March 24, 2026 · GO · 19,952 words · 27 speakers · 359 segments
Sam. Sa.
Good morning.
Once again, the Senate Committee on Government Organization will come to order. I am State Senator Susan Rubio, chairwoman for this committee. The plan today will be to start with our informational hearing on the Second Amendment to the Yurok Tribes 2006 Compact, followed by our regularly scheduled bill hearing. We expect our informational hearing to last approximately 10 to 15 minutes. If Bill authors can please start making their way down to room 1200, it would be appreciated. We will begin our bill hearing again immediately after this informational hearing. But before we move forward, I want to just first of all say that I've been in this committee for seven years. But on this month, Women's History Month, I want to take a moment of privilege to say that I am the first female chair of this committee in Senate history. But equally important, I think it's important to note that the vice chair, Senator Valladares, who will be coming in shortly, is also the first woman. And together we make up the first female team in California history. So I think it's important that we recognize that, to keep encouraging our young ladies out there listening to keep breaking barriers. So thank you for indulging me in this moment. So we will begin with again, once again, our informational hearing. So I'd like to invite Matthew Lee, senior advisor for tribal negotiations of the office of Governor Newsom, to join us here in front. Joseph James, Chair, chairman of the Yurok Tribe of the Yurok Reservation in California, which I believe he'll be joining us remotely. Is he on? He'll come on. Okay. So welcome. Thank you for being here today. And when you're ready, you may begin. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Madam Chair, good morning. Good morning. Honorable members, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to talk about the second amendment to the tribal state gaming compact between the Yurok Tribe and the state. Fairly straightforward amendment in front of you this morning. The Yurok Tribe has an existing tribal state gaming compact that dates back to, I believe, 2006. This amendment would simply extend the expiration of that existing compact to preserve the status quo while Yurok and the state engage in negotiations for a long term compact to replace that which we expect to have back in front of you in the not too distant future. For now, we are simply proposing to preserve the status quo by extending the existing compact to December 31st of this year.
Thank you. Thank you very much. I will now invite Joseph L. James, Chairman, New York Tribe, to join us for this testimony. Welcome. Thank you for being here today.
Thank you. Good morning. Chairman Rubio and members of the Senate Committee on Governmental Organization. My name is Joseph James. I come from the village of Srigan, located in Lower Klamath River. With me today, Raymond Bacon, Executive director of the Yurok Tribe's Economic Development Corporation and Sarah Dutchkey, partner of the Kaplan Courage llp. We are honored to be here today on behalf of the Yurok Tribe to testify and answer questions that you may have on the second amendment to the Tribal State Gaming Compact between the State of California and New York Tribe. Madam Chair, I want to thank you for recognizing the importance of the timing to ratify this compact amendment by holding this emergency hearing on the same day as your committee's first full hearing of the year and commencing and ratifying process. I want to thank you for your staff and coordinates the Yurok teams leading up to today's hearing. I also want to thank Governor Newsom for executing the compact extension on behalf of the state and thank Mr. Lee, the governor's senior advisor for working with us on the Yurok Tribe team negotiating extension. We are here. As you have heard, this is a narrow and technical extension. It does not change the substantial terms of the current compact. Simply extends the compact by one year which gives the Yurok Tribe to negotiate a new compact with the Governor's office while allowing us to continue to operate our 99 slot machines at the hotel casino in Klamath. Under the existing framework, that continuity is important to us. While the Redwood Hotel casino is modest in size, this supports something much larger. It is part of a broader vision for our people in our region. Our homeland is a remote, rugged and breathtaking part of the state. A place of rich with life, beauty and responsibility. The setting shapes up shapes the challenges we face in the future we're holding working to build. We are restoring the Klamath river and its fishes through historic removal of dams. We are introducing condors to the wild. We are deeply invested in the forest, watershed and wildlife management. We are bringing communications to the region For Yeerock. The extension will help strengthen our tribal government, enhance self determination and build a better future for our people in the region we call home. We are very grateful for today, Madam Chair and members of the committee for holding this important information hearing on our compact agreement. We are here to answer any questions that you may have respectfully asked for Your support for AB 1389 which is taken up in the Senate. Four for a vote. Thank you for your time, Madam Chair.
Thank you for that testimony and thank you, Mr. Lee as well. Now that we have some members, I welcome any questions from Members on this diet.
Okay.
Seeing none. Just real quickly, Mr. Lee, if I can ask if you can provide some background as to why compact extensions don't need approval from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
That is a great question. Just to shed a little light on how the compacting process works in general, you have of course, two governments at the bargaining table, the tribal government and the state government. They reach a deal and as part of the process of adopting that deal on the state side, that has to be ratified by the legislature after the state and the tribal government have both given their approval to that deal, there's a third sovereign in the room, which is the federal government represented by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. And so whenever you have a substantive compact or a substantive change to a compact, the bias has a role in either approving or disapproving or sometimes sort of allowing to go into effect that compact here, because we don't have anything substantive. It's just the deadline extension. There's no substantive change in any term. That straight extension will be publicized by the bia, but it does not need to be approved by the bias.
Thank you for that. And I also want to thank just chairman and the tribe for everything that you provide. Just in general, I've been on this diet seven years and again, we do a lot of tribal compacts, but just want to note all the good things they do for students. As an educator, I also want to point out that it's always important the collaboration with our local community. So thank you for that. I would like to now invite anyone from our community out in the audience to come forward. If you have any public comments. Okay. Seeing none, I just want to say once again, thank you for your testimony. Thank you for being here today. And that concludes. Oh, sorry about that. We have Senator Richardson. Go ahead.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And of course, first of all, let me say congratulations. I didn't realize the historic nature of the leadership of this committee and I know that we're in good hands. So congratulations. I did have one question. I was here, although it be brief, back in 2006 and 2007 when all of the compacts were authorized, do we anticipate all of them coming forward and needing authorization, which I completely wholeheartedly support?
Most of them have actually already passed through that point. I am tracking at this point
a
small single digit number of tribes that still have expiring compacts or that otherwise need a new compact, Perhaps a small handful of potential amendments. But most of the compacts that would have been expiring in the Past couple years have already been resolved one way or the other.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for that. And Again, thank you, Mr. Lee, and thank you, Chairman, for participating in today's hearing. And with that, we will now move to our bill hearing. And this concludes the informational hearing. Thank you,
Sa.
We're just taking a few minutes to establish who will be here. I know that we have our first bill and we're missing the second author. So we're going to wait on that just a bit. We'll just pause, take a break for a minute to allow the other author to join us. Okay. So we understand that it'll take a little longer for the second author to join us. So before we begin our bill hearing, I want to make sure everyone knows what the plan is. For today, we will be taking Up File Item 12, AB 2156, by Speaker Rivas and pro tem Limon after we allow our first author to present, which will be Senator Reyes. Oh, we just saw the other author walk in, so we're going to scratch that and we're going to go back to the original plan. So once again, we will take Up File Item 12, AB 2156, by Speaker Rivas and pro tem Limon. After that, we will move through the agenda and file order. Now that we have, I think, enough members here, we might be missing one for a quorum. Okay. So we will move as a subcommittee until we can establish a quorum. I'd like to invite the authors to join me up here to move forward with AB 2156. Ladies, when you're ready, you may begin.
Good morning, chairwoman and members. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2156 on behalf of Speaker Rivas. I also just want to say thank you to the speaker and the pro tem for moving swiftly on this matter and being able to present here today. AB 2156 will designate March 31st as farm workers Day in California. This state holiday will be a time for California to honor the farm worker movement accomplishments of the past, reflect on the present day status of farm workers, and renew our collective commitment to advancing the rights of farm workers members. Like many of you, I'm still processing the news that came out last week. It's been difficult, painful even for many of us, especially those of us who grew up looking up to figures like Cesar Chavez as heroes. As a daughter of farm workers, this is very personal to me. My parents were immigrant farm workers from Mexico who worked long, exhausting days in the fields. I remember being in those fields as a little girl alongside my parents and my sisters, because we knew that helping our family meant doing whatever we could. That's what farm worker families do. We show up for each other. And even then, we understood something powerful. While we were working to survive, there were others in our community, organizing, marching and fighting to change the conditions of our lives. The farm worker movement was never about just one individual. It was about thousands of men and women who found their collective voice. People who stood up for dignity, for fairness, and for justice. This movement belongs to the farm workers, the people who put their bodies on the line, who have risked everything, who believed in a better future, not just for themselves, but for our generations to come. I stand before you today because of brave men and women who have stood up with your vote today. We recognize the importance of the farm worker movement by acknowledging that it was because of hundreds of farmworkers that we've made the progress and improved the lives of not just the workers, their kids, but of an entire Latino community. I respectfully ask for your I vote today.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members.
On behalf of Pro Tem Limon and the California Latino Legislative Caucus, I join my assembly colleague, Assemblymember Sodia, in support of AB 2156 and the naming of March 31, as well as Farm Worker Day. We are all blessed to live in this wonderful state, the world's fourth largest economy and the economic engine for the nation. And we loudly boasts the largest share of agricultural production in the nation. And none of this would have been possible without farm workers. Those that define the term essential workers, truly they are representative of the great mosaic of diversity that defines our amazing state. And we are grateful to the thousands of women and men who have worked hard to feed this nation and whose bravery fueled a persistent fight to secure essential worker rights. This holiday will be a time for all Californians to honor and advance the lives of our farm workers, but also a time to reflect. While the circumstances that brought us here today are very tragic and it had been very heavy on the Latino Caucus, I'm so grateful for Speaker Rivas and Pro Tem Limon for bringing this forward with us to be able to rename this wonderful holiday that really is about a movement and about a group of people that have done so such incredible work in our state. So on behalf of everyone, I urge
your support for this bill. Thank you. And first, let me just highlight that our presenters are Assembly Member Esmeralda Soria, Senator Lena Gonzalez. Thank you for presenting on behalf of Pro Tem and Speaker Rivas but we will take a pause since we've just. I think we have a quorum. So we're going to make sure that we move forward with a quorum. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Rubio.
Present.
Rubio. Present. Valaderis.
Here.
Valladares.
Here.
Alvarado, Gill. Present. Alvarado. Gill. Present. Archuleta. Ashby. Blakespeare. Cervantes. Dali. Dali. Here. Hurtado. Ochoa. Bogue. Padilla.
Present.
Padilla. Present. Richardson.
Here.
Richardson. Here. Smallwood, Cuevas.
Here.
Smallwood, Cuevas. Here. Wahab. Weber. Pearson.
Here.
Weber, Pearson. Here.
Okay, we have established a quorum. We will now move to consent calendar to get this out of the way, which will consist of the following Items. File item 7. SB 1204 by Senator Ochoa. Bowl. File item 9. SB 1340 by Senator Richardson. File item 10, SB 1235. Go Committee Bill. File item 11, SB 1236. Go Committee Bill. And with that do we have a motion.
