Assembly Higher Education Committee

It's.

Thank you Mr.

I'm actually presenting AB 1534 first Ms. Irwin's bill.

All right.

Welcome.

eight and 15 weeks.

Thank you so much, Mr. Aaron. So we're going to pause for a moment and we're going to establish quorum. Madam Secretary, roll call please.

Here.

Here.

Jeff Gonzalez.

Jackson.

Maruchi.

Patel?

Thank you so much.

Item number four, 1636.

So we have item number four, recommended consent due pass as amended to appropriations committee. And item number seven also do pass to the Assembly Education Committee. Fong.

Fong. Aye. DeMaio.

DeMayo. Aye. Berner. Jeff. Gonzalez.

Gonzalez, Aye. Jackson.

Jackson, Aye. Marisucci.

Marasucci I. Patel.

Patel, Aye. Kalra. Sharp Collins. Tangipa.

Welcome.

Thank you so much.

Jesse and Andreas on behalf of the

Stephanie Clark on behalf of Young Invincible is happy to support. Thank you. My name is Taylor Terrace from Young Invincibles and I support thank you so much. Are there witnesses in the opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room?

Thank you, colleagues. Any questions or comments? Vice Chair DeMaio?

Happy to take this one for us. When it comes to the cap, it's going to be challenging for students to know which programs are fairly priced and which are overcharging with limited wage growth on the back end.

So the goal of this safeguard is to discourage institutions from raising prices just because. Because now there are new federal dollars funding flowing into these programs. Additionally, again, to the point, we know that the students who are enrolling in these programs and receiving a pell cannot access other forms of financial aid, including federal loans. So the only results, the only way they can bridge that cost is private loans. So we're trying to get at something that federal conversations during negotiated rulemaking already got at that we want to keep the cost low. They did that through the value added earnings calculation. This bill is just doing that in a more direct way so that the return of investment is there and they're not kind of starting in a deeper hole.

From our experience, we are working with Maryland on something similar to this. Other states have other administrative bodies working on this process, but I'm not 100% sure on the cap.

I

Thank you. Any further questions or comments? Yes, someone Mercer, followed by someone Gonzalez.

Yes. There's nothing that would ban them outright.

All right.

Thank you.

I have a motion. Do we have a Second? Second by Dr. Patel.

Samar Gonzalez.

My understanding is that Ms. Irwin's office is willing to continue conversations with stakeholders on this issue.

If you have any suggestions, we'd be happy to work with you.

Right.

Well, I think that without being able to speak entirely for Ms. Irwin. I will say that we always try to operate with positive intent and can't make any guarantees about specific amendments. But I can guarantee that the author's office is always willing to sit down with anyone who would like to provide input.

thank you so much.

On behalf we ask for your I vote.

Short and sweet. Madam Secretary. Roll call, please. Actually, I'm sorry. Thank you so much to some errands for presenting this semester. On behalf of Summer Irwin. This is a tremendous unique opportunity for us to ensure that Workforce Pell regulations are still being finalized, that our state is prepared and equipped to ensure that our students can benefit from workforce Pell come July 1, 2026. The workforce Pell has opportunity and potential to assist many of our students and allow for necessary growth in the workforce. And grateful to Ms. Irwin and the committee for as they continue to work with our committee as this bill moves through the legislative process and with that, look forward to supporting the bill today. Madam Secretary. Roll call, please.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I am here today to present my bill AB 1831 to set reasonable parameters on the compensation of administrators, managers and other non representative employees in the California State University system. Specifically, it caps compensation of those employees at 125% of the governor's salary, prevents salary increases during any fiscal year student tuition is raised, and repeals the November 2025 resolution authorizing significant pay raises for CSU executives. In November of 2025, the CSU Board of Trustees approved a resolution that paved the way for significant salary increases for top executives ranging from 5 to 20%, in addition to many other bonuses. This occurred in the immediate aftermath of a period in which the CSU denied promised salary step increases to CSU workers citing budget conditions. In addition, the CSU implemented a policy raising tuition annually at all campuses. By 2028-2029, academic year tuition will be 30% higher than it was in 2023. The state of California has provided the CSU budget increases nearly every single year for for the past decade between 100 million and $400 million each year, increasing state support by nearly $2 billion annually. Ongoing the CSU Board of Trustees has proven that they are not able to adequately manage their finances and appropriately prioritize the core mission to support California student access to affordable, quality higher education. AB 1831 is necessary to nudge the Board of Trustees to refocus their efforts on student access and affordability. I appreciate the concerns brought up forward by this committee and the committee consultants and the committee members. I am committed to working on this

