GOOD MORNING. HEY.
OKAY. WE ARE GOING TO BRING THIS
MEETING TO ORDER THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS WILL
COME TO ORDER. GOOD MORNING AND
WELCOME, EVERYBODY. WE HAVE
THREE BILLS ON OUR AGENDA TODAY.
BEFORE WE HEAR PRESENTATIONS ON
THE BILL, LET'S ESTABLISH A
QUORUM. ASSISTANT PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. BLAKE SPEER, PRESENT
BLAKE SPEAR, PRESENT ONE. WHEN?
ONE HERE, ONE. HERE. ALLEN HERE.
ALLEN. HERE. MENGIBAR. MENGIBAR
HERE. NEWMAN. NEWMAN. HERE.
PORTANTINO PORTANTINO. HERE.
UMBERG OKAY. QUORUM HAS BEEN
ESTABLISHED. FIRST, WE WILL TAKE
UP OUR CONSENT CALENDAR.
PROPOSED FOR CONSENT IS ONE
ITEM, SB 948 FROM LIMÓN. DOES
ANY MEMBER WANT TO PULL THIS
ITEM FROM CONSENT? NOT SEEING
ANYONE DOING THAT, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON THE CONSENT. BLAKE
SPEAR. YES. BLAKE. SPEAR. YES.
WHEN I WHEN I ALLEN, I ALLEN I
MENGIBAR MENGIBAR. I NEWMAN I
NEWMAN I PORTANTINO I PORTANTINO
I UMBERG. OKAY. THAT IS SIX ZERO
AND IT'S ON CALL. SO OUR FIRST
ITEM WILL BE SENATOR DODD'S BILL
SB 1243. ARE YOU READY? OKAY YOU
YOU CAN FEEL FREE TO COME OVER
HERE, PLEASE. WE WANT TO BE
CLOSE TO YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'M
PRESENTING SB 1243 TO AMEND THE
LEVINE ACT FOR BETTER CLARITY,
COMPLIANCE AND FAIRNESS. IN
2022, THE LEVINE ACT WAS AMENDED
TO INCLUDE LOCAL ELECTED
OFFICIALS. PREVIOUSLY, THE LAW
ONLY APPLIED TO APPOINTED
OFFICIALS OVER THE LAST YEAR, AS
CITIES AND COUNTIES HAVE WORKED
TO IMPLEMENT THAT LAW, IT HAS
BECOME VERY APPARENT THAT THERE
WERE PROBLEMS. AND TODAY YOU'LL
HEAR FROM FOLKS TRYING TO
IMPLEMENT AND FOLLOW THE LAW
THAT IS UNNECESSARILY
COMPLICATED AND FRANKLY,
UNWORKABLE BY MAKING
TRANSPARENT, DIRECT
CONTRIBUTIONS AND FEASIBLE, THE
LAW ESSENTIALLY FREEZES OUT A
SECTOR OF THE COMMUNITY FROM
DONATING ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO
CANDIDATES. THIS UNFORTUNATELY,
PROMOTES A VERY UNDESIRABLE
CONSEQUENCE INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURES POURING INTO
CAMPAIGNS. AS THIS BILL IMPROVES
UPON THE WORK IN 2022 AND SEEKS
TO ADDRESS A NUMBER OF THOSE
ISSUES THAT HAVE ARISEN DURING
THE IMPLEMENTATION. FIRST, THE
BILL ADJUSTS THE CONTRIBUTION
LIMIT THAT HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE
1982 FROM $250 TO $1000,
APPROXIMATING INFLATION. IT
ADJUSTS THE PROHIBITION PERIOD
BEFORE AND AFTER A DECISION IS
MADE FROM 12 MONTHS TO NINE
MONTHS, WHICH IS STILL THREE
TIMES LONGER THAN WHAT WAS IN
THE LAW FOR 40 YEARS PRIOR TO
THE 2022 CHANGE. AND IT
CLARIFIES THAT INCREASED
MEMBERSHIP DUES FOR UNIONS OR
CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE DON'T
TRIGGER INCLUSION IN THIS
STATUTE WHEN THEY HAVE NO DIRECT
FINANCIAL STAKE IN THAT
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. IT ALSO
SIMPLIFIES COMPLIANCE BY KEEPING
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM AGENTS AND A
PARTY OR PARTICIPANT CALCULATED
SEPARATELY. ADDITIONAL CHANGES
ADDRESS A MYRIAD OF MYRIAD
ISSUES. CITIES COUNTIES, AND
STAKEHOLDERS HAVE HAD TRYING TO
IMPLEMENT THE NEW LAW. THE BILL
WILL FURTHER THE GOALS OF THE
POLITICAL REFORM ACT BY MAKING
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION CLEAR AND
WORKABLE, AND HELPING REMOVE
CONDITIONS THAT HAVE
INCENTIVIZED DARK MONEY POURING
INTO CAMPAIGNS AT THE SAME TIME,
IT FOCUSES THE FPPC AND THE
LEVINE ACT ON SITUATIONS WHERE
THERE COULD BE REASONABLE
APPEARANCES OF IMPROPRIETY. THE
IDEA THAT OUR LOCAL ELECTED
OFFICIALS CAN BE BOUGHT AND SOLD
FOR $250 IS BOTH LAUGHABLE AND,
FRANKLY, OFFENSIVE, ESPECIALLY
COMPARED TO THE STANDARDS FOR
THE STATE LEGISLATORS. I WANT TO
THANK THE CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THE DIALOG ON THE BILL
. WE DON'T HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS
WORKED OUT YET, BUT I WANT TO
MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IF THE BILL
DOES ADVANCE TODAY, I WILL
CONTINUE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE
CHAIR AND WILL WORK WITH ALL THE
STAKEHOLDERS. I'LL WORK
COLLABORATIVELY TO IDENTIFY
AMENDMENTS TO HELP ADDRESS
UNDERLYING CONCERNS AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE, WHILE STILL SOLVING
THE PROBLEMS WITH THE EXISTING
LAW. WITH ME TODAY IS NICK
CAMEROTA, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
AND GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION AND REBECCA CROWELL,
DIRECTOR DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS FOR THE SAN
FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
, REPRESENTING CITY ATTORNEY
DAVID HIÂU
.
IT'S ON. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING
, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS. NICK
CAMMARATA, ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA'S HOME BUILDERS, AS
REPRESENTED BY THE CALIFORNIA
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, I
WANT TO ECHO THE AUTHOR'S
COMMENTS ABOUT OUR GRATITUDE TO
YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND TO YOUR
STAFF FOR WORKING WITH US AND
DISCUSSING THESE ISSUES. I WANT
TO BEGIN BY SIMPLY POINTING OUT
SOME DATA, FIRST, THE
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY RESEARCH
BUREAU HAS KEPT TRACK OF
RESIDENTIAL PERMITS ISSUED
WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SINCE 1954, THE HIGH POINT OF
THAT THOSE PERMITS WAS IN 1963,
WHEN CALIFORNIA'S POPULATION WAS
17.5 MILLION PEOPLE. WE ISSUED
322,000 RESIDENTIAL PERMITS IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. LAST
YEAR, WHEN OUR POPULATION WAS 39
MILLION, WE ISSUED 120,000
PERMITS. SO YOU CAN SEE OVER
TIME, THE TREND HAS BEEN A
DECLINE IN IN THE ISSUANCE OF
RESIDENTIAL PERMITS OVER THIS
TIME PERIOD. CONTRIBUTIONS TO
CAMPAIGNS AND TO CANDIDATES AT
THE LOCAL LEVEL HAS INCREASED.
AND YET PERMITS HAVE DECREASED.
THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU
WOULD EXPECT TO SEE IF THERE
WERE A PAY TO PLAY TYPE OF
SCENARIO GOING ON, HAVING SAID
THAT, THE AMENDMENTS TO THIS LAW
MADE TWO YEARS AGO HAVE RESULTED
REALLY IN A DE FACTO PROHIBITION
ON A LARGE SWATH OF FOLKS IN OUR
COMMUNITY, HIS AND A PROHIBITION
ON THEIR ABILITY TO MAKE
CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL ELECTED
OFFICIALS THAT HAS ARISEN OUT OF
THE BILLS OR THE LAWS
REQUIREMENTS TO AGGREGATE
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM FROM
PARTICIPANTS AND FROM PARTIES
WITH THEIR AGENTS. AS THERE IS A
LACK OF CLARITY AS TO WHO IS AN
AGENT. BUT THERE'S ALSO A LACK
OF CLARITY AS TO HOW YOU WOULD
DETERMINE WHEN AND IF THEY HAVE
MADE A CONTRIBUTION, AND HOW
MUCH THEY HAVE CONTRIBUTED. WHO
ARE SOME OF THOSE AGENTS? THOSE
AGENTS ARE PARTIES THAT ARE
NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR US TO GET
OUR APPROVALS. FOLKS LIKE
HYDROLOGISTS, ICE BIOLOGISTS WHO
ARE THERE TO PROTECT ENDANGERED
SPECIES AND THEIR HABITAT,
NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTANTS WHO
ARE THERE TO PROTECT TRIBAL
CULTURAL RESOURCES AND SACRED
SITES, PLANNERS, ARCHITECTS AND
THE FIRMS THAT THEY WORK FOR AS
WELL, IT'S NO SMALL THING TO
TELL SUCH A LARGE GROUP OF
PEOPLE THAT YOU MUST CHOOSE
EITHER BETWEEN PARTICIPATING IN
OUR DEMOCRACY OR TO EARN A
LIVING THAT'S GOING TO RESULT.
WE BELIEVE IN ENFORCEMENT CHAOS
BECAUSE THOSE, LACK OF CLARITY,
THOSE COMPLEXITIES ARE GOING TO
BE RESOLVED IN THE COURTS
LITIGATION, OF COURSE, IS A
THING WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
BECAUSE IT IS A SIGNIFICANT
OBSTACLE TO THE PRODUCTION OF
HOUSING. WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT
SB 1439 OR THIS CODE SECTION OF
THE LAW, OR FRANKLY, ANY CODE
SECTION OF THE LAW SHOULD TURN
INTO A GAME OF GOTCHA FOR PEOPLE
WHO ARE WELL-INTENDED AND TRYING
TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW IN GOOD
FAITH. HAVING ALL THESE PEOPLE
REMOVED FROM THE POLITICAL
PROCESS MÁS DOESN'T JUST CREATE
SOME GREAT SITUATION, IT CREATES
A VACUUM. WE'RE CONCERNED THAT
THAT VACUUM WILL BE FILLED BY
CANDIDATES FOR LOCAL OFFICE WHO
ARE WEALTHY AND HAVE THE ABILITY
TO SELF-FINANCE THEIR OWN
CAMPAIGNS. THAT IS NOT GOING TO
RESULT, IN OUR VIEW, IN A
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. IT'S
NOT GOING TO RESULT IN A
BALANCED DECISION MAKING AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL. YOU NEED TO WRAP IT
UP, PLEASE. THANK YOU. AND IT'S
GOING TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITIES
LESS INCLUSIVE AND MORE
EXCLUSIVE. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR BLAKE SPEER AND
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
COMMITTEE. I'M REBECCA KRELL
HERE REPRESENTING SAN FRANCISCO
CITY ATTORNEY DAVID CHIU. THANK
YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF SB 1243.
THE AMENDMENTS TO THE LEVINE ACT
HAVE CAUSED SIGNIFICANT
COMPLIANCE ISSUES FOR LOCAL
ELECTED OFFICIALS DUE TO
UNCERTAINTY CONCERNING THE
INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES WHOSE
CONTRIBUTIONS TRIGGER THE LAW'S
RESTRICTIONS AND THE DIFFICULTY
IN CREATING AN ADEQUATE SYSTEM
FOR TRACKING COVERED PROCEEDINGS
AND CONTRIBUTORS. THE PROBLEMS
ARE PARTICULARLY ACUTE AS TO
PARTICIPANTS IN PROCEEDINGS WHO
MAY BE INDIVIDUALS WHO GIVE
PUBLIC COMMENT OR SUBMIT WRITTEN
COMMENT. ADDITIONALLY IT IS
DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO
DETERMINE WHETHER AND WHEN
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM AGENTS MUST
BE AGGREGATED WITH THOSE OF
PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS. SAN
FRANCISCO HANDLES THOUSANDS OF
PROCEEDINGS COVERED BY THIS LAW
EACH YEAR, IF NOT TENS OF
THOUSANDS, IN WHICH LOCAL
ELECTED OFFICIALS MAY
PARTICIPATE OR DECIDE THE
AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY SENATE
BILL ONE, TWO, FOUR, THREE ARE A
STEP TOWARDS MAKING IT MORE
FEASIBLE FOR LOCAL ELECTED
OFFICIALS TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW
, FIRST, RAISING THE
CONTRIBUTION THRESHOLD TO MORE
THAN $1,000 IS A SENSIBLE
ADJUSTMENT THAT WILL CONTINUE
THE GOAL OF REDUCING IMPROPER
INFLUENCE ON GOVERNMENTAL
DECISIONS, WHILE RECOGNIZING
THAT SMALL DOLLAR CONTRIBUTIONS
ARE UNLIKELY TO HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON SUCH
DECISIONS. SECOND, BY PROVIDING
THAT CONTRIBUTIONS BETWEEN
PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS WILL
NOT BE AGGREGATED WITH
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THEIR AGENTS,
THE BILL WILL REMOVE A
SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TO
COMPLIANCE. THIRD, EXCLUDING
HOUSING PROJECTS APPROVED
CONSISTENT WITH THE
JURISDICTIONS HOUSING ELEMENT
REMOVES UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
OF THE LAW THAT COULD
POTENTIALLY IMPACT HOUSING
APPROVALS AND FURTHER REDUCTION
IN SCOPE. WILL ASSIST IN
REDUCING COMPLIANCE BURDENS.
