR
DODD, IT LOOKS LIKE, THE AUTHOR
HAS PULLED SB 1206. SO WE WILL
PUT THAT BACK ON, ON A FUTURE
AGENDA. AND WE WILL MOVE TO THE
FINAL ITEM, WHICH IS ME. SO I'M
GOING TO HAND THIS OVER TO YOU,
MY.
AT THIS TIME WE'RE GOING TO BE
HEARING ITEM FIVE SB 1498. MADAM
CHAIR, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE. LET'S
SEE IF WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS
LAST ONE QUICKLY. AND I CAN GIVE
YOU GUYS THE REST OF YOUR MONDAY
BACK HERE. ALL RIGHT, SB 1498
PROVIDES A NECESSARY ENFORCEMENT
TOOL TO ADDRESS THE ILLEGAL
MARKETING OF CANNABIS AND
CANNABIS PRODUCTS THAT ARE
ATTRACTIVE TO CHILDREN. CURRENT
LAW SPECIFIES RULES THAT
LICENSEES MUST ADHERE TO FOR THE
ADVERTISING OF CANNABIS,
INCLUDING PROHIBITING
ADVERTISING THAT IS ATTRACTIVE
TO YOUNG PEOPLE. WHILE ILLEGAL,
SOME CANNABIS OPERATORS CHOOSE
TO WILLFULLY VIOLATE THESE
PROHIBITIONS BY CONTINUING TO
ADVERTISE CONTENT THAT IS
ATTRACTIVE TO CHILDREN. THIS
LEAVES THE PROMISE OF
PROPOSITION 64 TO PROTECT YOUTH
FROM EXPOSURE TO CANNABIS
ADVERTISING THAT IS ATTRACTIVE
TO CHILDREN, UNFULFILLED. THE
BILL ALLOWS PARENTS AND
GUARDIANS OF MINORS TO TAKE
EXISTING PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION
AGAINST CANNABIS BUSINESSES IN
VIOLATION OF THESE CANNABIS
ADVERTISING LAWS PROTECTING
YOUTH A PARENT OR GUARDIAN MUST
DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY NOTIFIED
THE LICENSEE OF THE NONCOMPLIANT
ADVERTISEMENT BEFORE TAKING
LEGAL ACTION. THEN, IF A
CANNABIS BUSINESS FAILS TO
REMOVE OR FIX THE ADVERTISEMENT,
THAT IS ATTRACTIVE TO CHILDREN,
A COURT COULD AWARD A PLAINTIFF
SOME OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. CIVIL
PENALTIES, AND REASONABLE
ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS. SB 1498
IS A BILL THAT SIMPLY SEEKS TO
KEEP OUR CHILDREN SAFE AND
ENSURE THAT PROP 64 IS
IMPLEMENTED AS INTENDED AND
PROMISED TO THE VOTERS OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME,
DO YOU HAVE ANY? IS THERE ANY
SPONSORS OR LEAD WITNESSES? NOT
SURE IF WE HAVE A LEAD WITNESS
HERE TODAY. ARE THERE OTHERS WHO
WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT
OF SB 1498? SEEING NONE, ANYONE
HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO OPPOSE SB
1498, PLEASE COME FORWARD. MADAM
CHAIR AND SENATORS, I AM NOT
OPPOSED. AMY JENKINS, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA CANNABIS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION. THÀNH. WE
ACTUALLY SUPPORT WHAT THE
SENATOR IS TRYING TO DO. WE LOOK
FORWARD TO SPEAKING WITH HER. WE
HAVE SOME AMENDMENTS WE MIGHT
WANT TO PROPOSE THAT WOULD
INCORPORATE INTOXICATING HEMP
PRODUCTS, AS WELL AS ILLICIT
PRODUCTS TO ACHIEVE THE
OBJECTIVES THAT SHE IS TRYING TO
ACCOMPLISH WITH HER BILL. SO
LOOK FORWARD TO FURTHER
DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU. HAPPY TO
WORK WITH HER. THANK YOU, AND
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE.
SENATOR EGGMAN, THANK YOU, THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD,
AND I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE STILL
WORKING ON THIS? YES, WORKING
WITH THE DEPARTMENT. WORKING
WITH COMMITTEE STAFF. YES. WE
ARE. OKAY. JUST BECAUSE THERE'S
A I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF ANY
TIME YOU DO A PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION, RIGHT? MAKES PEOPLE
NERVOUS. AND THIS SEEMS TO BE
VERY BROAD, LIKE, HOW DO YOU
DEFINE I MEAN, HOW DO YOU DEFINE
WHAT'S ATTRACTIVE TO A CHILD?
AND THEN SO, I MEAN, THE WAY I
READ THIS, I'M DRIVING DOWN THE
STREET. I DON'T LIKE A CANNABIS
SIGN THAT I SEE ON THE FREEWAY.