I have spoken to most of my colleagues who are here today and shared with you how much I deeply care about student affordability. I am committed, based on those conversations, to amend this bill to address the issues that we discussed specifically on. I commit to amend this bill to remove provisions requiring retroactive repeal of the November 2025 resolution, tightening definitions on compensation to reflect that the bill is referring to base salary and narrowing the scope to those in managerial, executive or administrative

With me today to provide testimony is Margarita Berta Avila, the president of the California Faculty association, and Michael Lee Chang,

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Fong and members of the Committee. I also want to thank Assemblymember Ahrens for authoring this bill. As shared My name is Margarita Berta Avila. I am President of the California Faculty Association, a union of 29,000 professors, lecturers, librarians, counselors and coaches who teach and provide services to the California State university system of 485,000 students in all campuses. CFA is a sponsor of AB 1831, which would limit executive compensation to 125% of the California governor's salary, which is 307,411 a year, and prohibit executive salary increases in years when student tuition increases and would undo the 2025 executive compensation increases by 2027. I'm outraged. Our union members are outraged. Assemblymember Aaron shares this outrage and we think you should be outraged too. In 2024, Chancellor Garcia and the CSU BoT adopted a five year tuition increase plan increasing tuition annually by 6% for all students. And in 2025, in a year when the state flat funded the CSU and the chancellor. And the BoT adopted an executive compensation policy where campus presidents received up to 20% compensation increase. They adopted a compensation policy that removed a 10% compensation increase cap. To add insult to injury, we have faculty that are food and housing insecure. I have faculty at Cal State LA that are living out of their cars. And the BOT is offering a one time bonus of 3% to most union employees. We talk about the growing gap between the rich and the poor. We are literally watching this happen. In the CSU, the lowest paid full time lecturer makes just over 66,000 a year. But most lecturers are not full time and make less than half that amount. In comparison, the lowest paid CSU campus president makes 370,000 a year. The highest paid president makes 611,203 a year. And the CSU's chancellor base pay is 750,000. And all three usually receiving a housing allowance and or car allowance. On top of that base pay, some presidents are eligible to receive up to 15% additional pay for at risk performance. Yes, there is a CSU board that makes decisions for the csu. However, the legislature serves at the ultimate accountability for the csu. If you agree with students, with staff and faculty that their executive compensation increases are outrageous, then we need you to do something about it. Send a strong message to CSU that they should fund the classroom and and not the boardroom. We urge you to vote Aye on AB 1831.

Welcome.

Thank you so much.

Hello, my name is Sofia Calderon.

I represent CFA SQE Chapter at San Jose State.

Hello, everybody.

Please. Thank you.

Michel Ramo Pelissia professor at Cal State San Marcos. And on behalf of the California Faculty Association, I'm strongly support of this bill.

Good afternoon. I'm Christina Seisel, Associate Faculty of Communications at California State University, Fullerton.

California Faculty association at Fullerton.

Thank you.

professor at Cal State Fullerton and I'm the vice president of CFA on our campus.

aye on this bill.

Hi, my name is Holly Claussen. I'm an Open Educational Resources librarian and Affordable Learning Solutions coordinator at Cal State Dominguez Hills and a member of cfa and I also strongly urge your. I vote. Thank you.

Connor Gusman on behalf of Teamsters California

all 22 CSU campuses.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair.