So please.
Moved by Vice Chair Valladares. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Rubio.
Aye.
Rubio. Aye. Valades. Aye.
Valades.
Aye. Alvarado. Gill. Aye. Alvarado. Aye. Archuleta. Ashby. Blakespeare. Cervantes. Dally. Aye. Dali. Aye. Hurtado. Ochoa. Bogue. Padilla.
Aye.
Padilla, I. Richardson. Richardson. I. Smallwood, Cuevas. Smallwood, Cuevas. I. Wahhab. Weber.
Pearson.
Weber, Pearson. Aye. We'll leave that open.
We will hold that open for those that will be joining us shortly. And thank you for that. We'll now move back to the bell at hand. AB 2156. Vice Speaker Rivas and Pro Tem Limon. I would now like to invite anybody wishing to speak in soprano of this item. Please come up to the microphone. We will only take one lead witness on this bill. You may proceed. Good morning.
Genesis Gonzalez.
On behalf of Lieutenant Governor Lenny Kakis in support.
Thank you.
Anybody else wishing to speak? Okay, we will now move to witnesses in opposition. Please come up to the microphone.
Okay.
Seeing no interest, we will now bring the discussion back to members. Anyone wishing to speak, move the bill.
Okay.
Anybody else wishing to speak? Okay. You do?
Go ahead.
Vice Chair Valladares.
Thank you. And it is an honor to serve with you on this committee, too. Chairwoman. I'm sorry I missed our opening here. It's an exciting, historic time. There's only two men on our committee, so just shows women are taking over. We love it. I want to thank the authors for presenting this bill. I join with you and the importance of the necessity for this. And I appreciate the swift action from all Sides on getting this done so quickly. This is personal for me, too. My family first came to Kern county in 1911 and 1917. My family first lived in tents for years until my grandfather saved enough to buy a piece of property off of Myrtle street in Lamont. My grandmother was one of 11 sisters, my grandfather one of nine siblings who all work the fields. They picked grapes, peaches, cotton, you name it. They went wherever the work was. My great grandmother woke up before sunrise to make breakfast for her children and my grandfather and would make lunch, pack lunches, and go work in the fields herself. And when I hear those stories today from my family, it doesn't feel like history. It feels like it's a part of us. And because that was their life long days in the heat of Kern County, Delano, Tulare. Too often without reliable water, rest or basic facilities, wages that change with the season and families moving constantly just to survive. And for generations, farm workers were excluded from the basic protections. No overtime, limited rights, little ability to change, wage theft to challenge wage theft. And that is a part of our history. And yes, the labor movement brought needed change, but it was complex. And those stories, both the. Those stories were. There were two sides. Both the progress and the pain that families lived just like mine. What I remember from my grandmother was that farm workers came from everywhere, though different backgrounds. Japanese, Filipino, Mexican, but all the same hands in the soil, the same goal to build something better for their children. And that's what my family did. Because behind every field in California, there's a family story like mine. And that's why, as chair of the Hispanic Caucus alongside Assemblywoman Ali Macedo and members of our caucus, we called for this change immediately. And I think it's important to recognize that this is a bi bipartisan call to action. And Californians want to see more of
this type of work.
Because honoring farm workers should never be about one person. It should be about people, the generations
who built this state.
And in light of these recent allegations, I think we have a responsibility to ensure that this day reflects the dignity of all farm workers, not the legacy of any one individual. So today this spills about getting that right. I'm proud to be a co author and again want to thank the authors for presenting this.
Any other member wishing to speak? Okay. So I do have something to say, and if anyone knows my work, it's really rooted on victims and trying to ensure that victims have a voice in this capitol. So I like to read a statement, if I may. First and foremost, I speak as a victim's Advocate, but also as a daughter of a farm worker. Bracero farm worker. In recent days, we have seen deeply troubling reports that remind us of a painful truth, and that is that victims often carry their pain in silence for years before they feel safe enough to come forward. And they do that quietly. And our job is not to dismiss or doubt their statement, but support them and give them dignity and respect. And whether the harm came from a trusted leader or someone in their own home or community, we have a responsibility to listen carefully, compassionately, and without prejudice. As someone who understands physical and emotional abuse and has secured multiple restraining orders throughout a 10 year period, including as recently as a few months ago, I can attest there's nothing more harmful to a victim than to be questioned, especially by elected leaders, when the evidence is clear or compelling. We must do better as a society, not only in how we respond when victims come forward, but also how we create spaces when they feel safe enough to come forward. We must support that, because justice begins the moment we all start listening. So today we stand with victims past, present, and those still finding their voice in this moment. This legislature is taking swift, bipartisan action to remove the name of a man who, according to personal and compelling accounts by his victims, violated a community's trust. And as difficult or conflicting as this moment is for so many of us, we must acknowledge the victim's pain and trauma. I want to commend the women who have come forward. Their courage matters. Their voices matter. And as we make this change to Farm Worker Day, we are making a broader statement to honor farm workers who labor, day in and day out under the hottest sun, to put food on our table and sustain our communities. We are choosing to elevate the dignity of their work and recognize their sacrifices and contributions. And with that, I ask, Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry. Would you like to close?
Just want to say thank you for the opportunity to present and I ask,
respectfully ask, for your support. Thank you, Madam Secretary. AB 2156.
Motion is due. Pass to the floor. Rubio.
Aye. Rubio.
Aye. Valaderis. Valladeris.
Aye.
Alvarado. Gill. Archuleta.
Aye.
Archuleta. Aye. Ashby. Blakespeare. Cervantes. Dali. Dali. I. Hurtado. Ochoa. Bogue. Padilla. Padilla. I. Richardson. Richardson. I. Smallwood. Cuevas. Smallwood. Cuevas. I. Wahab. Weber. Pearson. Weber. Pearson. Aye.
Eight.
We'll hold it open. Eight. Zero. We will hold the roll open for the next. For members that are joining us, we will now move to File item number three, SB 1044 by Senator Reyes. Senator Reyes, welcome. We will also invite witnesses and support to join us. Senator Reyes, when you're ready, you may proceed.
Thank you. Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1044. This bill updates California's Small Business Procurement and Contract act by raising the contract cap from 250,000 to 350,000 and tying future adjustments to inflation through the Consumer Price Index. Under current law, certified small businesses, micro businesses and disabled veteran business enterprises may be awarded contracts with state agencies and the California State University System valued between $5,000 and $250,000. However, the $250,000 cap has remained unchanged since 2009 even as a cost of doing business has risen significantly. This outdated limit restricts the state's ability to contract with small businesses on larger projects and effectively shuts many of them out of opportunities they are fully capable of delivering. As a result, we are not only limiting competition, but also missing the chance to invest in diverse local businesses. Adjusted for inflation, that 250,000 is equivalent to to about $350,000 today, making this update both practical and necessary. Here to testify on the bill today are Anthony Butler Torres on behalf of the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and Jasmine Advinkula on behalf of the California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce.
Hi, it's Mr. Ganathe. Sorry, just want to make that. You may proceed when you're ready.
Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and committee members, Joint Canadian President CEO, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce. And thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning. And Kathy came downhill, so I'm the fill in today. So I would like to thank. First of all, let me thank Senator Reyes and her staff for their dedicated work on SB 1044. And I also want to thank the Senator for her past and ongoing efforts to create more opportunities for California small businesses. Thank you. As Senator noted, Senate Bill 1044 basically just modernizes California Small Business Procurement Contract act by raising the ceiling from 250,000 to 350,000 and tying any future adjustments to the CPI. We believe this bill will expand critical contracting opportunities for small businesses, micro business and disabled veteran business enterprises. Currently, many certified businesses and DVB firms are struggling not because they are, not because contracts are too big or they lack the capacity, but because opportunities are structured in ways that move them out of reach. A primary driver of this outdated of this outdate is the $250,000 cap, which no longer reflects the actual cost of doing business. California. When contracts exceed the current threshold, they often shift to procurement pathways where small businesses are less competitive or no longer prioritized. In practice, maintaining the lower cap results in fewer accessible opportunities. We must be careful not to define small businesses only by their constraints. Many firms have built capacity, formed strategic partnerships, and are ready to grow. Holding the cap at the current level keeps these businesses in a holding pattern. Now, while you will hear access to capital in regards to being one of the issues here, while access capital is a valid concern, the challenge persists regardless of whether the cap is $250,000 or $350,000. Addressing capital access should be part of a broader solution rather than a justification for maintaining thresholds that are no longer aligned with market conditions. The fundamental issue is not whether every small business is ready for a $350,000 contract, but whether our policies create pathways for those that are ready while still preserving lower level opportunities. We believe SB 1044 is a vital step in the right direction. Thank you for the opportunity this morning to address you.
Thank you. You might proceed when you're ready. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairwoman and Members of the Committee on the Opportunity to provide our support for SB 1044 I'm Jasmine Advent Kula and I'm here on behalf of the California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce to express our strong support for SB 1044. And I want to take a moment here to thank the Senator for her ongoing support and commitment to supporting our small business community. Our Chamber represents more than 700,000 API owned businesses across California, many of which are small, family run and deeply rooted in their local communities. Our mission is to expand economic opportunities, strengthen access to procurement, and ensure that small businesses have a fair chance to compete and grow within the state's economy. This bill is important because the current small business procurement cap of 250,000 has not been updated to since 2009. In those 17 years, costs for labor, materials and operations have have risen dramatically. As a result, contracts that once fell squarely within the small business and disabled veteran business enterprise option are now pushed into full and open competition, unintentionally excluding excluding thousands of capable small firms from opportunities they can absolutely deliver. The issue is not capacity. It is an outdated threshold that no longer reflects reflects today's economic reality. Updating the cap to 350,000 simply restores the value the program was designed to offer and aligns procurement practices with current market conditions. Access to procurement opportunities is essential for small businesses because state contracting remains one of the most powerful economic mobility tools the state offers for many small and emerging firms. State contractors provide steady Revenue credibility and a pathway to scale. But when those thresholds remain stagnant, fewer contracts are accessible and the environment naturally shifts towards larger firms with more resources and administrative capacity. Modernizing this cap brings more opportunities back into reach by ensuring that projects reflect today's costs and remain eligible for the streamlined Small business and disabled veteran business enterprise option. This process reduces administrative complexity, shortens contracting timelines, and ensures small businesses can realistically compete without large proposal teams or extensive cash reserves. For the Cal Asian Chamber and the communities we represent, this bill is a commitment to economic equity. It removes outdated barriers, strengthens the small business pipeline, and ensures California continues to invest in the entrepreneurs who drive innovation, job creation and economic health. By raising the cap to 350,000 and indexing it to inflation, the state ensures that the opportunity keeps pace with economic reality, both now and in the future. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. Now, I would like to invite those speaking in opposition to join us up front. Please support. Sorry, Yes. I would like to invite those speaking in support here in room 1200 to come up to the microphone. My apologies. Sorry about that. I didn't want to get up too early or too early too. Anyway, thank you. So thank you, Madam Chair and members. Lori Cameron with the Coalition of Small and Disabled Veteran Businesses, along with the national association of Women Business Owners, California. I want to thank Senator, the amazing
Senator Reyes for bringing this bill forward.
