Higher Education — 2026-06-23 (partial)

. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you All right, good afternoon. The Assembly Higher Education Committee is now called to order. Shh. At this time, we'd like to have Mr. Secretary, If you can please call the roll to salvage quorum, please.

DeMaio?

Gonzalez? Here.

Patel? Patel here. Here.

Sharp Collins? Here.

Thank you so much, colleagues. We have salvaged a quorum. and welcome everyone to the Assembly Higher Education Committee hearing. This hearing is the last hearing we will have for Senate measures. Whether you're here in person or watching virtually, I'm glad that you have joined us. Additionally, I'm pleased to welcome back Mr. Michael Erke, who once again is pinch-heading for our committee. Thank you, Mr. Erke, for your leadership. We truly appreciate everything you have done to support and assist our committee this year, and you are invaluable to our legislature. Thank you so much. I will now go over some key elements of the structure of today's hearing. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place and is permitted by the chair. Public law members relate to the subject or bills being discussed today, and no engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes orderly conduct of this hearing. Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions, and Bill will be taken up in sign-in order. Authors, you can sign in at the sergeant's desk in room 126. Further, please note that the guidelines for bills heard in this committee is to allow for testimony from two lead witnesses in support and two lead witnesses in opposition to speak for no more than two minutes each. State quarter groups and entities that are neither in support nor in opposition will be allowed to give testimony for no more than two minutes when it calls for tweeners. If a measure has more than two entities in a tweener category, only two will be allowed to speak for two minutes each. Colleagues, since our hearings are public and some travel far to be here, In respect of them and the author, please allow the author to complete the opening remarks regarding the bill before making a motion so that the public has any ideas to what the bill is about. If a motion is made during the author's opening remarks, I will simply state that the motion will be recognized at the appropriate time. Additionally, members, if you would like to respond to a roll call, ask a question, or provide a comment, please be sure to activate your microphone and speak into your mic. For authors of bills of today, each member presenting today will provide an opening statement and a closing statement. As previously stated, your T.D. witnesses will each have two minutes to provide testimony. And before we proceed with our first author, let us take up the consent calendar's time. We have six measures on the agenda today with one being on consent file number six SB 1374 by Senator Nielo Mr Secretary roll call please on the consent calendar Oh, sorry, can we get a motion and second? Thank you. On the consent calendar, Fong?

Berner?

Gonzalez?

Jackson?

Murasuchi, aye.

Rodriguez, aye. Sharp Collins?

Thank you so much, colleagues. The item is out, and we'll keep the row open for additional members to add on. At this time now, we'd like to welcome Senator Reyes. I'm presenting three bills today. The first one by Senator Reyes will be SB 1154, item number three. Welcome, Senator Reyes.