WHILE AB 1243 DOES NOT
COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THE
DIFFICULTIES IMPOSED BY SB 1439,
THE BILL WILL PROVIDE GREATER
CLARITY AND WILL REDUCE THE
AMOUNT OF PUBLIC RESOURCES AND
STAFF TIME THAT MUST BE SPENT TO
ASSIST OFFICIALS IN COMPLYING
WITH THE LAW. THE SAN FRANCISCO,
SAN DIEGO AND OAKLAND CITY
ATTORNEYS OFFICES, ALONG WITH
THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY COUNSEL,
STRONGLY SUPPORT SB 1243. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DO WE
HAVE OPPOSITION WITNESSES? OH,
I'M SORRY, WE HAVE THE
SUPPORTERS, WHO COULD COME
FORWARD AND SAY YOUR NAME.
ORGANIZATION AND YOUR POSITION,
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR MIKE
MONAHAN, ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES
, WE ARE THE SPONSORS OF THE
BILL. THANK THE AUTHOR. THANK
THE CHAIR AND HER STAFF FOR, ALL
THE DIALOG. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MARTIN VENDIOLA, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, THE CALIFORNIA STATE
PIPE TRADES COUNCIL AND THE
WESTERN STATES COUNCIL OF SHEET
METAL WORKERS AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. ANDY
BIRNBAUM, ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. AND WE'D
LIKE TO ALIGN OUR SUPPORT WITH
THE CITY ATTORNEY OF SAN
FRANCISCO. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. MEMBERS SARA FLOCKS,
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION, IN
STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING,
JOHNNY PINA WITH THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MEGAN SUPERS,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. ANTHONY AUGUSTINE,
ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILY BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, IN
SUPPORT. THANKS THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. AND NOW WE'LL INVITE ANY
OPPOSITION WITNESSES TO COME
FORWARD.
THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, MY NAME IS BETH
HERNANDEZ. AND HERE I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA COMMON
CAUSE, AS ORIGINAL SPONSORS OF
SB 1439, WE WERE PROUD TO TAKE
ACTION IN 2022, WITH THE
UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OF THE SENATE
TO ADDRESS LOCAL CORRUPTION
SCANDALS THAT WERE SHAKING THE
PUBLIC'S FAITH IN LOCAL
DEMOCRACIES. SB 1243 IS A
ROLLBACK OF SB 1439 COMMON SENSE
REFORMS, AND WE ARE OPPOSED,
FIRST, SB 1243 EXEMPTS REAL
ESTATE DEVELOPERS FROM
DISCLOSURE AND CONTRIBUTION
LIMITS THAT WOULD APPLY TO EVERY
OTHER PARTY AND INDUSTRY.
EXEMPTING A SINGLE INTEREST FROM
AN ETHICS LAW IS SIMPLY BAD
POLICY. SECOND, THE MODIFICATION
TO THE APPLICABLE TIME PERIOD
FOR THE TAX CONTRIBUTION CAP IS
ALSO CONCERNING. SB 1243 WOULD
CAP CONTRIBUTIONS FOR NINE
MONTHS BEFORE A FINAL DECISION,
AND FOR MANY LENGTHY PROJECTS
THAT TAKE LONGER THAN NINE
MONTHS. THESE CHANGES WOULD
ALLOW FOR LARGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO
BE MADE. WHILE A MATTER IS
PENDING. WE HAVE OTHER CONCERNS
ABOUT THE BILL AS WELL, WE HAD
REVIEWED THE CHAIR'S PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS AND WE BELIEVE THAT
THEY WERE THOUGHTFUL AND WOULD
MOVE US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION,
WE WOULD HAVE HAD SOME
OUTSTANDING ISSUES, THAT, YOU
KNOW, WE WOULD SPEAK TO THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE ABOUT, BUT THEY
WOULD HAVE GOTTEN US VERY CLOSE
TO DROPPING OUR OPPOSITION,
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, FOR
THOSE, THE TWO OUTSTANDING
ISSUES WOULD BE THE INCREASED
CONTRIBUTION CAP FROM 250 TO
1000 AND THE EXEMPTION OF
PERIODIC REVIEWS OF DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENTS, SHOULD THOSE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BE ADOPTED?
I WOULD BE OPTIMISTIC. CHAIRS
AND MEMBERS, THEY CONTINUE
CONVERSATIONS WOULD LEAD TO AN
AGREEABLE RESOLUTION ON THESE
ISSUES. WE ARE NOT CATEGORICALLY
OPPOSED TO ANY INCREASE IN THE
CONTRIBUTION CAP. FINALLY, IT IS
CLEAR THAT THE BILL IN PRINT
DOES NOT FURTHER THE PURPOSES OF
THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT AND
THUS WOULD BE EXTREMELY
VULNERABLE IN COURT, WE REMAIN
STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE BILL IN
PRINT. THANK YOU ONCE MORE,
MADAM CHAIR, FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
, GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, TRENT LANG, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN
MONEY CAMPAIGN, FOR THE REASONS
SET FORTH IN YOUR EXCELLENT
ANALYSIS AND AS STATED BY COMMON
CAUSE, WE ALSO STRONGLY OPPOSE
THE BILL, AS IN CURRENTLY IN
PRINT, WHICH CLEARLY DOES NOT
FURTHER THE PURPOSES OF THE
POLITICAL REFORM ACT. WE BELIEVE
THAT THE LEVINE ACT AND SB 1439
CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROTECTIONS
ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO
PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY AND
ESPECIALLY VOTER CONFIDENCE IN
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, WHO MAY
ACTUALLY BE CONCERNED BY
THOUSAND DOLLAR CONTRIBUTIONS,
ESPECIALLY MANY TIMES.
UNFORTUNATELY, SB 1243, AS
WRITTEN, WOULD DRAMATICALLY
WEAKEN THOSE PROTECTIONS. NOT
ONLY WOULD IT EXEMPT A SINGLE
INTEREST GROUP AND REMOVE
LEVINE, ACT LIMITS, FROM
PROCEEDINGS THAT TAKE LONGER
THAN NINE MONTHS COMPLETELY. IF
THEY TAKE LONGER THAN NINE
MONTHS, THEY'D BE ABLE TO GIVE
GET AROUND THE CONTRIBUTIONS
BEFORE THAT LAST NINE MONTHS. AS
WRITTEN, BUT IT WOULD
DRAMATICALLY INCREASE THE AMOUNT
THAT PARTIES, PARTICIPANTS AND
AGENTS COULD GIVE TO THE ELECTED
OFFICIALS THAT ARE DECIDING
THEIR PROCEEDINGS, ELIMINATING
THE LONG STANDING PRACTICE OF
AGGREGATING AGENTS.
CONTRIBUTIONS WITH THE PARTIES
IS ESPECIALLY PROBLEMATIC,
ALLOWING SPECIAL INTERESTS TO
MAX OUT TO OFFICIALS THROUGH
MULTIPLE CHANNELS THAT THEY
CANNOT IN LONG STANDING LAW.
THAT SAID, WE HAVE REVIEWED THE
COMMITTEE'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
THAT ADDRESS THESE PROBLEMS AND
WITH ENORMOUS GRATITUDE TO YOU,
MADAM CHAIR, AND TO YOUR STAFF,
I CAN REPORT THAT THEY GET US
VERY, VERY CLOSE TO BEING ABLE
TO REMOVE OUR OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL. BESIDES SOME CLARITY ON
THE, ON THE EXEMPTION OF
PERIODIC REVIEWS OF THE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, THE ONLY
THING THAT WOULD CAUSE US TO
STILL OPPOSE IS THAT THOUSAND
DOLLAR, THAT INCREASE TO $1,000.
WE BELIEVE THAT A FOUR FOLD
INCREASE IS TOO HIGH, BUT WE ARE
DEFINITELY NOT CATEGORICALLY
OPPOSED TO FURTHER INCREASES,
AND WE ARE VERY OPTIMISTIC THAT
WITH GOOD FAITH DATA, GROUNDED
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE AUTHOR,
WITH YOU, WITH SUPPORTERS, THAT
WE COULD GET A GOOD RESULT
THERE. IN CONCLUSION, FOR THE
REASONS SET FORTH IN YOUR
ANALYSIS, AND IN OUR LETTER,
HOWEVER, WE REMAIN STRONGLY
OPPOSED TO THE BILL IN PRINT,
WHICH WOULD NOT FURTHER THE
PURPOSES OF THE ACT, AND THANK
YOU ONCE MORE, CHAIR, FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE. THANK
YOU, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE IN
THE ROOM WISHING TO EXPRESS
OPPOSITION? ADRIANA CHAMPAGNE
ZAMORA WITH THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN
VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA IN
OPPOSITION. MEMBERS. JAMES, THE
DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
COUNCIL OF LABORERS. ACTUALLY,
WE'RE IN A STRONG SUPPORT. SO
SORRY FOR BEING A LITTLE LATE.
THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU,
OKAY. THANK YOU. WE'LL BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE AND I JUST
WANT TO CONFIRM WITH THE AUTHOR
YOU ARE NOT ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS. YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S
CORRECT, MADAM CHAIR. OKAY.
THANK YOU. SO I'D LIKE TO DIRECT
THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO THE
AMENDMENT MOCKUP. IT SHOULD BE
IN FRONT OF YOU RIGHT HERE. IF
YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE
PROPOSED BILL. AND THEN MY
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS SO THAT YOU
CAN SEE THAT. SO I JUST I WOULD
JUST LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS
ABOUT, ABOUT THIS BILL. SO I DO
THINK THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF
PROBLEMS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,
ASSOCIATED WITH THE BILL, THE
ORIGINAL BILL FROM SENATOR
GLASER AND THAT THERE ARE SOME
CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO
MAKE IT FAIR FOR AND ALSO
CLEARER WHAT'S ALLOWED. SO ONE
OF MY MAIN INTERESTS IN,
MODIFYING THIS BILL WAS IN
MAKING IT SO THAT IT'S EASIER TO
IMPLEMENT FOR SOMEBODY WHO'S IN
LOCAL ELECTED OFFICE AND ALSO
SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO MAKE A
DONATION. AND SO HAVING THAT BE
SOMETHING WHERE SOMEBODY COULD
ACTUALLY BE AN ELECTED OFFICE,
READ, READ THE RULES AND
UNDERSTAND IF THEY APPLY OR
DON'T WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME.
SO THERE ARE TWO PARTS OF THE
PROPOSED BILL THAT WE ARE
EVALUATING TODAY, SB 1243 THAT
CARVE OUT SPECIFIC INTERESTS
OVER OTHERS AND I THINK MAKES IT
VERY UNWORKABLE FOR A LOCAL
ELECTED OFFICIAL. SO THE FIRST
ONE IS ON THE FIRST PAGE,
SECTION SUB TWO, WHICH SAYS THAT
A PERSON IS NOT A PARTICIPANT
UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH IF THEIR
FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE
DECISION RESULTS FROM AN
INCREASE OR DECREASE IN
MEMBERSHIP DUES. SO AS A LOCAL
ELECTED OFFICIAL, UNDERSTANDING
WHETHER SOMEBODY IS DONATING AND
THEY PAY MEMBERSHIP DUES OR NOT,
YOU KNOW WHAT THAT WHAT THAT
SPECIFICALLY IS MEANT TO ADDRESS
IS LABOR CONCERNS. AND SO THE
FACT THAT THAT A LOCAL ELECTED
MIGHT BE RECEIVING A
CONTRIBUTION FROM LIKE SOMETHING
CALLED CANNABIS COOPERATIVE,
WOULD THEY KNOW IF THAT THEY
PAID MEMBERSHIP DUES, WOULD THEY
KNOW IF THEY WENT UP OR NOT? YOU
KNOW THAT TO ME, PAYING
MEMBERSHIP DUES IS NOT SOMETHING
THAT ALLOWS FOR CLARITY FOR THE
PERSON WHO'S ACCEPTING. MAYBE IT
DOES. FOR THOSE WHO ARE DONATING
. AND THEN I'LL DIRECT US TO THE
VERY LAST SENTENCE IN HERE,
WHICH SAYS THIS SECTION DOES NOT
APPLY TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS. SO THAT'S THE VERY
LAST ONE ON THE VERY LAST PAGE.
SO TO ME THOSE ARE THE TWO AREAS
THAT ARE THE MOST PROBLEMATIC.
AND CARVING OUT SPECIFIC SPECIAL
INTERESTS AND EXEMPTING THEM
FROM THIS, THIS IS A ESSENTIALLY
A PAY TO PLAY, AN ANTI PAY TO
PLAY BILL. AND IT'S EXEMPTING
FROM ETHICS RULES THESE TWO
INDUSTRIES. SO MY PROPOSAL WHICH
THE CHAIR IS REJECTED WAS TO
ELIMINATE THOSE TWO CARVE OUTS.
