ALL RIGHT. SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE IS GOING TO CONVENE,
AS SOON AS WE HAVE AN AUTHOR
HERE. SO FIRST COME, FIRST
SERVE. SENATOR EGGMAN IS FIRST
WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE, SB 1184,
THEN SENATOR MENGIBAR, THEN
SENATOR RUBIO. SO WE'RE ANXIOUS
FOR AN AUTHOR
.
ALL RIGHT. SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER.
GOOD AFTERNOON. WE'RE HOLDING
THE COMMITTEE HEARING IN ROOM
2100 OF THE STATE CAPITOL. I ASK
ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE BE
PRESENT IN ROOM 2100 SO WE CAN
ESTABLISH A QUORUM AND BEGIN OUR
HEARING. BEFORE WE BEGIN TODAY'S
PRESENTATION, THÀNH, I'M GOING
TO, ANNOUNCE, SEVERAL ITEMS. ONE
IS THAT FILE NUMBER FIVE, SB
1212 BY SENATOR SKINNER HAS BEEN
PULLED FROM THE AGENDA, THE
CONSENT CALENDAR CONSISTS OF TWO
BILLS. A FILE NUMBER THREE, SB
1293, BY SENATOR OCHOA. BOGH
WITH AMENDMENTS AND FILE NUMBER
NINE, SB 1146 BY SENATOR WILK,
WITH AMENDMENTS, ALL RIGHT. SO
WE HAVE AGAIN, WE HAVE 50% OF
THE REPUBLICAN THÀNH COMPONENT
OF THE COMMITTEE HERE, AND ONLY
30. THANK YOU, SENATOR BLAKE,
FOR BEING HERE. SENATOR BLAKE
SPEER IS AN ATTORNEY, AND WE'RE
PRIVILEGED TO HAVE HER SITTING
ON THIS COMMITTEE, EVEN IF HERE,
ALL RIGHT, WELL, THANK YOU,
SENATOR NEAL. WE APPRECIATE YOUR
PRESENCE. RIGHT, RIGHT OUT.
RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT, BUT WE ARE
GRATEFUL FOR SENATOR BLAKE'S
APPEARANCE HERE TODAY. SO THANK
YOU FOR JOINING US, ALL RIGHT,
SO WE'RE GOING TO START AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE, AND WE'LL ASK
SENATOR MENGIBAR TO STEP FORWARD
AND PRESENT SB 1103, FILE NUMBER
TWO. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. YOU
HAVE NOT. YOU AND I HAVE WORKED
VERY CLOSELY THIS YEAR ON A LOT
OF BILLS, THIS IS THE LAST ONE
OUT OF YOUR COMMITTEE. HOPEFULLY
AND, COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I WANT
TO START OFF WITH JUST
EXPLAINING THE HOT OFF THE PRESS
AMENDMENTS FOR THIS BILL. I KNOW
YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN A LOT OF TIME
TO READ THE AMENDMENTS BECAUSE
THEY'RE RECENT, I WILL BE
ACCEPTING ALL 200 AMENDMENTS
FROM THE CHAIR. I HAVE THREE
MORE. SO THAT'S HOW IT'S BEEN
THIS WEEKEND. EVERY TIME I
AGREE, MORE AMENDMENTS WERE
ADDED, BECAUSE THE FINAL
AMENDMENTS, LIKE I MENTIONED
CAME DOWN JUST A COUPLE HOURS
AGO. THIS IS WHAT THE BILL DOES
NOW FOR SB 1103 WILL DEFINE
QUALIFIED COMMERCIAL TENANT AS A
TENANT OF COMMERCIAL REAL
PROPERTY, THAT IS, A
MICROENTERPRISE, A RESTAURANT
WITH FEWER THAN TEN EMPLOYEES IN
A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION WITH
FEWER THAN 20 EMPLOYEES. SECOND
PROVISION IT WILL REQUIRE THE
TENANT TO NOTIFY THE LANDLORD
THAT THEY ARE QUALIFIED
COMMERCIAL TENANT UNDER THIS
LAW, THROUGH SELF-ATTESTATION,
THE TENANT WILL HAVE TO
THEMSELVES TELL THE LANDLORD
THAT THEY QUALIFY UNDER THIS
LAW. THIRD PROVISION. IT WILL
REQUIRE THE LANDLORD TO INFORM
THE TENANT PRIOR TO AT THE
EXECUTION OF THE LEASE OF THEIR
RIGHT AS A QUALIFIED COMMERCIAL
TENANT, THE TENANT HAS TO
DISCLOSE THEIR QUALIFIED. THE
LANDLORD WOULD THEN RESPOND BY
SAYING THIS IS YOUR RIGHTS UNDER
YOUR QUALIFIED ACT, UNDER, YOUR
NEW RIGHTS AS A QUALIFIED
COMMERCIAL TENANT. AND THOSE
RIGHTS ARE TO REVIEW SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION THAT JUSTIFIES AN
INCREASE IN CAMP FEES, WHICH IN
THE COMMERCIAL WORLD, IT'S LIKE
A HOA FEES. THAT'S WHAT YOU CAN
COMPARE IT TO, BUT MAKES AN
EXCEPTION, AN EXCEPTION FOR
THOSE TENANTS WHO ARE ON A MONTH
TO MONTH, AGREEMENT TO INFORM
THEIR LANDLORD OF THEIR STATUS
OUTSIDE OF THE PARAMETERS THAT
WE'VE INCLUDED HERE AT, AT OR
EXECUTION OF A LEASE. THE FOURTH
PROVISION IS WHAT IT WOULD
REQUIRE THE LANDLORD, UPON
REQUESTS OF THE QUALIFIED
COMMERCIAL TENANT, TO PROVIDE
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT
WE JUST EXPLAINED THAT JUSTIFIES
AN INCREASE IN CAMP FEES 30 DAYS
BEFORE THE TENANT IS REQUIRED TO
PAY THOSE COSTS, AND 90 DAYS
BEFORE A TENANT IS REQUIRED TO
PAY FOR THESE COSTS. IF THE COST
INCREASES 10% OR MORE. FINALLY
THE LAST PROVISION IS GOING TO
PUT CERTAIN PARAMETERS ON HOW
CAMP FEES CAN BE CHARGED. I HOPE
THAT BRINGS A LITTLE BIT OF
CLARITY AS TO WHAT THIS BILL
DOES. THIS BILL DOES NOT LIMIT
COMMERCIAL RENTS OR IMPOSE ANY
FORM OF COMMERCIAL RENT CONTROL.
IT DOES NOT IMPOSE OR CHANGE ANY
REQUIREMENTS FOR OTHER CONTRACTS
OR FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS. IT ONLY
AFFECTS A VERY SMALL SUBSET OF
COMMERCIAL LEASES. SO WHY ARE WE
DOING THIS ACROSS CALIFORNIA,
SMALL COMMUNITY SERVING
BUSINESSES AND NONPROFITS ARE
BEING DISPLACED. YOU'LL HEAR
FROM MY WITNESSES AS EXAMPLES OF
WHAT'S HAPPENING, AND THEY'RE
GOING OUT OF BUSINESS AT AN
ALARMING RATE. INACCESSIBLE
COMMERCIAL LEASING IS A MAJOR
CULPRIT IN THIS WAVE OF SMALL
BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT. UNCLEAR
AND UNFAIR LEASE TERMS, AS WELL
AS EXORBITANT ADDED FEES. FOR
EXAMPLE, CAMP FEES MAKE IT
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO FIND AND
STAY IN A COMMERCIAL SPACE, AND
WHEN THESE SMALL BUSINESSES ARE
PHASED OUT, WE ALL LOSE.
BUSINESS OWNERS AND WORKERS LOSE
THEIR LIVELIHOOD. OUR ECONOMY
SUFFERS, AND WE ALL LOSE ACCESS
TO CULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT GOODS
AND VITAL RESOURCES.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP IS NOT ONLY A
DREAM, IT IS A CRITICAL ECONOMIC
LIFELINE FOR SO MANY
CALIFORNIANS SEEKING FINANCIAL
STABILITY AND OPPORTUNITY. SO AN
ACCESSIBLE COMMERCIAL LEASING IS
AN OBSTACLE FOR LOW INCOME
ENTREPRENEURS. BUT FORTUNATELY,
SB 1103 WILL REMOVE SOME OF THE
OBSTACLES FOR THAT. SO TO THAT,
MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO BRING UP
MY TWO WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF
SB 1103. THANK YOU, SENATOR
MENDOZA. BEFORE WE TAKE THE
WITNESSES, LET'S ESTABLISH
QUORUM AND WELCOME TO SENATOR
DODD. I KNOW SENATOR DODD'S
LEGISLATIVE LIFELONG AMBITION
WAS TO SERVE ON JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, SO I'M GLAD WE COULD
GRANT THAT GRANT, THAT REQUEST.
ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
FOR PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING A
QUORUM. BERG HERE. BERG HERE.
WILK ALLEN. ALLEN HERE. BLAKE.
SPEAR BLAKE. SPEAR HERE.
CABALLERO. DODD DODD. HERE.
DURAZZO. LAIRD LAIRD. HERE, MEN.
NILO. HERE NILO. HERE. WIENER.
YOU HAVE A QUORUM. GREAT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. MENGIBAR,
PERFECT. YOUR FIRST WITNESS.
PLEASE. I'LL HAVE HIM INTRODUCE
HIMSELF. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME
IS ZUBIATE PEREZ, AND I'M HERE
TO REPRESENT, MY BOTH PARENTS
FROM CASTLES LOCATED AT LOS
ANGELES AND, LOS ANGELES IS
LOCATED IN VAN NUYS, AND IN
TODOS LOS CASOS. WE STARTED OFF
OUR BUSINESS ROUGHLY FOUR YEARS
AGO, DURING WHERE THE PANDEMIC
WAS ABOUT TO HIT. AND IT'S BEEN,
A REAL HARD STRUGGLE TO RECOVER
FROM THAT. AND ESPECIALLY WHEN,
LANDLORDS ARE RAISING UP THE
RENTS AND, RAISING UP RENT AND,
AND I BELIEVE SB 1103 WOULD HELP
A SMALL BUSINESSES, THRIVE
THROUGHOUT THESE YEARS THROUGH,
WOULD HELP US THRIVE IF, IF
PASSED. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY
FOR NOW. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I
HAVE A SECOND WITNESS. ALL
RIGHT. HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON,
EVERYONE, MY NAME IS BABATUNDE
AFOLABI. I'M A IMMIGRANT SMALL
BUSINESS OWNER OUT OF, OAKLAND,
CALIFORNIA. I'VE OPERATED ABOUT
THREE BUSINESSES IN OAKLAND IN
THE LAST TEN YEARS. AND WHEN I
WAS SIGNING MY LEASE, COMFY WAS
SOMETHING THAT WASN'T, CLEARLY
STATED TO ME, WE KNOW WHAT OUR
BASE RENT WAS GOING TO BE, BUT
WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE COMFY
WAS GOING TO BE. I THINK THE
COMFY CAME, ABOUT THREE MONTHS
AFTER WE OPENED, AND WHEN WE SAW
IT, WE WERE, FOR EXAMPLE, LAST
YEAR WE WERE PAYING 11,000 FOR
BASE RENT, AND THE CAMP FEE WAS
ABOUT 4700, THAT'S ABOUT 40,
OVER 40% OF OUR BASE RENT. SO
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NOT
INCLUDED IN IN OUR PRO FORMA
WHEN WE WERE PLANNING OUR
BUSINESS. SO SB 1103 WILL REALLY
HELP US UNDERSTAND AND WHAT THE
COST OF OPERATING BUSINESS WILL
BE. IT WILL IT WILL MEAN
TRANSPARENCY. IT WILL MEAN
FAIRNESS FOR SMALL BUSINESS LIKE
OURSELVES. AS YOU GUYS ALL KNOW,
THE PANDEMIC HAS DEVASTATED A
LOT OF SMALL BUSINESSES AND
ADDED COST IS SOMETHING THAT WE
CANNOT BEAR, GOING FORWARD, FOR
SOMEONE LIKE ME, MY I END UP
CLOSING THAT BUSINESS, EARLIER
THIS MONTH AND A LOT OF MY, MY
STAFF HAVE TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE
TO, TO LOOK FOR JOB. AND SOME OF
THEM WILL PROBABLY END UP ON THE
STREETS BECAUSE THAT WAS THEIR
LIVELIHOOD. SO I'M HOPING THAT
YOU GUYS REALLY SUPPORT THIS
BILL AND BRING IT HOME. THANK
YOU. ALRIGHTY. THANK YOU SIR,
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE
IN A SECOND. YOU KNOW WHAT?
BEFORE YOU TESTIFY, COME ON UP
TO THE MICROPHONE. I'M GOING TO
ANNOUNCE THE RULES OF THE GAME
HERE FOR ALL BILLS. I NEGLECTED
TO DO SO EARLY ON. SO FOR EACH
BILL THAT WE'RE HERE, INCLUDING
THIS BILL, WE'LL ALLOW FOR TWO
WITNESSES, TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT. EACH OF
THEM WILL BE ALLOCATED TWO
MINUTES AFTER THE SUPPORT
WITNESSES. THE TWO PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT TESTIFY.
THEN OTHERS WHO WISH TO HAVE
THEIR POSITION NOTED MAY
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE AND GIVE
US THEIR NAME, THEIR
AFFILIATION, AND THEIR POSITION,
THEIR NAME, THEIR AFFILIATION,
THE POSITION. AND THAT'S IT,
THEN WE'LL TURN THE OPPOSITION.
SAME RULES FOR THE OPPOSITION,
TWO MINUTES EACH FOR THE TWO
PRIMARY WITNESSES. AND THEN
OTHERS MAY APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE TO GIVE US THEIR
NAME, THEIR AFFILIATION AND
THEIR POSITION. SO HAVING SAID
THAT, THE FLOOR IS NOW YOURS FOR
YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION AND
POSITION. ALL RIGHT, LET'S KICK
IT OFF, GOOD EVENING, OR. YEAH.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. RACHEL MUELLER, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COALITION FOR COMMUNITY
INVESTMENT IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, GLENN BACCHUS,
ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
CHRISTOPHER SANCHEZ, ON BEHALF
OF THE RISE ECONOMY AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ON BEHALF OF
SEIU CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT,
THANK YOU. HI, CAROL GONZALEZ,
ON BEHALF OF A SMALL BUSINESS
MAJORITY, PROUD CO-SPONSORS AND
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. GOOD AFTERNOON, DOUG SMITH.
INCLUSIVE ACTION FOR THE CITY.
PROUD CO-SPONSOR. STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. JASMINE ALLEN, ON
BEHALF OF THE LAWYERS COMMITTEE
FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE SAN
FRANCISCO BAY AREA, PROUD
CO-SPONSOR AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. HI, NADIA SEGURA FROM
LEGAL SERVICES CO-SPONSOR AND IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HI
JINX AND BUN ON BEHALF OF
NATIONAL CAPACITY, STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HI DADA. ON
BEHALF OF CAMEO NETWORK IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. SEEING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACHED THE MICROPHONE, LET'S
TURN TO THE OPPOSITION. IF
YOU'RE OPPOSED TO SB, 1103,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE
IN. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR.
AND SENATORS SKYLAR WONACOTT
WITH THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
PROPERTIES ASSOCIATION AND OUR
MEMBERS, BOMA, CALIFORNIA AND
CALIFORNIA HERE TO EXPRESS OUR
STRONG OPPOSITION TO SB 1103 AS
IN PRINT. WHILE WE UNDERSTAND
THE AUTHOR HAS AGREED TO
AMENDMENTS IN THE COMMITTEE, THE
SHORT NOTICE HAS NOT AFFORDED US
SUFFICIENT TIME TO THOROUGHLY
ANALYZE THESE CHANGES.
THEREFORE, WE REMAIN OPPOSED TO
THE BILL IN ITS PRESENT FORM.
THIS LEGISLATION, WHILE WELL
INTENTIONED, POSES SIGNIFICANT
RISKS TO THE VERY FOUNDATION OF
CALIFORNIA'S COMMERCIAL REAL
ESTATE SECTOR. AN ENGINE OF
ECONOMIC GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY
IN OUR STATE. SB 1103 APPLIES
RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTIONS
TO BUSINESS AGREEMENTS, IGNORING
THE CRUCIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
COMMERCIAL LEASES AND
RESIDENTIAL LEASES. THIS BILL'S
ONE SIZE FITS ALL APPROACH,
PARTICULARLY ITS LIMITATIONS ON
SECURITY DEPOSITS, COULD DETER
LEASING TO NEW OR FINANCIALLY
UNPROVEN BUSINESSES, UNDERMINE
ITS INTENT TO SUPPORT
ENTREPRENEURIAL GROWTH.
MOREOVER, THE BILL INTRODUCES
VAGUE REGULATIONS THAT INCREASE
OPERATIONAL COSTS AND LEGAL
COMPLEXITIES, DISCOURAGING
INVESTMENT THAT THREATENS MARKET
STABILITY. WE HOPE THE REVISED
LANGUAGE OF THIS BILL WILL
EFFECTIVELY ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS
BY ELIMINATING THE RENT CONTROL
PROVISION, OMITTING THE
MANDATORY TRANSLATION
REQUIREMENTS, AND LIFTING
LIMITATIONS ON SECURITY
DEPOSITS. CLARIFY THE DEFINITION
OF REAL PROPERTY AND ALLOWING
FOR AN OPT OUT PROVISION. WE
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTRIBUTING TO
THIS EFFORT TO ENSURE THE
LEGISLATION ACCURATELY REFLECTS
THE COMPLEXITIES AND NECESSITIES
OF CALIFORNIA'S COMMERCIAL REAL
ESTATE SECTOR. GIVEN THESE
CONSIDERATIONS, WE STRONGLY URGE
A NO VOTE ON SB 1103 RECOGNIZING
THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THIS
BILL MAY OPPOSE IS ESSENTIAL TO
PROTECTING THE BUSINESSES IT
AIMS TO SUPPORT AND MAINTAINING
THE ROBUSTNESS OF CALIFORNIA'S
COMMERCIAL LEASING MARKET. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. HI. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JOHN
VIGNOCCHI. I'M A LOCAL
BUSINESSMAN HERE IN SACRAMENTO.
MY DAY JOB ENCOMPASSES BUILDING
URBAN INFILL, TRANSIT ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT. WE DO A LOT OF
PRIVATELY FINANCED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. WE WORK WITH A LOT OF
LOCAL TENANTS, AND I UNDERSTAND
THE INTENT OF THIS BILL IS TO
HELP SMALL BUSINESSES. BUT THE
REALITY IS, IS WHEN YOU WORK
WITH LOCAL TENANTS AND THEY
DON'T HAVE GREAT CREDIT OR THEY
DON'T HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE,
MAYBE THIS IS THEIR FIRST TIME
TRYING TO GET A BUSINESS OPEN.
YOU NEED SOME SORT OF SECURITY
IN ORDER TO OFFSET THAT RISK.
AND A LOT OF THE PROVISIONS IN
THIS BILL ACTUALLY WILL HURT THE
PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
HELP, WHICH IS DISAPPOINTING,
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE WORKING
WITH FOLKS WHO HAVE NEVER DONE A
TENANT IMPROVEMENT OR NEVER DONE
A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, A LOT OF
TIMES THE DEVELOPER WILL STEP IN
TO ACTUALLY PROVIDE THOSE
SERVICES. AND SO BY LIMITING THE
SECURITY DEPOSIT TO ONE X
MONTHLY RENT, YOU'RE ACTUALLY
INCREASING THE LIKELIHOOD THAT
THE TENANTS JUST WON'T HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE INTO THESE
PHYSICAL SPACES, WHICH IS WHAT
THEY NEED TO EXPAND, TO GROW, TO
MAKE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES. I
THINK THAT'S REALLY PROBLEMATIC.
I THINK THERE'S BETTER WAYS TO
SOLVE THIS TYPE OF ISSUE. I
THINK, YOU KNOW, AND I STUDIED
ECONOMICS AT CAL POLY. THERE'S
THIS GREAT SAYING, THE CURIOUS
TASK OF ECONOMICS IS TO
DEMONSTRATE TO PEOPLE HOW LITTLE
THEY KNOW ABOUT WHAT THEY
IMAGINE THEY CAN DESIGN, AND THE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THIS
BILL WILL ACTUALLY DO MORE HARM
THAN GOOD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME AND URGE A STRONG NO VOTE
ON THIS, AND MAYBE SOME OTHER
WORKAROUND TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM
THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
BEFORE WE TAKE OTHER TESTIMONY,
AND I REALIZE THE OPPOSITION, AS
WELL AS THE PROPONENTS HAVE HAD
VIRTUALLY NO TIME TO REVIEW THE
AMENDMENTS. BUT JUST A QUICK
ASIDE, TO THE EXTENT THERE WAS
ANY RENT CONTROL PROVISION, THAT
IS NO RENT CONTROL PROVISION IN
THE AMENDED VERSION AND THE
SECURITY DEPOSIT PROVISIONS HAVE
ALSO BEEN ELIMINATED. SO GO
AHEAD, EXCUSE ME, CHAIR, ARE YOU
ABLE TO HAND OUT THE ACTUAL BILL
SO WE COULD SEE IT? I BELIEVE
YOU HAVE IT, BUT IF NOT, WE'LL
MAKE SURE YOU DO SO IT'S IN THE
ANALYSIS. YES, YES. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. HI. HI.
INDIRA MACDONALD, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA MORTGAGE BANKERS
ASSOCIATION. WE ARE JUST SEEING
THE AMENDMENTS NOW, SO WE'LL
REVIEW THOSE. BUT AS OF TODAY,
WE'RE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. YES
GOOD AFTERNOON, AUDREY
RITECHECK. ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION. IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
MEMBERS. ADAM WRIGLEY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
IN THE SAME POSITION, STILL
REVIEWING, BUT REMAIN OPPOSED AT
THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
LAWRENCE GORDON, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION, STILL
REVIEWING THE AMENDMENTS BUT
REMAIN OPPOSED. THANK YOU. HI,
NATALIE BOUST, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE,
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. CHRIS WYSOCKY,
WESTERN MANUFACTURED HOUSING
COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION. PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE SEEING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACHING THE MICROPHONE.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. YES. SENATOR LAIRD,
THEN SENATOR MINH, I THOUGHT I
WOULD FOLLOW UP ON THE CHAIR
BECAUSE IT WAS HARD FOR US TO.
WE ONLY GOT THE ANALYSIS
MID-MORNING, AND WE HAD READ
EVERYTHING ELSE BEFOREHAND. THE
TWO OPPOSITION LEAD WITNESSES
LISTED SPECIFIC CONCERNS, AND
THE CHAIR LISTED TWO THAT HAD
BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE AMENDMENTS
WERE ANY OTHER OF THE LISTED
CONCERNS ADDRESSED BY THE
AMENDMENTS? AND I APOLOGIZE IF I
DON'T GIVE YOU ALL OF IT, BUT
WHAT I HEARD THE MAIN CONCERNS
WERE SECURITY DEPOSIT, WHICH WAS
REMOVED FROM THE BILL. THE OTHER
CONCERN WAS THE TRANSLATION
SERVICES REMOVED FROM THE BILL
AND THE THIRD ACTUALLY CONCERN
WAS THAT THERE WAS LANGUAGE HERE
THAT WAS UNCLEAR. THAT MADE IT
SEEM LIKE THERE WAS RENT
CONTROL. THAT WAS ALSO REWARDED
TO BE VERY, VERY CLEAR THAT
THERE'S NO RENT CONTROL
COMPONENT TO THIS BILL
WHATSOEVER, AND THAT WE WERE
JUST SPEAKING TO THE CAMP FEES
AND THE NOTICE OF WHEN IT WHEN
CAMP FEES INCREASE, UNLESS I
MISSED ANOTHER MAIN CONCERN.
THOSE ARE THE MAIN CONCERNS FROM
THE OPPOSITION THAT I FEEL THAT
ONCE THEY HAVE TIME TO READ
THROUGH EVERYTHING, THEY COULD
POTENTIALLY BE REMOVED OR
NEUTRAL. THANK YOU. I THINK THE
DIFFICULTY IS IN DOING IT THIS
WAY IS I HAD STRONG CONCERNS
ABOUT THE ORIGINAL, AND IT SEEMS
A LOT OF IT'S BEEN ADDRESSED.
YES, IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO GIVE
YOU A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN IT TO
PEOPLE AND SEE WHAT'S REMAINING
AND SEE IF THERE CAN BE WORK.
BUT SO THAT'S WHY, SENATOR
LAIRD, THE FIRST THING I STARTED
OFF WITH WAS DESCRIBING THE
FOUR. FIVE PROVISIONS THAT EXIST
. IT'S THE DEFINING OF WHAT A
QUALIFIED COMMERCIAL TENANT IS
MICROENTERPRISE TEN OR FEWER FOR
RESTAURANT, 20 OR FEWER FOR
NONPROFIT. IT WOULD THEN
REQUIRE, THAT TENANT TO DISCLOSE
THAT THEY THAT THROUGH
SELF-ATTESTATION THAT THEY
QUALIFY FOR THIS. SO A TENANT IS
UPON THE TENANT TO DISCLOSE THE
LANDLORD. HEY, I QUALIFY UNDER
SB 1103. I THINK IT'S MORE OF A
PROCESS THING. LIKE OF THOSE
FIVE THINGS. YEAH. WERE THEY IN
THE ORIGINAL BILL UNAMENDED AND
THEN THE OTHER. NO, THIS IS NEW.