I GO TO THE SHOP AND I SAY, I
DON'T LIKE THAT SIGN. I THINK MY
KIDS LIKE IT. TAKE IT DOWN OR
I'M GOING TO SUE YOU. YEAH. YOU
KNOW, IT'S PROBABLY NOT CLEAR IN
THIS BILL, BUT THAT IS ACTUALLY
ALREADY DEFINED WHAT THIS BILL
DOES IS ALLOW THE A PARENT OR A
GUARDIAN TO DO WHAT OUR STATE
AGENCY CAN ALREADY DO. THE TRUTH
IS THAT OUR STATE AGENCY IS
INUNDATED AND CAN'T, CAN'T QUITE
DO ALL OF THESE CAUSES OF
ACTIONS ON THEIR OWN, THUS
CREATING THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION. WHAT IS IDENTIFIED AS
ADVERTISING FOR THAT IS, YOU
KNOW, AIMED AT CHILDREN HAS
ALREADY BEEN DEFINED. ALL THIS
DOES IS ALLOW THAT PRIVATE RIGHT
OF ACTION, THEN FOR PARENTS OR
GUARDIANS TO BE ABLE TO BE A
PART OF THAT ENFORCEMENT, TOO.
AND IT ALSO HAS A NOTICE
REQUIREMENT ON THE FRONT END OF
IT. SO IF A PARENT OR GUARDIAN
WANTED TO SUE AN AGENCY OR A
COMPANY THAT THEY BELIEVED WERE
ADVERTISING TOWARDS THEIR
CHILDREN OR WERE IN VIOLATION OF
THE EXISTING RULES, THEY'D HAVE
TO GIVE THEM NOTICE FIRST. THEY
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT,
AND THEN IF THEY DIDN'T DO THAT,
THEN THEY COULD BRING FORWARD
THE RIGHT OF ACTION. AND WHAT
DOES THAT PROCESS I MEAN, WHAT
DOES THAT PROCESS LOOK LIKE?
LIKE TAKE IT DOWN OR IS THERE
SURE THEY COULD TAKE IT DOWN.
YEAH. SO LET'S SAY IT'S A
BILLBOARD. LIKE YOU SAID, THEY
TOOK THE BILLBOARD DOWN. I THINK
THAT WOULD BE SEEN AS A
CORRECTIVE ACTION. IF IT WAS
PACKAGING, THEY'D HAVE TO CHANGE
THE PACKAGING. IF THEY WERE
CHOOSING A LOCATION LIKE SCHOOL,
LIKE IN FRONT OF A SCHOOL, SAY,
BILLBOARDS FACING ONLY A SCHOOL
THAT'S THE AUDIENCE. SAY THEY
BOUGHT A LITTLE LEAGUE SIGN AND
THEY PUT IT OUT IN LEFT FIELD OF
THE LITTLE LEAGUE. OKAY, GOT TO
TAKE THAT DOWN. SO JUST PROBABLY
DEPENDS ON WHAT WHAT IT IS ABOUT
THE ADVERTISING THING. THAT IS
IT THE TIME, PLACE, MANNER,
CONTENT. WHAT IS IT ABOUT THAT
ADVERTISING THAT IS CREATING THE
APPEARANCE THAT IT IS FOCUSED ON
CHILDREN. OKAY. AND THEN THAT'S
THEN THAT THAT IS DOCUMENTED IN
THAT IS ALREADY AN EXISTING LAW
THAT THE DEPARTMENT CAN ENFORCE,
SEES THAT, THEN SAY THAT AGAIN,
I'M SORRY, SOMEBODY SEES THAT,
THEN WHAT IS WHAT IS THAT
PROCESS LOOK LIKE? I GUESS. AND
THEN WHAT IS IT? WELL, FIRST OF
ALL, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE A HARM,
SO YOU'D HAVE TO FEEL LIKE YOUR
CHILD WAS NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY
THAT. THAT CREATES THE RIGHT OF
ACTION AND THEN YOU'D HAVE TO
NOTIFY THE AGENCY THAT HAVE TO
HAVE A CHANCE TO CORRECT. AND
THEN YOU COULD BRING FORWARD A
CASE AS A PARENT BY THE WAY,
THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT
THAT THE DEPARTMENT CAN STILL
PROCEED WITH ACTIONS. IT JUST
ADDS GIVES PARENTS THE SAME
RIGHT TO DO SO. AND IF YOU IF
YOU BELIEVED THAT YOUR CHILD WAS
NEGATIVELY IMPACTED AND THEN YOU
BROUGHT FORWARD THIS RULING, YOU
TOLD THE AGENCY OR THE COMPANY,
HEY, YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE
ADVERTISING, YOU PUT, YOU KNOW,
A STRAWBERRY SHORTCAKE ON THIS
AND YOU PUT IT NEAR AT THE LOWER
RACKS OR WHATEVER, AND YOU'RE
ADVERTISING TOWARDS CHILDREN. I
SAW YOUR AD ON MINECRAFT.
WHATEVER ONLINE YOU WOULD GIVE
NOTICE TO THE COMPANY, TO THE
AGENCY THAT'S DOING IT, WHATEVER
CORPORATION IT IS. AND IF THEY
DON'T CORRECT THAT, TAKE THEM
DOWN. THEY'RE STILL ADVERTISING.
YOU'RE STILL SEEING THAT THEY'RE
STILL STRAWBERRY SHORTCAKE ON
THE PACKAGING. THEN YOU COULD
BRING FORWARD YOUR PRIVATE RIGHT
OF ACTION AS A PARENT, AND THEN
YOU WOULD SUE. AND THEN AS I
LISTED OFF THE THINGS THAT THE
COURT COULD, COULD RESPOND TO
THE REMEDIES WOULD BE AN
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, WHICH IS YOU
GOT TO STOP. THAT'S THE COURT
TELLING YOU, YOU GOT TO STOP NOW
. THE CIVIL PENALTIES OF 5000
PER VIOLATION. AND THEN, OF
COURSE, ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS. I
MEAN, I'LL STOP. I HAVE A I HAVE
A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS.