THERE WERE ALSO SEVERAL PARTS OF
THIS THAT I THINK I WAS WILLING
TO ACCEPT AND DID ACCEPT, WHICH
WAS RAISING IT TO $1,000 FROM
$250. AND THAT WAS IN PART
BECAUSE OF THE ANALYSIS THAT I
WAS SHOWN, THAT WHEN THE $250
WAS SET, IF YOU, CONSIDER
INFLATION AND HOW THINGS HAVE
CHANGED OVER TIME, IT'S CLOSE TO
$1,000. NOW IT'S 800 AND
SOMETHING. SO THE VALUE OF THAT
250. SO I THINK THAT THAT DOES
MAKE SENSE TO RAISE IT. AND THEN
WE WERE ALSO CLARIFYING THIS
QUESTION OF AGGREGATE THÀNH. SO
WHO IS AN AGENT WHEN THEY GIVE
YOU CAN SEE THAT MY PROPOSALS
SPECIFY TAKING FROM THE FPPC WHO
IS AN AGENT AND WHO ISN'T SO TO
THE POINT THAT WAS MADE FROM THE
SUPPORTERS, FROM, THE BIA
SUPPORTERS ABOUT HYDROLOGISTS,
ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, PEOPLE
WHO ARE WORKING ON PROJECTS
WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE
AGENTS. CGRTS AND SO CLARIFYING
THAT ISSUE OF AGGREGATE THÀNH I
THINK ALSO HELPED IMPROVE THE
BILL AND THEN I WAS WILLING TO
ACCEPT THE DESIRE TO GO TO NINE
MONTHS FROM A YEAR, ALTHOUGH I
DO ACTUALLY THINK A YEAR IS
EASIER TO WORK WITH AS A LOCAL
ELECTED OFFICIAL AND A DONOR TO
RECOGNIZE THE DATE ON THE
CALENDAR AND SAY A YEAR BEFORE
OR AFTER A DECISION IS MADE. AND
ALSO TO VERY MUCH CLARIFY WHEN
IS A DECISION MADE SO AND WHEN
IT'S ON THE AGENDA, THEN IT'S
CLEAR TO THE PERSON IN ELECTED
OFFICE THAT THAT IS A
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OR OTHER
PROJECT THAT'S COMING BEFORE
THEM. AND FOR THE, FOR THE
PERSON WHO IS PUTTING FORWARD A
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, THAT THAT
WOULD BE WHEN THEY SUBMIT IT TO
THE CITY OR THE AGENCY, BECAUSE
THAT'S SUBMITTAL IS SOMETHING
THAT THEY WOULD KNOW, BUT MAYBE
THE ELECTED OFFICIAL WOULDN'T.
SO THEY DO HAVE TWO DIFFERENT
TIMELINES, BUT THEY'RE CLEARLY
STATED AS A AS A POINT IN TIME
SO THAT IT COULD BE CLEARLY
TRACKED AND UNDERSTOOD, I THINK
MY HOPE WITH THIS BILL WAS TO
AVOID THE GOTCHA SITUATIONS FOR
EITHER SIDE TO MAKE, BECAUSE
WHEN THE RULES ARE REALLY CLEAR,
THEN PEOPLE DON'T GET CAUGHT UP
IN, INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND IT
AND MISTAKENLY STUMBLING INTO
IT. AND ALSO THE REALITY THAT AS
COMPLEXITY GROWS LOCAL ELECTEDS
NEED TO HIRE LAWYERS AND THEY
NEED TO HIRE PEOPLE TO HELP THEM
JUST COMPLY WITH THE FPPC
GUIDELINES. AND THAT DOESN'T
SEEM RIGHT. I MEAN, MOST LOCAL
ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE NOT PAID
VERY MUCH. AND, WE REALLY
SHOULD, YOU KNOW, BE SETTING UP
THE SYSTEM SO THAT SO THAT
PEOPLE CAN FOLLOW THE RULES. I
WANTED TO ALSO JUST POINT OUT
THAT I'VE DISTRIBUTED THIS FPPC
GUIDANCE, AND THERE'S A LITTLE
BLUE TAB THAT POINTS YOU TO THE
RIGHT PAGE AND THE RIGHT SECTION
ABOUT WHEN IS A UNION
REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDERED A
PARTICIPANT POINT. SO THE FPPC
GAVE THIS GUIDANCE NOT VERY LONG
AGO. SO THIS WAS OCTOBER OF
2023. AND THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY
SAYING THAT THAT, THAT, A UNION
REPRESENTATIVE IS NOT A
PARTICIPANT. SO WOULD NOT BE
SUBJECT TO THIS UNLESS THE
PROJECT IS AT THIS REALLY HIGH
VALUE. SO IT SAYS IN THIS
SECTION CHANGE AND RECEIPTS. YOU
CAN YOU CAN SEE THAT SENTENCE
THAT SAYS IF THE DECISION MAY
RESULT IN AN INCREASE OR
DECREASE OF THE ORGANIZATION'S
ANNUAL GROSS RECEIPTS IN AN
AMOUNT EQUAL TO $1 MILLION OR 5%
OF THE ORGANIZATION'S ANNUAL
GROSS RECEIPTS. SO MOST PROJECTS
ARE NOT FALLING INTO SOMETHING
THAT'S AFFECTING SOMETHING THAT
HIGH. AND SO FROM MY READING OF
THIS WHOLE THING, IT'S NOT
REALLY NECESSARY TO HAVE A BILL
THAT THAT PUTS IN HERE. THIS
SENTENCE ABOUT MEMBERSHIP DUES,
THAT IS TRYING TO EXCLUDE LABOR
BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY
ESSENTIALLY EXCLUDED, EXCEPT FOR
WHEN IT IS OVER $1 MILLION OR 5,
OF THE ORGANIZATION'S ANNUAL
GROSS RECEIPTS. SO I THINK THE
REASON THAT THEY WANTED TO BE
INCLUDED WAS THEY DIDN'T WANT
THAT CAP TO APPLY. BUT TO ME, IF
SOMETHING IS AFFECTING THAT MUCH
MONEY, IT DOES SEEM TO ME AS IF
THIS, THIS LIMIT OF $1,000
SHOULD APPLY. AND SO I JUST, I
WANTED TO POINT THIS OUT BECAUSE
IT'S NOT AS IF, UNIONS ARE BEING
HAMSTRUNG BY NOT BEING ABLE TO
PARTICIPATE OR NOT BEING ABLE TO
DONATE BECAUSE OF THE FPPC
GUIDANCE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN
FRONT OF US. SO I, I AM
RECOMMENDING A NO VOTE ON THIS,
BECAUSE I, I DO FEEL IT'S A
DISSERVICE TO BE CARVING OUT
THESE TWO INDUSTRIES AND ALSO TO
BE NOT CREATING CLARITY FOR
EITHER SIDE IN HOW TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE POLITICAL
PROCESS. I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT
THERE'S A BILL ON THE ASSEMBLY
SIDE THAT RAISES THE KEEPS
GLAZER'S BILL INTACT 100, BUT
RAISES THE LIMIT TO $1,500. SO
THAT BILL DID MAKE IT THROUGH
COMMITTEE AND IS MOVING FORWARD.
SO THIS ISN'T THE LAST TIME THAT
WE WILL SEE THIS, AND, WITH
THAT, I'LL MOVE FORWARD AND CALL
ON MY COLLEAGUES WHO MIGHT WANT
TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, I'M NOT
NECESSARILY RECOMMENDING A NO
VOTE, BUT A NO OR A DECLINE TO
VOTE FOR IT. VOTE SO DOES
ANYBODY ON THE COMMITTEE WISH
TO. YES, I DO, THANK YOU. OKAY
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. SO,
SENATOR DODD, I GUESS, YOU KNOW,
AS CONTEXT, YOU KNOW, I THINK
SOMEBODY POINTED OUT THIS BILL
WAS WAS SUPPORTED UNANIMOUSLY,
LAST YEAR, AND CLEARLY BY THE
NUMBER OF SUPPORT WITNESSES
TODAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A
BILL WHOSE KIND OF ULTIMATE
IMPLICATIONS WEREN'T CLEAR AT
THE TIME. I THINK THAT MUCH IS
CLEAR, AND SO IF YOU WOULDN'T
MIND, FIRST, SPEAKING TO THE
CHAIR'S POINT ABOUT RAISING THE
LIMIT, AND I KNOW MR. LANG,
SAID, YOU KNOW, A FOUR FOLD
INCREASE TO THE 250 IS EXTREME,
BUT, YOU KNOW, THE 250 WAS A NEW
LIMIT, RIGHT? SO MAYBE THAT
LIMIT WAS NEVER REASONABLE. AND
THEN MORE SPECIFICALLY, YOU
KNOW, ABOUT THIS QUESTION ABOUT
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE AFFECTED,
AND YOU MAY NOT KNOW THE ANSWER,
BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW THE ANSWER
IS A TYPICAL PLA. YOU KNOW, THAT
MIGHT BE PART OF A DISCUSSION AT
A COUNCIL, ESPECIALLY IN A
REASONABLY REASONABLY SIZED
CITY. WILL THAT RESULT IN AN
INCREASE OF $1 MILLION OR MORE
OF MEMBERSHIP DUES AND MAYBE
SOMEBODY FROM LABOR CAN ANSWER
THAT QUESTION RIGHT. MR.
MONAHAN? YES, SIR. THE QUESTION
WAS, THE QUESTION WAS, YOU KNOW,
TO THE TO THE CHAIR'S POINT
ABOUT THE EXISTING FPPC LANGUAGE
AROUND, YOU KNOW, THE IMPACT ON
A MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION IF,
IF, YOU KNOW, IF, IF A UNION,
ONE OF, YOU KNOW, YOUR TRADES
UNIONS WERE PARTY TO A PLA, AS
PART OF A PROCEEDING AT A CITY
COUNCIL, WOULD THAT WOULD THAT
WOULD IT BE OUTSIDE OF THE NORM
FOR A PLA OF THAT, THAT NATURE
TO INCREASE THE MEMBERSHIP DUES
TO THE ORGANIZATION BY OVER $1
MILLION? MY FIRST SENSE IS
LIKELY NOT, BUT I DON'T KNOW
THAT FROM EXPERIENCE. SO LIKELY
I DON'T WANT TO CONFUSE YOU.
LIKELY OUT OF THE NORM, OR
LIKELY WOULD LIKELY NOT CAUSE
THAT NOT. BUT AGAIN, IT DEPENDS
ON THE SCALE AND THE SIZE OF THE
PLA AND THE NUMBER OF UNIONS
THAT ARE INVOLVED. OKAY,
APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I THINK
THAT'S IMPORTANT. BUT TO SENATOR
DODD, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WHAT
WE'RE DOING HERE IS WE'RE
REVISITING LEGISLATION THAT
CLEARLY WASN'T FULLY CONSIDERED,
ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO ITS
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. SO IF
YOU WOULDN'T MIND, YOU KNOW,
KIND OF MAKING CLEAR WHY WE'RE
DOING THIS OR WHY WERE WE, AS A
COMMITTEE, ARE CONSIDERING THIS
TODAY? IT'S ALMOST IRONIC THAT
THE AUTHOR OF THE ORIGINAL BILL,
SENATOR GLAZER, WHO'S A GOOD
FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE OF MINE,
ALWAYS TALKS ABOUT LEGISLATIVE
OVERSIGHT AND HOW IMPORTANT
LEGISLATIVE LEGISLATIVE
OVERSIGHT IS AND HOW OFTEN THE
LEGISLATURE ABDICATES THEIR ROLE
IN LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT. SO,
THE GROUPS, THE SPONSORS OF
THIS, OF THIS SPECIFIC BILL HAVE
BEEN IN SENATOR GLAZER'S OFFICE
NUMEROUS TIMES TRYING TO GET
CHANGES MADE TO THIS LAW. AND
WE'RE TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY
UNSUCCESSFUL IN DOING SO, FOR
WHATEVER REASONS, AND PRIOR TO
ME DOING THIS, I DID HAVE A
CONVERSATION JUST OUT OF
COURTESY TO SENATOR GLAZER THAT
THAT I WAS GOING TO BE RUNNING
THIS BILL BECAUSE I FELT THAT
THESE ORGANIZATIONS,
PARTICULARLY CITIES AND COUNTIES
, I'M A FORMER ELECTED, YOU
KNOW, OFFICIAL, THE CHAMBERS,
YOU KNOW, AND, AND, LABOR, OF
COURSE, HAD ALL THESE CONCERNS.
AND SO, I THINK THIS IS THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT, IS A LEGISLATIVE
OVERSIGHT THAT WE'VE SEEN THE
PROBLEMS, HOW DIFFICULT IT HAS
BEEN ON THE GROUND TO, FOLLOW
THE RULES AND REGULATIONS,
UNDERSTAND THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS, HOW MUCH TIME IT
WAS TAKING AT CITIES AND
COUNTIES TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW,
FIGURE THIS OUT WHEN YOU'VE GOT,
AN ORGANIZATION LIKE THE
BUILDING INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION
WHO HAS LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF
MEMBERS AND, YOU KNOW, PROJECTS
ARE REGION WIDE, IT'S VERY, VERY
DIFFICULT. SO THIS IS
LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT, TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, A BEST WAY
FORWARD. I DID MAKE A MISTAKE
WHEN THE CHAIR ASKED ME IF I'M
WILLING TO ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENTS. I SAID, NO RIGHT
AWAY. I IN THE TIME WE HAD
ALLOTTED, I COULD NOT GET ALL
THE SPONSORS OF THE PEOPLE THAT
WANT THIS BILL TOGETHER ENOUGH
TO REALLY FIGURE IT OUT. SOME
SAID IT MAKES THIS BILL A LITTLE
MORE DIFFICULT. SOME SAID, WELL,
I'M WILLING TO I'M WILLING TO ON
ON THE MEMBERSHIP THING OR THE,
THE HOUSING THING, TAKE THAT
OUT. SO THERE ARE NUMEROUS I
THINK, AREAS OF AGREEMENT THAT
WE HAVE. BUT IN THE TIME
ALLOTMENT THAT WE HAD, IT WAS
JUST SOMETHING THAT WE WEREN'T
ABLE TO DO. SO I THINK AND I'VE
SAID IN MY COMMENTS, I'M WILLING
TO WORK WITH THE CHAIR. I'M
WILLING TO WORK WITH COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, AND NOT BRING THIS UP
ON THE FLOOR UNTIL WE HAVE A
CONSENSUS. REMEMBER, THIS IS
GOING TO TAKE TWO THIRDS VOTE OF
ALL OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE
SENATE. SO, WORK NEEDS TO BE
DONE. I RECOGNIZE THAT I'VE BEEN
HERE FOR TEN YEARS, AND I'VE
LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF YOU
STRAIGHT IN THE EYES AND SAID,
YOU CAN TRUST ME. I WILL WORK ON
THIS. I'M NOT GOING TO BRING YOU
SOMETHING BACK THAT'S GOING TO
BE UNCOMFORTABLE FOR OUR
MEMBERS. SO WITH RESPECT TO
THOSE TWO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS,
ONE IS, ARGUABLY MAYBE
NECESSARY, MAYBE NOT. RIGHT.