These projects are essential to preparing students for transfer, career pathways, and participation in California's evolving workforce, and will ensure we are setting up our infrastructure for long-term success. Here to testify in support are Gilbert Contreras, Dr. Gilbert Contreras, President of San Bernardino Valley College. Yes, my alma mater. And Angel Rodriguez, Associate Vice Chancellor of Government Relations at the San Bernardino Community College District. Thank you so much and welcome. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Reyes. And thank you, Chair and members of the Assembly Higher Education Committee. My name is Dr. Gilbert Contreras, and I proudly serve as a president of San Bernardino Valley College in the San Bernardino Community College District. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on SB 1154, which will provide another tool in the toolbox as my campus embarks on new facilities, a new facilities master plan to build out the classrooms of tomorrow for our students and community. This year at Valley College, we celebrate 100 years, our centennial. That's 100 years of educating and serving the community. 100 years of people coming with a dream and leaving with the future Part of our 100 history is the fact that we were the first community college intentionally designed and built as a community college. All the other community colleges built before us were transitioned from other purposes. At this time, it's our responsibility to lead higher education once again by advocating that community colleges receive the exact same authority that is available to UC, CSU, and K-12 schools. the exact same authority available to public schools in California. Best value is a tool that community college can use to deliver buildings that enhance the built environment with facilities that meet the teaching and learning needs of the communities that we serve. Currently, Valley College has three buildings under construction, aeronautics, welding, and a student services building. These facilities would have benefited from the best value because they involve innovative and sustainable design with complicated equipment and materials. In the near future, our campus has a goal to deliver a state-of-the-art food pantry for our students. This would be akin to a grocery store that low-income students could access to ensure that they and their families have access to food and what they need. Additionally, future projects include health sciences facilities that would house our nursing and other allied health programs. This facility would train the health professionals of our community for the years to come. SB 1154 would provide us the opportunity to utilize the method of delivery that has proven to reduce long-term costs and deliver projects on time. I want to thank Senator Reyes for introducing this important measure, and thank you for your consideration this afternoon and respectfully request your aye vote. On behalf of our 23,000 students and 100 years of community, thank you. Thank you so much. Welcome. Thank you, Senator Reyes, Chair. Members, good afternoon, Angel Rodriguez. is Associate Vice Chancellor of Government Relations at the San Bernardino Community College District. Very happy to support this bill. And you just heard from President Contreras right now what this bill does for Valley College. And I just wanna add the district perspective. Our district includes Valley College, Crafton Hills College, KVCR TV and Radio, and our Workforce Development Center. We serve about 30,000 students. And as you mentioned, this is our 100th year. As our board and our chancellor look to the next 100 years, we have approved a facilities master plan. This plan is about meeting the educational and workforce needs of our region, safe classrooms, updated STEM labs, and high tech job facilities, excuse me. SB 1154 gives community colleges another tool in toolbox when we accept bids for large and complex projects. The regular low bid process works for many projects and we use it, but some projects are different. Our students learn in spaces that have to look and function like the real world. A nursing lab has to feel like a clinical setting. A public safety facility may include a simulation space for firefighters or paramedics. An applied technology lab may include advanced equipment for machining, welding, and other skilled trades. Those spaces are highly technical. They're complex to design, and they are complex to build. So we need this option. so that we can look beyond the price. Price is important, but it doesn't tell us everything. We also need to know whether a contractor has the experience, the safety record, financial capacity, and the ability to deliver the project well. At our district, we contract with both union and non-union contractors. So this bill is not about putting one group over another. It's about giving community colleges the same option that the UC system has that the Cal State system has and that K-12s already have. So please, we ask for your support so that community colleges can have the same option as the other education systems. Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members, Mike West. On behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California in support. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and members. Mark McDonald on behalf of a number of local community college districts, including Contra Costa, Foothill De Anza, San Diego, State Center, and the Southwestern Community College Districts all in support of the bill. Thank you. Thank you so much. Jack Worson from Nausman on behalf of Citrus College in support. Thank you. Are there witnesses? I'm sorry, go ahead. Frank Gray is totally supportive of this creative, whoever thought of this, the Senator was a brilliant person and it's gonna help a lot of brilliant students and they're gonna come out and they're gonna get good jobs and they're gonna pay taxes. So strongly in support of this. And thank you for your service and leadership as well. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Welcome. You will have two minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair members. Melanie Perrin on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of the California Chapters. We're in respectful opposition of SB 1154. We are strongly encouraged by the intent of the bill about using alternative project delivery methods. We very much support those types of efforts. Where our issues come in is where the mandates come in on labor for us. So SB 1154 conditions participation in a mandatory skilled and trained workforce requirement for every bidder and every subcontractor at every tier. So the apprenticeship graduation ratios do not reflect the structure of a lot of our trades, the availability of the programs in certain areas, or the staffing realities of small and specialty firms. That requirement does not just influence who wins a project. It determines who is even allowed to compete. As a result, we have many qualified contractors who will be excluded from even submitting a proposal, regardless of their experience, safety record, or past performances. That reduces better diversity and drives up the cost for community college districts. SB 1154 also requires districts to evaluate labor compliance history into scoring, which introduces subjectivity, and can penalize contractors for a minor or corrected issues that they have occurred throughout their time being a contractor in our state. As we look to diversify and expand our contractor pool on public works projects, these types of mandates restrict us ultimately. And ultimately what happens is it limits opportunities, especially for our emerging contractors, our small and mid-sized contractors. What this will result in is fewer bids and higher costs for these types of projects. For these reasons, the associated general contractors is in opposition. Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there additional witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? We have a motion and a second. Senator Murasuchi. Thank you, Senator. Could you comment? I thought I heard different things. One of your witnesses saying that this is not picking among the labor poll and the opposition saying that it would preclude those not using skilled and trade Thank you very much. The bill, the argument has been made in other committee hearings about skilled and trained. Skilled and trained, as we all know, is in California law, specifically public contract code section 2601, which refers to a construction workforce for public projects where a percentage of workers are either Division of Apprenticeship Standards registered apprentices or skilled and trained journey persons. A skilled journey person must have graduated from a DAS state-approved apprenticeship program or have at least as many hours as on-the-job experience as is required to graduate. For some crafts, the minimum skilled and trained percentage on a job site is 60 percent. For some crafts, the percentage is 30 percent to be in compliance. These provisions are not union-specific. there are both union and non-union state-approved apprenticeship programs. Okay, so in other words, AJC represents contractors that don't use skilled and trained. Correct. So, well, we have both union and non-union contractors in our membership and support both of those equally. As we think about with these types of contracts, when we have contractors that do not have collective bargaining, those who do not will have to go seek these types of things of skilled and trained requirements. The thing that we really are trying to emphasize is when we talk about our small midsize firms that are really trying to get into public works, we have larger contractors that have indicated that they have basically a one per one staff ratio when it comes to apprenticeships to be able to monitor all the compliance that comes with a public works project. So as we continue to add additional requirements into public works projects, We are only going to have a certain bid pool that will be interested in continuing to pursue those efforts where our smaller contractors just don't even have the ability to get their foot in the door just because of all the requirements with skilled and trained just being another component of that. Thank you. Thank you so much. Any further questions or comments from colleagues? Sina and Senator Wood would like to close, please. Thank you. This program has worked for K-12 schools. It's worked for our UCs. It's worked for our CSUs. If we're using taxpayer money, we do want, in the very least, skilled and trained workforce. And I think that if California law shows what that is, everybody has the ability to bring that kind of skill to a job. And with that, I respectfully ask for your right vote on this. Thank you so much, Senator Reyes, for bringing this measure forward. And as a former trustee for the Los Angeles Community College District, I want to first hand how the Best Valley procurement process improves the project delivery and ensures support for skilled workforce through project labor agreements. This measure aligns our community college districts, procurement authority with that of K-12 school districts, and other higher education segments. And with that, I'm pleased to support it today. Mr. Secretary, roll call, please. File item number three, SB 1154. The motion is due pass to the assembly floor. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. DeMaio, Berner, aye. Berner, aye. Gonzalez, Jackson, Murasuchi, Murasuchi, aye. Patel, aye. Patel, aye. Rodriguez, aye. Rodriguez, aye. Sharp-Collins, Tanguy Pa. That measures five votes. We'll keep the roll open for additional members add-on. Thank you so much Next up we have Senator Reyes presenting SB 1255 item number four Welcome Senator Reyes Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Thank you for this opportunity to present SB 1255. I would like to start by accepting the committee amendments. SD-1255 would establish a state-level Hispanic-Serving Institution, or HSI designation, to recognize institutions of higher education that excel in educating and serving Latino students. The HSI designation was first created under the Federal Higher Education Act of 1992 to provide support and expand access to higher quality education for Latino and other low-income students. As one of the most diverse states in the nation, nearly 179 campuses in California hold this federal designation and have leveraged funding to develop STEM curriculum, facility improvement, and other student support services, expanding educational opportunities to all students on campuses. Under SB 1255, campuses must meet certain eligibility requirements and submit an application to the managing entity to receive the designation. But let me be clear, this designation benefits not just the Latino students, but benefits every student regardless of race or ethnicity. SB 1255 is similar to the framework used for black serving institutions and Asian American and Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander serving institutions AB 2374 by my great colleague, Assemblymember Fong. Chair Fong. Establishing an HSI designation in California serves as a first step towards strengthening accountability and encouraging sustained institutional commitment to serving our most vulnerable students. Here to testify are Noemi Lujan Perez with the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, HACU, and Chris Morales with the California State University Office of the Chancellor. Thank you so much and welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Noemi Lujan-Perez, and I'm proud to represent HACU, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. HACU represents more than 600 colleges and universities nationwide, including 179 Hispanic-serving institutions, or HSIs, here in California alone. SB-1255 is about recognizing institutional impact. A California HSI designation would formally recognize institutions educating nearly 2.2 million post-secondary students statewide. These students include approximately 92% of California's Pell Grant recipients. California HSIs are key to creating California's talent pipeline. These are the institutions that are creating California's future professionals and business leaders. In California alone, our 179 HSI's include all CSU campuses, 92% of community colleges, 55 of UC campuses and 52 of private institutions These colleges and institutions play a central role in preparing the workforce for our state and its ability to sustain our state's $4 trillion economy and its role in its long-term global competitiveness. Collectively, collectively, HSI also educates 70 to 85% of African-American, AAPI, Native American, and first-generation communities and students. In fact, HSIs enroll some of the highest concentrations of these student populations nationwide, reflecting their broad and inclusive mission. HSIs serve as powerful engines of social and economic mobility, providing these first-generation, low-income, and historically underserved students with access to the credentials, skills, and professional networks needed to achieve upward economic mobility. Doing so helps these students, their families, their communities, and again, directly contributes to California's economy. HSI has embodied in many ways the premise and promise of educational opportunity advanced by landmark California civil rights victories such as Mendez versus Westminster. That historic case helped lay the foundation for Brown versus the Board of Education and deferred the principle that access to educational opportunities should be available to all students, regardless of their background. By establishing a California HSI designation, the state formally recognizes the vital role HSI's play in expanding educational opportunities for all students. HSIs and the students and communities they serve statewide, including those HSIs in your districts, would benefit from these HSI designations. It ensures that future generations understand the sacrifices and progress that have shaped a more inclusive educational system while reaffirming California's commitment to opportunity, upward mobility, and a stronger democracy for all. Haku respectfully urges your support for SB 1255 on behalf of our HSIs and 2.2 million students statewide. Thank you. Thank you so much and welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Chris Morales on behalf of the CSU Chancellor's Office in support of SB 1255. The CSU is proud to serve one of the most diverse student bodies in the nation and to be a national leader in advancing educational opportunity for Latino students. Latino students account for nearly half of the CSU student population, and of our 22 universities, 21 were recognized as Hispanic-serving institutions under federal law. CSU universities are deeply engaged in the work of not only enrolling Latino students, but also ensuring they are supported, retained, graduated, and prepared to enter and succeed in California's workforce. SB 1255 aligns with this mission by creating a state-level framework to recognize institutions that are intentionally serving Latino students and advancing measurable student success. The bill also recognizes our experience and leadership in this area by designating the CSU Chancellor's Office as the managing entity responsible for developing the application process and supporting the work of the governing board. We stand ready to work with the legislature and our higher education partners to ensure the designation process is implemented effectively and focused on student outcomes. By formalizing a state-level HSI designation, SB 1255 can reinforce the state's commitment to educational equity and access and recognize the successes and contributions of these institutions. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room? All right. Maral Hernandez, California State University San Bernardino in support. Sorry, one second. We're going to turn the microphone. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Maral Hernandez, California State University San Bernardino in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Henry Rynan on the behalf of Lieutenant Governor Lenny Kunalakis in support. Thank you. Martha Zaragoza-Diaz on behalf of the University of California Chicanx Latinx Alumni Association in strong support of the bill. Thank you. Maite Frias, UC Board of Regents, staff representative and UC Davis as HSI director, strongly in support. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and members. Mark McDonald on behalf of a number of local community college districts. Los Angeles, San Diego, Los Rio State Center, Kern, Antelope Valley, Southwestern, Victor Valley, Contra Costa, Lake Tahoe, and Foothill De Anza community college districts, all in support of the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Cristal Padilla on behalf of the Chief Executive Officers of the California Community Colleges in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Alex Graves on behalf of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities in support. Thank you. Tiffany Mock on behalf of CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Sabrina Means on behalf of Cerritos College, Los Angeles Community College District, El Camino College, Santa Monica College, and Pasadena City College in support. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Teresa Brown on behalf of the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Jesse Hernandez on behalf of the Campaign for College Opportunity and Ed Trust West in support. Thank you. Good afternoon on behalf of Angel Rodriguez on behalf of Crafton Hills College, San Bernardino College District in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon again, Gilbert Contreras, President of San Bernardino Valley College on behalf of San Bernardino Valley College in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality, Hope, and the Cal State Student Association, and the Long Beach City College in support. Thank you. Thank you. Chair and members, Austin Webster with W Strategies on behalf of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges and UnidosUS in strong support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Jessica Dwan, the University of California Office of the President in support. Thank you. Jack Wurston from Nostvin on behalf of the North Orange County Community College District in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Melanie Dixon, president of College of Alameda and also representing the Peralta Community College District in support. Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Assembly Rodriguez. I want to thank you for bringing this measure forward and all the supporters who came out today. If you're accepting coauthors, I would like to offer that support and also move the measure. Thank you. Thank you so much. We have a motion and a second. Any further questions or comments? Sina and Senator, we'd like to close, please. Thank you. I sincerely appreciate all of those who did come out to support and the witnesses also. With that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote. And thank you so much, Senator Reyes, for championing this Hispanic-Serving Institution designation and for working with our committee staff to address the concerns as outlined in the analysis. I encouraged by the speed by which Californians responded to the removal of the MSI designations at the federal level to ensure that our students continue to receive high education and the tools necessary to achieve their educational goals We know that there an upon clause in here that would make it a challenge so I encourage the author to continue working with the committee staff to address this at a later date. We really appreciate your leadership and efforts on SB 1255 and for your leadership and efforts in this space here. And with that, I look forward to supporting the measure today. Mr. Secretary, roll call, please. File item number four, SB 1255. The motion is do pass as amended and re-refer to the committee on appropriations. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. DeMaio? No. DeMaio, no. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Gonzalez? Jackson? Mursucci? Aye. Mursucci, aye. Patel? Aye. Patel, aye. Rodriguez? Aye. Rodriguez, aye. Sharp Collins? Tanguy Pa? That item has five votes, five-one, and we'll keep the roll open for additional members add-on. Thank you so much. Next up, we'd like to welcome Senator Reyes, presenting item number five, SB 1328, on behalf of Senator Cervantes. Welcome. Welcome, Senator Reyes. On behalf of Senator Cervantes for item number five, SB 1328. Thank you. As noted, I'm here to present Senate Bill 1328 on behalf of Senator Cervantes. I would like to confirm that Senator Cervantes will be taking the committee amendments. Senator Cervantes, I would also like to thank the chair and committee and the committee staff for their hard work and helpful guidance on this bill. SB 1328 is a targeted but critical fix to ensure equity in higher education for LGBTQ plus students, faculty, and staff. This bill builds directly on the success of SB 1491 by former Senator Susan Eggman, which ensured every main campus has a confidential LGBTQ plus point of contact. However, SB 1491 left a clear gap. Satellite and branch campuses were not included. Today there are about 100 satellite campuses across the CSU and and community college systems, where students lack access to culturally competent, confidential support. Students at these sites are often forced to travel for hours, sometimes across entire counties or even international borders to find help. There are hundreds of satellite sites across the state at the UC, CSU, and community college systems. Some of these sites might be just down the street from the main campus, and some may be over 100 miles away. The issues of harassment, discrimination, and sexual assault are present on every campus, regardless of its location, which means critical services to address those issues must be equally present. Geography should not determine whether a student has access to safety, support, and dignity. SB 1328 provides a clear fix to this problem by requiring CSU and community colleges to provide an LGBTQ plus point of contact at satellite or branch campuses, either by assigning a dedicated staff member or providing regular in-person or virtual office hours. SB 1328 also provides greater clarity regarding the roles and responsibilities of these liaisons to ensure consistency across and within both educational systems The bill also aligns state law with current federal Title IX realities after recent regulatory changes coming from Washington I want to thank you, colleagues, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote on Senate Bill 1328. With me to testify in support are Emily Mitchell, chair of the LGBTQ Advisory Council for the California Community College Foundation. Also with me is Kristen Russell, the SB 1491 liaison for Delta College Stockton. I also have Jacob Fraker with the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus here as a technical witness to help answer questions. Thank you so much and welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon, esteemed members of the committee. My name is Dr. Emily Mitchell, and it is the honor of my life to serve as the chair of the California Community College's LGBTQ Plus Advisory Committee. I am here today in strong support of SB 1328, authored by Senator Sabrina Cervantes. For years, I have worked alongside colleagues across our system to ensure that queer and trans community college students and employees experience campuses that are welcoming, affirming, and safe. We have made tremendous progress. One of our greatest accomplishments was SB 1491, which required every California community college to designate a confidential point of contact for LGBTQIA plus students and employees. The legislation was monumental, but as we implemented it, we discovered a significant gap. The California Community College system serves more than 2.1 million students across 116 colleges and numerous educational centers. These centers can be located hours away from the main campus, particularly in our geographically isolated parts of the state. For example, Cerro Coso Community College's main campus is in Ridgecrest, California, while its Eastern Sierra Educational Center is nearly 200 miles away. one way, in Mammoth Lakes. It is simply unreasonable to expect a student or employee at the educational center to travel to a point of contact located on the main campus. SB 1328 provides a practical and necessary solution. It ensures that students and employees at educational centers have meaningful access to the same support, resources, and affirming services that individuals have access to on main campuses. Where a student or employee lives should never determine whether they have access to support. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 1328 and your continued commitment to ensuring that every queer and trans student and employee in the California community colleges is seen, supported, and able to thrive. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Thank you so much and welcome. Okay, good afternoon. Good afternoon, chairperson and members of the higher education committee. I appreciate your time today. My name is Kirsten Russell and I've taught photography at San Joaquin Delta College for 18 years. I have been an advocate for LGBT plus students throughout my time at Delta. Over the last year, I became the AB620 designee and am now the SB1491 point of contact. I was chosen as designee because of my long advocacy for LGBT plus students as well as my ability to connect with students over shared identity The challenges of working in Stockton are many As SB 1491 designee, some of the issues I've dealt with are helping students with preferred name and email changes. I've advocated for the rights of transgender employees and helped file bias reports for students who have suffered discrimination in classrooms. It is essential our students' employees have support and someone to direct them to resources, no matter where they take classes in our district. Delta College serves communities across 2,300 square miles, a service area larger than the state of Rhode Island. Our biggest center is Mountain House, also known as South Campus. It's 29 miles away, but can take over 50 minutes to get from our main campus in Stockton to Mountain House. Many of the students at Mountain House will never set foot on the main Stockton campus. It is essential for our LGBT plus students to feel supported no matter where they are taking classes. SB 1491 obviously had this discrepancy. But I want to say that because our district serves such a vast area and many of our districts have multiple campuses, it's imperative that we have multiple designees that are available on these satellite or center areas to support our students. We are living in extremely challenging times, and the more support our students receive, the better success they will have. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room? Tiffany Mock on behalf of CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals. I want to thank you for your testimony and thank you for this bill. Thank you so much. Melanie Dixon, college president at College of Alameda, Peralta District, and I support. Thank you. Thank you. Jessica Dwell, the University of California in support. Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? We have a motion and a second. Vice Chair DeMaio. I know the author of the bill is not here, but maybe the senator presenting on our behalf or the witnesses can help me understand this. As a gay Republican, I'm absolutely in tune with and want to make sure that all of our students, LGBT, straight, trans, they all have the support services they need on every campus in the state of California. But I also have to look at this as a cost-benefit analysis of are we adding more requirements and is there really a need here? So first and foremost, have we identified how many staff would be impacted by this? I mean, do we have people who we've identified at each of these satellite campuses that are willing to do this? How many staff members will this new role be impacted? So because the current legislation, 1491, requires a point of contact on every campus, this only requires not that an additional person be designated at the center, that is one avenue, but could simply be that online office hours or the point of contact that's on the main campus. So this isn't adding any additional staff or time other than what was already called for in the already passed legislation. So you're saying that this bill would have no staffing impacts? Other than the impacts of 1491 requiring a point of contact. So all currently, all California community colleges must have this point of contact. This does not require, but does not prohibit, right, an individual, an additional individual from being assigned as a 1491 person. But what do you want? I mean, because you sit here and say that if we don't pass this bill, these people will be. I want every student and employee to have access to support. I understand. And I leave that. We all want that. To the discretion of each and every campus to decide where it's best. I'm trying to get to the impact. Okay, I need to understand. Yes. Are you saying that? Okay, let's have one person speak at a time, please. Thank you. Are you saying that, because you just laid out a bunch of needs that are not being met, are you saying that we can meet those needs remotely with existing staff or that we do have a staffing implication? Because I have to look at this from a budget standpoint, because we always get fee increases and then the students show up and they're not happy. We have a very tight budget up here that's not going to go away next year or the year after. So you've laid out a need, but are you saying that we can fulfill that need in essence largely through remote office hours for these satellite offices? In all fairness to the witness, I think the answer to your first question is, is there a need? Absolutely there is a need. Every campus, every student should have access. The second question, it has to do with the budget, and certainly the Appropriations Committee is going to determine whether or not This is something that can pass muster. If the cost is so great, it's not going to pass muster, and it's not going to get out of appropriations. But there are different ways, as was noted by the witness. One can be remote. So the college campus, the main campus, is going to determine whether the need for the satellite or branches is going to be met by someone putting office hours who is already the liaison on the main campus. they can set the regular office hours for the remote, for the satellite or the branch office. Or the college campus may determine that they want to hire someone specifically for those satellites. I would imagine that it's going to depend on the need on that campus. I guess where I'm getting at here is I don't support legislation unless I know the practical, logistical, financial impacts of them. It's my responsibility as a legislator, whether I serve on the Appropriations Committee or not. Our committee passes a bunch of legislation each year, all well-intended. The intentions are always good, but we have to make sure that we understand the operational impacts of well-intended legislation. So unless I know the staffing implications, because it seems as though when that issue is raised, it's, oh, we can do it virtually. Well, then what's keeping the system from doing that now? I don't think that there's any homophobic college administrators here. I think probably California college campuses are perhaps the safest spaces for LGBT community members you can possibly get. And frankly, I don't think there is a threat in public society on LGBT. I mean, we're talking about 2026 here. We just celebrated unanimously a floor presentation for LGBT pride. Things have changed so much. And so I heard in the presentation of this bill that there's this unmet need. I don't see the unmet need. I don see these college satellite campuses as somehow being hostile environments I do believe that the system has a genuine commitment a very vigorous commitment to LGBT students I don see the administrators saying oh my goodness we not going to serve these needs. And I think that if we're dealing with remote, most of this can be done without passing a bill, creating another layer of requirements. So the other issues I am having a concern with is if we do it for LGBT community members, then do we start elevating LGBT above other community members? And would there be a Me Too effect that we would then have to entertain? So I'm not able to support the legislation today. I'm giving you this feedback because I believe that this will be a concern that the system will have if the bill passes. I also believe that if members set aside the good intentions and look at the details of the impacts of the bill, they also may share these concerns. So these are issues you may want to address by the time you get to appropriations and ultimately if appropriate on the floor. Thank you. Thank you so much. Any further questions or comments? CNN, Senator, we'd like to close, please. I will certainly take the comments to Senator Cervantes. I think oftentimes when we're looking at needs on a campus, we look to see who the students are that we're serving. And if the students have a need, I think the need has to be met. If it's met on campus before Senator Eggman introduced this legislation, there wasn't a liaison. And I think that putting the emphasis on a particular need on a campus then helps us to fulfill that need. And that's exactly what happened. And I'm very proud of Senator Eggman for having introduced that legislation. I'm equally proud of Senator Cervantes for recognizing that there is a gap. If we have 100 satellites and branches that are not filling the needs of the students on that campus, then yes, they can be creative without legislation, but that isn't true for every campus. And so in order to provide it equally, this is the legislation that's needed. And with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote. And thank you so much, Senator Reyes, for presenting this measure on behalf of Senator Cervantes. in a time when LGBTQ plus communities and identifying people are under attack, ensuring that they have a safe space to share their thoughts without fear of the conversation being shared is critical. And thank you for Senator Sanfranco for bringing this forward, this measure, and I will be supporting this measure today. And with that, Mr. Secretary, roll call, please. File item number five, SB 1328. The motion is do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. DeMaio? No. DeMaio, no. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Gonzalez, Jackson, Mursucci? Aye. Mursucci, aye. Patel? Aye. Patel, aye. Rodriguez? Aye. Rodriguez, aye. Sharp Collins, Tanguy Ba? That measure has five votes. When no, we'll keep the roll open for additional members' add-on. Thank you so much, Senator. Next up, we'd like to welcome Senator Cabaldon. and thank you for your patience. Presenting item number two, SB 960. Welcome, Senator Cabaldon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members, and good afternoon. This is a SB 960 is a topic which you well familiar with as you have already advanced similar legislation on the topic earlier by Assemblymember Alvarez And SB 960 simply tries to create a statewide framework for how to deal with the burgeoning demands in many many communities across the state for additional community college bachelor's degrees programs that run afoul of some of the existing statute that we think imposes some requirements that may not make sense in all cases. Now, keeping in mind that the goal here is to assure that, number one, that California can meet its workforce needs going forward and report after report after report. PPIC, California competes and others have identified just how many Californians we need to have a successful, diverse, competitive economy going forward at all age levels. And actually not principally for traditional college-age students, but for adults. And secondarily, how many Californians need those opportunities today for adults, but also in the very near future with the potential threat to many, many sectors of the workforce from artificial intelligence and other technologies. It's incredibly important that we have our best players on the field to be able to meet those needs. We've often considered the battles ever since the passage, the enactment of the Master Plan for Higher Education as a battle between institutions. You know, what should be the exclusive right, the monopoly right of UC or the monopoly right of CSU or the monopoly right of the community colleges? And that structure, that focus on making sure everybody does what they're best at, has served the state well in many respects. But at the same time, it can be quite limiting in particular parts of California, in particular disciplines, and especially when it comes to workforce needs, because not all of the institutions have the same experience, expertise, and local connections in order to advance workforce development, particularly for adults. That's why the original community college bachelor's degree program was created as a small part of the community college portfolio. And I know it's small because I was vice chancellor of the community colleges and we oppose. I oppose doing this at all. We're doing it. We did it anyway. And here I am to try to slightly expand it. But that that that limitation is that it is small, that it be specifically and exclusively for those bachelor degree programs where there is an demonstrated, unmet workforce need. So it's not, even under existing law and under all the legislation pending today, there's no intention or desire, and it would be bad public policy to simply have community colleges do all kinds of bachelor's degrees because they might be interested or there might be a few students interested in it. There has to be a clear workforce need. And what we've seen in the development of these programs is largely a very laser focus, very laser focused on occupational programs that are bachelor degree programs that are not typically found at universities. Industrial automation, which is one of the first ones at Bakersfield College, for example. But you go down the line and these are programs that are specifically oriented around particular workforce needs in the regions. Existing law says community colleges can't offer those programs, even if there is a demonstrated unmet workforce need, if UC or CSU offers that program. But there are two challenges with that framework that this bill seeks to address. The first is that it's not a real solution to the local workforce needs or for the local community. If you happen to be in the service area of Cal State Fullerton, Cal State Fullerton wants to offer a bachelor's degree in a particular high workforce needs area, and you're told, well, No because we offer that program at Humboldt State Sorry at Cal Poly Humboldt And so you welcome to go there though But we know that the vast majority of community college students especially adults need to and choose to go to an institution nearby And so it's not real access to that bachelor's degree program if it is four or five or 700 miles away. And so SB 960 loosens that band to make it more directly related to the service area of that precise CSU campus. So a college of the Redwoods nearby Humboldt can't offer that course, but Fullerton could under SB 960. The second area is where the programs are persistently impacted. And so if you have a program that is being offered at Cal State Northridge, under current law, College of the Canyons can't offer it. Santa Monica College can't offer it. No one else can because it's already offered at a CSU. But if that campus every single year for the last decade is turning away the vast majority of the applicants, it's not a real alternative. You cannot say to a student at one of those community college service areas, well, you know what, we'd love to offer that degree, but it already exists at this campus that has no room and hasn't had any room for a very long time. So SB 960 focuses on those two areas, that is, impacted programs that are not actually available to students and to programs that are offered outside of the service area of the CSU campus in which they reside in the community college district exists. That's the simple idea of the bill. We've been engaged in extensive conversations and negotiations with the community colleges, with the California State University on this as well, because it is both complicated and then ultimately simple to accomplish. But there are a lot of competing interests. We want to make sure we get those right. And we're continuing that work. I also want to assure you, because you advanced similar legislation by Assemblymember Alvarez, he and I are both also in regular close cooperation. And you absolutely have my commitment that we will not be advancing just similar enough bills forward to confuse everybody. We are committed to working with your committee and your cognate committee in the Senate to make sure that we have either one bill or we have a bill that is comprehensive in its approach in the end. I'm also committed to and gladly accept the author's amendments that have been outlined already in the analysis and also would just point out several of the other policy issues that are raised in the analysis that don't point to amendments to simply indicate that we are in conversations with the various parties about all of those and we do expect to be addressing many of those issues and they will help us to both get to an agreement but also to make sure that the program works. Again, I want to emphasize that for me, this is not about creating a new mission for the California community colleges, that they should spend less time on transfer or workforce development or associate degrees and instead do this. This is for the very specific cases in which in an area, in a region or community, there is a significant unmet workforce development need, which means significant opportunities for local residents that cannot be met in another way or is not being met by the CSU campus locally. to give the community college the opportunity, and the opportunity only because they don't get to do this by right. They still need approval by the State Board of Governors to be able to mount and launch that program and their students' behalf. With me to testify in support is Joshua Hagan on behalf of, is it my organization from before? The Campaign for College Opportunity. The Campaign for College Opportunity, one of my many other ones. So on behalf of the Campaign for College Opportunity. And I would also respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much, Senator. Thank you for accepting the committee's amendments and thank you for your opening remarks. Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Fong and members of the committee. Joshua Hagan, on behalf of the Campaign for College Opportunity, a nonpartisan policy and advocacy organization focused on ensuring all Californians have equitable access to college. In 2023, Governor Newsom laid out an ambitious goal of 70 percent post-secondary attainment to ensure California can meet its workforce needs. Increasingly in California, new jobs and jobs that become open due to retirement will require higher education degrees or credentials. At the same time, California has a projected decline of over half a million TK through 12 students by 2032. These factors combined make it critical now more than ever for our higher education system to adapt to meet the needs of students who have typically been left out. Adult learners, students who have stopped out, and students who are place bound. Last year in our report, the declining impact of impaction at the California State University, the Campaign for College Opportunity found that even with the declining enrollment across the CSU system, five CSU campuses are still fully impacted, four of which have been impacted since 2012. All campuses except for three have at least one program that is impacted. So while enrollment constraints ease and more seats open at many CSU campuses, there are still programs that students can't access and entire campuses that don't have enough capacity to meet the demands of any of their programs. Since our 2021 report shut out the need to increase access to the UC and CSU, we have elevated expanding access to baccalaureate degree programs at the California Community Colleges as one of the core strategies for California to leverage to increase bachelor's degree capacity. SB 960 provides a practical solution to the students who have faced these barriers for over a decade by allowing for expansions in capacity to be directly aligned to where persistent misalignment is found between student interest, higher education enrollment capacity, and workforce demands. Thank you, and we respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you so much. We have a motion. Do we have a second? We'll do... I'll second the bill. Thank you. Are there any witnesses in support? Please welcome. Thank you, Chair and members. Mark McDonald, on behalf of a number of local community college districts, Los Angeles, San Diego, Southwestern, State Center, Victor Valley, Kern, Foothill, De Anza, and Antelope Valley and Contra Costa Community College Districts, all in support of the bill. Thank you. Thank you so much. Christa Padilla, on behalf of the Community College League of California, in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Carol Gonzalez with Latina Advocates on behalf of Long Beach City College and on behalf of Gabilan College in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Ruth Sosa on behalf of PowerCA Action in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Carlos Lopez on behalf of California School Employees Association in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Jack Wurston from Nausman on behalf of Citrus College, Mount San Antonio College, and the North Orange College. North Orange County Community College District. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Justin Nanzaray is on behalf of the Campaign for College Opportunity in support. Thank you. Chair and members, Austin Webster on W Strategies on behalf of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, the California Community College Association for Occupational Education, and the Student Senate for California Community Colleges in support. Thank you. Afternoon. On behalf of College of Alameda and the Peralta Community College District we are in support Thank you so much Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room Welcome, and you have two minutes each. Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm Dr. Junius Gonzalez, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at the CSU Office of the Chancellor, and we have respectfully taken an opposed-unless-amended position on SB 960. The CSU recognizes that access, affordability, and workforce needs are real issues that must be addressed 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, particularly after stopout. Since this bill was last heard in the Senate Education Committee, the CSU, along with leadership from the California Community Colleges and the University of California, together met with legislators and staff, including the author and chair of this committee on this important issue. It's clear that we share a common objective of expanding opportunity for students, responding to critical workforce needs, and preserving our commitment to the transfer process, including the Associate Degree for Transfer and Transfer Student Success Pathway programs, which remain the most effective and affordable ways to attain a bachelor's degree in California. Ninety-one percent of transfer applicants are currently admitted to the CSU, and we expect that number to grow next year. I want to reiterate Chancellor Garcia's desire to get to yes on this issue and to find a path forward that allows these programs to emerge in a reasonable and responsible way. To that end, we recently shared our proposed amendments with the author and committee staff, and we believe provide a constructive path to moving ahead in a positive way. The amendments that we have suggested prioritize CSU community college partnerships, while allowing for flexibility when regional needs require it. We are willing to consider the duplication of programs that are not realistically available or accessible in a community college's region and that support students where they are and ensure that regional workforce needs are met and that can only be served by a baccalaureate degree. Our proposal also allows for proper consideration of the existing programs, academic infrastructure, and partnerships at the CSU that can serve students throughout the state and maximize our state's resources to best serve our students rather than operate in silos. It addresses critical issues of transparency and accountability, especially of student outcomes, including a clear demonstration of workforce need, limitation on the use of Prop 98 funding, and a commitment to pursue partnerships right from the outset. What we have suggested are reasonable boundaries and limitations that would help ensure that the CSU, UC, and community colleges are effectively serving students, meeting workforce needs, and preserving the core missions of each segment and optimizing student outcomes, particularly completion. completion. We view these amendments as an important first step. The CSU will continue to work with the author and this committee to reach an agreement that ensures all students are served and that our institutions continue to meet the needs of the state Thank you so much Welcome Thank you Chair and members Chris Morales with the CSU Chancellor Office here for technical questions Very briefly, I wanted to touch a little bit on the issue of impaction and access, since it's a core part of the bill. As noted in the committee analysis, impaction means solely that we have more applicants to a campus or program than we have spots in the program. It does not mean that we are closing our doors to the students of the region. It does not mean that we are turning away the majority of students in the region. In fact, often it is quite the contrary. And we believe that data that best encapsulates that. You will see in our acceptance rates of those campuses for community college students in their region. When we look at a place like San Diego State University as an example, a campus that is impacted completely for every single undergraduate program at the campus, We accept over 70% of all of the community college applicants in South San Diego County for San Diego State. At Cal State Fullerton, the numbers are quite similar where they accept over 80% of all of the applicants at the community college students in their direct vicinity. And these numbers have only been increasing in the past few years. And the question is, of course, can we do better? And the answer is yes. It's precisely why we have supported bills in the past to strengthen initiatives like the direct admissions program. the transfer success pathway, these proven initiatives that serve students where they are. And in that spirit, as we connect, as we continue to communicate with the author's office and as we work through amendments, it's in that spirit that we'll try to best strengthen the partnerships and pathways between our institutions that best serve our students and are the most effective at addressing our workforce needs. Thank you so much. Are there additional witnesses and opposition in the hearing room? Good afternoon, Mario Guerrero with the California Faculty Association. Respectful opposition due to the unintended consequences of all of the bills that would expand Bachelors and CSU. Thank you. Thank you. Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Assemblyman Murasuchi followed by Assemblyman Patel. Thank you, Senator Kevaldin, for raising this issue and this committee again. And again, following Assemblymember Alvarez, I share your desire to address the impaction situation. I'm curious, though, I may have missed it in your bill, but is there like a procedure for reevaluation? For example, if the CSU, the data shows that there's impaction for at least three years, a community college starts a program, and then CSU corrects the impaction, is there any procedure or opportunity to reassess the starting of a program? There's not in the bill. I'd be open to thinking about it. I mean, the challenge, obviously, is we don't want to, once there is a set of faculty at the community college and students, and especially, and most importantly, workforce partnerships with employers in the region in the underserved areas of workforce preparation, that we can't just turn that off either. Off and on, that won't work for students or for the institutions at all. So I don think there a simple answer but I think I happy to continue to work on what happens on the long run to the extent that CSU can do this I do want if I can just to emphasize there no I in addition to former Community College Vice President Army the one former tenure and faculty member from CSU in the Senate, there's no shade on CSU here. It's not that CSU's failing in any way to meet its needs, but even if San Diego State were admitting 150% of the transfer applicants, that is more than there are, we're still nowhere near our workforce goals. And that's not CSU's fault. We don't fund them for all of that. But simply, you know, turning a few knobs here and there to make CSU a little better, better partnerships or whatever, will not meet the needs either statewide or regionally on the economic piece. And so as we think about what the solutions are, I just would encourage us to always put the student and that local economy at the center and the institutions being like the supporting actors with the main character being the students themselves. I appreciate that. A question for the CSU. I mean, the Senator raised the funding challenges that the CSU raised. We, of course, recognize that the community colleges have the advantage of being covered by Proposition 98. But in terms of, like, I actually appreciate the senator's approach here where they have to demonstrate at least, a community college has to demonstrate at least three years of impaction. And wouldn't that give the CSU campus an opportunity to reallocate resources within the system to try to address the impaction so that you wouldn't be exposed to the possibility of a local community college starting a bachelor's program? So I'm sure Chris has memorized the numbers. We've been here two more months than before. So, yes, we are funding impacted campuses in order to have them try increase enrollment. There are other funding issues which relate to speaking of structural components, things like buildings and labs and that sort of stuff. So part of it, yes, might be addressed, but probably not to the needs and the desires that any of us would like. But yes, a significant amount of money, I don't remember what it was, has gone and still plans to go to the impacted campuses. I believe that was most recently $89 million to some of these higher impacted campuses where we allocated to increase some of this enrollment. But I think one of the problems we run into is that some of these specific programs that are impacted, one that we hear about often as well as the last committee hearings, is something like nursing, where the impaction is largely driven not necessarily in our control, but by the state and due to clinical placements. And so while there's only so much that we can do there, but in terms of the partnerships that we can incorporate with the community colleges where we can institute, of course, expanding our access to our ADN to BSN programs. So students that complete their ADN at the community college can come get their BSN at us. And for those programs at 20 of our universities, the acceptance rate is over 95%. So there is no capacity issues. There is no clinical placement issues. But that's a proven partnership and pathway where impaction isn't necessarily as much of an issue. But it would be difficult for us to, of course, expand our access to like a pre-licensure nursing where you would do four years at us. That'd be a bit more challenging. But that's often what we hear in terms of the impaction dilemma. Okay. So, I mean, I appreciate that it's not just a matter of reallocating monies, you know, like from an under-enrolled campus to a, over-enrolled CAPS or program, but that there are issues like buildings and labs. But I guess the fundamental issue that both Senator Cabaldon and Senator Alvarez is raising is that community colleges, there are more of them in different parts of the state. And so that in and of itself provides a greater access. And so that's what, you know, makes these proposals sympathetic. I mean, other than, you know, the notion, starting with the master plan, that, you know, somehow community colleges should stay in their lane, focus on associate degrees, CSUs focusing on bachelor's degrees. I mean, what is fundamentally the problem or the concern that you have with community colleges trying to provide more access to impacted programs by offering bachelor's programs at community college campuses? So I think what's represented in the amendments, and let me go back to something I said in the meeting, the senator was there, assemblyman and others, you know, the chancellor is very willing to get to yes on this particular issue. I think the devil is in the details of the design, and that is there are a number of things I won't get into now. But one, for example, is let's just take in the assessment of workforce need. What you don't currently see, at least often, is believe it or not, there still are many workforce need areas that are not being fully addressed by associate degree production. And the whole focus has shifted to baccalaureate production. I do think there are great opportunities to also work together, as per the coastal hearing in April, to probably do something that can move with the times more quickly and with the workforce, like their AI-infused curriculum for cyber. but you don't have that collaboration happening right from the start. And while that seems like a sort of obvious thing, it might need to be put, for lack of a better phrase, in writing. So that's one thing. There are other issues. I think Senator Cavallan is totally right. There are places which we well know are not served at all. I forget the mileage when you start looking. And those really need to be looked at seriously. And there are discussions around rural consortium, et cetera. But it's also important from our side and where I sit to take models like Chico, where they are offering, they will be teaching the second two years of degrees. The faculty are going to drive out to can't remember the names of the two schools. And more and more of those are important. But again, I want to reiterate what Chancellor Garcia said. Yes, we want to get to some component of yes on this. There are concerns about the funding pieces, which I know less of, Prop 98, et cetera. And then really, perhaps in some areas, you know, competition for a declining number of students in some areas. So I'll stop there because there's a lot of places that the amendments go to. All right thank you Last question Senator Cabaldon I see in the committee analysis the committee suggestion that your bill should incorporate a partnership first framework What is the status of incorporating that Because that seems to make sense So that is part of the set of amendments that we gotten from CSU that are quite extensive So we are reviewing that. I don't want to overpromise on this issue. I mean, there's a path there on partnerships. I think there is a clear difference between collaboration and control, though, and so we want to make sure that partnerships are real partnerships, that they're not a mechanism by which one institution controls a junior institution and makes all their decisions and says no and has vetoes or everything. So it's partly like making sure for partnerships to work, they have to be authentic. And so a sort of a mandated you must partner first is a very difficult, in any organization, it's a difficult path. So we're trying to figure out how to make sure that we keep those doors open so that they're real and they're incentivized properly, while also recognizing that the universal requirement that everybody always has to partner first is not really in anyone's interest. All right. Thank you. Thank you so much, Assemblymember Succi. Assemblymember Patel.

