Education — 2026-04-15 (partial)

So Senator Gonzalez, if you would like to begin. Good morning, members and Madam Chair. We're here today to present Senate Bill 998, which defines the roles and responsibilities of five discrimination prevention coordinators housed in the newly created Office of Civil Rights at the Government Operations Agency . Last year, the legislature passed SB 48, establishing four discrimination prevention coordinators. SB 998 fulfills our commitment to follow-up legislation, clarifying coordinator roles, adding a new coordinator focused on disability discrimination, and ensuring these positions have the tools to do their jobs effectively. Each coordinator will work with local education agencies upon request to ensure administrators are equipped to proactively identify and address incidents involving discrimination based on the protected characteristics outlined in Section 220 of the Education Code covering race and ethnicity, religion, gender, LGBTQ+, identification, and disability. A school's culture and climate shape everything, student engagement, academic achievement, and whether students feel safe and encouraged to continue their education, and SB 998 will strengthen all of that.

I see we have a quorum, so I'm going to go ahead and quickly have my assistant call the roll. Senators Perez. Here. Perez here. Otobo. Cabaldin. Cabaldin here. Choi. Here. Choi here. Cortese. Gonzalez. Here. Gonzalez here. Reyes. Here we have. Great. Do we have any witnesses here in support of SB998?

Thank you. Come on. You can begin when you're ready, and you'll have two minutes.

Thank you for your presentation. Are there any additional witnesses in support? If so, please speak at the mic. State your name, organization, position on the bill.

Thank you.

Mandy Yeek, Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, in support.

Madam Chair, Mario Guerrero on behalf of the California Faculty Association. We are not in opposition. I wanted to make sure there was no one in line, but we did want to share our position and the rationale. We are support if amended. We thank the Senator and her staff, Esme. They've been amazing. And you've heard the changes that have made to the bill that we are in line with. and equity standpoint, the creation of the Deputy API Black Latino Discrimination Prevention Coordinators, the creation of the Disability Discrimination Coordinator, all of that is amazing, and we thank the Senator for all of their work. We remain concerned with the appointment of the Discrimination Prevention Coordinators. We understand that the coordinators were created

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay Senator Cabaldon you can start when ready Yes thank you Madam Chair I here to present SB 960 related to Community College Baccalaureate degree programs And first, I'd like to accept the proposed committee amendments.

Okay, yes, I'd like to accept the committee amendments. I do want to observe with respect to the cap issue. I think we have work to do on what the right denominator is. The current statutory cap is the number of associate degree programs, and whether it's the programs or the enrollment or something else, but we should continue to work on that issue. I know that this one is also hotly controversial, but want to accept the committee amendments. Now, it's turning back to the beginning. So this bill tries to bring some framework to how we're dealing with the increased demand for community college bachelor's degree programs. Now, the committee knows full well in 1960 when the Master Plan for Higher Education was first created, the one piece of it, the Master Plan is this thick, the one piece that most of our friends who will testify remember and swear fealty to is what was called the differentiation of function. Everybody stay in their lane. You see, you do research and graduate education and undergraduate education all the way down the line. Of course, the master plan was much bigger than just that question, but it is the only surviving element of it. Tuition-free, everything else is gone. The one thing that people still think of as the core of the master plan is that no one should get out of their lane, no matter what. Now, the situation in 1960 was very different from where we are today for a couple of reasons. One is that the percentage of California graduating high school seniors who went on to higher education was much lower and much less diverse, incredibly less diverse, because the expectation was that only a small number of Californians would ever graduate from high school at all. And of those, it was just the folks that we had always graduated. And so even at the time, UC and CSU accepted a larger proportion of California high school graduates than they did after the master plan. This is a little-known fact. We often celebrate the master plan as a major increase to access. But UC and CSU reduced their admission to bachelor's degree programs as part of the master plan. And the promise was that everybody can go to community college, and we don't really know how this all going to work. but by magic then some people still get bachelor's degrees don't worry everybody will still get a bachelor's degree they'll just go to a different location that never quite worked out and this this legislature has worked for decades to try to improve transfer rates and to improve completion rates at every level of higher education but the other reason why the master plan came was that in 19th late 1950s pretty much every legislator had a bill to open up a new campus somewhere in their district of CSU or what was what was in the state colleges or UC or something else the legislature because of the baby boom was on a tear and everyone said this this is just makes no sense we can't just like add programs and campuses and discriminately we can't afford it also doesn't make any sense educationally so the main purpose of the master plan in the first place was to put some frameworks on this whole thing so I mentioned that because we are kind of in the situation today where virtually everybody and their I was gonna say and their mother but everybody and their vice-chancellor wants to have a bachelor's degree program at a community college and we it's time that we have a meaningful framework and an update to that differentiation of function those lanes that creates a rational approach for how to grapple with this rather than one degree program at a time or one place at a time as we seeing legislatively So what SB 960 proposes to do is to make two simple changes to the process So the bachelor's degrees offered by community colleges are a relatively new invention. They did not exist 20 years ago. They're relatively new. They were a pilot for a long time. And then only in this decade have they been authorized on a statewide basis. But the way the law works today is that it says that community colleges can only offer a bachelor's degree if CSU doesn't already offer that same degree. And that is intended to say, look, if you have another alternative and it fits in those lanes, then go to those lanes. And that's the reason for that provision. What SB 960 says, though, is that it's not about the institutions. It's not about the lanes. It's about the person. It's about the student or the aspiring student who wants to study. And under current law, if I am in your Melinda and I want to study a field that is only offered at Humboldt State University or Cal Poly, sorry, Cal Poly Humboldt, Then under the current law, it says, you know, the local community college district can't offer a bachelor's degree because Humboldt already offers it. Well, that's great, but most community college students and community colleges largely exist because so many students are more or less place bound. They're not able to just pick up their lives and say goodbye to their family, small business or their or their child care obligations. You know what? I'm just screw it. I'm just going to go to Eureka and live there for four years. They're not able to access. So it's not a real it's not access to a real program. When you say to a student, we know there's a workforce demand in your Melinda. We know the community college has the capability. But sorry, you have to go to Humboldt instead. It's not a real commitment. The second challenge is that at virtually every CSU campus, some programs are impacted. So even though, yes, the local university offers the program, you can't get into it as a local resident. So the point that what SB 960 says is that no longer would it be a statewide bar against bachelor's degree programs based on the statewide CSU offerings. But the ban would instead be if I am if I'm in L.A. and Cal State L.A. offers that program and it's not impacted, then I can't offer the bachelor's degree program without their without their consent and coordination. Because the student already has full access to that program. But if I'm in L.A. and the only campus that offers it is in San Bernardino or in Eureka, or the program in L.A. is offered but it's impacted and I can't get effective access to it, then the community college has the right to propose a program. It doesn't mean it's automatically approved, but they have the right to propose a program. That's the simple notion of the bill in order to try to put a framework on this rather than only saying each year it's nursing, which is the most common to be sure, but other programs as well. So although this is no longer a pilot project, this is happening statewide, it is still a bit of a pilot project in terms of understanding what the actual impacts are in terms of student success and workforce development and what have you. And so this is an SB 960 is an attempt to move the ball forward in our in our in our in our expand the the accessibility of these programs statewide. The committee amendments make sure that that doesn get out of hand because we also committed to assure that community colleges don convert themselves into bachelor degree in institutions and forget that that core original mission of associate degrees workforce development and transfer so we're attempting to achieve through SB 960 a balance that takes advantage of the possibilities of community colleges meeting local workforce needs and providing meaningful access for students to workforce opportunities while also assuring that we're doing so in a way that is responsible and that we continue to learn and put students at the center of those decisions. So I want to thank the committee for their hard work on this issue. And I'd like to introduce as a witness on the bill, Joshua Hagan, who's the Vice President for Policy and Advocacy with the

Thank you for your presentation, Josh. I will turn it over now to anyone that has me twos to offer.