Thank you.

for the California Faculty Association.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay,

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Greg Sachs and I serve as the Vice Chancellor for External Relations and communications at the CSU Office of the Chancellor here in respectful opposition to AB 1831. At a time of federal chaos, budget volatility, heightened budget, heightened public scrutiny, our university leaders are guiding institutions that operate like small cities, serving tens of thousands of students and employees every single day. They manage crises, protect campus safety, steward public resources, manage research enterprises, ensure academic quality and are deeply, deeply engaged in their communities. Our leaders are also and the CSU are making major advancements in enrollment and student success while keeping the CSU accessible and affordable. 54% of all of our students don't pay any tuition at all. This work is dependent on dynamic and innovative staff and faculty which we care deeply about, as well as of course, leaders who center their work on improving student outcomes. For of course, all of our students. And these are 24 hour roles in this environment, experience leadership is not a luxury. It is critical to ensuring stability for students and the communities we serve. Over the last two years. Nearly 50% of our long serving CSU presidents have retired. As the Board sought new presidents, it became clear that our compensation structures and policies were not in line with other public university systems across the country. An independent study found that the salaries of all 22 presidents were below were below market when compared to peers. Therefore, after much deliberation and consideration, the Board acted to move compensation towards the market medium, not above the market medium. Our concern with AB 1831 is that it would place the CSU at a clear and lasting disadvantage in recruiting and retaining the leadership necessary to serve our students. As an example, 60% of community college district presidents and all the University of California presidents make more than the salary cap proposed in this bill. By imposing rigid statutory salary caps and restrictions that do not apply to the other states. To the other states, other public universities, community colleges and K12 systems, this bill creates an uneven playing field that weakens the CSU's competitiveness to seek out and retain leaders. This proposal will accelerate presidential and staff turnover and constrain recruitment. The result will not be cost savings, but lost institutional momentum and potential replacement costs that will seriously impede student success. For these reasons, the CSU respectfully urges a no vote on 1831. Adrian Gonzalez will share a bit more about.

Good afternoon.

Thank you. Good afternoon Chair Members. I'm Adriana Gomez with Legislative Advocate with the CSU Office of the Chancellor. While much of the discussion has focus on executive compensation presidents, I'd like to add that this bill goes beyond that. The bill limits. The bill's limits on raises would apply to more than 6400 non represented professional staff. And these are folks who many serve support students directly every day. These positions may include some like directors of basic needs Centers, cultural and identity center managers, financial aid administrators, nursing clinic managers to name a few. These employees would be prohibited from receiving raises even if represented employees receive negotiated raises. As the committee analysis notes, the CSU falls within the median range of salaries. Legislative restrictions on raises to non represented staff would set the CSU at a disadvantage to other public universities and in its ability to deliver on its core mission and student services. For these reasons, we respectfully request a no vote.

Are there any additional witnesses and opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments?

thank you. I noticed in your remarks, Assemblymember Aarons, that you mentioned that you're accepting an amendment so that your bill would not apply to union workers.

Why did you accept that amendment?

at is the astronomically high increases in senior level administrator pay.

So virtually everything that the CSU mentioned is inaccurate in my bill. If they were paying attention to my opening statements, they would know that I have agreed to make amendments to that. So it wouldn't apply to any of the employees that they mentioned.

I think our public safety officials work very hard to keep our campuses safe as they are the targets of violence as we've seen the past few years, and they deserve that compensation.

I think it's absolutely defensible. What's not defensible is the $100,000 pay increases that the CSU has approved without

