MORNING. GOOD MORNING. THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
WILL COME TO ORDER IN ABOUT 60S.
Þ.
DO WE HAVE A QUORUM FOR RIGHT.
ONE. TWO. THREE. FOUR. OKAY THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTION AMENDMENTS WILL
COME TO ORDER. WE HAVE 11 BILLS
ON OUR AGENDA TODAY. FILE ITEM
NUMBER SIX, SB 1294. HOA BO HAS
BEEN PULLED BY THE AUTHOR BEFORE
WE HEAR PRESENTATION ON THE
BILLS, LET'S ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. BLAKE SPEER. ONE HERE, ONE
HERE. ALLEN MENGIBAR. NEWMAN.
NEWMAN. HERE PORTANTINO.
PORTANTINO. HERE. UMBERG. HERE
UMBERG HERE. THANK YOU, NOTE
THAT THERE IS THERE HAS BEEN A
QUORUM ESTABLISHED, AT THIS
TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE
CONSENT. I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO
TAKE THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
PROPOSED FOR CONSENT ARE TWO
ITEMS. SB 1156 FOR TITLE AND SB
1493. BLAKE SPEER. ANY MEMBER
WOULD WANT TO PULL THE ITEM FROM
THE CONSENT, IF NOT, DO WE NEED
A MOTION? MOVE THE CONSENT.
THERE'S A THERE'S A MOTION,
MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. BLAKE. SPEER. WHEN HERE. I
MEAN, I WHEN I, ALLEN MENGIBAR
NEWMAN. NEWMAN I PORTANTINO
PORTANTINO I UMBERG I UMBERG I
THANK YOU AT AND WE WILL WE WILL
LEAVE THE ROLL CALL OPEN FOR
OTHER MEMBERS AT THIS TIME WE
WILL HEAR SB 977 BY SENATOR
LEÓN, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER TWO.
SENATOR, PLEASE PRESENT YOUR
BILL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM
VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS, SB 977
WOULD ESTABLISH AN INDEPENDENT
REDISTRICTING COMMISSION FOR SAN
LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AS WE ALL
KNOW, THE VOTERS IN 2008
ESTABLISHED AN INDEPENDENT
COMMISSION FOR STATE LEGISLATIVE
OFFICES, AND SINCE THEN, THE
LEGISLATURE HERE AND THE
GOVERNOR HAVE APPROVED SEVEN
DIFFERENT REDISTRICT COMMISSIONS
FOR COUNTIES ACROSS THE STATE,
MOST OF THEM WITH POPULATIONS
THAT ARE LARGER THAN THE ONE
THAT IS IN QUESTION HERE. THERE
WAS A PARTICULAR SITUATION IN
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY WHERE
THERE WAS A VERY STRONG,
GERRYMANDER DONE BY THE EXISTING
BOARD. AND THE ELECTION WAS RUN
ON THOSE DISTRICTS. AND AFTER
THE ELECTION WAS OVER, THE NEW
BOARD SETTLED THE LAWSUIT AND
RETURNED TO THE A PRIOR MAP OR
AN ALTERNATIVE MAP THAT WAS
PRESENTED THAT MORE CLOSELY
REPRESENTED THE DISTRICT S
BEFOREHAND. IN RESPONSE TO ALL
THIS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, THE SAN
LUIS OBISPO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ASKED ME TO INTRODUCE THIS BILL.
THE COMMISSION THAT IS PROPOSED
HERE IS IN REALIGNMENT, IS IN
ALIGNMENT WITH MANY OF THE OTHER
COMMISSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
ADOPTED. THE DIFFERENCES ARE
JUST THAT. THIS IS A SMALLER
DISTRICT, A SMALLER COUNTY. SO
THERE'S A SMALLER NUMBER OF
PEOPLE ON THE BOARD. THERE ARE
ALSO A SMALLER POOL THAT IS
DRAWN FOR THE ORIGINAL BOARD.
AND IT REALLY, IN ENSURES THAT
THE, THE MAIN MEMBERS WILL BE
CHOSEN BASED ON RELEVANT
EXPERIENCE, ANALYTICAL SKILLS,
ABILITY TO BE IMPARTIAL AND
ENSURE THAT THE COMMISSION
REFLECTS, THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF
THE COUNTY, THE BILL,
ORIGINALLY, CALLED FOR TWO
ALTERNATES TO BE, APPOINTED. WE
HAVE TAKEN AND AGREED TO THE
AMENDMENTS WHICH BASICALLY SAY
THAT, THERE WILL BE NO
ALTERNATES IN THIS BILL AND THE
COMMISSION WILL BE ALLOWED TO
MAKE THAT DECISION WHEN THEY
CONSTITUTE THEMSELVES. IT, IN
ASSURES THAT, THERE WILL BE A
FAIR PROCESS FOR THE NEXT
REDISTRICTING IN 2030 HERE WITH
ME IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL IS SAN
LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SUPERVISOR
BRUCE GIBSON, WHO IN HIS SPARE
TIME HAPPENS TO BE PRESIDENT OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION
OF COUNTIES, AND SO WITH THAT,
MADAM CHAIR, I, VICE CHAIR, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK
YOU, JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. THE
AMENDMENTS WILL BE TAKEN. LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE. THAT'S.
THANK YOU. THAT'S MY MISTAKE.
BUT I'M COMMITTED TO TAKE THEM
THERE. THANK YOU, AT THIS TIME,
WE'LL MOVE ON TO LEAD WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT. WE'RE GOING TO USE
THE TABLE. WE CAN, IF YOU WOULD
LIKE. YEAH. AND TWO MINUTES. YOU
HAVE TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MADAM VICE CHAIR. I
AM BRUCE GIBSON, SECOND DISTRICT
SUPERVISOR OF THE COUNTY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO. AND WE THANK
SENATOR LAIRD FOR AUTHORING, SB
977. AS HE INDICATES, IT IS
CONSISTENT WITH ELECTION CODE
AND SHARES MUCH THE SAME FORMAT
OF OTHER, IRKS THAT HAVE BEEN
CREATED FOR OTHER COUNTIES,
ADJUSTED FOR THE SIZE OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, SENATOR
LAIRD SPOKE TO AN EGREGIOUS
GERRYMANDERING THAT THAT
OCCURRED IN THE LAST CYCLE IN
2021, A HIGHLY PARTIZAN MAJORITY
OF OUR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DRASTICALLY REDREW THE DISTRICTS
FOR THEIR POLITICAL BENEFIT.
THEY THOUGHT IT, BUT AT A
CONSIDERABLE, WITH CONSIDERABLE
OPPOSITION FROM THE COMMUNITY,
FROM VOTERS IN THE COMMUNITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY. I'D LIKE
TO SPEAK TO ONE, UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCE. THE MAP WAS SO
RADICALLY REDRAWN THAT TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF VOTERS HAD THEIR
CHANCE TO VOTE, EITHER DEFERRED
OR ACCELERATED, AS THEIR CYCLE
WAS SHIFTED BETWEEN PRESIDENTIAL
AND NON PRESIDENTIAL YEARS. AND,
IN IN THIS MESS, GETTING CLEANED
UP AS IT WAS SETTLED IN COURT,
IT TURNS OUT THAT THERE ARE TENS
OF THOUSANDS OF FOLKS WHO WILL
HAVE VOTED FOR A SUPERVISOR
EVERY TWO YEARS, THREE TIMES IN
FOUR YEARS, AND OTHERS WHO WILL
HAVE GONE EIGHT WILL GO EIGHT
YEARS BETWEEN VOTING FOR A
COUNTY SUPERVISOR. SO SO THIS
MESS, THIS MESS HAS CAUSED
LASTING DAMAGE AND CONFUSION,
SLO COUNTY VOTERS STRONGLY
SUPPORT THE REQUEST OF OUR
CURRENT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO
CREATE THIS INDEPENDENT
REDISTRICTING COMMISSION. SO WE
WON'T GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN, WE
SEE THE CREATION OF AN IRC AS A
FUNDAMENTAL DEFENSE OF OUR
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT OF SB 977. THANK YOU. WE
WILL NOW MOVE ON TO ANY, SUPPORT
WITNESSES HERE. PLEASE STATE
YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATION AND YOUR
POSITION. DANIEL PEARL, ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY,
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. AND DON'T
SEE ANY OTHER SUPPORT. WE'LL NOW
MOVE ON TO LEAD WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. SEEING NONE ANY
OTHER OPPOSITIONS IN WITNESS MS.
SEEING NONE AT THIS, THIS TIME
I'LL BRING IT BACK TO MY
COLLEAGUES. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS.
SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YES JUST THAT, THANK YOU
FOR THE CORRECTION. I WILL TAKE
THE AMENDMENTS IN THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE. IT'S
SUPPORTED BY THE COUNTY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO AND AFSCME. AS YOU
HAVE HEARD. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN IPHONE. THANK YOU. THE
MOTION HAS BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR
NEWMAN. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
TO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. BLAKE SPEER ONE
NO. ONE. NO. ALAN MENGIBAR
NEWMAN. NEWMAN. AYE. PORTANTINO
PATINO. AYE. UMBERG. UMBAR I
WE'LL KEEP THE ROLL CALL OPEN.
THANK YOU, MADAM VICE CHAIR.
THIS TIME I SEE SENATOR DODD.
SENATOR PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THIS IS ON SB FIVE, ITEM NUMBER
ONE, SB 904. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, TODAY I'M
PRESENTING SB 904, A MEASURE
THAT UPDATES THE ENABLING
LEGISLATION OF THE SONOMA-MARIN
AREA RAIL TRANSIT DISTRICT OR
THE SMART TRAIN. IT REMOVES,
OBSOLETE REFERENCES RAISED
BIDDING AMOUNT THRESHOLDS, AND
AUTHORIZES SMART SPECIAL TAXES
TO BE IMPOSED BY A VOTER
INITIATIVE OF THE SMART TRAIN IS
AN INCREDIBLE EXAMPLE OF A
MULTI-MODAL AND
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PROJECT
THAT ADVANCES MANY OF OUR
STATE'S TOP GOALS. INCREASED
RAIL AND BICYCLE USE, TRANSIT
ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT,
COLLABORATION BY LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AT A REGIONAL SCALE.
SINCE COMING INTO SERVICE OVER
SIX YEARS AGO, SMART HAS
OVERCOME WILDFIRES, FLOODS AND A
GLOBAL PANDEMIC THAT DEVASTATED
ALL PUBLIC TRANSIT. DESPITE
THOSE OBSTACLES, THEY KEEP
CHUGGING ALONG. AT THE END OF
2023, BECAME THE FIRST TRANSIT
SYSTEM IN THE BAY AREA TO
RECOVER TO THEIR PRE-PANDEMIC
RIDERSHIP NUMBERS. THIS BILL
ALSO EMPOWERS THE VOTERS OF THIS
SPECIAL DISTRICT FOR THE FIRST
TIME TO PURSUE THEIR OWN BALLOT
MEASURES THROUGH A VOTER
INITIATIVE, A VOTER APPROVED
QUALIFIED INITIATIVE PROCESS HAS
THE POTENTIAL TO PROVIDE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ENHANCE COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT AND HELP INFORM AND
AFFIRM THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN
EXPENDITURE PLAN, PROVIDING
GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY AND
DIRECTION FOR HOW TO BEST
DEDICATE FUTURE RESOURCES TO
OPERATE THE SMART SYSTEM. AS THE
BILL ANALYZES. NOTES, THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULED
IN THE UPLAND DECISION THAT A
VOTER INITIATIVE REQUIRES A
SIMPLE MAJORITY TO PASS AT LEAST
SEVEN SUCH TAXES IMPOSED BY
VOTERS IN VARIOUS LOCAL AGENCIES
ACROSS THE STATE HAVE BEEN
APPROVED, AND NO COURT HAS THUS
FAR INVALIDATED THEM. I'M HERE
TODAY WITH ME TODAY, HERE WITH
ME. EXCUSE ME, IS EDDIE CUMMINS,
THE GENERAL MANAGER OF SMART?
PLEASE GO FORWARD. YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES. GOOD MORNING, MADAM
VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I AM
EDDIE CUMMINS, THE SONOMA MARIN
AREA RAIL TRANSIT DISTRICT
GENERAL MANAGER, AND I'M
SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF SENATE
BILL 904. THIS BILL UPDATES THE
PROCUREMENT BIDDING THRESHOLD
FOR SUPPLIES, MATERIALS AND
EQUIPMENT, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN
UPDATED SINCE 2003, LONG BEFORE
SMART BECAME AN OPERATING
RAILROAD. IT ALSO CREATES
FLEXIBLE K¾T FOR THE SITING OF
NEW STATIONS IN UNDERSERVED
AREAS OF NORTH SONOMA COUNTY,
AND REMOVES OBSOLETE REFERENCES
TO THE NORTH COAST RAIL
AUTHORITY, WHICH NO LONGER EXIST
. FINALLY, THE BILL AUTHORIZES
THE SMART BOARD TO PLACE A
QUALIFIED VOTER INITIATIVE ON
THE BALLOT. IN 2008, VOTERS IN
SONOMA AND MARIN COUNTY APPROVED
A QUARTER CENT SALES TAX
MEASURE, QUÊ, PROVIDING ROUGHLY
$51 MILLION ANNUALLY TO BUILD,
OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE SMART
SYSTEM. THIS MEASURE EXPIRES IN
MARCH OF 2029. SMART HAS BEEN IN
OPERATION SINCE 2017. CURRENTLY,
SMART HAS THE HIGHEST RIDERSHIP
RECOVERY RATE IN THE BAY AREA
AND IS ONE OF ONLY A FEW TRANSIT
AGENCIES IN THE COUNTRY WHO HAVE
HIGHER RIDERSHIP THAN
PRE-PANDEMIC. AS A MATTER OF
FACT, LAST WEEK, SMART HAD ITS
HIGHEST WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP EVER.
WE ALSO HAVE SEVERAL MAJOR
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION,
INCLUDING A THREE MILE RAIL AND
PATHWAY EXTENSION TO THE TOWN OF
WINDSOR SCHEDULED TO OPEN IN
EARLY 2025. SMART HAS MATCHED
SALES TAX DOLLAR DOLLAR FOR
DOLLAR, LEVERAGING OVER 500
MILLION IN STATE, FEDERAL AND
LOCAL GRANTS TO EXPAND THE
SYSTEM. THE COMMUNITY KNOWS IT
IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO PASS
A SALES TAX EXTENSION TO PROTECT
THE NEARLY $1 BILLION INVESTMENT
MADE IN THE SYSTEM OVER THE PAST
16 YEARS, SUSTAINING THE SMART
SYSTEM WILL HELP ADDRESS CLIMATE
CHANGE MODE, SHIFT TRAFFIC
CONGESTION AND PROVIDE MOBILITY
OPTIONS AND ACCESS TO
OPPORTUNITY AND SERVICES FOR
RESIDENTS IN SONOMA AND MARIN
COUNTIES. SMART WANTS TO BE AS
ACCOUNTABLE AND INCLUSIVE AS
POSSIBLE BASED ON COMMUNITY
FEEDBACK. LOCAL YES, MA'AM, THE
LANGUAGE IN SENATE BILL 904 IS
INTENDED TO RESPOND TO THAT
REQUEST BY ALLOWING CITIZENS
INITIATIVE, INITIATIVE PROCESS
TO RUN ITS INDEPENDENT COURSE
WITH SMART PLACING IT ON THE
BALLOT SHOULD IT OBTAIN THE
QUALIFIED SIGNATURES. FOR THESE
REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK AT THIS
TIME, WE'LL HEAR FROM ANY
SUPPORT WITNESSES SEEING NONE.
DO WE HAVE ANY LEAD WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION OR WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE,
COLLEAGUES. QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?
MOTIONS THERE'S A MOTION.
SENATOR DODD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
I VOTE THANK YOU. THERE'S A
MOTION BY SENATOR NEWMAN. THIS
MOTION IS Dð PASS TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. BLAKE SPEER ONE NO. ONE.
NO. ALLEN MENGIBAR MENGIBAR I
NEWMAN. NEWMAN I PORTANTINO
PORTANTINO I UMBERG I UMBERG I
WILL KEEP THE ROLL CALL OPEN.
THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, SENATOR
NEWMAN, WE WILL HEAR ITEM EIGHT,
SB 907. NEWMAN IS MY WITNESSES.
YOUR WITNESSES HERE. THEY'RE
HERE.
YOU WANT ME BRING UP THE
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT AND POST
IT TOGETHER. THAT'S FINE. I JUST
THINK THEY WANT. OKAY WE CAN
ALSO HAVE THE WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO. COME ON. TWO
PEOPLE YOU SIT ON TO THE RIGHT
SIDE. MAKES YOU MORE
INTIMIDATING. OH FAIR ENOUGH,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO START? SENATOR
NEWMAN? I THINK MY. COMMON
GROUND. SENATOR. THERE YOU GO.
THERE YOU GO. THERE. RIGHT HERE.
COME ON UP. DO YOU WANT TO GO
AHEAD AND START? WHY? THEY.
PLEASE. I SHALL. GOOD MORNING,
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I AM
PLEASED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PRESENT SB 907, WHICH WILL
IMPROVE REPRESENTATION AND
ELECTORAL PARTICIPATION IN
ORANGE COUNTY BY MAKING TWO
CHANGES TO THE ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION. FIRST,
INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
TRUSTEES FROM THE CURRENT 5 TO 7
MEMBERS, AND SECOND, SHIFTING
THE BOARD'S ELECTIONS FROM THE
PRIMARY BALLOT AS CURRENTLY
CONDUCTED AND INTO THE GENERAL
ELECTION IN NOVEMBER. THE ORANGE
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
FORMED IN 1977 AND JOINTLY
GOVERNED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE
COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT, IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING
ALTERNATIVE AND SPECIAL
EDUCATION PROGRAMS TO MORE THAN
91,000 STUDENTS, MANY OF WHOM
ARE AMONG THE COUNTY'S MOST
VULNERABLE AND DISADVANTAGED.
OCBC IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR
FUNDING AND DEVELOPING A VARIETY
OF PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT THE
NEARLY HALF A MILLION STUDENTS
ENROLLED IN ORANGE COUNTY'S 28
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS, AS
WELL AS SERVING AS THE APPELLATE
AUTHORITY OF LAST RESORT FOR
CHARTER SCHOOL APPLICATIONS
REJECTED BY LOCAL SCHOOL
DISTRICTS WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION. SINCE 1977, WHEN
THE DEPARTMENT WAS ESTABLISHED
IN ITS MODERN FORM, ORANGE
COUNTY'S POPULATION HAS NEARLY
DOUBLED FROM 1.8 MILLION IN 1977
TO ITS CURRENT POPULATION OF
ROUGHLY 3.2 MILLION, MAKING IT
THE THIRD LARGEST COUNTY BY
POPULATION IN CALIFORNIA. OUT OF
THE STATE'S TEN LARGEST
COUNTIES. ORANGE COUNTY IS
CURRENTLY ONE OF FOUR COUNTIES
WHOSE COUNTY BOARDS OF EDUCATION
ONLY HAVE FIVE TRUSTEES, AND OUT
OF THE COUNTIES WHICH STILL HAVE
FIVE TRUSTEES, THE ONLY ONE
COMPARABLE IN SIZE TO ORANGE
COUNTY IS THE COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO. EXPANDING THE SIZE OF
OKUBO'S BOARD FROM 5 TO 7
MEMBERS WILL REDUCE THE AVERAGE
POPULATION PER DISTRICT FROM THE
CURRENT 640,000 RESIDENTS PER
TRUSTEE, WHICH IS MATERIALLY
MORE THAN AN ASSEMBLY DISTRICT.
AS REFERENCE TO A MORE
MANAGEABLE 457,000 PER MEMBER.
IN SO DOING, EACH MEMBER OF THE
BOARD WILL BE BOUND JUST A
LITTLE MORE CLOSELY TO THE
CONSTITUENTS THAT THEY REPRESENT
. IN THE NEARLY FIVE DECADES
SINCE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
BOE, THE POPULATION OF ORANGE
COUNTY HAS ALSO BECOME
SUBSTANTIALLY MORE DIVERSE. IN
THE YEAR 2000, ACCORDING TO US
CENSUS DATA, MORE THAN 50% OF
ORANGE COUNTY'S POPULATION WAS
WHITE BY THE TIME OF THE MOST
RECENT CENSUS. OC HAS BECOME A
THOROUGHLY MINORITY MAJORITY
COUNTY, WITH NONWHITE RESIDENTS
COMPRISING 63% OF ITS TOTAL
POPULATION. THIS TREND IS EVEN
MORE PRONOUNCED ACROSS OC PUBLIC
SCHOOLS. A SEVEN MEMBER BOARD,
RATHER THAN THE CURRENT FIVE, IS
LIKELY TO BE MORE FULLY
REFLECTIVE OF THAT DIVERSITY
WITHIN ITS ELECTED MEMBERSHIP.
THE OTHER PROVISION OF THIS OF
THIS MEASURE, SHIFTING THE
ELECTION OF BOE TRUSTEES FROM
THE PRIMARY TO THE GENERAL, WILL
SIMILARLY ENHANCE BOTH THE
DIVERSITY OF THE BOARD AND THE
CONNECTION OF ITS MEMBERS TO
THEIR CONSTITUENTS. BY WAY OF
CONTEXT, THE OC BOE IS CURRENTLY
ONE OF ONLY FIVE COUNTY
EDUCATION BOARDS ACROSS THE
STATE THAT HOLD THEIR ELECTIONS
AS PART OF PRIMARY VOTING, AS
WELL AS ONE OF THE ONLY
REMAINING SO-CALLED ONE AND DONE
ELECTIONS IN ORANGE COUNTY,
WHERE A CANDIDATE CAN BE ELECTED
IN THE PRIMARY WITH A PLURALITY
AND NOT A MAJORITY, WITH NO
PROVISION FOR A NOVEMBER RUNOFF.
OF THE TWO TOP CANDIDATES.