Good morning, Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support.

Good morning, Kyle Highland on behalf of the Association of California Community College Administrators in support. Also going to review the cap language in the amendments. Thank you.

Good morning, Jesse Hernandez-Reyes on behalf of the Campaign for College Opportunity in support.

Jack Wursten on behalf of Citrus College in support. Thank you.

I'm Junius Gonzalez, the new Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at the CSU Office of the Chancellor, in respectful opposition to SB 960. The CSU recognizes that access affordability and workforce needs are real issues that must be solved and that our institutions must be nimble enough to meet those needs, especially for students who are place-bound, working adults, or looking to continue their education. SB 960 will allow a community college to offer dozens of bachelor degree programs currently offered by the CSU without consideration for duplication standards, fiscal implications, quality, outcomes, and accreditation, or long-term capacity planning to understand the state's overall needs. Under the current version of the bill, community colleges would be authorized to offer dozens of academic programs as varied as business administration, electrical engineering, and social work as these programs are often impacted at a number of CSU universities. Additionally, as you've heard, five universities, Fullerton, Long Beach, San Diego, San Jose, and San Luis Obispo are impacted for all undergraduate programs. This bill would allow community colleges to offer any of their bachelor's degrees. Across all of our universities, more than 193,000 undergraduate students were enrolled in impacted programs for fall 25 semester. About 36% of these students, nearly 70,000 in total, transferred from a California community college. I share these data to emphasize how the programs are taking thousands and thousands of students. We appreciate the author's desire to address these issues and focus on access. In fact, over the last three years, we've moved more than 6,000 FTE slots and $52 million from under-enrolled campuses to our five impacted campuses. They have also benefited from state enrollment growth funding. However, this bill, in its current form, raises several concerns. And while expanding baccalaureate programs at community colleges may seem like a practical way to increase access it could have unintended consequences For example potentially unintentionally worsening the enrollment challenges already facing some CSU universities While the CSU continues to address this critical issue through efforts such as our direct admissions program, improved K-12 and community college collaborations, enhanced recruitment in rural communities, and leveraging more than 300 online offerings, The shift proposed by this legislation could distract from the state's successful transfer pipeline and cause additional pressure.

We are committed to working with the author on identifying the best ways to strengthen the AB 927 review process, provide better outcomes to CSU and community college students. And any proposal that shifts institutional roles should also include a full fiscal analysis across higher education segments. The CSU remains committed to engaging and leading on these efforts. We respectfully ask for your no vote on SB 960. Thank you.

Chris Morales of the CSU Office of the Chancellor here very briefly to answer any technical questions that might come up. We'd like to thank the committee for the recommended amendments in the analysis, and we look forward to reviewing the language when in print and continuing to work with the author on this issue. There's just two things that I'd like to raise from the supporting testimony that we'd like to address. In terms of the Campaign for College Opportunities report on improving access, we very much agree and have reviewed that report. We do feel that it moves in the right direction. We've, in fact, done various of the initiatives that have been outlined in the report currently. but we do want to acknowledge that the report does not call for an expansion of either community college bachelor degrees, CSU doctoral degrees, or move in that direction of trying to change the differentiation of functions severely as the bill would do. Then the other thing I would like to mention, as the author had raised, on nursing, and I know this has been at the committee for several years now on expanding access to nursing, in particular Bachelor of Science in Nursing programs, as they are impacted at all of our campuses, But the impaction is largely driven, as the committee is well aware, not by our, of course, lack of opportunity here at the system, but, of course, a lack of clinical placements at the state level. This is something that all of our institutions contend with, both the UC, the CSU, and, of course, the community colleges. And that'll be all.

Good morning, chair and members. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association and respectful opposition for many of the reasons outlined by the CSU. We share the author's priority in expanding access to higher education. It's something that our union has long advocated for. However, we don't believe that this bill takes into account the potential impact on faculty jobs as outlined in our letter of opposition. So we're committed to working with the author and all of you to finding a different solution and finding ways to better serve all of California students.

I appreciate the author bringing this forward and moreover, your overall work in this area. I almost distraught that you have to make such a vigorous case for something that just so obviously needed I in fact I would just say I know or at least don assume it even possible in the imagination, but I actually think the impaction issue itself should be gone. I mean, to make the argument that the opposition just made, with all due respect to the Chancellor's Office, that if San Jose State, which I know is impacted right in the heart of my district, I work very closely with them and the chancellor's office on a number of things, support the university in every way, shape and form. But they can't get people out any longer, even in many cases, even on a five year program. And we've got community colleges, outstanding community colleges all over the valley that are precluded from stepping in and helping with those issues. So I would just basically throw that right back at people and say, why, why would we not let that kind of impaction divert students rather than redlining them? And we are redlining them. We're redlining kids. We're redlining young adults. We're redlining single moms. half of my district is known not only for its ethnic diversity but for the poverty and the fact that people have to work multiple jobs to support their families often immigrant families I don't understand why anyone in higher education would make the argument that it's okay after 66 years to stand by a policy of baccalaureate programs and other issues in the Master Plan for Higher Education that were drawn up at a time when my community was 85,000 people, not 2 million. And mostly the diversity was coming from migrant farm workers because the entire community was an orchard farming community, how we can possibly base any higher education decision on a master plan that was drawn up then for Silicon Valley is, I don't think you can make the case if you worked on it every day for the next 365 days and came back again next year. I just don't think you could come up with a justification for redlining those folks by default by saying that everybody but the 85,000 folks that we based this master plan on that were here 66 years ago is out. You're just out. Everybody's fighting with each other. It's not something that I put on the doorstep of CSU when we go to the community colleges and ask us to support things that CSU wants to do that aren't directly in compliance with the master plan, but UC steps in and says you can't do that, then the community college system itself comes back, say that straight up to the support witness here and says we're not going to weigh in on that. We have the master plan for higher education. It's something we're going to honor in this case. Well, you can't honor it when it's convenient and not honor it when it's convenient. That's not okay. So I would say what it says that the opposition arguments are in our analysis or is the primary argument is is that this isn the solution today this bill but the solution is to meaningfully update meaningfully update the master plan on higher education for the first time in 66 years I would say if you want to stop bills like this from coming forward then sponsor a bill or work with authors that are bringing forward bills to do just that. Because I just feel like California higher education institutions are trying to have it both ways. come in and say that's the right thing to do but we're not saying we're going to support that that's the right thing to do so don't do these bills like Senator Cobaldon is bringing forward thank you Madam Chair for allowing me to state my position and I'll be an aye vote on the bill

So let me – I need some clarification, Madam Chair, so I'm going to ask a couple of questions just to reiterate or have – reiterate both the opposition and the support comments, just so that I understand correctly. The bill would allow community colleges with surrounding UC CSUs with impacted programs to provide a baccalaureate option on their campuses.