You have a good point when you say if students are seeing their fees go up that there shouldn't be pay raises for people earning six figure compensation packages. I think that's a very good point to make. I'm sorry that some students have been, you know, misled that the bill somehow is going to apply to more than just a handful of folks. This actually seems more shameful than thoughtful. You're hijacking. It seems the notion of students paying higher fees should not be going to salary increases, which I think is a very valid point and I would support across the board, no salary increases in terms of the pay schedule, the classifications during a time when students are being asked to pay more. I think that's a valid policy that we should explore. That's not what you're doing. You're basically saying, well, we're going to do some window dressing, in my opinion, for some high executives while exempting everyone else. And the main driver of the costs are labor costs in the colleges that you're trying to address. That's where the fee increases are coming from. We're certainly not getting a head start on deferred maintenance. It's labor costs. That's the main part of our budget that we're usually looking to increase fees for on students. So I find this frankly appalling to have organized labor show up here and try to very cleverly pit students against all faculty and use students and fee increases as a way of kind of carving out certain positions and claiming that certain people are not going to get salary increases when in fact you're negotiating presently increases and you will continue to do so as students have to pay more. And I'm not going to allow that misrepresentation to be made through this bill. So I'm disappointed that the author has gone down this road. I know that you are genuinely interested in thoughtful policy on many fronts, particularly as it relates to the youth. But this seems like a grotesque level of window dressing. It's a masquerade bill and I simply cannot support it with this massive carve out.

I saw the conduct of the CSU to be shameful and, and how they are operating. And if we want to get real in Sacramento about affordability, we have to hold our own accountable as much as we are holding the federal government accountable. And this is no one asked me

This is a bill that I felt important. This is a values bill. This is what we value in the state of California. And we should not be giving massive compensation to high level administrators in the same budget where they cut classes, where they cut faculty and they raised student tuition.

Thank you. So first of all, Mr. Aarons, I want to make it clear that I will be voting to support your bill.

At the same time, I want to make sure that we're, you know, not unnecessarily hurting our California State University capsas. And so I want to ask my questions to the csu. You know, I mean, first of all, I mean I as a, as a former school board member, I know that, you know, a lot of times people complain about how much local superintendents get paid. And the argument, the response is always that the market, this is where the market is at to attract and retain qualified, quality leadership. And while I think we can all appreciate the basic concept at some point when we hear the. I mean, it's just too easy of a target. The committee analyses highlights the presidents and their salaries, most of them over half a million dollars, which I imagine for CSU presidents or those that occupy or aspire to those positions, that may not seem that extraordinary. But I think for most people, including less leaders who get a mere fraction of those salaries, you know, I think it's. Yeah, it certainly makes us think, you know, wouldn't it be nice? And so, first of all, you know, you talked about how CSU campuses are like small cities. They have complex operations of dealing with multiple computing agendas, requirements, needs, interests. What would you say are the three most important functions of a CSU campus president? And how would capping the salaries, you know, based on what the bill is proposing, going to impact those three most

tasks or responsibilities of a CSU president?

So those are three things.

Well, you know, I won't belabor the point. I just think that, you know, again, while we may conceptually agree that, you know, generally speaking, you need to pay a competitive salary to attract and retain quality people, it just seems that there's no check on university executive compensation. And, you know, because it's such a small pool of people and, you know, universities are competing for that relatively small pool of people that have PhDs or that, you know, that have the experience that you were talking about, there's no check on those executive compensations, just escalating unless bills like this come along. And so, yeah, I just think, you know, while I'm sympathetic to the argument that you need to have competitive compensation to attract and retain good people, I just think that the market for university leadership has gotten so skewed that that is the message that I want to send by. In supporting this bill.

thank you. To the author. Like we talked about earlier, I'm in this place of trying to understand which. Which way I want to be able to.

To go on this. So I'll be asking questions to help me further clarify my position. I'm. I'm still a little. I heard what. What chair said, but I'm a little unclear what's been discussed here. As far as amendments go, are you able to share exactly what amendments you have committed to take or who you've conveyed this to and when can we expect amendments to be processed?

statement, I'm committed to amend the bill to the provision requiring retroactive repeal of the November 2025 resolution. So not making the cuts, retro. Not removing the increases that were already improved. The nearly 20% increases, some amounting to over $100,000. Tightening definitions on compensation to reflect that the bill is referring to the base salary only, and narrowing the scope to

not represented by an employee organization. So contrary to what the CSU is claiming.

I know that the committee analysis provided

So those proposed amendments are on page 12. And so I believe not speak for Ms. Aarons, but you said you'd be open to Some of those I would

Chair.