IT'S A QUESTION OF HOW THE
LANGUAGE READS. RIGHT. THE FIRST
ONE, BUT TO THE SECOND ONE, I
GUESS IT'S WORTH ASKING A
QUESTION LIKE, WHY EXEMPT
HOUSING AS DISTINCT FROM
SOMETHING ELSE? SPECIFICALLY I
THINK THAT THE, ADDRESSING
HOUSING, GOES TO MY FIRST POINT
ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING IN THE
HOUSING SPACE AND THE TERMS OF
THE NUMBER OF PERMITS WE'VE BEEN
ISSUED OVER TIME. WE DON'T
BELIEVE THAT PAY TO PLAY IS IN
EFFECT WHEN IT COMES TO
APPROVING HOUSING. IF IT WERE I
MEAN, I'LL PUT IT VERY CRASSLY,
WE WOULD BUY OUR PERMITS, WE'D
HAVE MORE HOUSING. AND THAT
SIMPLY ISN'T IN THE NUMBERS. AND
I THINK WHEN IT TALKS, WHEN YOU
LOOK AT APPEARANCES AND
APPEARANCES OF IMPROPRIETY, YOU
HAVE TO LOOK AT THE FULL
PICTURE. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL
THE DATA. HAVING SAID ALL THAT,
AS THE AUTHOR MENTIONED, WE
DON'T INSIST ON AN EXEMPTION FOR
HOUSING, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE
THAT POINT SIMPLY BECAUSE I
THINK THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO COME
TO THIS ISSUE ASSUMING THAT
WHENEVER THERE'S CONTRIBUTIONS
IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS, THAT
IT'S ALWAYS A PAY TO PLAY
SITUATION. AND I THINK IT'S BEEN
OUR EXPERIENCE AND I DARE SAY
IT'S EVERYONE'S EXPERIENCE THAT
JUST BECAUSE YOU MAKE A
CONTRIBUTION DOESN'T MEAN YOU
GET WHAT YOU ASK FOR. THAT'S MY
POINT. AND I WILL SAY, I DO
APPRECIATE THAT. AND THAT'S WHAT
TRANSPARENCY IS SUPPOSED TO BE
ABOUT. SO IF I IF WE COULD HEAR
FROM COMMON CAUSE, IN RESPONSE
TO THAT ASSERTION. THANK YOU FOR
THE QUESTION. SO THERE ARE A LOT
OF THINGS FOLKS HAVE SAID ABOUT,
KIND OF PAY TO PLAY AND THE
LEVINE ACT AND THE LEVINE ACT
WAS NOT NECESSARILY EVER TAKING
A PARTICULAR SIDE ON REGULATING
A CERTAIN INDUSTRY. AND IT'S
BEEN OUR POSITION THAT WE DON'T
WANT TO SEE ANY SPECIFIC CARVE
OUTS. FOR ONE INDUSTRY IN
PARTICULAR, WE HAVE ISSUES WITH
THAT, AND WE THINK THAT WOULD
PROBABLY CAUSE ISSUES WITH NOT
FURTHERING THE PURPOSES OF THE
POLITICAL REFORM ACT BASED ON
SOME RESEARCH THAT OUR
ORGANIZATION HAD DONE, BUT, YOU
KNOW, WE ARE OPEN TO A
CONVERSATION ON, YOU KNOW, WE
LIKE THE CHAIRS, PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS AND, IF THEY'RE NOT
THOSE AMENDMENTS, THEN WE
WOULDN'T BE PREPARED TO KIND OF
NEGOTIATE ON THE FLOOR HERE. ALL
RIGHT. SO THEN TO SENATOR DODD'S
POINT, YOU'RE OPEN TO FINDING
COMMON GROUND ON THIS
COMPLETELY. ALL RIGHT. I MEAN,
YOU KNOW, APPRECIATE THAT. AND
YOU CERTAINLY HAVE A TRACK
RECORD IN THAT RESPECT. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AND BEFORE I
GO TO YOU, SENATOR ALLEN, I JUST
I WANTED TO TURN IT BACK TO
EITHER OF YOU. THE REASON THAT
GLAZER'S BILL WAS INTRODUCED AND
YOU SUPPORTED IT IN THE FIRST
PLACE WAS A SERIES OF
PARTICIPANT FINANCIAL
PARTICIPATION IN THINGS THAT
ENDED UP LOOKING LIKE CORRUPTION
OR, OR, AND SO AND THEY WERE IN
THE HOUSING SPACE AND THE
CANNABIS SPACE AND A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT THINGS. SO COULD YOU
JUST ADDRESS THAT? SO THERE'S AN
UNDERSTANDING OF WHY WE'RE EVEN
TALKING ABOUT THIS IDEA AT ALL.
YEAH SO IN THE LEGISLATIVE
RECORD FOR SB 1439, WE HAD LAID
OUT A NUMBER OF STORIES FROM
LOCAL INSTANCES OF LOCAL, YOU
KNOW, PERCEPTION OF PAY TO PLAY
AND ACTUAL CORRUPTION, WE SAW
LARGE DONATIONS THAT WERE GIVEN
TO LOCAL POLITICIANS WHO WERE
LATER ISSUED CANNABIS PERMITS,
WE SAW, HOUSING DEVELOPERS, MAKE
SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS AS I
THINK THAT WAS IN ALHAMBRA. I
DON'T HAVE THE LIST RIGHT IN
FRONT OF ME, BUT WE LAID OUT A
PRETTY ROBUST LEGISLATIVE RECORD
, INDICATING THAT WHY SB 1439
WAS NECESSARY. AND WE WERE PROUD
THAT IT ACTUALLY WENT INTO
EFFECT. I THINK THE LOCAL THE
PUBLIC FAITH AND LOCAL DEMOCRACY
UP UNTIL THAT POINT HAD BEEN
STRUGGLING. AND I THOUGHT WE
THOUGHT THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS
WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO
ADDRESS THE PERCEPTION THAT
LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT PUTTING
THE INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC
AHEAD. YEAH. THANK YOU. AND ONE
OTHER THING I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY
IS THAT THERE'S A DISCUSSION
ABOUT WHETHER THIS WOULD LEAD TO
MORE MONEY IN EYES AND LESS
MONEY IN GOING DIRECTLY TO
CANDIDATES. AND I THINK IT'S
WORTH SAYING THAT WHILE THERE
ARE SOPHISTICATED PLAYERS THAT
DONATE LARGE AMOUNTS TO EYES,
AND IN SOME CITIES THAT MIGHT BE
COMMON, LIKE BIG CITIES THAT
HOST THINGS LIKE DISNEYLAND,
THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER CITIES
OF THE 400 CITIES IN THE STATE
WHERE SOME INDIVIDUAL PERSON
WHO'S TRYING TO BUILD THEIR
MANSION OR SOME GROCERY STORE,
THAT'S TIME TRYING TO EXPAND OR
SOME MIXED USE HOUSING DEVELOPER
IS NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THE
PROCESS OF SETTING UP AN EYE AND
PARTICIPATING THAT WAY. IN THE
SAME WAY, THEY'RE ALSO NOT GOING
TO DONATE TO THE COUNTY PARTIES
ONE WAY OR IN ORDER TO GET MONEY
TO THOSE CANDIDATES, BECAUSE
THERE ARE BARRIERS TO ENTRY
ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AND FORMS
THAT NEED TO BE FILED. AND IT
COSTS MORE. AND THERE JUST
THERE'S A REALITY TO IT. SO FROM
MY EXPERIENCE OF THE CITIES THAT
I WAS IN AND SAW AROUND ME, MOST
OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE COMING
DIRECTLY TO THE CANDIDATE. SO
HAVING HAVING A CAP ON THAT AND
SAYING AFTER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF
THAT, THEN THAT PERSON HAS TO
RECUSE THEMSELVES. YOU KNOW,
THEY'RE STILL ABLE TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE REST OF BEING
A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. BUT TO
ME, THAT SEEMS IT'S IMPORTANT TO
RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S NOT LIKE
MONEY JUST EASILY MOVES FROM ONE
THING OVER TO THE I, BECAUSE THE
REALITY OF WHAT EYES MEAN IS
JUST IT IS JUST MORE
COMPLICATED. SO I JUST WANT TO
PUT THAT OUT THERE, BECAUSE I
KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF
DIFFERENT OPINIONS ABOUT THAT,
AND IT DIRECTLY ADDRESSES A
POINT THAT THE CHAIR THAT THE
AUTHOR MADE AT THE BEGINNING, GO
AHEAD. SENATOR ALLEN, COULD I
RESPOND? YES. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. I DON'T
DISAGREE WITH, THE OPPONENTS TO
THE BILL AND THE MERITS OF WHAT
IT WAS, WHAT THE BILL WAS TRYING
TO DO. AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH
WITH SOME OF YOUR ASSERTIONS
THAT SMALLER COMMUNITIES, DON'T
HAVE THIS TYPE OF
SOPHISTICATION, BUT OUT OF 400
CITIES, I WOULD SUGGEST THERE'S
MORE THAN, THAN THAN WE ALL KNOW
. THAT'S. THAT SAID, I BELIEVE
THIS BILL, THE WAY IT IS NOW.
PLUS, WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS,
WORKING WITH THE CHAIR THAT
WE'VE HEARD AND WORKING WITH THE
OPPOSITION, THAT WE WILL HAVE A
BILL THAT WILL ADDRESS THE
ISSUES OF THE CORRUPTION BECAUSE
NOBODY SITTING IN THIS ROOM
WANTS ANY CORRUPTION AT ANY
LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT, WHETHER
IT'S LOCAL GOVERNMENT, STATE
GOVERNMENT OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE'LL GO TO
SENATOR ALLEN AND THEN OVER TO
SENATOR ELLENBERG. GO AHEAD, I
REALLY APPRECIATE WELL, FIRST OF
ALL, LET ME SAY I UNDERSTAND
THE, THE MOTIVATION BEHIND THIS
BILL. AND I DO THINK IT NEEDS
SOME I THINK THE GLAZIER BILL
NEEDS SOME REFORM. AND I
APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT
WANTING TO WORK WITH THE WITH
THE CHAIR. AND I GUESS I SO THEN
THAT BEGS THE QUESTION FOR ME
IS, WELL, WHY DON'T YOU ACCEPT
THE AMENDMENTS AND THEN YOU CAN
CONTINUE TO WORK TOGETHER? I
MEAN, YOU'RE YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN
A MEMBER OF YOUR COMMITTEE IN
THE PAST. YOU'RE A GREAT CHAIR,
A STRONG CHAIR. I'VE BACKED YOU
UP MANY TIMES, OFTENTIMES
AGAINST SOME TOUGH FOLKS, YOU
KNOW, TO, TO GIVE YOU SOME
STRENGTH IN NEGOTIATIONS. YOU
CAN STILL WORK OUT A DEAL,
THAT'S MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE HERE,
BUT I THINK YOU, AS A CHAIR
YOURSELF, YOU CAN APPRECIATE WHY
THE CHAIR WOULD WANT TO BE ABLE
TO AT LEAST HAVE THE LEVERAGE OF
ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS, AND
THEN YOU CAN DO SOME CONTINUAL
NEGOTIATION GOING FORWARD. WELL,
I I'VE ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT
I'VE TOLD IN MY TESTIMONY THAT,
WE JUST WEREN'T ABLE. RIGHT. BUT
THAT'S WHY YOU ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENTS AND THEN YOU CAN
CONTINUE TO NEGOTIATE. WELL,
WITH ALL WITH ALL DUE RESPECT,
IT CUTS BOTH WAYS. TOTALLY IT
CUTS BOTH WAYS. AND SO, YOU
KNOW, JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST THE
SAME WAY AS THE $1 MILLION
THRESHOLD ON THE DUES, WHICH IS
NOT ONLY, YOU KNOW, FOR LABOR,
IT'S ALSO FOR CBA, IT'S ALSO FOR
CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE. AND IT
CUTS BOTH WAYS. IF $1 MILLION IS
NO BIG DEAL, THEN IT'S NO BIG
DEAL TO CUT THEM OUT EITHER. SO,
I GUESS, MY EXPERIENCE HERE IN
TEN YEARS IN THE LEGISLATURE
SUGGESTS, AND CONVERSATIONS THAT
I'VE HAD SUGGEST THAT WHAT WHAT
I'M DOING HERE IS THE BEST
COURSE FORWARD TO MAKE MUCH
NEEDED ADJUSTMENTS TO A BILL AND
DO APPROPRIATE LEGISLATIVE
OVERSIGHT. AND WHAT I'VE HEARD
HERE TODAY IS, OKAY, DODD, ALL
YOUR IDEAS AREN'T THE BEST IDEAS
HERE OR ALL YOUR, PEOPLE THAT
ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. YOU'VE
GOT MORE WORK TO DO. AND SO I
THINK JUST, YOU KNOW, BASED ON,
THE TIME THAT I'VE BEEN HERE AND
MY DECORUM DURING THAT TIME, YOU
CAN REST ASSURED THAT WE'RE NOT
GOING TO BRING THIS BILL UP ON
THE FLOOR UNTIL WE HAVE HAD THAT
APPROPRIATE, CONVERSATION. THANK
YOU. SENATOR UMBERG, THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. JUST A COUPLE
COMMENTS. ONE IS I THINK YOU ARE
RIGHT. YOU KNOW, MY FRAME OF
REFERENCE WITH THE CITY AS I
REPRESENT ANAHEIM AND SANTA ANA,
IS THAT I DO PARTICIPATE QUITE
VIGOROUSLY IN LOCAL ELECTIONS,
NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO IS THAT I
APPRECIATE THE THOUGHT AND
EFFORT YOU'VE PUT INTO THE
AMENDMENTS AND WORKING ON THIS
BILL. AND, OF COURSE, MEMBERS
ARE IN AN UNCOMFORTABLE
POSITION. SURE BECAUSE TYPICALLY
I WANT TO SUPPORT NOT JUST THE
CHAIR, BUT THIS PARTICULAR CHAIR
, AND THE FACT THAT SHE HAS PUT
IN SO MUCH WORK, SO MUCH EFFORT,
SO MUCH THOUGHT, DESERVES
RECOGNITION, I ALSO HEARD YOU
SAY THAT BEFORE THIS BILL COMES
TO THE FLOOR FOR 27 VOTE,
REQUISITE VOTE THAT YOU WILL PUT
IN THE WORK TO MAKE SURE THAT
THAT THESE ISSUES ARE AS CLOSE
TO BEING RESOLVED AS IS
POSSIBLE. SO THAT'S A TOUGH
DECISION FOR US. AND SO ON
BALANCE. ON BALANCE, I AM GOING
TO SUPPORT THE BILL WITH THE
ASSURANCE THAT THIS IS GOING TO
BE A WORK IN PROGRESS. IT AGAIN,
MEANS THAT WHEN IT COMES TO THE
FLOOR, THAT IT DOESN'T
NECESSARILY MEAN I'LL SUPPORT
THE BILL. IT JUST MEANS THAT I'M
SUPPORTING THE BILL'S, MOVING
FORWARD. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU.