And thank you for the question. So the bill does not apply to UC programs at all because UC is defined as a statewide institution. The campuses don't have local service areas, so it only applies to CSU. And you are correct, except the only point I would add is that the bill does not allow community colleges to simply willy-nilly start adding bachelor's degrees. The criteria in the statute are very restrictive because this is supposed to be for a particular purpose. So it must be in an area with unmet workforce needs that have to be documented by the data, that have to have been consulted with the workforce boards and with relevant employers. You have to have the evidence. And even under the bill, you must consult. You do have to consult with CSU. CSU is authorized in the existing statute. They would continue to file their own point of view about it as well. So it isn't as though a community college could just offer 15 new bachelor's degrees on their own, even if they were impacted at the local CSU campus. Okay.

What is the primary reasons for the impacted majors at your universities? What are the major factors?

Most of the impaction, in my opinion, is structural. There are capacity issues, either fiscal or facilities-wise, etc. So, that's one kind of piece of it in offering majors. was alluded to earlier that there also are external factors that are quite frankly structural like accreditation, etc. So it's not like you can just overnight say, oh, we're going to increase our nursing program from admitting 100 students a year to 200. There are a number of steps and hurdles regarding the accreditations, which occur not only at a state but a national level. There are tight, tight, tight measures. faculty-student ratio requirements in nursing, and there is a dearth of nursing faculty. So I just use that example. Many of the professional degrees face that, you know, like engineering and otherwise. The other reason, as I understand historically, and perhaps Chris can comment from a technical perspective, is the way sort of the funding goes and the historical funding has led to limitations and being able to expand in the ways that one would want. Right. And to the Vice Chancellor's point, we do feel, as our letter has noted, that impaction is largely the result of a lack and increase in state investment for the CSU, whereas the community colleges can often benefit from not only Proposition 98's guaranteed funding, but local tax revenue, access to bonding revenues, to create more capacity, to create more facility and address their facility needs. the state's investment to the CSU has been largely lagging. I don't have to talk at length about our infrastructure needs, but it obviously constrains our ability to fully meet that student demand,

I just wanted to make sure that we had clarity on record about what the issues are, and that's where I'm really struggling with this bill. The reason being is that in my six years I know that we have had a hard time fulfilling the financial needs for capacity for our universities at Cal State. So thereby, you know, as you mentioned earlier, it has an impact on your ability to one, have faculty, have the actual facilities to be able to meet the need of the local community and on the on the and there is an advantage for the community colleges because they are guaranteed you know certain funding right with prop 98 they're guaranteed but they're going to receive that funding so they are at an advantage over the CSU's so we're we're the attempt to create more baccalaureate opportunities at the community college when they have a an advantage financially to create that creates a a problem I think for moving forward on the Cal State system because one say they do have the ability to create the baccalaureate programs right they'll have the funding right they'll be able to expand as needed on that end and they provide a baccalaureate program at a much less cost to the student which is a good thing but I'm just afraid that it will at some point unintentionally in the future hurt the CSU's because quite frankly as seen by many of my my friends and my neighbors with college, we all have college kids at this stage in our lives, they're opting for a community college because of the pretty much free of charge cost of going to school and getting your associates or your undergrads covered. I afraid that it will inadvertently long dissuade people from attending Cal State now the other question I had which I struggling with I trying to figure out is that and correct me or enlighten me, I should say, about the roles. UCs have primarily been research-based universities. What has been the role for Cal State, for CSUs, and what's the difference between the community colleges? So I was one year old when the master plan was done. So I appreciate Senator Kabbalan's reference to really, quite frankly, needing a new design framework for higher ed. And so this issue of lanes, the community colleges are open access. They are to focus on associate degrees, career and technical training and credentials, et cetera, is one piece. The UCs, and Chris can comment more on this, I know them, from afar are big research, highly competitive universities across the nation in their standing, et cetera, and highly restricted in who they admit. In between, the CSU was tasked with providing baccalaureate degrees and master degrees and recently needed professional and applied doctorates that do not duplicate what's in the UC system. I'll give you a couple of facts which are impressive. One is that 91% of students who apply for transfer do get into a CSU. The rates of completion are very high, nearly 77% at four years, 47% at two years. Within the national landscape, it's the third highest best transfer completion rate in the nation, about 82%, superseded only by the UC at 90% and the University of Washington at 83.5%. But the vast numbers of CSU students far eclipsed just tens of thousands more than those two units combined. So those are some important facts about what the CSU is doing in its commitment and transfer. In fact, in the new entering undergraduates, it was 41, 42% of new undergraduates recently come from the California Community College system. There's a lot to do there in my short time and observation. Lots of great stuff going on. Lots of room for improvement. But those are sort of the lane sectors that have been described previously and historically. And there now is blending. One of the interesting pieces of what students do is they're swirling in and out. And the concern in continuing to work together, we can make sure that that swirl doesn't result in having too many credits and that sort of thing. but not coming out with a credential, either a certificate or degree from either the community college or the CSU. I'll be honest, I hope that that has already been happening and that we're not, that's not something that we should be doing in the future, but that we are already doing in it. Because it is sad when you take all these units and you get to a certain point and you can't graduate because you don't have the right units to be able to graduate. it. So I hope, I highly encourage that we are actually currently already working on that, on that front So my question now back to Senator Cabaldon would be what are your thoughts on the potential siphoning of students I mean why would any student attend a CSU to get their bachelor degree

have a if you have a way out to actually open up spaces you can take four years to do it in order to open up spaces in your impacted program but if you even at some point we need to meet the needs of the regional economy and open up access to students to be able to pursue those those degrees so I agree with you a hundred percent if it's just a straight competition and both institutions are fully capable of offering the degree that's not what this bill is about though this bill is in those situations where you cannot enroll at Cal State Center you know because either they don't offer the degree it's offered at Humboldt instead, or they do, but you can't get in, then Copper Mountain or College of the Desert should have the ability to propose a program that meets the strict state criteria for an unmet workforce need. Okay. And I just, I understand. And here's the, once again, it's about, so, okay,

The students are then able to attend the community college. They are no longer impacted. Then what happens? If the CSU program ultimately is not impacted?

It does, under the bill, it's the initiation of the program, and it's also why there's this period for CSU to make plans. But it doesn't, once the community college is hired, its faculty and students are enrolling, and they have all the workforce partnerships with local companies, the bill doesn't require the community college to say, hey, you know, guess what, we've got to shut everything down because CSU is about to start a program. under this framework just not as under existing law. CSU basically has the first right of refusal and years to get it right. So that that's that's where I'm going is that at some point you the community colleges will have enough spaces for students to be able to attend the opportunities to be there and then And the students, in my opinion, as far as financially considerations go, I would not attend a CSU if I can get a bachelor's degree of the same degree on there, which I think might actually hurt the CSU system moving forward. And at the core of it, at the root of it, is because the state is not actually providing the full funding that the CSUs need in order to continue and really educate the students in the state, which is on us. Not on you folks, but on us as a state because we're not fully funding them.