SO I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND IT'S
PROBABLY WORKING PROCESS AND I
KNOW IT'S DOUBLE REFERRED. AND
SO I'LL BE YES IT'S GOING IT
GOES FROM HERE BACK TO RULES
WHERE I THINK IT WILL BE SENT TO
JUDICI BECAUSE I GUESS I JUST
HAVE A LOT, A LOT OF LIKE, WHY
NOT THEN JUST TALK TO THE
DEPARTMENT WHO'S ALREADY IN
CHARGE OF IT? WHY CREATE THIS
WHOLE OTHER ANYWAY? SO I HAVE A
LOT OF QUESTIONS. SURE, I'M
HAPPY TO ALSO SIT DOWN WITH YOU
AT THE ANSWER TO THAT LAST PART
OF THE QUESTION. AND REALLY, THE
WHOLE POINT OF THE BILL IS THAT
THE DEPARTMENT DOESN'T HAVE THE
RESOURCES TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON
ALL OF THE ACTIONS THAT NEED. SO
WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT IN PARENTS
HANDS. I'M SORRY. SO WE'RE GOING
TO PUT IT IN PARENTS HANDS LIKE
A CITIZEN'S ARREST. IT GIVES
PARENTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE
INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS. YES IT
WOULD BE ONE MORE FORM OF
ENFORCEMENT. YES OKAY. YES.
THANKS. SENATOR GLASER. YEAH.
THANK YOU, SENATOR, AS AS WE
HAVE TALKED ABOUT, I'M IN
COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. I MEAN,
ABSOLUTELY, 200. I'VE NEVER BEEN
A FAN OF PRIVATE RIGHT TO ACTION
, BUT I WOULD SAY IN DEFENSE OF
YOUR BILL, THAT YOU DO LAY OUT,
YOU KNOW, A CURE PROCESS. AND I
THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I
THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE WHEN WE
SEE ABUSES OUT THERE, THEY DON'T
TYPICALLY ALLOW FOR THAT CURE.
AND CERTAINLY, FACILITIES FOR
THE HANDICAPPED IS A CLASSIC
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION ABUSE
THAT HAS HAPPENED OUT THERE. SO
I WANT TO JUST GIVE YOU PROPS
FOR THAT PROCESS THAT YOU'VE
OUTLINED IN THE BILL, THERE WAS
A AND YOU PUT SOME LIMITATIONS
ON HOW MUCH 5000 PER VIOLATION
TO TRY TO NOT CREATE THIS,
LAWYER MILL THAT JUST GOES AFTER
, COMPANIES THAT MAY BE DOING
THE RIGHT THING, BUT THEY CAN
MAKE A CASE THAT SOMEHOW THEY'RE
DOING THE WRONG THING. ONE OF MY
QUESTIONS ON THE $5,000 PER
VIOLATION IS, IS WHETHER OR NOT
IF SOMEBODY, PUTS UP A
BILLBOARD, AS WE WERE HEARING AS
AN EXAMPLE, AND THAT'S A 5000
PER VIOLATION EXAMPLE, WHAT IF
THEY HAD 100 BILLBOARDS IN
CALIFORNIA? WOULD THAT BE 100
TIMES THAT 5000? AND THEN
THEREFORE IT'S NOT REALLY KIND
OF A MODEST, YOU KNOW, REIMBURSE
TO SOME COLLECTION OF FOLKS.
GREAT QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW THE
ANSWER. I'D HAVE TO LOOK INTO IT
FOR YOU. OKAY AND THEN THE,
BECAUSE IT SAYS IN THE BILL THAT
THAT THAT THE IT IT IT
CONNECTION WITH THE SAME OR
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
ADVERTISING OR MARKETING. SO
THAT'S A, THAT'S A QUESTION THAT
GOES TO THAT. IS THAT WOULD THAT
BE CONSIDERED. WELL THE FINEST
PER VIOLATION. SO YOU'RE AT THE
HEART OF YOUR QUESTION IS WHAT
CONSTITUTES ONE VIOLATION VERSUS
WOULD IT BE TEN VIOLATIONS IF
THERE WERE TEN BILLBOARDS AND I
MEAN, HONESTLY, IF YOU'RE A
LAWYER, YOU COULD PUT THAT
TOGETHER. WHICHEVER WAY THAT YOU
WANTED TO. BUT IF WE WANTED TO
ADD SOME ADDITIONAL CLARITY WHEN
WE GET TO JUDICIAL ON THAT, WE
CERTAINLY CAN. OKAY. AND THEN,
AS WE EXCHANGED TEXTS OVER THE
WEEKEND, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, ONE
OF THE, ONE OF THE WAYS TO AVOID
THIS TYPE OF, OF REMEDY IS TO
EMPOWER OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES. I
MEAN, SURE, THESE AGENCIES THAT
AREN'T DOING THEIR WORK WELL,
THAT'S A PROBLEM. AND FRANKLY,
IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE
RIGHT ON TOP OF. AND THEY SHOULD
BE CALLED TO ACCOUNT FOR NOT
ENFORCING THE LAW IN PLACES LIKE
THIS. AND THEIR BUDGET SHOULD BE
WITHHELD IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO
PRIORITIZE THEM THE WAY THEY
SHOULD BE, TO MAKE SURE THE KIDS
AREN'T EXPOSED TO THESE TYPES OF
DANGEROUS PRODUCTS FOR THEM, BUT
MY QUESTION WAS REALLY SO WE
HAVE AN ATTORNEY GENERAL, WE
HAVE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, WE HAVE
CITY ATTORNEYS THAT COME TO US
HERE IN THE CAPITOL EVERY YEAR
TO SAY, GIVE US MORE AUTHORITY
IN ENFORCING PUBLIC LAW BECAUSE
WE DON'T SEE IT HAPPENING AND WE
WANT THAT POWER. PLEASE GIVE IT
TO US. SO HAVE YOU GIVEN SOME
THOUGHT AS ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE
TO DOING WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO
ACCOMPLISH? AND WHAT I AGREE
WITH OF EXPANDING THE POWER OF
OUR CITY ATTORNEYS AND DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS, BECAUSE I THINK THEY
WOULD LOVE TO FIND THOSE
EXAMPLES AND, AND, AND FROM A
PUBLIC REPRESENTATION POINT OF
VIEW, NOT A PRIVATE INTEREST.