CONSEQUENTLY, CANDIDATES FOR THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
TRUSTEESHIP CAN AND HAVE WON
OFFICE WITH VERY LOW SUPPORT BY
REGISTERED VOTERS, SOMETIMES AS
LOW AS 11% OF THE TOTAL VOTING
POOL. MOREOVER, TO THE EXTENT
THAT ELECTION DATA SHOWS THAT
VOTER TURNOUT IS SUBSTANTIALLY
HIGHER DURING THE GENERAL
ELECTION, THIS IS TRUE BOTH IN
ABSOLUTE TERMS BUT ALSO
IMPORTANTLY AS IT RELATES TO
PARTICIPATION BY COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR USING DATA FROM THE 2022
PRIMARY ELECTION, THE ORANGE
COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
INDICATES THAT TURNOUT WAS FULLY
20, 20 POINTS LOWER THAN IN THE
GENERAL ELECTION, WITH ROUGHLY
360,000 FEWER VOTERS
PARTICIPATING IN PRIMARY VOTING
IN JUNE THAN IN THE GENERAL
ELECTION IN NOVEMBER. MOVING THE
ELECTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION TRUSTEES INTO
THE NOVEMBER GENERAL WILL ENSURE
HIGHER PARTICIPATION BY A
MATERIALLY MORE DIVERSE
ELECTORATE. THIS WILL BE A
POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT IN NOT ONE,
BUT TWO DIRECTIONS. FIRST, AS
NOTED, IT WILL RESULT OVER TIME
ON A BOARD THAT MORE CLOSELY
REFLECTS ORANGE COUNTY'S
CHANGING POPULATION. AND
SECONDLY, AND JUST AS
IMPORTANTLY, WILL GIVE VOTERS A
BETTER OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE AND
CONNECT WITH TRUSTEES AND THE
BOARD AS PART OF THE CRITICAL
TASK OF RECONNECTING RESIDENTS
TO CIVIC INSTITUTIONS LIKE THE
BOE, ABOUT WHICH THEY ARE
INCREASINGLY UNINFORMED AND FROM
WHICH THEY ARE INCREASINGLY
DISCONNECTED. WHEN IT COMES TO
IMPORTANT CONVERSATIONS AROUND
EDUCATION AND EQUITY, I WOULD
ARGUE THAT THIS MATTERS A GREAT
DEAL. AS I'VE EMPHASIZED IN MY
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
OPPOSITION AND WITH OTHERS, THE
IMPETUS FOR THIS BILL DOES NOT
ARISE OUT OF POLITICS PER SE,
ENHANCING THE RESPONSIVE, THE
RESPONSIVENESS OF A GOVERNING
BODY AND IMPROVING PARTICIPATION
IN THE ELECTION OF ITS MEMBERS
ARE OBJECTIVELY GOOD GOALS. AND
THAT'S WHAT THE PROVISIONS OF SB
907 SEEK TO PRODUCE HERE WITH ME
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL IS DOCTOR LIZ DAWN PARKER,
WHO SERVED AS AN ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION TRUSTEE FOR
32 YEARS AND WHO ALSO SERVED AS
THE PRESIDENT OF THE STATEWIDE
CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOARDS OF
EDUCATION AND PRESIDENT OF THE
OC SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION.
ALSO HERE WITH US TO TESTIFY IS
CITY OF TUSTIN COUNCIL MEMBER
DOCTOR REBECCA GÓMEZ, A TWICE
ELECTED FORMER TRUSTEE OF THE
OC. BOE WHO ALSO REPRESENTED THE
BOARD AT THE STATE LEVEL AS OC
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY
BOARDS OF EDUCATION. I AM
RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING YOUR. I
VOTE TODAY. THANK YOU, SENATOR
NEWMAN. GOOD MORNING CHAIR. GOOD
MORNING AND THANK YOU. I
APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY. THANK
YOU, SENATOR NGUYEN, FOR
CHAIRING. AND I VERY MUCH
APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY IN
GETTING THE COMMITTEE STARTED IN
THE FIRST PLACE. SO NEXT TIME
THAT HAPPENS, YOU CAN JUST FEEL
FREE TO BE AUTHORIZED TO START
IT, SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY, SENATOR NEWMAN, WE
WILL NOW MOVE ON TO YOUR LEAD
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT. OKAY.
THANK YOU. I'LL GO AHEAD AND
START. I'M LIZ, DOCTOR. LIZ.
DAWN PARKER. I STARTED IN 1982
AS A 22 YEAR OLD. HAVING SERVED
AS AN ELECTED MEMBER OF THIS
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
FOR 32 YEARS AND HAVING SERVED
AS PRESIDENT OF THE COUNTY, THE
CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOARDS OF
EDUCATION. I HAVE A UNIQUE
PERSPECTIVE ON SB 907. LET ME
FIRST ADDRESS WHAT SENATOR
NEWMAN STARTED WITH WHEN I
STARTED ON THIS BOARD. THE OUR
CENSUS SHOWED A POPULATION SIZE
OF 1.9 MILLION. AND SINCE THAT
TIME, WE'VE GROWN BY 61.8, OR
ALMOST 62, WHERE THE US ONLY
GREW BY 47. SO THE COUNTY GREW
DRAMATICALLY AS OPPOSED TO THE
REST OF THE COUNTRY. THEN IN
2020, THE LAST TIME THE CENSUS
WAS IT SHOWED 3.16 MILLION. WHAT
IS SIGNIFICANT ABOUT THIS GROWTH
IS JUST NOT THE NUMBER, BUT WHO
IN FACT ARE NOW OUR POPULATION.
WHEN I STARTED IT WAS 93% WHITE.
NOW IT'S 37.61% WHITE. AAPI
ACCOUNT FOR 22.18% AND HISPANIC,
LATINO, LATINX IS 34.1. WITH
THIS DRAMATIC GROWTH OF NEARLY
DOUBLE THE POPULATION WITH THE
SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN WHO IS OUR
POPULATION WHERE THE WHITE
MAJORITY EXISTED WHEN I FIRST
STARTED, IT IS CLEARLY NOW A
MAJORITY MINORITY COMMUNITY, AND
RIGHT NOW THE COUNTY AS SUCH IS
NOT REFLECTED IN THE ORANGE
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AS IT
SITS TODAY THE LARGEST COUNTY
AND HAVE ALL SEVEN MEMBER BOARDS
EXCEPT FOR SAN DIEGO. AND WHEN I
WAS SEARCHING IT, I BELIEVE SAN
DIEGO COUNTY IS A CHARTER
COUNTY, SO THEY WOULD NEED A
VOTE OF THE PUBLIC TO CHANGE THE
CHARTER, TO MOVE TO SEVEN. I
COULD BE WRONG, BUT THAT'S WHAT
IT SAYS. AND NOW LET'S MOVE ON.
WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO MOVE FOR
FROM THE CURRENT RACES TO THE
GENERAL. NEARLY ALL, AS SENATOR
NEWMAN SAID, COUNTY BOARD RACES
NOW HAVE BEEN MOVED TO THE
GENERAL ELECTION, ESPECIALLY
THOSE FROM THE LARGEST COUNTIES.
THE MOST RECENT PRIMARY ELECTION
OF 2024 HAD AN EVEN LOWER VOTER
TURNOUT IN OUR COUNTY RACES THAN
IN PREVIOUS ELECTIONS, WHICH
CONFIRMS THE CRITICAL NATURE OF
THIS SHIFT. THE LACK OF
PARTICIPATION, IN PARTICULAR IN
THE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
RACE IS GLARING. THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF VOTERS WHO VOTED WERE
685,000, WITH A FEW EXTRA. SO IF
YOU TOOK 3/5 OR 60, YOU WOULD
HAVE CLOSE TO 400,000 VOTING IN
THOSE RACES. BUT THE TOTAL
NUMBER WHO DID VOTE DOWN WAS
UNDER 300,000, WHICH IS LESS
THAN 40. WHAT IS MOST GLARING,
HOWEVER, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
TWO DISTRICTS THAT HAVE THE
MAJORITY MINORITY, THEY HAD EVEN
LESS VOTERS COMING TO THE POLL.
THE ONE THAT HAD THE LARGEST WAS
THE MAJORITY WHITE DISTRICT.
THESE DIFFERENCES ARE ONLY
GETTING WORSE WITH EACH YEAR. IN
MY WORK AS PRESIDENT OF THE
STATEWIDE ASSOCIATION THOÁT
COUNTY BOARDS UP AND DOWN THE
STATE THAT MOVE TO THE GENERAL
ELECTION WAS CLEAR HOW MUCH MORE
REPRESENTATIVE THOSE BOARDS WERE
TO THEIR POPULATIONS, AND HOW
MUCH MORE THE VOTERS WERE
ENGAGED IN THOSE RACES. BUT NOW,
LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW THE
CRITICAL NATURE OF THE BOARD IS
WRITTEN TODAY. WHY SHOULD THE
STATE INTERVENE? EXCUSE ME,
MA'AM, I'M SORRY, BUT YOU'RE
GOING TO NEED TO CONCLUDE. OKAY
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE TWO
MINUTES. OH, OKAY. SO IF YOU
COULD, WRAP IT UP, THAT WOULD BE
GREAT. OKAY, SO I'LL WRAP IT UP
BASICALLY. WHY, IF I WAS STILL
SERVING AS A TRUSTEE, I WOULD
STILL BE SUPPORTING SB 907 WHEN
MY YEARS OF SERVICE HAS PROVEN
THAT THIS IS A CRITICAL BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND GO AHEAD, MA'AM. THANK YOU,
I'M DOCTOR REBECCA GÓMEZ AS A
FORMER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
TRUSTEE, A RETIRED TENURED
FACULTY MEMBER, AND THE DEAN OF
HEALTH SCIENCE, I BRING A WEALTH
OF EXPERIENCE AND UNDERSTANDING
TO EDUCATION POLICY. I FULLY
SUPPORT SB 907, INCREASING THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO SEVEN
MEMBERS AND MOVING THE ELECTION
TO THE NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION
. THE TURNOUT FOR THE PRIMARY
ELECTION IS MUCH LOWER FOR THE
GENERAL ELECTION, WHEN THE
VOTERS ARE MORE MOTIVATED TO
ELECT THEIR TRUSTEES AS ORANGE
COUNTY HAS BECOME MORE DIVERSE,
THE COMMUNITY MUST SELECT ITS
REPRESENTATIVES, AND INCREASING
THE NUMBER OF TRUSTEES WILL
ALLOW THE TRUSTEES TO REPRESENT
THEIR LOCAL AREAS MORE
EFFECTIVELY. ALTHOUGH OUR
PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY IS TO THE
CHILDREN OF THE COUNTY, SCHOOLS
SUCH AS ACCESS, SPECIAL NEEDS
ADULT LEARNERS, INCARCERATED
YOUTH AND CHARTER SCHOOLS
GOVERNING AND OVERSEEING OUR
SCHOOLS SERVICES IS THE PRIMARY
WORK AS A FORMER TRUSTEE, MY
AREA INCLUDED ALL OR PORTIONS OF
FIVE DIFFERENT DISTRICTS, WHICH
MEANT THAT I WORK WITH SEVERAL
SUPERINTENDENTS AND FIVE
DIFFERENT BOARDS TO CREATE
RELATIONSHIPS AND ADVOCATE FOR
THEM. THIS IS A PART TIME JOB
WITH HUGE RESPONSIBILITIES TO
PERFORM EFFECTIVELY, THUS
INCREASING THE BOARD TO SEVEN.
MEMBERS WOULD ALLOW THE TRUSTEES
TO HAVE A HAVE BETTER OVERSIGHT
AND ADVOCACY, MOVING THE
ELECTION TO NOVEMBER. UNDER THE
CURRENT SYSTEM, A CANDIDATE WHO
IS A CURRENT SCHOOL BOARD OR
COUNTY MEMBER MAY GET ELECTED IN
THE MARCH PRIMARY WITH THE
PLURALITY OF VOTES, NOT THE
MAJORITY AND NO RUNOFF. THE
WINNING CANDIDATE WILL BE SWORN
INTO THE COUNTY SEAT IN JULY.
THIS EARLY TRANSITION
EFFECTIVELY DESTABILIZE THE
CURRENT BORDER COUNCIL, AS HE OR
SHE WILL VACATE THE POSITION
MONTHS BEFORE THE NOVEMBER
ELECTION. THE FORMER BOARDS
COUNCIL, DISTRICT WILL LACK
REPRESENTATION. BEGINNING IN
JULY, THE REMAINING BOARD OR
COUNCIL FACES THE DIFFICULT
DECISION OF APPOINTING A NEW
MEMBER, LEAVING THE SEAT VACANT
UNTIL NOVEMBER OR CALLING A
SPECIAL ELECTION IF THERE IS AN
APPOINTMENT. IT PROVIDES AN
UNFAIR ADVANTAGE TO THE
APPOINTED INCUMBENT IN THE NEXT
ELECTION. MORE IMPORTANTLY, THIS
APPOINTED MEMBER BY DEFINITION
DOES NOT REPRESENT THE VOTING
PUBLIC. A SPECIAL ELECTION MAY
COST THE CITY OR SCHOOL DISTRICT
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS, WHICH TAKES AWAY
FUNDING FROM THE PRIMARY PURPOSE
OF EDUCATING CHILDREN. THE
SITUATION DISCOURAGES QUALIFIED
CANDIDATES FROM RUNNING FOR THE
COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, AS THEY DO
NOT WANT TO LEAVE THEIR SEAT IN
MIDTERMS. IN ADDITION, THE
BOARDS OR COUNCILS POLICY WORK
COULD BE PARALYZED DUE TO
POTENTIAL TIE VOTES. A NOVEMBER
ELECTION ALLOWS FOR APPROPRIATE,
REASONABLE TRANSITION FOR THE
PREVIOUS BOARD OR COUNCIL AND
THE COUNTY OFFICE. THIS BILL
SHOULD BE EVALUATED ON THE BASIS
OF APPROPRIATE GOVERNANCE FOR
OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM,
EXPANDING THE BOARD TO SEVEN
MEMBERS WOULD PROVIDE BETTER
REPRESENTATION AND GOVERNANCE TO
THE STATE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARDS
ON BEHALF OF THE STUDENTS AND
THEIR CONSTITUENTS. LASTLY,
THERE IS A MENTION OF RAISING
FUNDS FOR A DOWN BALLOT RACE.
REASONABLE CAMPAIGN LIMITS ALLOW
FOR A COMPETENT CANDIDATE WHO
CAN PROVIDE STRONG GOVERNANCE,
RATHER THAN ONE WHO CAN CURRY
FAVOR WITH SPECIAL INTERESTS.
ALL SCHOOL BOARDS SHOULD
EMPHASIZE IMPROVING THE
EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM. SB 907 IS AN
ISSUE OF APPROPRIATE GOVERNANCE
FOR OUR STUDENTS AND OUR
FAMILIES, WHO DESERVE
APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATION AND
FULL ACCESS TO OUR PUBLIC
EDUCATION SYSTEM. THANK YOU.
WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK
YOU TO THE SUPPORT WITNESSES.
AND NOW WE WILL GO TO OPPOSITION
WITNESSES ME TOS. OH I'M SORRY.
FIRST WE WILL HAVE THE ME TOS.
SO THAT'S ANYBODY WHO IS IN
SUPPORT WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME
TO THE MICROPHONE AND JUST SAY
YOUR NAME, YOUR ORGANIZATION AND
YOUR SUPPORT. OKAY SEEING NONE
NOW, WE WILL MOVE TO THE
OPPOSITION. PLEASE STAY THERE.
MADAM CHAIR, SHOULDN'T THEY STAY
THERE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO STAY
THERE? YOU COULD SIT IN THOSE
TWO CHAIRS IF YOU'D LIKE TO.
YEAH. THEN YOU'RE PRESENT. IF
THERE ARE QUESTIONS BY THE
MEMBERS. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS TIM SHAW. I'M THE PRESIDENT
OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION. I'M JOINED TODAY BY
OUR VICE PRESIDENT, DOCTOR LISA
SPARKS, AND MR. TOM SHEEHY, AN
ADVOCATE FOR OUR BOARD. THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO OPPOSE
SENATE BILL 907. OBVIOUSLY, THIS
BILL ONLY APPLIES TO ORANGE
COUNTY, WE RESPECTFULLY, WE
BELIEVE THE NUMBER OF TRUSTEES
ON THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION AND WHEN THE ELECTIONS
HAPPEN, SHOULD BE A DECISION
MADE IN ORANGE COUNTY AND NOT BY
SENATORS AND ASSEMBLY MEMBERS
FROM AROUND THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. WE WERE SPEAKING OF
POPULATION, INTERESTINGLY, THE
LAST SEVERAL YEARS, ORANGE
COUNTY'S POPULATION HAS BEEN
DECLINING. WE LOST APPROXIMATELY
35,000 RESIDENTS OVER THE LAST
TWO YEARS, 31 OF THE 58 COUNTIES
HAVE, BOARDS OF EDUCATION WITH
FIVE TRUSTEES. WE WERE
MENTIONING SAN DIEGO COUNTY, A
COUNTY WITH A LARGER POPULATION
THAN ORANGE COUNTY THAT HAS ONLY
FIVE TRUSTEES. OUR NEIGHBOR TO
THE NORTH, LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW, ACTUALLY HAS
A BOARD OF EDUCATION WHOSE
MEMBERS AREN'T ELECTED AT ALL.
THEY'RE APPOINTED BY THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS. IF THE
LEGISLATURE IS INTERESTED IN
HAVING GREATER DEMOCRACY BROUGHT
TO A COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
CERTAINLY LOS ANGELES COUNTY IS
THE PLACE TO START. NOT IN
ORANGE COUNTY. I WOULD LIKE TO
QUOTE FROM THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS ON PAGE THREE. AT THE
BOTTOM IT READS, AND I QUOTE. IT
SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IT IS
POSSIBLE UNDER EXISTING LAW TO
INCREASE THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION'S MEMBERSHIP TO
SEVEN MEMBERS WITHOUT
LEGISLATION. THAT IS, YOUR,
STAFF ANALYSIS. AND WE WOULD
AGREE WITH THAT. I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR NO
VOTE, AND I'D ALLOW DOCTOR
SPARKS TO SPEAK. THANK YOU. HI,
SINCE WE'RE THROWING TITLES
AROUND, I'M GOING TO ADD TO THE
MIX HERE. I'M DOCTOR LISA
SPARKS. I'M NOT ONLY A TRUSTEE
AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE ORANGE
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, BUT
I'M ALSO THE FOUNDING DEAN AND
MCGAW ENDOWED PROFESSOR, TENURED
AT CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY. SO
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE
ELECTION COMMITTEE, THANK YOU
FOR HEARING US TODAY. SIMPLY
PUT, THERE'S NO THERE'S
ABSOLUTELY NO TANGIBLE POLICY
JUSTIFICATION FOR SB 907. FIRST,
IT IS COST PROHIBITIVE. REMEMBER
WE ARE FACING NEARLY 70 BILLION
BUDGET DOLLAR DEFICIT. THAT'S
HUGE. THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE, REGARDING THE
PREVIOUS BILL, 286, THEY FOUND
THAT IT WOULD COST HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO MOVE THE
ELECTION. THAT WOULD BE THE SAME
CASE HERE. IT WOULD COST $70,000
A YEAR OR 700,000 IN A DECADE,
TO ADD TWO ADDITIONAL TRUSTEES.
PRETTY SIGNIFICANT BASED ON OUR
2020 REDISTRICTING, WOULD TAKE
ALMOST 700,000 TO REDISTRICT.
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION TRUSTEE
AREAS. AGAIN, QUITE SIGNIFICANT.
THIS IS NEARLY 1 MILLION. AND
WHERE WILL THIS MILLION DOLLARS
COME FROM? ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICTS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED
RECENTLY ENTERED INTO A DEAL TO
BUY IPADS FOR $678 EACH TO
PROVIDE EVERY STUDENT AN IPAD.
SB 907 IS CONSERVATIVELY
EQUIVALENT TO 1285 IPADS. YOU
TELL US WHICH STUDENTS ARE NOT
GOING TO GET AN IPAD. SET THAT
ASIDE FOR A MOMENT, THE
OSTENSIBLE JUSTIFICATION FOR SB
907 IS REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
AND RESPONSIVENESS. WITH NO DATA
AND NO FACTS. ORANGE COUNTY HAS
3.2 MILLION CITIZENS. I HARDLY
THINK ADDING TWO TRUSTEES WILL
MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IF WE WANTED
TO CHANGE OUR OUR ELECTIONS IN
ORANGE COUNTY, OUR BOARD, WE
COULD DO THAT OURSELVES. BUT WE
HAVE NOT. IN MARCH, I HEARD
PARKER SUPPORTING 907,
TESTIFYING THAT THERE'S BEEN A
LONG DISCUSSION ABOUT CHANGING
THE BOARD COMPOSITION THAT WE,
IN FACT, HAVE A DECLARATION OF
UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY,
DEMONSTRATING THAT THAT'S FALSE.
AND WE HAVE A COPY OF THAT WE'RE
GOING TO HAND OUT TO YOU GUYS.
THERE ARE MULTIPLE MECHANISMS TO
CHANGE THE BOARD COMPOSITION,
YET NO ONE HAS EVER PROPOSED
THAT. FINALLY, WE JUST HAD AN
ELECTION WHERE THREE BOARD
INCUMBENTS WERE REELECTED MORE
THAN COMFORTABLY VÆ IN THE 50
HIGH 50 PERCENTAGE. THE SUBTEXT
OF THIS BILL IS THAT ORANGE
COUNTY VOTERS ARE APATHETIC,
MISINFORMED, OR JUST DON'T KNOW
WHAT THEY'RE DOING. BUT OF
COURSE, WE TRUST THE VOTERS. WE
THINK THAT YOU SHOULD. AS WELL
AS AN ORANGE COUNTY RESIDENT AND
ELECTED OFFICIAL, WE TAKE ISSUE
WITH THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE IN THE
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION, MADAM CHAIR, I JUST
WANTED TO SAY YOU ALL SHOULD
HAVE RECEIVED OUR LETTER. WE'VE
TOLD SENATOR NEWMAN WE WOULD
REMOVE OUR OPPOSITION FROM THIS
BILL IMMEDIATELY UPON HIM,
AMENDING IT TO APPLY TO EVERY
COUNTY IN THE STATE. AND ARE YOU
KEN WILLIAMS, NO, I'M TOM
SHEEHY. OH, OKAY. KEN WILLIAMS,
MR. WILLIAMS, DOCTOR WILLIAMS IS
AN EXISTING BOARD MEMBER WHO'S
BEEN ON THE BOARD FOR 28 YEARS.
OKAY. YES. WE RECEIVED HIS
DECLARATION JUST NOW. THANK YOU.
OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND
WE MAY PROCEED FORWARD WITH THE
OPPOSITION. GREG ROLAND, COUNSEL
TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU, CHAIR. AND SENATORS ADAM
KAGAN, ON BEHALF OF INNOVATE
NETWORK OF HIGH PERFORMING
CHARTER SCHOOLS IN ORANGE COUNTY
AND LOS ANGELES IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. OKAY, SO WE WILL
BRING IT BACK TO OUR MEMBERS
HERE. DO ANY MEMBERS HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SENATOR
UMBERG SO THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR, QUESTIONS TO THE
OPPOSITION, FIRST, THANKS FOR
BEING HERE. BUT BUT SECONDLY,
MAYBE EXPLAIN TO ME AGAIN WHY
YOU DON'T LIKE THE NOVEMBER
ELECTION VERSUS THE MARCH
ELECTION. SENATOR, WE DID A LOT
OF RESEARCH ON THIS. THE
NOVEMBER BALLOT TENDS TO BE A
BALLOT THAT IS VERY COMPLICATED,
VERY FULL, LOTS OF RACES FOR
NATIONAL, STATE, LOCAL OFFICE.
THE ELECTIONS IN THE PRIMARY ARE
VERY SHORT. WE THINK IT IS A WE
UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT VOTER
TURNOUT WOULD TEND TO BE HIGHER
IN NOVEMBER. AND THAT'S NOT
ARGUABLE. THIS IS THE NOVEMBER
BALLOT. OKAY WAIT A MINUTE.
LET'S JUST DO ONE PERSON AT A
TIME, OKAY. WAIT, WAIT. OKAY.
TELL YOU WHAT. TELL YOU WHAT.
TELL YOU WHAT, MADAM CHAIR.
LET'S LET'S JUST HAVE FIRST MR.
SHAW ANSWER, THEN ANYBODY ELSE?
YES. HIS VISUAL AID IS ACCURATE.
THE NOVEMBER BALLOT AS YOU AS
YOU WILL SEE, IS FOUR PAGES. THE
PRIMARY BALLOT WAS JUST TWO. AND
WE THINK IT IS, AT ADVANTAGEOUS
TO HAVE A PRIMARY BALLOT WHERE
THE VOTERS AREN'T OVERWHELMED
WITH SO MANY RACES AND THEY CAN
ACTUALLY FOCUS ON THE COUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION. AND, YOU
KNOW, IN THE WEEKS BEFORE THE
ELECTION, WHEN YOU'RE REACHING
INTO YOUR MAILBOX, THE STACK OF
MAIL IS A LOT THINNER WHEN IT'S
IN THE, IN THE PRIMARY, AS YOU
KNOW. SO WE THINK THAT WE WOULD
GET MORE TOP BILLING IN THAT
PRIMARY. I JUST WANT TO
UNDERSTAND. SO WE'RE ALL AGREED
THAT THE NOVEMBER ELECTION
TURNOUT IS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER
THAN THE MARCH TURNOUT. I THINK
THAT'S RIGHT. I SEE EVERYBODY'S
SHAKING THEIR HEAD IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE. AND I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT AS TO,
AGAIN, THERE'S TWO, TWO
COMPLICATED IN NOVEMBER. IN
OTHER WORDS, THE VOTERS WON'T BE
ABLE TO FOCUS IN NOVEMBER, BUT
THEY CAN FOCUS IN MARCH. BUT
HAVING MORE VOTERS FOCUS IN
NOVEMBER IS NOT A GOOD THING. IS
THAT IS THAT YOUR POSITION?
WELL, THE ISSUE OF BALLOT
FATIGUE HAS BEEN HAS BEEN WELL
STUDIED, THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A
BALLOT THAT GOES ON FOR PAGES
AND PAGES, BUT THE BOTTOM
CONTEST, A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE
LEAVING BLANK BECAUSE THEY'VE
KIND OF BEEN OVER THERE LOOKING
AT THE CONTEST FOR PRESIDENT,
FOR GOVERNOR, FOR CONGRESS. AND
BY THE TIME YOU'RE DOWN AT THE
SCHOOL BOARD, IT'S JUST TOO MUCH
. BUT AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE
MARCH BALLOT, WHERE IT'S JUST A
FEW CONTESTS, YOU CAN KIND OF
CATCH THEIR ATTENTION A LITTLE
BIT BETTER. OKAY. AND I AND I
WOULD SAY, I MEAN, AGAIN, IF
IT'S TO BE CHANGED, THAT'S A
PERFECTLY REASONABLE DEBATE. BUT
I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S A
DECISION FOR THE STATE
LEGISLATURE. RIGHT, RIGHT. WELL,
I THINK OKAY. I'M SORRY. GO
AHEAD. OH, AND I WOULD JUST ADD
I, I ECHO WHAT, WHAT MR. SHAW
SAID, BUT ALSO IT'S JUST SORT OF
JUST FOCUSED ON ORANGE COUNTY
RATHER THAN, YOU KNOW, FOCUSING
ON THE 58 COUNTIES ACROSS
CALIFORNIA. SO THAT'S ANOTHER
PIECE OF IT. WELL, LET ME JUST
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR
DEDICATION AND YOUR SERVICE TO
THE CHILDREN OF ORANGE COUNTY. I
JUST MET DOCTOR DAWN PARKER JUST
34 YEARS AGO WHEN WE WERE HIGH
SCHOOL. RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
GOING TO. THAT'S THE STORY WE'RE
GOING TO STICK TO. AND THANK
YOU, DOCTOR GÓMEZ ALSO FOR BEING
HERE, THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT
ISSUE FOR THOSE OF US THAT
REPRESENT ORANGE COUNTY AND A
VERY CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE. AND I
KNOW THE BOARD OF EDUCATION IN
ORANGE COUNTY HAS BEEN A PLACE
OF GREAT DEBATE. AND THERE'S
BEEN A LOT OF CHALLENGES THAT
HAVE BEEN FACED BY THE BOARD OF
EDUCATION. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT
THE BILL BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE
THAT HAVING SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE
BOARD OF EDUCATION IS MORE
REPRESENTATIVE, AND I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT THE BILL, BECAUSE I
THINK HAVING MORE VOTERS MAKE
THAT DECISION IN NOVEMBER IS
JUST BETTER FOR THE BODY
POLITIC. BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR
YOUR INTEREST AND YOUR
PARTICIPATION HERE TODAY. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU,
SENATOR UMBERG. SENATOR
PORTANTINO. YEAH, OBVIOUSLY THE
BALLOT ORDER IS SOMETHING THAT I
HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY
WITH FOR LÀ COUNTY. WHEN WE
CONSOLIDATED ELECTIONS, I HEARD
FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, SCHOOL
BOARDS WITH THE QUESTION OF
WOULD WE GET LOST AT THE END?
AND THERE'S NOTHING IN STATE LAW
THAT SAYS THE PRESIDENT HAS TO
BE LISTED FIRST, OR THE GOVERNOR
HAS TO BE LISTED FIRST. SO FOR
LA COUNTY ELECTIONS, WE START
WITH THE LOCAL ELECTIONS, THEN
WE GO TO COUNTY ELECTIONS, THEN
WE GO TO STATE ELECTIONS AND
THEN WE GO TO FEDERAL ELECTIONS,
AND SO THAT'S THE BALLOT ORDER
JUST FOR LA COUNTY, SUGGESTION
FOR THE AUTHOR. HE MAY WANT TO
CONSIDER FOR ORANGE COUNTY IN
ANOTHER COMMITTEE, YOU KNOW,
ADDING THAT TO THIS BILL TO
CHANGE THE ACTUAL BALLOT ORDER
FOR ORANGE COUNTY ELECTIONS.
AGAIN, WHAT LA COUNTY DOES IS
LOCAL ELECTIONS, COUNTY
ELECTIONS, STATE ELECTIONS, AND
THEN THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS ARE
LAST. SO MAYOR SCHOOL BOARD
WOULD BE FIRST, NOT LAST. AND
AGAIN, I AGREE WITH SENATOR
UMBERG. YOU KNOW, HAVING MORE
PEOPLE VOTE IS INCREASING
DEMOCRACY, HAVING MORE PEOPLE
PARTICIPATE IS INCREASING
DEMOCRACY. AND CERTAINLY IT'S A
VALID QUESTION FOR LOCAL
ELECTIONS. SHOULD THEY BE LISTED
FIRST? I THINK THEY SHOULD. SO
JUST A SUGGESTION FOR MR. NEWMAN
TO THINK ABOUT AS THIS BILL
PROGRESSES. HE MAY WANT TO
BECAUSE THAT WOULD ALSO INCREASE
, PARTICIPATION AND MAKE IT
EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO SEE THEIR
LOCAL CITY COUNCIL AND SCHOOL
BOARDS AT THE TOP OF THE BALLOT.
THANK YOU. SENATOR ELLENBERG HAS
A QUICK POINT HE WANTS TO MAKE
ON THIS. AND WE'LL GO TO SENATOR
NGUYEN. LET ME ASK THE
PROPONENTS AND THE OPPONENTS AND
PERHAPS EVEN SENATOR NEWMAN.
SENATOR PORTANTINO JUST MADE A
SUGGESTION. WHAT DO YOU THINK IN
IN SHORT ORDER OF PLACING THE
BOARD OF EDUCATION DECISION AT
THE TOP OF THE BALLOT IN
NOVEMBER? I'LL START WITH THE
PROPONENTS. WELL, IT'S
INTERESTING BECAUSE I WANT TO
CLARIFY, THE COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION RACES ON THE PRIMARY
COME AFTER JUDGES, AND WE KNOW
IN ORANGE COUNTY, THIS TIME
THERE WAS ONLY TWO FOR TWO YEARS
AGO. THERE WERE 16. SO WE KNOW
IT ALREADY GETS LOST. BUT I
HAPPEN TO BE WORKING REALLY HARD
TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE
REPRESENTED IN THE VOTING. AND
OUR NEW WORD IS BOTTOMS UP. SO
DO YOU. SO I AGREE WITH SENATOR
UMBERG. I AGREE WITH THAT. IT'D
BE GREAT IF WE FLIPPED IT AND
HAD LOCAL RACES BECAUSE IN THE
COUNTY BOARD RACE WOULD BE AFTER
THE LOCAL DISTRICT RACES OR EVEN
AT THE VERY TOP. YEAH, OKAY. THE
OPPONENTS, BUT I WOULD SAY, I
WOULD SAY THAT MAKES SENSE. IF
THE BILL MOVES FORWARD, I BUT
IT'S VERY COST PROHIBITIVE,
WHICH IS MY MAIN ARGUMENT
AGAINST IT. IT'S COST
PROHIBITIVE TO PUT TO REORDER
THE FOLKS ON THIS ENTIRE BILL IS
COST PROHIBITIVE, COSTING
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO MOVE THE
ELECTION FROM THE PRIMARY TO THE
GENERAL AND THE REDISTRICTING TO
ADD, YOU KNOW, AN ADDITIONAL TWO
MEMBERS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. MADAM
CHAIR. OKAY. WAIT, HOLD ON A
SECOND. WE WANT THE AUTHOR TO BE
ABLE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION AND
THEN WE'LL COME TO YOU. GLAD. I
THINK THAT'S A TRULY INTERESTING
AND WORTHY IDEA. I'M GLAD TO
PURSUE IT. I THINK THAT WOULD
HAVE CORRELATED BENEFITS TO ALL
OF THE SO-CALLED DOWN BALLOT
OFFICES THAT DON'T GET ENOUGH
ATTENTION. IT MAKES US, YOU
KNOW, AND WHILE I'M AT IT, YOU
KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO COST, IF
SOMEONE WERE TO PROPOSE ALIGNING
THE IMPLEMENTATION DATE WITH THE
NEXT CENSUS AND THE NEXT
REDISTRICTING PROCESS THAT WOULD
MINIMIZE THAT COST, RIGHT? SO WE
CAN DEAL WITH COST, BUT BUT
THERE WILL BE SOME COSTS. THAT
COST IS MORE THAN JUSTIFIED BY
THE PUBLIC BENEFIT IN MY VIEW.
OKAY. THANK YOU, SENATOR
PORTANTINO. THE BALLOT ORDER
ONCE THE TEMPLATES DONE, THE
TEMPLATES DONE. I MEAN, YOU
KNOW, EVERY ELECTION HAS TO, YOU
KNOW, IS GERMANE TO THAT
ELECTION AS YOU CREATE THE
BALLOT. SO THERE'S NO ACTUAL
INCREASE IN COST TO CHANGE THE
BALLOT ORDER. SO AS YOU MOVE
FORWARD, OKAY. THANK YOU ALL ON
THAT. AND THEN WE'LL MOVE TO
SENATOR NGUYEN. THANK THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I'VE GOT
A MAY I ASK SOME QUESTIONS TO
SOME OF THE WITNESSES. YES BUT
LET'S JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE DO
HAVE, YOU KNOW, FOR TWO AND TWO.
SO WE DON'T HAVE THREE AND TWO.
SO JUST THANK YOU. CLEAR ON
THAT, MISS GÓMEZ, WHEN, WHEN DID
YOU SERVE ON THE BOARD OF
EDUCATION? I SERVED FROM 2016
TO, 21. SO SIX, SIX YEARS. SO IN
THE TIME THAT YOU SERVED, DID
YOU FEEL THAT YOU HAD YOU DIDN'T
HAVE ENOUGH? TIME TO READ THE
AGENDA. YOU NEEDED MORE STAFF OR
THAT THE DISTRICT WAS SO LARGE
THAT YOU COULDN'T DO YOUR DUE
DILIGENCE AND BE ABLE TO VOTE AS
YOU STATED. DID YOU FELT THAT AT
ALL DURING THAT TIME? I NEVER
HAD A PROBLEM READING THE AGENDA
OR GETTING PREPARED FOR MEETINGS
, THE EXTRA WORK, SO TO SPEAK,
IS VISITING SCHOOLS, ATTENDING
GRADUATIONS, THAT WAS NEVER A
BURDEN FOR ME AS AN ELECTED
OFFICIAL. THAT'S WHAT I SIGNED
UP FOR. AND I WAS FULLY
COMMITTED TO DOING THAT. DOES IT
STRETCH YOU THIN IF YOU'RE
WORKING FULL TIME AND AS A AS A
DEAN, MY COUNTERPART CAN
PROBABLY COMMENT ON THAT AS
WELL. OUR OUR PLATES ARE FULL,
BUT I MADE TIME TO DO IT, BUT
WOULD THE WOULD THE BURDEN HAVE
BEEN LESSENED A LITTLE BIT,
PERHAPS? ABSOLUTELY, BUT AT THE
TIME WHEN YOU WERE THERE, DID
YOU FELT LIKE WE SHOULD HAVE HAD
SEVEN MEMBERS? IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN EASIER FOR YOU. YES YOU YOU
YOU DID. WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT
YOU EXPRESSED VOCALLY TO THE
BOARD OR WAS IT PUT IN PLACE ON
THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSIONS OR
ANYTHING, THAT'S JUST SOMETHING
YOU YOU THOUGHT YOURSELF. I
BELIEVED MYSELF BECAUSE I DID
ATTEND GRADUATIONS. I DID VISIT
SCHOOLS. NOT ALL OF MY
COUNTERPARTS WERE ABLE TO DO
THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON, BUT I
FELT I NEEDED TO REPRESENT THE
PEOPLE THAT ELECTED ME. SO YOU
NEVER PLACED IT ON THE AGENDA
FOR DISCUSSION AMONG THE BOARD
MEMBERS OR HAD LIKE, YOU KNOW, I
DON'T KNOW, DO YOU, DO YOU, END
OF THE YEAR OR STRATEGIC
PLANNING OR ANYTHING? WAS THAT
PART OF THE DISCUSSION OR
ANYTHING? THERE WAS NEVER A
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE BOARD.
WELL, SO BUT YOU NEVER BROUGHT
IT UP. I DID NOT, I DID NOT
BRING IT UP. OKAY, THE ONLY
REASON WHY I ASKED THAT QUESTION
IS BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR
COMMENTS HERE THAT YOU SERVED
AND THAT YOU FELT THAT THERE'S A
NEED TO INCREASE. AND I WANTED
TO KNOW IF THAT NEED INCREASE
ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW, OR WAS IT
IN THE EIGHT YEARS YOU WERE
THERE, AND SO THAT'S WHY I
BROUGHT THAT UP. YOU KNOW, I, WE
IN ORANGE COUNTY TEND TO, KIND
OF ALMOST COMPARE HERSELF TO SAN
DIEGO A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE OF
POPULATION, BECAUSE EITHER
ORANGE COUNTY IS 100,000 MORE
RESIDENTS TO PLACE SECOND OR SAN
DIEGO FLIPS US AND GETS 100,000
MORE RESIDENTS. AND, YOU KNOW,
SO WE GO BACK AND FORTH WITH SAN
DIEGO. HAVING BEEN ON THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISOR, WE ALWAYS WATCH
SAN DIEGO'S NUMBERS AND OUR
NUMBERS TO SEE ARE WE LOSING
RESIDENTS OR NOT, SO I TEND TO
WHEN I LOOK AT COUNTIES IN THE
STATE, I TEND NOT TO COMPARE US
TO LA COUNTY BECAUSE THEY'RE
JUST MASSIVE. THEY HAVE FIVE
COUNTY SUPERVISORS WHO
REPRESENTS 10 MILLION, I DON'T
KNOW, SEVERAL MILLION PEOPLE,
AND SO I DON'T TEND TO, YOU
KNOW, COMPARE US TO LA COUNTY A
LOT. AND THEN I DON'T COMPARE US
TO RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO A
LOT EITHER, BECAUSE THEIR
GEOGRAPHIC AND THEIR, YOU KNOW,
THEIR POPULATION IS REALLY
SPREAD OUT, UNLIKE ORANGE
COUNTY, WE'RE VERY DENSE, KIND
OF ALMOST SIMILAR TO SAN DIEGO.
SO WHEN I LOOK AT COMPARISON,
YOU KNOW, IN COUNTIES, WE TEND
TO AT LEAST FOR ME, LOOK AT SAN
DIEGO AND I JUST LOOKED IT UP.
SAN DIEGO HAS SIMILAR POPULATION
AND THEY ONLY HAVE FIVE BOARD OF
EDUCATION MEMBERS, I'M NOT SURE
IF THEY'RE ELECTED IN THE
PRIMARY OR THE NOVEMBER
ELECTION, I'M GOING TO ASSUME
IT'S THE PRIMARY Kò THEIR
NOVEMBER. IT'S THE GENERAL
ELECTION. IT'S A GENERAL. ALMOST
ALL COUNTY BOARDS ARE GENERAL
NOW. OKAY. SO THEN, YOU KNOW, I
GUESS MY CONCERN HERE WITH THIS
BILL, SENATOR, IS AND WE SPOKE,
NUMEROUS TIMES IS I REALLY THINK
LET'S JUST MAKE A STATEWIDE. WHY
NOT IF IT'S GOOD FOR ORANGE
COUNTY, IT'S GOOD FOR LA COUNTY,
IT'S GOOD FOR SAN DIEGO, IT'S
GOOD FOR RIVERSIDE. IF
EVERYBODY'S GOING TO GO IN
NOVEMBER, LET'S MAKE IN
NOVEMBER. JUST LIKE WHEN THIS
BODY PUT THE SHERIFF AND THE DA
INTO NOVEMBER ELECTION, THEY DID
IT STATEWIDE. SO WE'RE GOING TO
DO IT. LET'S MAKE A UNIFORM.
LET'S, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF, YOU
KNOW, LA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS APPOINTING THE BOARD
OF EDUCATION, LET'S MAKE AN
ELECTED BODY OF SEVEN. LET'S
MAKE SAN DIEGO A BODY OF SEVEN.
LET'S MAKE EVERY. AND THEN
INSTEAD OF RIVERSIDE, YOU STATED
THERE IN NOVEMBER OR A MAJORITY.
I HAVEN'T LOOKED IT UP. I DON'T
KNOW IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, CORRECT
OR NOT. I'M GOING TO ASSUME IT
IS, THEN LET'S MAKE EVERYBODY GO
IN NOVEMBER, AND IF WE'RE GOING
TO DO THE BALLOT SHUFFLING,
LET'S DO IT FOR EVERY COUNTY,
BECAUSE I CAN IMAGINE THAT IN
TERMS OF VOTER FATIGUE, IF IT'S
HAPPENING IN ORANGE COUNTY OR
WE'VE HEARD THAT IT HAPPENED IN
LA COUNTY IN THE PAST, AND
THAT'S WHY THERE IS A BILL THAT
PASSED. SO THEN LET'S MAKE IT
STATEWIDE. AND IF THERE'S A
FATIGUE OF ANYWHERE, I'M SURE
THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME IN OTHER
COUNTIES TOO. AND SO, YOU KNOW,
I, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH
BALLOTS GOING IN NOVEMBER. ALL
OF US ARE IN NOVEMBER. BALLOTS
WE'RE IN MARCH BALLOTS AS WELL.
OR JUNE ORPHALI OFF PRESIDENTIAL
YEAR, BUT I THINK TARGETING
ORANGE COUNTY IS JUST UNFAIR. I
THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO IF IT'S
A GOOD PUBLIC POLICY Kò, LET'S
MAKE IT A GOOD PUBLIC POLICY
STATEWIDE INSTEAD OF TARGETING
ONE SPECIFIC COUNTY. YOU KNOW,
AND I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T I ONLY
HAVE THREE CITIES IN LA COUNTY.
I'M NOT AN EXPERT. LA COUNTY,
MADAM CHAIR, IS THE EXPERT OF
SAN DIEGO. I DON'T HAVE ANY SAN
DIEGO, SO I'M NOT HERE TO SPEAK
ON BEHALF OF ANY COUNTY. I'M
JUST SAYING THAT IF IT'S A GOOD
PUBLIC POLICY, ESPECIALLY WHEN
IT COMES TO ELECTIONS. AND
THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING, THE
ARGUMENT AND WHAT YOU'RE STATING
, SENATOR, THEN LET'S JUST MAKE
IT STATEWIDE, YOU KNOW, AND WITH
THAT, THE OPPOSITION TO IT,
THEY'LL REMOVE THEIR OPPOSITION
AND THEN WE CAN ALL GET ON THE
SAME PAGE STATEWIDE INSTEAD OF
SECOND GUESSING WHO'S HAS FIVE
AND WHO HAS SEVEN, WHO'S ON
NOVEMBER, WHO'S IN MARCH, OR IN
PRIMARY, ETC. SO, WITH THAT, YOU
KNOW, I WOULD ASK FOR A NO VOTE.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. OKAY.