THIS IS BRAND NEW. MY PREVIOUS
VERSION HAD NO SEE. I'M TRYING
TO UNDERSTAND. EXCUSE ME FOR
INTERRUPTING. I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS, WHICH IS
WHAT WAS IN THE BILL. WHAT'S NOT
IN THE BILL ARE THE CHANGES TO
GET A GRASP OF THE OVERALL.
OKAY. AND LET ME JUST ASK ONE
OTHER, BECAUSE I SUSPECT
EVERYBODY ELSE IS GOING TO KEEP
GOING. AND I PROBABLY HAVE THE
SAME QUESTION, HOW DOES THIS
AFFECT WHAT YOU WERE ORIGINALLY
TRYING TO DO WITH THE BILL? DO
YOU THINK THIS STILL DOES? THEN
IT TRIMMED IT DRASTICALLY, BUT
I'M HERE FOR THE LONG RUN. I GOT
TEN YEARS TO COME BACK AND LOOK
AT HOW ELSE WE CAN ADD TO IT,
RIGHT? SO IT'S ONE STEP IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION. THÀNH. BUT IT
DID TRIM A LOT OF THE THINGS.
AND TO BE HONEST, THERE WAS ONE
THAT I FELT I COULDN'T COME TO
THIS COMMITTEE AND HAVE THE
RESPONSE FOR. SO I FELT
COMFORTABLE REMOVING SECURITY
DEPOSITS OUT OF IT BECAUSE I
FELT THAT I COULDN'T REALLY
ADEQUATELY DEFEND IT. HERE IN
FRONT OF ALL OF YOU. BECAUSE IN
MY MEETING WITH THE CHAIR OVER
THE WEEKEND, LIKE, YOU KNOW, HE
HAD WONDERFUL QUESTIONS, AND IN
THAT CONVERSATION, I WAS LIKE,
OKAY, IF YOU ASK THOSE SAME
QUESTIONS IN COMMITTEE, I DON'T
THINK WE HAVE THE CORRECT
ANSWERS OR HAVE THE ADEQUATE
ANSWERS TO RESPOND TO THAT. SO
THAT'S WHY A LOT OF THE
PROVISIONS WERE REMOVED, SO AS
TO FURTHER WORK WITH OUR
STAKEHOLDERS AND OUR WORK GROUPS
TO SEE HOW ELSE WE CAN ADDRESS
THE BOTTOM LINE. AND THE BOTTOM
LINE IS TO PREVENT AS MANY,
EVICTIONS AS POSSIBLE. LAST
MINUTE EVICTIONS TO FURTHER
PROTECT OUR SMALL BUSINESSES AND
OUR NONPROFITS TO BE ABLE TO
THRIVE, TO ADDITIONALLY PROVIDE
RESOURCES TO THE NONPROFIT
ASSETS LIKE BEZDEK AND OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS THAT WORK ON PRO
BONO ASSISTANCE TO OUR SMALL
BUSINESS TENANTS, ON PROVIDING
THEM WITH ACCESS TO ADDITIONAL
RIGHTS. YOU HEARD EXAMPLE FROM
MY WITNESS THAT THEIR THEIR
MORTGAGE OR THEIR LEASE COSTS
ABOUT 11,000. ON TOP OF THAT,
IT'S 4700 FOR CAMP FEES. AND AT
THE END OF THE DAY, YOU DON'T
REALLY KNOW WHAT THE CAMP FEES
ARE BEING USED FOR. YOU'RE JUST
TOLD TO CHARGE. SO THIS PUTS A
LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE DEVELOPER
. I'M SORRY ON THE LANDLORD TO
SAY I'M GOING TO CHARGE YOU
4700, BUT THIS IS WHAT IT'S
GOING TO GO TOWARDS, SO WE JUST
WANT FOR THE TRANSPARENCY AND
THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS
THAT THE CHAIR AND I AGREED ON
IS THE TRANSPARENT PART OF IT
ALL TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE PAYING
FOR THINGS THAT WE KNOW WHERE
OUR PENNIES ARE GOING TO. THANK
YOU. APPRECIATE THE CANDOR. AND
THE FIRST PART OF THAT
STATEMENT. LET ME ADDRESS THE
PROCESS ISSUE FIRST, THIS IS NOT
HOW SENATOR MENGIBAR NOR I WOULD
TYPICALLY WANT TO HAVE THIS BILL
HEARD IF WE HAD ANOTHER HEARING,
IF WE COULD HAVE IT HEARD AT A
LATER DATE, WE WOULD, BUT WE
CAN'T. AND SO AS A CONSEQUENCE,
THERE HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS
AMOUNT OF MOVEMENT. LET ME
DESCRIBE WHAT I THINK THE
PROBLEM IS. AND SENATOR
MENGIBAR, YOU CAN CORRECT ME
WHERE I'M WRONG AND WHAT THE
BILL NOW SEEKS TO ADDRESS, AS
SENATOR MENGIBAR INDICATED, IT
IS IN A MUCH SKINNIER VERSION
THAN EXISTED ORIGINALLY, AND THE
PROBLEM WAS ILLUSTRATED BY ONE
OF THE WITNESSES WHO SAID, WHEN
WE SIGNED THE LEASE, WE AGREED
TO PAY, FOR EXAMPLE, MAINTENANCE
FEES. AND THEN WE FOUND OUT THAT
MAINTENANCE FEES WERE TWO TIMES
THE RENT. SO WHAT THIS BILL SAYS
NOW IS LOOK IT. IF YOU'RE A
QUALIFIED BUSINESS, YOU FIRST
GOT TO TELL THE LANDLORD, HEY,
I'M A QUALIFIED BUSINESS BEFORE
YOU SIGN, LANDLORD COULD SAY YES
OR NO. I DON'T WANT A QUALIFIED
BUSINESS. AND THERE'S NO
PROHIBITION ON A LANDLORD
BASICALLY REFUSING TO RENT TO A
QUALIFIED BUSINESS. SECONDLY IS
TO THE EXTENT THAT MAINTENANCE
FEES GO UP, THEN THE TENANT,
UPON REQUEST CAN SAY TO
LANDLORD, LANDLORD, WHAT ARE
THESE FEES? TELL ME WHAT THESE
FEES ARE. SO THAT THERE'S SOME
VISIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE
FEES, AND THAT'S BASICALLY WHERE
THE WHERE THE BILL IS NOW. AND
I'LL ASK SENATOR MENGIBAR IF SHE
CONCURS WITH THAT. THAT'S
CORRECT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I HOPE
THAT ANSWERS SOME QUESTIONS. AND
YES, YOU ALL SHOULD HAVE HAD
MUCH LONGER TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW
THE BILL IN THE AMENDMENTS. SO.
RIGHT, OKAY. SO I THINK IT WAS
SENATOR MINH, THEN SENATOR
NIELLO. YES, SENATOR MENGIBAR,
YOU AND I SPOKE BEFORE THIS AND
I GUESS I'M MAYBE CONFUSED ABOUT
THE AIM OF THIS BILL, BECAUSE
WHEN I FIRST TALKED TO YOU, IT
LOOKED TO ME LIKE YOU WERE
TRYING TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF
SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS WHO MAYBE
WEREN'T FLUENT IN ENGLISH, WHO
MIGHT HAVE HAD A SEVERE
DISCREPANCY BETWEEN WHAT WAS
REPRESENTED TO THEM IN ORAL
DISCUSSIONS AND THE WRITTEN
CONTRACT. IS IT NOW CORRECT THAT
YOU'VE JUST TAKEN OUT THE
TRANSLATION REQUIREMENT ENTIRELY
FROM THIS BILL? WE TOOK THAT OUT
BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT WE
DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO
CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE. SO WITH
THAT CURRENT LANGUAGE, IT WAS
ALSO IMPOSING THAT REQUIREMENT
ON, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY,
LIKE BANK MORTGAGE CONTRACTS AND
SO FORTH, WHICH IS NOT MY
INTENTION. AND WE DIDN'T HAVE
ENOUGH TIME TO CLARIFY THAT
LANGUAGE. I MEAN, YEAH, THAT
LANGUAGE TO SAY THAT THE
TRANSLATION SERVICES WERE ONLY
FOR COMMERCIAL, CONTRACTS. SO WE
REMOVED IT ALTOGETHER. SO I
GUESS THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR
YOU IS WHAT IS THE PROBLEM THIS
BILL NOW IS TRYING TO SOLVE?
BECAUSE LIKE I UNDERSTOOD THE
PROBLEM, YOU KNOW, AND I
EXPRESSED CONCERNS, I THOUGHT
THAT MAYBE LIMITING THE SECURITY
DEPOSIT TO ONE MONTH WAS
ARBITRARY. AND I FOUND CREDENCE
IN THE ARGUMENT FROM OPPOSITION
THAT THAT THERE WERE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH YOU MIGHT
WANT TO RIGHTLY HAVE MORE OF A
BUFFER AGAINST LOSS IN THAT. SO
YOU AND I DISCUSSED THAT, BUT I
OVERALL THOUGHT THE THRUST OF
YOUR BILL WAS APPROPRIATE. BUT
BUT NOW THAT YOU'VE TAKEN OUT
THE LANGUAGE PART, I'M NOT SURE
WHAT THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO SOLVE. SO MAYBE YOU
COULD EXPLAIN THAT TO ME AT THE
END OF THE DAY, WE'RE WE ALL
KNOW WE HAVE VERY AMBITIOUS
BILLS AND THAT IN THE IN THE
FIRST TIME THAT YOU INTRODUCE
THEM, YOU'RE GOING TO GET
EVERYTHING. YOU'RE NOT ALWAYS
GOING TO GET A HOME RUN. RIGHT.
SO THIS IS THE FIRST SPACE THAT
I'M GETTING TO IN TERMS OF JUST
PROTECTING OUR SMALL BUSINESSES.
SO WHEN I LOOK AT THIS AND I SEE
THAT OUR SMALL BUSINESSES ARE
HAVING TO PAY CAM FEES THAT ARE
AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT WITHOUT
HAVING ANY JUSTIFICATION,
WITHOUT SEEING ANYTHING CHANGED
IN TERMS OF MAINTENANCE AROUND
THEM, THAT ALONE IS A BIG STEP
TO ENSURE THAT THEY KNOW, OR
LANDLORDS KNOW THAT THEY CAN'T
JUST IMPOSE IN A RANDOM NUMBER
JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN. SO THIS
NOW WILL INCLUDE TRANSPARENCY.
SO LANDLORDS KNOW THAT THEY
CAN'T JUST SAY 4700, PAY IT OR
LEAVE, THAT. THEY NOW HAVE TO
DISCLOSE WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO
BE UTILIZING THAT FOR. SO
SENATOR, I AGREE WITH YOU. IF IT
WAS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY UP TO
ME, WE'D HAVE ALL THE SINGLE
PROVISIONS. BUT I DO RECOGNIZE
THAT I NEED TO MOVE FORWARD AND
IN MOVING FORWARD WITH THE
TRANSPARENCY, WITH THE
TRANSPARENCY PART, IS BETTER
THAN MOVING FORWARD WITH
NOTHING, I GUESS I'M WHEN I
THINK OF A CONTRACT, I THINK OF
SOMETHING THAT'S DULY AND FAIRLY
NEGOTIATED BETWEEN TWO SIDES AND
OBVIOUSLY THAT IS NOT HAPPENING.
AND I REPRESENT, LIKE YOU, A LOT
OF IMMIGRANT OWNED SMALL
BUSINESSES THAT THAT WE'VE SEEN
A LOT OF PREDATORY PRACTICES AS,
YOU KNOW, WE'VE I'VE TRIED TO
AUTHOR BILLS PROTECTING SMALL
BUSINESS OWNERS BECAUSE IN A LOT
OF WAYS THEY RESEMBLE CONSUMERS
MORE THAN THEY DO SOPHISTICATED,
LIKE CEOS OF BIG CORPORATIONS.
AND SO I HEAR THE POINT YOU'RE
TRYING TO ADDRESS, BUT I GUESS
MY CONCERN IS THAT BY TAKING
OUT, LIKE TO ME, THE CORE OF
THIS BILL, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE,
I THINK YOUR QUESTION SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO THE CHAIR, NOT ME ON
THAT PART, SURE. BUT BECAUSE I
DIDN'T TAKE THAT PART OUT SO I
CAN RESPOND TO THAT. SO TO YOUR
QUESTION, WHAT IS THE WHAT IS
THE ISSUE OF THE BILL NOW IS
TRYING TO ADDRESS? THE ISSUE IS
WHERE THERE'S BEEN AN INCREASE
IN, FOR EXAMPLE, MAINTENANCE
FEES AND THE TENANT DOESN'T KNOW
WHY SENT TO THEM AHEAD OF TIME
OR IT WAS NOT IN THE LANGUAGE OF
THE CONTRACT NOT AUTHORIZED IN A
TRIPLE NET LEASE, WHERE THE
TRIPLE NET LEASE SAYS, LOOK,
HERE'S THE BASE RENT. PLUS YOU
PAY FOR INSURANCE, TAXES AND
MAINTENANCE AND YOU GET A
INVOICE THAT SAYS MAINTENANCE
FEES HAVE INCREASED FROM $100 TO
$1000. BUT THE BILL SAYS IS IF
YOU, THE TENANT, SAY, HEY,
LISTEN, I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW IT
IS THAT MY MAINTENANCE FEES WENT
FROM $100 TO $1000. YOU
LANDLORD, NOW HAVE TO
DEMONSTRATE TO ME WHAT THE BASIS
IS OF THAT OF THAT INCREASE. SO
THAT'S THE ISSUE. AS SENATOR
MENGIBAR SAID, IT'S PROVIDING
SOME TRANSPARENCY TO THE TENANTS
SO THAT THEY CAN AT LEAST SEE
WHAT THESE FEES ARE. MR. CHAIR,
CAN WE ALSO TURN TO MY I HAVE A
TECHNICAL AN EXPERT IN THIS. HI
MY NAME IS RITA MAHAJAN. I'M
WITH PUBLIC COUNSEL. I'M AN
ATTORNEY. I JUST WANTED TO
CLARIFY SOMETHING ON THIS
LANGUAGE PIECE. SO THE
REQUIREMENT TO TRANSLATE
COMMERCIAL LEASES, IF THEY'RE
NEGOTIATED IN A LANGUAGE OTHER
THAN ENGLISH, AS LONG AS IT'S
LIMITED TO THE FIVE LANGUAGES
THAT ARE IN THE CODE, IT'S STILL
IN THE BILL. THAT'S STILL PART
OF THE BILL. IT'S STILL IN THE
BILL. AND THE REASON THERE'S
CONFUSION IS BECAUSE INITIALLY
WE HAD SAID, LET'S EXPAND IT TO
MORE THAN THOSE FIVE LANGUAGES.
AND WE HEARD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT
THAT. AND SO WE TOOK THAT
EXPANSION OUT. BUT THE BILL
STILL DOES SAY THAT FOR THOSE
FIVE LANGUAGES, IF YOU'RE
NEGOTIATING IN THOSE LANGUAGES,
THEN THE WRITTEN LEASE HAS TO BE
PROVIDED TO YOU IN YOUR
LANGUAGE. OKAY. TO ME, THAT IS A
CORE TENET OF WHAT THE BILL WAS
LIKE AS AS THE REASON I WAS
INITIALLY INCLINED TO SUPPORT IT
WAS THAT SET OF PROVISIONS, BUT
THAT IS STILL INTACT, AS WAS
ILLUSTRATED. THAT PORTION IS
THAT EXISTING LAW BY THE WAY. SO
EXISTING LAW APPLIES THIS RULE
THAT IF YOU NEGOTIATE YOUR
RESIDENTIAL LEASE, CONSUMER
CONTRACT, LIKE A CERTAIN TYPES
OF LOANS, EXTENDS IT TO SMALL,
CERTAIN TYPES OF SMALL
BUSINESSES TO COMMERCIAL LEASES.
THAT'S STILL PRESENT IN THE
BILL. JUST TO BE CLEAR, FOR
THOSE QUALIFIED, THOSE THOSE
FIVE LANGUAGES. YES. AND FOR
THOSE BUSINESSES THAT ARE
QUALIFIED, THAT STILL EXISTS.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. A LOT OF CHANGES.
THANKS. YES THERE ARE A LOT OF
CHANGES. THANK YOU. CINNAMON.
ALL RIGHT, OTHER QUESTIONS,
SENATOR NIELLO. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, SENATOR MENGIBAR, WHAT
HAPPENS IF A QUALIFIED
COMMERCIAL TENANT DOES NOT
IDENTIFY BY ITSELF AS A
QUALIFIED COMMERCIAL TENANT?
WHAT HAPPENS FROM THAT POINT
FORWARD? NOTHING. YOU. THE BILL
SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THEY HAVE
TO SELF-ATTEST THAT THEY QUALIFY
FOR THESE ADDITIONAL
DISCLOSURES. SO IF THEY DON'T
DISCLOSE THAT THE LANDLORD IS
NOT REQUIRED TO SAY, HEY, YOU
CAN REQUEST ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTATION FROM ME WHEN I
INCREASE YOUR CAMP FEES. AND, I
APPRECIATE ONE STATEMENT YOU
MADE. YOU AND I BOTH WILL BE
AROUND HERE. VOTERS WILLING FOR
ANOTHER. WELL, SIX AND A HALF
YEARS AND, I ALSO WILL ATTEMPT
TO PASS LEGISLATION THAT I'VE
BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL AT SO FAR. AND
I THINK WHAT YOU SAID WAS YOUR
TRUE INTENT IS TO GET OUT WHAT
YOU CAN PAST. BUT IMPROVE ON IT
NEXT YEAR OR THE YEAR AFTER, I
THINK. YEAH, I THINK YOU CAN SAY
THAT STATEMENT FOR SO MANY OF
THE ISSUES WE WORK ON, CORRECT?
YEAH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? YES. SENATOR ALLEN
OKAY. SO JUST WANT TO CLARIFY
WITH ALL THIS DISCUSSION AS
AMENDED TODAY, THE BILL DOESN'T
APPLY ANY PROVISIONS BEYOND THE
DEFINED, QUALIFIED COMMERCIAL
TENANTS. THAT'S WE'RE LIMITED TO
THE DEFINITION OF QUALIFIED
COMMERCIAL TENANTS. OKAY. OKAY.
GREAT. THANK YOU. AND JUST TO
MAKE SURE THAT SENATOR MENGIBAR
AND I ARE ON THE SAME SHEET OF
MUSIC IN RESPONSE TO SENATOR
NE-YO'S QUESTION IS THAT IF A
QUALIFIED COMMERCIAL TENANT
DOESN'T BASICALLY INFORM THE
LANDLORD, THEY MAY NOT AVAIL
THEMSELVES OF THE PROTECTIONS OF
THE PROVISIONS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
OTHER QUESTIONS, OTHER COMMENTS.
IS THERE A MOTION, SENATOR DODD.
YES. FIRST OF ALL, I APPRECIATE
THE AUTHOR AND PARTICULARLY THE
CHAIR CHAIRMAN FOR, YOU KNOW,
BRINGING THESE AMENDMENTS
FORWARD TO, YOU KNOW, MORE
CLARIFY WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. I
STILL HAVE, YOU KNOW, SOME, SOME
CONCERNS ULTIMATELY, BUT, I
PREPARED TO SUPPORT, THIS TODAY,
BUT RESERVE, YOU KNOW, JUDGMENT
OBVIOUSLY, ON THE FLOOR IF WE
CAN'T GET TO WHERE WE NEED TO
BE, ULTIMATELY. BUT I, I
APPRECIATE BOTH OF YOU DOING THE
WORK. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU,
SENATOR DODD. SENATOR CABALLERO,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR.
AND I WANT TO, REPEAT WHAT
SENATOR DODD JUST SAID IS THAT I
, I THINK I KNOW WHAT THE BILL
DOES, BUT THAT I HAD A CONCERN
ABOUT THE BECAUSE I WROTE DOWN
THAT THERE WERE NO TRANSLATION
SERVICES, NOT AN ISSUE. I WAS
LOOKING TO TAKE OUT, BUT I JUST
THEN FOUND OUT THERE WAS
CLARIFICATION. SO I'M A LITTLE
BIT NERVOUS ABOUT SUPPORTING
SOMETHING THAT I'M JUST NOT SURE
I UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY, IT
SEEMS VERY SIMPLE, I'M ANXIOUS
TO SEE WHAT THE OPPOSITION HAS
TO SAY, SOME MAY NOT LIKE IT
JUST BECAUSE IT REALLY IS AN
EXPANSION OF RESIDENTIAL,
TREATMENT, BUT BUT I ALSO HAVE
WORKED WITH SMALL BUSINESSES
OVER THE YEARS, AND, AND, IN MY
COMMUNITY BECAUSE THEY CAN'T
AFFORD TO RENT A SINGLE SPACE BY
THEMSELVES. THESE SWAP MEETS
HAVE POPPED UP AND THE SWAP
MEETS SELL SPACE WITHIN A BIGGER
STORE. AND THEY PROVED TO BE
REALLY SUCCESSFUL FOR SMALL MOM
AND POP BUSINESSES. AND IT'S A
WAY FOR PEOPLE TO GET IN AND TO
SEE WHETHER THEY REALLY LIKE
BEING IN BUSINESS FOR THEMSELVES
AND, AND IT'S DIFFICULT BECAUSE
THEY VIOLATE ALL KINDS OF STATE
LAWS, BECAUSE OF HOW THEY'RE SET
UP. BUT I SUPPORT THEM BECAUSE I
THINK IT'S A REALLY GOOD WAY TO
ENCOURAGE SMALL BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT. SO I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. I WANT
TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT, HAVE SOME
MORE CONVERSATIONS. BUT I, I
APPRECIATE HOW HARD YOU'VE
WORKED ON IT AND WORKED WITH THE
CHAIR. SO, I'LL SUPPORT IT
TODAY. THANK YOU SENATOR. AND
YOU KNOW, I, I WOULD BE IN THAT
SAME POSITION. RIGHT, I'VE
TALKED TO SOME OF YOU. YOU KNOW,
THE DEADLINES, THE TIMELINES ARE
SOMETIMES REALLY PUSHED UP
AGAINST US, AND IT DOESN'T ALLOW
US A LOT OF TIME TO LOOK AT IT,
THAT'S WHY I TRIED MY BEST TO
JUST DESCRIBE WHAT REALLY IT
DOES. AND I APOLOGIZE, SENATOR
MEN, FOR THAT TRANSLATION PART.
I WAS REALLY FOCUSED ON ALL THE
CHANGES THAT WE INCORPORATE INTO
THIS BILL. BUT I DO HOPE AND I
DO THINK THAT ONCE IT'S
OFFICIALLY, OFFICIALLY Þ, ON,
ON, ON PRINT, AND BEFORE IT GETS
TO YOU ON THE FLOOR, YOU HAVE A
REALLY GOOD AND CLEAR
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THIS BILL
IS. INTENTIONS ARE. ALL RIGHT.
WAS THAT YOUR. I USE THAT AS MY
CLOTHES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IS
THERE A MOTION? SENATOR
CABALLERO HAS MOVED THE BILL,
YES, SENATOR MENGIBAR, YOU HAVE
WORKED HARD AND DILIGENT, AND WE
BOTH RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A
WORK IN PROGRESS, I MADE, I
THINK, GREAT STRIDES. AND THERE
MAY STILL BE SOME OTHER ISSUES
THAT NEED TO BE TIED UP. SO
HAVING SAID THAT, MADAM
SECRETARY, IF YOU PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER TWO, SB 1103. THE MOTION
IS TO PASS AS AMENDED. NUMBER
UMMER I WILK NØ WILK NØ. ALLEN
ALLEN I BLAKE. SPEAR I BLAKE.
SPEAR I CABALLERO. CABALLERO I
DODD. DODD I Dð. GROSSO LAIRD I
LAIRD I MINH I MIN I NILO NØ ELO
NÓ WIENER. THANK YOU. 7 TO 2
SEVEN TWO, WE'LL PUT THAT ON
CALL. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. Þ
ÓRDENES. ALL RIGHT, LET'S DO THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. YES. THAT'S
WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO. I MOVE
THE CONSENT. SENATOR. SENATOR
LAIRD MOVES THE CONSENT
CALENDAR, MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. UMBERG. AYE.
UMBERG AYE. WILK. AYE WILK. AYE.
ALLEN. ALLEN. AYE. BLAKE. SPEAR
BLAKE. SPEAR. AYE. CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. AYE. DODD DODD. AYE.
RUSSELL. LAIRD. LAIRD AYE. MIN.
MIN. AYE. NILO NILO. AYE. WIENER
9 TO 0. ON CONSENT. EXCUSE ME.
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL PUT THE CONSENT
CALENDAR ON CALL, NEXT WE HAVE
SENATOR EGGMAN. SENATOR EGGMAN,
THE FLOOR IS YOURS, FIVE. ITEM
NUMBER TWO, SB Ó. I'M SORRY.
STRIKE THAT FILE, NUMBER ONE, SB
1184. AND THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED
BY SENATOR RUBIO. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS.
LET ME GET MY NOTES UP. BUT,
SENATOR MINH LEFT, BUT I WANTED
TO START OFF BY SAYING, WHAT IS
THE PROBLEM I'M TRYING TO SOLVE,
BECAUSE THAT'S HOW I TRY TO
START ALL MY LEGISLATION. AND I
ASK MY STAFF REPEATEDLY, WHAT
PROBLEM ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE?