SENATOR PORTANTINO. I'M GLAD I
BROUGHT MY ROOMMATE, WHO'S ALSO
MY ATTORNEY, TODAY, THAT'S WHY I
LET YOU LIVE WITH ME. I NEVER
KNEW. I NEVER KNEW THERE WAS A
REASON, BUT I THINK YOU HIT THE
NAIL ON THE HEAD. THIS IS A
TOUGH SITUATION. OBVIOUSLY, WE
WANT TO SUPPORT THE CHAIR, BUT
WE ALSO WANT TO KEEP AN
IMPORTANT BILL MOVING. AND
TYPICALLY, IF AN AUTHOR SAYS,
I'M NOT GOING TO MOVE THE BILL
FORWARD UNTIL WE WORK OUT ALL
THE KINKS, THAT'S USUALLY A
GOOD, GOOD SIGN OF COLLABORATION
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SYSTEM IS
RESPECTED, AND THE BILL DOESN'T
COME UP WITHOUT HAVING THE CHAIR
WORK OUT WITH WITH THE AUTHOR.
THOSE THOSE COMMENTS. I'D ALSO
LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING THAT, YOU
KNOW, EVERY POLITICIAN HAS THEIR
OWN COMPASS, AND I THINK, YOU
KNOW, WE CAN PASS MANY, MANY
LAWS, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO YOU
KNOW, WHEN WE ELECT
REPRESENTATIVES ON THE LOCAL
LEVEL AND STATE LEVEL, WE CHOOSE
WISELY, AND I HARKEN BACK TO
WHEN I RAN FOR THE CITY COUNCIL,
WE HAD NO CAMPAIGN LIMITS AT THE
TIME. AND SOMEBODY WROTE A VERY
LARGE CHECK TO MY CAMPAIGN, AND
LO AND BEHOLD, THEY HAD AN ITEM
THAT WAS GOING TO COME BEFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL. ONCE I GOT
ELECTED. AND SO EVEN THOUGH I
DIDN'T HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF, I
DID, BECAUSE IT JUST DIDN'T FEEL
RIGHT. YOU KNOW, WHEN I RAN FOR
THE ASSEMBLY VÆ AGAIN, SOMEBODY
HAD BUSINESS BEFORE THE CITY
COUNCIL AND THEY WROTE CHECKS TO
MY ASSEMBLY CAMPAIGN. I GAVE
THEM BACK. DIDN'T HAVE TO, YOU
KNOW. SO I THINK THAT'S, YOU
KNOW, PART OF WHAT'S HERE IS
THERE ARE THOSE OF US WHO KNOW
WHAT LIMITS TO SET ON OUR OWN
SELVES AND THOSE THAT,
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE LAW SAY,
ARE GOING TO FIND WAYS AROUND
THEM. AND, YOU KNOW, I, I HATE
WHEN I SAY IT TO MY KIDS. I
SOUND LIKE A DAD, AND I
APOLOGIZE, GUYS, YOU KNOW, WE
SHOULD CHOOSE WISELY, WHEN WE
ELECT PEOPLE TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE ELECTING PEOPLE WITH THOSE
MORAL COMPASSES, REGARDLESS OF
WHAT THE LAW SAYS. SO TO ME,
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT
NEEDS RESOLUTION, THAT NEEDS US,
MORE WORK, AS MY ATTORNEY AND
ROOMMATE SAID, THIS IS NOT A
COMMITMENT TO VOTE FOR THIS BILL
ON THE FLOOR. BUT I DO THINK
THIS CONVERSATION NEEDS TO
CONTINUE. AND I DO THINK THE
CHAIR NEEDS TO BE PARTY TO THAT
CONVERSATION. AND WITH THE
ASSURANCE FROM THE AUTHOR THAT
THE CHAIR WILL CONTINUE TO BE
PROMINENT IN THAT CONVERSATION,
I COULD SUPPORT IT TODAY JUST TO
KEEP IT MOVING. OKAY. THANK YOU.
YES SENATOR MENJIVAR, I JUST
WANTED TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION
ON MY QUESTIONS DIRECTED TO THE
SUPPORT HERE. YOU MENTIONED YOU
GAVE AN EXAMPLE ONE OF YOUR
EARLY COMMENTS REGARDING RIGHT
NOW, YOU SEE HIGH CONTRIBUTIONS,
LOW PERMITS BEING ALLOCATED, SO
WHAT DO YOU THEN? WHAT'S THE
PURPOSE OF EXCLUDING THIS ONE
STAKEHOLDER IF YOU ALREADY DON'T
SEE AN INCREASE OF PERMITS WHEN
EVERYTHING STAY THE SAME, WE
DON'T INSIST ON ON BEING CARVED
OUT OF EXISTING LAW. I KNOW
THAT'S IN THE BILL, AND I KNOW
THAT THE CHAIR HAS IT IN HER
AMENDMENTS, AND I CAN ONLY SPEAK
FOR US. AND I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR
THE AUTHOR OR ANYTHING. THERE'S
A LOT OF STAKEHOLDERS AND NOT
EVERYONE AGREES WITH US. RIGHT.
AND SO THE POINT THERE WAS
SIMPLY TO SAY THAT YOU, THE
LEGISLATURE, HAS DIRECTED LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FOR QUITE A FEW
YEARS NOW TO ADOPT HOUSING
ELEMENTS THAT COMPLY WITH STATE
LAW. THIS WAS MEANT TO ONLY
APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT ARE BUILT
ON THOSE SITES, CONSISTENT WITH
LOCAL HOUSING ELEMENT, THAT HAVE
BEEN ADOPTED BY THOSE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS. PURSUANT TO THE
DIRECTION OF THIS BODY AND THE
POINT HERE IS YOU PLAN FOR IT,
YOU PLAN FOR IT. THERE ARE AN
EIGHT YEAR CYCLE. YOU'VE DONE A
LOT OF WORK ON IT. NOW IF WE
COME FORWARD WITH A PROJECT THAT
IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT, SHOULD
THESE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS APPLY,
SHOULDN'T THEY BE APPROVING
THEM? PERIOD THAT WAS THAT WAS
THE RATIONALE BEHIND IT. IF YOU
JUST WANT TO IF YOU WANT THE
BACKSTORY FOR THAT, OKAY,
SENATOR, SENATOR DODD AND I'VE
BEAT THE HORSE AGAIN ON THIS
TOPIC, BUT I'M WONDERING IN GOOD
FAITH, DID NØ AMENDMENTS WERE
TAKEN? NOT NOT EVEN ONE. JUST
LIKE IN GOOD FAITH, AS WE'RE
MOVING FORWARD, I ALWAYS LIKE TO
SEE AND I'VE, I'VE, I HAVE A
RECORD OF NOT SUPPORTING BILLS,
WHEN AS IN PRINT, WITHOUT
WITHOUT A DIRECT COMMITMENT. AND
I'D LIKE TO KEEP TO MY, SAME
TREND AND NOT PROVIDE A CARVE
OUT FOR ONE INDIVIDUAL AND JUST
KEEP IT THE SAME AS I'VE BEEN
VOTING. I THINK THE CHAIR DID A
WAS VERY ELOQUENT IN HER OPENING
REMARKS WITH HER VIEWPOINTS ON
THIS. SENATOR, YOU AND I SPOKE
OVER THE WEEKEND. I'D LIKE TO AT
LEAST HEAR ONE, AT LEAST ONE
COMMITMENT TO A DIRECT,
AMENDMENT IN GOOD FAITH. I THINK
THAT'S THAT'S A FAIR COMMENT. AS
I SAID EARLIER, I KNEW THAT
THERE WERE, PARTS OF WHAT THE
CHAIR WAS TALKING TO US ABOUT
THAT DID MAKE SOME SENSE. THAT
CARVE OUT RIGHT NOW WILL BE IF
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE
COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO SEE,
WE'LL ACCEPT THAT AS AMENDMENT.
MOVING, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW,
MOVING FORWARD WITH OUR
COMMITMENT. AND I WOULD SAY FOR
CBA THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY
WERE ON THE PHONE, AND I THINK
PROBABLY DIDN'T EXACTLY WANT TO
DO THAT, BUT IT WAS THEIR
EXAMPLE OF TRYING TO HELP THIS
BILL FORWARD. SO AND I DO
APPRECIATE, THEIR WILLINGNESS
TO, BE HELPFUL ON THAT SCORE. SO
THANK YOU. I KNOW WE CAN
NEGOTIATE SOME KIND OF THREAD,
THE LINE, ON HERE OF WHAT WE CAN
DO. YEAH. I MEAN, SO I
APPRECIATE THAT. I SO I THINK
THERE ARE TWO POINTS HERE FOR
ME. ONE IS PROCESS AND ONE IS
SUBSTANCE AND SO ON PROCESS.
THERE'S THERE IS LEGITIMATELY NO
REASON THAT THESE AMENDMENTS
SHOULDN'T HAVE ALREADY BEEN
TAKEN. WE HAVE HAD FOUR DAYS
SINCE WE HAD OUR FIRST MEETING
AND, AND I WORKED OVER THE
WEEKEND ON IT. I OFFERED TO WORK
ON THE WEEKEND ON IT. WHEN I
PROPOSED MY ORIGINAL AMENDMENTS,
I, I ACTUALLY WAS KEEPING THE
YEAR. THE YEAR THAT WAS IN
GLAZER'S BILL. I WAS KEEPING,
AND NOT GOING TO NINE MONTHS. I
WAS PUTTING THE NUMBER AT $500,
BUT WHAT IN TRYING TO WORK WITH
THE CHAIR AND HIS SPONSORS? I
WAS WILLING TO MOVE ON THOSE
THINGS. SO WHEN MY AMENDMENTS
CAME OUT, THEY WERE THE THINGS
THAT WERE THE MOST IMPORTANT AND
THAT MADE THIS BILL BETTER. THEY
ELIMINATED THIS UNWORKABLE
STANDARD OF MEMBERSHIP DUES.
THEY ELIMINATED THE CARVE OUT
FOR HOUSING DEVELOPERS. THEY
MADE IT CLEAR HOW AGGREGATION
WORKS AND HOW AGENTS ARE
DEFINED. YOU KNOW, THIS WAS A
COMPROMISE ON MY SIDE WHERE I
WAS MOVING FROM WHAT I INITIALLY
FIRST WANTED. BUT THE AUTHOR AND
HIS WAS NOT MOVING. SO I THINK I
TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD AFTER TEN
YEARS THAT HE SAYS, I'M GOING TO
WORK WITH YOU LATER, BUT I
HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT WE WERE
TOLD, I'VE BEEN TOLD AND HEARD.