Yeah, thank you for the question. I don't know. And I think none of us know because several colleges are exploring, and I think many of the contexts are going to be quite different. You know, for nursing, it's going to be a different workforce need than some of the other bachelor degree programs in other occupational areas, depending on the location in the state. The good news, though, is that the existing law and the bill both are just about what sort of like bans on what community college is. Like before you do anything, you cannot even apply to offer a bachelor's degree program if it has these characteristics. That's what we're changing here. But you don't have the right to a bachelor's degree program either under existing law or under SB 960. So you'd still have to be able to demonstrate in the Board of Governors, in its review of bachelor degree proposals, will be reasonably expected to ask exactly these questions, like what are your data sources on the workforce side? Is there the appropriate teaching workforce in the programs? You've demonstrated the statistical need, but do you have any actual agreements with employers? Those are exactly the kinds of questions that the State Board, that the Board of Governors should be examining when they are determining whether or not to grant approval.

There's not in the bill. There are in the CSU proposed amendments. I'll tell you why it gives me a little bit of pause, though, because to the extent that in many of these occupational areas, the bachelor's degree is sort of emerging as the minimum requirement for these programs. And let's focus for a second on stuff that's not CSU relevant. For example, one of the first programs in the state, which was industrial automation at Bakersfield College. So, if you have a dollar of your Bakersfield College, you have a dollar to spend on the next program, and this gets partly to what the vice chancellor said, is would you spend it on associate degree program A or on industrial automation bachelor's degree program B? and your assessment really should be what is the best thing for student opportunity to secure good-paying jobs and a strong career, and what is the workforce needs in our region, as opposed to what is the funding source associated with them. As you know, the Prop 98 formula itself does not depend on community college enrollment. It's driven by K-12 enrollment, and then the split is what determines how much community colleges are. So even if community colleges were to add the maximum amount of students that the bill would allow, which, by the way, is less students or less programs than under current law. The bill actually shrinks that cap. But even if it were to max out, it doesn't affect the Prop 98 cap. It doesn't eat into the money for K-12 in any way. It's simply an expenditure within because that student is still getting the same. They're getting an education that they would have gotten in an associate degree program. but now it's at the bachelor's degree program, which if it meets those criteria for workforce unmet needs, that is a win for them and for the state. So it's one of the reasons I've been concerned about sort of the CSU proposal is when we authorized CSU to offer doctoral degrees, I think we all would have reacted badly if UC had come in and said, well, you can only use your federal funds or maybe only money that you get from ag school. It's not like that gets into this sort of control notion that as a senior institution, it's our job to figure out that. It is our job to figure out as a legislature, but I'm hesitant on just like an outright ban on the use of Prop 98 dollars because those dollars are there to make sure students can get community college education that leads to good jobs.