BECAUSE IF WE DON'T HAVE A GOOD
ANSWER FOR THAT, WE PROBABLY
DON'T HAVE A GOOD REASON FOR A
BILL, AND THIS HAS TO DO WITH
WORKING AGAIN ON THE ISSUE
AROUND MENTAL HEALTH. AND ONCE
SOMEBODY IS PUT ON A HOLD,
MAKING SURE THEY DON'T
DECOMPENSATE BETWEEN 18 SEPARATE
HOLES, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A
51, 50, A 5250. AND THEN IT GOES
ON TO A MONTH POSSIBLE. ANOTHER
MONTH BEFORE AND HOPEFULLY NOT
SOMEONE REACHES THE CONSERVATOR
ISSUE. AND THE ISSUE IS
SOMETIMES WHEN SOMEBODY IS PUT
ON A 5150 AND IF THERE'S A RESE
HEARING HELD TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEIR RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED. AND
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
DO. AND I REALLY WANT TO START
OFF BY SAYING, ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS AND REALLY APPRECIATE
ALL THE WORK THE STAFF, THE
CHAIR DID ON THIS TO REALLY HELP
US. WE THINK BEING ABLE TO
ADDRESS THE PROBLEM AND
MAINTAIN, PEOPLE'S RIGHTS IN THE
PROCESS, THEIR DUE PROCESS, SO
WE BELIEVE THE AMENDMENTS WE'RE
DOING TODAY, PUT THAT PUT THE
HEAR THE HEARING BACK IN PLACE,
TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE'S DUE
PROCESSES ARE PROTECTED. BUT
WITH THE LANGUAGE, MAKING SURE
THAT IT DOESN'T ONCE THAT FILE
IS THE PETITION IS FILED THAT
THAT IS ENOUGH AND THAT SOMEBODY
DOESN'T HAVE TO GO OFF
MEDICATION BEFORE THE COURT
HEARING CAN BE SCHEDULED. IT'S
ONE OF THE ISSUES WE'RE SEEING.
THE COURT ISSUES CAN'T BE
SCHEDULED. SOMEBODY HOLDS OUT
THE HEARING GOES, AND THEY'RE
THEY DECOMPENSATE AND THEN HAVE
TO START ALL OVER AGAIN. SO
THAT'S WHAT THIS DOES, WE NEVER
WANT TO HOLD SOMEBODY LONGER
THAN WE HAVE TO. AND OF COURSE,
IF SOMEBODY RETURNS TO
COMPETENCY, THEN THAT MEDICATION
WOULD BE STOPPED IF THEY DON'T
CONSENT TO IT. BUT THIS JUST
PROVIDES, THE ABILITY TO
CONTINUE TREATMENT UNTIL THE
HEARING CAN BE SCHEDULED AND OR
COMPETENCY IS RETURNED. WITH ME
TODAY I HAVE DOCTOR ERIC CHUNG
AND RANDALL HAGER READY. THANK
YOU. THE FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK
YOU. COMMITTEE, MY NAME IS ERIC
CHUNG. I'M A PSYCHIATRIST, AND I
HAVE 17 YEARS OF HOSPITAL BASED
PRACTICE AT UCLA, WHERE I AM
PRESENTLY THE CHIEF MEDICAL
OFFICER FOR THE RESIDENT
NEUROPSYCH PATRICK HOSPITAL. I
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
ADDRESS YOU ON SB 1184, WHICH IS
FIXING THE RISK GAP, IT IS A GAP
THAT APPLIES TO THE MOST
SEVERELY ILL OF OUR PATIENTS AND
OUR CITIZENS. IT RIGHT NOW, AS
AS A CURRENT LAW STANDS, CAUSES
PATIENTS WHO MOVE FROM ONE HOLD
TO ANOTHER TO ABRUPTLY
DISCONTINUE THEIR MUCH NEEDED
MEDICATION FOR A PERIOD OF
APPROXIMATELY 2 TO 5 DAYS WHILE
WAITING FOR ANOTHER HEARING TO
OCCUR. I'VE SEEN THIS PERSONALLY
PLAY OUT OVER THE 17 YEARS THAT
I'VE BEEN WORKING IN THE
HOSPITAL, AND MY COLLEAGUES AS
WELL, ACROSS THE STATE. I WILL
ILLUSTRATE IT WITH A VERY BRIEF
PATIENT CASE. NOT LONG AGO, WE
HAD A PATIENT, YOUNG MAN WHO GOT
ADMITTED TO OUR HOSPITAL WITH
SCHIZOPHRENIA. HIS CONDITION
INCLUDED DELUSIONS THAT HE WAS
TO SAVE THE WORLD BY FALLING
BACKWARDS AND STRIKING HIS HEAD
ON THE GROUND, HE HAD SUFFERED
SEVERE SKULL FRACTURES AS A AS A
RESULT OF THIS AND REQUIRED
PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALIZATION IN
ORDER TO RESTORE HIM TO BE ABLE
TO MOVE SAFELY INTO THE
COMMUNITY BECAUSE HE HAD NO
CAPACITY INTO HIS ILLNESS. WE
FILED FOR A REESE. WE DID
PREVAIL UPON THE REESE, AND HE
WAS STARTED ON MEDICATION DURING
THE 14 DAY HOLD. WHEN IT CAME
TIME FOR THE 30 DAY HOLD, WHICH
HE'S STILL QUALIFIED FOR, WE
WERE REQUIRED TO STOP THE
MEDICATION WHILE AWAITING THE
NEXT REESE HEARING TO OCCUR
SEVERAL DAYS LATER. THIS CAUSES
MAJOR PROBLEMS FOR THE PATIENT'S
TREATMENT. IT'S MEDICALLY
COUNTER-INDICATED. IT CREATES
DISCONTINUATION EFFECTS THAT THE
PATIENT MUST ENDURE AND SUFFER.
IT CAUSES A BACKSLIDING IN THEIR
MENTAL ILLNESS. PROBABLY THE
MOST PROFOUND OF ALL THE ISSUES
IS THAT THEY THEY ARE SET BACK
IN THEIR TREATMENT AS THEY AWAIT
THEIR NEXT REESE HEARING, AND,
DURING THAT TIME, THEY CAN,
EXPERIENCE WORSENED BEHAVIORS,
AGGRESSION AS PART OF THEIR
ILLNESS AND MAY REQUIRE INTER
INTER MUSCULAR INJECTION AS A
RESULT. AND SOMETIMES RESTRAINT
AND SECLUSION IF THAT PROBLEM
WORSENS. WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID
ALL THIS BY SB 1184, SO THAT THE
PATIENT MAY CONTINUE THE
MEDICATION UNTIL THE NEXT
HEARING OCCURS. DURING THE NEXT
PHASE OF THE HOLD. IT'S IN THE
BEST INTEREST OF THE PATIENTS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR.
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, I'M RANDALL HAGER,
REPRESENTING THE PSYCHIATRIC
PHYSICIANS ALLIANCE AT
CALIFORNIA FOR OUR MEMBERS AS
WELL OUR MEDICAL DIRECTORS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND MANY OF
THE FACILITIES THAT DO HOLD
PEOPLE WHEN THEY'RE PUT ON 51,
50 HOLDS. AND IT IS A REGULAR
OCCURRENCE THAT PEOPLE, ARE ON A
MEDICATION, START TO RESPOND TO
THE MEDICATIONS, START TO GET
BETTER. AND THEN BECAUSE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REASONS, ARE NOT
ABLE TO CONTINUE BECAUSE THE
ORDER DOES NOT PERSIST FROM ONE
HOLD TO ANOTHER. SO THAT REESE
HEARING IS REALLY IMPORTANT, AND
OUR MEMBERS BELIEVE THAT THERE
NEEDS TO BE SUPPORT FOR BOTH THE
PATIENT'S RIGHT RIGHT TO BE ABLE
TO CONSENT WHEN THEY CAN
CONSENT, BUT WHEN THEY CAN'T.
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE THE REESE
HEARING. AND SO THIS BILL LEAVES
ALL THE OTHER DUE PROCESS
PROCESS PROTECTIONS IN PLACE. SO
THERE CAN BE WRIT HEARINGS.
THERE CAN BE, SEVERAL OTHER
KINDS OF HEARINGS. THOSE ARE NOT
AFFECTED BY THIS. THIS IS MERELY
ASSURING THAT WE BRING A VERY
TIMELY AND IMPORTANT PROCESS TO
BEAR ON A PATIENT SO THEY CAN
STAY, STABLE AND THEY CAN
CONTINUE THEIR RECOVERY, THIS,
YOU KNOW, PULLING BACK TO ABOUT
20,000FT, THIS IS REALLY
IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE PUT 120,000
PEOPLE ON 150, 150 EVERY YEAR.
THIS IS THE LATEST DATA THAT WE
HAVE FROM THE STATE. SO THERE'S
A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND
THEY ARE NOT ONLY KNOCKED OFF
THEIR RECOVERY ARC, BUT THEY ARE
OFTEN SOME AGITATED AND THEY CAN
BE A DANGER TO THEMSELVES WHILE
THEY'RE ON PSYCHIATRIC UNITS,
WHILE THEY'RE NOT BEING
MEDICATED, I COULD GO ON, BUT I
THINK WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, I THINK
VERY CLEARLY DEFINED, A VERY
NARROW SOLUTION FOR A REALLY
CRITICAL, PATIENT SUPPORT ISSUE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT. THOSE IN SUPPORT,
PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME, YOUR
AFFILIATION, YOUR POSITION.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. DYLAN
ELLIOTT, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
PSYCHIATRISTS, PROUD SPONSOR OF
SB 1184, AS WELL AS THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT,
THOSE IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. IF
YOU'RE OPPOSED TO SB. EXCUSE ME.
1184 PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
OKAY. MY NAME IS MELANIE ROLAND,
A SENIOR PATIENTS RIGHTS
ATTORNEY WITH THE LAW FOUNDATION
OF SILICON VALLEY AND THE
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF
CAMPHORA. WE APPRECIATE THESE
AMENDMENTS, BUT OPPOSE SB 1184
BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A PROBLEM
AND WE DON'T NEED TO CHANGE OUR
CURRENT SYSTEM. SANTA CLARA
COUNTY IS THE SIXTH LARGEST IN
CALIFORNIA. VERY FEW REFUSE
MEDICATIONS. LAST YEAR, ONLY 40,
52, 70 PETITIONS WERE FILED.
THERE AREN'T TREATMENT GAPS.
WHAT IS CALLED A TREATMENT GAP
IS THE HOSPITAL'S LEGAL DUTY TO
OFFER MEDICATIONS. THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
PSYCHIATRISTS SAYS THESE
HEARINGS ARE REDUNDANT AND THAT
MEDICATION IS STOPPED AT
ARBITRARY POINTS DURING A
PERSON'S DETENTION. THIS IS NOT
TRUE. DUE PROCESS ISN'T
REDUNDANT. A LENGTH OF STAY IS
AN ARBITRARY. THESE ARE LEGAL
FRAMEWORKS. MEDICAL
PROFESSIONALS MUST WORK IN WHILE
THEY DETAIN PEOPLE. AS LONG AS
77 DAYS UNDER PROBABLE CAUSE,
WHICH IS THE LOWEST BURDEN OF
PROOF AND THE SAME LEGAL
STANDARD AS A WARRANTLESS
ARREST. OUR COUNTY CONDUCTED A
YEAR LONG STUDY WITH 2000
PATIENTS WHO TOLD US THEY AREN'T
CONSISTENTLY INFORMED, GIVEN
INFORMED CONSENT, AND WE FOUND
WIDESPREAD GENDER AND RACE
DISPARITIES. PATIENTS HAVE A NON
DENIABLE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM
HARM, FROM MEDICATIONS, FROM
STAFF, CONVENIENCE UNDER WELFARE
AND INSTITUTIONS CODE, WHICH IS
WHAT THIS BILL IS ALL ABOUT. WE
MUST GET AWAY FROM THE MINDSET
THAT ENGAGING IN ONE'S OWN
MEDICAL CARE IS REDUNDANT AND
ARBITRARY. THIS VIEW ISN'T JUST
PATERNALISTIC, IT'S NOT
PRODUCING THE RESULTS WE WANT TO
SEE AND WE CAN DO BETTER. ON A
PERSONAL NOTE, MY MOTHER WAS
DIAGNOSED WITH A MENTAL HEALTH
ISSUE BEFORE I WAS BORN. THE
ONLY MEDICATION THAT WORKED FOR
HER WAS LITHIUM, WHICH SHE
WILLINGLY TOOK. LITHIUM
DESTROYED HER KIDNEYS, SHE HAD
TO GO ON DIALYSIS, AND IN 2021,
AN ANEURYSM IN HER DIALYSIS PORT
EXPLODED. SHE BLED OUT AND DIED.
WE CAN'T PRETEND THESE
MEDICATIONS DON'T HAVE SERIOUS
CONSEQUENCES. SO WHEN I HAVE
THESE HEARINGS AND CLIENTS TELL
ME THAT DOCTORS ARE LIMITING
THEIR CONVERSATIONS BY
STOPWATCHES, THEIR CONCERNED
ABOUT DIABETES FROM ZYPREXA, AND
THEY'RE BEING REFUSED CLINICAL
STUDIES ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
MEDICATION BASED ON RACE. THESE
ARE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS. THESE
PATIENTS DESERVE TO HAVE THEIR
DUE PROCESS RIGHTS PROTECTED.
THANK YOU. I'M SORRY FOR YOUR
LOSS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TEST. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. HI. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS CLAIRE
CORTRIGHT. I'M THE POLICY
DIRECTOR FOR CAL VOICES AND AN
ATTORNEY. AND I WOULD LIKE TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR
WORK ON THIS BILL. I THINK YOU
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED IT,
HOWEVER, WE STILL FEEL THAT IT
VIOLATES THE RIGHTS HOLDING, AND
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROBLEM THAT
THIS BILL SEEKS TO ADDRESS IS
NOT ACTUALLY A PROBLEM WITH THE
EXISTING STATUTE, IT CAN ONLY BE
A FAILURE OF PSYCHIATRISTS OR
THE COURT PARTICIPANTS TO HOLD A
REHEARING ON THE DAYS THAT ARE
REQUIRED BY LAW. A REHEARING
CURRENTLY MUST BE HELD WITHIN 24
HOURS OF FILING OF THE PETITION
WHEREVER POSSIBLE, BUT NEVER
MORE THAN 72 HOURS AFTER FILING.
THEREFORE, THERE'S NOTHING IN
THE EXISTING LAW THAT COMPELS OR
PERMITS INVOLUNTARY ORDERS TO
HAVE GAPS SO LONG AS THE
PSYCHIATRIST IS PROPERLY
NOTICING THE HEARING AND THE
HEARING IS HAPPENING WHEN IT
SHOULD. THE TIMELY HEARING
REQUIREMENTS DON'T EXCLUDE ANY
DAYS OF THE WEEK, SO THERE'S
NOTHING IN EXISTING LAW THAT
MANDATES A GAP HAPPEN. AND I
THINK IT'S ALSO REALLY IMPORTANT
TO UNDERSTAND, THAT THAT THE
LEGISLATURE, WHEN THEY CODIFIED
REYES, SPENT TWO YEARS ARGUING
OVER WHAT THAT LAW, WHAT THAT
COURT HEARING RECORD FIRED WHEN
IT PUT IT INTO STATUTE AND WHAT
WAS PUT INTO STATUTE BY THE
LEGISLATURE WAS THAT ON EVERY
HOLD, PATIENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO
REFUSE MEDICATIONS. AND ON EVERY
HOLD, PATIENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO
HAVE A RESE HEARING BEFORE THEY
ARE INVOLUNTARILY MEDICATED. AND
TO ROLL BACK THOSE RIGHTS CALLS
INTO QUESTION WHETHER THE
LEGISLATURE IS COMPLYING WITH
THAT REQUIREMENT. AT THE CORE
HOLDING OF THAT CASE WAS YOU
CAN'T PRESUME PEOPLE
INCOMPETENT, SO ALTHOUGH THIS IS
A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT,
YOU'RE STILL INTO THE TERRITORY
OF PRESUMING PATIENTS
INCOMPETENT PAST THE END OF
THEIR INVOLUNTARY HOLD. AND I
THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSTAND THAT THAT MEANS
PRONE, RESTRAINING SOMEONE.
THOSE INTRAMUSCULAR MEDICATIONS
HAVE TO GO IN A MAJOR MUSCLE
GROUP. THEY GO IN THE GLUTEUS
MAXIMUS. IT'S AN EXTREMELY
VIOLENT PROCESS, AND THE
LEGISLATURE FRANKLY CONSIDERED
THIS IN 1991, VERY CAREFULLY,
CODIFIED IT CAREFULLY, AND
THERE'S NO REASON TO ALTER IT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO SB 1184,
PLEASE APPROACH. MICROPHONE
HELLO, CHAIR. AND MEMBERS RACHEL
BHAGWAT FROM ACLU CALIFORNIA
ACTION. WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS
BILL ALSO REGISTERING THE
OPPOSITION OF DISABILITY RIGHTS
CALIFORNIA. HOWEVER, BOTH OF OUR
ORGANIZATIONS ARE STILL
REVIEWING AND ANALYZING THE MOST
RECENT AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU ALL
RIGHT. OTHERS OPPOSED SEEING NO
ONE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
LET'S TURN IT TO THE COMMITTEE.
QUESTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
SEEING NO. SENATOR LAIRD, I
WOULD JUST, JUST TO ASK ONE
QUESTION THAT CAME UP IN ONE OF
THE TESTIMONIES. AND IT WAS THAT
IN SANTA CLARA. AND THEY
CONTACTED ME. THEY SAID IT WAS
LESS THAN ONE, I THINK, ONE
PETITION PER LESS THAN ONE
PETITION PER MONTH IN EACH
HOSPITAL IN THE COUNTY. SO IS
VOLUME AN IMPORTANT
CONSIDERATION HERE? ONE ONE
PETITION THAT DIDN'T MAKE THE
COURT DATE OR ONE PETITION FOR A
REHEARING. THIS IT IS ONE
PETITION FOR A THERE WERE ONLY
40 RECES FILED ON PATIENTS IN
THE ENTIRE COUNTY FOR A YEAR.
AND SO THAT'S LESS THAN ONE PER
HOSPITAL IN THE ENTIRE COUNTY
PER MONTH. AND SO THEY'RE SORT
OF SAYING IT'S SAYING THIS ISN'T
A PROBLEM. THE VOLUME ISN'T HIGH
ENOUGH. AND THAT'S BASICALLY THE
QUESTION IS THE PRO WITNESSES
WERE SPEAKING TO HOW IMPORTANT
THIS WAS FOR THE PROCESS, BUT
NOT THE VOLUME. RIGHT RANDALL
COULD PROBABLY SPEAK MORE ABOUT
THE VOLUME, BUT I MEAN, SANTA
CLARA, I MEAN, IS ONE COUNTY OUT
OF OUT OF ALL OF THEM AS WELL?
AND I WOULD GUESS LÀ COUNTY, SAN
FRANCISCO COUNTY HAVE VERY
DIFFERENT PICTURES. DO YOU KNOW,
IF I MAY, SENATOR LAIRD, I THINK
THE QUESTION OF VOLUME, COMES
DOWN TO THIS. I MEAN, IF THERE'S
ONLY 200 PEOPLE IN THE WHOLE
STATE THAT HAVE TO GO THROUGH A
PROCESS AND, AND THEN THE
PROCESS IS DELAYED AND THEIR
MEDICATIONS ARE INTERRUPTED,
THAT IS, THAT'S A WHOLE LOT OF
WEAR AND TEAR ON 200 PEOPLE THAT
WE ARE TAKING CARE OF IN OUR
HOSPITALS, IT'S ALSO PARTLY, YOU
KNOW, A, A, AN ISSUE OF THEIR
POTENTIAL DISRUPTION IN THE CARE
OF OTHER PEOPLE AROUND THEM SO
THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF FACTORS,
I THINK, OTHER THAN THE RAW
NUMBERS THAT NEED TO BE,
CONSIDERED BEFORE YOU MAKE A
DECISION ABOUT WHETHER THOSE
NUMBERS ARE AS MEANINGFUL AS
SOMEONE MIGHT THINK THEY ARE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR.
AND THEN SENATOR CABALLERO,
THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO
APPLAUD THE AUTHOR. I KNOW
YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS
ISSUE FOR MY ENTIRE TIME IN THE
SENATE, AND I KNOW IT'S
SOMETHING YOU CARE ABOUT. I
APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS TO TRY
TO GET THIS RIGHT. AND FINDING
THE RIGHT BALANCE IS IMPORTANT,
I HEAR THE CONCERNS THE
OPPOSITION AT THE SAME TIME, I
WOULD DISAGREE. I, I KNOW IN MY
COMMUNITY THIS IS SEEN AS A REAL
PROBLEM. SO I WANT TO JUST THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD
AND WOULD MOVE THE BILL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR
CABALLERO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. CHAIR. SO I WANT TO SECOND
WHAT SENATOR MEN HAD TO SAY. AND
I, I LISTENED CAREFULLY TO THE
TO THE TESTIMONY. AND I THINK
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, THAT IS
IMPORTANT IS THAT, THE WORLD
DOESN'T WORK PERFECTLY. AND IF
THERE'S ONE THING THAT I CAN SAY
IS, HAVING PRACTICED IN THE
COURTS FOR 25 YEARS, IS THE
NUMBER OF TIMES I HAD TO GO BACK
TO COURT FOR A REASON THAT HAD
NOTHING TO DO WITH ME OR MY
CLIENT WAS, WAS VERY HIGH, COURT
CALENDARS BEING WHAT THEY ARE,
JUDGE ABSENCES FOR WHATEVER
REASON, SHORTAGES OR NOT,
THEY'RE BUSY. BUSY PLACES. AND,
THE FACT THAT THERE ARE STILL
NOT ALL ON AN ELECTRONIC SYSTEM
WILL TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
HOW FAR BEHIND, FAR BEHIND WE
ARE, AND I TAKE VERY, VERY
SERIOUSLY, THE, THE RIGHTS OF
THE INDIVIDUAL TO MAKE CHOICES
FOR THEMSELVES, BUT I'VE ALSO
SEEN FIRSTHAND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN
PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING FROM A
MENTAL ILLNESS AND THEY CAN'T,
AND THE INTERRUPTED CARE IS WHAT
CREATES THE RESTRAINTS. AND THE,
INTRAMUSCULAR, NEED, AND AS MUCH
AS POSSIBLE, THE ABILITY TO
AVOID THAT AND AVOID A
DISRUPTION IS REALLY IS IT'S
IMPORTANT IN MY ANALYSIS. SO I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR DOING
THIS, BILL. IT'S NOT EASY. IT'S
NOT, NOBODY WANTS TO BE
AFFECTING THE, THE RIGHTS OF AN
INDIVIDUAL TO MAKE THEIR OWN
CHOICE. BUT, BEING IN THE RIGHT,
MIND IS REALLY IMPORTANT. AND SO
I WILL SUPPORT YOUR BILL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS? SEEING NO OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, IS THERE
A MOTION, SENATOR? OH I'M SORRY
SENATOR. MEN MOVE THE BILL.
THANK YOU, SENATOR EGGMAN, I'VE
HAD A FRONT ROW SEAT TO SEE YOUR
LEADERSHIP IN THIS SPACE. I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AGAIN, BUT
THERE ARE TENS, IF NOT HUNDREDS
OF THOUSANDS OF CALIFORNIANS IN
THEIR FAMILIES WHOSE LIVES HAVE
BEEN IMPROVED BECAUSE OF YOUR
PASSION AND YOUR LEADERSHIP. SO
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
OH. I'M SORRY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? WELL, I'LL CLOSE WITH
WITH THANKS. AND SAY DITTO. BACK
TO YOU IN YOUR PARTNERSHIP,
ESPECIALLY ON THE CARE COURT AND
BEING ABLE TO USHER THESE THINGS
AND GET THEM RIGHT. RIGHT. I
THINK CALIFORNIANS DESERVE THAT.
WE GET THESE THINGS RIGHT. AND.
YEAH, AND JUST TO POINT OUT,
SOMEBODY'S ALREADY THEY'RE NOT
COMPETENT. THEY'RE ALREADY ON A
HOLD. THIS IS JUST FOR THE
MEDICATION. SO EVEN IF WE SAY
RIGHT, I MEAN THEY'RE STILL
THEY'RE IN THE HOSPITAL AND THEN
DISRUPTING EVERYBODY ELSE. SO
THE HOLD AND THE REESE BEING TWO
SEPARATE THINGS, THESE ARE FOLKS
ALREADY IN CARE. AND WITH ALL OF
THAT, AND I THANK YOU ALL FOR
YOUR SUPPORT AND ASK FOR YOUR
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER ONE, SB
1184. THE MOTION IS TO PASS AS
AMENDED. UMBERG UMBERG I WILK I
WILK I ALLEN. ALLEN I BLAKE.
SPEER. BLAKE. SPEER I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I DODD DODD I RUSSELL.
LAIRD I LAIRD I MINH. MINH I
NILO NILO I WIENER I WIENER I.
YOU HAVE 10 TO 0 TEN ZERO. WE'LL
PUT THAT ON CALL. THANK YOU,
SENATOR EGGMAN. ALL RIGHT. NEXT,
SENATOR RUBIO. AND THEN WE'RE
GOING TO TURN TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS FOR THEIR BILLS,
STARTING WITH SENATOR NIELLO. SO
SENATOR RUBIO, THE FLOOR IS
YOURS.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, TODAY I AM
PRESENTING SB 1106, KNOWN AS THE
KASAM NICKELS AND ROONEY LAW
NAMED IN HONOR OF PROMINENT
INDIVIDUALS WHOSE LIVES ENDED
TRAGICALLY UNDER
CONSERVATORSHIP. I WANT TO THANK
THE CHAIR AND HIS STAFF AND MANY
STAKEHOLDERS FOR WORKING WITH US
AND TRYING TO GET THIS RIGHT,
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ENGAGEMENT AT SB 1106. AIMS TO
SAFEGUARD PROTECTIONS FOR OUR
SENIORS UNDER CONSERVATORSHIP.