THANK YOU, SENATOR NGUYEN. ANY
OTHER COMMENTS FROM COLLEAGUES
NOT SEEING ANY, WE WILL TURN
THIS BACK TO THE AUTHOR TO
CLOSE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. AND THANK YOU TO
NOT ONLY MY WITNESSES FOR THE
OTHER FOLKS WHO CAME UP FROM
APPRECIATE YOUR PARTICIPATION. I
APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS,
STARTING WITH THAT QUESTION
ABOUT BALLOT ORDER. RIGHT. AND I
THINK SENATOR PORTANTINO CAN
SPEAK TO THIS. THAT IS NO SMALL
TASK. RIGHT. ONE OF THE REASONS
WHY THAT THAT EXPERIMENT WAS
DONE IN LA SPECIFICALLY WAS
BECAUSE IT'S REALLY HARD TO DO
AT THE STATE LEVEL STATEWIDE.
CORRECT. AND I THINK THE SAME IS
TRUE FOR MANY OTHER CHANGES THAT
WE WOULD MAKE. SO I'M GLAD TO
LOOK AT THESE POSSIBLE CHANGES.
WE HAVE ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, SORT
OF TAKEN A SCREEN AND SAID, YOU
KNOW, OF COUNTIES ABOVE 2
MILLION, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONLY
TWO, THERE'S US IN SAN DIEGO,
YOU KNOW, ORANGE COUNTY AND SAN
DIEGO THAT THAT ARE SIMILAR IN
THAT RESPECT. BUT SAN DIEGO, I
THINK SOMEBODY TOUCHED ON IS
THAT COUNTY BOARD IS GOVERNED BY
SAN DIEGO'S CHARTER. SO HARDER.
RIGHT. MECHANIC AND
ADMINISTRATIVELY TO CHANGE THAT.
SO GLAD TO LOOK AT PROSPECTIVELY
INCLUDING OTHER COUNTIES. BUT
BUT I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT SOME
QUITE OFTEN WE DO THESE THINGS
ON A COUNTY BY COUNTY BASIS OR
OTHERWISE INCREMENTAL PROGRESS
IS STILL PROGRESS, RIGHT? YOU
KNOW, AND SO I WOULD ARGUE THAT
THIS WOULD, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE
NEED OR THE BENEFITS IN OTHER
JURISDICTIONS, THIS WILL STILL
BE PROGRESS. AND AS I MENTIONED
IN MY OPENING COMMENTS, THIS IS
ACTUALLY NOT POLITICAL. RIGHT.
AND SO APPRECIATE KIND OF THE
BACK AND FORTH ABOUT WHO KNEW
WHAT AND WHO DISCUSSED WHAT ON
THE BOARD. I'VE ACTUALLY NEVER
HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH ANY
MEMBER OF THE BOARD, PAST OR
PRESENT, ABOUT THIS BILL, WHERE
I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS, WHERE
I DID, IN FACT GET THE IDEA FOR
THE BILL, WAS TALKING TO
PARENTS, AND PARTICULARLY THOSE
PARENTS WHO ARE DEEPLY INVOLVED
IN PTAS ACROSS ORANGE COUNTY. IT
WAS THEIR FEELING THAT THE
BOARD, IRRESPECTIVE OF POLITICS,
WAS TOO SMALL RELATIVE TO BOTH
THE SIZE OF THE COUNTY, BUT ALSO
THE DIVERSE POPULATION OF THE
COUNTY. THAT'S WHY THAT MAKES
SENSE TO ME. TO SENATOR
ELLENBERG'S AND OTHER POINT,
OTHER OTHERS POINTS MOVING THE
ELECTION FROM THE PRIMARY INTO
NOVEMBER IS AN UNALLOYED GOOD
THING, RIGHT? AND THERE IS NO
GUARANTEE IT CHANGES THE
OUTCOME. WHAT IT DOES GUARANTEE
IS YOU GET A MORE REPRESENTATIVE
LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION, AND AS A
RESULT, YOU GET A BOARD THAT IS
NOT ONLY MORE REPRESENTATIVE,
BUT MORE CLOSELY TIED TO THE
PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THE BOARD AND
WHOM THEY REPRESENT. THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITH
THIS BILL. WITH THAT, I ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE. OKAY. THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. SO THE MEASURE HAS
BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR PORTANTINO
AND THE MOTION IS Dð PASS TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS. SO
WE'LL ASK THE ASSISTANT TO
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL BREAKSPEAR.
HI. BLAKESPEAR. AYE. ONE. NO
ONE. NO ALLEN. MENGIBAR.
MENGIBAR. AYE. NEWMAN I NEWMAN.
AYE. PORTANTINO PATINO I UMBERG.
OKAY. THAT IS FOR ONE. AND WE
WILL LEAVE IT ON CALL. THANK YOU
AGAIN FOR COMING. SO OUR NEXT
BILL IS SUPPOSED TO BE SB 1422
BY ALLEN. I DO NOT SEE SENATOR
ALLEN IN THE AUDIENCE. DO WE
HAVE ANY IDEA WHERE HE IS? OKAY.
WE COULD DO. BEALL. WE COULD DO
MY BILL. SINCE I'M STANDING HERE
SITTING HERE. OH, OKAY. IT'S
BEEN IT'S ON CONSENT. IT'S TRUE.
I WASN'T HERE TO. OKAY. THAT'S A
GREAT IDEA. THANK YOU TO THE
VICE CHAIR. KEEPING THINGS IN
ORDER HERE. OKAY, LET'S GO TO
OPEN THE VOTE. CALL OH, IT'S ON
THE LAST PAGE. OKAY OKAY, SO WE
ARE LIFTING CALL AND WE WILL
FIRST LIFT CALL ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. SO ASSISTANT, PLEASE
LIFT CALL CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
INCLUDE SB 1156 AND SB 1493.
CURRENT VOTE IS FOUR ZERO.
LAKESPUR I ALLEN MENGIBAR I
MENGIBAR I. OKAY, IT'S SIX ZERO
AND IT IS STILL ON CALL. OKAY
LET'S LIFT CALL ON ITEM ONE AND
TWO. FOLLOWING ITEM ONE IS SB
904. CURRENT VOTE IS FOUR ONE.
VICE CHAIR VOTED NO. THE MOTION
IS DUE. PASS THE APPROPRIATIONS
LAKESPUR A WICKS FOR I. DID YOU
WANT TO SAY ALAN'S NAME? OKAY.
YOU HAVE TO SAY ALAN TO ALAN.
OKAY. IT'S FIVE ONE AND THAT
WILL STAY ON CALL. AND THEN
WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER TWO,
WHICH IS SB 977 FILE ITEM TWO SB
977. CURRENT VOTE IS THREE ONE.
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. VICE CHAIR VOTED NO.
LAKESPUR A EXPER I ALLEN AND
JAVAR AND JABBAR. I IT IS FIVE
ONE AND WE WILL ALSO LEAVE THAT
ON CALL. SO I AM GOING TO BE
PRESENTING HURTADO'S BILLS. SO
GIVEN THAT, THAT I'M DOING THAT
I CAN DO THAT NOW. SO I WILL
HAND THE GAVEL DOWN TO THE VICE
CHAIR. THANK THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. AT THIS TIME WE WILL BE
HEARING SB FIVE, ITEM NUMBER
THREE, SB 1151. HURTADO MOVE THE
BILL. DID I GET THE RIGHT I
DON'T KNOW, I DON'T OTHER
WITNESSES HERE. I DON'T KNOW I
DON'T
.
WHEN DID HE SWITCH? I DON'T.
WHATEVER YOU WANT. MADAM CHAIR,
PLEASE PROCEED. OKAY THANK YOU.
I'M HERE PRESENTING SB 1151 FROM
HURTADO, THE FOREIGN INFLUENCE,
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
ACT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT
THERE'S BEEN A MOTION ON THE
BILL. SO I THINK WE COULD
POSSIBLY GO AHEAD WITH THAT.
GIVEN THAT WE HAVE NO WITNESSES
AND NO OPPOSITION. LET ME JUST
I'M GOING TO JUST VERIFY AND
ASK, OKAY. YES. YES, ABSOLUTELY.
AT THIS TIME, IS THERE ANY LEAD
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT, ANY
SUPPORT WITNESSES? PLEASE COME
FORWARD. SEEING NONE. SEEING
NONE. IS THERE ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE. WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO MY COLLEAGUES,
ANY COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? I HEAR
THERE'S A MOTION AT THIS TIME.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR. AYE.
VOTE ON BEHALF OF SENATOR
HURTADO. THIS MEASURE HAS BEEN
MOVED BY SENATOR PORTANTINO. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATION.
MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. BLAKE SPEER, A BIG SPEER
I1I1I ALAN MENGIBAR I MENGIBAR I
NEWMAN NEWMAN I PATINO I MARTINO
I UMBERG. AT THIS TIME WE WILL
KEEP THE ROLL CALL OPEN. NEXT
BILL. MADAM CHAIR, WE WILL HEAR
ITEM FOR SB 1155. HURTADO.
PLEASE PROCEED. YES THANK YOU, I
AM HERE PRESENTING SB 1155 BY
HURTADO, MODERNIZING THE
PROHIBITION ON INSIDER TRADING
FOR GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVES ACT.
WOULD YOU BE ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS? I WILL BE ACCEPTING
THE AMENDMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE
AUTHOR. THANK YOU. WE WILL
PROCEED TO LEAD WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. WITNESSES IN SUPPORT,
LEAD WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION,
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. SEEING
NONE, WE'LL MOVE IT BACK TO THE
BOARD. SENATOR. QUESTIONS? YES,
PLEASE. YES SENATOR, CAN YOU
CONFIRM IF THIS BILL WILL
PREVENT, FOR EXAMPLE, OUR
CURRENT SECRETARIES, FROM
BECOMING Ã. WOULD THIS, WOULD
THIS INCLUDE SECRETARIES IN THE
TIME OFF PERIOD OR WHATEVER IT'S
CALLED, THE COOLING OFF PERIOD?
HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
BUT THIS IS FOR MORE EXECUTIVE
STAFF. SO THE SECRETARIES,
SECRETARY OF STATE, SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE, THAT SECRETARIES
ARE ALREADY PROHIBITED ALREADY.
OKAY. SO THE ONLY PEOPLE YOU ARE
LOOKING TO INCLUDE IS, IS NON
PAID APPOINTED OFFICIALS. AND IF
YOU ARE PART OF AN APPOINTED
POSITION TO THE BOARD, YOUR THE
MAIN GOAL IS FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE
BEING PAID WITHIN PHÐ. AND
THAT'S THURMOND. OH IT'S PAID
ONLY PAID AND UNPAID. IT'S ONLY
FOR PAID. BECAUSE THAT WAS THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT THAT WAS
ACCEPTED. I WAS LOOKING FOR
THAT. SO IT JUST TO CLARIFY,
THIS IS ONLY FOR PAID APPOINTED
OFFICIALS, RIGHT. EXACTLY, CAN
YOU Þ, YOU KNOW, I COMPARED THIS
BILL TO A BILL THAT WE HEARD
LAST YEAR THAT PREVENTED,
CERTAIN COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
COMMITTEE CONSULTANTS AND SO
FORTH, AND TO INCLUDE THEM IN
THE COOLING OFF PERIOD AND I'M
OF THE MINDSET OF IF YOU'RE NOT
AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, YOU
SHOULDN'T BE INCLUDED IN THE
COOLING OFF PERIOD. THIS I DON'T
WANT TO HINDER PEOPLE'S ABILITY
TO CLIMB THEIR PROFESSIONAL
LADDER. SO I THINK I JUST NEED I
THINK I'M I MIGHT BE STILL
STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND THE
ENTIRE GROUP. YOU'RE LOOKING TO
INCLUDE IN THE COOLING OFF
PERIOD, AND I APOLOGIZE. I KNOW
YOU'RE NOT THE AUTHOR OF THIS. I
IF I MAY CHIME IN, I THINK THIS
ONLY INCLUDES STATE EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT HEADS. DOES IT
INCLUDE OUR STAFF? IF THAT'S
BECAUSE LAST YEAR'S BILL WAS OUR
STAFF. SO THIS IS STATE
DEPARTMENT PAID EXECUTIVE, LIKE
THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION THÀNH, THE
DIRECTOR OF, SAY, CALTRANS, THE
HEAD EXECUTIVE THAT WORKS
DIRECTLY WITH THE GOVERNOR. I
BELIEVE THAT'S THE BILL. IT'S
NOT MY BILL, BUT I BELIEVE
THAT'S WHAT IT IS. THAT'S
CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT I
UNDERSTOOD TO. OKAY. THANK YOU.
SENATOR. OKAY. THIS IS SORT OF
UNFAIR TO OUR CHAIR WHO'S DOING
A GOOD DEED HERE. SO THIS IS
SORT OF THROUGH THE CHAIR TO
STAFF, ARE CAN YOU CITE A
PARTICULAR LIKE, INSTANCE OR
PROBLEM, THAT, YOU KNOW, CALLED
OUT THE NEED FOR THIS BILL AND
IT'S OR THE AMENDMENT TO FAIR
THAT CLEARLY HAS BEEN IN PLACE
SINCE 1938. I'M GOING TO INVITE
HER TO HELP. I APPRECIATE
QUESTIONS. SO, SENATOR, JUST TO
MAKE CLEAR, THIS BILL, WE'RE
DOING SB 1155, AND I DON'T KNOW
IF YOU'RE IS THE FARA BILL. I'M
SORRY, I'M SORRY. OH YOU'RE NO
YOU'RE RIGHT. SO YOU'RE RIGHT. I
MIXED THEM UP. SO RECENT
EXAMPLES OF A DEPARTMENT HEAD
WHO WHO MOVED TO ANOTHER
POSITION IN LOBBYING AND THAT
CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST
THEREBY LIKE, IS IT IS THIS JUST
PREEMPTIVE OR ARE THERE SPECIFIC
PROBLEMS THAT THE AUTHOR WAS
AWARE OF THAT ARE BEING
ADDRESSED THROUGH THIS BILL? SO
THERE'S NOT EXACTLY CONCRETE
EXAMPLES LIKE THAT. WE CAN POINT
TO A PARTICULAR LIKE STATE
AGENCY. BUT I THINK THE MAIN
GOAL OF SENATOR HURTADO IS TO
MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE THAT ARE
IN THESE APPOINTED POSITIONS
HAVE TRANSPARENCY. AND THAT'S
WHY SHE WANTED TO TRANSPARENCY
OF MAKING SURE THAT THEY HAVE A
COOLING OFF PERIOD, SIMILAR TO
LIKE THE PEOPLE AT THE TOP
MAKING THE TOP DECISIONS. ALL
RIGHT. BUT BUT NO SPECIFIC
EXAMPLES OF DEALINGS THAT CALL,
THIS INTO QUESTION OR NEED.
OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS COMMENTS.
IS THERE A MOTION. I'LL MOVE THE
BILL. THE BILL HAS BEEN MOVED BY
SENATOR. CAN'T SHE DO THAT?
OKAY. FOR 14? OH WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? ON BEHALF OF THE
AUTHOR, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. THE
MOTION, THE BILL HAS BEEN MOVED
BY SENATOR PORTANTINO. THE
MOTION IS Dð PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATION. MADAM CLERK,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
SHAKESPEARE. SHAKESPEARE? AYE.
WHEN I WHEN I, ALAN MENGIBAR
NEWMAN. PORTANTINO PORTANTINO I
UMBERG I UMBERG I. THANK YOU.
SENATOR. YEAH. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. WE WILL HOLD A ROLL OPEN
.
SO WE HAVE TWO AUTHORS WE'RE
WAITING FOR, SENATOR GONZALEZ
AND SENATOR ALLEN. SO I THINK IF
WE DON'T SEE THEM WALKING IN
IMMINENTLY, THAT WE WILL GO INTO
A RECESS AND THEN COME BACK WHEN
ONE OF THEM ARRIVES. YES OKAY.
WE WILL OFFICIALLY DO THAT. AND
I'LL TAKE THE GAVEL BACK. YEAH
SO WE ARE IN RECESS
SO WE CONVENE. WE WILL RECONVENE
IN OUR COMMITTEE ON. ELECTION
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.
AT THIS TIME, WE WILL HEAR
SENATOR ALLEN, ITEM NINE, SB
1422. SURE, WE WILL INSERT HEAD
START WITH FIVE. ITEM TEN, SB
1440 41. RIGHT. IS THAT WHAT YOU
SAID? I WOULD, I WOULD YEAH, I
WOULD, I WOULD VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE THAT. PLEASE.
PROCEED. AND I THINK I THINK THE
FORMER APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR FOR
HIS FORBEARANCE, I JUST WANTED
TO, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU. AND
THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR ITS
EXCELLENT ANALYSIS. AS YOU KNOW,
WHEN AN ELECTION PETITION
RECEIVES INSUFFICIENT SIGNATURES
TO QUALIFY FOR THE BALLOT, STATE
LAW PROVIDES PROPONENTS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE
PETITION AND REASONS FOR
SIGNATURE REJECTIONS. AND THEN,
IF A PROPONENT SEEKS TO EXAMINE
AND REVIEW THE PETITION, THE
EXAMINATION MUST COMMENCE WITHIN
21 DAYS OF THE CERTIFICATION OF
INSUFFICIENCY, AS IT'S CALLED
NOW. WHILE LAW ESTABLISHES A
TIMELINE FOR THE INITIATION OF
THE REVIEW PROCESS, IT'S SILENT
ON THE TIMELINE FOR CONCLUDING
THE EXAMINATION AND THIS IS
ENABLED SOME PETITION PROPONENTS
TO EXPLOIT THEIR ACCESS TO
PUBLIC RESOURCES BY EMPLOYING AN
INDEFINITE TIME PERIOD FOR
REVIEW THAT POSES SIGNIFICANT
IMPACTS ON COUNTY ELECTIONS.
DEPARTMENT STAFF, TIME,
RESOURCES, AND ULTIMATELY
TAXPAYER DOLLARS. NOW, TO BE
CLEAR, PETITIONER REVIEWS
TYPICALLY OCCUR ONLY OVER THE
COURSE OF A FEW DAYS. MOST LAST
1 OR 2 WEEKS AT AT THE MOST.
HOWEVER, IN ONE RECENT CASE IN
LA COUNTY, WE HAD PETITION
PROPONENTS WHO INITIATED A
PROCESS OF REVIEW, THAT LASTED
14 MONTHS AND THE REVIEW
OVERLAPPED WITH THE 2022 GENERAL
ELECTION. IT TAXED THE COUNTY
STAFF TIME FOR CONDUCTING THE
ELECTION. AND THIS ONE PETITION
REVIEW ALONE COST THE COUNTY
$1.5 MILLION TO PROVIDE
PROPONENTS DEDICATED OFFICE
SPACE COMPUTERS TEMPORARY STAFF
TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR REQUESTS.
THESE WERE ALL CAST THAT THE
COUNTIES WERE UNABLE TO. THE
COUNTY WAS UNABLE TO RECOVER,
MEANING THAT THEY HAD DIRECT
IMPACTS. DIRECT IMPACT ON THE
COUNTY'S GENERAL FUND, AND
ABILITY TO PROVIDE CRITICAL
SERVICES TO CONSTITUENTS. IT'S
THE JOB OF THE ELECTIONS
OFFICIALS TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE
AN ELECTION COUNTING PROCESS IN
THE IN THE SIGNATURE REVIEW
PROCESS THAT'S FAIR, TRANSPARENT
AND LAWFUL. AND THIS DUTY
EXTENDS TO ALL ASPECTS OF THE
ELECTION PROCESS. IT REQUIRES
THAT ELECTION ACTIVITIES,
INCLUDING REVIEW OF FAILED
PETITIONS, ARE MANAGED
EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY AND
DONE IN A FAIR MANNER, AND
THEY'RE HELD RESPONSIBLE AND
ACCOUNTABLE TO A VERY HIGH
STANDARDS, SO, SO BUT, BUT THIS
SITUATION HAS, HAS MADE IT VERY
DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO DO THEIR
WORK. AND SO WE'RE SEEKING TO
ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IN TWO WAYS.
FIRST OF ALL, THE BILL SEEKS TO
ESTABLISH A 60 DAY LIMIT FOR
PROPONENTS TO EXAMINE A FAILED
PETITION. AND THIS MIRRORS THE
EXISTING TIMELINE, THAT COUNTY
REGISTRARS HAVE TO EXAMINE A
PETITION IF THE RANDOM SAMPLING
RESULTS REQUIRE A FULL
EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION OF
ALL PETITION SIGNATURES. AND
THEN SECOND, THE BILL ENABLES
COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICIALS TO
RECOVER THE COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL
AND RESOURCES USED TO CONDUCT
THOSE EXAMINATIONS. THESE ARE
COSTS IN EXCESS OF THE GENERAL
OPERATING COSTS OF RUNNING THE
COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICE. SO THIS
MIRRORS THE EXISTING COST
RECOVERY MECHANISM THAT'S
EMPLOYED IN VOTER INITIATED
RECOUNT EFFORTS. SO IT'S OUR
IT'S OUR HOPE HERE THAT WITH A
STATUTORY TIMELINE, ELECTIONS
OFFICIALS WILL BE ABLE TO BETTER
DETERMINE THE IMPACT THAT
PETITION REVIEWS HAVE ON THEIR
OPERATIONS AND THEN ALLOCATE
THEIR RESOURCES ACCORDINGLY. AND
THEN THE COST RECOVERY MECHANISM
WILL ENCOURAGE ALL PARTIES TO
USE RESOURCES EFFICIENTLY. RIGHT
NOW, THERE'S NOTHING THERE'S NO
ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISM OR EVEN
INCENTIVE. CERTAINLY NO
INCENTIVE TO BE MORE EFFICIENT.
SO JOINING ME TODAY IS ADELIA
LOZADA, WHO'S THE DIVISION
MANAGER AT THE L.A. COUNTY
REGISTRAR RECORDERS OFFICE.
THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON
TO LEAD WITNESSES AND SUPPORT,
WE'VE BEEN GIVING EVERYBODY TWO
MINUTES. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ADELIA
LOZADA AND I AM A DIVISION
MANAGER FOR THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY REGISTRAR, RECORDER,
COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. THANK YOU
TO SENATOR ALLEN FOR THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THE
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. LOS ANGELES COUNTY IS
PROUD TO SPONSOR SB 1441. AS
SENATOR ALLEN STATED, THIS BILL
DOES TWO THINGS. FIRST, IT
ESTABLISHES A 60 DAY PERIOD FOR
PETITION PROPONENTS TO COMPLETE
THE EXAMINATION OF DISQUALIFIED
SIGNATURES ON PETITIONS THAT
FAILED TO QUALIFY FOR THE
BALLOT. THIS 60 DAY PERIOD IS
ALIGNED WITH THE TIME FRAMES
THAT ELECTIONS OFFICIALS HAVE TO
INITIALLY REVIEW. THOSE SAME
SIGNATURES. SECOND, THIS BILL
ALLOWS OFFICIALS TO RECOVER THE
ACTUAL COSTS OF INSPECTING
DISQUALIFIED SIGNATURES WHEN
THOSE COSTS EXCEED THE NORMAL
OPERATING BUDGET. THE COST
RECOVERY PROVISIONS OF SB 1441
HELP TO ENSURE THAT ADDITIONAL
PUBLIC FUNDS ARE NOT USED. WHEN
PROPONENTS OF A FAILED PETITION
REQUEST TO INSPECT DISQUALIFIED
SIGNATURES. CURRENTLY, EXISTING
LAW DOES NOT ADDRESS HOW LONG
PETITION PROPONENTS MAY EXAMINE
DISQUALIFIED SIGNATURES, NOR
DOES IT ADDRESS WHO PAYS THE
COST TO SECURELY PRESENT
PETITION DOCUMENTS FOR
INSPECTION BY ADDRESSING THIS
GAP IN LAW, SB 1441
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVES ELECTIONS
OFFICIALS ABILITY TO MANAGE THE
EXAMINATION OF FAILED PETITIONS
EFFICIENTLY AND RESPONSIBLY. I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE
COMMITTEE'S I VOTE ON SB 1441,
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, AT THIS
TIME, WE'LL MOVE TO WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
STATE YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION AND
POSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MADAM VICE CHAIR
MEMBERS. ROB GROSSKLAUS, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF CLERKS AND
ELECTIONS OFFICIALS. HAPPILY IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. AND THANK YOU. ANDY
BIRNBAUM, ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, IN STRONG
SUPPORT AND SPONSORSHIP. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. ERIC. LAWYERS
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT SEEING NONE AT THIS
TIME, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO
LEAD WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
SEEING NONE. ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION THIS TIME. I'LL BRING
IT BACK TO THE TO MY COLLEAGUES
AND. OKAY. I'LL TAKE IT FROM
HERE, SENATOR NEWMAN, I'LL TAKE
IT FROM HERE. NOT TOO FAR, I
PROMISE. SO QUESTION FOR THE
AUTHOR. SO WE HAVE A LATE LETTER
FROM FORMER LA DISTRICT ATTORNEY
STEVE COOLEY. AND IN IT, I'M NOT
SURE HOW THOROUGH YOU'VE HAD A
CHANCE TO REVIEW IT, BUT. BUT HE
RAISES WHAT HE CHARACTERIZES AS
A CHANCE FOR CORRUPTION OF THE
PETITION REVIEW PROCESS BY
MAKING IT POSSIBLE FOR A LOCAL
ELECTION OFFICIAL, INTENTIONALLY
OR THROUGH A POORLY RESOURCED
REVIEW PROCESS, TO UNDULY CAUSE
A PETITION TO FAIL AND MAKE IT
IMPOSSIBLE. AS A RESULT OF THE,
YOU KNOW, THE ASSERTION THAT THE
COSTS AND REVIEW TIME ARE
INSUFFICIENT WITHIN THE BILL,
HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND TO THAT?
AND AGAIN, SORT OF SNEAK UP ON
YOU WITH THIS? NO, I APPRECIATE
IT. I MEAN, AND I AM I AM JUST
SEEING AS I DO, I GUESS THIS WAS
FILED A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO. SO
I'M, I'M SEEING IT FOR THE FIRST
TIME. AND I GUESS WHILE YOU'RE
LOOKING AT IT, I MEAN, YOU KNOW,
THEY SORT OF CHARACTERIZE THE
PETITION REVIEW PROCESS AS, AS
OTHERWISE SECRETIVE IN THE
ABSENCE OF SORT OF THE STATUS
QUO. SO IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND
SORT OF RESPONDING TO THAT.
YEAH, I MEAN, I PROBABLY, YOU
KNOW, WE PROBABLY BE GOOD TO,
FOR US TO HEAR FROM DIRECTLY
FROM THE FOLKS AT THE COUNTY.
BUT I WOULD SAY, CERTAINLY, YOU
KNOW, THE OFFICIALS ARE HELD TO
A HIGH STANDARD IF THERE'S ANY,
YOU KNOW, ANY EVIDENCE OF
MALFEASANCE OR, OR, YOU KNOW,
AND IT WOULD BE AN ACT OF
MALFEASANCE IF THEY WERE KIND OF
PURPOSELY SLOW ROLLING THE
PROCESS SO AS TO, YOU KNOW, TO,
YOU KNOW, TO PUSH FOR SOME
CERTAIN OUTCOME THAT WOULD BE
ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL AND THEY
COULD BE UP FOR CRIMINAL
CHARGES, QUITE FRANKLY, SO IF
THERE'S ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT, I
INVITE, MR. COOLEY OR OTHERS TO,
YOU KNOW, MAYBE NOT SUBMIT TO
THE DA, BUT TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OR THE FBI. I MEAN,
WHOEVER ELSE MIGHT BE
APPROPRIATE. AND I CERTAINLY
DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT
WOULD, YOU KNOW, FACILITATE THAT
SORT OF MALFEASANCE, BUT AS I
SAY, THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE
GROTESQUELY ILLEGAL ON THE PART
OF THE ELECTIONS OFFICIALS, AND,
AND, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE SUBJECT
TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, I WOULD
THINK IF THAT IF THAT'S REALLY
WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE, SO BUT,
YOU KNOW, HAPPY TO CONSIDER I
APPRECIATE IT. YOU ALWAYS HAVE
BEEN ON BILLS LIKE THIS. AND SO,
YOU KNOW, HIS LETTER INCLUDES A
BUNCH OF SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
THAT THAT WERE GEARED TOWARD
PROMOTING TRANSPARENCY. AND
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH
THOSE. AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO
RESPOND DIRECTLY NOW. BUT YOU
KNOW, I'M SURE AS THIS MOVES
FORWARD, YOU'RE WILLING TO LOOK
AT, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER OTHER
PROVISIONS THAT ENSURE
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
IN THIS. ABSOLUTELY. I WILL I
WILL ABSOLUTELY COMMIT AND I, I
DON'T I APOLOGIZE THIS THIS IS
UNFORTUNATELY THE FIRST TIME I'M
SEEING THE LETTER. THAT DOESN'T
MEAN THAT, YOU KNOW, I MAY HAVE
THAT'S PROBABLY MY BAD. BUT BUT
WE WILL GO THROUGH THIS
CAREFULLY, AND, YOU KNOW, MY
STAFFER IS HERE. WE WILL WORK,
TO ACCEPT WHATEVER AMENDMENTS WE
THINK ARE REASONABLE. AND WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF OUR GOALS, AND OUR
GOALS REALLY ARE ABOUT MAKING
SURE THAT WE HAVE INTEGRITY IN
THE PROCESS, BUT WE DO SO IN AN
EFFICIENT WAY. THAT'S THAT'S THE
GOAL HERE, AND SO, YOU KNOW,
ANY, ANY, ANY AMENDMENT IN, IN
HERE THAT IS, THAT WILL MEET
THAT IS TO THOSE ENDS. WE ARE WE
ARE VERY OPEN AND HAPPY TO
CONSIDER AND HAPPY TO ENGAGE
YOUR OFFICE ON NÓ APPRECIATE IT.
YOU KNOW, SO THESE ARE AS YOU
SORT OF WORK THROUGH KIND OF THE
SECOND ORDER IMPLICATIONS OF
THINGS. YOU ALWAYS WIND UP
HAVING TO CONSIDER SOME THINGS.
SO ARE THERE SOME AMENDS THAT
ARE STANDING OUT TO YOU THAT.
NO, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT'S
REALLY ABOUT TRANSPARENCY. IT'S
ABOUT OBSERVATION. IT'S ABOUT
OBSERVATION. ENSURING THAT THE
SIGNATURE PROCESS IS SIMILAR TO
OTHERS, THAT WE'VE LEGISLATED
THOSE KINDS OF THINGS AND I'M
SURE I'M SURE YOU'RE HAPPY TO
LOOK AT IT. OKAY. YEAH. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR, I
APPRECIATE YOUR DRAWING
ATTENTION TO THIS. THANK YOU.
SENATOR, THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
SENATOR, AND THANK YOU, SENATOR.
ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
AND COMMENTS FROM SENATORS? OKAY
SENATOR, YOU MAY CLOSE. YEAH.
NO, I APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION.
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A
VOTE. YEAH AND WE DO COMMIT TO
GOING THROUGH THIS LETTER
CAREFULLY. THANK YOU. I THINK
YOUR WITNESS WANTS TO SAY, ARE
YOU WELL, IS THERE SOMETHING I
MEAN, IT'S A LITTLE OUT OF
ORDER, BUT. YEAH, I'M. I'M HAPPY
TO ADDRESS THE OPPOSITION
LETTER. I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT
EXISTING LAW CURRENTLY THERE IS
NO LIMIT. AND SO THE ARGUMENT
THAT THINGS SHOULD SORT OF BE
SLOW ROLLED, IS WHAT EXISTS IN
LAW NOW BY ESTABLISHING A 60 DAY
PERIOD, TO COMPLETELY REVIEW
THOSE QUALIFICATIONS, IT MEANS
THAT THE JOB HAS TO GET DONE
WITH THAT 60 DAYS, BOTH BY THE
PROPONENTS AND THE ELECTIONS
OFFICIAL. AND SO I THINK THE 60
DAY PERIOD WOULD SUPPORT, YOU
KNOW, A TRANSPARENT REVIEW AND
THAT ELECTIONS OFFICIALS WOULD
WOULD BE DILIGENT TO COMPLETE
THAT THOROUGHLY AND THAT
ADDITIONAL 60 DAY WINDOW TO THE
SAME RESPECT THAT WE COMPLETED
THE INITIAL REVIEW THOROUGHLY
AND TRANSPARENTLY. OKAY. YEAH.
OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR FORBEARANCE. OF COURSE, I
YOU KNOW, WE WILL CAREFULLY
REVIEW. I IF THERE'S ANY
EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITY
OVER THERE. WELL IT'S NOT SORRY
I INVITE THEM TO I ENCOURAGE HIS
HIS LARGER POINT WAS SORT OF
UNINTENTIONALLY CREATING A NEW
REGIME THAT LETS SOMEBODY RUN
OUT THE CLOCK. RIGHT? SO, YOU
KNOW, LET'S JUST KEEP THAT IN
MIND. YEAH. TOTALLY TOTALLY
TOTALLY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION? I'LL MOVE THAT BILL. I
OWE IT TO HIM AT THIS POINT. SO
THE MEASURE HAS BEEN MOVED BY
SENATOR NEWMAN AND THE MOTION IS
DUE PASS TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. ASSISTANT,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL SHAKESPEARE
A SHAKESPEARE. AYE. ONE NØ ONE.
NO. ALLEN I ALLEN I MENGIBAR
NEWMAN. I NEWMAN I PORTANTINO
GEORGINA I UMBERG. OKAY. THE,
RESULT IS FOR ONE AND IT IS ON
CALL. THANK YOU. AND SO, SENATOR
ALLEN, WHAT BILL WOULD YOU LIKE?
WE'D LOVE TO GO TO SB 1422. OUR
LEAD WITNESS IS HERE. OKAY.
PERFECT. OKAY, SO, THANK YOU.
THIS IS THIS HAS TO DO WITH
TRANSPARENCY, OUR FAVORITE TOPIC
HERE IN THIS COMMITTEE, SO SOME
OF YOU MAY RECALL BACK IN 2015,
YOU WERE IN THE LEGISLATURE AT
THE. YEAH, I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL.
I STILL HAD, THE LEGISLATURE
PASSED SB 21 TO REQUIRE
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS TO
REPORT TO THE FAIR POLITICAL
PRACTICES COMMISSION. THE NAMES
OF DONORS WHO ACCOMPANIED AN
ELECTED OFFICIAL ON ANY TRAVEL
THE NONPROFIT PAID FOR IT. THIS
WAS JERRY HILL'S, BILL. SO THESE
DISCLOSURES IMPROVE TRANSPARENCY
, THEY ALSO IMPROVE
ACCOUNTABILITY BY ALLOWING THE
PUBLIC TO KNOW WHAT OUTSIDE
GROUPS ARE PAYING TO SPONSOR
TRAVEL FOR LEGISLATORS. AND, YOU
KNOW, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF
GOOD REASON BEHIND IT. I LOVE
GOING ON EDUCATIONAL TRIPS. I
MEAN, I BE THE FIRST TO SAY
THAT, THEY'VE BEEN
TRANSFORMATIVE FOR ME AS A
LEGISLATOR. THEY'VE HELPED ME
LEARN ABOUT BEST PRACTICES,
NOVEL APPROACHES FROM THE GROUND
LEVEL, SEEING THEM WITH OUR OWN
EYES. I MEAN, PART OF WHY I WAS
A LITTLE LATE TO THIS COMMITTEE.
I WAS TALKING TO ANOTHER
COLLEAGUE ABOUT A MODEL THAT SHE
HAD EXPERIENCED RELATING TO YOU
KNOW, AN ENERGY ISSUE IN ANOTHER
COUNTRY ON ONE OF THESE TRIPS.
AND THAT'S INFORM THE PROCESS.
SO THEY ARE THEY ARE THEY'RE
VERY VALUABLE. AND I DON'T, I
DON'T HAVE ANY REGRET HAVING
GONE ON TRIPS, BUT THEY DO AT
THE SAME TIME, I THINK MOST OF
US KNOW THAT THEY DO CREATE A
SPACE FOR DIRECT INTERACTIONS
WITH LEGISLATORS, OFTENTIMES
WITH PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT
SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. AND
THAT'S WHY, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE,
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE BE
TRANSPARENT ABOUT WHO'S IN
ATTENDANCE AND WHO'S HELPED TO
FACILITATE. THAT'S SO THAT THE
PUBLIC HAS GREATER UNDERSTANDING
OF WHO'S INFLUENCING THE
PROCESS. AND IT'S VERY MUCH
WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF OUR OTHER
TRANSPARENCY, LEGISLATION. SO
UNDER CURRENT LAW, NONPROFITS
HAVE TO REPORT TO THE FCC IF THE
NONPROFIT MADE PAYMENTS,
ADVANCES OR REIMBURSEMENTS THAT
TOTAL MORE THAN $10,000 ON
TRAVEL BY ELECTED STATE OR LOCAL
OFFICIALS BY MORE THAN OR OR
MORE THAN $5,000 ON TRAVEL BY A
SINGLE OFFICIAL IN A CALENDAR
YEAR, AND THE ORGANIZATION'S
EXPENSES RELATED TO ELECTED
OFFICIAL TRAVEL WERE GREATER
THAN ONE THIRD OF ITS TOTAL
EXPENDITURES. NOW, THAT WAS YOU
KNOW, I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT
THAT PROVISION, WHILE WHILE
THESE PROVISIONS WERE DEVELOPED
TO HELP IDENTIFY WHO THE MAJOR
INFLUENTIAL ENTITIES WERE, WHEN
CALMATTERS DID A 2023 REVIEW OF
DISCLOSURE FINDINGS WITH THE
FPPC, IT WAS REVEALED SOMETHING
LIKE TWO DISCLOSURES FILED IN
THE LAST NINE YEARS SINCE THIS
LAW WAS ENACTED, AND, YOU KNOW,
IT LARGELY IS DUE TO THE SECOND
PROVISION IN THE LAW, WHICH
WHICH, AS I SAID, SAID THAT
ONLY, YOU KNOW, THE LAW, ONLY
APPLIES IF ONE THIRD OF THE
ORGANIZATION'S YEARLY
EXPENDITURES WERE DEDICATED TO
SPONSORING THE TRAVEL OF
LEGISLATORS. AND SO, FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE, THOSE
ORGANIZATIONS, JUST BECAUSE YOU
YOU SPEND A LOT ON OTHER
LOBBYING AND ADVOCACY ACTIVITIES
THAT THAT SHOULD THAT SOMEHOW
THE INFLUENCE OR DISCLOSURE
NEEDS ARE DIFFERENT THAN AN
ORGANIZATION THAT SPENDS MOST OF
ITS TIME ON TRAVEL IS SILLY TO
ME. IN FACT, THE ONE KEY
ORGANIZATION THAT SPENDS MOST OF
HIS TIME ON THIS TRAVEL IS
ACTUALLY ONE OF THE MOST
TRANSPARENT OF ALL OF THOSE OUT
THERE THAT SPEND MONEY ON
LEGISLATIVE TRIPS. SO THIS WAS A
DEAL STRUCK AT THE TIME, BUT I
THINK IT NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED.
SO THIS SEEKS TO CLOSE THIS
LOOPHOLE BY REMOVING THE ONE
THIRD EXPENDITURE PROVISION AND
EXTENDS THE DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENT TO ALL ENTITIES THAT
SPEND AT LEAST A $10,000 OR FIVE
K FOR A SINGLE PERSON IN A
CALENDAR YEAR FOR ORGANIZING AND
HOSTING TRAVEL. AND, YOU KNOW,
IT'S JUST ABOUT DISCLOSING
DETAILS LIKE TRAVEL,
DESTINATION, DATES OF TRAVEL,
NAMES OF THE ELECTED OFFICIALS,
AND THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE
PAYMENTS, ADVANCES OR
REIMBURSEMENTS FOR TRAVEL
RELATING TO THE EVENT, AND THEN
THE NAMES OF DONORS FOR WHICH
THE DONOR OR AN AGENT AND
EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
DONOR ACCOMPANIED THE OFFICIALS
ON, ON, YOU KNOW, FOR PORTIONS
OF THE TRIP. SO JOINING ME TODAY
IN SUPPORT, WE HAVE TRENT L®NG,
PRESIDENT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN MONEY
CAMPAIGN, AND SANDRA FLUKE,
WHO'S HERE FROM VOICES FOR
PROGRESS. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR BLAKESPEAR AND
SENATORS, TRENT L®NG, PRESIDENT,
CALIFORNIA CLEAN MONEY CAMPAIGN.
WE'RE PROUD TO SPONSOR SB 1422,
THE TRAVEL DISCLOSE ACT, AND
VERY GRATEFUL TO SENATOR ALLEN
FOR HIS LEADERSHIP IN AUTHORING
IT, AS HE DESCRIBED IN 2015, THE
LEGISLATURE NEARLY UNANIMOUSLY
PASSED THE LAW TO REQUIRE
NONPROFITS TO DISCLOSE WHEN THEY
SPENT $10,000 OR MORE ON TRAVEL
FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS,
UNFORTUNATELY, AS THAT
CALMATTERS STORY SHOWED, THE
DISCLOSURES HAVE ONLY EVER BEEN
USED TWICE SINCE IT WAS
IMPLEMENTED IN 2016, DESPITE
ORGANIZATIONS HAVING SPENT OVER
$10,000.53 TIMES. BY OUR
ANALYSIS SINCE 2020, WITH THAT
AMOUNT GROWING DRAMATICALLY EVER
EVERY YEAR, AS SHOWN BY NEW
CALMATTERS STORY. TWO REASONS
FOR IT, AS SENATOR ALLEN SAID,
THE BIGGEST REASON IS THAT ONE
THIRD THRESHOLD, ONLY ONE OUT OF
THE 15 ORGANIZATIONS THAT SPENT
$10,000 OR MORE IN 2022, MET
THAT THRESHOLD. MOST DIDN'T COME
CLOSE TO SPENDING ONE THIRD OF
THEIR OVERALL BUDGET ON ON
TRAVEL EXPENSES. FOR ELECTED
OFFICIALS, IT'S NON-INTUITIVE,
TO SAY THE LEAST, THAT THE
LARGEST ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD BE
THE ONES THAT ARE ABLE TO GET
OUT OF DISCLOSURES BECAUSE OF
THAT THRESHOLD, THE OTHER REASON
IS THAT THE CURRENT LAW ONLY
COVERS FIVE ONE C3 AND C4
ORGANIZATIONS. THAT MEANS THAT
MANY TRADE ASSOCIATIONS AND
CORPORATE, OF COURSE,
CORPORATIONS, UNIONS AND
INDIVIDUALS WOULD NOT BE COVERED
AT ALL BY THE BY THE LAW. AND WE
BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE CHANGED,
THAT'S WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT. SB
1422 CHANGES THOSE TO JUST LEAVE
THE $10,000 THRESHOLD APPLY TO
ALL PERSONS THAT ARE NOT
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, AND THEN,
EXPAND TO MORE INFORMATION THAT
THE PUBLIC NEEDS, LIKE, THE, THE
LOCATIONS, THE DATES WHICH
ELECTED OFFICIALS WENT, WHICH
DONORS WENT ON, WHICH TRIPS, AND
THEN HOW MUCH THE DONORS GAVE,
AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT
THE ENTITIES AND NONPROFITS ONLY
HAVE TO DISCLOSE DONORS THAT
THAT, GAVE $1,000 OR MORE. AND
WHO ACTUALLY WENT ON THE TRIPS
OR WHO KNOW KNEW OR, HAD REASON
TO KNOW THAT THEIR FUNDS WERE
GOING TO BE USED FOR TRAVEL FOR
ELECTED OFFICIALS. SO WITH THAT,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR, AYE,
VOTE FOR THIS INCREASED,
TRANSPARENCY AND DISCLOSURE.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHAIR BLAKE
SPEAR, AND GOOD MORNING TO THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M SANDRA
FLUKE, THE PRESIDENT OF VOICES
FOR PROGRESS. VOICES FOR
PROGRESS GALVANIZES THE ADVOCACY
OF BUSINESS LEADERS,
ENTREPRENEURS, PHILANTHROPISTS
AND OTHER PROMINENT INDIVIDUALS
WHO UNITE TO CHAMPION A HEALTHY
CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT,
STRENGTHEN OUR DEMOCRACY AND
ENSURE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
JUSTICE FOR ALL. WHICH MEANS
THAT I'M HERE IN THE UNIQUE
POSITION OF SPEAKING ON BEHALF
OF THE PEOPLE THAT THIS BILL
WOULD REGULATE, ASKING YOU TO
REGULATE THOSE DONORS. VÆ FOR ÁP
MEMBERS DO SOMETIMES FUND
ORGANIZATIONS THAT SPONSOR
TRAVEL FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS.
THEY DO SO BECAUSE THEY
UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF
THIS TYPE OF TRAVEL AND THE
EDUCATIONAL VALUE OF LEARNING
AND SHARING PUBLIC POLICY IDEAS
ACROSS NATIONAL BORDERS AND
ACROSS STATE BORDERS.