Okay, so as I was listening to both sides and understanding. Right. As a business owner, I look at secondary and tertiary effects of anything. Right. So with this, if, if this bill passes, right. Do you anticipate non represented frontline staff will leave creating vacancies if this bill were signed off into law?

from you and other members of the

Thank you. You know, as I, as I look at this and I, I keep hearing CSUs, CSU, I, I think of UCs, community colleges, so on, so forth.

Does, do you think this creates a disadvantage to, for the CSUs when the UC and community colleges are not under the same salary cap? And why not? Why didn't you think of.

The, you know, I'm looking at this problem set and this is, this is a problem that has been created, right? And from whenever beginning it should have been managed, right? There's, we look at federal, state government, I served in the military. There are steps, right? We know what we're going to get at the 20 year mark, at the 30 year mark. So there's an expectation, right? So you're not serving, definitely not serving to become rich, right? That being said, if we look at the, if we also answer with when it comes to the market, the need. I agree, you know, you want to get the best, train the right person in the right spot. But we've also created the problem of the market and we've created the problem of California is not affordable. I've heard you speak on this several times and you talked about this in your state. If we're going to talk about affordability, then we got to do something about affordability. So I appreciate that you say that and that you're looking at that specifically and this is a way that you can try and tackle that. I think it's a much more complex issue that this is a piece of the puzzle, right?

Puzzle is much more complex, right. When it comes to this, this problem that you're referring to. I think when we look at students that go to schools in our uc, csu, so on and so forth, can we afford to feed every single student? Right? That's a thing that we have to look at. Should we, should we not, can we Afford it. Like these are all questions that should be a part of the conversation in a, in a deficit, man, that's, that's, that's a hard thing to do. Right? But at the same token, we also have high paid executives and we have a California that we can't afford this. So it's not just a simple solution of one thing. This is a, this is a complex solution that this body has to tackle across the board on all scopes, not just this piece of the puzzle. So off of my soapbox there for a second as we're, we're listening to this, those who are listening and here in committee, I think we have to look at this not only in its, in its current form, but what does it mean for our future as well? Cost of living, cost of living increases. How do we really retain quality talent? Because I want the best leaders, the best professors, the best adjunct across the board all the way. But I also want them to be afford California. And that's not matching up and where one is trying to keep the best, but we're also trying to make it California that's not affordable. Like you can't, we can't compete because it's just going to keep on going and going and going. So I applaud your efforts to try and make California much more affordable,

I, but I think this conversation requires, we need to bake this some more because honestly the answer is there and, but the question is, do we have the political will to make those desired and necessary cuts to make that happen? I have another question brewing, but I'm going to pause for now.

Thank you so much.

I do have a quick comment. One thing that's important to also recall for all of us is that the CSU has recently adopted the CSU strategic plan. And in that strategic plan, goal three is employer of choice. And basically, fundamentally, as part of this entire process, an employee compensation philosophy was adopted. And basically what that says is it is our goal to make sure that every single member of the CSU community is paid at market rate. So while this work was done related to executive compensation, which does come back to the board annually every November, is the goal is to be able to do this across the board. And of course, remember, there's collective bargaining and things like that, which of course we deeply respect.

Summer Gonzalez Sorry I remembered my question.

budget, this is a blanket cap. But again, I'm committed to working on amendments if you have any suggestions. This is, I'm not wedded to the specific number of this bill. I'm waiting for some sort of meaningful reasonable guardrails.

Thank you.

Member Fong, Can I make a comment?