MANY ARE BEING ISOLATED BY THEIR
CARETAKERS AND SEPARATED FROM
THEIR LOVED ONES. IT IS
ABSOLUTELY HEARTBREAKING JUST TO
SEE HOW SOMEONE COULD END THEIR
LIFE WITHOUT BEING AROUND THEIR
LOVED ONES, ESPECIALLY IN
HORRIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES. THEY GO
FROM BEING HEALTHY, SMILING
SENIORS TO BEDRIDDEN, UNABLE TO
SPEAK. AND I'VE HAD SOME TIME
WITH SOME OF THESE FAMILY
MEMBERS WHO HAVE SHOWN ME
PICTURES AND IT'S REALLY, LIKE I
SAID, EXTREMELY SAD TO SEE
SOMEONE THAT WAS HEALTHY LOSE
THEIR HEALTH AND THEIR SMILE SO
QUICKLY. UNDER A CONSERVATORSHIP
, THIS BILL IS JUST ONE SMALL
STEP. THERE'S SO MUCH MORE THAT
NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THIS REGARD.
BUT THIS BILL WILL REQUIRE
CONSERVATORS TO NOTIFY LOVED
ONES UNDER, CONSERVATORSHIPS OF
THE FOLLOWING. IF THEY HAVE
CHANGED THEIR RESIDENCE. AND
WHAT HAPPENS SOMETIMES THEY'RE
UNDER CONSERVATORSHIP AND
THEY'RE MOVED, AND THEIR LOVED
ONES ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
WHERE THEY LIVE. AND THAT IS
REALLY NOT A GREAT PLACE TO BE.
AND IT'S HAPPENED TO MANY OF
THESE FAMILIES. I WOULD BE
TESTIFYING WHERE THEY HAD NO
IDEA WHERE THEIR EITHER FATHER
OR LOVED ONE HAD BEEN TAKEN,
SECOND, WHEN THEY PASSED,
THEY'RE NOT KNOWN IFIED AND
THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND
FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS BECAUSE
THEY'RE NOT TOLD. SO THIS BILL
WOULD ALSO INCLUDE NOTIFYING
THEM OF THE PERSON'S DEATH AND
BEING ABLE TO ALSO GET DETAILS
ON FUNERAL, BURIAL ARRANGEMENTS
SO THEY CAN BE PART OF THAT.
ONCE AGAIN, THEY SPENT A
LIFETIME LOVING THEIR FATHER,
THEIR MOTHER, AND AT THE END,
THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO BE PRESENT
TO BE WITH THEM. IN THEIR LAST
DAYS, THERE HAVE BEEN COUNTLESS
OF INSTANCES OF ELDER ABUSE
UNDER CONSERVATORSHIP, AND I
KNOW WE THINK OF THAT
CONSERVATORSHIPS OF TAKING CARE
OF A PERSON. BUT AGAIN, IF YOU
HAVE SEEN SOME OF THE PICTURES
THAT I HAVE SEEN, IT IS
EXTREMELY SAD TO SEE THAT
SOMEONE THAT CANNOT ADVOCATE FOR
THEMSELVES OR PLACE IN THESE
CONSERVATORSHIPS WHERE THEY
CANNOT SPEAK OR MOVE AND THEY
END UP PASSING AWAY BECAUSE
THEIR HEALTH DECLINES AS WELL.
ONE NOTABLE INSTANCE IS THE LATE
CASEY KASEM, WHO SUFFERED FROM
LEWY BODY DEMENTIA. THE SECOND
MOST COMMON TYPE OF DEMENTIA
AFTER ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE IS HIS
SPOUSE AT THE TIME BECAME HIS
PRIMARY CARETAKER AND PREVENTED
HIS CHILDREN AND ALL HIS FRIENDS
FROM SEEING HIM. SPEAKING WITH
HIM AND KNOWING HIS WHEREABOUTS,
AND HE WAS TRANSPORTED TO
DIFFERENT FACILITIES, DIFFERENT
STATES, AND EVENTUALLY OUT OF
THE COUNTRY AFTER HE PASSED
AWAY. HE WAS ULTIMATELY BURIED
IN AN UNMARKED GRAVE IN NORWAY,
DESPITE NEVER HAVING ANY
PERSONAL CONNECTION TO THAT
COUNTRY, AND HIS CHILDREN
STRUGGLING TO SEE WHERE HIS
RESTING PLACE WAS, HIS CHILDREN
HAD NO IDEA. ONCE AGAIN, AND THE
SPOUSE JUST MOVED HIM AND MAKE
SURE THAT THEY EVADED CONTACT.
WHEN HIS CHILDREN FINALLY GAINED
VISITATION RIGHTS, THEY FOUND
HIM IN EXTREMELY POOR PHYSICAL
AND MENTAL CONDITION. THIS
TRAGEDY TRAGEDY WAS NOT ONLY
ISOLATED. SIMILAR CASES HAVE
OCCURRED ACROSS VARIOUS
BACKGROUNDS AND IS NOW AN
EPIDEMIC IN THIS COUNTRY. CASES
TRAGIC AND DEMONSTRATES THE
SEVERE IMPACT OF CARETAKERS WHO
ISOLATE THOSE INDIVIDUALS. HIS
FAMILIES PROLONGED STRUGGLE TO
SIMPLY LOCATE AND VISIT HIM
UNDERSCORES THE NEED FOR THIS
LEGISLATION. BY REQUIRING
CONSERVATORS TO NOTIFY FAMILY
MEMBERS OF MAJOR DECISIONS
TAKING PLACE, SB 1106 ENSURES
THAT OUR SENIORS ARE AT LEAST
TAKEN TO PLACES WHERE THEIR
FAMILY MEMBERS KNOW WHERE THEY
ARE, AND THERE'S OVERSIGHT,
ACCORDING TO A 20. I'M SORRY.
ACCORDING TO A REPORT BY PUBLIC
POLICY INSTITUTE, THE 65 OR
OLDER POPULATION WILL GROW BY 4
MILLION IN THE NEXT 15 YEARS.
AND I VENTURE TO SAY MAYBE ALL
OF US UP HERE, AND WE MUST
CONTINUE TO BE PROACTIVE IN
PROTECTING OUR SENIORS, WHO,
AGAIN, ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE
AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY HAVE,
THAT WE ARE THEIR VOICE. AGAIN,
WE HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE HERE THAT
ARE GOING TO TESTIFY. VÌ, WHICH
IS KERRI KASEM, FOUNDER OF KASEM
CARES FOUNDATION, ACTIVIST FOR
ELDER ABUSE AND DAUGHTER OF THE
ICONIC RADIO PERSONALITY CASEY
KASEM. WE HAVE ANGELIQUE
FAWCETTE, CEO AND FOUNDER OF
ELDERLY LIVES MATTER USA AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND PRODUCER
OF ARCHANGEL FILMS LA. AND EVEN
THOUGH SHE MAY NOT, SHE'S NOT
ABLE TO TESTIFY. WE ALSO HAVE
KELLY ROONEY, MICKEY ROONEY'S
DAUGHTER, WHO ALSO DEALT WITH
SOME HORRIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES AT
THE END OF HIS LIFE. AND WE HAVE
RICK BLOCK, WHO'S JUST GOING TO
BE HERE FOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT.
SO KERRI, ANGELIQUE, THANK YOU.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S NO
OPPOSITION, SO WHOMEVER WOULD
LIKE TO GO TWO PRIMARY
WITNESSES, TWO MINUTES EACH.
THANK YOU. MISTER CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ISOLATE
OVERMEDICATE STEAL THE ESTATE.
THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON. QUIETLY
CREMATE MOST OF THEM. THIS IS AN
EPIDEMIC IN THE COUNTRY. I'VE
BEEN DOING THIS FOR 11 YEARS,
TALKING TO COMMITTEES JUST LIKE
THIS, TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF
BOTH HOUSES, GOING TO DC, DOING
EVERYTHING I CAN TO FIX THIS
PROBLEM. AND NO MATTER HOW MANY
BILLS ARE PASSED AND THERE HAVE
BEEN 22 STATES THAT HAVE THE
KASEM CARES VISITATION BILL OR A
BILL LIKE IT, IT'S GETTING WORSE
. THIS IS GETTING WORSE. I HAVE
TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF PEOPLE
OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT SAY,
THIS IS NOT THAT BAD, OR WE'RE
GOING TO PASS A WATERED DOWN
BILL AND THEN IT WILL HAPPEN TO
SOMEBODY ON A COMMITTEE OR
HAPPEN TO SOMEBODY ON AARP, AND
THEN THEY DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT,
BUT IT'S USUALLY TOO LATE FOR
THEM. SO I'M URGING YOU, THIS
BILL HAS GOT TO BE AMENDED. IT'S
GOT TO BE EVEN STRONGER THAN
WHAT WE HAVE NOW. I KNOW SENATOR
RUBIO IS DOING HER BEST, AND I
THANK HER SO MUCH FOR HER
EFFORTS. AND SHE TOLD ME WHEN
SHE MET ME A YEAR AGO, I WANT TO
DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS. LET'S
MAKE THIS BILL STRONGER. AND SHE
DID JUST THAT. AND I'M URGING
YOU THAT IF WE MAKE MORE
AMENDMENTS, STRONGER AMENDMENTS.
SO THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE THEIR MOM
OR DAD, IF THEY'RE PUT INTO A
CONSERVATOR OR A GUARDIANSHIP,
THAT YOU ALLOW THAT YOU TAKE A
LOOK AT IT. MOST OF THE TIME
WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS, ALL THE KIDS
CAN'T VISIT, ALL THE FRIENDS ARE
BAD, OR THEY GET THEY COME UP IN
FRONT OF YOU AND SAY, OH, YOU
KNOW, THIS IS JUST HARMFUL. IT'S
A HARMFUL BILL THAT'S THE
PERPETRATOR. YOU'RE LOOKING
RIGHT AT THE CRIMINAL THEMSELVES
. IF THERE IS A CONCERN
CONSERVATOR OR A GUARDIAN
LOOKING AT MY TIME THAT SAYS
THIS PERSON IS BAD AND IT'S JUST
ONE PERSON, OKAY. BUT WHEN THEY
VILIFY THE ENTIRE FAMILY AND
THEY VILIFY THE FRIENDS, YOU'RE
LOOKING AT THE CRIMINAL RIGHT
THERE. WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING
ABOUT THIS. IT IS GETTING WORSE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.
NEXT WITNESS, PLEASE. THANK YOU.
CHAIR UMBERG AND YOUR ESTEEMED
COLLEAGUES FOR HEARING US TODAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
AND I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU
KNOW WHO I AM. MY NAME IS
ANGELIQUE FOSSETT. I AM THE CEO
OF ARCHANGEL FILMS LÀ. I'M THE
FOUNDER OF ELDERLY LIVES MATTER
USA. I'M A NATIONWIDE ELDER
RIGHTS ACTIVIST AND I AM ON THE
BOARD OF KASEM CARES. MY VICTIM,
SOMEONE THAT I LOVE, WAS
NICHELLE NICHOLS. IF YOU'RE
FAMILIAR WITH STAR TREK, SHE IS
THE AFRICAN AMERICAN LADY WHO
PLAYED LIEUTENANT UHURA. BUT SHE
WASN'T LIEUTENANT UHURA TO ME.
SHE WAS JUST MY MOM AND NICHELLE
. I WATCHED AS MY MOM AND
MICHELLE SUFFERED, SUFFERED IN
AN ABUSIVE CONSERVATORSHIP. SHE
STATED EXACTLY WHAT SHE WANTED
IN HER LIFE AND SHE DIDN'T GET
IT. WHEN ABSENT FAMILY MEMBER
CAME IN AND PUT HER IN AN
ABUSIVE, ISOLATING
CONSERVATORSHIP. UNFORTUNATELY,
WHEN THIS IS DONE, THE ELDERLY
DON'T GET TO SEE THEIR GOOD
FRIENDS. THEY DON'T GET TO SEE
THEIR THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS AND
THEY SUFFER. NICHELLE ASKED FOR
THINGS SPECIFICALLY SHE DID NOT
GET THEM AND ADDITIONALLY, ON
TOP OF ALL OF THAT, NICHELLE WAS
ON VIDEO BASICALLY SCREAMING FOR
HER DEAR LIFE, SAYING, YOU KNOW,
PLEASE, I DIDN'T ASK TO BE IN A
CONSERVATORSHIP. I DIDN'T WANT
THESE THINGS IN MY LIFE. AND SHE
WAS SCREAMING FOR HER DEAR LIFE
AS HER SON MANHANDLED HER. AND
THEN HE CUSSED HER OUT AS SHE
LEFT, ADDITIONAL VIDEO TAPES
CAME OUT. I STOOD UP FOR A HUMAN
AND CIVIL RIGHTS IN COURT AND
GAINED SOME VISITATION. AS IF IT
WASN'T FOR THE CASE AT CÁC THE
KASEM CARES BILL. I WOULD NOT
HAVE HAD THAT TIME WITH HER. SO
THE LAST WORDS I HEARD FROM
NICHELLE NICHOLS WAS I LOVE YOU
MORE THAN, MORE THAN, MORE THAN
MORE THAN MORE THAN MORE. IF IT
WASN'T FOR A VISITATION BILL, I
WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THAT. PLEASE
UNDERSTAND. PLEASE HEAR ME. I
HOPE THAT YOU WOULD HEAR ME. IS
THAT IN THE FUTURE, WITH OTHER
BILLS, THIS BILL IS SO IMPORTANT
IN PROVIDING THE ELDERLY WITH
WITH THE NON ISOLATION THAT THEY
NEED. THEY NEED TO HAVE PEOPLE
AROUND THEM. MY ESTEEMED
COLLEAGUES ARE HERE WITH ME AS
WELL AND THEY HAVE TONS OF
STORIES TO SHARE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. I REALLY DO
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ALL RIGHT, OTHERS IN
SUPPORT OF, SB 1106, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. GIVE US
YOUR NAME, YOUR AFFILIATION AND
YOUR POSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON.
THANK YOU. MY NAME IS CAROL
HERMAN. I'M THE PRESIDENT AND
FOUNDER OF THE FOUNDATION AIDING
THE ELDERLY, A NATIONWIDE
ORGANIZATION FOR THE PREVENTION
OF ELDER ABUSE. I'M HERE
LOCALLY. I'M BASED IN SACRAMENTO
. I'VE HAD HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS
OF CASES OF CONSERVATORSHIP
ABUSE IN CALIFORNIA. I WORKED
WITH THE LA TIMES, 18 YEARS.
SORRY, MA'AM. ARE YOU IN SUPPORT
OF THE BILL? I AM IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
THANK YOU FOR HEARING US TODAY.
MY NAME IS KELLY ROONEY. I'M
MICKEY ROONEY'S ELDEST DAUGHTER,
AND I JUST WANTED TO COME ON
BEHALF OF MY FATHER AND EIGHT
OTHER CHILDREN AND TEN
GRANDCHILDREN. WE MISS HIM VERY
MUCH. HE WAS PUT INTO ABUSE AND
I STAND BEHIND THIS BILL 1,000.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY NAME IS
GUY HART. MY MOTHER IS 84 YEARS
OLD, SHE JUST HAD HER 84TH
BIRTHDAY LAST WEEK. I WAS
BLOCKED FROM SEEING HER. AND ARE
YOU IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL? I'M
IN SUPPORT, BUT I JUST WANT TO
LET YOU KNOW SHE'S ALIVE STILL.
BUT I'M BEING ISOLATED. ALL
RIGHTY. IT'S HAPPENING AS WE
SPEAK. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS LACY ROONEY. I AM
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. MY
GRANDFATHER WAS MICKEY ROONEY.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS SANDY
COBIANCHI. I AM REPRESENT KASEM
CARES. AND HERE WITH RICK BLACK
BEHIND ME AND I AM IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL. AND I DON'T WANT TO
TALK ABOUT PERSONAL DETAILS OF
MY MOM. I TELL YOU THAT THIS IS
VERY MUCH YOU. THANK YOU. HELLO,
DISTINGUISHED SENATORS, MY NAME
IS RICK BLACK. I'M THE FOUNDER
AND DIRECTOR OF SEER, AND WE
ADVOCATE FOR ALL VICTIMS OF
FRAUDULENT CONSERVATORSHIPS AND
GUARDIANSHIPS THOSE 18 AND OVER.
AND WE ARE FULLY IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL. THANK YOU. BUT
CALIFORNIA MUST DO MUCH MORE FOR
THESE PEOPLE. MY NAME IS PHYLLIS
KALBACH AND I AM SUPPORT IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. I AM WITH
CASEY CARES AND WITH SEER. THANK
YOU. MY NAME IS CYRIL KALBACH.
I'M REPRESENT WITH CASEY KASEM.
CASEY. CASEY. CASEY CARES AND
SEER. AND I SUPPORT THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MIKE
LONERGAN. I LIVE IN BERKELEY,
CALIFORNIA, AND I'VE WITNESSED
THROUGH FRIENDS THAT THE
CALIFORNIA LAW IS ARE JUST
INADEQUATE TO PREVENT FRAUD.
THANK YOU. ARE YOU IN SUPPORT?
AND I AM STRONGLY IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL. AS A PARTIAL STEP.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT, PLEASE
APPROACH YOUR MICROPHONE. SEEING
NO ONE ELSE APPROACHING, LET'S
TURN TO THE OPPOSITION. IF
ANYONE IS IN OPPOSITION SB 1106,
PLEASE APPROACH. I SEE NO ONE
RISING, NO ONE APPROACHING. ALL
RIGHT, LET'S BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. LET ME JUST. SENATOR
RUBIO, HAVE YOU ACCEPTED THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS? YES, I
WILL ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, QUESTIONS BY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. YES. OH, I'M SORRY,
SENATOR WILK AND SENATOR
CABALLERO, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
ACTUALLY, NOT NOT A QUESTION,
BUT A COMMENT. WE RIGHT NOW,
WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE SILVER
TSUNAMI. 10,000 AMERICANS EVERY
DAY ARE TURNING 65. I HIT THAT
MARK LAST MARCH. AND THEN I'VE
READ RECENTLY THAT THE LARGEST
TRANSFER OF WEALTH IN THE
HISTORY OF MAN IS THE BABY
BOOMER GENERATION TO THE NEXT.
SO THIS IS ONLY GOING TO GET
WORSE AND NOT BETTER. SO I'M I
SO APOLOGIZE THAT IT HASN'T
HAPPENED SOONER, BUT IT'S GOING
TO HAPPEN NOW. SO HAPPY TO MOVE
THE BILL AND SUPPORT IT TODAY.
TO THE ROONEY SISTERS. I BELIEVE
YOUR DAD WAS A MEMBER OF INDIAN
WELLS COUNTRY CLUB. SO I WAS
THERE FOR A CONFERENCE A LONG
TIME AGO. I THINK IT WAS LIKE
85, 86. HE WAS OUT THERE IN THE
PUDDING COURSE. I WENT UP,
INTRODUCED MYSELF. HE WAS SO
GRACIOUS AND ENGAGING AND I
REALLY, REALLY APPRECIATED THE
TIME HE SPENT WITH ME BECAUSE
I'M JUST A LITTLE KID. HE DIDN'T
NEED TO DO THAT. SO I AM SO
SORRY FOR YOUR LOSS. THANK YOU,
SENATOR WILK, SENATOR CABALLERO,
SO I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD, AND I
APPRECIATE THE TESTIMONY HERE
TODAY. YOU KNOW, AS I WANT TO
SUPPORT WHAT SENATOR WILK HAD TO
SAY IS THAT THERE IS A TSUNAMI
IN SOME OF US UP HERE ARE PART
OF THAT. WE CAN FEEL IT
BUILDING, AND, YOU KNOW, AS YOU
AGE, YOU HAVE TO START THINKING
ABOUT THE FORMS YOU FILL OUT
RIGHT? AND, AND HOW YOU HOW YOU
WANT TO END YOUR LAST DAYS. AND
THERE'S, THERE'S A FORM AND I'M
DRAWING A TOTAL BLANK ON IT NOW,
WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE
A HEART ATTACK, WHETHER YOU HAVE
SPECIAL CARE, THEY TRY TO BRING
YOU BACK TO LIFE, DO ANYTHING TO
BRING YOU BACK TO LIFE. WELL,
IT'S A DO NOT RESUSCITATE, BUT
IT'S CALLED A SPECIAL FORM. AND
NOW I CAN'T THINK ABOUT IT. SEE
BUT BUT MY POINT ABOUT THIS IS,
IF YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT
FILLING OUT THOSE KINDS OF
FORMS, THEN YOU MIGHT WANT TO WE
MAY WANT TO CREATE A FORM FOR
WHO DO YOU WANT TO BE NOTIFIED
AND HOW? IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE
NEED TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE
TO HONOR THE WISHES OF THE
INDIVIDUAL WHO'S HAVING THE
CONSERVATORSHIP SET UP FOR THEM.
AND, AND I KNOW SOME PEOPLE THAT
I LIKE TO BE CONSIDERED MY
CONSERVATEE AND OTHERS THAT ARE
NOT ON YOUR LIFE. RIGHT. AND SO
AS YOU'RE MAKING CHOICES ABOUT
WHO HAS THESE DECISIONS, IT
MIGHT MAKE A SENSE FOR US TO
THINK ABOUT CREATING A FORM. I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT YOUR BILL
TODAY. I THINK IT'S A IT'S A
REALLY VERY SIMPLE, IT'S VERY
IT'S A VERY SMALL MEASURE BUT
IMPORTANT. AND I THINK THERE'S,
THERE'S MORE THAT NEEDS TO BE
DONE. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH YOU ON THIS. THANK
YOU. SENATOR CABALLERO. OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING NO
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS,
SENATOR CABALLERO HAS MOVED THE
BILL. SENATOR CABALLERO, YOU
MOVE THE BILL. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR. OH, I'M
SORRY, SENATOR, I APOLOGIZE,
SENATOR WILK, HAD FIRST DIBS ON
THAT BILL. ALL RIGHT, SENATOR
WILKES, MOVE THE BILL. SENATOR
RUBIO, THANK YOU. COMMITTEE
CHAIR, I KNOW THAT THE BILL
SEEMS SIMPLE, RIGHT NOW, AND
THERE'S NO OPPOSITION, BUT
BECAUSE IT DIDN'T START OFF THAT
WAY, TO ANNA CABALLERO'S POINT,
THERE'S SO MUCH THAT NEEDS TO BE
DONE. BUT IT HAPPENS SOMETIMES
AS IT'S MOVING THROUGH THE
PROCESS. WE FIND WALLS AND WE
HAVE TO TAKE, YOU KNOW, OUT
CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE
THIS IS JUST ONE PIECE. WE HAVE
TO FIGURE OUT THE ACCOUNTABILITY
PIECE, AND THAT IS THAT THERE'S
A LOT OF PREDATORY, PEOPLE OUT
THERE THAT ARE ACTIVELY LOOKING
FOR THESE VULNERABLE SENIORS
THAT HAVE A LOT OF WEALTH OR
EVEN WITHOUT WEALTH, THEY'LL
TAKE THEM IN EVENTUALLY. I HEARD
A COUPLE CASES THAT, THEY'LL
TAKE THEM IN AND EVENTUALLY
START SELLING OFF ALL THEIR
PROPERTY, GETTING THE INCOME
FROM THOSE PROPERTIES THAT THEY
HAD, AND THEN THEY END UP
PUTTING THESE INDIVIDUALS IN
THESE SUB, YOU KNOW, JUST THESE
AWFUL CONDITIONS. AND SO, AGAIN,
IT SEEMS EASY NOW, BUT WE REALLY
HAD HOPE FOR THIS BILL TO HAVE A
LOT MORE TEETH. AND AGAIN, WE
NEED TO FOCUS ON, YOU KNOW, EVEN
PROBATE COURT. I KNOW THAT
SENATOR CAVALLERO WAS TALKING
ABOUT A FORM BELIEVE ME, WE'VE
DISCUSSED ALL KINDS OF IDEAS.
AND THEN WE LEARNED WHY IT'S NOT
IN PLACE. AND SO IT IS A BIG
ISSUE. IT'S AN ISSUE THAT WE
NEED TO TACKLE. THIS IS A SMALL
STEP, BUT WE'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO SPEAK TO
STAKEHOLDERS. AND HOPEFULLY AS
IT MOVES THROUGH THE PROCESS, BE
ABLE TO PUT IN SOME THINGS THAT
WERE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO
SAFEGUARD THIS PROCESS. BUT, YOU
KNOW, I THOUGHT ALL THE TIME
THEY TELL PEOPLE, MAKE SURE THAT
YOU EITHER PUT YOUR ESTATE IN A
TRUST. AND AS I'M TALKING AND
LEARNING ABOUT THE ISSUE, THERE
IS NO RIGHT WAY ONCE IT GOES TO
PROBATE COURT, SOMETIMES IT'S
OUT OF YOUR HANDS AND SOMETIMES
YOUR ESTATE IS TURNED OVER TO
SOMEONE THAT'S NOT ETHICAL. AND
THAT REALLY TAKES EVERYTHING
AWAY FROM FROM THE FAMILY
MEMBERS. AND THEY'RE LEFT
WITHOUT ANYTHING. SO IT'S A
DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO HAVE AND ALL OF US
ARE GOING TO BE 65 AND OLDER AT
SOME POINT, SOME OF US SOONER
THAN THAN LATER. BUT I THANK YOU
AGAIN. THIS IS ONE SMALL STEP
AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON
THE BILL. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
SHARON. WITH THAT, I ASKED FOR
AN AYE VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU, SENATOR RUBIO. MADAM
SECRETARY, IT'S BEEN MOVED BY
SENATOR WILK. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER
FOR SB 1106. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED, BURKE, I UMBERG
I WILK I WILK I ALLEN ALLEN I
BLAKE SPEER. BLAKE SPEER I
CABALLERO I DODD I DODD I
DURAZZO. RUSSELL I LAIRD. LAIRD
I MINH MINH I NILO NILO I WIENER
WIENER I 11 TO 0 11 ZERO. THE
BILL IS OUT. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. NEXT, SENATOR? THOSE OF
YOU PAYING ATTENTION, ITEM
NUMBER FIVE, SB 1212 BY SENATOR
SKINNER HAS BEEN PULLED. SO NEXT
WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER SIX, SB 1141
BY SENATOR NIELLO. OKAY YOU
STILL THE SAME? YEAH. NO, I'M
NOT THE SILVER PART
.