THIS IS MY SECOND YEAR IN THE
LEGISLATURE WORK THESE THINGS
OUT IN COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE IS
WHERE THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE
WORKED OUT. DON'T BRING IT TO
THE FLOOR AND THEN EXPECT ALL OF
US TO GET INVOLVED. AND THAT'S
WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO IN GOOD
FAITH WAS WORK THIS OUT IN
COMMITTEE. SO, SO IT SO I TAKE
HIM AT HIS WORD THAT HE IS GOING
TO MAKE THESE CHANGES AND THAT
IT'S GOING TO COME OUT. BUT I'LL
JUST SAY THAT ON THE PROCESS
SIDE, THERE'S NO REASON IT
SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT
BY RIGHT NOW. ON THE SUBSTANCE
SIDE, I WOULD SAY THIS BILL, I
STILL WOULD ARGUE THIS BILL IS
NOT WORTH MOVING FORWARD. IT HAS
TOO MANY PROBLEMS IN IT. THERE
HAS BEEN NO MOVEMENT ON IT. AND
THERE IS A BILL THAT KEEPS
GLAZER'S BILL THE SAME THAT
RAISES IT TO $1,500 AND DOESN'T
HAVE ANY CARVE OUTS. SO THE FPC
CAN CONTINUE TO EVALUATE WHAT IS
AN AGENT, WHAT IS AGGREGATION?
THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IN
STATUTE, BUT IT RAISES THE
THRESHOLD SO THAT WE'RE NOT AT
THE $250. SO MY WHAT I CONTINUE
TO SAY IS THAT I'M NOT GOING TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL TODAY AND THAT
I, I DON'T THINK WE'RE BETTER
OFF MOVING IT FORWARD. I THINK
WE'RE BETTER OFF HAVING WORKED
ON IT IN COMMITTEE AND IT DIDN'T
MAKE IT THROUGH COMMITTEE.
THERE'S ALSO THE RECONSIDERATION
PROCESS THAT HAPPENS IN
COMMITTEE. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S
ALWAYS AN OPPORTUNITY. BUT, BUT
SO ON BOTH PROCESS AND SUBSTANCE
I WOULD RECOMMEND NOT VOTING FOR
THE BILL. SO YES, I THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. SO AS A RULE, I TRY
TO DEFER TO THE CHAIR. BUT BUT
WHAT I WANT TO HEAR SPECIFICALLY
FROM SENATOR DODD IS THAT YOU
ARE COMMITTED TO FINDING COMMON
GROUND PRIOR TO BRINGING THIS TO
THE FLOOR. YES, SIR. ABSOLUTELY.
100. YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT.
AND SO, WE WILL HOLD YOU TO THAT
PROMISE, I THINK. AND IF THAT
DOESN'T HAPPEN, I THINK I WILL
ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT THE CHAIR AND
, YOU KNOW, HER DECISION WHETHER
OR NOT TO MOVE IT FORWARD OR NOT
. SO THANK YOU, SENATOR
MENGIBAR. MADAM CHAIR, CAN YOU
WE WOULD HAVE TIME FOR
RECONSIDERATION. THE SENATOR
COULD COME BACK TO THIS
COMMITTEE AND HAVE TIME TO LET
ME CONSULT VERY BRIEFLY. THEY
TOLD ME NO. WHEN I WAS ON THE
PHONE WITH HIM. THAT WAS THE
PROBLEM.
YEAH. SO YOU HEARD ME SAY THAT
WE HAVE A I MEAN, IT'S NOT GOING
TO BE. DID I MAKE A MISTAKE AND
SAY IT MAY NOT BE 100% WHAT SHE
WANTS? OKAY I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE I'M NOT MISLEADING. RIGHT.
GENERALLY, YEAH. OKAY, SO IF IT
FAILED TODAY, WE COULD GRANT
RECONSIDERATION, AND WE WOULD
NEED A RULE DEADLINE BECAUSE
IT'S GOING TO BE AFTER THE
NON-FISCAL DEADLINE. SO WE
COULD, BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE A
WAIVER, A RULE WAIVER. YEAH.
OKAY. ANY OTHER MEMBERS WANTING
TO MAKE ANY MORE COMMENTS? OKAY.
I'M NOT SEEING ANY. SO OR DID
YOU WANT TO OR. OKAY. SO THE
CHAIR OR THE AUTHOR COULD GO
AHEAD AND CLOSE. YEAH. WITHOUT
BEATING THAT SAME DEAD HORSE
THAT OTHERS HAVE TALKED ABOUT.
AGAIN MEMBERS, THIS IS ABOUT
LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT ON A BILL
THAT HAS NOT WORKED. WE
UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY THAT WE
HAVE WORK TO DO. I APOLOGIZE TO
THE CHAIR THAT IT WORKED OUT
THIS WAY WITH THE TIMING AND
EVERYTHING ELSE. THE REALITY IS,
IS I'VE AGREED TO NEGOTIATE IN
GOOD FAITH AND WILL ENCOURAGE,
MY SPONSORS AND SUPPORTERS TO BE
AT THE TABLE WITH ME WITH THAT
SAME ATTITUDE AND ALSO THE
OPPOSITION. I INVITE THEM TO BE
AT THE TABLE, WITH THAT SAME
ATTITUDE AS WELL. RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. OKAY. LET'S
GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL. OH,
SORRY. WE NEED A MOTION. UMMER
MOVES THE BILL. FILE ITEM TWO,
SB 1243. MOTION IS DUE. PASS
SHAKESPEARE. NO. SHAKESPEARE?
NO. WHEN I WHEN I, ALAN MENGIBAR
NEWMAN. NEWMAN I PORTANTINO
PORTANTINO I UMBERG UMBERG I.
OKAY. IT'S FOR ONE AND IT'S OUT.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS
OKAY. OKAY. THE NEXT BILL IS
SENATOR MENGIBAR SB 1170. WE
INVITE YOU TO PRESENT YOUR BILL.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. MEMBERS. GOOD
MORNING. COLLEAGUES WHEN
CANDIDATES RUN FOR OFFICE, THEY
FACE MANY ISSUES CONCERNING
THEIR SAFETY AND WELL-BEING DUE
TO THREATS AND HOSTILITY
RECEIVED DURING THE CAMPAIGN,
WOMEN, WOMEN OF COLOR, LGBTQ,
PLUS CANDIDATES EXPRESS AN
OVERWHELMINGLY A BARRAGE OF
HOSTILITY DUE TO DOUBLE
STANDARDS, DEMEANING AND
DEMORALIZING CRITICISM,
HARASSMENT, SEXISM, AND ETC.
AMOUNT OF THINGS. THESE
INSTANCES CAN TAKE A TOLL ON A
CANDIDATE'S MENTAL HEALTH THAT
CAN ALL LOOK DIFFERENTLY FOR THE
CANDIDATE, BUT RUN THE GAMUT OF
INCREASED ANXIETY, SLEEP
DISTURBANCE, PANIC ATTACKS, AND
DISSOCIATIVE DISORDERS.
DISSOCIATION. NOPE. CAN'T SAY
THAT WORD. ANOTHER REACTIONS SB
1170 WOULD ALLOW NON-INCUMBENT
CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR POLITICAL
OFFICE TO USE CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR
CAMPAIGN RELATED MENTAL HEALTH
CARE SERVICES. THERE HAVE BEEN
TWO RECENT REPORTS THAT HAVE
COME TO SUPPORT SB 1170. I WANT
TO SPEAK ON THOSE RIGHT NOW. THE
FIRST ONE HAPPENED JUST THIS
YEAR. IN 2024, THE BERMAN CENTER
FOR JUSTICE REPORT DEMONSTRATED
AN INCREASE OF THREATS OF TAX
HARASSMENT FOR INDIVIDUALS BOTH
RUNNING AND CURRENTLY IN OFFICE.
ACCORDING TO THE REPORT, OVER
40% OF STATE LEGISLATORS
EXPERIENCED THREATS OR ATTACKS
WITHIN THE PAST THREE YEARS, AND
MORE THAN 18% OF LOCAL OFFICE
HOLDERS EXPERIENCED THREATS.
THIS IS AN INCREASE OF 89% FOR
STATE LEGISLATORS AND AN
INCREASE OF 52% FOR LOCAL OFFICE
HOLDERS, WITH WHEN LESS SEVERE
FORMS OF ABUSE ARE PORTRAYED
AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL, IT
IMPACTS AND HINDERS THEIR
ABILITY TO TAKE ON MORE. AS WE
WOULD NO CRUNCHY BILLS IN THE
STATE LEGISLATURE BECAUSE THEY
ARE CONCERNED OF THE THREATS AND
THE ATTACKS, HOW THEY COULD
INCREASE WHEN THEY TAKE ON
CERTAIN TOPICS. ANOTHER SURVEY,
JUST LAST YEAR, 2023, WAS
CONDUCTED BY THE CALIFORNIA
WOMEN'S LIST, AND IT FOUND THAT
OVER 100 CALIFORNIANS WHO HAD
RAN FOR OFFICE BETWEEN 2016 AND
2023, OF THOSE, 80% OF THEM
REPORTED RECEIVING ONLINE ABUSE,
50% OF THEM REPORTED EXPERIENCED
HARASSMENT IN PERSON. WITHIN
THOSE 100 PEOPLE THAT ARE
SUBMITTED, THIS SURVEY, OVER 50%
OF THEM WERE WOMEN OF COLOR AND
LGBTQ, PLUS WOMEN EXPERIENCING
STALKING ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL
AND OVER ONE THIRD OF WOMEN OF
COLOR EXPERIENCED PHYSICAL
VIOLENCE. WE'VE HEARD FROM OUR
OUR COLLEAGUES THAT PERSONAL
ADDRESSES ARE BEING PUT ON
MAILERS AND SO FORTH THAT
FURTHER INCREASE THE ABILITY OF
A STALKER TO COME TO SOMEONE'S
HOME. ACCORDING TO THE SAME
STUDY, AROUND 80% OF RESPONDENTS
REPORTED EXPERIENCING NEW OR
WORSENED MENTAL HEALTH OR
WELL-BEING SYMPTOMS THAT THEY
BELIEVED WERE CAUSED IN WHOLE OR
IN PART BY HOSTILITY EXPERIENCED
ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. THE
COVERAGE WOULD BE. NOW. THIS IS
EXACTLY WHAT SB 1170 WOULD COVER
FOR SERVICES INCLUDING THERAPY
FOR BOTH INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP
THERAPY. VIRTUALLY OR IN PERSON
BY A PROFESSIONAL LICENSED
INDIVIDUAL UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
BOARD OF BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES TO
ADDRESS MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES
DIRECTLY IN, COMING FROM THE
CAMPAIGN TRAIL, ONE OF THE MAIN
REASONS FOR THIS IS THAT
OFTENTIMES PEOPLE HAVE TO QUIT
THEIR JOBS TO RUN FOR OFFICE, OR
THEY HAVE TO GO AND WORK PART
TIME TO RUN FOR OFFICE. FURTHER
IN, WHERE THEY HAVE TO WHERE
THEY LOSE HEALTH INSURANCE. I
HAD TO STOP WORKING. I LOST ALL
MY HEALTH INSURANCE. I'M
GRATEFUL THAT I HAD THE VÀ TO
TURN TO, AS THAT'S ALWAYS THERE.
BUT THERE ARE SO MANY
INDIVIDUALS THAT DON'T HAVE
HEALTH INSURANCE DURING THE 1 TO
2 OR EVEN THREE YEARS THAT
THEY'RE RUNNING FOR OFFICE. THIS
IS SOLELY FOR NON INCUMBENT
INDIVIDUALS, BECAUSE WE ARE
ASSUMING THAT IF YOU'RE AN
INCUMBENT, AS WE ARE, WE
CURRENTLY HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE
THAT WE CAN LEAN ON. WE CANNOT
STOP THE HARASSMENT FROM
OCCURRING, BUT BY ALLOWING
CAMPAIGN FUNDS TO BE USED FOR
MENTAL HEALTH CARE COSTS, WE CAN
SUPPORT CANDIDATES SENSE OF
WELL-BEING AS WE STRIVE TO
INCREASE OUR DIVERSITY OF VOICES
IN GOVERNMENT. THIS IS NOT, THE
FIRST TYPE OF ATTEMPT WE'RE
LOOKING TO PASS THROUGH THE
LEGISLATURE ON WHAT ELSE WE WANT
TO FUND WITH OUR CAMPAIGN FUNDS,
RECENTLY WE DID PASS THE ABILITY
TO USE OUR CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR
CHILD CARE SERVICES. THAT HAS
FURTHER REALLY, AMPLIFY THE
DIVERSE K¾T OF ALL TYPES OF
LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT, ENSURING
THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE A
PARENT DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN'T
RUN FOR OFFICE OR BE IN OFFICE
BECAUSE CHILD CARE SERVICES
SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE AS TO WHY
YOU CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN THIS
PROCESS. SO, MADAM CHAIR, WITH
YOUR PERMISSION, I'D LIKE TO
TURN OVER TO TWO WITNESSES I
HAVE HERE, FROM CALIFORNIA
WOMEN'S LIST AND A SACRAMENTO
COUNCIL MEMBER TO SPEAK ON THEIR
PERSONAL EXPERIENCES. I'LL START
OUT WITH, COUNCIL MEMBER. HI. MY
YES. PLEASE PROCEED. THANK YOU.
IS THIS ON? ALL RIGHT, GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS KATIE VALENZUELA. I
SERVE ON THE CITY COUNCIL HERE
IN SACRAMENTO. I'M ACTUALLY MOST
OF YOUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND
YOUR STAFF. WHEN YOU LIVE IN
SACRAMENTO. AND IT'S A JOB THAT
I REALLY TAKE PRIDE IN DOING.