There's a documented need here and a documented opportunity for a better life and a career. But, you know, we're holding off until we can figure out how to fund CSU better. That just doesn't feel like it's the right.

that you've put into this bill for working so closely with committee staff around the amendments. I do want to highlight, I think, too, the concerns that Senator Ochoa-Bogue raised and just the purpose of our community college institutions as well as to our CSU institutions is that we did reduce the statutory cap from 25% to 15% in the bill. And so that is, and I know that that's also a part of the discussion that we've continued to have. You made that point at the beginning of your comments. In addition to that, you know, I completely agree in terms of having this broader discussion about the master plan and updating the master plan as a visionary document. The master plan is also not a binding document. It's not something that we inserted into education code. It was kind of this aspirational document. But it deserves updating, and I know that I've been having conversations about that since I worked with Josh at the Campaign for College Opportunity. So I think that this is very much a necessary conversation. What I appreciate about your bill, Senator Cabaldon, is this is taking a statewide approach to resolving this issue. I think what's really concerned me is, as I've seen over the last several years in the legislature, both before I was here and now while being here as a senator, is that many members have been passing bills that have been taking a regional approach, either focusing on their district or focusing on a community college district. And that presents concerns when we have different policies operating in different parts of the state. I think what would make better sense is for us to have one unified policy for the entire state. And I know that I've shared that with the CSU system as well. There are certainly issues to be worked out here. The community colleges, right, we want to ensure that if they are going to be offering four-year degree programs, that they're actually graduating students in four years. I want to make sure that the CSU is doing that as well. And so making sure that we're delivering on that process of timely completion, I think, is something that's really important and key to that. But our systems do have to do a better job of working together. It's frankly unacceptable that as someone that used to do work with students out in parts of the Inland Empire, in the high desert, or out in the Central Valley, that there are some places in the state where a student would have to drive upwards of two, three hours to get to a four-year institution and to simply say, well, because that's just what you're going to have to do if you want a four-year degree. or if not, your only option is going to be to go to an online for-profit school. That's simply unacceptable. I also think, you know, unfortunately, and I have even had to get myself out of this thinking by working at places like the campaign, that we've almost celebrated programs being impacted as a good thing. Low enrollment rates as a good thing. I remember when I was a student at Cal State LA, and one of the points of pride that Cal State LA used to discuss is the fact that the nursing program had become more competitive than admission to Harvard because we were accepting something like, I don't know, like in the single digits, like 7% of students that were applying. And being a student at the time, I thought, wow, you know, our program is so competitive that that therefore means that we are better than everybody else and after beginning my work in the higher ed space and looking at data I began to see the issue very differently that it was actually an indicator that we were turning away 93 percent of potentially very qualified students who should have been able to have access to a program like that. And so this issue of impaction, while I do think it does point to us needing to invest certainly in the CSU system. I do think in many ways that we kind of need to change the way that we talk about those impaction issues and kind of move away from celebrating turning away students, qualified students. And if we want to be really serious about trying to not just increase admission but also increase the number of students that we're bringing into our institutions in graduating them in a timely manner, then let's do that. I'm happy to do that. But I don't think that we've been having that conversation. So again, appreciate that Senator Cobaldon has brought forward such a thoughtful piece of legislation. I recognize there's about five other bills in the Assembly that are speaking to this issue. And I know that this will be a topic that we continue to discuss both at committee hearings as well as within meetings in this upcoming year. So my recommendation is an aye vote, and I will turn it over to Senator Cabaldon to close. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members of the committee, and the supporters and the opponents. This is hard because we are taking on essentially a small, small sliver of the kind of issues that they did take on in 1960s. How do we design this and what are the consequences and the unexpected things that might occur and how are we making sure that we're putting students at the center? If you're still thinking, Madam Vice Chair, I'm hopeful that with the coherent, strong Senate support that going into these two-house conversations about these issues, we will be in a better position to be able to bring that long-term thinking and the comprehensive thinking about these issues to the fore. I think the other thing I wanted to say to the to the to the supporters just about the cap amendment because they came up in a lot of the support testimony and And the point of that is really to address Exactly the issues that the vice chair and other members of the committee have raised which is we want to we want a rational Policy that will make sense and will allow this to move forward We also want to make sure we're keeping a handle on it So we we don't want to see Crofton Hills College offering 27 bachelor's degrees next next next year after the bill passes even if they meet all the other criteria we want to meter it and make sure that what we're doing is working it's making sense and we're able to look at what the what the consequences are that said I do want as I said at the outset like the way that the committee amendments work off the existing statute which are about the number of associate degree programs which is a little that law was a little you know it was the same intent but a little janky because most colleges have basically the same number of degree programs and we don't want people creating associate degree programs just to move the fraction up from two or three but if you look at it typical community colleges associate degree programs are like 30 of them you know plus or minus 10 so that's not that many really 15 percent four or if you round up it's five it's not like it's going to be a million programs even if all the other criteria can be matched so we need to keep looking at that issue but really that's the point is to make sure that we are we're continuing to authorize this to happen to meet the needs of students and and local economies but we doing in a way that is thoughtful and we can catch it before things if they get if they start to get out of hand but i think senator cortesi also made a really important point when he used the word redlining that today if you happen by an accident or maybe it a benefit of birth you're born in Barrio Logan, you're born in San Jose, you're born in one of the campuses where every single program is impacted, every single program. And that's not uncommon in the urban areas of the state because we only build so many universities. The same thing's true at Berkeley and UCLA. we will sometimes say hey well you see all the students in UCLA in LA have at UCLA well not really because hardly any of them can get in so it's not real access and the same thing is true so if you're in Barrio Logan or in San Jose and you want to go to San Diego State or San Jose State because those are your local campuses they're not they're not effectively open to you I mean you or you have to win the lottery basically in order to as well as being an excellent student in order to attend those programs and so it is incumbent on us to make sure that there are real opportunities in areas where there's strong demonstrated workforce demand that's unmet by the CSU programs and that we that we allow that we allow community colleges to to work with local employers and workforce providers in order to make that real I am I no one is a stronger CSU advocate than me in the house although I was also a community college vice chancellor and the student lobbyist for the UC students as well I know these systems and their pop in the in these lanes that we all get stuck in I think I'm one of the only people alive that's been involved in every single master plan review since except for the 1973 one so I'm fully committed to addressing these big picture questions and want to make sure that we are creating healthy institutions and supporting them with the resources they need and we do that because at the end of the day we're putting students at the center of this and making sure that young and adult folks throughout California have access to programs that will help California's economy be strong help our regional economies be strong and give them the career opportunities that they are absolutely ready for and can succeed and with that madam chair thank you to the committee and would ask for an aye vote. Great. So we now have, do we have a motion on this bill? Okay. So Senator Ochoa-Bogue has motion and a motion for SB 960 is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Assistant, can you call the roll? Senators Perez. Aye. Perez, I Ochoa Bogg Cabaldon Cabaldon I Choi Cortese Gonzalez Reyes great and we will put that bill