ALL RIGHT, SENATOR YELLOW, ARE
YOU OF THAT SILVER TSUNAMI? I
HAVE TO MOVE VERY SLOW. YEAH.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, FOR CONSIDERING SB
1141, FIRST OF ALL, I'M
ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS AS
PROPOSED BY THE COMMITTEE. AND
THANK YOU FOR YOUR GOOD
SUGGESTION. OWNS, CALIFORNIA
COURTS ARE CONGESTED, SENATOR
CABALLERO MADE A COMMENT ABOUT
THAT EARLIER IN THIS HEARING, IN
EACH OF THE LAST THREE YEARS,
THE NUMBER OF UNLIMITED CIVIL
CASE FILINGS WERE MORE THAN
DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF CASE
DISPOSITION DISPOSITIONS, AS THE
TOTAL CIVIL CASE BACKLOG GREW BY
OVER 800,000 CASES. APPROXIMATE
HALF OF WHICH WAS ATTRIBUTABLE
TO THE INCREASE IN UNLIMITED
CIVIL CASE BACKLOG. THE HURRIED
HERE WE GO. THE BEHINDER WE GET.
IT SEEMS CURRENT LAW ALLOWS A
TRIAL COURT JUDGE TO ORDER A
CASE INTO MEDIATION AS LONG AS
THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY DOES
NOT EXCEED $50,000 FOR EACH
PLAINTIFF. THE CURRENT THRESHOLD
OF 50,000 WAS SET OVER 30 YEARS
AGO. SB 1141 RAISES THAT
THRESHOLD TO $150,000, WHICH
REALLY JUST ACCOUNTS FOR
INFLATION. MANDATORY MEDIA ATION
CAN BE A HELPFUL TOOL TO THE
ULTIMATE RESOLUTION OF THE CASE,
EVEN WHEN THE CASE IS NOT
SETTLED THROUGH THE MEDIATION
PROCESS, A PILOT PROGRAM IN SAN
DIEGO OF OVER 5000 CASES
ACHIEVED A RESOLUTION RATE OF 58
TO 76. BUT EVEN BEYOND THAT, 74%
OF THE ATTORNEYS WHOSE CASES DID
NOT SETTLE AT MEDIATION
INDICATED THAT THE MEDIATION WAS
VERY IMPORTANT TO THE ULTIMATE
SETTLEMENT OF THE CASE. THE
TOTAL POTENTIAL TIME SAVINGS
FROM REDUCE NUMBERS OF COURT
EVENTS WERE ESTIMATED TO BE 479.
JUDGE DAYS PER YEAR IN SAN
DIEGO, WITH AN ESTIMATED
MONETARY VALUE OF ABOUT 1.4
MILLION. IN A REPORT BY THE
JUDICIAL COUNSEL EVALUATING
EARLY MEDIATION PILOT PROGRAMS
IN SAN DIEGO, LOS ANGELES AND
SONOMA COUNTY SUGGEST THAT EARLY
MEDIATION PROGRAMS CAN HELP
COURTS SAVE VALUABLE JUDICIAL
TIME AND CAN BE DEVOTED TO OTHER
CASES THAT, FOR JUDGE'S
ATTENTION, I HAVE WITH ME TODAY
AS WITNESSES. ELLIE VERLANDER,
EXCUSE ME. ON BEHALF OF THE
CONFERENCE OF CALIFORNIA BAR
ASSOCIATION AND DAVID SLAYTON,
THE COURT EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
THE LA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE FLOOR
IS YOURS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
ELLIE VERLANDER. I'M A MEDIATOR,
ARBITRATOR, JUDGE PRO TEM. AND
FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS, I'VE
SERVED AS CO-CHAIR OF THE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S EARLY
DISPUTE RESOLUTION COMMITTEE OF
THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SECTION.
SB 1141 SIMPLY RAISES THE
THRESHOLD AMOUNT OF A STATUTE
THAT HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR
OVER 30 YEARS. GIVEN THE DELAYS
IN CASE DISPOSITION CREATED BY
THE OVER 1 MILLION CASES THAT
HAVE BEEN ADDED TO OUR CIVIL
CASE BACKLOG IN THE LAST FIVE
YEARS, THIS THRESHOLD ADJUSTMENT
IS NEEDED TO PROTECT THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE
PARTIES TO TIMELY ADJUDICATION.
MEDIATION, EVEN WHEN MANDATED,
HAS HIGH SUCCESS RATES AND IS
BENEFICIAL. MEDIATION PROVIDES
THE PARTIES WITH A HOST OF
BENEFITS, INCLUDING CONTROL,
CERTAINTY, LOWER COSTS, CREATIVE
SOLUTIONS, AND PRESERVED
RELATIONSHIPS. AS CONCLUDED IN A
445 PAGE REPORT ABOUT FIVE
CALIFORNIA COURT ANNEX CIVIL
MEDIATION PROGRAMS BETWEEN 2000
AND 2003, ALL FIVE PROGRAMS WERE
SUCCESSFUL, RESULTING IN
SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS TO BOTH
LITIGANTS AND THE COURTS,
INCLUDING INCREASES IN LITIGANTS
SATISFACTION WITH THE COURT
SERVICES AND DECREASES IN
LITIGANT COSTS IN SAN DIEGO, THE
TOTAL POTENTIAL TIME SAVINGS
FROM THE MANDATORY MEDIATION
PROGRAM WAS ESTIMATED TO BE 521
TRIAL DAYS PER YEAR, AND SAVINGS
OF 670 TRIAL DAYS PER YEAR IN
LOS ANGELES. IN ADDITION, THERE
WERE FEWER POST DISPOSITION
COMPLIANCE PROBLEMS AND FEWER
NEW PROCEEDINGS INITIATED,
SUGGESTING THAT THE PROGRAMS NOT
ONLY REDUCED THE COURT WORKLOAD
IN THE SHORT TERM, BUT THEY MAY
HAVE ALSO REDUCED THE COURT'S
FUTURE WORKLOAD. SB 1141
ADVANCES OUR COMMON GOAL OF
ENSURING PARTIES RIGHTS TO
TIMELY ADJUDICATION THÀNH WHILE
SAVING TIME AND EXPENSE OF THE
COURTS, AND OF THE MANY
LITIGANTS WHO ARE ABLE TO
SELF-DETERMINE THEIR OUTCOMES. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. NEXT WITNESS, PLEASE. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR ELLENBERG AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS DAVID SLAYTON AND I'M
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CLERK
OF COURT FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF LOS ANGELES, THE LARGEST
TRIAL COURT IN THE STATE AND
NATION, SERVING NEARLY 10
MILLION PEOPLE IN OUR 36
COURTHOUSES ACROSS THE COUNTY.
I'M HERE TODAY TO EXPRESS THE
COURT'S STRONG SUPPORT FOR SB
1141. I WANT TO START BY FIRST
THANKING SENATOR NIELLO FOR
ADVANCING THIS IMPORTANT BILL.
EXPANDING THE NUMBER OF CASES A
COURT CAN ORDER INTO MEDIATION
PROVIDES PARTIES AN ALTERNATIVE,
COST EFFECTIVE, SELF-DIRECTED,
AND MORE EFFICIENT WAY TO REACH
A RESOLUTION AND ENABLES THE
COURT TO FOCUS OUR LIMITED
RESOURCES ON CASES WHERE
RESOLUTION BETWEEN PARTIES IS
UNLIKELY. THIS BILL WOULD ENABLE
OUR COURT TO BUILD UPON THE
SUCCESS OF OUR EXISTING
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
PROGRAMS, WHICH ENABLE PARTIES
WITH DISPUTES TO PURSUE
MEDIATION THROUGH FREE COURT
CONNECTED RESOURCES. AT ANY
POINT DURING THE LIFE OF
LITIGATION, OUR ADR PROGRAM IS A
COURT ANNEXED PROGRAM, AGAIN
FREE FOR ALL LITIGANTS
CONSISTENT WITH RULE OF COURT.
3.853 COURT ANNEX MEDIATION
PROGRAMS MUST BE CONDUCTED IN A
MANNER THAT SUPPORTS VOLUNTARY
PARTICIPATION BY THE PARTIES. IF
PARTIES DON'T REACH AN AGREEMENT
DURING MEDIATION, THEY ALWAYS
HAVE AND ALWAYS ARE ENTITLED TO
THEIR DAY IN COURT WITHOUT DELAY
. RIGHT NOW, THE STATUTE THAT'S
BEING AMENDED IN THIS BILL
LIMITS ORDERS OF MEDIATION TO
UNLIMITED CIVIL CASES UNDER
$50,000. IN CONTROVERSY WITH THE
INCREASE LAST YEAR OF THE
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
FLOOR TO $35,000 STARTING ON
JANUARY FIRST, COURT ORDERED
MEDIATION IS ONLY AVAILABLE TO A
SMALL FRACTION OF CASES. IT
COULD POTENTIALLY ASSIST THOSE
BETWEEN 35,000 AND 50,000. A
SENATE BILL, 1141 WOULD ALLOW
THAT INCREASE TO GO UP TO
$150,000. AN EVALUATION, AS HAS
BEEN NOTED OF THE LÀ PROGRAM BY
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL, FOUND THE
PROGRAM RESULTED IN AN ALMOST
50% RESOLUTION RATE, REDUCED THE
TRIAL TRIAL RATE BY 30, SHORTEN
THE MEDIAN TIME TO RESOLUTION BY
23 DAYS, HAD HIGH USER
SATISFACTION RATES AND REDUCED
LITIGANT COSTS AND COURT
WORKLOAD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND WE ASK
YOU FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. OTHERS IN SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON. ASHLEY HOFFMAN
WITH THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR MEMBERS
JAMIE HUFF WITH CIVIL JUSTICE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HEATHER ESTÁ
TERZO JUDICIAL COUNCIL IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT. SEEING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACHING, LET'S TURN TO THE
OPPOSITION. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO
SB 1141, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS
SABINA TUCKER WITH THE CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA. WE HAVE
AN OPPOSED POSITION TO THE BILL
AS IT IS IN PRINT, BUT WE THANK
THE COMMITTEE AND THE AUTHOR FOR
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS AND
AGREEING TO THOSE AMENDMENTS.
THEY ADDRESS MANY OF OUR
CONCERNS. WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD
TO SEE HOW THOSE BULLET POINTS
ARE DRAFTED INTO STATUTORY
LANGUAGE. AND WE ALSO WOULD LIKE
TO SEE A SUNSET ON THOSE
PROVISIONS. WE'D LIKE TO MOVE
FROM A OPPOSED POSITION TO A
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR. AS THE
BILL MOVES FORWARD. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHTY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OTHERS WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION OR
TWEENERS SEEING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. LET'S
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE.
QUESTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
SENATOR BARRASSO. YES IF THE
AUTHOR COULD ADDRESS THE LAST
COMMENT THAT WAS MADE ABOUT A
SUNSET CLAUSE THAT CAME TO MY
MIND AS WELL. AND SINCE THEY'RE
GOING TO BE SO MANY MORE,
POTENTIAL MEDIATION, WHAT ABOUT
A SUNSET TO SORT OF BE ABLE TO
TAKE A PAUSE AND SAY, HOW'S IT
GOING? IS THIS THE RIGHT WAY?
SHOULD WE DO SOMETHING
DIFFERENT? I WOULD BE, EXCUSE
ME. HAPPY TO, MEET WITH THE
OPPOSITION ABOUT THAT. ALL
RIGHT. OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS
? SEEING NONE. IS THERE A
MOTION, SENATOR? SOMEBODY MOVE
THE BILL! SENATOR MINH YELLED,
MOVE THE BILL! I'M SO. DID YOU
HAVE A COMMENT, SENATOR WILK?
YEAH, I HAD A COMMENT AND A
QUESTION. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S
OKAY. YEAH. THAT IS I DO
APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU
LIKE TO MOVE QUICK, BUT
SOMETIMES A LITTLE TOO QUICK.
BUT THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO. SO
IT WAS YOUR BILL, MR. CHAIR. I
BELIEVE IT WAS YOUR BILL THAT
INCREASED SMALL CLAIMS COURTS UP
TO 35,000. YOUR MEMORIES
ACCURATE. SO THAT'S GREAT. SO
RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE THE 30 YEAR
OLD LAW IS 50. THAT'S VERY
NARROW MARGIN. SO THAT DOESN'T
MAKE ANY SENSE. SO IT MAKES
SENSE TO INCREASE UP. SO I'M
HAPPY ABOUT THAT QUESTION I DO
HAVE THOUGH. ARE THERE ANY
FACTORS OR GUIDELINES THAT THE
COURTS MUST CONSIDER BEFORE THEY
REFER REFER IT TO A MEDIATION.
WELL, I WOULD LOVE TO ANSWER
THAT QUESTION, BUT I HAVE A
FEELING THAT PROBABLY ONE OR
BOTH OF MY WITNESSES MIGHT BE
BETTER QUALIFIED TO ADDRESS
THAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. WELL, A
COUPLE OF POINTS. RULE OF COURT
3.891 ALREADY REQUIRES THAT
PRIOR TO A DETERMINATION BY A
COURT TO REFER A CASE TO
MEDIATION THAT THE COURT
CONSIDER THE EXPRESSED VIEWS OF
THE PARTY ON THE AMENABILITY OF
THE CASE TO MEDIATION. THAT'S
NUMBER ONE. ANOTHER REALLY
IMPORTANT RULE OF COURT IS
3.85.3. AND THIS GOES TO THE
VOLUNTARY NATURE OF MEDIATION.
EVEN UNDER MANDATORY MEDIATION,
UNDER THE RULES THAT APPLY TO
COURT CONNECTED MEDIATION
PROGRAMS, IT SAYS A MEDIATOR
MUST CONDUCT THE MEDIATION IN A
MANNER THAT SUPPORTS THE
PRINCIPLES OF VOLUNTARY
PARTICIPATION AND
SELF-DETERMINED ACTION BY THE
PARTIES. SO THE MEDIATOR MUST,
NUMBER ONE, INFORM THE PARTIES
THAT ANY RESOLUTION OF THE
DISPUTE IN MEDIATION REQUIRES A
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT OF THE
PARTIES. NUMBER TWO RESPECT THE
RIGHT OF EACH PARTICIPANT TO
DECIDE THE EXTENT OF HIS OR HER
PARTICIPATION IN THE MEDIATION,
INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW
AT ANY TIME, AND NUMBER THREE
REFRAIN FROM COERCING ANY PARTY
TO MAKE A DECISION OR TO
CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
MEDIATION. I'D LIKE TO NOTE THE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENT TO
THAT SAYS VOLUNTARY
PARTICIPATION AND SELF
DETERMINATION ARE FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES OF MEDIATION THAT
APPLY BOTH TO MEDIATIONS IN
WHICH PARTIES VOLUNTARILY ELECT
TO MEDIATE AND TO THOSE IN WHICH
THE PARTIES ARE REQUIRED TO GO
TO MEDIATION IN A MANDATORY
COURT. MEDIATION. THANK YOU.
OKAY OKAY. LISTEN, I THINK THAT
WAS PRETTY. NO, THAT WAS PRETTY
COMPREHENSIVE. SO THANK YOU FOR
THAT. HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE BILL
AND HAPPY TO MOVE IT. WHEN
APPROPRIATE. ALL RIGHT, ALL
RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. DID SENATOR SENATOR
MINH MOVE THE BILL? BUT OKAY,
SO, JUST A QUICK COMMENT. IS
THAT, AGAIN, SINCE WE'RE MAKING
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY HERE, ONE OF
MY CONCERNS WAS THAT MEDIATION
THÀNH NOT BE USED. LET ME
UNDERLINE, NOT BE USED TO MOVE A
TRIAL DATE. AND THAT'S WHY IT
ASKS THAT WE AMEND THE BILL,
THAT THE MEDIATION BE SET. OR
ORDERED AFTER TRIAL DATE SET SO
THAT WE HAVE A MARKER, NOT THAT
DEFENSE COUNSEL WOULD EVER USE
MEDIATION AS A MECHANISM TO
DELAY THE TRIAL, BUT IT'S MY
EXPERIENCE THAT AS A TRIAL DATE
APPROACHES, PEOPLE BECOME MUCH
MORE FLEXIBLE IN IN RESOLVING
DISPUTES. AND SO, TO THE EXTENT
THAT THIS EVOLVES INTO A
MECHANISM THAT IS USED TO MOVE
THE TRIAL DATE EITHER BY THE
PARTIES OR THE COURT, THAT WOULD
BE PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE THAT'S
NOT YOUR INTENT. I BELIEVE,
SENATOR NILO, AND CERTAINLY NOT
THE AT LEAST MY INTENT. ALL
RIGHT, HAVING SAID THAT, THE
BILL HAS BEEN MOVED, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE, YEAH. AGAIN, I
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS. THEY
ALL MADE SENSE. AND I ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER SIX. SB
1141. THE MOTION IS DO. PASS IS
AMENDED. UMBERG UMBERG I WILK I
WILK I ALLEN ALLEN I BLAKE
SPEER. BLAKE SPEER I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I DODD DODD I DURAZZO
GROSSO I LAIRD I LAIRD I MIN MIN
I NILO I NHIÀU I WIENER WIENER I
11 TO 0 11 ZERO.
CONGRATULATIONS, SENATOR. NIELLO
THE BILL IS OUT. ALL RIGHT, NEXT
WE TURN TO, SENATOR STEARNS.
BILL PRESENTED BY SENATOR LAIRD,
SB 1399. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS, I'M PRESENTING,
SENATOR STEARNS, SENATE BILL
1399, ON HIS BEHALF. IT ADDS A
CLARIFYING PROVISION AND STATUTE
TO ENSURE THAT THE RECORDATION
OF PRIVATE TRANSFER FEE
COVENANTS ARE PERMITTED FOR
PROPERTIES THAT HAD AN AGREEMENT
FOR SUCH TRANSFER FEES IN PLACE
PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST, 2019. IT
ALIGNS WITH FEDERAL LAW ON THIS
SUBJECT. TO AVOID CONFUSION, IT
WILL BRING STATE AND FEDERAL
PROVISIONS INTO ALIGNMENT,
ELIMINATE AMBIGUITY AS TO
CONTINUED IMPLEMENTATION OF
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED AGREEMENTS.
IT'S AN ESSENTIAL CLARIFICATION,
TO SUPPORT THESE AGREEMENTS. WE
KNOW THAT THE ONE PLACE THAT FOR
SURE THIS APPLIES IS THE
AGREEMENT SURROUNDING THE TOHONO
RANCH CONSERVANCY. THERE'S NO
OPPOSITION HERE TESTIFYING IN
SUPPORT OR JARED KRAMER,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE TEJON
RANCH CONSERVANCY, AND JOEL
REYNOLDS REYNOLDS, WESTERN
DIRECTOR AND SENIOR ATTORNEY FOR
THE NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL AND AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME, I RESPECT AN IPHONE,
RIGHT? UNDER THE RULES OF
COMMITTEE PRIMARY WITNESSES TWO
MINUTES EACH AND WHENEVER YOU'RE
COMFORTABLE, GO AHEAD AND BEGIN.
THANK YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. AND
THANKS TO SENATOR LAIRD FOR
PRESENTING SB 1399 AND SENATOR
STEARNS ABSENCE. MY NAME IS
JARON KRAMER. I'M THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR FOR THE TEJON RANCH
CONSERVANCY. I'M PLEASED TO BE
HERE TODAY IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
SB 1399. LET ME PROVIDE SOME
ADDITIONAL CONTEXT. IN 2018, THE
LEGISLATURE AMENDED CALIFORNIA
CIVIL CODE 1090 8.6 TO PROHIBIT
THE CREATION OF NEW PRIVATE
TRANSFER FEE COVENANTS AFTER
JANUARY 1ST, 2019. WHILE
WELL-INTENTIONED, THIS LAW
INADVERTENTLY CREATED AMBIGUITY
AND UNCERTAINTY FOR THE ONGOING
IMPLEMENTATION OF FEED COVENANTS
REQUIRED BY AGREEMENTS THAT WERE
ENTERED INTO PRIOR TO THE
PROHIBITION DATE. SB 1399 SEEKS
TO RECTIFY THIS SITUATION.
CLARIFIES THAT STATE LAW DOES
NOT PROHIBIT THE ONGOING
IMPLEMENTATION OF PRIVATE
TRANSFER FEE COVENANTS REQUIRED
BY AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO
BEFORE JANUARY 1ST, 2019, AND
WHICH MEET ADDITIONAL NARROW
CRITERIA. THESE AGREEMENTS MAY
BE TIED TO LAND CONSERVATION
EFFORTS BENEFITING CALIFORNIA'S
FUTURE GENERATIONS. SB 1399 WILL
ALSO ALIGN STATE LAW WITH
FEDERAL REGULATIONS TO ELIMINATE
A CONFUSING INCONSISTENCY. WHILE
THE EXISTING LAW AND CIVIL CODE
1090 8.6 REFERENCES AN EXEMPTION
FROM THE PROHIBITION AGAINST
PRIVATE TRANSFER FEES IN THE
FEDERAL CFR TITLE 12 1220 8.1,
IT FAILS TO MENTION THE
PROSPECTIVE EXEMPTION PROVIDED
IN CFR TITLE 12, SECTION 1220
8.3. THIS OVERSIGHT
UNINTENTIONALLY CONFUSES AND
HINDERS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
FEE COVENANTS REQUIRED BY THESE
PREEXISTING AGREEMENTS. BY
PASSING SB 1399, WE ENSURE THAT
THESE PREEXISTING AGREEMENTS,
WHICH MEET SPECIFIC CRITERIA,
CAN CONTINUE TO BE IMPLEMENTED
AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED. AT THE
TIME OF THEIR EXECUTION. BY
HARMONIZING STATE LAW WITH
FEDERAL REGULATION, WE REMOVE
ONIONS, WE REMOVE UNCERTAINTY,
AND IN DOING SO, SUPPORT OUR
STATE'S CONSERVATION LEGACY FOR
FUTURE GENERATIONS. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS
MATTER, AND I URGE AN AYE VOTE
FOR SENATE BILL 1399. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. AND
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR
LAIRD, FOR PRESENTING. I'M JOEL
REYNOLDS, WESTERN DIRECTOR AND
SENIOR ATTORNEY FOR NRDC. I'M
SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF SB 1399
VERY BRIEFLY. I'LL MAKE JUST
THREE POINTS. FIRST, THIS BILL
DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE
PROHIBITION AGAINST PRIVATE
TRANSFER FEE COVENANTS AND CIVIL
CODE SECTION 1090 8.6 THAT
PROHIBITION REMAINS. SECOND,
THIS BILL ONLY SEEKS TO CLARIFY
A CONFUSING MISMATCH IN TIMING,
ONE CORRECTED UNDER FEDERAL LAW
IN 12 CFR SECTION 1220 8.3, BUT
NOT YET CORRECTED UNDER STATE
LAW. THIRD, NRDC IS CONCERNED
ABOUT THIS CONFUSING MISMATCH
BECAUSE IN 2008, 11 YEARS BEFORE
THE STATE PROHIBITION WENT INTO
EFFECT, WE SIGNED AN AGREEMENT
THAT RELIES ON TRANSFER FEES TO
FUND LAND CONSERVATION IN
CALIFORNIA. THAT 2008 AGREEMENT
FOR TRANSFER FEES IS LEGAL UNDER
FEDERAL REGULATION BECAUSE OF 12
CFR SECTION 1220 8.3, BUT IT
BECAME UNCLEAR UNDER STATE LAW.
THE MINUTE SECTION 1090 8.6 TOOK
EFFECT IN 2019, 11 YEARS AFTER
OUR AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED, AND
TEN YEARS AFTER IT WAS FORMALLY
RECORDED. THE ONLY THING SB 1399
DOES IS TO MAKE CRYSTAL CLEAR
THAT UNDER THE NARROW
CIRCUMSTANCES PROVIDED IN THE
BILL AND CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL
REGULATION, THE ONGOING
IMPLEMENTATION OF OUR
PREEXISTING CAREFULLY NEGOTIATED
AGREEMENT CAN CONTINUE AS
INTENDED. THIS IS CONSISTENT
WITH STATE POLICIES ON 30 BY 30
BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION AND
CLIMATE CHANGE, BALANCED WITH
THE NEED FOR NEW HOUSING. THESE
ARE BATTLES WE HAVE TO WIN, AND
WE URGE AN AYE VOTE ON SB 1399.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU
SIR. YOU HIT IT RIGHT AT THE TWO
MINUTE MARK. TRUE PROFESSIONAL.