MAKE THE CASE. SO AS I COMMITTED
TO YOU OVER THE WEEKEND, FIRST
OF ALL, A COUPLE QUESTIONS
WRAPPED UP IN YOUR QUESTION.
THERE I KNOW I DON'T HAVE TO
EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU, SO PLEASE
DON'T TAKE IT AS THAT, BUT MORE
JUST PUTTING IT ON THE RECORD IN
A YEAR WITH A $60 BILLION
SHORTFALL, I WISH THAT WE COULD
JUST GROW THE DEPARTMENT, GIVE
THEM THE RESOURCES THAT THEY
NEED. IT'S THE SAME ARGUMENT
THAT WAS MADE, YOU KNOW, TO
SENATOR SMALLWOOD, WHOEVER'S ON
THE LAST ITEM, IT WOULD BE IDEAL
FOR US TO JUST RIGHT SIZE EVERY
DEPARTMENT SO THEY COULD DEAL
WITH EVERY SINGLE THING THAT
COMES THEIR WAY, THAT IS NOT AN
OPPORTUNITY, NOT THIS YEAR. AND
IT HASN'T BEEN IN THE PAST. SO
FAR. AND THE AMOUNT OF
RESPONSIBILITIES THAT HAVE BEEN
LAID ON THIS PARTICULAR
DEPARTMENT ARE, ARE PRETTY
SIGNIFICANT. WHICH LEADS TO THE
NEXT HALF OF YOUR QUESTION,
WHICH IS THEN WHY NOT CITY
ATTORNEY'S DAS AND THE AG?
THERE'S NOTHING PREVENTING THE
AG FROM GETTING INVOLVED. NOW WE
COULD SINGULARLY PULL HIM OUT
AND ADD HIM, WHICH IS
POTENTIALLY SOMETHING THAT COULD
HAPPEN IN JUDICIAL AS WELL. I'M
NOT SURE THIS IS WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF CITY ATTORNEYS.
HAVING WORKED CLOSELY WITH A
VERY LARGE CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENT, I'M NOT SURE THIS
WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THEY
WOULD HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO
ENFORCE, BUT MAYBE POTENTIALLY
SOMETHING I'M WILLING TO LOOK AT
AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE
BILL. AS WELL. GREAT. THANK YOU.
AS I ALSO TOLD YOU IN OUR TEXT
EXCHANGE, THANK YOU. I HAVE
LITTLE TO NO SYMPATHY FOR
CANNABIS ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE
MARKETING TO CHILDREN. INDEED.
AND I AGREE WITH THAT. AND I DO
THINK THAT, DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
WOULD LOVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
ENFORCE IF WE GAVE IT TO THEM.
AND I THINK THAT'S A REMEDY. I
APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN.
DEFINITELY. ONE WE CAN LOOK AT.
OKAY, SENATOR NILO. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR, I, I AGREE WITH THE
THINGS THAT SENATOR GLAZER SAID,
I LIKE WHAT YOU'RE DOING, AND I
CAN'T REMEMBER ANY TIME THAT I
HAVE SUPPORTED A PRIVATE RIGHT
OF ACTION. I HAVE BEEN
UNIVERSALLY OPPOSED TO THAT. BUT
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT MINDLESS
CONSISTENCY IS THE HOBGOBLIN OF
WEAK MINDS, I CAN SUPPORT IT
HERE. AND BUT NOW I'M NOT AN
ATTORNEY. YOU ARE. BUT YOU
MENTIONED IN ANSWERING SENATOR
EGGMAN'S QUESTION THAT FIRST YOU
HAVE TO PROVE HARM. YOU DON'T.