WELL, I'M HERE TODAY TO TALK
ABOUT MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
WITH HOSTILITY ON THE CAMPAIGN
TRAIL, THE HARASSMENT AND ABUSE
ONLINE AND IN PERSON HAS BEEN
PERSISTENT AND UBIQUITOUS SINCE
I FIRST DECLARED TO RUN, PEOPLE
HAVE YELLED PROFANITY OUT OF
THEIR CAR WINDOWS AT MYSELF AND
MY VOLUNTEERS AS WE WERE OUT
CANVASING. SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS
HAVE IMPLIED THAT THEY WANT ME
TO COME TO PHYSICAL HARM, AND
ONE PERSON ACTUALLY DID THREATEN
TO TAKE MY LIFE, THESE
EXPERIENCES AND THE TRAUMA FROM
THOSE EXPERIENCES LED ME TO
DEVELOP SHINGLES. I STARTED TO
REALIZE THAT I WAS HAVING
HYPERVIGILANT BEHAVIOR HERE THAT
MY THERAPIST DIAGNOSED AS A
SYMPTOM OF POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS
DISORDER, LAST SPRING, WHEN I
WAS LAUNCHING MY REELECTION
CAMPAIGN, I ACTUALLY ENDED UP IN
THE EMERGENCY ROOM FOR SYMPTOMS
THAT, PRESENTED AS A HEART
ATTACK THAT ACTUALLY ENDED UP
BEING A SEVERE PANIC ATTACK. AND
I'VE BEEN ON ANXIETY MEDICATION
EVER SINCE, IN ADDITION TO
IMPACTING MY MENTAL HEALTH,
THESE, THESE BEHAVIORS IMPACTED
MY CAMPAIGNS AS WELL, MY
CAMPAIGN TEAM AND I AND INTEREST
OF ENSURING MY SAFETY DECIDED
THAT I COULD NOT GO TO EVENTS OR
CANVASS WITHOUT SOMEONE WITH ME,
WHICH MEANT THAT MY SCHEDULE WAS
RESTRICTED TO TIMES WHEN I HAD
VOLUNTEERS AVAILABLE TO
ACCOMPANY ME. WE ALSO HAD TO
DEPLOY AN RSVP SYSTEM FOR ANY
EVENTS THAT WE DID, SO THE
LOCATIONS WOULD ONLY BE SHARED
WITH LEGITIMATE VOLUNTEERS AND
CONTRIBUTORS, WHICH TOOK
RESOURCES AND TIME AWAY FROM OUR
ABILITY TO CONTACT VOTERS
DIRECTLY, I'M REALLY LUCKY THAT
NOW, TODAY, MY ELECTED POSITION
PROVIDES ME THE HEALTH CARE TO
ENSURE I HAVE THE SUPPORT I
NEED, BECAUSE HAD I NOT HAD THAT
ACCESS, MY CAMPAIGN WOULD HAVE
BEEN FURTHER IMPACTED. AND
HONESTLY, I MIGHT NOT HAVE RUN
FOR REELECTION AT ALL, THIS IS,
I WILL SAY, THE FIRST TIME I'M
PUBLICLY SHARING MY EXPERIENCES.
I DON'T NORMALLY READ NOTES OFF
MY PHONE LIKE THIS. IT'S
SOMETHING THAT I REALLY WAS
CONCERNED WOULD DETER QUALIFIED
WOMEN FROM RUNNING FOR OFFICE AT
ALL. BUT THE REPORT FROM
CALIFORNIA'S WOMEN'S LIST AND SO
MANY OTHERS HAVE HELPED ME
UNDERSTAND THAT MY EXPERIENCE IS
NOT UNIQUE, THAT TOO MANY
CANDIDATES, ESPECIALLY WOMEN AND
PARTICULARLY WOMEN OF COLOR, ARE
EXPERIENCING THIS ON THE
CAMPAIGN TRAIL, AND WITHOUT
RESOURCES TO ADDRESS THOSE
IMPACTS, OUR CANDIDATES AND
CAMPAIGNS WILL FURTHER WILL
CONTINUE TO EXPERIENCE HARM. SO
I WILL CONCLUDE BY SAYING THAT
IF WE WANT A REPRESENTATIVE
DEMOCRACY, AS THE SENATOR SAID,
WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT NOT
ALL CANDIDATES CAN ACCESS THE
RESOURCES THEY NEED TO RUN A
STRONGER CAMPAIGN AS THEY WANT.
SO I HOPE YOU ALL SUPPORT THIS
BILL TODAY. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU, THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR
PERSONAL STORY TO, THANK YOU.
COUNCIL MEMBER VALENZUELA, GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR BREAKSPEARE. AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS CAMILLE
ZAPATA. I SERVE ON THE BOARD OF
CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S LIST, WHICH
IS A PAC THAT SUPPORTS WOMEN
RUNNING FOR OFFICE ON THE STATE
AND LOCAL LEVEL ACROSS
CALIFORNIA, LAST YEAR, I CO-LED
A RESEARCH STUDY TO EXAMINE THE
DISPROPORTIONATE HOSTILITY THAT
WOMEN FACE RUNNING FOR OFFICE
AND THE IMPACTS ON MENTAL
HEALTH. IT WAS CALLED HER
STORIES ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.
OUR, LIKE THE SENATOR HAD
MENTIONED, OUR STUDY SURVEYED
OVER 100 INDIVIDUALS OF VARIOUS
GENDER IDENTITIES ACROSS
POLITICAL LINES AND CONFIRMED
THAT CANDIDATES OF ALL
BACKGROUNDS ARE TARGETED WITH
HOSTILITY ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL,
WITH OVER HALF EXPERIENCING
HARASSMENT. BUT MOST
PARTICULARLY, OUR STUDY ALSO
PROVIDED QUALITY AND
QUANTITATIVE DATA THAT FOUND
THAT WOMEN AND WOMEN OF COLOR
AND LGBTQ PLUS CANDIDATES
DISPROPORTIONATELY EXPERIENCED
HOSTILITY OVER A QUARTER OF
WOMEN. ONE THIRD OF LGBTQ PLUS
WOMEN, AND OVER ONE THIRD OF
WOMEN OF COLOR HAD PHYSICAL
VIOLENCE DIRECTED TOWARDS THEM,
AS COMPARED TO 13% OF MALE
IDENTIFIED CANDIDATES. AND, LIKE
THE SENATOR, HAD MENTIONED, 80%
OF ALL CANDIDATES DEVELOPED NEW
OR WORSENED, MENTAL HEALTH
SYMPTOMS AS IT RELATES TO THE
CAMPAIGN HOSTILITY EXPERIENCE.
MORE FOR WOMEN, NEARLY 50%
CHANGE THEIR CAMPAIGN TACTICS OR
STRATEGIES BECAUSE OF CONCERNS
OF SAFETY OR OVERALL WELL-BEING,
WHAT CAME OUT OF THIS IS THAT WE
FACILITATED POLICY ROUNDTABLES
THAT BROUGHT TOGETHER CANDIDATES
MENTAL HEALTH CARE
PROFESSIONALS, PARTY OFFICIALS
AND CONSULTANTS TO REVIEW THIS
DATA THAT WE HAD COLLECTED AND
BRAINSTORM SOLUTIONS. AND LIKE
THE SENATOR HAD MENTIONED, THEIR
TOP RECOMMENDATION WAS TO ALLOW
CAMPAIGN FUNDS TO BE USED TO
COVER THE COSTS OF MENTAL HEALTH
CARE SERVICES AND LIKE,
COUNCILMEMBER VALENZUELA, IT WAS
ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE. AND HER
BEING ABLE TO ACCESS, RESOURCES.
SO SB 1170 PROVIDES A MUCH
NEEDED RESOURCE TO ENSURE
CANDIDATES HAVE ACCESS TO
SUPPORT TO SUSTAIN THEMSELVES
AND ULTIMATELY, THE SUCCESS OF
THEIR CAMPAIGNS, CLOSE THE
WOMEN'S GROUPS, INCLUDING CLOSE
THE GAP FUND HER, AMONG MANY
OTHERS. THE COUNTIES OF SAN
FRANCISCO AND LA HAVE JOINED
ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT. AND
LASTLY, THE FPPC IS PROVIDING
INSTRUMENTAL AND ACTIVE
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. SO THAT WE
CAN ENSURE TRANSPARENCY WHILE
MINIMIZING ANY BURDEN OR HARM OF
CANDIDATES. SO IN CONCLUSION, WE
PLEASE, WOULD WOULD LOVE YOUR
SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL AND MOVING
IT FORWARD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE IN THE ROOM WHO
WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS SUPPORT?
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. DYLAN
ELLIOTT, ON BEHALF OF THE SAN
FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANDY LEE
BIRNBAUM, ON BEHALF OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, IN STRONG SUPPORT.
OKAY. SEEING NO ONE ELSE, IS
THERE ANYBODY SPEAKING IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL? I DO
NOT SEE ANYBODY. ANYBODY ELSE
WISHING TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION?
OKAY. SEEING NONE, I WILL SAY
THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL AND
CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S LIST FOR
IDENTIFYING THIS AS SOMETHING
THAT WE CAN DO. I HAD A GREAT
MEETING ON ZOOM ABOUT THIS BILL
AND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS, AND THE
DATA THAT WENT INTO RECOMMENDING
THIS OPTION. AND I JUST ALSO
WANT TO SAY TO COUNCILMEMBER
VALENZUELA, THANK YOU FOR
SHARING YOUR STORY. AND ALSO
BEING WILLING TO CONTINUE
SERVING IN OFFICE, RECOGNIZING
THE PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL AND
MENTAL TOLL THAT'S HAVING, WE'RE
WE'RE VERY GRATEFUL TO HAVE YOU
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SACRIFICE
IN DOING THAT, SO DO ANY OF MY
COLLEAGUES WISH TO SPEAK? OKAY.
YES. SENATOR NEWMAN, THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. SO I WANT TO SAY
FIRST, I'M GLAD TO SUPPORT THE
BILL. I APPRECIATE YOUR, SORT
OF, YOU KNOW, POINTING OUT THAT
IT'S NOT JUST WOMEN WHO SUFFER
FROM KIND OF THE STRESSES OF
CAMPAIGNING. AND THIS SEEMS LIKE
A VERY VALID UNDERTAKING. BUT I
DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT ABOUT
THE MECHANICS, HOW WITH IN THE
REPORTING, WHAT'S THE BASIS FOR,
FOR VALIDATING A LEGITIMATE
EXPENSE WITHOUT COMPROMISING
SOMEBODY'S, YOU KNOW, KIND OF
HIPAA RELATED INFORMATION? YEAH.
OF COURSE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
THAT QUESTION. AND WE'VE BEEN
HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH, YOU
KNOW, THE ACTUAL TITLE, THE FPPC
DEPUTY STAFF, CONTINUOUS
CONVERSATION WITH THEM. WE THE
SUPPORTERS ACTUALLY WENT AND
PRESENTED AT THEIR MARCH HEARING
ON THIS TOPIC. AND WE'VE GOTTEN
A LOT OF FEEDBACK ON THIS RIGHT
NOW. WHAT WE'VE TRIMMED IT DOWN
TO IS THE CANDIDATES MUST NOTE
THE UNDERLYING CAMPAIGN RELATED
CIRCUMSTANCE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF,
LIKE YOU HEARD FROM THE COUNCIL
MEMBER, THE SCREAMS AND SO
FORTH, YOU HAVE TO ISOLATE
INCIDENT. AND THEN JUST LIKE
EVERYTHING ELSE, WE WOULD SUBMIT
AN INVOICE OF YOU ATTENDING
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE. YOU WON'T
HAVE TO TALK ABOUT YOU DON'T
HAVE TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION ON
WHAT WAS TALKED ABOUT, BECAUSE
THAT THEN LEADS INTO HIPAA. BUT
WE DON'T BLEED INTO HIPAA
VIOLATING HIPAA. IF WE'RE SIMPLY
SAYING, HERE'S AN INVOICE THAT
YOU SUBMIT TO YOUR TREASURER OR
WHAT HAVE YOU ON MY BILL FOR
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE, AND THIS
IS DESCRIPTION AS TO WHY I
NEEDED TO GO SEE THEM. SO FOR
THAT SENATOR THAT SOMEBODY
TOUCHED ON WHERE SOMEBODY
DOESN'T HAVE HEALTH CARE AT THAT
TIME, HOW DO YOU MAKE A
DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAYING FOR
HEALTH CARE VERSUS, YOU KNOW,
THE DISCREET NEED FOR MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES? IF SOMEBODY I
MEAN, WILL COULD A CANDIDATE
THEN ENROLL IN HEALTH CARE AS
THE BASIS FOR RECEIVING THAT
MENTAL HEALTH CARE? AND IF SO,
HOW WOULD YOU APPORTION THAT.