ANYBODY ELSE HERE TO ADD ME TO
COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
SEEING NONE. ANYONE HERE
SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL. SEEING NONE. LET'S PULL IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS CONCERNS. SO WE HAVE A
MOTION BY SENATOR WIENER. THE
ONLY THING I'D LIKE TO SAY THIS
ACTUALLY IS IN MY DISTRICT AND
I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE BILL. SO
APPRECIATE YOU CARRYING THIS FOR
SENATOR STERN TODAY. AND WITH
THAT AND IT'S ALSO, I THINK, IN
SENATOR GROVE'S DISTRICT, JUST
FOR THE RECORD. WELL, THE
IMPORTANT AREAS ARE IN MY
DISTRICT, BECAUSE SHE HASN'T
COME SHE GETS THE OUTLET MALL. I
REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO THAT
CONVERSATION WITH HER. AND I
WOULD JUST THANK THE WITNESSES
FOR TRAVELING THAT LENGTH FOR
THAT BRIEF TESTIMONY. AND
RESPECTFULLY, THERE IS NO
OPPOSITION. RESPECTFULLY ASKED
FOR AN IPHONE. THANK YOU. I
DON'T KNOW WHAT THE IT'S Dð PASS
TO PASS, THIS IS SB 1399 BY
SENATOR STERN. THE MOTION IS TO
PASS WITH A MOTION BY SENATOR
WIENER UMBERG A UMBERG I WILK I
WILK I ALLEN ALLEN I BLAKE
SPEAR. BLAKE SPEAR I CABALLERO.
DODD DODD I DURAZZO. DURAZZO. I
LAIRD. LAIRD I MIN MIN I NILO.
NHIÀU I WIENER. WIENER I. YOU
HAVE 10 TO 0 ONE MEMBER MISSING.
ALL RIGHT. CONGRATULATIONS,
SENATOR STERN. AND WE'LL LEAVE
THAT OPEN. OKAY THANK YOU. SO
SORRY. IT'S ALL GOOD. SORRY MY
BAD. CONGRATULATIONS. GOOD JOB
.
ALL RIGHT. UP NEXT, WE'RE GOING
TO SKIP AHEAD TO, ITEM NUMBER
TEN, SB 900 BY SENATOR UMBERG.
THE RECOMMENDATION IS Dð. PASS
AND SEND TO THE FLOOR. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND BY THE WAY,
YOU'RE DOING EXCELLENT JOB.
THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT. HIGH
PRAISE COMING FROM YOU. WELL
THANK YOU, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT
TO THANK COMMITTEE STAFF IS
ALWAYS FOR DOING SUCH AN
OUTSTANDING JOB. IN PARTICULAR,
IAN DOHERTY. SB 900. CONCERNS
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
GOVERNED BY HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION AND THEIR BOARDS.
AND THIS BILL IS A PRODUCT OF A
DISASTER THAT HAPPENED IN MY
DISTRICT WHEN THE GAS LINES,
WERE IN ESSENCE, A NON-OPERATING
PANEL TO A COMPLEX WITH 200
UNITS, WHICH PRECLUDED FOLKS
FROM HAVING HEAT, WATER, BOILER
AND ANY KIND OF GAS HOT WATER,
THE ABILITY TO COOK FOR MONTHS
AND WHAT THIS DOES IS THIS BILL,
BY THE WAY, CONGRATULATIONS TO
MY DISTRICT STAFF FOR TRYING TO
MITIGATE AND AMELIORATE SOME OF
THE HARM CAUSED BY THIS HORRIBLE
, BREAKAGE, SO, WHAT, WHAT THIS
BILL DOES IS THIS BILL GIVES HOA
BOARDS TEN DAYS BY WHICH TO
START REPAIRS FOR CRITICAL
INTERRUPTIONS, SUCH AS A GAS
INTERRUPTION ALLOWS THE
MANAGEMENT COMPANY TO ACT
SWIFTLY TO FIX UTILITIES. IF THE
BOARD DOESN'T MEET, IT REQUIRES
REPAIRS TO HAVE FAIR PRICING
INSTITUTES RESERVE STUDIES TO
ENSURE ORGANIZED AND TRANSPARENT
BUDGETING PROCESSES, AND ALLOWS
THE HOA TO CONDUCT ELECTRONIC
VOTING TO ACHIEVE A QUORUM SO
THEY CAN ACT EXPEDITIOUSLY, THIS
BILL IS STILL A WORK IN
PROGRESS, AND WE'RE STILL
MEETING WITH WITH STAKEHOLDERS.
BUT IT'S AN ISSUE THAT THAT
NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED BECAUSE
IT'S BEEN REPEATED MANY TIMES IN
CALIFORNIA WHERE FOLKS HAVE BEEN
WITHOUT DOUBT AN IMPORTANT
UTILITY AND HAVE HAD NO PLACE TO
GO TO GET IT REMEDIED, WITH
THAT, I, I URGE AND I VOTE.
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES? OH WE DO,
YES. RIGHT OVER THERE, SIR. AND
I'M SORRY. AND UNDER MISTER,
MISTER. I'M SORRY, MISTER ERIC
THRONSON FROM CITY OF ORANGE.
ONE OF MY CITIES. THANK YOU. AND
THE RULES UNDER CHAIRMAN UMBERG
IS TWO MINUTES. WELL, I WILL
HOPEFULLY BE LESS THAN THAT, HE
ALREADY COVERED MOST OF WHAT I
WAS GOING TO SAY. THANK YOU,
VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ERIC
THRONSON WITH TOWNSEND PUBLIC
AFFAIRS. I'M HERE REPRESENTING
OUR CLIENT, THE CITY OF ORANGE,
IN SUPPORT OF SB 900. I
APOLOGIZE TO THE COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR THE LATE SUBMITTAL OF OUR
SUPPORT LETTER PAST THE DEADLINE
. ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ORANGE, I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS
OUR GRATITUDE TO SENATOR UMBERG
FOR INTRODUCING SB 900 AND
TACKLING THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE,
WHICH CAN BE CRITICAL TO
ENSURING ENSURING THAT MATTERS
OF PUBLIC HEALTH ARE ADDRESSED
IN THE COMMUNITY. AS THE SENATOR
MENTIONED, THIS BILL STEMS FROM
NATURAL GAS SERVICE BEING SHUT
OFF TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE
LEVADA MONTEREY CONDOMINIUMS
COMPLEX IN ORANGE FOR NEARLY TWO
MONTHS IN 2023. FORTUNATELY GAS
WAS LARGELY RESTORED IN
SEPTEMBER, BUT ONLY AFTER
SIGNIFICANT EFFORTS WERE MADE BY
THE SENATOR AND HIS STAFF.
ORANGE COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBER
JOHN DEMETRIOU AND CITY STAFF TO
COMPLY TO COMPEL THE
ACCOUNTABILITY FROM THE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, THE
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GROUP AND
CONTRACTORS. DURING THIS TIME,
CITY OF ORANGE STAFF STAYED ON
SITE FOR HOURS AT A TIME TO
APPROVE NEW GAS LINE
INSTALLATIONS AS THEY HAPPENED
IN REAL TIME. WHILE THE CITY OF
ORANGE IS HAPPY TO PROVIDE THESE
SERVICES FOR ITS RESIDENTS, THE
CITY RECOGNIZES THAT THE
SUBSTANTIAL EFFORTS TO PROMPT A
SENSE OF URGENCY IS
UNACCEPTABLE, AND IN RESPONSE,
THE COUNCIL MEMBER AND STATE
SENATOR UMBERG HAVE WORKED TO
DEVELOP THIS LEGISLATION TO MAKE
CERTAIN THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN
AGAIN. THE CITY BELIEVES THAT
THIS BILL IS THE RIGHT APPROACH
TO ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM THAT
OCCURRED IN THE CITY OF ORANGE.
BY LEGALLY REQUIRING ACTION AND
EFFECTIVELY PREVENTING ANOTHER
PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE FOR ANYONE
ELSE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER PRIMARY SPEAKERS? SEEING
NONE. ANYBODY WANTING TO ADD ME
TO TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON. CHAIR MEMBERS. BRADY
GIRTON, ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, WE'VE
HEARD FROM OUR CITIES THIS IS A
BIG ISSUE. SO WE ARE PLEASED TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
GREAT. THANK YOU. ANYBODY HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL
PRIMARY. YOU'RE GOING TO BE
PRIMARY. YOU'RE GOING TO BE ME
TO BE YOU KNOW THERE YOU GO.
THANK YOU. TWO MINUTES SIR, MR.
VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS TOM, SIR.
I'M AN ON THE LEFT LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEE OF THE CENTER FOR
CALIFORNIA. HOMEOWNER
ASSOCIATION LAW, WHICH IS A
NONPROFIT 500 1C3 THAT PROTECTS
CONSUMER AND CIVIL RIGHTS OF HOA
HOMEOWNERS STATEWIDE. OUR
OPPOSITION TO SB 900 IS BASED ON
SEVERAL REASONS. THE FIRST OF
WHICH IS THE WAY IT'S JUST
POTENTIALLY HUGE COST BURDENS
ONTO INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS FOR
REPAIRING INTERRUPTS IN UTILITY
SERVICES. OF ALL KINDS, NOT JUST
GAS LINES, ALL KINDS. IT ALSO
INSULATES ALL UTILITY COMPANIES
FROM ANY RESPONSIBILITY. IN ALL
OF THE 55,000 HOA COMMUNITIES IN
THE STATE, IF THERE WAS AN
INTERRUPTION IN YOUR
NEIGHBORHOOD OR CONDO OF GAS,
ELECTRIC OR WATER SERVICES TO
WHOM WOULD YOU LOOK FOR A
SOLUTION? WOULDN'T YOU LOOK TO
THE AGENCY BEST EQUIPPED TO
RESPOND QUICKLY TO DIAGNOSE AND
FIX THE PROBLEM? YET THIS BILL
PUTS RESPONSE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
REPAIRS AND REPLACEMENTS ON THE
HOA, WHICH IS, AFTER ALL,
COMPRISED OF HOMEOWNERS. WHY CUT
OUT OF THE PICTURE THE AGENCY
WITH THE MOST RESOURCES AND
EXPERTISE TO DEAL QUICKLY WITH
THE PROBLEM. THIS SAME AGENCY
THAT IS THE UTILITY LIKELY
ACTUALLY OWNS THE PIPES OR WIRES
THAT CARRY UTILITY SERVICES. AND
THEY CERTAINLY ARE THE AGENCY
THAT INSTALLED THIS
INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE FIRST
PLACE. AND IT SHOULD BE
MAINTAINING THAT INFRASTRUCTURE.
THIS BILL WOULD SHORT CIRCUIT
THAT PROCESS BY PUTTING THE
ENTIRE RESPONSIBILITY ON THE
HOMEOWNERS AND CONVERSELY,
ABSOLVING THE UTILITY COMPANY OF
ANY RESPONSIBILITY. SECONDLY,
THIS BILL GOES ON TO EXTEND AN
ABUSE, OFTEN ABUSE TAXING POWER
OF HOA BOARDS, KNOWN AS THE
EMERGENCY ASSESSMENT, TO A WHOLE
NEW CLASS OF SITUATIONS CALLED
THREATS TO HEALTH. WITHOUT
DEFINING THAT TERM OR INDICATING
WHO DETERMINES A THREAT TO
HEALTH EXISTS. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU, SIR. I GAVE YOU TWO MINUTES
AND 30S. THANK YOU. AND I
APPRECIATE YOU COMING AND I
APPRECIATE YOU COMING AND
TESTIFYING. MY COLLEAGUE FROM
THE CENTER ALSO HAS SOME
INFORMATION TO ADD. OKAY.
WONDERFUL PLEASE COME UP. THIS
IS MARJORIE MURRAY, THE
PRESIDENT OF THE CENTER. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. WHAT I WANT TO
ADDRESS ARE THE AMENDMENTS OF
APRIL 13TH, WHICH HAVE NOW BEEN
INCORPORATED INTO THE
LEGISLATION, THE AMENDMENTS OF
GREATEST CONCERN TO US ARE THAT
THEY MAKE HOMEOWNERS RESPONSIBLE
PERMANENTLY, NOT JUST FOR
EMERGENCY CONDITIONS, BUT THEY
MAKE THEM RESPONSIBLE FOR
MAINTENANCE, REPAIR,
RESTORATION, ETC. OF ALL UTILITY
LINES. AND HOW DO THEY DO THAT?
BY INCORPORATING THESE MAJOR
COMPONENTS INTO THE RESERVE
STUDY, WHICH IS DONE EVERY THREE
YEARS BY AN ASSOCIATION BOARD.
THIS IS REVOLUTIONARY BECAUSE
ONE OF THE, STUNNING THINGS
ABOUT THE LA VIDA CASE IS THAT
IF YOU LOOK AT THE GOVERNING
DOCUMENTS, WHICH ARE THE CCNR'S,
THE CONDO MAP AND THE TRACT MAP,
THE PICTURES OF WHO OWNS WHAT
AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT,
THERE ARE EASEMENTS ON THE MAPS,
AND THERE ARE WHICH BELONG TO
THE UTILITIES. SO THE UTILITIES
ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
MAINTENANCE AND CARE OF THEIR
INFRASTRUCTURE IN THAT
PARTICULAR CONDOMINIUM, SO IT'S
JUST A MYSTERY TO US WHY THIS
BURDEN IS BEING PLACED ON
HOMEOWNERS, NOT ONLY THE COST,
BUT IN TRANSFERRING THE COST.
PRESUMABLY, THE LIABILITY AS
WELL. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE
CCNR'S, THEY ARE QUITE EXPLICIT
THAT, YES, THE ASSOCIATION IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE
OF THE COMMON AREA, EXCEPT FOR
THOSE AREAS MAINTAINED BY THE
UTILITY COMPANIES. SO WE ARE
ACTUALLY WE'RE BAFFLED BY THE
LEGISLATION TO TELL YOU THE
TRUTH, WE'RE BAFFLED BY THE NEW
AMENDMENTS WHICH NOW TRANSFER
THE CARE AND FEEDING OF THE
UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TO
HOMEOWNERS AND THE COST AND ALSO
LIABILITY. I WOULD BE GLAD TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. WITH THAT, WE'RE GOING TO
PULL IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS FOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS,
CONCERNS. SENATOR LAIRD WELL, I
JUST WANT TO GO RIGHT TO WHERE
THE OPPONENT JUST WAS. AND
BECAUSE IN THE ORIGINAL VERSION,
THAT WAS THE OPPOSITION WAS THE
NOTION OF, UTILITIES, THE
QUESTION WAS WHETHER UTILITIES
ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT'S ON
ESSENTIALLY PRIVATE PROPERTY.
AND I KNOW THAT WITH WATER, IT'S
WHEREVER THE METER IS, EVEN IF
IT'S IN THE PRIVATE PROPERTY
AWAY, THE UTILITIES ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UTILITY SIDE
OF THE METER AND THEN THE
PROPERTY'S RESPONSE. SO COULD
YOU RESPOND? I DON'T KNOW HOW
THAT WORKS. TOTALLY. WITH LIKE
GAS OR OR OTHER UTILITIES. SO IT
IS ANALOGOUS IN OTHER WORDS,
THAT THE UTILITY IS RESPONSIBLE
TO THE POINT OF EMBARKATION. AND
BEYOND THAT THEN IT WOULD BE THE
EITHER THE HOMEOWNER OR THE
HOMEOWNER AT THIS POINT, IN THIS
CASE THE HOMEOWNER'S
ASSOCIATION. SO IT'S ROUGHLY THE
SAME THING. AND THAT'S THE SORT
OF MISUNDERSTAND THING, MAYBE
EVEN MISINFORMATION IS THAT IN
THE LA VIDA CASE IS THAT IT IS
TRUE UP TO THE POINT OF
EMBARKATION. BASICALLY, IF YOU
THINK OF IT LIKE A SQUARE ON A
MAP, THE UTILITIES RESPONSIBLE
ALL THE WAY UP TO THAT POINT, TO
THE IN ESSENCE, IN THIS CASE,
THE PROPERTY LINE BEYOND THE
PROPERTY LINE, IT'S NO LONGER
THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. IT'S THE
HOMEOWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY,
HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION
RESPONSIBILITY. AND THIS IS A
CRAZY, SORT OF SITUATION WHERE
THERE'S A BREAK. THE BREAK IS
WITHIN IN THE BASICALLY THE HOA
RESPONSIBLE AREA. SO THE HOA
THEN IS RESPONSIBLE TO ADDRESS
IT. IF THE BOARD DOESN'T ADDRESS
IT THOUGH, THEN THE HOMEOWNERS
THEMSELVES ARE LEFT WITHOUT THE
UTILITY. AND SO WHAT THIS BILL
DOES IS THIS PROVIDES, IN
ESSENCE, A MECHANISM WHEN THERE
IS A BREAK WHERE THERE'S A
HEALTH ISSUE, THAT'S AT ISSUE, A
MECHANISM TO, FOR EXAMPLE,
CONVENE THE BOARD A MECHANISM TO
BEGIN THE REPAIR AND YES, IF, IF
JUST AS YOU ILLUSTRATED, SENATOR
LAIRD, IF THE BREAK HAPPENS IN
AN AREA FOR WHICH YOU'RE
RESPONSIBLE. YES, THAT YOU STILL
DO BEAR RESPONSIBLE, BUT IT JUST
TO GET DOWN TO THE FINER POINT,
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S THE ISSUE,
DOES THAT MEAN THERE'S SOME
PLACES THAT THE SO-CALLED PLACE
OF EMBARKATION, THÀNH, IS 80FT
INSIDE THE PLACE THAT THE
HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION IS
RESPONSIBLE. SO IT'S NOT JUST AT
THE PROPERTY LINE, IT'S IF IT
COMES IN AND THAT'S WHERE
THERE'S JUST A LACK OF
UNDERSTANDING EITHER WAY. WELL,
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT OTHER
LOCATIONS, BUT BUT THE, THE
POINT OF EMBARKATION IS A KNOWN
POINT. AND SO AND KNOWN FOR
RESPONSIBILITY AS IS APPORTIONED
BETWEEN IN THIS CASE AN HOA OR A
PROPERTY OWNER. AND NO, I
UNDERSTAND THAT THE THING I
DIDN'T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE IT
SEEMED LIKE IN THE ANALYSIS OR
ONE OF THE OPPOSITION LETTERS,
THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE
PROPERTY LINE AND THE POINT OF
EMBARKATION CAN BE INSIDE THE
PROPERTY LINE OF THE HOA. YES,
IT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
THAT THAT MAY BE POSSIBLE BEALL,
BUT THAT IT'S AN UNDERSTOOD, AND
DELINEATED SEPARATION BETWEEN
UTILITY, RESPONSIBILITY AND
OTHER RESPONSIBILITY. YOUR BILL
DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT THE
UNDERSTOOD LINE IS. IS THAT THE
DEAL? THE BILL DOES NOT CHANGE
THAT WITH THE BILL SIMPLY
PROVIDES AS A MECHANISM WHEN
THERE'S A BREACH, TO BE ABLE TO
REMEDY THAT SITUATION IN
RELATIVELY SHORT ORDER AND TO
START TO HOLD CERTAIN FOLKS
RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING IT
RESOLVED AS OPPOSED TO. SO IF
YOUR BILL WERE IN EFFECT PRIOR
TO THE INCIDENT THAT IS CITED IN
YOUR DISTRICT, IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN MUCH CLEARER AND BEEN ABLE
TO BE ADDRESSED MUCH QUICKER.
THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU
. SENATOR CABALLERO, SO I
APPRECIATE THAT DISCUSSION, LET
ME ASK THIS, THIS THIS WHOLE
AREA IS NEW TO ME. WHAT I KNOW
IS THAT IF SOMETHING HAPPENS IN,
IN A PRIVATE RESIDENCE, THAT'S
NOT PART OF A CONDO THAT HAS NO
HOA, THEN YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR
ANYTHING ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY
, THE ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED WAS
THE POTENTIAL FOR THE CSRS TO
INDICATE THAT, AREA WITHIN THE
DEVELOPMENT HAS AN EASEMENT AND
THAT THE EASEMENT IS OWNED BY
THE UTILITY COMPANY. WOULD THIS
BILL AFFECT THAT SO WELL, AS A
MATTER OF LAW, CSRS CAN'T
BASICALLY SUPERSEDE THE LAW. SO
EVEN IF THE CARRIERS SAY UTILITY
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL INTERNAL
REPAIRS, THAT'S NOT
DETERMINATIVE OF WHO'S
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REPAIRS, SO
THIS THIS THIS BILL DOES NOT
TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY. IF
THERE'S AN EASEMENT, AN EASEMENT
IS DIFFERENT THAN, FOR EXAMPLE,
A DELINEATED POINT OF
EMBARKATION. SO JUST AS YOUR
EXAMPLE FOR YOUR HOME, IF THE
GAS LINE BREAKS PRIOR TO,
PROBABLY THE METER OR SOMEPLACE
OTHERWISE, DENOMINATED, THEN
THAT'S THE UTILITY'S
RESPONSIBILITY POST THAT IT'S
YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. OKAY. I
GUESS I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
IF THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE,
THE DEVELOPMENT WAS DONE
DIFFERENTLY AND, AND IT MAY BE
THAT IT'S THE EMBARKATION IS
SOMEWHERE FURTHER INTO THE
PROPERTY THAN WHAT WOULD
NORMALLY HAVE BEEN DONE. FOR
WHATEVER REASON, YOUR BILL WOULD
NOT CHANGE THAT. IT WOULD STILL
BE THE EMBARKATION STATION.
THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.
THANK YOU, SENATOR DURAZZO. YES.
I GUESS I'M A LITTLE THROWN OFF
BY, WHERE THE RESPONSIBILITY
LIES. I SORT OF ASSUMED, NEVER
HAVING BEEN A PART OF A
HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, THAT
THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS
THAT WOULD BE IN AN AGREEMENT
WITH THE HOMEOWNERS. YOU KNOW
WHAT'S COVERED, WHAT'S NOT
COVERED? WHAT ARE YOU
RESPONSIBLE FOR? HOW DO WE
ADDRESS EMERGENCIES? HOW TO IS
THAT THE CASE OR NOT? AND ARE WE
SUPERSEDING WHAT THEY WOULD DO
IF THAT'S THE CASE, ARE WE
SUPERSEDING THAT AND SAYING, NO,
IT'S THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION
RESPONSIBILITY AND NOT THE
UTILITY? I'M I'M TRYING TO SEE,
YOU KNOW, WHAT HAS BEEN
TRADITIONALLY DONE. AND ARE WE
CHANGING? AND, WHAT THAT
RESPONSIBILITY LEVEL IS, THE
SHORT ANSWER IS NO, THAT THERE'S
A MISUNDERSTANDING. IT DOESN'T
REALLOCATE RESPONSIBILITY. IT
SIMPLY SAYS, WHEN THIS HAPPENS
IN THE AREA FOR WHICH YOU'RE
RESPONSIBLE, IN THIS CASE, A
HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, THIS IS
HOW YOU NEED TO PROCEED. YOU
CAN'T SIMPLY JUST SAY, YOU KNOW,
I'M SORRY, PEOPLE, YOU WILL NO
LONGER HAVE GAS. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS, SENATOR? NEIL? NEIL
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'M STILL
CONFUSED BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE
WHAT'S BEEN SAID SO FAR IS
DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO WHAT
THE OPPOSITION SAID. YOU ARE
CORRECT. YEAH. SO I DON'T KNOW,
MAYBE GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY
TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION AS TO
WHERE THEIR PERCEPTION IS
DIFFERENT FROM REALITY. I THINK
THIS HAS BEEN A LONG STANDING
CONVERSATION. OAN I'M NOT SURE
YOU MAY ASK THEM. I MEAN, WE
HAVE COMPLETE DIFFERENCE OF
OPINION AS TO THE LAW. WHAT
CARRIES IMPACT IS ON THE LAW. WE
HAVE A COMPLETE DIFFERENCE OF
OPINION AS TO WHETHER UTILITIES
ARE RESPONSIBLE. FOR EXAMPLE,
FOR THE MAINTENANCE OR THE
REPAIR OF PIPES WITHIN THE AREA
OF HOMEOWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY.
SO I'M NOT SURE THERE'S A
RESOLUTION, BUT YES, YOU ARE
CORRECT. THERE'S A COMPLETE
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. SO LET ME
ASK THE OPPOSITION THEN. THE
DISCUSSION SO FAR IS THAT THAT,
THIS IS NOT ALTERING THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UTILITY
VERSUS THE HOMEOWNER'S
ASSOCIATION, THE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY BY THE UTILITY CONTINUES
HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES TO BE TO
THE POINT OF EMBARKATION, AS YOU
MENTIONED IT, REGARDLESS OF
WHERE THAT IS AND THE HOMEOWNER
OR HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THEIR
PROPERTY BEYOND THAT POINT. DO I
UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DISAGREE
WITH THAT PARTICULAR POINT OF
LAW, WHAT WE DISAGREE WITH IS
WHAT THE BILL SAYS VERSUS WHERE
THE RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD LIE.
NOW, IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING IN
THE LA VIDA SITUACIÓN THÀNH,
THAT THE METER, THE GAS METER IS
THERE'S TEN BUILDINGS IN LA
VIDA, EACH OF WHICH I THINK HAVE
ABOUT 20 RESIDENTS. THERE'S 200
RESIDENTS. AND THEY'RE THEY'RE
INDIVIDUALLY METERED UNITS.