Thank you. Just a couple comments quickly. And I think Michael might want to say something as well. But I want to just share that this is definitely for us a value question. And as stated earlier, we want to ensure that Public Daughters are funding the CSU classrooms and not the boardrooms. The arguments made for the executive pays are the same arguments that we're making for the quality of education that we want our students to make. Who are the ones that are teaching the students? Who are the professors? Who are the staff that are working with the students? We are on the ground with the students. The CSU talks about these compensations in the context of equity, but we are also talking about this in the context of equity. This is not about pitting students against faculty. To the contrary, this is about ensuring that our students, as you were sharing, Jeff assemblymember Gonzalez that our students have a future to be able to count on. They cannot count on a future when you have faculty that are being dismissed, laid off, when you have departments that are being closed down, when you have students that can as shared not being able to afford the campuses in which they are on. But yet, but yet, for example, at Cal State Bakersfield, there has been an 11% increase in their enrollment, 6% last year, 6% the year before. But yet they're still cutting programs and cutting professors and then not making accessible for students. There is no sense with what is happening here at all. I wanted to just share that and have Michael speak quickly.

Assembly members. All I want to say is, especially if you've been if you graduated from a csu, that you graduated because of your professors and your staff. And I mean in what world, $1 million a year? In what world is that uncompetitive in the market? In what world is half a million dollars you're unable to find candidates? I seriously doubt that. Assembly members and again, these jobs, as we mentioned, the represented jobs, it includes jobs like mine, like student assistants who make $16 an hour on campus and we don't get paid sick leave, we don't have any scheduled raises and we keep the CSU running. And yeah, I love my professors. They're the reason I'm able to stay in school. There's the reason I'm able to graduation is in reach and if we're talking about good candidates, why aren't we talking about what we can do for our professors, our staff and our students? So thank you.

Any further questions or comments from colleagues? CNN Mr. Evans, would you like to close, please?

I want to appreciate the conversation and the feedback by this committee to improve this really important accountability measure in this bill.

I'm willing to meet with any member, any stakeholder committee consultant, students, the CSU to improve reasonable accommodations for this bill

heart of providing guardrails so that we truly make sure that this remains the public mission that we are striving to do here in the state legislature. Respectfully ask for your I vote.

Summer Ahrens, do we have a motion motion and a second motion by Mr. Mercucci, second by Mr. Kara? Thank you so much, Assembly Ahrens, and for bringing this measure forward. And thank you so much for colleagues, for everyone, for a robust conversation on this very important issue. And thank you to our presenters here as well from the CFA and from CSU and our students and really appreciate the ongoing conversation that we'll be having on this issue going forward as well. These are very important conversations as we look at continue to work on affordability challenge here in California. And we look at different issues that whether it's the board of trustees that they've been empowered to make decisions for the system, but also when the decisions may seem in conflict with the values of California and our students as well. So look forward to future conversations there as well and on the committee's analysis of pages 11 and 12. Thank you for your commitment to working on some of the recommendations there as well.

And so with that and appreciate the context in terms of the accountability measures you mentioned in your remarks as well. So with that we have a motion and a second and look forward to supporting the measure today. Madam Secretary. Roll call, please.

Fung Aye.

No.

Berner.

Thank you so much.

Thank

Thank you so much for your patience. Welcome Assembly Hadwick presenting Assembly Bill 1555, item number three. Welcome. I guess you have to talk to it.

Okay.

Welcome.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon.

thank the author and the committee for

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

Hello, Chair members.

Hello Chair members. Keshav Kumar not on behalf of any interest right now, actually just on behalf of myself. I took about 42 units at college of the Siskius. I grew up in the Siskiyous. I just wanted to give a little bit of context for the three counties that have been included, Jackson, Josephine and Klamath. As someone who grew up there for 18 years, this really is one contiguous area. We had track meets in Ashland. We would go to Oregon Institute of Tech for certain classes and we would probably go shopping in Medford as often as we went shopping in Reading because that is where the big stores are. We are all a great big community up there.

And so I would just say please support this bill. It is one giant community.

Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? We have a motion and a second motion by Vice Chair DeMaio, second by Mr. Gonzalez. Any further questions or comments? Sinar Haddock would You like to close, please?

Thank you so much, Senor Hadwick, for your leadership and efforts here and really for bringing this measure forward. And I'm prepared to support the measure here today. And I believe that assistant northernmost portion of the state of California with additional student talent and educational opportunities to enhance our workforce in the region. With that, I look forward to supporting the measure here today. Madam Secretary. Roll call, please.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much, Mr.