YEAH. NO. WE YOU KNOW, THIS BILL
SPEAKS NOTHING TO UTILIZING THIS
TO SIGN UP FOR, HEALTH
INSURANCE. IT WOULD SIMPLY WOULD
BE TO, TO PAY THE COST FOR
PRIVATE MENTAL HEALTH. THIS
WOULD ONLY COVER PRIVATE MENTAL
HEALTH THAT YOU USUALLY WOULD
PAY OUT OF POCKET. OUTSIDE OF IT
BEING COVERED WITH WITH HEALTH
INSURANCE. AND YOU'RE WORKING,
AS YOU SAID, WITH THE FPPC TO
MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN THEY CAN
VERIFY THE EXPENSE WITHOUT
COMPROMISING SOMEBODY'S PERSONAL
INFORMATION. YES JUST TO SHARE A
COUPLE OF THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN
BROUGHT UP BY FPPC THAT WE'RE
LOOKING AT ARE REGARDING, WHEN,
YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THIS IS ONLY
FOR WHEN YOU'RE RUNNING FOR
OFFICE. AND WE WANT TO CLARIFY
OF, WHO WOULD CERTIFY THIS
ELECTION TO MEAN THAT THE
SERVICES STOPPED FOR MENTAL
HEALTH. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT
ALLOCATING THAT OR, BEING CLEAR
THAT THE SOS NEEDS TO CERTIFY
THIS ELECTION, NOT ANY OTHER
OUTSIDE THIRD PARTY. WE'RE ALSO
LOOKING AT TO ENSURE THAT THIS
IS NOT COVERAGE, POST THAT LIMBO
OR DURING THAT LIMBO PERIOD OF
WHEN YOU WIN YOUR ELECTION AND
WHEN YOU GET SWORN IN, BECAUSE
YOU POTENTIALLY DON'T HAVE
HEALTH INSURANCE. SO DURING THAT
TIME, BUT YOU'RE NOT RUNNING FOR
OFFICE ANYMORE. SO WE WANT TO
CLARIFY THAT AS WELL. THE OTHER
THINGS THAT FPPC BROUGHT UP TO
US WAS IN RELATION TO ENSURING
PEOPLE AREN'T TAKING ADVANTAGE
OF THAT, OF THIS, BUT FOR THAT'S
A LITTLE DIFFICULT FOR ME TO SEE
. I, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES, I, YOU KNOW, SO IF YOU
HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SPEAK ON
THAT. BUT THAT'S THOSE ARE THE
ONLY POINTS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP
TO YOU. DO I MEAN THERE PROBABLY
THERE ARE MANY CITY COUNCILS,
FOR INSTANCE, THAT DON'T INCLUDE
HEALTH INSURANCE. THAT'S ONE OF
THE BENEFITS OF SERVING. SO WHY
WHY MAKE THAT, SORT OF THAT, YOU
KNOW, THAT DEADLINE OF POST
CAMPAIGN, WHY WOULD IT NOT? THE
STRESS IS PROBABLY DUE STILL
CONTINUE. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
SENATOR, FOR THAT. BECAUSE
YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE WAS A FOURTH
THING. THE FPPC BROUGHT UP WAS
RELATED TO INDIVIDUALS WHO DON'T
AREN'T IN ELECTED OFFICIAL
POSITIONS FULL TIME. THIS IS A
FULL TIME POSITION FOR US LOCAL
ELECTED OFFICIALS, PERHAPS LIKE
THE CITY OF BELLFLOWER IS A PART
TIME CITY COUNCIL. MY WORRY FOR
ME THERE IS IF EXPANDING IT, AND
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'RE
INTRODUCING THIS BILL. MY WORRY
IN EXPANDING IT TO INCLUDE
ABSENCE WOULD FURTHER CREATE
POTENTIAL, FRAUD OPPORTUNITIES,
IF YOU WILL, OR FURTHER EXPAND
FPPC CONCERN ON PEOPLE TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF THIS. I WOULD LOVE
TO THEN COME BACK AFTER THIS.
BILL. YOU KNOW, THE FIRST
ITERATION OF THIS BILL MOVES
FORWARD AND THE GOVERNOR SIGNS
IT TO SEE AFTER SOME TIME, SEE
HOW IT'S WORKED. IF WE CAN THEN
EXPAND IT TO A GREATER POOL OF
INDIVIDUALS. MADAM CHAIR, I'D
LIKE TO ALSO TURN TO MY SPONSOR
TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION TO ADD TO SENATOR
MENGELE'S COMMENTS AROUND THE
CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE BEEN
HAVING WITH THE FPPC AROUND
IMPLEMENTATION. THÀNH. AND JUST
TO PROVIDE A DISCLOSURE THAT
THESE AMENDMENTS ARE STILL IN
THE WORKS WITH SENATOR MENGER'S
OFFICE AND ALSO THE FPPC. BUT
SPECIFICALLY TO YOUR QUESTION,
SENATOR NEWMAN, AROUND REPORTING
ONE OF THE PROPOSED, SOLUTIONS
TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT CANDIDATES
IS HAVING FOUR DISTINCT
CATEGORIES. AND AGAIN, THIS IS
STILL, UNDER DISCUSSION, BUT
THAT WE ARE NOT HAVING ANY
UNIQUE, REPORTS, BEING, FOR
EXAMPLE, HAVING TO DETAIL OUT
WHAT SPECIFICALLY HAD TRANSPIRED
THAT THEN, YOU KNOW, RESULTED IN
MENTAL HEALTH IMPACTS, BUT HAVE
PROPOSED CATEGORIES SUCH AS
PREJUDICE, HARASSMENT, THREATS
TO THREATS TO SAFETY OR CRIMINAL
ACTS, YEAH. YEAH I APPRECIATE
IT. THANK YOU. I MEAN, YOU KNOW,
CLEARLY MECHANICAL DETAIL,
RIGHT? 100% AND EMINENTLY VALID,
BILL. RIGHT. GLAD AGAIN. GLAD TO
SUPPORT IT. BUT I, YOU KNOW,
APPRECIATE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE
TO FIGURE THESE THINGS OUT.
RIGHT. AND WE'RE WORKING VERY
CLOSELY WITH FPPC ON IT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. YES, THANK YOU.
SENATOR PORTANTINO. YEAH, I HAVE
SIMILAR Ã. I THINK IT'S GREAT
TO EXTEND THIS TO FOLKS WHO NEED
IT, YOU KNOW, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
TREATMENT IS SOMETHING THAT WE
DON'T, YOU KNOW, AS A SOCIETY,
EMBRACE, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE
NEED TO. AND AGAIN, THANK YOU
FOR SHARING YOUR STORIES. I HAVE
SOME OF THE SAME SORT OF
IMPLEMENTATION QUESTIONS. IF IT
SAYS PAYMENT TO DOCTOR MARY
SMITH ON THE FORM 700, THEN
SOMEBODY'S GOING TO ASK THE
QUESTION ON WHEN THAT PERSON'S
ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, WHY DID
YOU PAY DOCTOR MARY SMITH, YOU
KNOW, $400? AND THEN THAT'S
GOING TO FORCE THAT CANDIDATE TO
HAVE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
AND SO I WANT TO HAVE
SENSITIVITY TO, TO THAT
DISCLOSURE. I MEAN, WE HAVE
CATEGORIES THAT SAY PROFESSIONAL
SERVICE. BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU
LIST THE ATTORNEY THAT YOU HIRE
FOR THAT PROFESSIONAL SERVICE OR
WHATEVER. AND SO I DO THINK
THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ART TO
MAKING SURE THERE'S DISCLOSURE,
BUT ALSO A DISCLOSURE THAT
DOESN'T COMPROMISE THE
INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATE, EVEN EVEN
MORE SO I, I REALLY WANT THOUGHT
TO GO, AND YOU'RE DOING IT. SO I
JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU SUPPORT IN
IN MAKING SURE THAT THAT
DISCLOSURE IS THOUGHTFUL AND
DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, MAKE THAT
CANDIDATE HAVE TO GET EVEN MORE
STRESSED BECAUSE THEN THEY'RE
GOING TO BE ASKED, YOU KNOW,
ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.
AND SECONDLY, YOU KNOW, AS AS
THE SENATOR MENTIONED, YOU KNOW,
FOR CONTINUITY OF CARE, JUST
BECAUSE YOU WIN DOESN'T MEAN
YOUR YOUR STRUGGLES GO AWAY. AND
SO IF YOU GET ELECTED TO AN
OFFICE AND YOUR HEALTH PLAN IS
INSUFFICIENT IN BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH, FROM MY TAKE, I'D WANT
THIS TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO
HELP THAT PARTICULAR CANDIDATE
WHO STRUGGLE DOESN'T GO AWAY
JUST BECAUSE YOU WIN.
MIRACULOUSLY, YOU KNOW YOUR
STRESS LEVEL DOESN'T, DOESN'T,
SOMETIMES INCREASES, SOMETIMES
INCREASES, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEN
THE HATERS EVEN HATE MORE
BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE, NOW YOU
HAVE A TITLE AND POWER AND SO,
YOU KNOW, AS YOU, YOU KNOW,
WHETHER IT'S THE NEXT BILL OR
WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S
A IT'S A LAUDABLE EFFORT THAT
YOU'RE, YOU'RE PURSUING AND
WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO
CONTINUE TO PURSUE IT AGAIN IN
THE MOST SENSITIVE WAY TO HELP
THAT INDIVIDUAL WHO'S STRUGGLING
WITH THOSE, THOSE, THOSE ISSUES.
AND SO I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE
BILL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. POINT.
SENATOR THANK YOU SO MUCH. POINT
TAKEN ON THE SECOND PART. ON THE
FIRST ONE, I ALSO WANT TO IT
SAYS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE THREADING
THIS LINE OF, YES, PROTECTING,
BUT ALSO ENSURING THAT IT'S NOT
CAUSING LIKE IT'S A SHAME, YOU
KNOW, A SHAMEFUL THING, THAT
HEY, YOU NEED TO HIDE THAT YOU,
YOU SOUGHT OUT MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES. SO I'M TRYING TO
BALANCE THAT. I THINK THERE'S
POWER TO SPEAKING. WHEN YOU HEAR
PEOPLE IN POWER SPEAK ABOUT
THEIR TO THEIR POINT, YOU KNOW,
RIGHT HERE, PEOPLE IN POWER
SPEAKING ABOUT THEIR ISSUES, NOT
ISSUES, THEIR EXPERIENCES AND
THEIR PARTICIPATION IN MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES HELPS OTHER
PEOPLE WANT TO PARTICIPATE. SO
THAT'S WHERE I'M TRYING TO
THREAD THE LINE ON THAT ISSUE,
IF I MAY, MADAM CHAIR. AND I
AGREE, THAT IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE
TRYING TO DESTIGMATIZE
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH. SO I ALWAYS
SAY WE'LL GO TO A PARTY AND
WE'LL TALK ABOUT OUR
CHOLESTEROL, BUT WE DON'T TALK
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE JUST SAW
SOMEBODY FOR SOMETHING ELSE OR
WE'LL TALK ABOUT OUR KIDS SPORTS
INJURY, BUT NOT THAT THEY'RE
STRUGGLING. YEAH. AND SO I AGREE
WITH YOU. WE HAVE TO
DESTIGMATIZE IT, AND IT IS A
TOUGH LINE BECAUSE THAT
INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATE MAY NOT BE
READY TO EMBRACE IT, BUT YOU
KNOW, AND I TRUST YOU TO, TO
THREAD THAT LINE BECAUSE YOU'RE
THE PERFECT PERSON TO DO IT. SO
I WISH YOU WELL AND THANK YOU,
SIR. I'M HERE. IF YOU HAVE ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS DOWN THE ROAD
THAT YOU WANT TO NOODLE ON
THINGS. THANK YOU SIR, THANK
YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. AND
I'LL JUST ADD MY VOICE TO THE
SUPPORT FOR DOING VERSION TWO OF
THIS BILL. AFTER THIS FIRST BILL
GOES THROUGH BECAUSE EVEN PEOPLE
WITH HEALTH INSURANCE, SOMETIMES
THEY CAN'T GET AN APPOINTMENT.
YOU HEAR THIS STORY A LOT THAT
JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE HEALTH
INSURANCE DOESN'T MEAN THAT
THERE'S ACTUALLY ACCESSIBILITY.
SO SOMEONE MIGHT NEED TO BE
PAYING PRIVATELY AND NOT USING
THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE. SO YOU
KNOW, I APPRECIATE THINKING
ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE IN OFFICE,
SO ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SEEING
NONE DO WE HAVE. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE A MOTION FROM SENATOR ALLEN
. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE
ROLL. OH I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD AND
CLOSE. I'M SORRY, SENATOR
MANCHIN. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WELL, MADAM CHAIR, I HOPE MAYBE,
THE CHAIR OF ELECTION WILL WORK
WITH ME IN THE NEXT COMING,
COMING YEARS TO FURTHER ADD TO
THIS BILL. WITH THAT,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR. I
VOTE. FOR ITEM THREE, SB 1170
MOTION IS DUE PASSED BY
SHAKESPEARE. YES. SHAKESPEARE.
YES ONE ALAN. ALAN I MENGIBAR I
MENGIBAR I NEWMAN. NEWMAN I
PORTANTINO PORTANTINO I UMBERG I
UMBERG I
.
OKAY. SIX ZERO. THE BILL IS OUT,
SO THE LAST THING WE HAVE TO DO
IS GO BACK TO THE CONSENT
CALENDAR AND CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS. CONSENT CALENDAR, FILE
ITEM ONE, SB 948, CURRENT VOTE
IS SIX ZERO. CHAIR VOTED I VICE
CHAIR VOTED AYE. UMBERG UMBERG I
. OKAY, SEVEN ZERO. THAT IS OUT.
SO THANK YOU TO ALL THE
INDIVIDUALS WHO PARTICIPATED
TODAY. IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO
TESTIFY, PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS IN
WRITING TO THE SENATE. ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
COMMITTEE. THE SENATE ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IS
NOW ADJOURNED. THANK YOU