AND PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. ALL
YOU HAVE TO PROVE IS THAT
THERE'S A VIOLATION OF A
REGULATION. THERE DOESN'T HAVE
TO BE ANY INJURY, WHICH IS A
FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE OF OUR LEGAL
SYSTEM, WHICH IS WHY I HATE THE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. BUT BUT
THAT BEING THE CASE, I AM
LEARNING TO HATE THE PROPOSITION
THAT LEGALIZED MARIJUANA. THE
MORE AND MORE AND MORE AS TIME
GOES ON, IT IS AN IMPOSSIBLE
PROPOSITION THAT HAS CREATED
MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT HAS
CREATED ANY BENEFITS. THAT POINT
ASIDE, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT
THERE ARE LEGAL MORE, SO
ILLEGAL, ILLICIT. SELLERS OF
MARIJUANA THAT DO ATTEMPT TO
ATTRACT MAKE THEIR PRODUCT
ATTRACTIVE TO CHILDREN. IT IS
ABSOLUTELY WRONG. AND SO FOR A
PARENT TO SEEK REDRESS ON THAT,
THEY'D HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE
KID STARTED SMOKING A JOINT AND
THEN SUE ON THE BASIS OF THAT
HAPPENING. BECAUSE OF THE
ADVERTISING. WHY WAIT TILL THEN?
I CAN SEE THE LOGIC OF IT, THERE
ARE OBVIOUSLY DETAIL PROBLEMS
HERE. I TRUST THAT YOU WILL BE
WORKING ON THAT. BUT ONE OTHER
THAT I'D LIKE TO ADD TO THE MIX.
SURE. IN THE BILL IT SAYS THAT
ANY CIVIL PENALTIES AWARDED WILL
BE SPLIT BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF
AND THE GENERAL FUND. I DON'T
UNDERSTAND WHY ANY OF IT WOULD
GO TO THE GENERAL FUND, AND I
WOULD PREFER THAT ALL TO GO TO
THE PLAINTIFF. OR TO THE
CANNABIS OVERSIGHT, BEG YOUR
PARDON, OR TO THE CANNABIS
OVERSIGHT RATHER THAN JUST
GENERAL FUND. BE MORE SPECIFIC
WITH THE ALLOCATION. IF THAT'S
THE CASE, THEN BE MORE SPECIFIC.
WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, TOO,
ENFORCEMENT IS ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT I HATE ABOUT THE
PROPOSITION TWO. IT'S THERE'S
JUST THINGS THAT AREN'T
ENFORCEABLE. BUT, THAT'S WHY I'M
ABLE TO, OVERSEE MY OTHERWISE
CONSISTENCY ON PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION. AND I AGREE WITH WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. I KNOW
YOU'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES. YEAH,
I APPRECIATE THAT, SENATOR
ALVARADO. KILL THANK YOU,
SENATOR ASHBY. I'M ALSO KIND OF
DISSECTING, YOUR BILL HERE, THE
QUESTION THAT I HAVE, MAYBE,
SENATOR NILO KIND OF TOUCHED ON
THIS, BUT, FOR ME, IT'S NOT
CLEAR THAT A PARENT OR GUARDIAN
OF A MINOR CHILD IS IT? THEY
WOULD HAVE TO BEGIN. THEY WOULD
HAVE TO BRING ACTION ON BEHALF
OF THEIR OWN MINOR CHILD, OR
JUST BEING A PARENT. NÓ NÓ ON
BEHALF OF THEIR OWN CHILD. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. SO THAT FOR ME,
WASN'T CLEAR. AND THEN ARE THEY
ESSENTIALLY EXERCISING THEIR
RIGHT AS A PARENT OR GUARDIAN ON
BEHALF OF THEIR CHILD TO BRING A
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION SO THAT
THEY'RE CHILD HAVING THEIR OWN
CHILD IS WHAT GIVES THEM
STANDING? YEAH OKAY. BUT THE
MONEY IS FOR THE PARENTS TO
RECOVER DAMAGES. OR IS IT? WELL,
IT'S A REALLY SMALL AMOUNT OF
MONEY. IT'S PRIMARILY GOING TO
END UP BEING LAWYERS FEES SO
THAT PEOPLE HAVE THE ABILITY TO
PAY FOR IF THEY BRING FORWARD
THE SUIT, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO
GET REASONABLE FEES AND RESPONSE
. AND LIKE I SAID, ON THE CIVIL
PENALTIES PIECE, IT'S ONLY
$5,000. SO YOU KNOW, WE CAN TAKE
A LOOK AT WHERE THAT MONEY GOES.
I'VE, I'VE HEARD FROM A COUPLE
PEOPLE NOW THAT THEY WANT TO
KNOW WHERE THAT MONEY WOULD GO,
MORE SPECIFICALLY MEANING NOT
INTO THE GENERAL FUND. SOME
PEOPLE WANT IT TO GO ENTIRELY TO
THE VICTIMS. SOME PEOPLE WANTED
TO GO ENTIRELY TO CANNABIS
ENFORCEMENT. I'M COMMITTED TO
TAKING A LOOK AT THAT. TALKING
TO THE DEPARTMENT A LITTLE BIT
MORE ABOUT THAT PIECE. BUT YEAH,
IN TERMS OF STANDING, IT WOULD
BE BEING THE PARENT OF A CHILD
WHO'S NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY THE
ADVERTISING. SO IF THE, IF THE
PARENT HAS MULTIPLE CHILDREN,
COULD THEY BRING MULTIPLE SUITS?