SIMULTANEOUSLY, VÆ FORP MEMBERS
UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF
TRANSPARENCY ABOUT THIS FUNDING.
THEY BELIEVE THAT THE BEST WAY
TO KEEP THE PUBLIC'S TRUST IN
OUR DEMOCRACY IS THROUGH
INCREASING TRANSPARENCY AND
TRANSPARENCY EMPOWERS CITIZENS.
IT PROMOTES ACCOUNTABILITY, AND
IT STRENGTHENS TRUST BETWEEN THE
GOVERNMENT AND THE GOVERNED. TO
THAT END, VÆ FORP MEMBERS HAVE
WORKED FOR SEVERAL YEARS WITH
THE LEGISLATURE TO INCREASE
DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS OF BALLOT MEASURE
FUNDING AND LOBBYING
EXPENDITURES. EXPENDITURES
INCLUDING THOSE DISCLOSURES THAT
APPLY TO VÆ FORP MEMBERS
THEMSELVES. SB 1422 BY SENATOR
ALLEN IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT AND
NECESSARY STEP IN INCREASING THE
PUBLIC'S TRUST IN OUR
LEGISLATURE, AS HAS BEEN
REFERENCED, CALMATTERS FOUND
THAT NUMEROUS ORGANIZATIONS HAVE
SPENT OVER THE $10,000 THRESHOLD
AND THAT THERE HAVE BEEN ONLY
TWO DISCLOSURES IN NINE YEARS.
THE TOP FUNDER OF THESE TRIPS
SAID THAT THE TRIPS RESULTED IN
DOZENS OF BILLS. THAT'S DOZENS
OF BILLS INFLUENCED WITHOUT THE
PUBLIC'S KNOWLEDGE. VÆ FORP
MEMBERS STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT
THEY CAN SUPPORT THESE TRIPS AND
AT THE SAME TIME ADDRESS
LOOPHOLES AND SHORTCOMINGS IN
CURRENT LAW TO SIMPLY ENSURE
THAT MORE TRANSPARENT
TRANSPARENCY AND DISCLOSURE
ACTUALLY OCCURS AT A TIME. AND I
JUST WANT TO SAY THIS IN
CLOSING, AT A TIME WHEN OUR
DEMOCRACY IS VERY MUCH UNDER
ATTACK BY THOSE WHO WOULD SOW
DISINFORMATION IN ORDER TO ERODE
FAITH IN ELECTED OFFICIALS. SB
1422 IS THE KIND OF CRITICAL
STEP THAT A LEADING STATE LIKE
CALIFORNIA NEEDS TO TAKE TO
PROTECT THAT SACRED TRUST. AND
FOR THESE REASONS, VOICES FOR
PROGRESS MEMBERS RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR. I VOTE FOR THIS
BILL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, NEXT
WE WILL MOVE TO OTHER WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT. BUT IF YOU WOULD
LIKE TO JUST SAY YOUR NAME
ORGANIZATION AND IF YOU SUPPORT
JEFF TARDAGUILA IN SUPPORT CARA
HCA DOGFIGHT, THESE ARE
ORGANIZATIONS THAT I ALL COME
HERE REPRESENTING. THANK YOU SIR
. ROBERT COPELAND CONCERNS
CITIZEN IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. BOARD CHANEL
FREEMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE
OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA,
STRONGLY SUPPORTS. THANK YOU.
BRITTNEY BARSOTTI, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA NEWS PUBLISHERS
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. NOW, DO
WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? LEAD WITNESSES ARE
WELCOME TO COME FORWARD. OKAY.
HOW ABOUT ANY OTHER OPPOSITION
WITNESSES SEEING NONE. WE WILL
THANK OUR THE SUPPORTERS WHO
CAME. YOUR VERY INTERESTING
TESTIMONY. THANK YOU. AND WE
WILL BRING THE DISCUSSION BACK
TO THE MEMBERS. DOES ANY MEMBER
WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT?
SENATOR NGUYEN YES, I HAVE A
QUESTION AND I ACTUALLY DON'T
KNOW IF IT WORKS THIS WAY, BUT I
DO KNOW THAT MY DISTRICT HAS A
LOT OF SISTER CITIES AND SISTER
CITY IS, YOU KNOW, A FOREIGN
CITY IS A SISTER CITY TO A CITY
IN OUR CITY. WOW. LET'S JUST SAY
THAT TEN TIMES FASTER, BUT I
THINK SOMETIMES, THOUGH, THAT
THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT LET'S
JUST USE THIS AS JAPAN, BECAUSE
I ACTUALLY HAVE A COUPLE OF
CITIES THAT HAS JAPAN. WE HAVE
SOUTH KOREA AND ITALY AND A FEW
OTHERS, BUT LET'S JUST SAY
JAPAN, OR ITALY, THAT IF THE
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT HOSTS CITY
COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY STAFF
IN ITALY OR SPAIN, WHATEVER, AND
THEY PAY FOR THE COST THERE. BUT
A LOT OF TIMES, I THINK AND I
DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE I'VE NEVER
GONE BEFORE, I THINK THE FOREIGN
COUNTRY HAS A NONPROFIT IN THEIR
OWN COUNTRY THAT HOSTS IT. WHO
REPORTS THAT? YEAH, CITY WOULD
BE THE IT WOULD TYPICALLY BE IN
THAT CASE, THE NONPROFIT. AND
THEN YOU'D ALSO JUST SAY WHO WAS
ACCOMPANYING THE ELECTED
OFFICIALS ON THE TRIP. SO YOU'RE
SO THE FOREIGN COUNTRY NONPROFIT
IS NOW GOING TO BE FILING. NO,
NO, NO, NO. THE Þ. SO IT'S A
NONPROFIT IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY.
YOU CAN'T REGULATE THAT, CAN
YOU? HOW DID WE DEAL WITH THAT?
YEAH. THEY'RE SO THEY ARE THEY
ARE ENGAGING IN OUR. HOW DO WE
DEAL WITH THAT? DO WE KNOW?
THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION, THE BILL
DOES EXCLUDE GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCIES. SO IF THE, YOU KNOW,
IF THEY'RE NOT GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES, NAPLES, ITALY PAYS FOR
IT, THEN THEY DON'T HAVE
GOVERNMENT AGENCY. WHAT IF A
FOREIGN WHAT IF THE COUNTRY OF
ITALY HAS THEIR OWN FRIENDSHIP
RIGHT ORGANIZATION THAT THEY USE
IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY THAT'S
REGISTERED IN THEIR COUNTRY,
RIGHT. ARE THEY NOW RESPONSIBLE
TO REGISTER IN OUR STATE AND
DISCLOSE IT? I DON'T KNOW IF
THAT'S ACTUALLY THE CASE. I'M
JUST COMING UP. THAT'S A GREAT I
JUST DIDN'T WANT TO BLOCK LIKE
HALF OF MY DISTRICT HAS SISTER
CITIES, I'LL SAY THAT'S A GREAT
QUESTION. I BELIEVE THAT
TECHNICALLY IN THE BILL, IF
THEY'RE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION,
THEY SPENT OVER $10,000, THEY
WOULD HAVE TO FILE. BUT WE
SHOULD LOOK INTO AND HAPPY TO
WORK WITH THE COMMITTEE AND THE
FPPC WHO'S ALSO LOOKING TO THIS
BILL TO SEE IF WE NEED TO
EXCLUDE THEM OR HAVE SOME OTHER
PROVISION TO HAVE THAT TO WORK
WITH THE AUTHOR, ETC. YEAH. AND
THAT WOULD BE 10,000 PER ELECTED
PER YEAR. NO, 5000 PER PERSON,
10,000 TOTAL ON ON ELECTED
OFFICIALS FROM CALIFORNIA. SO I
MEAN LOOK I IT'S A GREAT POINT.
WE GOT TO GET THIS FIGURED OUT,
I DON'T HOWEVER, WANT PEOPLE TO
ESCAPE BASIC TRANSPARENCY
PROVISIONS JUST BY CREATING A
FOREIGN NONPROFIT. SO WE JUST
WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT.
TOTALLY. I TOTALLY GET IT. I
CURRENTLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
SISTER CITIES, HOW IT'S FUNDED.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES
ALSO OUR SISTER CITY WOULD HOST
DELEGATION OF OUR STUDENTS TO
STAY IN THEIR IN ANOTHER COUNTRY
FOR A WEEK. AND WE THEN HOST
THEIR CHILDREN IN OUR STATE OR
CITY. BUT ELECTED OFFICIALS DO
THIS, YOU KNOW, THE CITY
COUNCIL, THERE MIGHT BE 1 OR 2
ON THAT TRIP THERE. MIGHT THERE
MIGHT ALSO BE SUPPORTIVE OF
FUNDRAISING FOR THE TRIP. AND SO
I JUST DON'T WANT US TO I HAVE
NO PROBLEM WITH DISCLOSURE AND I
IT'S JUST I DON'T WANT TO HURT
OUR CITY'S FOREIGN EXCHANGE
PROGRAMS. YEP, WHETHER IT'S CITY
TO CITY OR STUDENT EXCHANGE
CITIES TO CITY AS WELL. IT'S A
IT'S A FANTASTIC POINT. IT'S A
GREAT FLAG. WE NEED TO, WE NEED
TO TALK WITH SOME OF THESE FOLKS
AND FIGURE OUT A REASONABLE
PATH. AND WE'D LOVE TO INCLUDE
YOUR OFFICE IN THAT PROCESS. I
MEAN, BY THE WAY, I JUST MYSELF
GOT TOGETHER WITH SOMEONE
INVOLVED WITH SISTER CITIES IN
MY OWN DISTRICT, AND WE WEREN'T
TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS,
BUT I'M WELL AWARE OF THIS
MODEL. AND, I THINK REACHING OUT
TO SOME OF THE SISTER CITIES
ACROSS THE STATE IN DIFFERENT
COUNTIES, BECAUSE I'M SURE THEY
HAVE DIFFERENT YOU KNOW,
PROGRAMS, LIKE I SAID, SOME OF
MY CITY HAS CITY TO CITY, AND
THAT ALSO INCLUDES STUDENT
EXCHANGE. SOME CITY JUST HAVE
CITY CITY AND SOME ONLY HAS
STUDENT EXCHANGE. SO I DON'T
KNOW HOW IT WORKS, BUT THAT'S
SOMETHING LIKE I SAID, IS MAYBE
TO BE LOOKED AT SO THAT WE DON'T
HURT OUR OPPORTUNITIES LOCALLY.
IT'S A GREAT FLAG. IT'S A GREAT
FLAG. I MEAN, YOU KNOW,
TYPICALLY THEY'RE WORKING WITH
AN AMERICAN NONPROFIT LIKE THE
SISTER CITY ASSOCIATION. AND SO
MAYBE WE CAN FIGURE OUT SOME WAY
FOR THEM TO DO THE BASIC
REPORTING. I MEAN, THE REPORTING
IS PRETTY BASIC STUFF. I MEAN,
IT'S JUST WHO'S PAYING FOR IT,
WHO'S WHO'S ON THE TRIP, THAT'S,
YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, THE DATES OF
TRAVEL, THAT'S BASICALLY IT. SO
GREAT. SO WE'LL, YOU'LL LOOK
INTO THAT MATTER AND THEN,
SENATOR NEWMAN HAS A COMMENT.
RIGHT? RIGHT. SO, SO I THINK
THIS IS RELATED. AND SENATOR
PORTANTINO MENTIONED THE FORM
700, SO, SO THIS BILL REQUIRES
THE REPORTING BY THE ENTITY THAT
DOES THE TRIP. CORRECT, IT'S,
YOU KNOW, AND I THINK THE
ANALYSIS NOTES THAT YOU CAN FIND
SOME INFORMATION ON A NONPROFITS
990. YOU CAN FIND OTHER
INFORMATION ON THE 700 THAT
WE'RE ALL REQUIRED TO FILE.
WOULDN'T IT. WOULDN'T IT MAKE
SENSE IN SOME SCENARIO TO
REQUIRE ELECTED OFFICIALS TO
INCLUDE ON THE 700, NOT JUST
THAT THEY TOOK A TRIP THAT WAS
PAID FOR BY X ORGANIZATION, BUT
THIS SAME INFORMATION THAT
YOU'RE LOOKING TO, BASICALLY
SURFACE THROUGH THE REPORTING
PERIOD, THAT WOULD PROBABLY, BY
THE WAY, SOLVE FOR THE PROBLEM
WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED. RIGHT. IF
YOU WENT ON A TRIP, WE DO THAT
NOW, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A
SEPARATE SCHEDULE JUST FOR, FOR,
YOU KNOW, TRAVEL AND EXPENSES
PAID FOR BY A THIRD PARTY. IT
SEEMS LIKE THAT'S THE
INFORMATION THAT PEOPLE REALLY
WANT TO SEE, NOT JUST DID YOU GO
ON A TRIP, BUT WHO PAID FOR IT
AND WHO WENT WITH YOU? YEAH,
WE'RE DOING THIS THROUGH THE
ORGANIZATIONAL SIDE. IT'S REALLY
KIND OF AN UPDATE ON THE ON THE
HILL BILL. BUT THAT'S I YOU
KNOW, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU.
I WOULD SUPPORT A NEWMAN BILL.
IN OTHER WORDS, THAT'S A
SEPARATE BILL. I IT SEEMS
CLEANER TO ME. BUT TO HAVE THE
ELECTED OFFICIAL DIRECTLY
REPORT. YEAH. I MEAN, THAT'S
REALLY THE QUESTION. I THINK
THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO ANSWER IN
THE FIRST PLACE. YEAH. WELL JUST
AN INFORMAL THOUGHTS FROM THE
WITNESSES, ANYWAY, SOMETHING TO
CONSIDER, PARTICULARLY AS IT
RELATES TO, YOU KNOW, THESE KIND
OF, YOU KNOW, GAP QUESTIONS THAT
HAVE BEEN RAISED IF YOU, YOU
KNOW, THEY CAN RESPOND OR NOT.
YEAH. I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA
TO LOOK INTO, HAVING THE FORM
700 PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE
INFORMATION. THERE'S SOME
INFORMATION THEY MAY NOT HAVE,
LIKE THEY DON'T KNOW WHICH OF
THE PEOPLE THAT ARE, ALONG WITH
THE TRIP NECESSARILY GAVE $1,000
OR MORE TO THE ORGANIZATION.
THEY MAY NOT EVEN BUT BUT YOU
KNOW, IT COULD BE JUST LIST THE
OTHER FOLKS WHO WENT ON THIS
TRIP WITH YOU. RIGHT. THAT'S
REALLY THE SALIENT INFORMATION,
RIGHT? YOU KNOW, YOU'RE CREATING
A THRESHOLD, BUT THAT'S ABOUT A
REPORTING REQUIREMENT. YEAH, I
DEFINITELY THINK THERE COULD BE
ADDITIONAL VALUABLE INFORMATION
ON THE FORM 700 THAT THAT WOULD
HELP, ESPECIALLY WHEN PEOPLE ARE
LOOKING AT, HEY, I WANT TO SEE
WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH A
PARTICULAR ELECTED OFFICIAL. BUT
ONE OF THE ISSUES IS THAT THAT,
THERE ARE SO MANY FORMS, 700.
RIGHT. WE DID THE ANALYSIS TO
FIND OUT THAT THERE WERE 53
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ADDED UP TO
OVER 10,000, AND THAT'S WE DID
THAT BY LOOKING AT THE FORM 700.
YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT LITERALLY
EVERY SINGLE LEGISLATOR'S FORM
700 TO SEE WHICH GROUPS ACTUALLY
PAID, PAID FOR THINGS. AND WE
DIDN'T EVEN GET INTO CITY
COUNCIL OR SUPERVISOR OR
ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT WOULD
HAVE TAKEN AGES, WHEREAS, HAVING
WHEN THERE ARE 15 ORGANIZATIONS
THAT SPEND THE LION'S SHARE OF
THE MONEY, OVER $10,000, IT'S
MUCH EASIER TO HAVE THEM LOOK
UP. AND THEY'RE THE ONES WHO
KNOW WHICH DONORS THERE ARE. SO
I WOULD DEFINITELY SAY IT WOULD
BE VERY VALUABLE TO LOOK INTO
WHAT EXTRA INFORMATION COULD BE
ON THE FORM 700 THAT WHETHER OR
NOT THEY HAVE IT ALL IS ANOTHER
QUESTION. JUST LET ME MY LAST
KIND OF CONTRIBUTION HERE IS ARE
YOU CONCERNED AT ALL ABOUT THIS
HAVING A CHILLING EFFECT ON
OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, SORT OF
PURPOSEFUL, YOU KNOW, SORT OF
PRODUCTIVE TRIPS THAT MIGHT BE
LESS LIKELY TO BE ORGANIZED IF
THERE WERE, YOU KNOW, THE
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS SORT OF
PRESUPPOSED, AS YOU KNOW, THAT
THERE MAY BE SOMETHING,
UNTOWARD. RIGHT. AND SO I COULD
SEE WHERE AN ORGANIZATION MIGHT
SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? IT'S NOT
WORTH OUR WHILE AT THIS POINT,
GIVEN BOTH THE ADMINISTRATIVE
HASSLE BUT ALSO THE ATTENTION
THAT WILL COME TO US. BY I MEAN,
THE MEMBERS ALREADY HAVE TO
REPORT. I MEAN, ANY ELECTED
OFFICIAL ALREADY HAS TO REPORT A
TRIP. WELL, IT'S JUST A TRIP,
RIGHT? YOU DIDN'T MEAN TO MR.
LANG'S POINT, IT DOES INCLUDE
PROBABLY THE MOST INTERESTING
PART, WHICH IS WITH WHOM DID YOU
TAKE THAT TRIP? RIGHT, RIGHT.
YEAH YEAH. I MEAN, RIGHT NOW YOU
HAVE TO. YOU DON'T MENTION THE
INDIVIDUALS AND YOU DON'T DO AS
MUCH OF A BREAKDOWN OF WHO'S
PAYING FOR IT, BUT YOU STILL
HAVE TO SAY THE ORGANIZATION
WHERE YOU'RE GOING. WELL, YOU
KNOW, YOU ONLY HAVE TO ANSWER.
YOU HAVE TO PUT IN ON THAT
SCHEDULE, TRIP COST,
ORGANIZATION PURPOSE, I THINK.
RIGHT. YEAH ELEMENTS, PURPOSE IS
PRETTY VAGUE, RIGHT? YOU KNOW,
SO WITHIN A SEVEN, EIGHT DAY
TRIP TO THE POINT OF THE BILL,
YOU WANT TO KNOW, LIKE, WHO'S
TALKING TO WHOM, WHERE, YOU
KNOW, AN ELECTED OFFICIAL IS
BEING, CARRIED, RIGHT? BEING
HAVING A TRIP PAID FOR. BUT
AGAIN, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT MAY
BE TRUE THAT ORGANIZATIONS THAT,
AREN'T KEEN ON THE ATTENTION,
BUT WHO OTHERWISE WELL
INTENTIONED MIGHT DECIDE, HEY,
WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THESE
KINDS OF TRIPS ANYMORE. I MEAN,
I GUESS THE QUESTION COMES DOWN
TO WHETHER THEY WOULD, YOU KNOW,
WHETHER WHETHER THEY THINK THAT
A LITTLE BIT MORE, YOU KNOW,
EXPOSURE AND TRANSPARENCY IS
ENOUGH TO CANCEL A TRIP. I MEAN,
BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING THERE'S
NO VALUE. I MEAN, I, I WON'T
CANCEL TRIP. THEY MIGHT SAY WE
DON'T. WE'RE NOT I MEAN, WE
DISCLOSE OUR, OUR SALARIES, OUR
EMPLOYEE SALARIES, WE DISCLOSE
ALL OF OUR CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS, ALL OF OUR
EXPENDITURES. I MEAN, THERE'S
YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT
SOMETHING UNTOWARD IS HAPPENING.
IT'S JUST IT'S ACTUALLY A WAY OF
PREVENTING UNTOWARD THINGS FROM
HAPPENING. RIGHT? IT'S A WAY OF
I MEAN, THAT'S A KIND OF A
PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH. I
APPRECIATE THIS IS A CHANGE TO
THE STATUS QUO. YEAH. NO, YOU'RE
RIGHT, YOU'RE RIGHT. I MEAN,
LOOK WHAT DO YOU THINK THE
ANSWER IS TO THAT? I, YOU KNOW,
I BECAUSE I DON'T I DON'T WANT
TO CHILL, LEGITIMATE FACT
FINDING, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T
THINK THAT THIS DOES. SO IN A
WAY THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, I
DON'T I DON'T THINK THIS DOES.
SO IN A, IN A, IN A SUBSTANTIVE
WAY, COULD I INTERRUPT WITH MY
OPINION ON THIS? YEAH, SO AND I
ALSO JUST WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF
WE DO HAVE 30 MINUTES AND WE
HAVE SENATOR GONZALES THERE. AND
ANOTHER BILL FROM SENATOR ALLEN.
WE ABSOLUTELY NEED TO CONCLUDE
BY THEN. BUT I THINK THERE IS
VALUE IN BOTH HAVING THE
INDIVIDUAL MEMBER REPORT AND IN
HAVING THE ORGANIZATION REPORT.
I THINK THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE
FACT THAT THERE THAT THERE THE
TOP FUNDERS OF TRIPS ARE
ACTUALLY NOT REPORTING THIS. AND
IN PART IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE
EXCLUDED FROM HAVING TO, AND SO
THERE ARE THE TOP TEN. AND WE
WANT I THINK IT'S VALUABLE TO
KNOW IF 60 MEMBERS OF THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE ALL WENT
ON ONE TRIP, AND HAVING THE
ORGANIZATION REPORT THAT
TOGETHER TO SAY THE FOLLOWING
PEOPLE WERE ALL THERE. AND THESE
WERE THE MAJOR DONORS, I THINK
THERE'S A VALUE TO THE PUBLIC
AND THE MEDIA AND THE OTHER
MEMBERS AND ALL EVERYBODY
PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC
PROCESS TO KNOW THAT. SO TO ME,
THE DISCLOSURE, THIS BILL IS
IMPORTANT AND STANDS ON ITS OWN.
AND IF SENATOR NEWMAN HAS
ANOTHER BILL ABOUT EXPANDING THE
INDIVIDUAL REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS, I THINK THAT THAT
POTENTIALLY HAS VALUE AS WELL.
OF COURSE WE'D HAVE TO SEE IT.