We are just about there in support. We are certainly more than neutral, but
we want to have a few more
discussions to make sure that the access
to capital at the increased level will not be an issue for the smaller, the micro businesses. And so with those discussions, and we have the commitment of the Senator, I'm
sure that we are going to get to where we need to be. So thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak and support.
Support.
Good morning. Charles Wright from the California association of Veterans Service Agencies.
And strong support.
Thank you. We will now move forward with any opposition. Please come forward. Good. All right. We will now bring the discussion back to members. Anyone wishing to speak on this item, move the bill. Okay. The bill is moved by Vice Chair Valladares. Anyone else wishing to speak on it? Well, first of all, seeing none, I just want to say thank you to the Senator. And thank you. Since Mr. Canate, since you and I have done so much work in the past years to support small businesses, I think this is an important step to ensure that access is extended to more businesses. And I appreciate your testimony. And with that, would you like to close?
I sincerely appreciate the testimony from The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce. It's really important to be able to build our small businesses and to provide more opportunities. And with that, I respectfully ask for your. I vote.
Thank you. The bill has been moved by Senator Valladares. Madam Secretary, please call the room.
SB 1044, motion is due. Passed to Appropriations Committee. Rubio.
Aye.
Rubio. I. Valades.
Aye.
Valadez I. Alvarado. Gill. Archuleta. Archuleta, I. Ashby. Blakesphear.
Aye.
Blakespeare I. Cervantes. Cervantes. I. Dally. Dali. Aye. Hurtado. Ocho. Bogue. Padilla. Padilla. Aye. Richardson. Aye. Richardson. Aye. Smallwood, Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood, Cuevas. Aye. Wahab. Weber. Pearson. Aye. Weber, Pearson.
Aye.
The vote has 10 votes. We'll keep it open for missing members. Thank you so much. And we will now invite Senator Cabaldon. It seems we're going to have you for quite a bit here. We have three bills, so please be patient with Mr. Cabaldin as he's going to be presenting SB 1114 first, and he has two after that. So I'd like to invite your witnesses and support to come and join us.
All right, thank you. Madam Chair. I'm here first to present SB 1114, and I want to begin by highly, highly, highly recommending the committee analysis. I know all of you who have read it, but anybody who's watching this in the audience or on the Internet, it's an excellent analysis and recount of the history and the reasons why and the nuance of the use of data in the LGBTQ community. SBL14 is a simple measure in some respects, but it touches on some really key issues. California has led the nation in the collection and the use of what's called SOGI data, sexual orientation, gender identity, and special characteristics data, in order to do what California does best, which is to make sure that we attack health disparities, that we identify and remedy discrimination, disparate outcomes. And California has worked hard to collect and protect the data of Californians in order to accomplish those goals. Last year, I carried legislation that helped to connect Californians with additional benefits and insurance as a result, and access to public services. So we've done a good job of using data, protecting it, but importantly to use it to make sure that LGBTQ Californians have access to everything that they need, including the protection against discrimination. Of course, we're in a situation today where the federal government is now asking for and demanding data sets for other purposes. And I would want to point out that just the Federal government decided at the beginning of last year to itself stop collecting any data whatsoever with respect to the LGBTQ community. So the federal government, if it's interested in this data, could have continued with the orders in the Department of Health and Human Services and others in order to collect it, but they haven't. Instead, the concern is that they will be requesting this data, as they have already, to target health care professionals that treat transgender California as an example, but to directly go after folks whose marriage might be at risk. Their access to health care may be at risk as well. And so SB 1114 simply says that state agencies will not share that data with federal agencies unless it is part of a. Unless it's legal that we are required to comply, but in all other cases, we are not. Our state agencies will not be providing that data to federal agencies. As I say, if the federal government wants it, they should be collecting it themselves. And I want to also emphasize, because the original versions of my. Of all of our documents on this describe this as highly sensitive data. It's not highly sensitive data. My identity as a gay man is not itself sensitive. What's highly sensitive is the abuse of the data to target and to deny benefits, safety, and protection against discrimination. That's what we're trying to Grapple with with SB 1114. Be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time. Madam Chair, I'd like to introduce our witness on behalf of Equality California, our legislative director, Craig Pulsifer.
Thank you. And Craig, you may begin when you're ready.
Thank you.
Good morning, Madam Chair. Craig Pulsar. On behalf of Equality California, a proud co sponsor of this bill, I want to thank. Thank the Senator for his leadership on this issue and just echo his thanks to the committee for the really thorough and thoughtful analysis as well. Equality California has long championed efforts to collect comprehensive data about LGBTQ people. In 2015, we sponsored legislation that requires several state agencies to collect voluntary data on sexual orientation and gender identity when gathering other demographic information. And that law has since been expanded to include additional state agencies and to incorporate data collection on intersex people. Members of our community share personal information with state programs because they need access to essential services such as food assistance or health coverage, and they trust that their data will only be used to administer and improve those programs. However, over the past year, we have seen numerous instances in which the federal government has sought expanded access to state held data, often done under the guise of reducing waste, fraud and abuse. Just a few recent examples, the federal government has sought detailed immigration data from food assistance programs. Shared Medicaid data with the Department of Homeland Security for immigration enforcement and sent subpoenas to multiple hospitals seeking confidential information related to trans transgender patients. These actions are not only deeply concerning, they also undermine trust in the government's ability to collect and use data responsibly, which makes people less likely to participate in these routine data collection efforts. SB 1114 is a straightforward measure to help restore that trust and establish clear guardrails for the sharing of state collected data about LGBTQ people. It ensures that data related to sexual orientation, orientation, gender identity, and intersex status cannot be disclosed outside of the state except under very limited circumstances. And also importantly, clarifies the information that could be used to infer that a person is transgender or intersex is also protected. At a time when LGBTQ Californians are increasingly being targeted across the country, SB 1114 will ensure that data collected to support our communities cannot be used later to cause harm. And I respectfully urge your.
I vote thank you for that testimony. I would like not. I'd like to invite anyone here in room 1200 to come up. Please state your name, affiliation, your position. Thank you. Good morning. Angela Pontus, on behalf of Planned Parenthood, affiliates of California and support, thank you. Jennifer Robles with Health Access California and support, thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak and support. We will now move over to meet witnesses in opposition. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition, please join us up here. Okay. Seeing no interest. Anyone here in room 1200 wishing to speak in opposition, please state your name, position. Seeing no interest, we will now bring it back to member discussions. Anyone wishing to speak on this item.
Okay.
The bill has been moved by Senator Akilah Weber. We will now turn it over to you. Wishing to close.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I vote.
Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.
SB 1114 motion is due. Passed to privacy committee. Rubio.
Aye.
Rubio, I. Valaderis.
Aye.
Valladares, I. Alvarado. Gill. Archuleta.
Aye.
Archuleta. Aye. Ashby. Blakespeare.
Aye.
Blakespeare. Aye. Cervantes. Cervantes. Aye. Dali. Hurtado. Ochoa.
Bogue.
Padilla. Padilla. I. Richardson. Richardson. I. Smallwood. Cuevas.
Smallwood.
Cuevas. I. Wahab. Weber. Pearson. Weber. Pearson. I. That's nine.
Hold it open. Lisboa has nine votes. Thank you so much for your testimony. We'll hold the row open for missing member, and we will now move on to your second bill presentation today, SB 1248. Senator Cabaldin, when you're ready, you may begin.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This Bill attempts for the first time to apply a set of standards to the use of automated decision systems within state government. The legislature and the governor have enacted several pieces of legislation over the last several years with regarding automated decision systems in the private sector. And we've also passed legislation to require reporting about the use of high risk automated decision systems in the public sector. But there is no framework. And so this bill proposes to begin the development of such a framework. It's motivated in part by the successes that we've been. That we've been having. Last year I carried legislation that told CSU to automatically admit, without the need for an application or prior notification, every single student who met their admission requirements using statistical modeling. And I should note, automated decision systems is not only AI it includes systems that deploy statistical modeling and other quantitative techniques, not only artificial intelligence. That bill will mean that over 300,000 high school students in California will automatically receive letters of admission in August with no changes to the staffing levels or anything else inside of csu. Probably more important though, is our success with Medi Cal eligibility determinations and the automatic determination of millions of Californians for Medi Cal. We are at over 80%. We're able to automatically determine at the state level, reducing the tremendous backlogs while not eliminating them. The backlogs at the county level for determination for both Medi cal and for CalFresh that, that that automatic determination is under threat a bit by HR1. There's separate legislation to try to grapple with that issue. But I know my colleagues on the Budget Committee in our special hearing on this, we're working very hard to get that number as high as possible because we recognize that automatically determining will mean that Californians will not lose their Medi Cal coverage or their CalFresh coverage as a result of procedural barriers that have been put in their way. So what SB 1248 proposes to do is to expressly authorize the use of automated decision systems. But as I say, nothing prevents them today. But under certain conditions, and those include that they cannot, a system cannot be used as the sole basis of an adverse decision. So you can use an automated decision system to determine Medi Cal eligibility or to grant CSU admission, you cannot use that system all by itself to say no. That requires human review and human judgment. And so that's a centerpiece of the legislation, is that we should be treating a yes differently than we treat a no. When folks are seeking to access the services and the benefits to which they are legally entitled in California and to allow the human beings then the rest of us to focus on the hard cases, the nos, so that an eligibility worker at the county level can say, I see that automated system said no to this one because Christopher Baldwin has a home and that asset disqualifies him on the asset test. However, the caseworker can take a look at as a human being and say, but I see also that you're providing evidence that you have a restraining order against your partner who is currently occupying that home and you're paying for rent and you have no access to that asset. That's something that an automated system cannot, at least in today's world, cannot see or review. It's why human beings looking at any nose or edge cases are so critical to this system. But in too many cases, they're so busy dealing with essentially data entry systems, and we've dealt with this in subcommittee budget subcommittee four as well, that they are not able to get to the cases that really require their judgment. In my county in Yolo, the caseworkers report there's a six month backlog for CalFresh determinations that require local review. And if we can remove the easy yeses and allow them to focus on the cases where their judgment is needed, we can get people food faster. So SP1248 is intended to try to create that basic framework at the beginning. I do want to acknowledge the opposition letter because it is an important one and we're trying to navigate this issue in a way that understands that the strict, the specific standards about many of this will be the subject of collective bargaining between the state and its represented employees. And that is absolutely appropriate for those details, for the details to be worked out there in terms of the specific relationships. That said, we also know that in the, in the, in if this bill moves forward today, that we want to have, we want to work together with our labor partners to ensure that we have the appropriate statutory protections as well. Both protections, not, not, not just against layoffs and reductions in hours. That's an issue, but not really. I mean, the state of California, we're not OpenAI. We're not one of these companies that just announces, hey, there's no more work, and so 20% of the folks are laid off. We have budget, collective bargaining and civil service protections against that. But we also want to assure, in addition to protecting against job dislocation or job loss, that it is, that we are working together, that departments are expected to work with their teams, with their employees to design the deployment of these systems, because that's where we've seen they work the best. And of course it's also our obligation to the employees that as we're improving public services that we're doing in a way that activates, unleashes and that allows the folks who work for the state of California to do the job that they came here for. They signed up because they want to help people get health care, because they want to help people get their benefits and their licenses. And this bill is intended to try to do that. So I want to make my absolute commitment that we are not just prepared, we're excited to work with our labor partners if the bill moves forward in order to start to set the framework for how this will work, not just from the user side but also from the employee side as well. And I thank both AFSCME and SEIU and the federation for their willingness to collaborate up to this point. And I just want to share our commitment to continue to do so and put together a proposal that will hopefully get the governor to agree about the management side, but that also respects and honors and uplifts the workers for the State of California. So with that this is an author sponsored bill. We don't have a witness in support today and I want to thank the committee and the Chair.