THAT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS ITSELF,
BOTH IN ITS ILLUSTRATION THÀNH,
AND WE DID MEET WITH A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THEM AND THEY
SAY THEIR RESPONSIBILITY GOES UP
TO THE METER. AND THEN FROM THE
METER INSIDE, YOU KNOW, TOWARDS
THE RESIDENCE, THAT'S THE
HOMEOWNER'S, RESPONSE ABILITY.
SHORT OF THAT, IT IS THE
UTILITY'S RESPONSIBILITY. NOW,
THE LINES THAT FEED THESE
INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS DO RUN
THROUGH THE COMMON AREA. AND THE
WAY THE STATUTE I MEAN, THE
PROPOSED BILL IS WORDED, IT SAYS
THAT IF AN INTERRUPTION OCCURS
WITHIN THE COMMON AREA, THEN IT
IS THE HOA'S RESPONSIBILITY. AND
SO THAT WOULD JUST SHORT CUT
SHORT CIRCUIT ANY DISCUSSION
OVER WHO REALLY IS RESPONSIBLE.
WHERE'S THE METER. AND SO FORTH,
AND JUST RESOLVE EVERYTHING IN
FAVOR OF THE UTILITY. SO THAT'S
THAT'S OUR POSITION. WE'RE VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. IT'S AN
ENORMOUS COST. SO WHAT SENATOR
UMBERG HAS SAID IS THAT THE BILL
DOESN'T SAY THAT, THAT WHAT THE
BILL SAYS OR HIS INTENTION OF
WHAT THE BILL SAYS IS THAT THE
UTILITY'S RESPONSIBILITY IS TO
THE POINT OF EMBARKATION, EVEN
IF THAT IS WITHIN THE COMMON
AREA. AND IF THAT POINT OF
EMBARKATION IS A METER, THAT'S
THE THERE THEY MAY BE THE SAME.
SO AND TO THE EXTENT THAT WE
MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THIS
DOESN'T ALLOCATE REALLOCATE
RESPONSIBLE K¾T, WE CAN ADD THAT
LANGUAGE. BUT I BELIEVE IT IS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN WE CAN
GILD THE LILY. THAT'S FINE.
OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I FOUND
THIS WHOLE THING KIND OF
INTERESTING AS WELL. I'M GOING
TO SUPPORT YOUR BILL TODAY
BECAUSE YOU'RE A GOOD AUTHOR,
AND HOPEFULLY YOU CAN CLARIFY
THAT. SO THE OPPOSITION IS MORE
COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, LOOK FOR
A MOTION AND THEN WE CAN HAVE
THE CHAIRMAN CLOSE MOVE BY MR.
DODD. MR. CHAIR, PLEASE CLOSE
NØ. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I
APPRECIATE THAT CONVERSATION,
SPECIAL THANK YOU TO COUNCIL
MEMBER DEMETRIOU AND THE CITY OF
ORANGE AND STEPPING IN IN A VERY
ROBUST WAY TO PROVIDE NECESSARY
SERVICES FOR THE FOLKS AT LA
VIDA AND SPECIAL THANKS TO MY
DISTRICT STAFF WHO SPENT MANY,
MANY HOURS ON SITE HANDING OUT
HOT PLATES AND THOSE KINDS OF
THINGS, WITH THAT, I URGE AND I
VOTE. ALL RIGHT, LET'S CALL THE
ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER
TEN, SB 900. THE MOTION IS Dð
PASS UMBERG I UMBERG I WILK I
WILK I ALLEN I ALLEN I BLAKE
SPEAR. BLAKE SPEAR I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I DODD DODD I DO.
ROSSO DO. ROSSO I LAIRD. LAIRD I
MIN MIN I NILO NILO I WIENER
WIENER I 11 TO 0. ALL RIGHT. AND
11 TO 0. WE'LL LEAVE THAT OPEN.
IS THERE ONLY 11 MEMBERS ON THIS
COMMITTEE? WE'LL SEE. I'M NOT
THE CHAIR, SO. ALL RIGHT.
CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, THE. IN DUE COURSE, WE
WOULD TURN TO SENATOR CABALLERO
NEXT. SENATOR CABALLERO, WOULD
YOU LIKE. AND I'LL COME BACK.
THANK YOU. WE'LL PASS THAT BACK.
I DON'T WANT TO TOUCH THAT.
THANK YOU. OKAY. SORRY IT'S
OKAY. IT'S BEEN COFFEE ALL OVER
IT. I CAN HAVE IT
.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS. SENATOR WAHAB. YES.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT SB 981 ON BEHALF OF
SENATOR WAHAB, WHO HAS AGREED TO
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS AND WOULD LIKE TO
EXPRESS HER THANKS TO THE CHAIR
AND THE STAFF FOR ALL OF THEIR
ASSISTANCE, SB 981 COMBATS A
GROWING PROBLEM OF DIGITAL
IDENTITY THEFT, SPECIFICALLY
TARGETING THE UNAUTHORIZED
POSTING OF DIGITIZED, DIGITIZED,
SEXUALLY EXPLICIT IMAGES OR
VIDEOS. THIS BILL REQUIRES
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS TO CREATE
A COMPLAINT PROCESS TO ACCEPT
REPORTS OF DIGITAL IDENTITY
THEFT, AND TO ENSURE QUICK
RESPONSES AND ACTION. SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORMS WILL BE REQUIRED
TO RESPOND TO REPORTS OF DIGITAL
IDENTITY THEFT. DETERMINE IF THE
REPORTED CONTENT IS DIGITAL
IDENTITY THEFT, AND PROVIDE
UPDATES TO THE VICTIM. REPORTERS
CURRENT LAW DOES NOT TREAT THE
DISSEMINATION OF DIGITIZED,
NON-CONSENSUAL, SEXUALLY
EXPLICIT IMAGES ON SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS AS IDENTITY THEFT.
THIS CREATES A LOOPHOLE THAT IS
CURRENTLY BEING EXPLOITED, AND
SB 981 ENSURES THAT IF REPORTED
IMAGES ARE CONFIRMED AS DIGITAL
IDENTITY THEFT, THEY WILL BE
PROMPTLY REMOVED FROM THE
PLATFORM, PREVENTING FURTHER
HARM AND EXPLOITATION PROVIDES
CRUCIAL PROTECTION, PARTICULARLY
FOR YOUNG WOMEN, WHO ARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY TARGETED BY
UNAUTHORIZED, DIGITIZED SEXUAL,
SEXUALLY EXPLICIT IMAGES,
OFFERING THEM A SHIELD AGAINST
EXPLOITATION AND HARM TO TESTIFY
IN SUPPORT OF SB 981 IS DANIEL
FELIZARDO AS THE CRIME VICTIMS
ALLIANCE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS DAN
FELICILDA, ON BEHALF OF THE
CRIME VICTIMS ALLIANCE, WITH THE
RAPID ADVANCEMENT AND
ACCESSIBILITY OF ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS, WE'VE
UNFORTUNATELY SEEN A TREMENDOUS
INCREASE IN THE TYPE OF BEHAVIOR
THAT SB 981 WOULD REGULATE. MANY
OF THESE IMAGES ARE OF SUCH HIGH
QUALITY THAT IT TAKES
SPECIALIZED COMPUTER PROGRAMS TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE
IMAGE IS A DEEP FAKE, OR AN
ACTUAL IMAGE. AS TECHNOLOGY
KEEPS ADVANCING, THE ABILITY TO
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ACTUAL
IMAGES AND ARTIFICIALLY,
ARTIFICIALLY GENERATED IMAGES
WILL BE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR
THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO
DISTINGUISH. DEEP FAKE WAS FIRST
OBSERVED BACK IN 2017, WHEN
THERE WAS A REDDIT USER WITH A
SCREEN NAME OF DEEP FAKES THAT
WAS USING THE AI. THE AI
TECHNOLOGY AT THE TIME, TO SWAP
FEMALE CELEBRITY FACES WITH
IMAGES. THIS TYPE OF DIGITAL
ABUSE HAS INCREASED
DRAMATICALLY, ESPECIALLY DURING
THE COVID PANDEMIC, WHERE PEOPLE
STARTED SPENDING MORE TIME
ISOLATED FROM ONE ANOTHER AND
USING SOCIAL MEDIA, THE
INTERNET, AS, THEIR, THEIR
RECREATIONAL, TIME AS A RESULT
OF THE AI TECHNOLOGY
IMPROVEMENTS, IT IS BECOMING
MORE AND MORE ACCESSIBLE. THE
SCOPE OF THIS ABUSE HAS GROWN
NOW TARGETS ARE NO LONGER JUST
CELEBRITIES OR SOCIAL MEDIA
INFLUENCERS, BUT IT'S MEMBERS OF
THE GENERAL PUBLIC. IN 2020,
THERE WAS A, A PROGRAM CALLED
TELEGRAM BOT. THAT WAS USED TO
MAKE THESE DEEP FAKE, AND IT WAS
DETERMINED THAT THERE WERE OVER
100,000 PRIVATE CITIZEN. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
GEORGE. AND I VOTE YES. THANK
YOU. THE FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS.
JASON SCHMELTZER HERE TODAY ON
BEHALF OF TECHNET. WE'RE NOT
QUITE YET IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL, BUT WE'RE HAVING VERY
POSITIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
AUTHOR. WE'RE HOPING TO HOPING
TO IRON OUT A FEW FINAL ISSUES
AND BE IN SUPPORT SOON. SO THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. OTHERS
IN SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS RYAN SCHERM WITH
THE RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT,
APOLOGIES FOR NOT GETTING OUR
LETTER IN ON TIME. ALSO IN
SUPPORT, TODAY IS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA NARCOTIC OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA RESERVE
PEACE OFFICERS, AND THE DEPUTY
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION, MONTEREY
AND PLACER COUNTIES, AND THE
POLICE OFFICER ASSOCIATIONS OF
ARCADIA, BURBANK, CLAREMONT,
CORONA, CULVER CITY, FULLERTON,
MURRIETA, NEWPORT BEACH, NOVATO,
PALOS VERDES, POMONA, RIVERSIDE,
SANTA ANA, AND UPLAND ALL IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. OTHERS IN SUPPORT
SEEING NO US APPROACHING THE
MICROPHONE. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO
SB 981, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE SEEING NO ONE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE, BRING
IT BACK TO COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS
BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS. SEEING
NONE. IS THERE A MOTION? SENATOR
ALLEN MOVES THE BILL. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE ON BEHALF OF
SENATOR WAHAB. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ALL RIGHT, SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS
FILE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. SB 981.
THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS IS
AMENDED. NUMBER A NUMBER I WILL
Ã WILK I ALLEN ALLEN I BLAKE
SPEAR, BLAKE SPEAR I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I DODD DODD I Dð
RUSSELL Dð RUSSELL I LAIRD.
LAIRD I MIN MIN I NILO NILO I
WIENER WIENER I 11 TO 0 11 ZERO.
BILLS OUT. THANK YOU SIR. NEXT
WE FILE ITEM 11, SB 918 BY
SENATOR UMBERG. AMENDED AND WITH
THE RECOMMENDATION IS DO PASS AS
AMENDED. AND WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY, PLEASE PROCEED. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND THANK YOU,
ALLISON MEREDITH, FOR YOUR HELP
ON THIS BILL. THIS IS THE SOCIAL
MEDIA AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
COOPERATION ACT. THIS BILL
REQUIRES SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS
TO HAVE A TELEPHONE HOTLINE
AVAILABLE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A
TIMELY REQUEST FOR INFORMATION.
IT COMPELS SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS TO IMMEDIATELY COMPLY
WITH THE SEARCH WARRANT PROVIDED
BY LAW ENFORCEMENT. IF THE
SUBJECT OF THE SEARCH WARRANT IS
AN ACCOUNT ON SOCIAL MEDIA. AND
HERE'S THE REASON FOR THIS IS
THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A
TREMENDOUS NUMBER OF CRIMES,
MOST IMPORTANTLY CRIMES
INVOLVING, FOR EXAMPLE,
FENTANYL, WHERE THE PURCHASER OF
A PRODUCT THINKING THAT THEY
WERE PURCHASING, FOR EXAMPLE,
OXYCODONE TURNS OUT TO BE LACED
WITH FENTANYL. AND THE PERSON
THE RECIPIENT DIES. LAW
ENFORCEMENT CHECKS TO SEE WHAT
THE PHONE LOOKS LIKE SOMETIMES,
AND THEY SEE THAT THERE'S BEEN
SOME INTERACTION BETWEEN A
SELLER AND A PURCHASER, AND THEY
WANT TO IMMEDIATELY,
IMMEDIATELY, BOTH FOR
INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSES, IS ALSO
FOR PREVENTION PURPOSES, FIND
OUT WHO THE SELLER IS OR WHO THE
OTHERS ARE THAT MAY BE INVOLVED
IN THE CONSPIRACY. THE PROBLEM
IS, IS THAT, SOCIAL PLATFORMS
HISTORICALLY HAVE TAKEN
SOMETIMES MONTHS TO RESPOND, AND
THIS SIMPLY IS DESIGNED TO
EXPEDITE. IT REQUIRES THEM TO
HAVE A PHONE AND A PERSON ON
THAT PHONE AND A PORTAL, WHICH
CAN BE REPORTED SO THAT SEARCH
WARRANTS ALSO REQUIRE SEARCH
WARRANTS TO BE ABLE TO BE
RESPONDED TO IMMEDIATELY. I GET
THAT IMMEDIATELY. STILL NEEDS TO
BE CLARIFIED, AND WE'LL DO SO IN
SHOULD THIS PASS OUT OF
COMMITTEE. AS THE BILL MOVES
FORWARD, WE ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS TO REAFFIRM EXISTING
PRIVACY RIGHTS AND CLARIFY THE
BILL DOES NOT DISPLACE EXISTING
LAW RELATED TO SEARCH WARRANTS,
WHICH INCLUDE PROCEDURES FOR
OBTAINING INFORMATION FROM FROM
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
SERVICE PROVIDERS AND
LIMITATIONS RELATING TO OUT OF
STATE WARRANTS, I AM THE WITNESS
. I URGE AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU
SIR. ANY ANYBODY ELSE IN THE
ROOM, IN SUPPORT? YES. MR.
CHAIR, MEMBERS RYAN SHERMAN,
AGAIN WITH THE RIVERSIDE
SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, ALL THE
OTHER ASSOCIATIONS I PREVIOUSLY
MENTIONED IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
EXCELLENT JOB. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS, DANIEL
LOZADA, ON BEHALF OF THE CRIME
VICTIMS ALLIANCE AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, SIR. ANYBODY HERE IN
OPPOSITION? YOU MAY HAVE TWO
MINUTES, IF YOU LIKE. THANK YOU.
BECCA KRAMER MATTER. ON BEHALF
OF ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION, PEOPLE OF
ALL AGES RELY ON SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS FOR EVERYTHING FROM
ACCESSING INFORMATION AND
CONNECTING WITH OTHERS TO PAYING
FOR GOODS, USING TRANSPORTATION
AND GETTING WORK DONE, AND
SPEAKING OUT ABOUT ISSUES OF THE
DAY. THE VAST STORES OF
INFORMATION, SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS HOLD ABOUT PEOPLE ARE
SUBJECT TO SOME OF THE STRONGEST
PRIVACY PROTECTIONS UNDER THE
LAW, AND FOR GOOD REASON. RULES
THAT ACCELERATE THE HANDING OVER
OF THIS PRIVATE INFORMATION TO
THE GOVERNMENT RAISE CONCERNS
EVEN WITH THE AMENDMENT FROM THE
COMMITTEE. ENSURING THAT
PEOPLE'S RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED
TAKES TIME. WHEN A PLATFORM
RECEIVES A SEARCH WARRANT, THEY
MUST CAREFULLY REVIEW THE
WARRANT, PERFORM A REASONABLE
SEARCH FOR RESPONSIVE MATERIAL,
AND UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE OF
THOSE RECORDS IN ORDER TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE WARRANT IS
TAILORED AS THE LAW REQUIRES.
THE PLATFORM SHOULD ALSO NOTIFY
THE TARGET OF THE SEARCH TO
ALLOW THE PERSON TO TAKE ACTION
TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS. THE
PLATFORM MIGHT ALSO COMMUNICATE
WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT ABOUT THE
SCOPE AND BREADTH OF THE
WARRANT, AND SEEK AND OBTAIN
LEGAL ADVICE FROM COUNSEL
REGARDING THE BREADTH OF THE
SEARCH WARRANT. IT MIGHT ALSO BE
NECESSARY FOR THE PLATFORM OR
THE TARGET OF THE WARRANT TO
SEEK RELIEF IN COURT, TO VOID OR
MODIFY THE WARRANT. ALL THESE
STEPS CANNOT BE COMPLETED IF THE
PLATFORM MUST RESPOND
IMMEDIATELY, EVEN WITH A
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, AMENDMENTS
AND FOR THESE REASONS, WE
RESPECTFULLY REMAIN OPPOSED.
THANK YOU. I SEE ANOTHER
SPEAKER. YOU MAY HAVE TWO
MINUTES Þ. I WILL BE VERY BRIEF.
JUST WHAT DANNY KENDALL KAISER,
ON BEHALF OF THE ELECTRONIC
FRONTIER FOUNDATION, WOULD ALIGN
OUR COMMENTS WITH THE ACLU.
APPRECIATE THE RECENT AMENDMENTS
THAT THE CHAIR HAS TAKEN, AND
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING THE
CONVERSATION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM IN
OPPOSITION SEEING NONE PULL IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS.
SENATOR DURAZZO, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, I KNOW YOU SAID,
SENATOR UMBERG THAT YOU WERE
LOOKING AT THE DEFINITION OF
IMMEDIATELY COMPLYING SO THAT
HAS A LOT TO DO WITH MY
CONCERNS, IF YOU COULD JUST KIND
OF WALK ME THROUGH A LITTLE BIT
MORE, YOU KIND OF DID OF WHAT
WOULD HAPPEN IN CASE THERE WAS A
SUSPECTED CRIME BEING COMMITTED,
AND THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT THE
SEARCH WARRANT WOULD BE LOOKING
FOR. GIVE ME A BETTER SENSE OF
THAT IN REALITY. SURE. SO, USING
AN EXAMPLE FROM A REAL LIFE CASE
WHERE, A YOUNG WOMAN IS FOUND
DEAD AND THEY SEE THAT SHE HAS
BEEN CHATTING WITH SOMEONE ON
HER CELL PHONE, IT LOOKS LIKE
SHE'S DIED FROM A FENTANYL
POISONING. AND THERE'S REASON TO
BELIEVE THAT SHE RECENTLY
PURCHASED SOME PRODUCT. AND SO
AT THAT POINT IN TIME, POLICE
OFFICERS TO GET A SEARCH
WARRANT, THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE AN
AFFIDAVIT SWORN UNDER PENALTY OF
PERJURY. IT PROVIDES PROBABLE
CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THERE MAY
BE EVIDENCE, FOR EXAMPLE,
LOCATED AT THE SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORM BECAUSE THEY SEE THAT
SNAPCHAT WAS USED AND SO THEY
SERVE THAT SEARCH WARRANT BASED
UPON THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM
THAT SAYS IT HAS TO BE DEFINED,
IN PARTICULAR, THAT WE ARE
REQUESTING YOU TO PROVIDE, FOR
EXAMPLE, DOCUMENTS OR OTHER
EVIDENCE CONCERNING, YOU KNOW,
IN THIS CASE, MR. X AND
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN MR. X AND
MISS Y AND OTHER COMMUNICATION
PERSONS INVOLVING WHAT MAY BE,
IN THIS CASE, THE SALE OF
ILLICIT DRUGS, THE PURPOSE OF
WHICH IS ONE TO IDENTIFY THE
PERPETRATOR, BUT TWO ALSO TO
IDENTIFY THAT PERSON BEFORE THEY
SELL OR DISTRIBUTE DRUGS TO
OTHER PEOPLE. THE PLATFORM THEN,
AS WAS ILLUSTRATED, HAS TO LOOK
AT THAT WARRANT. AND JUST LIKE
ANYBODY ELSE HAS TO MAKE A
DETERMINATION. SO, FOR EXAMPLE,
YOU SERVE A WARRANT UPON A
BUSINESS, RIGHT? IF YOU'RE A
BANK AND YOU GET A SEARCH
WARRANT, YOU HAVE TO COMPLY IN A
REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME. THE
PROBLEM HAS BEEN THAT SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORMS HAVE TAKEN
MONTHS TO COMPLY, AND DURING
THAT PERIOD, THERE'S ALL SORTS
OF THINGS THAT HAPPEN. ONE
EVIDENCE DISAPPEARS AND TWO
OTHER HARM IS DONE. SO THE
PURPOSE OF THIS BILL IS TO
REQUIRE THEM, ONE, TO HAVE A
PERSON ON THE PHONE SO YOU CAN
ACTUALLY TALK TO A HUMAN BEING
TO SAY, HEY, WE'VE GOT A SEARCH
WARRANT. WE WANT TO SERVE IT
RIGHT NOW. WHO DO WE SERVE IT
UPON? IT DOESN'T INVADE ANYONE'S
PRIVACY INTEREST. AND THEN TWO,
TO BE ABLE TO AND AGAIN, THIS
DOES NOT OVERRIDE ANY PRIVACY
LAWS THAT EXIST. BUT TWO IS TO
AS AS WE MOVE ALONG THIS PATH,
HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT A
REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME IS
CLEARLY, IT'S NOT MONTHS TO BE
ABLE TO RESPOND TO THAT SEARCH
WARRANT. AND WHAT WHAT IS IT?
WHY WHY WOULD IT TAKE MONTHS TO
ENFORCE A SEARCH WARRANT?
SENATOR RUSSO, THAT'S AN
EXCELLENT QUESTION. I'M SO
SMART. RIGHT? I YOU KNOW, I
DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, I MEAN, IT
SEEMS LIKE THE SEARCH WARRANT IS
MEANT TO. WELL, I MEAN, I THAT
WAS A FLIPPANT ANSWER, BUT YES,
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM. THEN THEY
HAVE TO DO A SEARCH, BASICALLY
AN ELECTRONIC SEARCH. SO THEY'VE
GOT A NAME. SO NOW THEY NEED TO
SORT OF SEE WHO THAT, THAT
PERSON WHAT THAT IP ADDRESS. WHO
ARE THEY COMMUNICATING WITH.
WHAT ARE THEY ACCESSING, WHAT
ARE THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. AND
THEY HAVE TO THEY DO HAVE TO
ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT THE SEARCH
WARRANT IS, COMPLIANT WITH LAW.
AND THEY CAN MOVE TO QUASH OR
THE OR THE SUBJECT OF THAT
SEARCH WARRANT CAN MOVE TO QUASH
THE SEARCH WARRANT. SO, FOR
EXAMPLE, IF A SEARCH WARRANT
SAYS, YOU KNOW, TOM UMBERG SAID
THAT SO AND SO IS SUSPECTED OF
COMMITTING A CRIME, PLEASE GIVE
US ALL THEIR RECORDS. IF THERE'S
NOTHING MORE THAN THAT, THAT'S
SUFFICIENT. SO YES, THE PURPOSE
OF THIS IS TO SHORTEN THAT
PERIOD OF TIME DRAMATICALLY. AND
WHAT HAPPENS IF ONE OF THE USERS
THAT'S BECOMES THE SUBJECT OF
THE SEARCH WARRANT OR SOME
OTHER? WHAT HAPPENS IF THEIR
RIGHTS TURNS OUT THEIR RIGHTS
WERE WERE VIOLATED? WELL, WHAT
WHAT SO YOU GO FROM THAT. SO
THERE'S A SO LET'S SAY THE
PERSON WHO ACTUALLY SOLD THE
FENTANYL RIGHT, THAT THEIR
PRIVACY RIGHTS ARE INVADED OR
THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT IS
INVALID, OR THAT SOMEHOW THERE
IS A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT, THEN CURRENT LAW SAYS
IN MOST CASES THAT THAT EVIDENCE
MAY NOT BE ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE
, WHICH BASICALLY KILLS THE
WELL, MAY KILL THE PROSECUTION.
SO THAT'S THE PROTECTION. AND TO
THE EXTENT THAT THERE'S ANOTHER
INVASION OF PRIVACY RIGHTS. SO
THE ISSUE WOULD BE IF THERE'S A
SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED FOR TOM
UMBERG AND IT TURNS OUT THAT
IT'S ME AND THEY INVADE MY SON
WHO'S NAME IS THE SAME AS MINE,
HIS PRIVACY. WHAT RECOURSE COULD
HE HAVE? AND THERE ARE OTHER
IT'S THE SAME RECOURSE AS ANYONE
ELSE WHO, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS THEIR
DATA BREACHED OR OTHER OTHER
PRIVACY INVADED, BUT BUT YOU
KNOW, IF, IF AND IF, FOR
EXAMPLE, IF THE, THE PLATFORM IS
NOT USING DUE DILIGENCE, THEN
THEY ALSO MAY BE MAY BE LIABLE.
AND IF I COULD JUST ASK, THE
OPPOSITION IN TERMS OF AND ALSO
TO THE AUTHOR, THIS TIMING
ISSUE, HOW DO YOU PROPOSE IS
THAT HOW WOULD YOU PROPOSE THAT,
THAT GET RESOLVED. JUST I WANT
TO GET A SENSE OF THAT, YEAH.