EXCELLENT QUESTION. I'LL HAVE TO
AGAIN, THAT'S THAT. YOUR
QUESTION IS THE SAME AS SENATOR
GLASER'S ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES
A VIOLATION. MEANING THERE'S TWO
KIDS A VIOLATION OR 100 KIDS,
100 VIOLATIONS. AND SO WE'LL
TAKE A LOOK AT THAT TOO. AGAIN,
THIS GOES TO WELL, IT GOES TO
RULES. AND THEN RULES IS GOING
TO SEND IT TO JUDICIARY. AND WE
CAN TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OF THE
CLEARING THOSE THINGS UP. RIGHT
NOW. SOME OF THIS IS ALREADY
CODIFIED IN WHAT THE DEPARTMENT
DOES AND JUST GIVES THE PARENT
THE SAME RIGHT OF ACTION THAT
THE DEPARTMENT ALREADY HAS. SO I
NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT AT
WHETHER OR NOT THE DEPARTMENT
HAS ALREADY IDENTIFIED THAT
CHILDREN IN ONE HOUSEHOLD WOULD
CONSTITUTE ONE VIOLATION,
BECAUSE I GUESS MY CONCERN IS,
YOU KNOW, THE AND I KNOW THIS IS
NOT YOUR INTENT, BUT THE
UTILIZATION OF A CHILD AS A PROP
OR A MEANS TO THEN OPEN UP. IT'S
DEFINITELY NOT ENOUGH MONEY FOR
IT TO BE, A LUCRATIVE
OPPORTUNITY. TÊ. THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT I THINK SENATOR
NILO AND SENATOR GLASER AND
SENATOR EGGMAN ALL SORT OF
TOUCHED ON. WE WANT TO AVOID I
DON'T I ACTUALLY DON'T OFTEN
VOTE ON PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION
EITHER TO AMEND JUDICI DON'T
LOVE THEM. BUT THE PROBLEM THAT
I AM SEEKING TO ADDRESS HERE IS
THAT OUR DEPARTMENT DOESN'T HAVE
THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE THIS
RULE, AND THEY NEED SOME HELP.
AND SO WE STARTED OFF BROADLY
LOOKING AT WHO ALL COULD HAVE
STANDING NARROWED THAT IN. AND
BECAUSE I AM ACTUALLY OF A LIKE
MIND HERE WITH MY COLLEAGUE
SENATOR NILO AND SENATOR
GLAZIER, I ADDED THE RIGHT TO
CURE BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT. OTHERWISE YOU
END UP HAVING PROBLEMS THAT WE
SEE IN OTHER AREAS WHERE LAWYERS
ARE MAKING A LIVING OFF OF JUST
GOING AROUND SUING EVERYBODY.
THAT IS, THIS IS NOT ENOUGH
MONEY TO JUSTIFY THAT, WHICH IS
PART OF WHY WHY THE FEE IS SO
LOW. I APPRECIATE THAT, I THINK
WHAT IT TO ME, IT SPELLS A
LUCRATIVE PRACTICE FOR
ATTORNEYS, UNSCRUPULOUS
ATTORNEYS TO AGAIN USE CHILDREN
AS A PROP TO CATALYZE. I DON'T
THINK THEY WOULD DO THAT AT A
$5,000 PER VIOLATION. IT'S TOO
LOW, BUT THEY GET REASONABLE
ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS. THEY DO
SO THAT THAT HAVE TO BE
REASONABLE. THAT WOULD BE A
THAT'D BE A WASH FOR THEM.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO
MAKE A BIG PROFIT OFF OF THAT.
YEAH BUT AGAIN IF THAT'S IF
THAT'S WHAT THEY DEDICATE
THEMSELVES TO. RIGHT. IT'S LIKE
I MEAN I'M JUST THROWING THINGS
OUT BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY,
AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT
COMES TO MIND FOR ME ARE THERE
SIMILAR, LAWS IN EXISTENCE THAT
DEAL WITH OTHER VICES LIKE
ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, GAMBLING, THAT
YOUR BILL IS MODELED AFTER? OR
WOULD THIS BE THE FIRST TIME A
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR
PARENTS? IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT THE
FIRST TIME FOR A PRIVATE RIGHT
OF ACTION FOR PARENTS. I'M NOT
AN EXPERT ON ALL OF THOSE AREAS
OF LAW. I'D HAVE TO ASK THE
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE FOR A LITTLE
BIT OF HELP THERE. BUT THIS BILL
IS MODELED AFTER WHAT THE
DEPARTMENT IS ALREADY DOING. AND
THEN EXTENDS IT TO PARENTS IN
ORDER TO HELP THE DEPARTMENT
MEET THE GOAL OF PROP 64, WHICH
IS THE PROMISE MADE TO OUR, YOU
KNOW, CALIFORNIA CITIZENS THAT
WE WON'T ALLOW CANNABIS
ORGANIZATIONS TO ADVERTISE TO
OUR CHILDREN, WHICH IS, AS
SENATOR NILO SAID, IT IS
HAPPENING A LOT. AND SO WE'RE
WE'RE WE'RE LACKING IN
ENFORCEMENT IN THIS AREA, WHICH
IS WHY THE BILL IS COMING
FORWARD. I KNOW IT'S A TOUGH
ONE, AND YOU'RE THE FIRST
COMMITTEE TO HEAR IT. AND I
APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU WITH THE
QUESTIONS. I REALLY DO BECAUSE
IT'S HELPFUL. I THINK THIS THIS
BILL HAS A LONG TRAJECTORY. IT'S
GOING TO GO BACK TO RULES AND
IT'S GOING TO GO BACK TO JUDICI.