begin when you're ready

And you can begin when you're ready. Thank you. My name is Oliver Blakespear, and I'm a 17-year-old high school student of the Grower School. And I was at the Encinitas Library recently when I noticed a book about the guitar that I wanted to check out. So I learned after asking the librarian that I couldn't get the book because I was 17 and without a parent present. This was a surprise because I do many things without a parent present. For example, I have a driver's license and a job. That was the first of two experiences where I was denied access to library books. At my school in Encinitas, we do a field trip to the Dove Library in Carlsbad with the 11th grade class to check out books on our World War II research topics, mine being Douglas MacArthur's role in the Pacific War. Prior to the field trip, we have to visit the library with a parent or guardian to get a library card that only works for certain types of libraries. This was a challenge because I have two working parents with busy schedules and I still made time, but it was a little bit inconvenient If this is happening to me then it happening to others all over the state as well I think it should be as easy as possible for students to access educational resources We should try to reduce barriers to students using libraries Libraries are fundamental in creating educated citizens, and in an ever-expanding world of AI, it is not just important but crucial for teens to have access to all learning tools, especially at the age where it matters most. Thank you for your support of SB 965.

My name is Tiffany Mock and I represent CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals. I could not be more honored to support this legislation, which Mr. Blakespear has so eloquently illustrated. Representing teachers and educators, we are the ones who assign class projects that inspire kids to go to libraries. And as a parent myself, I am the parent of the kindergartner who received without, to my knowledge, any authorization, request, physical presence, a library card that came home with her a few weeks ago. I was very delighted and flattered, but I do hope that all students have the least amount of barriers to be able to access the information they seek from our public libraries. And so for those reasons, I urge your support of SB 965. Thank you.

Good morning, Sadabaches with Children Now in support.

My name is Erica Tabo, and I'm the Library Director at Sonoma County Library, which is represented by Senator Cabaldon. And I'm representing the California Library Association. First, we want to thank the Senator for her goal of getting more library cards into the hands of students. This is a goal we strongly share. Libraries are deeply committed to providing access and removing barriers wherever possible. I'm also a former teen librarian, and this issue is very near and dear to my heart. And while I support this goal in theory, we all know that the devil is in the details. We also want to express our appreciation for the Senators staff who have engaged thoughtfully and consistently with the California Library Association leaders and our lobbyists over the past two months. That collaboration has been meaningful and productive. As part of that process, we have proposed alternative language that we believe strikes an important balance, preserving local control while encouraging libraries to eliminate in-person requirements where it is feasible to do so. We think that approach reflects both the intent of the bill and the diversity of communities across California. It's important to note that some communities feel very strongly that a parent or guardian should play a role in accompanying a teen to obtain a library card. These are not policies imposed unilaterally by libraries. They have been openly discussed and adopted through local governments, either city councils or county boards of supervisors, as well as school district processes. Our research shows that policies vary widely across the state reflecting different community values operational realities and levels of trust because of that a statewide change like this would likely require local governments to agendize the issue and revisit their policies through public processes while we understand that the cla amendments will not be moving forward today we remain committed to working with the Senator to find a path forward, one that expands access while respecting local decision-making. Thank you again for your leadership and your

Thank you for your presentations. Do we have anybody else here to speak in opposition of this bill SB 965? Seeing nobody getting up, I'll turn it back now to committee members. Do we have questions or comments?

I'll facilitate some conversation here between the opposition and the support.

Because I'm with you. As a 16-year-old, 17-year-old, if you can drive and you have a job, you should have the ability to do that. But the opposition did make some good points as far as localities and their priorities and what they want. And we're all about local – well, not all of us, but some of us are about local control and respecting that local control because the local elected leaders know their communities best they represent their communities and so they have certain priorities And we should be mindful and respectful of that The 16 17 part I think the only the one concern that I had coming

Yes, thank you. Thank you for opposing that. So I think it's important to contextualize that libraries have become a place where there's a flashpoint for cultural issues, and there are examples of public hearings at the local municipal level that really balloon into a major controversy over what kids can access and what kids can see, and relationships with the LGBTQ community, or a whole number of cultural social issues. So when we're thinking about kids and library access, there are immediately the context of that. But I think it's important to recognize that what this bill really is, it's very modest and it's essentially a modernization to say that in the same way that you can do any number of things, like you could put in a credit card. If we were concerned about youth not returning things and running up a bill, you could put in your credit card online and have that be something that a parent would have to access. Doing an online form, I think, is a very low barrier, and there are so many things where that happens. But the reality is that because of our changing relationship with libraries, libraries actually aren't focused, aren't trying to collect every last cent. So the policies have changed in libraries in California so that people who don't return their book on time, they get an automatic extension. There are different policies that address that. So to me, that's really a side issue. And the things that the opposition raised, which I appreciate their good work, their commitment, and I do think that we'll be able to get there on this. Unfortunately, the proposed language was that they would encourage libraries not to require physical presence. And we don't see that as doing anything. I mean, quite honestly, it's like the point is that we have some libraries that are giving out a library card to a kindergartner, which my witness showed you the card that she received. And then we have other libraries that for a 17 year old like the Carlsbad library for 11 years, the teacher of this class has been telling parents, every single one of you needs to get yourself across the city line into a different library to get a card for your kid, because in a couple of weeks we're going to be doing this World War Two project. I mean, there's just without question an inequity around access there. So, you know, the issue of what I'm I would like to try to address the concerns about this blowing up into a public controversy that it isn't by any requirements around public process or adopting things in public. There are all sorts of policies that change at the state level that don't have to go back to a municipal level city council or county board of supervisors meeting. It's just a change to policy at the statewide level. And so libraries that Senator Ashby's bill from a couple of years ago, which was a very good bill, Its complexity was the requirement that school districts and libraries enter into MOUs. So what you're seeing is a friction around a school district that doesn't have the capacity or the staffing or the libraries don't to make that actual operationalize that. And what we're doing here with this bill doesn't have to do with school districts and MOUs. And so basically it's just the simple requirement that you physically do not have to be present to get a library card if you are 16 or 17. And I mean, we could you could have a conversation about should it be lower than that? But 16 or 17, 16 year olds can drive themselves to the library. So of all the things of all the levels at which to put that, you know, I would posit that Senator Ashby's bill was suggesting that third graders on up should have access to a library card. And that should be the case across the entire state. And so having school districts get involved in that, it was the mechanism to make that happen. But this is just essentially prohibiting libraries that are still requiring physical presence from doing that anymore. And I also believe that this is not in the end going to be a big burden as a change because it will be a simple policy change. And when I went to the library to get the library card for my son, I asked them about this process. And she said, yes, this is required, but it would not be a problem for us to just not have to see the ID of the of the parent or to have the testimony that this is actually the parent of the kid who's getting the card. So so I I'm committed to continuing to work with opposition. I very much feel like we're aligned in the mission. But but but making sure that we're not being maybe overly reactionary about the possibility of something happening that's not actually happening, that doesn't have to happen, that this could just, you know, could be seen in the narrow lane it's in. I feel like that's something that, you know, is a very real possibility here.