Thank you for that testimony. I'd like to now invite anyone in room 1200 wishing to speak in support to please come up state your your name, affiliation and your position. Thank you Chair Members Nick Romo on
behalf of the City of San Jose we support in concept look forward to
working with the stakeholders. Thank you Senator thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak now we will move over to any witnesses in opposition to please come up.
Good morning Chair Members Janice o' Malley with AFSCME California representing public employees across California California in regrettable opposition to Senate Bill 1248. We appreciate the author's inclusion of in consideration of certain guardrails for the use of ads. Those are absolutely necessary when it comes to automated decision systems in government. But respectfully, this bill does not establish guardrails first. It authorizes use first and ask questions later. Senate Bill 1248 effectively greenlights the use of ads across state government and licensing and public services while relying on agency discretion, future guidance and internal review processes. This is not the same as clear enforceable guardrails in place before deployment. From a government operations perspective, true guardrails would include consistent statewide standards before systems go live, independent oversight and auditing, and meaningful stakeholder engagement in system design and implementation. We've already seen this pattern. A similar proposal last year moved forward without stakeholder engagement, raising serious concerns among our members. We were told there would be more collaborative approach moving forward, but that has not occurred here. Instead, the bill assumes agencies will get it right on their own while the workforce is left to implement systems they had no role in shaping and to fix problems after the fact. We've seen this in practice. When new systems are rolled out without frontline input, it often leads to errors, backlogs, increased workload, undermining the very efficiency the bill is trying to achieve. So the concern is not with guardrails. We strongly support them. The concern is that this bill defines guardrails as internal agency processes rather than enforceable standards developed with the people who will actually make these systems work. If the legislature is going to move forward in this space, we believe the right approaches engage stakeholders first, establish clear standards first, and then authorize use. This bill reverses that order, and for those reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on Senate Bill 1248.
Thank you for your testimony. We only allot one witness in opposition. Come forward if you wish to speak in opposition, but just state your name, your affiliation and your position only. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Beth Malnowski with SEO California. As was noted by the author, how did he speak with his staff yesterday
afternoon regard to Blair?
Letter is not in yet, but we will be opposing the pill and look
forward to conversations going forward.
Thank you. Thank you.
Good morning, Madam Chair.
Members, Yvonne Fernandez with the California Federation of Labor Unions in opposition.
Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Seeing no interest, we will now bring it back to two members of this committee. We'll start with Senator Padilla. We'll move over to Senator Blake Spear and Senator Lola State. Small little of us.
Thank you very much.
Madam Chair.
Congrats on your inaugural hearing.
Well done.
I want to thank the author for your work. I've seen this bill before, ran an identical bill last session which the governor vetoed that to set ADS procurement standards. And I appreciate the author narrowing this. I just want to put on the record I am sensitive, very sensitive to the concerns of the opposition. I think chief complaint there was really focused around process as much in terms of engagement and input in the, in the legislative sort of development prior to anything else. And that's what I hear and I would, I appreciate you acknowledging that fact and I would encourage you to continue engaging them in a way that might improve that engagement. I, you know, I will be supporting the bill out of committee to let you keep working this bill, obviously reserving the right that I could change that position on the floor. But I think collaboration model is how I roll.
It's.
It's what I believe in on the front end. You and I've talked about this with respect to some other significant pieces of legislation. I think that solves a lot of problems on the front end rather than waiting until the end. And so good bill, right approach, long overdue in terms of the overall framing. I would just encourage that engagement. I appreciate your work. I appreciate your thoughtful narrowing of this bill in a way that makes it perhaps movable. And so with that, I'm happy to help you move it out of committee today and to continue working. I want to encourage you to do the same. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Senator flakespeare. Yes, thank you.
I want to also thank the author for introducing this bill and trying to tackle this problem. I perceive from my constituents in Southern California or Orange county and San Diego county that the frustrations of dealing with the state bureaucracy are enormous and substantial, and we need to try to have our processes be more responsive. So the background information in this, the staff reports, says professionals applying for licenses to work as nurses, teachers or contracts contractors experience similar delays, unable to earn a living while bureaucratic processes grind forward, these administrative backlogs create real hardships where families go without needed support, qualified workers sit idle, and California's economy suffers. The delay also takes a toll on the public servants processing these applications. And I think this is so true. We also have this, particularly with child care providers, which is an early, urgent need in the state, and yet it can take almost a year to get a child care license. And so figuring out how to automate what can be automated and have people use discretion in the places where discretion is needed and warranted, and having the guardrails, I very much agree with that, North Star, and I'm glad that you're tackling it. I wanted to ask the author if you could just address the concerns that were raised by the opposition about not feeling like they're at the table. And then also to my colleague who introduced a similar bill, how is this bill different or how do you see this bill? It's narrower. But what specifically do you think has changed that would make it more likely to make it all the way?
Madam Chair, if I may. All right, thank you. So I would say two things. One is, and as your colleague from San Diego also mentioned, last year we had, or maybe it was the beginning of this year, I introduced a bill or a set of amendments that was in the same basic space, although it applied more broadly to local governments as well. We didn't move the bill in part because our labor partner said, no thanks, we're not, that's too fast, go back and do it next year. So the concern, as Senator Padilla mentioned, is that we didn't handle this. I did not handle this as well as we should have. The last round we caught it, which is why we didn't move the bill at all. But still it was important, particularly on this issue because it just, you know, I know this from my own, as you all, probably all do. I represent a lot of state workers and they are both excited, they believe in this, but they're also scared, like how is it going to work and all of that. So it's absolutely, I completely get it that folks are like, okay, we do need some guardrails and we need a policy around this. In a lot of cases it'll make sense. But they're anxious. So I think that's the reason and that is principally on me for not doing exactly what Senator Padilla said about launching a much longer stakeholder process in advance of that. And so I think that left a, that's left a, you know, bad taste. But we're trying to do it right this time and beginning the full year process with respect to the administrative, with the governor's office. This is a, it is a, it is a challenge because, you know, for the administration, their view is nothing stopping us to do that from doing this however we want to today. And so, you know, so there's no imperative for them to sign anything in this space. So we're trying to find the sweeter spot. Our focus this year on really trying to, you know, kind of say yes to the affirmative, the non adverse decisions, which lines up with where we and the administration have been trying to push a lot of these issues on higher education and medical and others I think will also help. And then the express recognition that some, that these, that the governor does need to come to the table in the collective market process. That's outside the scope of the bill, but both things need to happen at the same time. We need it, we need a framework that protects and advances the interest of the you of the, of the clients and the beneficiaries, but also a set of rails that will, that will protect workers. But that's got to be, that has to be appropriately tuned to the collective marketing process as well. So we don't have a green light from the administration. I don't want to pretend that they've said yes, this one, this version is narrow or tight enough. It may not be. But I think my first priority is to deal with the first part of your question first and try to craft a proposal that will both meet the privacy needs and the needs of the users and also be something that the representatives of the folks that do the work in state government can be behind.
We'll now move over to Senator
thank
you very much Madam Chair, and congratulations on your inaugural chairship today. Appreciate the author bringing this bill and we have to keep bringing and keep bringing and keep bringing and keep bringing these bills because we are in the moment of AI and we are not prepared for it. And I really do think and want to ask you again to address some of the comments that were raised by the opposition because you know, we know who is going to get caught in the grinds. It's going to be not just the workers but the communities that rely on their sales tax, their property tax, their income tax, our whole society. And so I think it's very important that we in this moment, because we are what the moment requires, we are going to have to tackle this issue and we are going to have to figure out how to develop a strategy that puts all of the right stakeholders at the table. I you know, what struck me about the opposition's points were this notion of implementation first and then questions and refinements later. I don't in most scenarios I want to say I do believe it's important to begin in the policy framework with the end in mind that the implementation has to be really critically thought about as we're in the policy process before we move forward. So I would like to for you to address that statement. And where in the process do you see labor unions that represent our state workers being at the table in this process? I know that we have kicked the can, your bill. The can just keeps getting kicked. And the only way we're going to actually move forward and have some progress is if we come to some agreement. And unfortunately we don't have guiding principles. We don't have a master plan on how to really integrate this technology. We are all fighting one bill at a time trying to figure it out, which is a total disservice to the people of California and a waste of our time, quite frankly. I would would like to hear from you. I think you're very thoughtful on many issues and very thoughtful in how you are approaching your policy. And I want to see how you plan to lead in this discussion about where and when do we bring the folks who are most impacted by the speed up of work, the folks who most understand the nuances of the process that know what strategy is to going, going to work or not going to work. The folks who are potentially going to have to transition their classification and responsibilities to address the ways in which we become more mature in how we use these technologies, the folks that may lose their job if the technology gets so smart that it can do more of the functions that are currently done by California, who again, we rely on to sustain our safety net, our programs, both as workers, but also as consumers and as taxpayers. So if you could answer that question, I think it's like the $64,000 question, but it has to be addressed, it has to be taken seriously. It's not about interests and what side. It really is about how we are going to do this. And I think we need a model that works. So I would love to hear your thoughts on that.