IT'S GOT A LONG ROAD AHEAD OF
IT. AND MY COMMITMENT TO YOU IS
TO CONTINUE WORKING REALLY HARD
ON IT AND SEE IF I CAN GET SOME
HELP FROM SOME STRONG COMMITTEE
STAFF ALONG THE WAY, LIKE I DID
HERE IN BNP, AND MAKE SURE THAT
IT'S AS SOLID AS IT CAN BE
BEFORE YOU SEE IT AGAIN. OKAY.
YEAH, I, I, I ACKNOWLEDGE IT'S A
TOUGH ONE. I THINK BECAUSE WE
HAVE SO MANY OTHER VICE
INDUSTRIES THAT ARE TARGETING
AND MARKETING TO CHILDREN. AND
WE IN THIS COMMITTEE HAVE HEARD
THOSE BILLS OVER AND OVER AGAIN,
LIMITING TOBACCO FLAVORS, VAPING
FLAVORS, CARTOON CHARACTERS AND
THINGS ON PACKAGING, SO THIS TO
ME IS KIND OF IT'S MONUMENTAL AS
A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. AND I
TEND TO STAY AWAY FROM THOSE AS
WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE HOW
ARE WE OPENING A PANDORA'S BOX
IN TERMS OF, UTILIZING CHILDREN
AS PROPS FOR PRIVATE RIGHTS OF
ACTION WHEN IT COMES TO VICES,
IF AND THEN, IN AGREEMENT WITH
SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES OF WHY NOT
GIVE THE AGENCIES THAT ARE
FUNDED AND, PURPOSEFUL TO DO
THESE JOBS THAT WOULD LOVE TO DO
THAT, BUT NO RESOURCES TO DO SO,
NO ABILITY TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW.
AND IN SPEAKING WITH THE
DEPARTMENT, THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL TO
THEM. AND SO I GUESS MY ASK IF
IS THAT THE LAST QUESTION? OKAY
ALL RIGHT. SENATOR DODD. YES.
FIRST, I FEEL ABSOLUTELY
PRIVILEGED TO BE AT A COMMITTEE
HEARING WHERE SENATOR NILO HAS
MADE HISTORY. ME TOO. IT'S
AMAZING. REALLY BUT I WILL AND I
AGREE WITH SENATOR NILO AND HIS
IN HIS POINTS THAT HE MADE AS
SENATOR EGGMAN AND, SENATOR
GLASER. I THINK JUST IN HEARING
THIS CONVERSATION TODAY, YOU
MIGHT WANT TO EVEN CONSIDER
PUTTING A TIME DEADLINE ON IT SO
THAT THERE IS SOME CONSISTENT
CONSISTENCY. THERE AND AS THE
CHAIR OF GEO, I'LL TELL YOU,
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS
BILL. BUT JUST AS AN EDITORIAL,
IF THERE'S ANY PROBLEMS WITH ANY
RESTAURANTS OR ANY LIQUOR STORES
, WITH IN REFERENCE TO, TO BOOZE
OR SELLING TO UNDERAGE CHILDREN,
THERE IS HELL TO PAY. YEAH. AND
IT'S THE SAME THING WITH
GAMBLING AND THE GAMBLING
COMMISSION. AND I'M TELLING YOU,
WE OUGHT TO HAVE SOME SORT OF
HEARING OVERSIGHT HEARING WITH
THIS DEPARTMENT. THE FACT THAT
THIS DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE
RESOURCES TO GO OUT AND POLICE A
LAW THAT WE HAVE ALREADY ON THE
BOOKS IS JUST, YOU KNOW, I'M I'M
BLOWN AWAY BY THAT. AND I WASN'T
PLANNING ON SAYING ANYTHING. I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT YOUR BILL. I
LIKE THE FACT THAT YOU DID THE
RIGHT TO CURE AND THE OTHER
THINGS THAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY,
BUT SOMEWAY, SOMEHOW, WE ARE
MISSING THE BOAT HERE IN TERMS
OF WHAT THIS DEPARTMENT SHOULD
BE DOING WHEN WE SET IT UP, OR
IT WASN'T US THAT SET IT UP, IT
WAS THE INITIATIVE, THAT, YOU
KNOW, THAT SET IT UP. WE ALL
THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS GOING TO
BE OVERSEEN AND REGULATED JUST
AS LIQUOR WAS. AND IT'S NO JOKE.
AND SO I'M HOPING THAT WE AS AN
INSTITUTION CAN DO SOMETHING
ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE WITH, WITH YOUR BILL
AT ALL. I'M REALLY GLAD YOU
DECIDED TO SPEAK TODAY BECAUSE I
THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
YOU'RE YOU'RE TOTALLY RIGHT.
THIS BILL IS TRYING TO GET WHERE
WHERE WE HAVE GOTTEN AS A
SOCIETY WITH ALCOHOL AND
GAMBLING, TRYING REALLY HARD TO
PROTECT KIDS FROM THE DANGERS OF
CANNABIS. AND YOU'RE RIGHT,
WE'RE FAILING RIGHT NOW. AND
YOU'RE ALSO RIGHT THAT A HEARING
IS A REALLY GOOD IDEA. SO MAYBE
WHEN WE GET THROUGH THIS BUSY
TIME HERE WITH BILLS, MAYBE WE
CAN COME BACK AROUND ON THAT,
BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE, AS
SENATOR ALVARADO SAID, THERE
HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS BILLS THAT
HAVE COME THROUGH HERE AND MOST
OF THEM DIDN'T MAKE IT ACTUALLY,
ON ADVERTISING AND TRYING TO
ADDRESS THIS, THIS ISSUE WITH
CHILDREN. SO WE HAVEN'T WE
HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE YET.