I mean, because... It is primarily financial. With our student success cards, students are restricted to only checking out a finite number of books at a time. And if they lose those books, then they are not required to pay for their replacement. Whereas with a regular library card, you know, every library has a different limit. Sometimes it's 50 books or 50 items. My library has 100 items. And so if you check out 100 items and you don't return them, that could be hundreds of dollars of fines that are lost and our materials are lost. So for those libraries that take that approach, and my library is not one of them, but it is primarily financial responsibility and who is going to be responsible for replacing those materials when they are lost. And that's what the student success card really addresses. And, you know, my county, all of our high schools have the student success card. And I, you know, my recommendation would be to expand that program beyond just elementary schools and allow all high school and middle school students to have the student success card. It really addresses the issue of being able to, you know, access the public library

Senator Cobaldon. Thank you, Madam Chair. I always love a one-sentence piece of law. I mean, there's more sentences in the bill, but there's only one sentence. It's the actual law. And I'm also going to support it today. I actually think it should be – I would make it more expansive, but I think the author's got a particularly tailored point of view with respect to merely the physical presence. It doesn't bar any local library system from requiring parental sign-off. It just says you can't do that with physical presence also required. You know, in the Privacy Digital Technologies and Consumer Protection Committee, you know, we're constantly grappling with this question. This year we'll be hearing lots of legislation proposing to bar everyone under 18 from using social media, from using AI platforms or chatbots or what have you. young people have to have somewhere to go to access information, to be able to expand their horizons, take advantage of resources. If we're shutting down a good chunk of the digital space, libraries and analog spaces become even more important. And they are curated in environments by our state's excellent librarians. and so we should be doing everything that we can to encourage their use of those and 16 and 17 year olds in particular as you said I mean it isn't just a driver's license but that's that's significant it's employment this committee has passed lots of legislation about encouraging work based learning experiences for career pathways we've passed a lot of legislation on dual enrollment so many of these young people are enrolled in college courses at the same time where in some cases where the instructor doesn't even know that they're under 18 like they're this this we we we can't infantilize 16 17 year olds in every possible respect and expect that they're going to be able to make their way in the world and suddenly you're 18 and suddenly social media chatbots and everything else comes at you and you've had no on-ramp so I think I really appreciate the effort here to distinguish that there is something different between being 17 and being 7, and the law should acknowledge that. On the financial responsibility side I not going to query Mr Blakespear about his private information but it wouldn shock me to find out that he has Venmo on his phone and that perhaps he has Apple Pay in the future to eliminate the concept of library cards which is from a completely different era All of us have a far other far more sophisticated ways of identifying who we are, how we can be how we can pay what our address is, where our city of residence is. So it's not clear to me that this this whole thing is even needed anymore. As mayor, I worked on a proposal for a little while to when a when a newborn was born in my city. We wanted to give them their future college ID, their bus pass and a library card at birth. Just to say, you know, here you are ready to go in this in this community. But if it's mainly about financial responsibility, there are so many better ways to do that now. and there may be just as many 17 year olds that are not in this case that are more responsible than their parents financially and we should get we shouldn't deny them the ability to get it to get a card if they have an alternative way to to validate both who they are where they live and that they have the capacity to to return their cards so I'm like like the chair and the author I'm a former mayor I believe very strongly in local control but there's no local values here that really makes sense in terms of making sure that the interest of the young person, the parents, and the community and the society is going to advance. So thanks for the bill. Looking forward to supporting it. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. And I just want to thank the author for working closely with the committee to work on amendments. I think this is a very common sense piece of legislation. and as you know was mentioned before you know our 16 and 17 year olds are already plugged in with so much of the world already I think I signed up for my first MySpace account when I was about 11 years old and then signed up for Facebook when I was probably 14 so I do think it's it's really important to make sure that you're able to easily get a library card there's so many services that our libraries provide. You all do an incredible job of doing that and providing those services and really an avenue for education. And I think about, you know, times after school where I'd spend, you know, hours after school because my parents weren't available yet to pick me up. They worked a regular, well, nine to six job like I think most folks do. And I would hang out there. It was a spot to hang out as a safe place. And it was also a good spot for me to sit and learn and, you know, spend my time doing something good and productive. And I want more of our kids to be able to do that. And I'm really happy that Bergamire Library in Monterey Park was so easy and accessible that for 25 cents, I could jump on the bus and do that and hang out with my friends and learn. And that was important. That was really important. And I think about the books I read during that time that had such a big impact on me and my growing up here. So this totally makes sense. And thank you for introducing this. My recommendation is an aye vote. And I will have you close, Senator Blakespeare. Okay, thank you. Well, I appreciate the commentary from the committee members and also the opposition. Thank you for coming today and the support witnesses. and I just I want to just jump off of what the chair was ending with which is spending time in a library after school and starting to read a book and then wanting to take it home and continue reading it your experience of being in the library is not just your experience of being there it's the fact that you could take those those that impactful novel that you picked up because you were in the library home and continue reading it over the weekend And so the relationship with that experience like for example if you go into a bookstore and you just looking around at books in your mind you always thinking can I afford $25 to buy this or not? How much am I going to get into this? And a library is different because what you start reading you can check out and take home for free. And so recognizing the importance of libraries, particularly with this age, and recognizing how few kids this age want to go to a library. You know, we really want to try to encourage these later teens to be spending time in the library. So this, to me, is a clear way to reduce barriers, reduce the barriers to access for libraries, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you so much. And this motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Do we have a motion? moved by Senator Ochoa Bogues. Assistant, if you can call the roll. Senators Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogues. Aye. Ochoa Bogues, aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi, Cortese, Gonzalez, Reyes. Thank you so much, Senator Blakespeare. I'm changing and giving the gavel over to Senator Ochoa Bogues. I'll be presenting. Welcome, Senator Perez. You may proceed when ready. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. SB 1083 builds on the Safe Learning Environments Act SB 848, which was enacted into law last year and established a statewide data system to track egregious misconduct by school employees. That law was an important step forward in improving transparency, strengthening accountability, and helping ensure that individuals with serious allegations cannot quietly move between school sites without scrutiny. But as implementation has moved forward, additional refinements are needed to ensure the system operates with consistency, fairness, and fully protects students. First, classified employees do not currently have a clearly defined, impartial review process comparable to what is provided to certificated employees. Existing law ensures that teachers received due process, including a hearing and the ability to appeal to an administrative law judge through the Office of Administrative Hearings. Without equivalent due process protections, investigations against them involving egregious misconduct can result in professional and personal consequences. SB 1083 addresses this by requiring an administrative law judge to determine whether a classified employee should be added to the statewide data system. The bill also requires the statewide system to immediately notify a current employer when an employee leaves a local education agency or private school before or during an investigation. This notice would inform the employer that a preliminary report has been filed and an investigation is pending to ensure that future employers are aware of any unresolved concerns. Second, while the existing framework established accountability for permanent employees, gaps remain for independent contractors and non-permanent individuals who interact directly with students. These individuals may have regular, unsupervised access to children, yet are not always subject to the same standards. SB 1083 seeks to ensure that appropriate vetting measures apply to them as well. Together, these improvements strengthen the system, promote fairness, and ensure that all individuals working with students are held to consistent standards, because student safety remains our highest priority. Joining me to testify in support of the bill is Navneet Puryear with the California School Employees Association and Erica Williams with the California Federation of Teachers. At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you and welcome. You may proceed when ready. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Navneet Puryear and I'm here on behalf of the California School Employees Association. We represent nearly 300,000 classified school employees across the state. At its core, this bill is about fairness. Last year, the governor signed SB 848 authored by Senator Perez, which, among other things, creates a database to track accusations and convictions of egregious misconduct by classified school employees. While SB 848 is an important step towards guaranteeing schools are safe places for all students, it lacks safeguards for innocent classified school employees. It allows classified school employees to be placed into a database based on an allegation of misconduct without any due process. Many of our members are women of color who make less than $40,000 a year. Being placed into a permanent database based solely on an allegation not only will ruin their professional careers, but it has the potential to have personal consequences as well. It's also inconsistent with the rights provided to teachers. SB 1083 would require an administrative law judge through the Office of Administrative Hearings to decide if a classified school employee should be placed into an egregious misconduct database. This bill would provide parity because classified school employees should not be denied due process rights provided to teachers. This measure reflects continued collaboration with the author to ensure that implementation of last year's legislation both protects students and upholds fundamental principles of due process. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. And I'm Erica Williams. I'm here to recommend an iVote also, and I concur with what you're saying. If you have any questions or would like any examples, I can tell you of a couple of examples that I've encountered throughout my years of working with classified employees. I actually worked with CSEA for 16 years, so I've seen firsthand how this can impact folks. I am working with CFT now. I've been there for five years. And I've seen instances where I've had a campus security where they went to break up a fight, and, of course, the parents were upset, and they're like, okay, well, why did you pull my kid off? And they got hurt in the process, and they came after the campus security. they placed them on paid administrative leave and then after a year or so they came back and said okay well we going to have to let you go and they like okay well why are you doing that and you know you go through the process And of course now it like okay they placed in this process where their name has this you know it following them It like well all I was doing was my job And it's like, okay, well, how do you fix this? Because really, you really were doing your job and now you're being disciplined for it. You shouldn't have to be disciplined for doing your job. But in the eyes of the way things are going right now in today's world, it's, you know, it's their word against yours and how things are viewed and the perception. So I think having extra protections with a bill like this would allow a classified employee to continue to progress within their own rights and continue their career. So if you are in a position like that and you're toward the end of your career, then you can say, okay, you know what, fine, I'll go ahead and just retire. And I'm done with this. I'm not going to deal with this. But if you're not, if you're in the middle of your career and you do want to go to another district and you're like, okay, fine, if this is how you're going to handle it, this is great, then you're kind of like in a conundrum. Like, where do you go from there? How do you move forward? And how do you get this expunged off your record? It's difficult. So it's good to have some kind of safeguard in place to be able to move forward and pick up the pieces and say, okay, well, if this is how it is, then what can we do to change it and how can we move forward? So I think that would be one good thing. And there are so many other examples that I have. But if you have any questions or anything like that, as far as examples are concerned, I'm here to help you with that. Thank you very much, ma'am. We'll now continue with any witnesses in support of SB 1083. I think it's 1083. I have my glasses on, so. Please come up to the microphone, state your name, your position, and the organization that you represent. Great. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support. Good morning, Madam Chair. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California. We are co-sponsors of the bill. Thank you. Sandra Barrero on behalf of SEIU California in support. Brad Freeland with CSEA and honored member of our political action for classified employees and I support this. My name is Kristina Reedy and I'm an after-school facilitator with Stockton Unified School District and I support this. My name is Caleb Reidenfeld and I'm a school maintenance and custodian at Grass Valley School District and I support this bill. Good morning. My name is Linda Veronica Aguiar. I'm a paraprofessional and I support this bill. Good morning. My name is David Kong, a CSA member from Salinas, California, and I support this bill. Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Fed in support. Good morning. My name is Troy Hall and I'm with the Newport Mesa Unified School District and I support this bill. Hi, my name is Roy Melendez. I'm an assessment and research specialist with El Monte CISCO District and CSEA and I'm in support of this bill. Good morning. My name is Vanessa Hernandez, executive assistant at Santa Paul Unified School District and support this bill. Hello, I'm Shalyn Bryan, a school LVN with Apple Valley School District and I support this bill. Hello, I'm Star Avila with CSEA and I am a cafeteria manager of a high school in Harupa Valley and I in support of this bill Seeing no other witnesses in support we're going to continue with any lead witnesses in opposition. Good morning. Dorothy Johnson on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators in respectful opposition. We appreciate the opportunity to testify, given our late opposition that was not captured in the committee analysis. I want to start by saying how deeply appreciative we are to the author for her continued dedication to put student safety at the forefront. We acknowledge it is a shared responsibility to stop childhood sexual assault in the school setting once and for all. We also want to acknowledge this is a multi-year effort that was started largely through the report approved for the fiscal crisis and management assistance team in January 2025 that reported on mitigation and prevention methods in addition to the multibillion-dollar fiscal impact that AB 218 has had on our schools to date. We know that trusted adults need to be in school settings. ACSA has been working with focused intent to create a statewide resource, a tool, to cover the current gap in classified employment history, especially when it comes to investigations for egregious misconduct. And we understand the intent of this bill to provide a balanced approach for employee protections and student safety, and we look forward to joining the dialogue as this bill moves forward to get it right because kids deserve to learn in safe places. We appreciate that the committee analysis does a very thorough job of raising many of the questions yet to be answered, but we are very concerned that the provisions of SB 1083 would alter how notices are added to this database, how prospective employers may access information, and the significant changes to how investigations are conducted. To that point, SB 1083 would unwind longstanding practices that protect students and employees. and this isn't just for egregious misconduct investigations but all personnel investigations so again we're committed to working with the author and sponsors so we can begin building this database and begin filling that gap in classified employment history for these reasons remain opposed thank you thank you and welcome you may proceed thank you good morning leilani aginaldo on behalf of the school's excess liability fund self is a jpa provider of liability and risk management solutions for K-14, actually, districts all around the state. First of all, ditto to everything that my colleague Dorothy Johnson just articulated about SB 10-1083. Self is very grateful for the significant changes that were advanced by Senator Perez last year in SB 848 to protect students. There were lots of pieces included in SB 848, but one of the key provisions was it improved an LEA's ability, a local educational agency's ability to vet non-certificated staff that an LEA can hire. We are concerned, however, that SB 1083 will dilute the process that was established by SB 848 and inhibit an LEA's ability to properly vet applicants. We look forward to continuing to engage with Senator Perez and her office as the bill works through