Well, I could not agree more in terms of this larger challenge that we're facing. And I'm hopeful that both your committee and the new one that I and several other members sit on as well, that this has to be, you know, at the top of the list. As you say, generally in California society, state government is the, in some ways, you know, if we can't get it right, if we can't figure these questions out at the state level, you know, folks who have constitutional protection, collective bargaining and a supportive government by both the governor and the legislature, then heck, how, you know, how will, how will Tesla and OpenAI and everyone else be held accountable? So part of the, part of my hope through this legislation is to, is to us in our own world, can we figure out among well intentioned, good meaning people both within the administration but also in the workforce, can we figure these issues out when they're when at the table together? So this is an attempt to try to do that. It is putting the legislation, the legislative policy first, as Senator Padilla attempted to do. But it is the case, not the bill itself. But we're already into heavy implementation as, as you know, a couple million people on Medi Cal and hundreds of thousands of folks getting CSU admission we're doing it now. And so in the absence of this bill, there's no other bill that's tackling this issue in state government right now. In the absence of this bill, we will continue to move forward with no framework and will simply be done by individual department directors and others in the administration who are, who have no guardrails whatsoever. So my view is that this is, this is a vehicle to try to get that right internally or righter Maybe not perfect, but righter internally, and that we can then together use what we're doing in state government, learn from that about how we rescue California workers more broadly as this message that changes are hitting us as a result of AI workforce wide.
And to the question about implementation sort of the. The way in which we are. We're doing this. Where in the. In your process, do you see the opposition sort of concerns and questions being raised to do the refinement so that we don't leave it to the administration to just, you know, do what they want?
Yeah, right.
How they want right away. I think just like everybody else, we were getting our election counsel stuff in for this week. But yeah, as soon as. As soon as is. If this bill were to move out of this committee, then we will be convening, folks, both one on one and collectively among the stakeholders to start tackling these issues.
Well, I'm prepared to support this bill leaving committee today, but I cannot commit to supporting this bill in any other on the floor or in any other space if we don't really bring in the workers on the front end versus us having to then pass a bill three years from now on the back end. Because we didn't do the hard work of making sure that we have a bill that we can bring all of the key stakeholders together and help to put it in a framework that can be replicated and other bills that we can build agreement. I know we can do it. I hope that this is an opportunity to see that happen. And I will certainly support and do whatever I can to make sure that those conversations happen.
Thank you, Senator Pierson. Weber Pearson. Sorry.
That's fine.
Thank you, Chair.
So I guess I am a little confused and would like some clarification from you, please, about your bill versus what the opposition's concern is. So the opposition, when giving testimony,
said
that this bill kind of gives a green light and authorizes this. I guess. I guess you were. She was referring to the automated decision system, but it's already. Is it already happening?
It is already happening, yes.
So how is your bill. I mean, I completely understand the desire to have.
And.
And the fact that our workers should have been at the table. Actually, do you mind if I have the opposite? Can the opposition come up to clarify what her concerns are?
I'll give you one minute to come up.
Well, I. Okay, yeah. So if what I read in the bill is that this system has already been deployed, is already being used, there are no guardrails, and therefore it's just kind of rogue out There that this bill, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is actually putting some guardrails, but it's not green lighting the use of this system because it's already being used. So I'm trying to get a better understanding of what your concern is with his particular bill since this is a current system that's being used with absolutely no rules and regulations around it.
Thank you, Senator Weber Pearson. Our concern is that, you know, as Senator Cabaldon said at the front end, that this expressly authorizes the use of ads and the yes ads is being utilized in state agencies. Our concern is that by the legislature essentially green lighting this use of ads without proper input in stakeholdering, that the state agencies could utilize that in a way that surpasses our rights to collectively bargain.
Okay, so the system is already being used now without the legislature saying yes or no? No, it's already being used. And so the opposition is that you don't want any guardrails around a system that is currently being used.
That is not correct.
Okay.
Because it's already being used.
We do want guardrails related to automated decision systems in AI. The problem is that this is. This is an implement first and ask questions later is how we interpret the bill. And again, there has been no proper conversations between the senator and all of the labor stakeholders in this process.
So what you're looking for are conversations around the guardrails because implementation has already occurred.
So you're.
So the conversation should be around these guardrails that he's trying to create. Is that what the concern is?
Yeah, we want to be part of this process. We need to ensure that the system that's being implemented has the workforce in consideration. Having a couple conversations with some folks in local government does not constitute proper stakeholdering.
No, I completely understand that, and I do agree that there should be conversations and, you know, you must include stakeholders. I guess I was just confused by the language of green lighting or giving the authority for something that state agencies currently use because it's already out there. The gate is already open. It's already being, you know, utilize. Like unfortunately, so many things in AI, it's just out there and we're playing catch up to figure out how we can regulate it so that it does good and not, you know, harm individuals or workforce and things like that. So I guess I was a little confused by that because it made it seem to me like this bill was allowing for this system to occur when it's already occurring. So what you really are saying is we just want to be at the conversations. We want to be at the table. We want to be a part of the stakeholder process when creating these guardrails.
Correct.
Thank you. Thank you.
We're going to give Senator Pajero the opportunity to say a few more words when you're ready.
Just to follow up to this, I think productive conversation on the part of my good colleague from other colleague from San Diego. And I think the question for the author just to affirm, I mean, the fact that we're moving legislation now not only deals with the fact that there's an existing deployment by state agencies for state systems and protocols, but it also, as most legislation does, is looks prospectively that the assumption being that there could and will be a continued expanse of this deployment, new applications and use of this technology and procurement technology in these spaces that would have future as yet unrealized harm going forward. Because bills are always about going forward. I just. Do you want to comment on that, I mean, or acknowledge that, at least for the record, that I mean, I think the relevance here of the opposition is that insofar as this will continue into the future, I think their point is want wanting to have quality input into the mechanisms prospectively looking forward. Would you not agree?
I would. The horse is already out of the barn, right. It's been in part for three years now. Three, four, five years now. So we're, we're just this bill is really like, can we, can we run after the horse and try to get the saddle on while it's moving, which is dangerous. It's a dangerous enterprise. So, yes, and it's going to get farther if we don't do anything this year and we try to pick this up again next year. You know, we never, the legislature never expressly authorizes the use of the Internet or spreadsheets or anything else. There's nothing that will ever require this issue to come back if we don't affirmatively take action on it. And so I can't I don't know that we'll find something that will that everybody will get to agreement. Although I appreciate Senator Smaller Cuevas confidence that we can that we have the capacity to if we really try. But we have to try because simply letting it go without any of these guardrails at all around bias and discrimination, around the right to human review and adverse decisions, you know, the other elements are here we can't do. We have to make this work and also make sure that these systems can deliver the services and benefits to Californians starting this next year.
Agree thank you, Senator. Thank you, Madam Chair.
So I'll go first to Senator Valladarez. She hasn't spoken. But then we'll go to Smallwood Cuevas, if that's okay. Okay, thank you. Yeah.
I kind of see this as a reasonable framework of guardrails. Knowing that there's going to ever be evolving, it's going to be an evolving discussion as technology advances. I mean, we've seen how far AI has advanced in the past year.
Right.
What I'm not clear about though is has the opposition offered any amendments to you?
No, not, not, not at this point.
Okay.
Because there's no. From my understanding, there's no specific language to make your bill better at this point. And this is a great starting point. I'll be moving the bill and ask.
And voting aye. Senator Small Aquila.
So I really appreciate the conversation. I just want to add one point and that's, that's what the purpose of collective bargaining, why it is important for us to do what we can to refine the guardrails, to make sure that there's adequate input. Because collective bargaining, it is incredibly difficult when you're looking at wages and benefits, when you're looking at retirement, when you're looking at all of the things that have to get addressed in collective bargaining. To get into the weeds of how a technology works and to get the research and to get parties to agree in those. In that space is not. We should not be legislating in collective bargaining. We should be setting guardrails that are real, that can withstand some level test of time and advancement in the technology to help us get to the next collective bargaining agreement, which is every four years. So that means. Or three years, some five. So to me, why it is important to have the rigorous conversation now. And yes, so many things have left the barn that are impacting our lives. I mean, I had a bill on self checkout. I mean, we're looking 20 years after what are the impacts of self checkout on the consumer, on safety, on all those things. So we know that there is a lot of things that weigh on the workplace. And technology is sort of this added piece that is going to be incredibly difficult for unions to try to negotiate. In collective bargaining, it is important for us to get adequate information from the workforce that helps also create some relevant, I want to say space or breadth within the policy so that these issues can live between these bargaining contracts. I just want to stress that what I hear the workers saying is that these things cannot be all handled in a collective bargaining space. Let's do some of this on the front end. Let's have the conversation now. Let us who are the experts in how this process actually works before technology and post technology so that we are as efficient as possible and also respecting the health and safety and rhythm of the workplace. And also, also let's let collective bargaining do what it's meant to do, which is to really talk about the wages and the benefits and the safety and working conditions, but not in, you know, whether or not this automated system and this particular technical aspect and how it relates to the worker has to be figured out. I think there is room for the policy and there is room for collective bargaining and there should be some, some relationship that can't happen if the workers are not in the discussion on the front end. Because this technology is going to be changing. So much is going to be changing. We've got to be sort of forward thinking about what that looks like and some aspects we can't come up with just through understanding how the technology works or understanding what the end goal is for the agency. It's also in the folks who actually are the means of that production. So I just wanted to add that because I think what I heard is that, you know, this will have an impact on the collective bargaining process, which means they will spend all their time trying to fix this technology versus us having the conversations on the front end. So just want to stress the significance of that stakeholder table and all the pressure that we're putting on you to figure out how to bring these parties together so that we can have a model that can be replicated in other places that allow us to think not just for this particular group of workers and this particular function, but we know AI is being introduced across. And in our sub 4, we see in every aspect, every aspect of agency operation there is some process. So we, it is our responsibility to look at this even with the collective bargaining lens in mind, that we have got to be able to create an environment where this technology works, where it doesn't negatively impact the efficiency of process, where it maintains and actually helps to strengthen the workforce, but also that we can figure out between now and then, you know, what are the processes that we need to think about as the technology changes and what impact that will have as we work between these collective bargaining agreements. So I just, I wanted to just make that point and as another way of saying we really need to see the stakeholder engagement on this and to see ways that we can again move the ball forward and have a model that can be used in other opportunities around this issue.
Thank you. I will turn it over to Senator Weber Pearson who also wants to make another comment.
Thank you. And I'm sorry, Chair, let's hope doing
great here to support you.
I guess I'm still now even more confused because what exactly in this bill would impact the collective bargaining process, which I wholeheartedly support. But help me understand what in this bill would impact the collective bargaining because what I see is just some guardrails. So how is that help?
Yeah.