Thank you so much, Senator Patel. Dr. Jackson, welcome.

Thank you so much, Assemblyman Jackson. Any further questions or comments? See none. Senator, we'd like to close, please. Yeah, I just really appreciate the deeply thoughtful consideration of this issue, both here and in the earlier hearing on Assemblymember Alvarez's bill as well. And to pick up on Assemblymember Dr. Jackson's comments, you know, the master plan itself that is the cause of both our greatness in some ways and also exactly these kinds of challenges, it didn't come out of nowhere in the 1950s before the master plan, in the decade leading up to the master plan, the five years leading up to the master plan. And members of the two houses, the Assembly and the Senate, introduced so many individual pieces of legislation to try to deal with, at that time, Title Wave 2. And all the people that were finally seeing college as an option. Before that, it was only for a very tiny part of the population and also before the GI Bill. And so everybody in these chairs back then, everybody had a bill to add a new university nearby them or a new college, and it seemed like the whole system was going to fall apart. That's what caused the master plan. And we are in a hopefully slightly less chaotic time now, but in the many decades I've been working on higher education policy in this building, I've never seen this many bills on a single topic. And so we are in that moment again, and the same level of leadership about looking towards the future is required. That time we depended on the chancellor of CSU, or there was no CSU then, the superintendent of public instruction and the UC president. But now it's on us to figure this out, and we have to. So it's inevitable that something is going to happen. No one is going to be able to stop it forever. No chancellor, no vice chancellor. Something is going to happen, and this bill and the Alvarez bill are intended to create the framework to do it right and to put students, students of today and the students of tomorrow, at the center of those decisions and the institutions playing a supporting role, and with that, I would ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much, Senator Cabaldon, for authoring this bill and for accepting the committee's amendments. And the issue of bachelor's degree duplication is one that we have seen in numerous bills this year, as referenced by a number of my colleagues as well. And thank you for your thoughtful policy approach. And thank you to all the segments. My understanding is that the segments are continuing to engage with the senators and assembly members on all our authors and that work is being done to continue to find opportunities for collaboration and partnership, as mentioned at the segmental level, while still addressing the important issue of finding a real solution for instances of duplication. And thank you for working closely with our committee staff and continue to engage with us as you continue to refine your amendments going forward And with that I look forward to supporting the measure today Mr Secretary roll call please File item number two, SB 960. The motion is do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Fong?