SENATOR DODD, WHERE YOU HAVE IN
GEO. AND WE NEED TO GET THERE SO
THAT WE CAN TAKE CARE OF KIDS SO
THAT WE CAN MEET THAT PROMISE OF
PROP 64. WELL, LET ME JUST PUT
IT THIS WAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT
COMMENT. BUT THIS WAS IN THIS
PLACE WAY BEFORE I BECAME THE
CHAIR OF GEO. YEAH, IT'S BEEN
HISTORICALLY VÆ. YEAH. THANK
YOU. WE NEED TO GET THERE. ANY
OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS?
COLLEAGUES, THERE IS A MOTION.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YEAH, I
GUESS I WOULD JUST SAY IN CLOSE
I ASKED MY COLLEAGUES TO GIVE
THIS BILL A SHOT TO GO THROUGH
THE PROCESS. THANK YOU REALLY
DEEPLY FOR ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS
TODAY. IT WILL BE VERY HELPFUL
TO ME. I WILL USE ALL OF THEM TO
CONTINUE WORKING ON THIS BILL.
AND, AND NOW I'M CONSIDERING AN
OVERSIGHT HEARING THAT I WASN'T
EVEN THINKING ABOUT BEFORE. SO
THANK YOU, SENATOR DODD. I DO
THINK WE NEED TO DO MORE TO
PROTECT KIDS FROM THE DANGERS OF
CANNABIS. AND I KNOW THAT THE
VAST MAJORITY OF YOU WOULD AGREE
WITH ME ON THAT. AND I WOULD
URGE AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
WITH THAT, THERE IS A MOTION BY
SENATOR ARCHULETA. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASS TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE
ON RULES. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ASHBY AYE. ASHBY. AYE. WHEN I
WHEN I ALVARADO. GIL. ALVARADO.
GIL. AYE. ARCHULETA ARCHULETA.
AYE. BECKER. DODD AYE. DODD.
AYE. EGGMAN LASER. MENGIBAR.
MENGIBAR. AYE. NILO A NILO AYE.
ROTH. SMALLWOOD CUEVAS. WILK
OKAY, THAT IS SEVEN TO NOTHING.
WE'LL LEAVE THAT ONE ON CALL AS
WELL. THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES, FOR
THAT ROBUST DISCUSSION. AN WE
WILL THAT'S IT FOR OUR AGENDA.
SO FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE
VOTED ON ALL THE ITEMS, THANK
YOU FOR BEING HERE. WE WILL NOW
ASK GIVE A GIVE A COUPLE OF
MINUTES FOR OUR COLLEAGUES TO
COME BACK WHO WHO NEED TO VOTE
ON THE ITEMS THAT WE STILL HAVE
OUTSTANDING. AND THEN WE WILL
LIFT THE CALL
.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S. LET'S LIFT THE
CALL NOW FOR THE SENATORS WHO
ARE HERE. OKAY. I THINK IT WOULD
BE ITEM NUMBER ONE, SB 1015,
MOTION IS Dð PASSED THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
CURRENT VOTE IS 10 TO 0. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. BECKER. EGGMAN.
EGGMAN. AYE ROTH. CLOSE THAT OUT
. OKAY, WE CAN CLOSE THAT ONE
OUT. AND IT IS 11 TO NOTHING.
THERE ONTO. I THINK A PROBES,
ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE CONSENT
ITEM, CURRENT VOTES 10 TO 0.
CHAIR VOTING AYE. BECKER.
EGGMAN. EGGMAN. AYE ROTH. OKAY,
THAT'S ALSO OUT. 11 TO 0. OKAY.
ITEM NUMBER THREE, SB 1067.
MOTION IS TO PASS THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
CURRENT VOTES 9 TO 0. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. WHEN BECKER, LILO
ROTH. THAT IS OUT ALSO 9 TO 0 ON
TO APPROVE APPROPRIATIONS. ITEM
NUMBER FIVE SB 1498. A MOTION IS
DUE PASSED THE SENATE RULES
COMMITTEE CURRENT VOTE 7 TO 0.
CHAIR VOTING AYE. BECKER EGGMAN.
LASER. ROTH SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS.
WILK. THAT BILL IS ALSO OUT 7 TO
0. SO I WOULD PLAY THIS IN HERE.
OKAY, WE'LL LEAVE THAT ONE ON
CALL FOR JUST A MOMENT
.
WE JUST. WE JUST ONLY HAVE ONE.
I THINK THAT WE NEED FOR YOU.
BESIDES THIS LAST, WE'RE GOING
TO LIFT THE CALL ON. ON FILE
ITEM FIVE, SB 1498, WHICH IS MY
BILL. BECKER. BILL WAS PULLED.
OKAY OKAY. ITEM NUMBER FIVE, SB
1498. CURRENT VOTES 7 TO 0 WITH
CHAIR VOTING AYE, BECKER.
EGGMAN. GLASER ROTH. SMALLWOOD.
CUEVAS WILK. OKAY, THEN WE ARE
ALL SET. THANK YOU FOR COMING
BACK. THAT'S IT FOR BUSINESS,
PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT TODAY. RIGHT. OKAY.