Thank you. Nothing in the bill does affect collective bargaining. I think the point that the opposition has made is that it should that one of there should also be guardrails with respect to what the impacts are both in the workplace but also the workers engaged in the design, which we have seen over and over again is a major contributors to success. But the bill itself does not in any way implicate collective bargaining directly. There has been, I should note there's been a and one of the reasons I really appreciated Senator Small Cuevas dissertation just now on collective bargaining is that there has been some discussion about should should all of this be happening in, in collective bargaining. And I think even some of our labor friends have said that, but I think that's that the point is that that's also problematic. So there do need to be some state policies that are in that space. The bill doesn't currently address those, but that's what I'm committing to try to work through some of those baseline issues, the foundational issues that collective bargaining can then work on top of.
So when I read your bill, it was very simple, very straightforward in my opinion, because this, as I stated before, system is already being used and we are trying to provide some guardrails, some direction as to when human involvement should occur because as of right now, it's not. When I look at things like collective bargaining, I view that as a time when we're discussing when and where these systems should be used at all. And you know, we definitely don't want it to replace actual, you know, human beings and we don't want jobs to be lost. And I think that that is an extremely important conversation that we should be having and we need to figure out and we need to get on top of because if we don't, then these things will just continue to be implemented on its own. But I didn't really see this bill talking about that process. It was about this is happening, we need to get a handle on it. And so I was just getting confused with conversations about collective bargaining and things like that. Because that should happen as to when and where and why and for how long these systems should be implemented. But they're already currently implemented and we need to get a hold of them before things continue to get worse and people continue to be hurt as a result of no human oversight. So thank you for that clarification.
Anybody else wishing to speak? Senator Wahop, thank you.
So I just want to be very clear. I think that technology is something that a lot of folks cannot fight or kick the can further on. This is an argument that we have in this building all the time. And oftentimes we see a lot of stakeholder groups that just don't want to engage, don't want to have the conversation about technology. I am probably one of the only people both in the Senate and Assembly with a technology background, and I will say this wholeheartedly, is that policy does not move fast enough to catch up with technology. And that is why we are in the space that we are. There is also a lot of stakeholders that have historically not engaged. The tech industry has actually not engaged in California policymaking for many, many years. In fact, I think in the last three years they've started to slowly engage and more so more pronounced this year and last year. With that said, when we are talking about automated decision making or any type of AI or any type of algorithms being created with very little oversight and much more, we have ensured that there are some safeguards when it comes to health care. We have ensured that there are some safeguards when it comes to some of the other areas of interest. I don't think that we have had an opportunity and I know that the Senate has now created a privacy committee that touches to some degree on some of the technologies that we are talking about and the future. My district is very much focused on advanced manufacturing, but very much on AI, machine learning and much more. With that said, I have been very, very clear, at least to folks in my district, that we do have to prioritize the human being first and life in general. So whether we're talking about data centers, whether we're talking about new algorithms or new technology, and much more. So I just want to be very clear, I will support the bill today and have you work on it, as you've stated, on some of the things that you would like, to work with opposition groups. But I will would also like for labor to have a seat at the table to just talk about what their concerns are. And I'm sure you could thread the needle on what we want to see moving forward. But there's a lot of fear with technology. Right. And some of it very much well founded. Some of it, not some of it just because it's a new, you know, tool, let's say, and it's a lot of job security. And so I just want to be able to have the meaningful discussion. I know you will have that. So I will check in as this bill moves along through the year. But I would like to just stress how much people are afraid and they are completely legitimate and we do have to listen to them and also try to figure out how we can thread the needle on these types of issues. So with that, I'm very happy to support the bill for today.
Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Okay, thank you. Yes, I just want to share that I think everyone that spoke on this dais has something to say that that's relevant and truthful. But everyone is right. And in so many ways, we just have to figure out that middle ground. I know this bill attempts to fight that middle ground between technology and making sure that we include our labor friends in the discussion. But AI, I think it was small with Cuevas that said AI is here and we're just not ready for it. And in so many ways, bills like these encourage that dialogue and conversation. And having a framework is critically important with safeguards and, you know, quality discussion. And I want to acknowledge what the opposition said. It is scary to imagine that their jobs are going to disappear. So stakeholder discussions is critically important. Quality discussions. And I just want to share something. You know, it just stuck with me. I've been a teacher for 20 years. 20 years. When I started teaching, it was early 2000s, I believe. I went to a conference and at the time, we have very little technology. And someone said to us, you know, be prepared for the Future, because in 50 years, 80% of the jobs that our students will be doing have not been invented yet. And here we are 20 years later, and, you know, who knew there would be zoom and you know, these cars that drive themselves. And there's so many things that we're doing now that we didn't have before. And so it's growing exponentially. And I always think of what that person said. And we have to figure out how to be prepared. We have to figure out how to be prepared in a responsible way that really does take into consideration the fears and considerations that the opposition stated. And the good news is that this is not the last stop. We have created that privacy committee where the this bill will go next. And so I hope that the conversations do happen. And thank you for acknowledging that perhaps there was not enough stakeholder discussion. And I know that you will work towards that end. And so I'll give you the opportunity to close.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and very much appreciate the extremely robust discussion about this issue. And also, just to restate what you just said, which was, I take full responsibility for all that, for how we got to this point in the messier way. And also, we have to act. We absolutely must. But I wanted to end on a higher note, the note that Senator Blakesburg focused on as well, because nationwide, the automated systems for Medicaid increase successful renewals by 21.6%, overall renewals by 7.7% and procedural denials down by 8.3%. We've seen in California our efforts in the budget to try to increase the share of medi cal eligible Californians who can have their eligibility automatically determined rather than going to the search to prove that they worked enough hours and everything else that's been critical. And we know we can provide services that uplift the Californians that are already entitled to them. So that's the point here is how do we accomplish that while also at the same time making sure that it's not a blank check to go do anything and that we, not just human judgment, isn't just legally mandated, but it is essential. It's an essential part of what government is all about. We are not a government of robots. And that we have to protect Californians against the use of automated systems, to deny and to result in adverse consequences. This bill attempts to try to capture that balance as we go forward. We'll definitely be trying to tackle all, all of these issues. You have my Mike, my commitment to try to accomplish that. But I think we've seen success both in California. But I also want to emphasize we laid off zero eligibility workers. CSU laid off zero admissions staff. As we read, the fear is real because so many companies are reporting, oh, we just cut half our employees because of AI. So of course, my constituents who work for a bunch of state agencies here, they're seeing that and they're worried about it, too. And they should, and they. And that's completely justified. But California state government should be a sandbox for how to get this right, how to do it right, deliver the best services and benefits for our people while also not just protecting our workers, but lifting up, uplifting them to achieve for the very reason that they chose to devote their careers to public service. And with that, I asked for an I vote. Thank you so much.
Thank you for for that president presentation. The bill SB 1248 has been moved by Vice Chair Valladares. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
This is file item 5. SB 1248, motion is due passed to privacy committee. Rubio.
Aye.
Rubio I. Valderas. Valladeris. Aye. Alvarado, Gill.
Aye.
Alvarado, Gill. Aye. Archuleta. Ashby. Blakespear. Aye. Blakespeare. Aye. Cervantes. Dally. Sally I. Hurtado. Ochoa. Bogue. Ochoa. Bogue. I. Padilla. Padilla I. Richardson. Richardson I. Smallwood. Cuevas.
Small.
Cuevas I. Wahab. Wahab I. Weber. Pearson. Weber. Pearson. I hold that open.
We're going to hold that.
We have 12.
We have 12 votes. We're going to hold that open until we have our missing members and we are not done. We have one more to go with Senator Cabald in SB 1273. I'd like to invite your witnesses to join us up front. And when you're ready, you may proceed.
Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. SB 1273 deals with the use of short form videos for instructional or educational events that are being held at wineries. I'm going to do the presentation in short form also. This is a sort of a relic of some of our advertising rules. This is. But short form videos on T TikTok and Instagram elsewhere are a primary way in which adults identify products and places which to access. Current law prevents the wine industry from using them. With all the headwinds that the wine industry is facing, this is a very, very modest, small improvement in order to assure that they can reach the market. This is not the advertisement of wine itself. It is for events that are occurring in the vineyards and at wine. So with that, I'd ask for an I vote and like to introduce on behalf of the sponsor of the Napa Valley Vintners, Tim Lynch.
Welcome. Tim, when you're ready, you may proceed.
Hi, good morning, Madam Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to present Tim lynch on behalf of the Napa valley vintners. The 550 vintner members in the Napa Valley. The senator got it exactly right. This is a very modest improvement to legislation that was passed back in 2018-19 and 17. Simply recognizes that our consumers interact in a very different way over social media today than they did back then. And so this bill simply allows the use of short form videos in advertising for instructional events that we may do
at a retail site, for example, and
allows vintners to present themselves in an
authentic way and consumers to meet us where we are. So with that we ask for your I vote.
Thank you. I'd like to invite you, anyone here in this room, if you want to come up and testify on behalf of this bill. I'm sorry, you please state your name, your affiliation and your position only. Thank you.
Michael Miller, California association of Wine Grape Growers. We're in support. Thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in support? We will now move over to those wishing to speak in opposition. No one in this room. We will now bring it back to our members on this D. Anyone wishing
to speak, move the bill.
I will turn it over to Alvarado Gill wishing to speak. Great. Thank you. I just wanted to make a few
comments to our author. Senator Capaldon, thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. I have been kind of a strong advocate for the wine industry since year one of coming to Sacramento and was very delighted to find that we had a select committee on wine. And I will say that the work that Senator Cavaldon has done on these issues in the last year have by far been the best impact on the wine industry. I think California wine is part of the history, the rich agricultural diversity of California. And, you know, short of the wine industry issues not being part of the ag committee, but us having a very select committee to do that, I think we have some very large wins. And I want to thank the author for leading us in those wins.
We have a lot more work to do, and this is the least that
we can do is to help create avenues where you can compete with other ag products here in California and continue to level up the wine industry. So thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward and thank you for continuing to not give up on California wines.
Anybody else wishing to speak? Well, thank you. I just want to say thank you as well for creating the select committee on such an important issue. And I happen to belong to it as well. And I just think that our businesses are struggling. So I think this is, as you stated, a modest change that will absolutely help our small businesses. But, you know, I'm pleased also just in general that, you know, the current authority still has safeguards around how to responsibly drink. And so I always appreciate that. With that, would you like to close, Madam Chair?
Thank you. And thanks to Senator Alvarado Gil for her comments as well. And as the chair of the new private Technology Committee, would please ask that if you see one of these short term videos for a second time while you're scrolling, you've been on too long, please stop. But this is an important way to reach the market and would respectfully ask for an I vote.
Thank you. This. This bill has been moved by Alvarado Gill. So SB 1273, motion is due pass to Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.
Rubio.