YEAH. OKAY SINCE I'VE BEEN
CALLED OUT HERE, I DO THINK
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A SITUATION
WHERE WHERE DONORS MAY DECIDE,
WELL, WE'LL DONATE, BUT NOT UP
TO THE REPORTING THRESHOLD, YOU
KNOW, AND THAT'S PROBABLY GOING
TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON SOME OF
THESE THINGS. I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT THE BILL, DON'T GET ME
WRONG, YOU KNOW, BUT, YOU KNOW,
EVERY ACTION HAS AN EQUAL AND
OPPOSITE UNINTENTIONAL REACTION
SOMETIMES. AND WHAT WE DO. AND
SO IT'S WORTH CONSIDERING. YEAH.
OKAY. WELL WITH THAT DOES THE
DOES THE AUTHOR, WOULD THE
AUTHOR LIKE TO CLOSE UNLESS
ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO SAY
ANYTHING? SENATOR, I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION. AND I
WILL SAY, I MEAN, OF COURSE, YOU
CAN BASICALLY TRACK DOWN I MEAN,
AS LONG AS THE NONPROFIT IS
DOING ITS, WORK PROPERLY, YOU
BASICALLY CAN TRACK DOWN
OFTENTIMES INVOLVING A LOT OF
WORK, WHO'S, WHO'S DONATING TO
THESE THINGS. THIS IS GOING TO
MAKE IT EASIER. BUT, BUT YOUR
POINT IS WELL TAKEN. I WANT TO
ADDRESS THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE
SISTER CITIES. I THINK THAT'S A
LEGITIMATE ISSUE. AND WE NEED TO
FIGURE OUT HOW TO, MASSAGE THAT.
BUT BUT CERTAINLY WELCOME THE
MEMBER'S PARTICIPATION IN THIS
CONVERSATION AS WE AS WE TRY TO
FIGURE OUT A GOOD, USEFUL PATH
MOVING FORWARD. THIS IS THIS IS
ULTIMATELY JUST ABOUT WHAT THE
CHAIR SAID, IMPROVING
TRANSPARENCY ON AN AREA WHERE
THERE IS INFLUENCE OVER THE
POLITICAL PROCESS. OKAY. THANK
YOU. DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON SB
1422? I WILL MOVE THE BILL.
OKAY. GREAT. WE HAVE A SB 1422
HAS BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR NEWMAN
, AND THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED
TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. SO ASSISTANT,
WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
BLAKESPEAR Ã BLAKESPEAR I11II
ALLEN I ALLEN I MENGIBAR
MENGIBAR I NEWMAN A NEWMAN I
PORTANTINO PORTANTINO I UMBERG.
OKAY IT IS SIX ZERO AND IT WILL
STAY ON CALL. SO WITH THAT WE IS
IT OKAY SENATOR GONZALEZ IF HE
DOES HIS LAST BILL OR DO YOU
NEED TO HAVE HER GO IF SHE IF
SHE NEEDS TO. DO YOU NEED TO GO.
DON'T LET HER GO. DON'T. OKAY.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YEAH OKAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. OKAY. WELL
LET'S PROCEED FORWARD, SENATOR
ALLEN, WITH YOUR LAST BILL. BUT
BE MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT SHE
HAS HERS, THIS IS ANOTHER
IMPORTANT ISSUE. SO. SO I IN
2016, I DID WITH, WITH A NUMBER
OF YOU SB 450, WHICH CREATED THE
VOTERS CHOICE ACT, WHICH OFFERS
COUNTIES A NEW WAY TO CONDUCT
ELECTIONS THAT INCREASES ACCESS
AND CONVENIENCE FOR VOTERS. AS A
RESULT, WE'VE COUNTIES HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO SWITCH FROM TRADITIONAL
NEIGHBORHOOD POLLING PLACES
WHERE PEOPLE COULD ONLY VOTE IN
ONE PLACE ON ONE DAY AND ONE
LOCATION TO THE SYSTEM WHERE NOW
YOU'VE GOT TEN DAYS OF EARLY
VOTING. VOTE BY MAIL FOR ALL
VOTERS. YOU CAN GO VOTE ANYWHERE
YOU WANT IN YOUR OWN COUNTY AT
ALL. THESE DIFFERENT VOTE
CENTERS. THERE'S SAME DAY VOTER
REGISTRATION. THERE'S ACCESSIBLE
VOTING MACHINES FOR VOTERS WITH
DISABILITIES, ADDITIONAL
LANGUAGE SUPPORT SERVICES, AND
THIS WONDERFUL FLEXIBILITY TO BE
ABLE TO VOTE ANYWHERE IN YOUR
COUNTY, THIS WAS INSPIRED BY
TERRIBLE LOW TURNOUT THAT WE HAD
IN THE 2014 ELECTION. I WAS KIND
OF I WAS THE ELECTIONS CHAIR AT
THE TIME, KIND OF TASKED BY THE
PRO TEM AT THE TIME TO GO LEARN
ABOUT OTHER STATES MODELS. WE
WENT TO COLORADO. THIS COMMITTEE
WAS VERY INVOLVED IN THAT
PROCESS. AND YOU KNOW, NOW NOW,
YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE OVER
THREE QUARTERS OF OUR VOTERS IN
THE STATE LIVE IN ONE OF THE
COUNTIES THAT HAVE ADOPTED THE
VCA. NOW THERE'S BEEN SOME
STUDIES DONE. WE DID A HEARING
IN THIS COMMITTEE ON THIS TOPIC.
THEY NOTED ALL SORTS OF
BENEFICIAL ASPECTS OF THE MODEL,
INCLUDING INCREASED TRANSPARENCY
AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT, THERE WERE FEWER
VOTING PROBLEMS AT VOTE CENTERS
AND MORE ACCESS TO BILINGUAL
POLL WORKERS AND MORE VOTING
MACHINES FOR VOTERS WITH
DISABILITIES COMPARED TO NON VCA
COUNTIES. IT ALSO FOUND SOME
TURNOUT GAPS, HOWEVER, THAT
STILL EXIST AND FLUCTUATE FROM
ELECTION TO ELECTION, WITH
VOTERS OF COLOR ACROSS THE STATE
PARTICIPATING IN LOWER RATES,
AND, YOU KNOW, SO, YOU KNOW, WE
SAW IN 2022 THAT IN-PERSON
VOTING WAS UTILIZED MORE IN VCA
COUNTIES. IT WAS A VITAL OPTION
FOR TRADITIONALLY MARGINALIZED
VOTERS. AND THEN THIS COMMITTEE,
AS I MENTIONED, CONDUCTED AN
OVERSIGHT HEARING TO REVIEW THE
REPORT AND IMPLEMENTATION. SO
THIS BILL IS COMING OUT OF THAT
WORK, AND IT PROPOSES A NUMBER
OF CHANGES TO STREAMLINE
ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATION UNDER
THE VCA TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE
CONCERNS. SO IT WOULD REQUIRE
VCA SPECIFIC MAILINGS TO BE SENT
TO EACH HOUSEHOLD RATHER THAN
EVERY REGISTERED VOTER. SO WE'RE
TRYING TO DO A COUPLE OF THINGS.
WE'RE TRYING TO A SAVE SOME
MONEY ON REDUNDANCIES. SO
INSTEAD OF HAVING TO SEND EVERY
REGISTERED VOTER, WE'RE
SUGGESTING WE, YOU KNOW, THE
COUNTIES CAN SEND TO, TO A
HOUSEHOLD BECAUSE, YOU KNOW,
ALSO WE WANT TO ALLOW THEM TO
HAVE SOME, SOME, SOME
CONSISTENCY AND AVOID
REDUNDANCIES WHEN WE HAVE A
REGULARLY SCHEDULED, YOU KNOW,
SPECIAL ELECTIONS AND
OVERLAPPING SPECIAL DISTRICTS,
WHICH WAS RESULTING IN ALL SORTS
OF DUPLICATIVE AND POTENTIALLY
CONFUSING INFORMATIONAL MAILERS.
SO TO ALLOW FOR MORE
CONSOLIDATION, TO IMPROVE
ELECTION MANAGEMENT, THE BILL
ALSO ESTABLISHES A DEADLINE FOR
COUNTIES TO FINALIZE ELECTION
ADMINISTRATION PLANS AND
ESTABLISHES ADVISORY COMMITTEES
TO PROVIDE EXPERTISE ON VOTER
EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH
STRATEGIES. ONE OF THE BIG
CONCERNS WE HEARD FROM THE
CLERKS IS THAT THERE'S, YOU
KNOW, VERY LOW TURNOUT FOR THE
FIRST COUPLE OF DAYS AND
SOMETHING LIKE 3 TO 5% OF VOTERS
THAT PARTICIPATE IN PERSON ARE
GOING TO, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE
GOING TO VOTE CENTER DURING THE
FIRST SEVEN DAYS. AND SO ONE OF
THE THOUGHTS WAS, DO WE ALLOW
FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY SO AS TO
REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT
THE VOTE CENTERS HAVE TO BE OPEN
SO AS TO SAVE MONEY? AND AS LONG
AS WE CAN, YOU KNOW, SPEND THAT
MONEY ON OTHER EFFORTS THAT
MIGHT DO MORE TO INCREASE VOTER
ACCESS AND OUTREACH. I CAREFULLY
REVIEWED THE LETTER FROM SOME OF
THE ADVOCACY GROUPS THAT THERE
WAS A SUPPORT, IF AMENDED,
NEARLY EVERYTHING IN HERE SEEMS
VERY REASONABLE TO US, AND WE'RE
CERTAINLY COMMITTED TO WORKING
WITH THEM, BUT THIS IS
ULTIMATELY ABOUT LEARNING THE
LESSONS FROM THE VCA AND REALLY
KEEPING OUR EYES ON THE PRIZE,
YOU KNOW, FINDING SOME PLACES
WHERE WE CAN FIND SOME COST
SAVINGS FOR THE COUNTIES IN
AREAS WHERE THERE'S REALLY NOT
GOING TO BE ANY SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT IN TERMS OF ACCESS AND
THEN PUTTING THOSE RESOURCES
TOWARD EFFORTS THAT WILL WILL
TRULY IMPROVE AND INCREASE
ACCESS. AND IT'S IN THAT SPIRIT
THAT I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR. AYE
VOTE. OKAY. THANK YOU. DO YOU
HAVE WITNESSES AND SUPPORT? I
DON'T BELIEVE SO, OKAY. IS THERE
ANY OTHER TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT?
ADRIANA CHAMPAGNE ZAMORA WITH
THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF
CALIFORNIA, WE, ALONG WITH
SEVERAL OTHER ORGANIZATIONS,
HAVE SUBMITTED A SUPPORT. IF
AMENDED, LETTER FOR SB 1450.
THERE ARE MANY LAUDABLE ELEMENTS
FOR THIS BILL, AND WE
APPRECIATE, SENATOR ALLEN'S
WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH US ON
POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS. WE HAVE
ALSO BEEN ASKED BY ACLU,
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND ASIAN
AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE
ASIAN LAW CAUCUS TO NOTE THAT
THEY JOIN US IN A SUPPORT, IF
AMENDED, POSITION. THANK YOU.
HI, I'M PAUL SPENCER WITH
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA. WE
ALSO SIGNED ON TO THE SAME
LETTER FOR THE SUPPORT OF
AMENDED LETTER, WE WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR AND THE COMMITTEE FOR
BEING OPEN TO OUR SUGGESTIONS
AND AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY
LEAD WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
SEEING NONE. DO WE HAVE ANY
OPPOSITION WITNESSES WHO WOULD
LIKE TO ADD ON? OKAY. SEEING
NONE, THEN WE WILL NOW BRING THE
DISCUSSION BACK TO MEMBERS.
SENATOR NEWMAN, I WILL BE BRIEF.
I WANT TO COMMEND THE AUTHOR.
RIGHT. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE
SHOULD BE DOING, ESPECIALLY ON
ISSUES LIKE THIS IS CONTINUALLY
REVISITING AND REVISING. AND IT
DOES TAKE LEGISLATION. I KNOW
YOU'RE GOING TO YOU'RE GOING TO
LOOK AT THE AMENDMENTS AND
INCORPORATE MANY OF THOSE
SUGGESTIONS. BUT THIS THIS
SHOULD BE REGARDED AS A PROCESS.
THIS SHOULD NOT BE NOTEWORTHY
THAT WE'RE DOING A BILL BECAUSE,
YOU KNOW, THE VCA CHANGES WERE
POSITIVE, BUT CLEARLY WE'RE
LEARNING AS WE GO. SO YOU KNOW
GLAD TO BE SUPPORTIVE HERE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS
STATEMENTS OKAY. SEEING NONE
WILL THE AUTHOR LIKE TO CLOSE.
JUST INCORPORATE THE COMMENTS
FROM MY COLLEAGUE AND RESPECT
FOR ESTÁN I VOTE. OKAY, GREAT,
WHO IS THERE A MOTION? YES,
SENATOR NEWMAN IS MOVED. SO THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS. AND
WITH THAT, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
BLAKESPEAR. AYE. BLAKESPEAR.
AYE. ONE. ALLEN. AYE. ALLEN. AYE
MENGIBAR. MENGIBAR. AYE. NEWMAN.
NEWMAN AYE. PORTANTINO.
PORTANTINO. AYE. UMBERG THANK
YOU. MEMBERS. THANK YOU. IT IS
FIVE ZERO ON CALL, AND NOW WE
WILL MOVE TO SENATOR GONZALEZ.
WHERE IS THAT ONE? HERE.
OKAY. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT ITEM
IS SB 1337 BY SENATOR GONZALEZ,
AND WE WILL HAND IT TO HER.
HELLO. WELCOME TO SENATOR
GONZALEZ TO PLEASE PRESENT HER
BILL, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS HERE TO PRESENT SB
1337, WHICH WILL PROVIDE MORE
TRANSPARENCY TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT
WHO IS TRULY BEHIND REFERENDUM
PETITIONS BY REQUIRING THE TOP
THREE FUNDERS TO BE LISTED
DIRECTLY ON EACH PETITION
SIGNATURE PAGE. DIRECT
DEMOCRACY, AS WE KNOW, IS AN
IMPORTANT TOOL FOR CALIFORNIANS,
AND WE SAW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN
LARGE CORPORATIONS ARE ABUSING
THIS PROCESS TO OVERTURN
LEGISLATION PASSED BY THIS BODY.
RECENT PETITION CAMPAIGNS TO
QUALIFY REFERENDUMS HAVE BEEN
RIFE WITH EXAMPLES OF PAID
SIGNATURE GATHERERS
MISREPRESENTING WHAT A MEASURE
WOULD DO AND REFUSING TO PRODUCE
INFORMATION ABOUT WHO IS FUNDING
THE REFERENDUM, WHICH IS ALREADY
REQUIRED UNDER EXISTING LAW. SO
SB 1337 WILL ENSURE VOTERS CAN
MAKE MORE INFORMED DECISIONS AND
ARE AWARE OF WHO IS FUNDING THE
EFFORTS TO OVERTURN THE LAW.
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT TODAY, I
HAVE TERRY BRENNAN FROM SEIU, AS
WELL AS MARQUIS MASON FROM
CALIFORNIA ENVIRO VOTERS, AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE.
THANK YOU. AND WE'LL GO TO YOUR
LEAD WITNESSES. YOU MAY PROCEED.
HELLO, CHAIR BLAKE AND MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
MARQUISE KING MASON. I WILL BE
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS. AND I JUST
WANT TO SAY THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR LETTING THE WITNESSES SIT
THIS TIME. AS A TALL PERSON,
THAT'S KIND OF IT'S HARD. SO WE
REALLY APPRECIATE IT. IT'S NO
SECRET THAT MONEYED INTERESTS
ARE HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THE
POLITICAL PROCESS NATIONWIDE,
BUT ESPECIALLY HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. THAT'S REFLECTED NO
BETTER REPLACEMENT IN OUR
REFERENDUM PROCESS. 2023 PC
POLLING HAS FOUND THAT OVER 95%
OF VOTERS SAY THAT OUR STATE'S
REFERENDUM PROCESS IS IMPACTED
BY SPECIAL INTERESTS, WHEN
NEARLY 60% SAYING IT'S GREATLY
IMPACTED OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM
WAS INTENDED TO BE BASED OFF OF
A MAJORITY SUPPORT AND BUILDING
BROAD COALITIONS, NOT PAYING TO
PLAY MONEYED INTERESTS, RELY ON
CONFUSION AND DISINFORMATION TO
PASS THEIR AGENDA THAT ARE AT
DIRECT ODDS WITH COMMUNITIES
LIKE WE'VE SEEN WITH THE
ATTEMPTS TO OVERTURN OIL
SETBACKS AND THE ONGOING
CAMPAIGN TO DENY THE RIGHT TO A
LIVING WAGE FOR FAST FOOD
WORKERS. DIRECT DEMOCRACY IS
POPULAR AND NECESSARY, AND, LIKE
ALL ASPECTS OF OUR DEMOCRATIC
SYSTEM, IT'S FRAGILE. WE'VE SEEN
ATTACKS AND ABUSES ON THE
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
PROCESS ALL OVER THIS NATION.
BUT HERE IN CALIFORNIA, WE CAN
FIGHT BACK BECAUSE THE
REFERENDUM PROCESS SHOULD
REPRESENT ALL, NOT JUST A
POWERFUL FEW, TO NOT NEED TO
SLEEP PIT NEIGHBOR AGAINST
NEIGHBOR IN SUPPORT OF CORPORATE
PROFITS. LAST YEAR, THE
LEGISLATURE UNITED AROUND A SET
OF POLICIES WITHIN ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BRIAN'S AB 41 THAT AIMED
TO CUT DOWN ON THE CONFUSING
BALLOT LANGUAGE AND ALSO SHINE
MORE LIGHT ON BIG FINANCIAL
BACKERS OF A REFERENDUM. THIS
BODY HAS TAKEN HISTORIC POLICIES
TO THE FINISH LINE, SOMETIMES
ASKING MEMBERS TO TAKE
INCREDIBLY CHALLENGING VOTES
ONLY TO SEE CORPORATIONS BUY
THEIR WAY ONTO THE BALLOT TO
HALT ANY PROGRESS THAT THIS BODY
HAS ACHIEVED. DISPLAYING A
REFERENDUMS FINANCIAL BACKERS
AND ENSURING THAT THERE IS
VOTERS SIGN THE REFERENDUM
PETITION THAT THEY HAVE TO
REVIEW THOSE FUNDERS IS CRUCIAL
TO ENSURING A MAJOR PART OF OUR
POLITICAL PROCESS IS NOT BASED
ON DECEPTION, LIKE WHAT WE SAW
WITH THE ATTEMPT TO OVERTURN THE
OIL SETBACKS. REFERENDUMS HAD
PETITIONERS LYING DIRECTLY TO
VOTERS, WHICH INCLUDED AN
ATTEMPT TO LIE TO ME. AS AT THE
ARDEN FAIR MALL. BUT LUCKILY
THEY WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL IN THAT
THESE CORPORATE POLLUTERS AND
MONEYED INTERESTS USE EVERY TOOL
AT THEIR DISPOSAL TO DEFEAT HARD
FOUGHT VICTORIES THAT TOOK
YEARS, IF NOT DECADES, OF
COALITION BUILDING AND
NEGOTIATING TO PROTECT THEIR
EXORBITANT PROFITS AT THE
EXPENSE OF OUR COMMUNITIES. SB
1337 IS A NECESSARY TOOL TO EVEN
THE PLAYING FIELD FOR
COMMUNITIES DOMINATED BY OIL
COMPANIES AND CORPORATIONS.
PROTECTING THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS
FROM CORPORATE POLLUTERS IS
LITERALLY A FIGHT FOR THEIR
LIVES. THAT IS WHY I'M ASKING
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE TODAY. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. MADAM CHAIR AND
SENATORS TERRY BRENNAN ON BEHALF
OF SEIU CALIFORNIA, I THINK MY
COLLEAGUE AND THE SENATOR HAVE
DONE A GREAT JOB PRESENTING THE
BILL. I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT
CLEAR THIS IS ALREADY REQUIRED
BY LAW. IT'S JUST REQUIRED ON A
SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER. THIS
THIS WOULD MAKE SURE IT COULDN'T
BE OBSCURED, FOLDED OVER,
IGNORED. IT'S ON EVERY PETITION
PAGE SO THAT WHEN YOU'RE
PRESENTED WITH AN OIL SETBACK
BILL AND YOU SEE THE TOP THREE
FUNDERS OR ALL THE THREE MAJOR
OIL COMPANIES, YOU MAY NOT
BELIEVE THE DECEPTION THAT
YOU'RE BEING PRESENTED WHEN IT'S
TIME TO SIGN. WE'RE VERY
SUPPORTIVE OF THIS BILL. I WOULD
SAY A COUPLE OTHER THINGS, THE
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL HAS
INCLUDED SOME PRETTY SCURRILOUS
STUFF. LIKE WE WENT BACK ON A
DEAL WITH THE FORMER CHAIR OF
THIS COMMITTEE. I PERSONALLY
TAKE OFFENSE TO THAT, I'VE GOT A
36 YEAR, REPUTATION IN THIS
BUSINESS THAT SUFFERS FROM A LOT
OF MY SHORTCOMINGS, BUT IT'S
NEVER BEEN MISREPRESENTING
ANYTHING IN FRONT OF THIS BODY
OR ANY OTHER BODY HERE, OR LYING
TO ANY MEMBER OF THIS
LEGISLATURE. SO I'M HOPING THAT
IN HIS TESTIMONY, THE CHAMBER
AND WOULD DISAVOW ANY ATTACHMENT
TO THAT REPRESENTATION. THÀNH,
IN FACT, IT WAS NOT BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE BECAUSE THOSE
AMENDMENTS TOOK THIS OUT PRIOR
TO GETTING HERE. SO WHATEVER
DEAL WAS MADE IN THIS COMMITTEE
AND SOME OF YOU ARE A PARTY TO
IT DID NOT INCLUDE WHAT'S IN
THIS BILL. FOR THAT REASON, I
WOULD URGE AN AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE
HAVE OPPOSITION? OH SORRY.
SUPPORT IN THE ROOM. WHO WOULD
LIKE TO ADD ON? OKAY. SEEING
NONE, WE WOULD INVITE THE
OPPOSITION WITNESS TO COME UP.