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. I
DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME
I CAN GIVE YOU RIGHT NOW. I'M
HAPPY TO TAKE THAT BACK TO OUR
EXPERTS AND THINK ABOUT IT, BUT
IT WOULD NEED TO BE SOMETHING TO
BALANCE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS, BECAUSE
WHILE THERE ARE SOMETIMES
RECOURSES THAT ARE NOT ALWAYS
RECOURSES, IF RIGHTS ARE
VIOLATED, WHILE ALSO EXPEDIENCY
SO HAPPY TO BE THINKING ABOUT
IT, BUT IMMEDIATELY, ESPECIALLY
AS IT'S UNDEFINED, IT DOES RAISE
THE RISK THAT IN TRYING TO
COMPLY WITH THIS LAW, SOCIAL
MEDIA COMPANIES MIGHT NOT, HURRY
AND NOT DO THE DUE DILIGENCE
THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO DO TO
MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE MEETING
THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO PEOPLE
UNDER OTHER LAWS, AS WELL AS
PROTECTING PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. SO,
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I'M,
I'M NOT OVERLY CONCERNED ABOUT
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS GOING TOO
FAST, BUT IT DOES REQUIRE AND
UNDERSTANDABLY SO, IS THAT IF
IMMEDIATELY MEANS WITHIN TEN
MINUTES, THAT'S TOO SHORT. I
AGREE, THAT'S TOO SHORT. IF
IMMEDIATELY MEANS IN THREE
MONTHS, THAT'S TOO LONG. AND SO
THERE'S PRACTICALITY TO WORK OUT
AS TO WHAT IS A REASONABLE
AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE PLATFORM
TO RESPOND. WE COULD USE THE
TERM REASONABLE, BUT THAT WOULD
LEAVE UP TO JUDGES WHAT WE WANT
TO DO. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO AT
THE END OF THE DAY IS PROVIDE A
STANDARD BY WHICH THE COMPANY
UNDERSTANDS IT, LAW ENFORCEMENT
UNDERSTANDS IT, AND THEN LATER
ON, SHOULD THERE BE SOME SORT OF
VIOLATION THAT THAT A COURT
COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT
MEANS? SO AND IS IT CORRECT? I
THINK I HEARD YOU SAY YOU WERE
GOING TO CONTINUE TO. OH YEAH.
YES. I THINK THAT THE, THE I
UNDERSTAND THE ACLU'S CONCERN,
THE ISSUE RIGHT NOW IS WORKING
OUT WHAT THE WHAT IS PRACTICAL,
REASONABLY PRACTICAL TO REQUIRE
THE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES TO
RESPOND AS QUICKLY AS IS
PRACTICAL. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT
THAT IS. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, SENATOR. SENATOR ALLEN, I
BELIEVE HE ANSWERED YOUR
QUESTION RIGHT DURING HIS
COMMENTS. OKAY ANY MEMBERS ON ON
THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM HAVE
QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. I'D LOVE
TO HAVE SOMEBODY MAKE A MOTION.
SENATOR MINH MOVES THE BILL WITH
THAT. YOU MAY CLOSE YOUR EYES
AND I VOTE. EXCELLENT AGAIN.
RECOMMENDATIONS DO PASS AS
AMENDED. AND WITH THAT, WE'LL
CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER 11 SB 918. THE MOTION IS
TO PASS AS AMENDED. UMBERG A
UMBERG I WILK A WILK I ALLEN
ALLEN I BLAKE SPEAR. CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I ROSSO GROSSO I DODD
DODD I LAIRD. LAIRD I MIN MIN I
NILO I HILO I WIENER WIENER I
TEND TO ZERO. ALL RIGHT. TEN
ZERO BILLS OUT AND WE'LL LEAVE
IT OPEN FOR THE MISSING MEMBER.
NOW, OUR FINAL ACTION ITEM OF
THE DAY FILE ITEM NUMBER 12, SB
940 BY SENATOR UMBERG. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. MY APOLOGIES OR
I GUESS IT'S THE, THE REWARD OR
PUNISHMENT FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT
AND OPPOSE MY BILLS. THEY'VE GOT
TO WAIT TILL THE VERY LAST BILL
TO MAKE THEIR APPEARANCE KNOWN,
THIS IS MY ALSO APOLOGIES TO
SENATOR NIELLO, BECAUSE I'M NOW
INVADING HIS SPACE ON
ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION, WHAT
THIS DOES IS THIS IS A BILL THAT
HAS A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
ASPECTS TO IT. ONE ASPECT IS TO
PROVIDE SOME PROTECTION TO
CONSUMERS WHO ARE COMPELLED TO
RESOLVE THEIR DISPUTES THROUGH
ARBITRATION. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF
YOU BOUGHT A CONSUMER PRODUCT,
YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE,
A CELL PHONE AND IT SAYS, YOU
GOT A PROBLEM, YOU GOT A
DISPUTE, YOU NEED TO RESOLVE IT
THROUGH ARBITRATION. SOME OF
THOSE CONSUMER CONTRACTS SAY
YOU'VE GOT TO RESOLVE IT WITH A
PARTICULAR COMPANY WITH A
PARTICULAR ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION ENTITY, WHICH STRUCK
ME AND STRIKES ME IS SOMEWHAT
UNFAIR TO THE CONSUMER. IF YOU
ARE COMPELLED TO USE THAT
PARTICULAR COMPANY AND THAT
HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS OF
ARBITRATIONS GO TO ONE
PARTICULAR COMPANY. SECONDLY IS
IF THAT ARBITRATION IS COMPELLED
TO BE OUT OF STATE, IF YOU'VE
GOT A $2,000 DISPUTE, YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO TRAVEL TO DENVER TO
RESOLVE THAT DISPUTE. SO IT
SIMPLY SAYS, YOU'VE GOT TO DO IT
IN THE JURISDICTION IN WHICH YOU
WOULD NORMALLY RESOLVE DISPUTES.
AND THEN THIRDLY IS THAT IF
YOU'RE COMPELLED TO GO TO
ARBITRATION, IF THAT IF YOUR
CONSUMER AGREEMENT SAYS THAT,
BUT IT FALLS WITHIN THE, THE
JURISDICTION, THE MONETARY
LIMITS OF SMALL CLAIMS COURT,
YOU CAN OPT TO GO TO SMALL
CLAIMS COURT VERSUS GOING TO
ARBITRATION. THÀNH THAT'S UP TO
THE CONSUMER. AND AS YOU KNOW,
ATTORNEYS CAN'T REPRESENT
INDIVIDUALS IN SMALL CLAIMS
COURT, OTHER ASPECTS OF THIS,
PROVIDE THAT, THERE ARE ADR
FIRMS, MANY BOTH FIRMS,
INDIVIDUALS, SMALL AND LARGE,
HERE IN CALIFORNIA, THAT PERFORM
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION AND
OTHER PROVIDE OTHER SERVICES.
NOT ALL LAWYERS, BY THE WAY.
MANY, MANY, MANY FOLKS WHO
PROVIDE THESE SERVICES ARE NOT
LAWYERS. AND SO, IT IS MY VIEW
THAT WE SHOULD HAVE SOME
STANDARD FOR THEM, SOME ABILITY
FOR, IN THIS CASE, THE STATE BAR
TO, OUTLINE A SERIES OF
GUIDELINES THAT IF AN ADR FIRM
FOLLOWS THEM, THEY ARE
CERTIFIED. IT'S IN THE SAME
GENRE. AS FOR THE LAWYERS HERE
WHO HAVE SEEN PEOPLE THAT ARE
CERTIFIED AS FAMILY LAW
SPECIALISTS OR SOMEONE IS NOT
COMPELLED, IT'S NOT REQUIRED.
YOU CAN CONTINUE TO PERFORM
SERVICES IN THIS SPACE, BUT IF
YOU WANT TO GET THAT SEAL OF
CERTIFICATION, YOU'VE GOT TO
MEET CERTAIN GUIDELINES IN THE
STATE BAR. IS ALLOWED TO CHARGE
TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW FOR, THOSE
SERVICES. IT ALSO PROVIDES FOR
THE ABILITY TO, IF YOU'RE AN
ARBITRATION TO SUBPOENA
WITNESSES, SOME ARBITRATION,
AGREEMENTS REQUIRE YOU CAN'T
CALL BASICALLY YOU CAN'T
SUBPOENA WITNESSES, WHICH MEANS
THAT IF YOU CAN'T COMPEL A
WITNESS TO TESTIFY, YOU'RE
WITHOUT A WITNESS, AND SOME THAT
THAT'S THE BILL, I AM THE
WITNESS. SO I URGE, AND I VOTE,
MR. CHAIR, I APOLOGIZE, BUT I
DON'T RECALL YOU SAYING YOU
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
ALL RIGHT, I WILL. ALL RIGHT, I
GUESS WE'VE GOT PRIMARY SPEAKERS
IN SUPPORT. ARE YOU IN IN
SUPPORT? YES. GO AHEAD. MY NAME
IS SCOTT BERNSTEIN. I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL, THE
WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT
SPECIFICALLY IS SECTIONS FOUR
AND FIVE OF THE BILL, WHICH DEAL
WITH SITUATIONS IN WHICH THERE'S
THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT
ARISES. OH, OKAY, SO I'M WHAT
WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE
CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT ARISES
WHEN THERE ARE MULTIPLE CASES
BEFORE THE SAME ARBITRATOR. SO
WHAT HAPPENS IS, AND IT'S
INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS THAT IF YOU
HAVE AN ARBITRATOR WHO IS TAKING
EXTRA BUSINESS FROM YOUR
OPPONENT, YOU'VE GOT A PROBLEM,
THAT'S THAT'S AT THE CRUX OF
THIS, SO, ACTUALLY, I WANT TO
JUST TAKE A LITTLE SIDE TRIP TO
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. SOME OF
YOU MAY REMEMBER A SCANDAL
OPERATION GREYLORD, IN WHICH
ARBITRARY OR JUDGES RATHER WERE
TAKING BRIBES AND THERE WAS
PRISON TIME METED OUT. WHAT
MAKES THAT IMPORTANT IS NOT ONLY
THE PRINCIPLE THAT THAT A
DECISION MAKER WHO IS CONFLICTED
BY BEING PAID BY A PARTY, IS
GOING TO GIVE CONFLICTED
DECISIONS. IT'S THE FACT THAT
IT'S SO RARE TO HAPPEN IN THE
COURTS. BUT IN ARBITRATION, IT'S
A DIFFERENT STORY. WE HAVE
FORCED ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS
SO PEOPLE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY
OR THE RIGHT TO STAY IN COURT IF
THEY'RE FORCED INTO ARBITRATION.
AND SO WHAT HAPPENS IS THERE'S
AN THERE'S A STRIKING AND
RANKING PROCESS FOR PICKING
ARBITRATORS. THE TWO SIDES RANK
THEM. THE RANKS ARE COMBINED AND
THE ARBITRATOR IS SELECTED. SO
FAR SO GOOD. IT'S AFTER THAT
THAT THE TROUBLE STARTS. IF YOU
REPRESENT A WORKER OR A CONSUMER
AND YOU'RE AT TRIPLE A OR JAMS
OR ANY OTHER ARBITRATION
COMPANY, YOU MAY VERY QUICKLY
FIND YOURSELF RECEIVING A
DISCLOSURE FROM THE ARBITRATION
COMPANY, SAYING THAT YOUR
OPPONENT HAS RETAINED THE
ARBITRATOR TO SERVE AS AN
ARBITRATOR ON ANOTHER CASE, OR
MAYBE AS A MEDIATOR. AND THESE
FOLKS DON'T WORK CHEAP. THE FEES
CAN BE SUBSTANTIAL. AND SO
IMAGINE YOU'RE AN EMPLOYEE IN
THIS SITUATION. IT'S AN IT'S
YOU'VE GOT TO YOU'VE GOT AN
IMPORTANT CLAIM, A CLAIM THAT'S
CENTRAL TO YOUR LIFE. AND YOU
FIND OUT THAT, THAT YOUR
ARBITRATOR IS DOING BUSINESS IN
MULTIPLE CASES WITH YOUR, WITH
YOUR OPPONENT, ARE YOU GOING TO
GET A FAIR SHAKE IN THAT
HEARING? HOW CONFIDENT ARE YOU
THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET A FAIR
SHAKE IN A HEARING? A NEUTRAL IS
REALLY A NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR. SO
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS TO
STOP THAT PRACTICE, IT'S THIS
BILL WILL STOP IT. SECTIONS FOUR
AND FIVE ADDRESS THAT VERY ISSUE
. AND SO WE ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT
SPEAKER. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M
NANCY PAVARINI WITH THE CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. I'D LIKE TO
PARTICULARLY POINT OUT THE
PROVISION THAT WE'RE, VERY HAPPY
TO SUPPORT, WHICH IS THAT YOU
CAN'T FORCE A CONSUMER TO GO OUT
OF STATE TO HAVE THEIR CLAIM
ARBITRATED. WE ARE A CO-SPONSOR
ALONG WITH EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS,
OF THAT PROVISION AS IT APPLIES
TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS. MAKES
SENSE TO APPLY IT TO FORCED
CONSUMER CONTRACTS AS WELL. SO
WE DO SUPPORT THE BILL AND THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ANY METOO
TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL? SEEING NONE ANY SPEAKERS
HERE IN OPPOSITION. MISS HUFF,
YOU HAVE TWO I'M GONNA GIVE YOU
IF YOU GO OVER A LITTLE BIT,
THAT'S OKAY. BECAUSE HE HE WENT
OVER SO. OH ALL RIGHT. THAT'S
FINE I APPRECIATE IT. WE'LL KEEP
IT SHORT TO LEAVE ROOM FOR MR.
MICHELI. JAMIE HUFF ON BEHALF OF
THE CIVIL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING ONLY PART
OF THE BILL, JUST PART OF IT. WE
HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THE CHOICE
OF VENUE, THE SMALL CLAIMS
CHANGES, OR THE CALIFORNIA BAR
CERTIFICATION PROCESS. OUR ISSUE
IS PRIMARILY WITH SECTION FOUR
AND FIVE, AS IT DEALS WITH
ARBITRATION. AND I THINK IT
PROBABLY IS SAID BEST WHEN WE
ARE LOOKING AT THESE PROVISIONS
AND ACTUALLY THE LANGUAGE OF IT
WAS TAKEN FROM A 2016 BILL THAT
WAS AUTHORED BY HANNAH-BETH
JACKSON AND IN GOVERNOR BROWN'S
VETO OF THAT BILL, HE STATED
ARBITRATORS IN CALIFORNIA ARE
ALREADY SUBJECT TO STRINGENT
DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS UNDER
EXISTING STATE LAW AND JUDICIAL
COUNCIL STANDARDS. I'M RELUCTANT
TO ADD ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE
RULES AND FURTHER PROHIBITIONS
WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF A PROBLEM WE
DON'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF A
PROBLEM FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE.
FURTHER THE EXISTING JUDICIAL
COUNCIL PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING
ARBITRATION ETHICS STANDARDS IS
IN A DELIBERATIVE AND PUBLIC
PROCESS THAT CAN MORE
APPROPRIATELY CONSIDER
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. WE
STILL THINK THAT THAT IS VALID,
AND THAT IS THE BEST WAY TO
HANDLE THESE CHANGES. WE
OBVIOUSLY SUPPORT FAIR AND
ACCOUNTABLE MARKETING,
SOLICITATION, ARBITRATION
PROCESS. OF COURSE, WE WANT ALL
PARTIES TO FEEL LIKE THE OUTCOME
OF THOSE THINGS ARE FAIR, BUT WE
DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT THE
WAY IT'S WRITTEN IN THIS, REALLY
AFFECTS THAT, THAT CHANGE, WELL,
WE CAN'T SUPPORT IT TODAY. WE'VE
HAD VERY PRODUCTIVE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SENATOR'S
STAFF, AND WE WANT TO CONTINUE
TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS
MOVING FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. MICHELI. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN. WILK
AND MEMBERS, CHRIS MICHELI, ON
BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES AREA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, SIMILAR TO
MY COLLEAGUE, THE COMMENT SIX,
WHICH IS ON PAGE 12 OF YOUR
ANALYSIS, SECTIONS FOUR AND FIVE
OF THE BILL SEEM TO BE THE ONES
OF MOST INTEREST. WE HAVE MET
WITH, ZACH A FEW TIMES AND
APPRECIATE THE ENGAGEMENT. AND
OF COURSE, THE THOROUGH
ANALYSIS. YOU KNOW, CALIFORNIA'S
ARBITRATION ACT IN THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE PROVIDES US A
LOT REGARDING THE NEUTRALITY OF
ARBITRATORS, THE PROCESS
ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION
AWARDS, ETC. WE DON'T THINK THAT
THERE IS A SUFFICIENT SHOWING
THAT THIS PROVISION IN
PARTICULAR IS NECESSARY. WE'VE
HEARD FROM MORE THAN A DECADE
FROM OPPONENTS OF ARBITRATION,
THIS NOTION OF REPEAT PLAYERS. I
THINK THAT THOSE TYPES OF CLAIMS
IMPUGN THE INTEGRITY OF THOSE
OFTEN FORMER STATE AND FEDERAL
JUDGES, AMONG OTHERS, WHO ARE
VERY GOOD ARBITRATORS HERE IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. I THINK
THAT THEY ARE ALREADY SUBJECT TO
DISCLOSURES SIMILAR TO THOSE
AFFECTING, THE JUDICIARY. AND AS
WAS INDICATED, BOTH PARTIES HAVE
THE ABILITY TO STRIKE QUITE A
FEW OF ARBITRATOR LISTS OF
ARBITRATORS AND THE OTHER
INTERESTING PIECE IS, IS THAT
EVEN LOCAL BAR ASSOCIATION AND
CERTAINLY SPECIFIC GROUPS SUCH
AS CONSUMER ATTORNEYS IN THEIR
LOCAL ASSOCIATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE,
KEEP INFORMATION ABOUT
ARBITRATORS, THE TYPES OF CASES,
WHO HAS EMPLOYED THEM, ETC. WE
THINK THAT THOSE DISCLOSURES ARE
MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT
CONSUMERS IN THIS REGARD. FOR
THOSE REASONS, WE WILL CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH THE AUTHOR, BUT WE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THIS
PROVISION OF THE BILL. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU SIR. ANYBODY ELSE
WANT TO ADD ME, ME TO COMMENTS
IN OPPOSITION SEEING NONE. WE'LL
PULL IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS.
OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. I'LL
JUST THROW OUT A QUESTION. NO,
BOTH OF THE OPPONENTS QUITE
WELL. I'VE KNOWN THEM A LONG
TIME. RESPECT HIM A GREAT DEAL,
YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO WHAT THEY
THREW OUT THERE? SURE. AND I'VE
MET WITH THE OPPONENTS HERE OF
LATE, AND THEY'VE RAISED ISSUES
OF, FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY
THERE'S AN ARBITRATION COMPANY
THAT HAS 100 OFFICES ALL OVER
THE UNITED STATES AND OFFICE IN
NEW YORK, AN OFFICE IN DENVER
EACH TAKE A CASE, THE
ARBITRATION, THE INDIVIDUAL
ARBITRATORS HAVE NOTHING TO DO
WITH ONE ANOTHER. IS THAT A
PROBLEM? PROBABLY NOT, BUT IF,
FOR EXAMPLE, AS AS LAWYERS, MOST
OFTEN REPRESENTED DEFENDANTS, IF
I SEE THAT PLAINTIFF'S LAW FIRM
HAS HIRED WHILE IN THE COURSE OF
ARBITRATION THAT ARBITRATOR, I'M
CONCERNED. AND IF I SEE IF
PLAINTIFF'S LAW FIRM HAS HIRED
THAT ARBITRATOR FOR THREE OTHER
CASES, I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT
THIS MAY SKEW. NOW, I'M NOT
IMPUGNING THE INTEGRITY OF THE
ARBITRATORS, THE MEDIATORS, MANY
OF WHOM ARE RETIRED JUDGES. BUT
IT IS HUMAN NATURE, BY THE WAY,
IF YOU SEE THAT THE HAND THAT IS
FEEDING YOU AND MAY CONTINUE TO
FEED YOU HAS AN INTEREST, HARD
TO PUT THAT ASIDE, HARD TO PUT
THAT ASIDE. AND SO WE'LL
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THESE
THINGS. I TO RESPECT THE
OPPONENTS. WE'LL CONTINUE TO
WORK ON THESE THINGS. BUT I
THINK IT IS AN ISSUE. IT IS AN
ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO IN
PARTICULAR, INDIVIDUAL
ARBITRATORS OR MEDIATORS. SO,
I'M OKAY. I'LL LET YOU GO AS
CHAIRMAN, SENATOR DODD. AND THEN
I GOT A FOLLOW UP. GO AHEAD, I
APPRECIATE THIS BILL. I, TOO,
RESPECT THE OPPOSITION, BUT
WHAT, THE SENATOR JUST SAID, I
THINK IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. I HAD
MY OWN PERSONAL CASE, AND I RAN
AN ARBITRATION BILL EARLIER IN
MY CAREER AND GOT A LOT OF
CRITICISM. IT WAS PASSED, SIGNED
BY THE GOVERNOR. THERE ARE
SITUATIONS WHERE THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
COMPANY, PERHAPS EVEN THE
ARBITRATION COMPANY AND WHO
THEIR CLIENTS ARE, AND
EVERYTHING THAT REALLY DO. I AM
FULLY CONVINCED THAT THAT THE
THAT THE DECISION WHICH I WON,
GAVE SOMETHING TO THE THEIR
CLIENT THAT THEY NEVER WOULD
HAVE GOTTEN IN A COURT WITH A
RULING LIKE THAT. AND I WENT TO
A NUMBER I DON'T WANT TO REALLY
GET GET INTO THE DETAILS, BUT
I'M ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED THAT
THIS IS A GOOD BILL, THAT THIS
WILL TAKE AWAY THAT COZY
RELATIONSHIP. AND GIVE EVERY
MORE PEOPLE A FAIR SHAKE. I HOPE
YOU CAN WORK OUT SOME
DIFFERENCES THAT PERHAPS WILL
MAKE IT BETTER FOR THEM. BUT, IN
THE END, I THINK THIS IS A GREAT
BILL. THANK YOU, SENATOR DODD.
SO MY SENSES WILL BE DOING
HISTORY TODAY, THE OPPONENTS
ALSO BROUGHT UP THAT, GOVERNOR
BROWN VETOED BACK IN 2016, A
SIMILAR BILL. SO HOW IS THIS
BILL DIFFERENT THAN THE EFFORT
IN 2016? DO YOU KNOW, WELL,
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ASPECTS OF
THE BILL THAT ARE DIFFERENT.
IT'S MUCH, MUCH BROADER IN TERMS
OF THE OTHER ISSUES, CONSUMER
PROTECTION ISSUES, THOSE KINDS
OF THINGS, THE QUESTION THAT WAS
RAISED, I THINK, BY GOVERNOR
BROWN IS THAT THERE'S NO ISSUE
THAT WAS IN, I THINK, 2016,
EIGHT YEARS LATER. I THINK THAT
THERE IF NOTHING ELSE, THERE'S
CERTAINLY AN ISSUE AS AS TO
PERCEPTION. AND AS ARBITRATION
BECOMES MUCH MORE PREVALENT,
PREVALENT AND IN PARTICULAR
FORCED ARBITRATION IS NOW ALMOST
THE, THE RULE OF THE DAY THAT
IT'S EVEN MORE IMPORTANT. OKAY,
GREAT. WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION
FROM SENATOR WIENER. YOU COULD I
DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S YOUR CLOSE.
IF YOU WANT TO HAVE ANOTHER, I'M
GOING TO ADOPT WHAT SENATOR DODD
SAID AND THEN CLOSE. THEN I'M
DONE. SO OKAY WITH THAT. AGAIN,
THE RECOMMENDATION AS TO PASS IS
AMENDED. AND WITH THAT, LET'S
CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER 12 SB 940. THE MOTION IS
TO PASS AS AMENDED. UMBERG A
UMBERG I WILK NOT VOTING. ALLEN.
ALLEN I BLAKE. SPEER. BLAKE.
SPEER. I CABALLERO. CABALLERO. I
DODD I DODD. I DURAZZO. DURAZZO.
I. LAIRD. LAIRD I MIN. MIN I
NILO. NIELSEN. NØ. WIENER.
WIENER I. 9 TO 1, YEAH. ALL
RIGHT. NINE ONE. BILL IS OUT.
ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO GO
THROUGH THE ROLL. ONE TIME, AND
ONE TIME ONLY. SO, MADAM
SECRETARY, THANK YOU, SENATOR
WILK, MADAM SECRETARY, LET'S
START AT THE TOP AND WORK OUR
WAY DOWN, ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. SENATOR BARRASSO, I
DURAZZO, I WIENER I WIENER I 11
TO 0 11 ZERO. THE CONSENT
CALENDAR IS ADOPTED. FILE ITEM
NUMBER ONE, SB 1184, CHAIR
VOTING AYE. DURAZZO I DURAZZO I
11 TO 0 11 ZERO. BILLS OUT. FILE
ITEM TWO SB 1103 CHAIR VOTING I.
DURAZZO I DURAZZO I WIENER
WIENER I 9 TO 2 NINE TWO. BILLS
OUT. FILE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN SB
1399. CHAIR VOTING AYE.
CABALLERO I, CABALLERO I 11 TO 0
11 ZERO. BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM
NUMBER 11 SB 918 CHAIR VOTING
AYE. LAKE SPEAR. LAKE SPEAR I 11
TO 0 11 ZERO. BILLS OUT. THAT'S
IT. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE ADJOURNED
UNTIL JUNE. WHEN WILL ENJOY
QUITE A NUMBER OF ASSEMBLY BILLS
. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU ALL.
THANK YOU, STAFF, FOR YOUR
EXCELLENT WORK HERE. I HOPE YOU
TAKE A LITTLE BREATHER AND WE'LL
BE BACK HERE IN A MONTH. THANK
YOU. BYE.