Aye.
Rubio, aye. Valladeris, Aye. Valladeris, aye. Alvarado, Gill. Aye. Alvarado, Gill, aye. Archuleta.
Aye.
Archuletta. Aye. Ashby. Blakespeare. Aye. Blakespeare, Aye. Cervantes. Dali. Dali, aye. Hurtado. Ochoa. Bogue. Aye. Ochoa, Bogue. I. Padilla. Kavia. Aye. Richardson. Aye. Richardson, aye. Smallwood, Cuevas.
Aye.
Smallwood, Cuevas. Aye. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber, Pearson. Aye. Weber, Pearson, Aye.
Hold it open. We will hold the roll open for those that are absent. And finally, you're free to go today, but we would like to invite Senator McNerney, who's in the audience. Oh, oh, wait. We have Mr. Laird, who wasn't here earlier today. So my apology. So we will now move over to our first item that we skipped earlier today. SV917 by Senator Laird. I'd like to invite your witnesses to join us in the front. Welcome, Senator Laird. When you ready, you may proceed.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Members, I'd like to begin by accepting the committee amendments and thanking the chair and the committee staff for working on this bill. Senate Bill 917 supports California's wine businesses at a time when the industry is facing an economic downturn and declining sales. California's wine industry struggles. Last year marked the lightest California wine harvest in 20 years, down 23% from the previous year. Currently, only wine made with estate grown grapes is allowed to be sold at farmers markets, meaning a winery must use grapes that are grown on its own land. A significant percentage of family owned wineries are small wineries that do not grow their own grapes, so this prohibition prohibits them from selling wine at farmers markets. This bill removes the estate grown requirement to allow family winemakers and other excluded wineries to participate in farmers markets. Opening more pathways will help given the current situation. The American amendments that I accepted from the committee limit this to three small wineries per farmers market. The bill also modernizes and increases safeguards by requiring Responsible Beverage Service training for the licensee or designation staff member on site during the instructional training. So with me today in support is John Phillips on behalf of the family winemakers of California. And here to answer questions is Michael Miller from the California association of Wine Growers. At the appropriate time, I would respectfully request an iPhone.
Thank you. I'll turn it over to your witness in support. Michael Miller, California association of Wine Grape Growers. You may proceed. Absolutely.
Thank you.
Good morning Chair Rubio and members of the Senate Governmental Organization Committee. My name is John Phillips and I'm the owner and winemaker of Inspiration Vineyards and Winery in Santa Rosa. I'm also an active member of Family Winemakers of California. I've been in business since 2002 and at the beginning I owned both a Chardonnay and Zinfandel vineyard in the Russian River Valley. To produce a full portfolio of wines, I supplemented what I grew with grapes I purchased from other Sonoma county independently owned grape farmers, none of which had their own wineries. When FWC sponsored the legislation that helped to create the Type 79 permit, I jumped at the chance to sell my wines locally in the Santa Rosa's farmers market. I loved the experience, but also found that there were two limiting restrictions. First, even though I was producing eight different wines from locally grown grapes, I could only sample and sell my two estate grown wines. And notably today, because I no longer own a vineyard, I'm unable to qualify for this permit. Second, while the market manager could allow multiple wineries to have a space to sell their wines, only one winery could pour samples at a time, providing wine those opportunities for that education, which in turn discourages winery participation at each farmers market. Since the Type 79 permit was established, the Type 84 permit was created to support small breweries likely learning from the wine industry. Their permit type doesn't face the same estate grown requirements and gives the market manager the authority to approve who and how many producers can participate. At a time when the entire wine industry industry is facing declining sales, here's an easy opportunity to create additional local marketing and direct to consumer sales channels that will not only benefit small wineries like my own, but grape growers who we rely on will also be supported. Thank you for your time. I respectfully ask for your I vote on Senate Bill 917 and I also would be available to answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you for that testimony. You may proceed, sir.
Thank you. Chair Members Michael Miller with California association of Wine Grape Growers want to thank the author for his leadership in carrying the bill and the committee for its thoughtful consideration and thorough analysis. We appreciate that we very much align ourselves with John's comments entirely. We think it's very important for local wineries, local growers, to connect with local consumers. The farmers markets allow us to do that in part, and we very much appreciate that that nexus that is created there, you know, Sacramento. We're a Farm to Fork place. We like Farm to Fork. We like buying to Glass. There's a local restaurant in town where you go, and it's all about Farm to Fork. But you look at the wine list, 30 pages long, it's mostly imports and maybe a small percentage of California, and about 5 or 6 are from actually the area. So for us, it's really important to create that connection, and this bill helps to do that. We thank the author and the committee. Thank you very much.
Thank you. I would like to invite anyone in the audience wishing to come and speak in support of this bill to come up to the microphone. Seeing no interest, I'd like to invite now, anyone speaking in opposition to come up. Seeing no interest, I'll bring it back to our committee members. Anyone wishing to speak. But we'll start with Senator Padilla. Okay. Senator. I'm sorry. Senator Archuleta, move the bill. Anybody else wishing to speak? Well, thank you for that testimony for the bill. It's clearly important that we try to support small businesses in any way we can. And so I'm glad this will help. And also removing, you know, some of the language that require. Let's see here, bottles, wine from grapes entirely grown by the wine grower also would help expedite and help small businesses. And with that, I will turn it over to you to close.
I appreciate the comments in the motion. I want to thank the witnesses. I think this is a good bill in a difficult time, and I respectfully ask for an item.
Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.
SB917, motion is due pass, as amended, to Appropriations Committee. Rubio, I. Rubio, I. Valderis. Valderis, I. Alvarado. Gill. Alvarado, I. Archuleta. Archuleta. Aye. Ashby. Blake. Blakespeare I. Cervantes. Cervantes, I. Dally. Dali, I. Hurtado. Ochoa. Bogue. Ochoa. Bogue, I. Padilla. Padilla, I. Richardson. Richardson, I. Smallwood. Cuevas.
Small.
Cuevas, I. Wahab. Wahab I. Weber. Pearson. Weber. Pearson.
I will hold that open. Thank you. We'll hold the roll open for absent members. We will now move over to our last bill of the day. Oh, wait. Yeah, we do have two more. Sorry, we have a member up here on the dais, but we'll go over to Mr. McNerney. SB 1240, please join us. And anyone wishing to speak in support, in opposition, please make your way up to the front. Hello, Mr. McNerney. When you're ready, you may proceed.
Good morning, Chair Rubio. Vice Chair Valaderis and distinguished members of the committee, I'm pleased to present SB 1240 which would establish the Office of Nonprofit Empowerment, also known as one or one. I'll start by accepting the committee amendments and thank the committee for working with my staff. Everyone has nonprofits in their districts, so I'll just show you the committee this list of nonprofits that have already become supporters of this bill. But not everyone realizes how effective nonprofits are in servicing the community and also the enormous impact they have on the broader economy. Nonprofits are the largest employer by wage are the third excuse me, the third largest employer by wage among key industries in California and 1 in every 14 Californians jobs is with a nonprofit. So this is a significant portion of our economy. However, nonprofits do face significant hurdles in navigating California's state government. Procurement and grant making processes are needlessly complex and payments for services are often delayed, which is very hurtful to the many employees that nonprofits take on. The nonpartisan Little Hoover Commission published a report this year examining these challenges and made several recommendations, one of which is creating a non profit liaison, which is what SB 240 would establish. With me today I have two witnesses. In support is Jennifer Fehring from the California association of Nonprofits and Jillian Keegan from the California Community Action Partnership association. And I'll turn it over to Jennifer.
Thank you Senator and good morning Chair Rubio and members. I'm Jennifer Fearing, the Sacramento advocate for the California association of Nonprofits and we are 10,000 members organization statewide policy alliance. We're proud to sponsor SB 1240 and as the Senator mentioned, we have already been joined by 300 nonprofits from across the state calling for the creation of the Office of Nonprofit Empowerment which speaks to both the scale of our sector and the need for this office. Nonprofits diverse in size, geography, service and mission are united by a single urgent a more efficient, functional and collaborative partnership with the state. And it's time to institutionalize that with one providing the structure necessary to ensure California's nonprofits can continue. Delivering essential services to our communities with fewer barriers is not a nice to have, but a needed pathway to supporting and bolstering one of the state's leading economic engines. Nonprofits in California manage more than $766 billion in assets and we contribute 15% of California's GSP where they the state's primary frontline partner. But as the Senator mentioned, the state's grant and contracting systems are a maze of red tape, chronic late payments and inconsistent, duplicative and burdensome processes. They don't just cost nonprofits, but also hurts the single mother waiting for child care or the senior needing a meal for too long. We've been told that the complexity of the estate is an excuse, but it results in inequity. The current system favors well funded organizations and shuts out the smaller, especially bipoc and community led organizations that are among the most trusted. SB 1250 would fix this by creating one. And just like the state has Go Biz to help businesses succeed, nonprofits need a small but nimble and centralized home and state government to help all nonprofits succeed. By institutionalizing the goal of numerous bills that this committee has passed over the last several years as part of California's NonProfit Equity Initiative, one can help level the playing field. So we are very excited by this bill and grateful to Senator McNerney for his leadership and we urge your yes vote today.
Thank you. Thank you. Anyone wishing to speak in the audience and support, please come up. State your name.
Well, we have.
Oh, I'm so sorry. See, that's why I have good people next to me. You may proceed. My apologies.
Good morning Chair Rubio and members of the committee. My name is Jillian Keegan and I'm here representing the California Community Action Partnership association, also known as Calcapa. We strongly support SB 1240 across California. Our network of nonprofits and agencies have administered over $1.4 billion in resources annually to create opportunities for low income families. Whether it's providing energy assistance, food security or job training, the state depends on members like ours to deliver vital services. The Nonprofit sector employs 1.5 Californians, but we are often treated as an off as an afterthought in state bureaucracy. Despite being essential partners, nonprofits face significant red tape and hurdles navigating California's state government. There are over 230 different state agencies and almost all of them have different rules and processes for how they partner with nonprofits. There's no voice for representing our interests to navigate this maze. This isn't just a headache, it's a barrier to service. Such complexity leads to serious payment delays that put a financial strain on our organizations, complex paperwork and insufficient coverage for the full cost of services we provide, and barriers for smaller groups, especially those led by people of color or located in rural areas. SB 1240 creates the Office of Nonprofit Empowerment, or 1. Just as the private sector has a dedicated home in the state government through Go Biz. It is time the nonprofit sector had a home too. One would be a central hub for nonprofits. Why doesn't the State also prioritize nonprofits. When millions of Californians depend on us, nonprofits do the work that the private sector overlooks and the public sector cannot meet alone, often taking on financial risk for the state. By fronting the cost of critical services while waiting for reimbursement, creating one ensures the state treats this partnership with the strategic importance it deserves. By replacing our current fragmented landscape with a centralized, robust infrastructure, California can streamline service delivery and finally provide the structural support our nonprofit sector requires to thrive. Establishing this office is a modest investment that will make state resources more efficient and effective. Nonprofits are the true backbone of our social safety net. And so for the millions of Californians that depend on our services, we urge you to support SB 1240. Thank you to the committee and to the author for this bill.