OKAY MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS BEN
GOLOMBEK HERE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION, SB
1337, IN OUR OPINION, WOULD MAKE
IT DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE,
TO QUALIFY A REFERENDUM HERE IN
CALIFORNIA, NEEDING TO
CONSTANTLY UPDATE THE REFERENDA
SIGNATURE SIGNATURE PAGE WITH
THE TOP DONORS. AS MR. BRENNAN
ALLUDED THAT THIS INFORMATION IS
ALREADY PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, BOTH
ONLINE AS WELL AS ON THE TOP
SHEET THAT ALL SIGNATURE
GATHERERS ARE REQUIRED TO CARRY,
WE'LL PUT AN UNREALISTIC BURDEN
IN THE TIME FRAME GIVEN FOR
PROPONENTS TO QUALIFY A
REFERENDA, AS FOLKS ARE AWARE,
QUALIFYING A REFERENDA IS A
STATEWIDE EXERCISE AND
COORDINATING COORDINATING
SIGNATURE GATHERING IS HARD
ENOUGH WITHOUT HAVING TO CHANGE
OUT THE SIGNATURE GATHERING
SHEETS. EVERY TIME A NEW TOP
DONOR MAKES A CONTRIBUTION. AND
WHILE MR. BRENNAN THINKS THAT
REFERENDA ARE DONE AT THE BEHEST
AND URGING OF CORPORATE
OVERLORDS, THEY ARE IN FACT
INCREDIBLY RARELY USED, AND A
CORE PIECE OF CALIFORNIA'S
DIRECT DEMOCRACY SYSTEM. OVER
THE LAST 40 YEARS, THE MAJORITY
OF REFERENDA THAT HAVE QUALIFIED
HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON TRIBAL
GAMING COMPACTS. AND SINCE THE
REFERENDUM AND INITIATIVE
PROCESS WAS CREATED IN
CALIFORNIA MORE THAN 100 YEARS
AGO, THERE HAVE BEEN NEARLY 400
INITIATIVES IN SLIGHTLY OVER 50
REFERENDA. ACTUALLY ON THE
BALLOT. SO IT BEGS THE QUESTION,
WHY ARE THERE SO MANY DRAMATIC
REFORMS BEING PROPOSED AROUND
THE REFERENDA PROCESS AND NOT
THE INITIATIVE PROCESS, AGAIN,
WE, RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THE
BILL. WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH THE AUTHOR AND SPONSORS AS
THE BILL MOVES FORWARD. AND TO
MR. BRENNAN'S POINT, I WANT I DO
WANT TO BE CLEAR. I DON'T WANT
ANYBODY TO THINK THAT FOLKS OR
ANYBODY WENT BACK ON A DEAL. MR.
BRENNAN IS NOTHING BUT
HONORABLE. THERE WERE A LOT OF
CONVERSATIONS AND NEGOTIATIONS
LAST YEAR AROUND AB 421. THIS
WAS A PROVISION THAT WAS IN,
EARLIER VERSIONS OF THE BILL,
NOT THE FINAL VERSION OF THE
BILL. OBVIOUSLY AND WHILE WE
OPPOSED IT THEN AND WE REMAIN
OPPOSED TO IT NOW, WE DON'T VIEW
IT CERTAINLY WANT TO BE CLEAR AS
TO MR. BRENNAN'S HONOR THAT
NOBODY IS ACCUSING HIM OR
ANYBODY ELSE OF GOING BACK ON A
DEAL. SO THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE
THAT, ANYBODY IN THE ROOM
WISHING TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION
? OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY I YOU
KNOW, I DO APPRECIATE BOTH OF
YOU ADDRESSING THIS QUESTION OF
GOING BACK ON A DEAL BECAUSE,
AND THAT YOU CLARIFIED THAT THAT
HASN'T HAPPENED BECAUSE, YOU
KNOW, THE REALITY OF BILL
NEGOTIATION WHEN SOMETHING IS
TAKEN IN OR PUT IN, PUT, PUT
OUT, AND IS THAT A DEAL OR NOT?
IT SEEMS TO ME, YOU KNOW,
THERE'S A NEW CHAIR OF THIS
COMMITTEE, THERE'S A NEW AUTHOR
TO THIS BILL, AND, YOU KNOW, THE
NOTION THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS
NEGOTIATED IS SOMEHOW SETTLED
FOR ALL TIME IS JUST REALLY NOT
TRUE. I MEAN, SO IT DOES SEEM TO
ME LIKE FROM A, SOME TYPE OF
SMALL INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER
THERE WAS A DEAL, WHAT DOES THE
DEAL LOOK LIKE IF THERE IS ONE?
I MEAN, IS THERE SOMETHING
WRITTEN DOWN? IS IT I MEAN, HOW
DO YOU EVEN ESTABLISH THAT? SO
IT DOES SEEM TO ME LIKE THIS IS
A NEW BILL THAT STANDS ON ITS
OWN. AND WHEN I, WHEN I LOOK AT
THIS, TO ME IT DOES SEEM CLEARER
TO ME WHO THE FUNDERS ARE. AND I
THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S
VERY CLEAR IS THAT THAT THERE IS
A LOT OF DECEPTION HAPPENING. SO
REGARDLESS OF HOW THAT'S
HAPPENING OR WHO'S REALLY TO
BLAME FOR THAT HAPPENING, YOU
KNOW, THERE THERE IS A DESIRE TO
GET THOSE SIGNATURES ON THAT
PAGE. AND SO AND THE SIGNATURE
GATHERERS ARE ALWAYS, OF COURSE,
PAID. AND SO HOW IS IT THAT WE
CREATE A SYSTEM WHERE THE PERSON
WHO IS SIGNING THEIR NAME IS
MOST LIKELY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT
IS IT THAT THEY ARE SIGNING? I
THINK IN THE INTERESTS OF JUST
COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY WITH A
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, IT'S BETTER
TO KNOW WHO'S FUNDING THINGS.
IT'S ALSO CLEAR TO ME THAT A LOT
OF TIMES NAMES ARE THINGS LIKE A
BETTER TOMORROW, WHICH REALLY
DOESN'T TELL YOU ANYTHING ABOUT
WHO WHO THE FUNDERS ARE, BUT IT
DOES SEEM TO ME LIKE IT'S BETTER
THAT IT'S BOLD AND IT'S ON THE
SAME SHEET THAT THEY ARE
SIGNING. SO AND I ASKED THE
QUESTION OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF
THE TOP FUNDERS CHANGE, WHICH
APPARENTLY HISTORICALLY THEY
DON'T ACTUALLY CHANGE VERY
FREQUENTLY. TOP FUNDERS ARE
RELATIVELY STABLE. BUT IF THEY
DID CHANGE ALL OF THE SIGNATURES
THAT WERE GATHERED UNDER THE
PREVIOUS TOP FUNDER, GROUPING
WOULD STILL BE VALID. SO IT
WOULD IT WOULD REQUIRE A AND YOU
CAN RESPOND AFTER. BUT, SO IT
WOULD REQUIRE THAT A NEW SHEET
BE PRINTED WITH NEW SIGNATURES.
BUT, BUT ALL OF THOSE SIGNATURES
THAT WERE COLLECTED WOULD STILL
BE VALID. OF COURSE, YOU KNOW,
THE ELEMENTS ARE OF OUR DIRECT
DEMOCRACY ARE ALL VERY
IMPORTANT, BUT IT'S ALSO
IMPORTANT THAT WE DO OUR BEST TO
TRY TO REMOVE THAT DECEPTION. SO
TO ME, THIS DOES SEEM LIKE A
BILL THAT GOES TOWARD THAT GOAL,
AND SO I DO PLAN TO SUPPORT IT
TODAY. SO BUT I WOULD I'LL LET
YOU RESPOND TO THAT AND THEN
I'LL GO OVER HERE. I JUST WANTED
TO NOTE AGAIN, IT'S NOT AGAIN,
THE SIGNATURE GATHERERS ARE
ALREADY HAVE THAT INFORMATION
AVAILABLE IN TERMS OF WHO THE
DONORS ARE. THAT INFORMATION IS
ALSO, ONLINE. IF VOTERS OR
ANYBODY HAS A QUESTION ABOUT
THEM, IT IS I THINK FOLKS ARE
CERTAINLY FAMILIAR WITH
QUALIFYING AN INITIATIVE OR A
REFERENDA IS AN INCREDIBLY
COMPLEX, ENDEAVOR. AND IT IS
TAKES A LOT OF COORDINATION AND
COMMUNICATION. AND THERE ARE
PEOPLE ALL OVER THE STATE. AND
SO WHILE TOP DONORS, YOU KNOW,
DO CHANGE, YOU WILL HAVE TO SWAP
OUT YOUR PETITIONS AND
COORDINATE THAT AROUND THE STATE
TO EVERYBODY GOING OUT THERE AND
GATHERING THE SIGNATURES FOR
YOU, THAT IS, AND ENSURING THAT
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE HAS
THE ABSOLUTE LATEST WITH THE
LATEST TOP DONOR. IF SOMEBODY
WAS GATHERING SIGNATURES, THEN
TOOK A COUPLE OF DAYS OFF, CAME
BACK TRYING TO COORDINATE ALL OF
THAT IS GOING TO BE, NEXT TO
IMPOSSIBLE, TO MAKE SURE. AND
THAT'S WHY IT WILL MAKE IT VERY
DIFFICULT FROM A LOGISTICAL
STANDPOINT, TO ACTUALLY MEET THE
THRESHOLD TO GATHER SIGNATURES
IN THAT TIME. SO THANK YOU,
SENATOR PORTANTINO. I WAS JUST
GOING TO COMMENT ON THE PROCESS.
AND WE HAVE TWO GENTLEMEN ON
OPPOSING SIDES WHO HAVE BOTH
SAID THAT THIS WAS OUTSIDE OF
THE DEAL, FROM PRIOR, PRIOR
BILLS. BUT I WOULD SAY THE
SYSTEM FUNCTIONS BETTER WHEN
THERE ARE DEALS AND THEY'RE
HONORED SUBSEQUENTLY. YOU KNOW,
THIS HOUSE FUNCTIONS BETTER. AND
IN YEARS PAST, IF THERE WAS A
MAJOR DEAL ON A MAJOR ISSUE THAT
WENT DOWN, IF SOMEONE, AGAIN,
EVERY LEGISLATOR CAN INTRODUCE
WHATEVER BILL THEY WANT TO
INTRODUCE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT.
BUT IN YEARS PAST, THOSE BILLS
THAT WOULD UNDO MAJOR DEALS
WOULDN'T EVEN GET REFERRED TO
COMMITTEE BECAUSE AS THE
INSTITUTION WOULD, WOULD RESPECT
THE HONOR OF COMMITMENTS AND
DEALS. WE DON'T DO THAT AS WELL
TODAY AS WE DID IT TEN YEARS AGO
OR 20 YEARS AGO. AND I THINK
THIS BODY SUFFERS FROM THAT, AND
I DO THINK COMMITTEE CHAIRS
AGAIN, TEN YEARS AGO, 15 YEARS
AGO WOULD TAKE MORE OWNERSHIP.
NOT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE YOU
WERE NOT. IT'S NOT IN THIS
COMMITTEE THAT THAT YOU WERE
PARTY TO THAT. I'M JUST SAYING
PRIOR COMMITTEE CHAIRS WOULD
TAKE MORE OWNERSHIP OVER THOSE
DEALS AND ENFORCE THEM, WHICH
MUCH MORE I WOULD SAY INTEGRITY
OF THE SYSTEM. AND SO I THINK WE
FUNCTION BETTER WHEN WE DO DO
THAT. AND I DO THINK, YOU KNOW,
I HATE TO SOUND LIKE A DAD AND A
ELDER STATESMAN, BUT I THINK WE
WOULD BE BETTER IF WE WENT BACK
TO SOME OF THOSE CONVENTIONS AND
INSTITUTIONS AS A BODY POLITIC.
SO JUST JUST A COMMENT. THANK
YOU. AND I THINK PROBABLY WE
WOULD ALL AGREE WITH THAT. WE
BOTH SIDES OF SAYING THERE WAS
NO DEAL. SO YEAH, JUST IN
GENERAL. YEAH IN GENERAL TO THE
COMMENT OF SUBSEQUENT TO DEALS,
PEOPLE, CAN THIS PLACE FUNCTIONS
BETTER WHEN THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN,
RIGHT? SENATOR ALLEN WELL, YEAH.
WELL, THE TERRY MENTIONED THAT I
GUESS THE FORMER CHAIR'S RAISING
CONCERNS ABOUT A DEAL. SO SOUNDS
AS THOUGH, YOU KNOW, THE TWO
LEAD WITNESSES ON BOTH SIDES ARE
, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY ON
OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE BILL, BUT
BUT BUT COMFORTABLE WITH THE
IDEA THAT THERE WASN'T A BACKING
DOWN ON ANY KIND OF DEAL. ALL I
WOULD SAY IS I REALLY DO HAVE TO
ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH THE
COMMENTS OF SENATOR PORTENTINO.
YOU KNOW, I WE ALL GET VERY
INVOLVED IN BIG BILLS, SOME
WELL, MANY OF US DO AND, AND IT
IT REALLY DOES BECOME MORE
DIFFICULT TO, TO COME TO
DIFFICULT COMPROMISES IF THERE'S
A SENSE OF THE NEXT YEAR, THINGS
ARE JUST GOING TO GET BLOWN OPEN
AGAIN. AND THAT GOES ON ON A,
YOU KNOW, SO IT'S A CHALLENGE.
WE WERE LIVING IN A TIME OF TÂM
LIMITS. WE'RE CONSTANTLY
SWITCHING AROUND, CHANGING
CHAIRMANSHIPS, AND PEOPLE MOVE
AND IT JUST I THINK IT MAKES IT
HARD FOR ADVOCACY GROUPS TO, TO,
TO FEEL CONFIDENT, ENGAGING IN
NEGOTIATIONS IF WE'RE SEEN AS
TOO CHANGEABLE. WELL, I CAN'T
HELP BUT NOTE THAT SOME OF THE
THINGS THAT I'M ASKING FOR IN
THIS BILL WERE, IN A PREVIOUS
PIECE OF LEGISLATION I HAD AND
MY FRIEND HERE WASN'T QUITE AS
OPEN TO THOSE, TRANSPARENCY
MEASURES AT THE TIME. YEAH.
APPRECIATE THAT ADMISSION, MY
FRIEND, YEAH. SO I. I MEAN, DO
YOU DO YOU MIND IF I ASK WHAT
WHAT WHAT'S CHANGED HERE, IN
TERMS OF YOUR POSITION ON THIS?
WE ARE WE'RE PART OF A COALITION
THAT WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE THAT.
POTENTIALLY TO BE IN THE SAME
SORT OF CONTEXT, WE'RE IN A
POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT WHERE THAT
ISN'T HAPPENING. ONE, BECAUSE
THE GOVERNOR, I THINK YOU'RE ON,
WHAT AM I MISSING, ONE BECAUSE,
GOVERNOR, IT'S NOT WORKING. SO
WE HAVE WE REALLY HAVE TO WRAP
THIS UP IN FOUR MINUTES. YEAH
WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION, IT
SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT WE WOULD GO
THAT DIRECTION. OKAY,
SUCCESSFULLY. HAPPY TO CONNECT
WITH YOU ON IN THE FUTURE. I
MEAN, I, YOU KNOW, MY CHALLENGE
WITH THESE THINGS ALWAYS IS. AND
I'M CERTAINLY HAPPY TO SUPPORT
THE CHAIR ON THIS. YOU KNOW,
TODAY. BUT I THINK THE CHALLENGE
HERE ALWAYS IS ON ISSUES LIKE
THIS. WE OBVIOUSLY ALL BELIEVE
IN TRANSPARENCY. IT WAS THE I'VE
JUST RAN SEVERAL BILLS ON THE
VERY TOPIC TODAY, YOU KNOW,
THERE ISN'T THE REFERENDUM
PROCESS IS AN IMPORTANT PROCESS.
IT'S IMPORTANT I FUNDAMENTALLY
BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A
MANIPULABLE PROCESS, THE
SIGNATURE COLLECTION. SO IS THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IS
MANIPULABLE BY SPECIAL INTEREST
GROUPS, TOO. AND I DO THINK
IT'S, YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW, I
I'M COMFORTABLE WITH WHERE WE
ARE ON THIS BILL. I WILL SAY THE
REFERENDUM PROCESS IS IMPORTANT
TOO, AND IT'S AN IMPORTANT CHECK
IN THE CONSTITUTION TO THE WORK
OF THIS LEGISLATURE. AND I, I
DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT ADVERSELY
HARMED AS WELL AS WE CONTINUE TO
DO WORK IN THIS SPACE. OKAY
THANK YOU, SENATOR NEWMAN. I'LL
BE REALLY QUICK. I REALLY I JUST
WANT TO ALIGN MYSELF WITH
SENATOR ALLEN'S COMMENTS. RIGHT.
SO, AS MR. BRENNAN KNOWS, I ALSO
HAD A BILL THAT YOU FOLKS DIDN'T
LIKE. AND THEN LIKED, AND I KNOW
CRAZY, BUT THIS IS SORT OF THE
GAME WITHIN THE GAME. WE KNOW
THIS AND IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE
AS MEMBERS, ESPECIALLY OF THIS
COMMITTEE, BE ARE MINDFUL OF
THAT AS WE MAKE THESE SEEMINGLY
SMALL CHANGES. BUT THEY'RE
ALWAYS DICTATED BY SOMEBODIES,
SORT OF EITHER PERCEPTION OR
OPPORTUNISTICALLY, YOU KNOW,
SECURE AN ADVANTAGE AND IN SOME
POLITICAL CLIMATE, I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. BUT I
THINK SENATOR ALLEN IS
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THE REFERENDUM
, THE RECALL, THE INITIATIVE IS
SUPER IMPORTANT, BUT ALSO THE
TERMS WITHIN WHICH WE HAVE, THE
SORT OF YOU KNOW, PEOPLE MAKE
PREPARATIONS OR OTHERWISE OPPOSE
THESE THINGS. EQUALLY IMPORTANT.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT TODAY. AND THAT
CONVERSATION WILL AND SHOULD
CONTINUE. OKAY. THANK YOU.
SENATOR GONZALEZ. LIGHTNING
FAST. CLOSE. I'M GLAD I GET TO
SPEAK. FINALLY BUT THROUGH THE
CHAIR, I ACTUALLY REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR COMMENTS
BECAUSE I THINK YOU'VE SAID IT
PERFECTLY. YOU ACTUALLY WERE MY
CLOTHES TODAY BECAUSE NEW NEW
CHAIR, NEW AUTHOR, NEW DAY. BUT
ALL OF THIS IS VERY FLUID. I
THINK IN JUST THE SPIRIT OF
TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC
INTEGRITY, THIS NEEDS TO BE
DONE. AND AS YOU CAN SEE HERE,
IT'S VERY CLEAR FOR FOLKS,
ESPECIALLY NOT HAVING TO DIG
THROUGH A VOTER GUIDE TO SEE WHO
THE TOP FUNDERS ARE. WITH THAT,
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE.
OKAY, THANKS. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION? ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A
MOTION ON THIS BILL? OKAY. THANK
YOU, SENATOR MENGIBAR. SO THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS. AND
LET'S CALL THE ROLL WICKS A
BLAKESPEAR I1 ONE. NO. ALLEN
ALLEN I MENGIBAR NAVARRO I
NEWMAN NEWMAN I PORTANTINO
PORTANTINO I UMBERG I UMBERG I.
OH SIX OKAY. SIX ONE AND IT IS
OUT. SO WE'RE NOW GOING TO LIFT
THE CALL ON ALL THE OTHER BILLS.
THANK YOU TO THOSE WHO CAME AND
TESTIFIED. THANK YOU, WHAT'S
WHAT'S OUR FIRST ONE? OKAY.
CONSENT CALENDAR LIFTING CALL ON
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS INCLUDE
SB 1156 AND SB 1493. KERN VOTED
SIX ZERO. ALLEN CONSENT CALENDAR
ALLEN AYE CONSENT CALENDAR 700
OKAY. CONSENT CALENDAR SEVEN
ZERO. IT'S BEEN ADOPTED. WHAT'S
OUR NEXT ITEM? FILE ITEM ONE VÌ.
ITEM ONE SB 904 CURRENT VOTES
FIVE ONE. MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CHAIR VOTED AYE.
VICE-CHAIR. VOTED NO. ALLEN
ALLEN I SOUND OKAY THAT SB 904
IS SIX ONE AND IT'S OUT NEXT. WE
HAVE NUMBER TWO, SB 977. CURRENT
VOTE IS FIVE ONE. MOTION IS DUE
PASSED THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CHAIR VOTED I VICE CHAIR VOTED
NO. ALLEN ALLEN I THAT'S SIX
ONE. NEXT WE'RE ON TO ITEM
NUMBER THREE SB 1151. CURRENT
VOTE IS FIVE ZERO. MOTION IS
DUE. PASS. APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR
VOTED I. VICE CHAIR VOTED. AYE.
ALLEN ALLEN I UMBERG I UMBERG I
OKAY. SORRY THAT IS SEVEN ZERO.
SO THAT IS OUT NEXT ITEM IS
NUMBER FOUR SB 1155. MOTION IS
TO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE IS
FIVE ZERO. CHAIR VOTED I. VICE
CHAIR VOTED I ALLEN ALLEN I
MENGIBAR SIX, THAT IS SIX ZERO
AND IT'S OUT. OKAY, WE'RE NOW ON
TO FILE ITEM EIGHT, WHICH IS SB
907. NEWMAN OKAY, CURRENT VOTE
IS FOUR ONE. MOTION IS DUE. PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS. CHAIR VOTED I
VICE CHAIR VOTED NO. ALLEN
UMBERG I UMBERG I 547 OKAY, THAT
IS FIVE ONE AND IT IS OUT, NEXT
BILL IS SB 1422, MOTION IS TO
PASS APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT
VOTE IS SIX ZERO. CHAIR VOTED I
VICE CHAIR VOTED I UMBERG I
UMBERG I. THAT IS SEVEN ZERO AND
IT IS OUT. SO THE NEXT ONE SB
1441 ITEM TEN MOTION IS DO PASS
THE APPROPRIATIONS CURRENT VOTE
IS FOUR ONE CHAIR VOTED I VICE
CHAIR VOTED NO MENGIBAR I
MENGIBAR I UMBERG I UMBERG I
ONE. ALL RIGHT. THAT IS SIX ONE
AND IT IS OUT NEXT IS ITEM 11 SB
1450. MOTION IS Dð PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE IS
FIVE ZERO. CHAIR VOTED I ONE
UMBERG UMBERG I SIX ZERO OKAY,
THAT'S SIX ZERO AND WE ARE
OFFICIALLY CONCLUDED. THANK YOU