I want to thank you and your staff for their feedback on this bill which I'll be accepting the amendments as proposed. AB 1558 requires the California Community colleges and the California State University and request the University of California to report recommendations to the legislature on how to foster a greater knowledge of American democracy and meaningful civic engagement to ensure our graduates are prepared to assume their roles as what Alexander Hamilton describes as the natural guardians of our democracy. And Federalist paper number 16, I respectfully ask for an I vote.

sponsor of the bill.

Thank you so much.

Any.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tony Treguero on behalf of the California Teachers association, we want to acknowledge the

We go to State Council the end of the month and we hope we

Thank you.

Thank you. Mr.

Members, Chris Morales with the CSU Office of the Chancellor. We do not have an official position on the bill. However, we would like thank to thank the committee and the author for the

We look forward to continuing to work with the author on the bill moving forward. Thank you.

Colleagues, any questions or comments?

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much, Mr.

I believe our founding fathers and some of our many of the people we recognize of being protectors of our democracy throughout this nation's history would say that democracy is not self sustaining. It must be understood, practiced and protected by every generation. Students must be equipped with the tools to meaningfully engage with our democratic process in order to become not only members of the workforce, but protectors of our democracy. So with that, Mr. Chair, I respectfully ask for your I vote.

On file item 2, AB 1552. Jackson motion is due Pass as amended to Appropriations Committee Chair Fong.

Fong I. Dimaio. Demaio. No. Berner. Jeff. Gonzales.

Jeff Gonzalez. Aye. Jackson.

Jackson. Aye. Marisucci. Patel. Patel I. Kalra. Kalra I. Sharpe. Collins. Tangipa.

Tongipa. No.

Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair and members. My name is Reynold Garcia. I serve as president of the CalWORKS Association. I'm also the director of CalWORKS over at Los Angeles City College. I represent 116 programs across California serving 30,000 parenting students and as an extension, tens of thousands of children and families. I'm here in strong support for AB 1829. Every day we serve students that are doing the impossible, balancing school work, childcare and financial hardships, all while fighting for a better future for their families. They're asking only for a fair shot. What they need from us is an opportunity and remove the unnecessary barriers that we have. AB 1829 does exactly that by eliminating the 25 mask requirement for CalWORKS work study. The bill expands access to employment opportunities and too many students are now currently being denied not because it's not needed or isn't there, but because the structures makes it unsustainable. At this time, work study is not just a paycheck, it is a lifeline. It keeps students enrolled, builds workforce skills and prevents them from having to choose between providing from their families and completing their education at the same time. CalWORKs programs are restricted to using just tenant funds for direct aid which is 11% or less at some campuses of our budget. If we were allowed to also leverage Proposition 98 funds, like other categorical programs in our system, we can meet students basic needs more effectively and remove barriers and continue to stand in their way. When we invest in parenting students, we are investing in families. When we support families, we strengthen our communities and when we strengthen our communities, we build a more equitable and prosperous California. AB 29 moves us towards a system grounded access, flexibility and student success. On behalf of the CalWORKS association and the families we serve, I respectfully urge your I vote on AB 1829. Joining me today are Cindy Durant, a former CalWORKS student, now a counselor, here to support her student, Rashonda Henson.

Okay, so we've heard from witnesses in support. Are there any additional witnesses in support that would like to register your name and your organization in support?

sir. Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Jake Silver.

I'm a student at Davis in USPIRE sports disability concept. Okay.