the process, particularly in light of the fact that Senator Perez has been a champion for protecting students from child sexual abuse and we are committed to working together with that goal in mind We do apologize as well that we were part of a coalition letter that was submitted after the 12 o deadline on Friday So I apologize that we weren't able to get our opposition reflected in the analysis part. I was also asked to do a Me Too in opposition on behalf of the California school business officials, as well as the California Association for Suburban School Districts. Thank you. Thank you. Now we're going to continue with any witnesses in opposition to do SB 1083 here in room 2100. Yes, thank you, Leticia Garcia, on behalf of the Riverside County Superintendent of Scholes in opposition, also part of the coalition letter that didn't make it to the analysis. So looking forward to working together. Thank you. Faith Borges, on behalf of the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities, we'd like to align our comments with those of Ms. Dorothy Johnson and Leilani. Thank you. Okay, seeing no other witnesses in opposition, we're going to bring it back to the dais. Any comments or questions? Move the bill. Okay. Really? No conversation? Senator Perez, thank you for bringing this measure forward. I do would like to give you an opportunity to address some of the concerns by the opposition at this time. Certainly, and appreciate that. I know that our office has been having conversations with them. First and foremost, I do just want to clarify, and there might be a misunderstanding that they have of the bill, but the ALJ process that we've laid out only applies towards those investigations that have to do with egregious misconduct. This is not one that would apply to all personnel investigations. This is something very specific to this bill. If there needs to be further clarity within language to work on that, we're happy to have that discussion. But this is really a targeted approach. You know, part of the reason why we've suggested having this ALJ process, having an administrative law judge intervene in this situation when someone is being investigated before they are placed into the data system, is that is how we approach credentialed staff and credentialed employees within our school districts. Because part of the gap that we were addressing in passing SB 848 last year was the fact that we did not have the same sort of data system that was set up for non-certificated staff. So we wanted to make sure that we were addressing the gap that existed there. The problem is that they don't have an ALJ process. But our teachers, for example, they do have an ALJ process. So this is simply about putting those school employees in line with what we currently have in existence for those credentialed employees. In addition to that, there were concerns raised, right, about those that are contractors with school districts. We are still working through some of that language. I know that we've had conversations around that as well. But we're having these conversations, right, because of what's been happening with the large number of AB 218 cases that we've seen. We now have a dollar amount that we can assign to the cost of these cases. And frankly, it's also led to insurance challenges that our local education agencies are raising as well. I recognize that it's challenging navigating these new policies. we instituted last year part of the new policies would put into place applied to volunteers as well I've talked with members even of this legislature that have seen in real time as they've been on campus some of the new trainings that they have to It's my personal opinion as somebody that was a victim of child grooming that it is important that we make sure that we're capturing anybody that comes onto a campus that's having regular interactions with students. I think providing more information to people at the forefront makes all of our systems stronger and it also addresses liability issues for our local education agencies. And so that is part of the reason why we are also bringing in that component as well. And, you know, I just want to know, I anticipate continuing to work on this issue in the years to come, right? There's all sorts of challenges here that were highlighted in the FICMAT report beyond just this. There's the fiscal components. But this is a very serious problem. There's, you know, a very large case in my district in Almonte Union High School District at Rosemead High School, one that the Attorney General just announced some decisions around. That is part of what inspired this bill. I've been working directly with those victims and take all of this incredibly seriously. So I'll be supporting the bill today. I know because of your personal experiences, Senator Perez, you are an advocate in protecting our children. And I know you're going to do and engage with all parties, all stakeholders, to ensure that we are having the best systems in place to protect our kids. So with that, we have a motion by Senator Cortese. Madam Secretary, oh, yes. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. The motion is due pass to the Senate Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement Committee. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Senators Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogue. Aye. Ochoa Bogue, aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez, Reyes. We'll keep that on call for our absent members. Thank you. All righty. So we've now taken a vote there. Let's go ahead and lift calls for the other bills. I know we have some other members here, and then I think we are, is Senator Reyes here today? Yes. Senator Reyes is here. Okay. And then hopefully Senator Reyes can get here and we can close out committee. So Assistant, if you can lift the calls. Okay, starting with file item 7, SB 695, Lake Superior. Actually the motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee Current vote is three ayes and no no with the chair and vice chair voting aye Choi, Cortese, Cortese aye, Gonzalez, Reyes. That's back on call. Great, and we're putting those back on call. Moving on to file item 11, SB 960, Cabaldon. current current vote is two eyes and no no's with the chair voting aye the motion is due passes amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee but Chau Boog Choi Cortese Cortese I Gonzalez Reyes great and we're putting that bill back on call okay well thank you senator cortese and senator kabolden if we could get senator Choi and senator Gonzalez and senator Reyes down to the room that would be excellent Thank you. Okay. Alrighty. Let's go ahead and lift the calls again. Okay, starting with file item 7, SB 695, Blake Sphere. Motion is due, passed as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is 4 ayes and no no's with the chair and vice chair voting aye. Senator Choi. Aye. Choi aye. Gonzalez Reyes. That's back on call. File item 8 SB 1082 Nilo motion is due passes amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee current vote is for eyes and no nose with the chair and vice-chair voting aye senator Choi Choi I Gonzalez Reyes Reyes I and that bill is back on call file item 11 SB 960 by senator Cabaldon motions do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee current vote is three eyes and no nose with the chair voting aye Ochoa Boog Choi Choi I Gonzales Reyes Reyes I that motion is back on call file item 12 SB 1083 by Senator Perez the motion is due passed to the Senate labor public employment and retirement committee current vote vote is four eyes and no nose with the chair and vice chair voting aye Senators Choi Choi I Gonzalez Reyes Reyes I and that bill is back on call great and we'll put those bills back on call Thank you you Okay Okay. Okay, if we could lift calls again. On the consent calendar, Senator Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. The consent sounds 7-0. Okay, file item 1, SB 998 by Senator Gonzalez. The motion is due passed to Senate Judiciary Committee. The current vote is 4 ayes and 1 no with the chair voting aye. Ochoa Bogues. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. So that bill is out 5 to 1. Great, and that bill is out 5 to 1. File item 7, SB 965 by Senator Blakespeare. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is 5 ayes, no noes with the chair and vice chair voting aye. Senator Gonzalez, Senator Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. I'll put that bill back on call. File item 8, SB 1082 by Senator Nilo. Motions do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote? Nope. And you voted on that one, so we don't need to go over that. Okay. Thank you. So we're just waiting for Senator Gonzalez. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. All right, let's have calls again. File item 7, SB 965, Blake Spear. Motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is 6 ayes and no noes with the chair and vice chair voting aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Okay, that's a little center. Great, that bill is out 7-0. File item 8, SB 1082 by Senator Nilo. Motion is due passes amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is 6 ayes and no no's with the chair and vice chair voting aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez aye. That bill is out 7-0. File item 11, SB 960 by Senator Cabaldon. Motion is due passes amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is 5 ayes and no no's with the chair voting aye. Bochel Bogues. Gonzales. Aye. Gonzales, aye. That bill is out 6-0. File Item 12 SB1083 by Senator Perez. The motion is due pass to the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee. Current vote is 6-Aye, no no's with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Gonzales. Aye. I that bill is out 7-0 great and that concludes our agenda this committee is adjourned thank you all so much