Thank you for your test testimony. Now I'd like to invite those wishing to speak in Support and room 1200 to come up. Please state your name, your affiliation, and your position only. Thank you. Hello. My name is Vanessa Von Rostro on behalf of the restored Delta in support. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Divya Shiv with the California Lions of
Child and Family Services in support.
Thank you.
Good morning.
Alfredo Redondo on behalf of Tree people in support.
Thank you. Good morning. Osama Muqaddam with the California chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations and support. Thank you.
Good morning.
Megan Varvay with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of the Cameo Network and support. Thank you. Good morning, committee members.
Wilfredo Cruz Jr. CEO of Community Resource
Project here in Sacramento in strong support of SB 1240. And I voice MeToo support on behalf of nearly 50 nonprofits, including the San Diego Humane Society, Long Beach Gives Tahoe Youth and Family Services, and the Boys and Girls Club. Thank you.
Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak now? I'd like to invite any opposition to join us. Anyone in the audience wishing to speak in opposition? Okay. Seeing no interest, I'll turn it over to our Dyess. Let's start with Senator Richardson. Yes.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I, first of all, want to commend the author. You're absolutely right. There are so many nonprofits that are doing the work where, frankly, many of our agencies are falling short, and any support that we can provide to help them be even more effective. I think the nonprofits have a unique way of reaching directly into the community, not getting caught up into the. You know, I mean, we certainly have guidelines that we need to follow, but it just seems that the nonprofits seem to have a very clear objective of what the mission is who needs the help, how to determine that and then to, in fact, get them the help. So not only with the assistance of what you're proposing, but any way that we can help them to get more resources because they're directly reaching the people in our communities are very important. So I commend you and look forward to supporting the bill.
Anyone else wishing to speak? Vice Chair Valladares.
Well, first of all, I want to thank the author and the sponsors for this important bill. I've spent the majority of my professional career in the nonprofit sector. I've operated very large nonprofits with multimillion dollar budgets. Where I had hr, I had, you know, access to legal and it. And then I've operated very small nonprofits. Where I was hr, I was, you know, it. I was unplugging tiny toilets sometimes as a janitor. I understand the difference in access to resources that many smaller nonprofits have, and
I also see the work that they're
doing in the community. I do have a question because, again, my small, big nonprofits, I've worked in them.
Will your.
Will faith based nonprofits be included in this oversight. To the author?
Yes.
Okay. Okay.
So happy to support the bill. Would move the bill when it is appropriate, and would love to be a co author if you'd have me.
Thank you.
Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak? Okay. Seeing none. Thank you, Senator McNerney, for this presentation. And I think, you know, there's value in having community organizations, nonprofits in our. In our communities. I think it's a direct line to the needs of our communities. And with that, would you like to close?
Well, again, I thank the committee. I thank Senator Richardson and Senator Valadares for your comments and support. I ask for an I vote.
Thank you.
Would anybody wishing to move the bill. Valladdy's. Move the bill. So let's see. And the motion is due pass as amended, to Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.
Rubio.
Aye.
Rubio I. Valadares.
Aye.
Valladares. Aye. Alvarado. Gill. Archuleta.
Aye.
Archuleta. Aye. Ashby. Blakespeare.
Aye.
Blakespeare. Aye. Cervantes. Cervantes. Aye. Dali. Dali. Aye. Hurdado. Hurtado. Aye. Ochoa.
Bogue.
Aye. Ochoa. Bogue. Aye. Padilla. Padilla. I. Richardson. Richardson. I. Smallwood. Cuevas. Smallwood. Cuevas. I. Wahab. Wahab I. Weber. Pearson. Weber. Pearson. Aye.
So that's 14.
It's out. Oh. Alvarado.
Gill.
Before we close this item on SB 1240, how would you like to vote?
Aye.
Alvarado.
Gill.
Aye.
So that's 14.
0. 14 to 0. This bill is out. Thank you so much for. For your presentation. So now I believe we have a full house. So I will start.
We have one more.
Oh, I'm sorry, but before we. I was gonna say because we have a full house here. Like, why don't we just lift the car and I think they can stay.
Okay.
Yeah, go ahead. Why don't we have Mr. Archuleta. SV920. So we're inviting Ms. Rachuleta to present SB920, the gambling contract Act. I would like to invite those wishing to speak in support in opposition to join us. Senator, when you're ready, you may begin.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to present my bill and Senate Bill 920, the card room fee transparency bill. And good morning to each and every one of you. Thank you. Once again, Madam Chair and members, I am here to present Senate Bill 920, a good governance bill based on a 2018 audit report of the Gambling Control Fund. Senate Bill 920 would require the gambling commission upon the adoption or adjustment of a fee that is deposited into the Gambling Control Fund to maintain a regulation regulation that states the authorized purpose and use of the fee, including the program, activities funded and the categories of the costs covered. This provision is an important step towards ensuring that all fees collected under the Government Control act are clearly tied to their specified regulatory purposes and that stakeholders, including licensees, public officials and the public, can readily understand how fee revenues are used to support the oversight responsibilities of the California Gambling Control Commission and the Department of Justice. SB920 enhances transparency, accountability and fiscal integrity in the implementation of regulatory fees under the California Gambling Control act by requiring published statements of purpose and cost basis summaries. Senate Bill 920 advances good governance practice that promotes greater transparency in fee adoption expenditure and protects the integrity of regulatory funding mechanisms. This bill has no opposition. With me today to testify in support are Brian Lundgren and Jarrett Bolinian. On behalf of the sponsors committees for the California Card Rooms, I respectfully ask for your. I vote.
Gentlemen, you may proceed when you're right.
Madam Chair and members.
Brian Lundgren on behalf of the the communities for California Card Rooms, which is an alliance of over 45 card clubs and civic organizations. We request passage of this legislation which will enhance transparency, accountability and fiscal integrity in the implementation of the regulatory rules under the California gambling control act. SB920 advances good governance practices that promote greater transparency and free adoption and protects the integrity of of the regulatory funding mechanism and with respect, we ask for your consideration and support of this bill.
Thank you. Before the committee.
So we're good?
Okay.
Good morning, Madam Chair.
Madam Vice Chair.
Definitely a new look committee this year. Congratulations to you all. Jared Blanya on behalf of Lucky Chances Casino in strong support of this bill. Tying up one last loose end from a 2019 audit brought by Rob Bond and David Chu about the Gambling Control Fund. As you know, we stated just kind of puts necessarily checks and balances in future fee regulations.
Respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you. Thank you. We will now move over to anyone in this room wishing to speak in support. Please come up to the microphone. Seeing no interest, we will now move over to opposition. Anyone wishing to speak. Seeing no interest, we will now bring it back to committee members. Anyone wishing to speak. Okay. We have Senator Padilla that moved the bill. Just first want to thank the author for taking the amendments. I know as already stated, it was in response to a 2019 state audit that found that some alignment needed to happen. And so it is good governance. And thank you for taking the amendments that just changed the confusing language. And with that, would you like to close?
I respectfully. After your I vote.
Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.
SB920 motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Rubio.
Aye.
Rubio. I Validaris. Valladeras. Aye. Alvarado, Gill. Alvarado. Gill. I. Archuleta. Archuleta. I. Ashby. Blakespear. Blakespear. I. Cervantes. Cervantes. I. Dally. Dally. I Hurtado. Hurtado. I. Ochoa. Bo. Ochobog. I. Padilla. Padilla. I. Richardson. Richardson. I. Smallwood. Cuevas.
Smallwood.
Cuevas. I. Wahab. Wahab. I. Weber. Pearson. Weber. Pearson. I.
14. 0. Out. This bill has 140 votes. It's out. Thank you so much. Now that we have again a full house, we were going to lift the call on on the bills, but we're going to start first with consent. Calendar Items. File item 7. SV 1204. File item 9. SB 1340 by Richardson. Item 10. SB 1235. Jail Committee. Item 11. SB 1236.
Go.
Madam Secretary, please call a room.
Absent members. Archuleta. This is consent. Calendar. Calendar. Absent members. Archuleta. Archuleta. I. Ashby. Blakespeare. Blake. Spare. I. Cervantes. Cervantes. I. Hurtado. Hurtado. I. Ochoa. Bogue. This is consent. Calendar.
Consent.
Ochoa. Bogue. Aye. Wahab. Wahab. Ayes. 14. Oh, that's out.
14 0. That bill is out. We will now move over to item one at SB9.17 by Senator Lehrer. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Opposite members Ashby. Hurtado. Hurtado. Aye. That's 14 zero out.
We will now move over to file item number three. SB 1044 by Senator Reyes. Madam Secretary, please file the roll.
Absent members Alvarado. Gill.
Aye.
Alvarado. Gill. Aye. Ashby. Hurtado. Aye. Hurtado. Aye. Ochoa.
Bo.
Ochoa. Bogue. Aye. Wahab. Wahab. Aye. That's 14 oh.
That's out.
That bill has 14 oh votes. That bill is out. We will now move over to item number four. SB 1114 by Senator Cabaldon. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Absent member is Alvarado Gill. Ashby. Dally. Hurtado. Aye. Hurtado. Aye. Ochoa. Bogue. Wahab. Wahab. Aye. That's 11 0.
Let's count.
This bill has 110 votes. This bill is out. We will now move over to File item number five. SV 1248 by Senator Cabolton. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Absent members Archuleta. Ashby. Cervantes. Cervantes. Aye. Hurtado. Hurtado. Aye. That's 13.
This bill has 13 votes to zero. That bill is out. We will now move over to follow item number six. SB 1273 by Senator Cabaldon. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Absent members Ashby. Cervantes. Cervantes. I. Hurtado. Hurtado. Aye. It's 14 0. It's out.
This bill has 420 votes. This bill is out. Next, we'll move over to File item number 12. AB 2156 by Senator Limon and assembly member Rivas. Please call the roll.
Absent members Alvarado. Gill. Aye. Alvarado. Gill. Aye. Ashby. Blakespeare. Blakespeare. Aye. Cervantes. Cervantes. Aye. Hurtado. Hurtado. I. Ochoa. Bogue. Ochoa. Bogue. Aye. Wahab. Wahab. Aye.
That's 14 0.
That bill is out. 14 0. And I think this concludes the items on this bill hearing of go. So thank you, everyone, for coming today, and this meeting is adjourned. Have a good day.