Good afternoon.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Any tweeners? Let's return to the committee members. We have a motion to move the bill by Ms. Patel and the second by Mr. Cara. Any other comments? I'll make a remark before handing it over to the chair and then we'll call the roll. I am very supportive of work study programs. When I was orphaned as a child, I made it through Georgetown Prep with no worries and ended up to have a job. But I landed at georgetown university with $36 in my pocket, a beat up Toyota Corolla, a couple boxes and a bag. And when I showed up, my first appointment was with the work study program. And I got two work study jobs. And those jobs were crucial to me. $36 cash in my pocket wasn't going to last very long. And so I am a big believer in these programs. It also complements and adds on to the classroom experience. When you have a job that you can, you know, test drive a career, it's not just a little money in your pocket, but it's also a good learning opportunity. However, there's a reason why there's a 25% match and that is to ensure that the jobs are legitimate and that we don't have fraudulent expenditures. I am concerned by removing the 25% matching requirement here that this will cost taxpayers more money. I know that there is a provision in the bill to mandate that you would have to make sure that a certain number of students are served and that that does not decrease. But there's simple math. If there's a 25% match that's removed, who makes up the difference? Are we cutting the wages of work study students even if we're not cutting the number of students? Or are we shouldering more of the burden as taxpayers for those jobs? We also know that our universities and colleges have been dinged in the last several years for phantom students. It's a new version of fraud students who enroll, who are not real, they enroll in our programs, they take up a valuable slot in some of the degree programs and they presumably get some sort of financial aid for the fraudsters. But they're not real students. And we still do not have a handle on this problem. We still haven't gotten a reasonable solution. My concern is it's kind of hard for a business to justify paying 25% for a no show employee. Whereas if it's just in the government sector with no match, my concern is that there would be, without internal controls, an opportunity for fraud. So I would like to see the bill strengthened at some point. I cannot support it today. Mr. Chairman. I very much support these programs. I actually think that students have an opportunity to learn more from a work study job sometimes than they can in the classroom. I certainly did. But in its present form I'm concerned about the potential for fraud and I will not be able to support it today. I did not support a similar bill last year with that. Mr. Chairman, if you'd like to make a closing statement.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

On file item 5 AB 1829 Fong. Motion is due pass as amended to human Services committee. Chair Fong.

Chair Fong. Aye. DeMaio.

DeMaio. No.

Aye. Berner, Aye. Jeff Gonzalez.

Jeff Gonzalez. Aye. Jackson.

Jackson I. Marsucci. Patel. Aye. Patel I Kalra.

Kalra I. Sharpe. Collins. Sharp Collins. Aye. Tongipa. Tongipa, Aye.

Thank you so much.

At this time we'll do add ons. Should we just go through the you want to do consent calendar first? We'll start with the consent calendar, Madam Secretary.

That measures out 10 0. Thank you so much, colleagues. Now we'll have the Madam Secretary go through each of the remaining items. Thank you.

Thank you so much, colleagues.

Thank you.

On file, item two. AB 1552. Jackson, Berner. Aye. Berner. Aye. Marsucci, Sharpe, Collins.

Sharp, Collins. Aye.

That measure is out 7 to 2. We'll keep the row open for additional members. Thank you. Next item, please.

Thank you so much.

on AB6. AB 1831 errands. Burner. Burner. I. Sharp, Collins. Sharp, Collins. I'm going.

That item.

Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. Oh, go ahead, Mr. Tangipa.

AB 1831.

Okay. So not voting to I. Okay.

That measure is out 8 to 1. We'll keep the rope in for additional members.

I think that's it. Right. All right. Thank you so much, colleagues, for a robust hearing. Thank you to everyone involved with today's hearing. We're going to keep. We're going to keep the rope open for additional members add on for another five minutes. But thank you so much, colleagues, for a robust hearing. And thank you to the Assembly Higher Education Committee and to everyone involved with today's meeting. Thank you, Mr. Cara, for pinch hitting as well today. Appreciate you. And thank you with that Office of Stakeholders. Please make sure you're engaging early with our committee staff on your measures. And we'll keep the roll open for an additional five minutes for anybody to add on.

Thank you so much again for everyone for working efforts with today's hearing. Appreciation to our Assembly Higher Education Committee staff, to everyone involved. Our next hearing is going to be on Tuesday, April 7 at 1:30pm and State Capital Hearing Room 12 6. Authors and stakeholders, please make sure you're engaging with my committee staff early on on your measures. And we look forward to the dialogue there. So, Assembly. With that, the Assembly Higher Education Committee meeting is adjourned. Thank.