Fong, aye.

No.

Berner?

Berner, aye.

Aye.

Jackson?

Jackson, aye.

Patel?

Patel, aye.

Rodriguez aye.

Sharp Collins.

Tangiba?

That measure is six ayes, one no, two not voting. We'll keep the roll open for additional members. And that measure is out. Thank you, Senator. Next up, we'd like to welcome Senator Adagin. Thank you for your patience. Presenting item number one, Senate Bill 632. Welcome Senator Adagin.

Hi. Good to see you. Thank you for being here. May I present, Mr. Chair? Yes, welcome, please.

Thank you so much. I'm Tiffany Mock, representing CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals. I want to thank the committee for hearing this bill. And I wanted to just start with the two anecdotes of the professors that I represent who have led me to come here. Professor James McKeever is president of our AFT Local 1521, and it took him nine years to graduate from community college. As a single parent, he had no choice but to support his family, and he needed a scholarship then to ensure that he could take more units, but it was not available at the time. He represents about 10 of the community college students who are working parents who apply for financial aid and many of them do not receive it He went to complete his PhD at USC and now teaches at Pierce College but it really illustrates the need for flexibility in how many units an individual can take Another professor, Bill Miller, sees struggles at Sac City today. One student, an aspiring surgeon, must prioritize caring for her siblings over a full-time status. Despite taking less units, however, she still managed to pass Calculus II and complete a prestigious internship in cardiothoracic surgery at Stanford two summers ago. Another student of his must support herself to work. Both are talented students whose progress is limited by the current full-time requirement of the current scholarship program. For those reasons, CFT proudly supports SB 632.

Thank you so much. Chair and members of the committee, my name again is Melanie Dixon, and I'm the president of College of Alameda, where I have a great honor to serve Bay Area students. And I'm a part of the Peralta Community College District. And we are very much interested in addressing some of the impacts that our students have. So one of the most expensive regions in the nation is one of the reasons that I'm here supporting this particular bill. because of the realities facing our students today require us to rethink how we support educational access and completion. In high-cost communities like Alameda County, the greatest barrier to college and completion is not the tuition cost. It is the cost of housing and food and transportation and basic living expenses. We routinely serve students who are working multiple jobs, as stated, caring for family members and commuting from distances to simply attend education and to afford to be able to live in communities of their native land. In this particular regard, we have students that are enrolling in schools. They're choosing to pay for their classes over their rent and really needing the opportunity to receive relief. California loses talent, workforce capacity, and economic mobility if we deny these students access based on the cost of living and the impact of the lack of promised funding. California Community College educates students most vulnerable to these rising costs. First-generation students, working adults, student parents, and our veterans, historically underserved populations as well. These students are not asking for special treatment for many of you. They are asking for a fair opportunity to pursue their education while meeting their basic needs as citizens and residents of the Bay Area. Policies that acknowledge the realities of affordability help ensure that higher education remains a pathway to economic mobility rather than an additional financial burden for our students. Community colleges in California are the primary workforce engine. The nurses, teachers, advanced manufacturing technicians, public safety professionals, and small business owners. Our state needs are sitting in our classrooms every day, being trained to go out into the workforce. California's workforce goals become significantly harder to achieve if these students are denied access based on cost. Supporting students through affordability measures is not simply an educational investment, it's an economic development strategy. With that said, a one-size-fits-all approach does not reflect the vastly different costs of living in California. Institutions located in regions such as the Bay Area face unique affordability challenges that directly affect students enrollment persistence and completion SB 632 recognizes that the regional cost pressure should be considered when shaping public policy Every day I meet students with really extraordinary talents, and we've heard a couple of them here today. What stands out often for me is it's not their ability to be able to achieve their degrees, it's really the affordability to be able to pursue their dreams. And so SB 632 helps us align our policies with our realities that the students face. On behalf of our students and our families in our region, I'd ask you to vote yes on SB 632.

We have a motion and a second. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, Chair and members. Mark McDonald on behalf of the San Diego and Los Angeles Community College districts. Also on behalf of the Los Angeles College Faculty Guild, AFT Local 1521, in support.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association, in support.

Assummar Rodriguez followed by Assummar Bernard. I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward. As a former community college student, I recognize how beneficial this could be, and I would like to add on as a co-author, and I look forward to supporting today.

Thank you. Summer Burner. Yeah, I wanted to bring this forward. I wanted to thank you for bringing this measure forward. Just a few weeks ago, I was talking to my oldest, who's enrolled in our local community college, and they had to decide, do they take an unnecessary class to meet the full-time status, or do they have to pay? Now, we're in a family where we could pay. They live for free at home. And I thought of all the families who do not have that opportunity. So thank you for this.

Asalyn Burner, Dr. Lachey-Sharp Collins. The only thing I'd like to say is thank you, just like all my colleagues have said, for bringing forth this bill. I haven't been in a situation myself when I was at a community college. which I thoroughly understand and would like to be at it as a co-author. Thank you.

Well, I just want to thank my witnesses for being here, particularly the president of the College of Alameda, Melanie Dixon, who's doing amazing work supporting our students in the Peralta Community College District.