Assembly Public Employment And Retirement Committee

Well, good morning, Chair and members. We're here today to present AB 1601. This is a bill sponsored by the county of Sonoma County. Sonoma County is the only county in the 37 Act that requires legislation to be able to consider a cost of living adjustment for its retirees. The last time that there was a cost of living adjustment was in 2008, which means that retirees in that county have lost more than 50 percent of their purchasing power due to inflation since that time. This is a very narrowly tailored bill that would allow for the county to work with its retirement board as well as actuarials and its employees to make sure that we're addressing cost of living issues in that county specifically. We oftentimes in this legislature talk about the affordability crisis and how to make sure people can stay in California. And that goes especially for our retirees who are struggling to stay in a community that they spent their career serving. With me today to talk about the bill is the former mayor of Santa Rosa, Chris Corsi, who is on the Board of Supervisors now. I like to call him by his highest title, Mr. Mayor, as well as Travis Balzerini, who is the North Coast Regional Vice President for SEIU Local 10 to 1. We also have some technical experts in the room who can answer questions about the retirement system in Sonoma County, although they would like me to emphasize that it is very well funded compared to most at about 95%. So this is not a fiscally irresponsible bill that we are presenting. Supervisor?

Good morning. My name is Travis Balzerini. I've worked for Sonoma County for 18 years. I've been a trustee for Sonoma County Employees Retirement Association, also known as SARA, for the last six years. I'm speaking with you as the North Coast Regional Vice President for SCIU Local 1021. On behalf of our members, retirees, and the beneficiaries who worked for County of Sonoma and Sonoma Superior Court, Sarah is the only 1937 Act County pension system that does not offer an automatic yearly pension cost of living adjustment, or COLA, to retirees and beneficiaries. Therefore, Sonoma County can only grant a pension COLA using the two ad hoc options available under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 or the CERL. The last ad hoc pension COLA granted was in 2008. Following massive losses from the 2008 global financial crisis, an accounting mechanism in Sarah's COLA policy prevented any pension COLA from being granted. That accounting mechanism was recently removed from the COLA policy. In the 18 years since the last pension COLA was granted, San Francisco Bay Area inflation increased by 50 percent, severely eroding the purchasing power of our retirees. Meanwhile, retirees' pension payments haven't increased since 2008. Our retirees' yearly average pension payment is very modest, between $18,000 and $42,000 per year. These retirees won't receive another pay increase in their lifetimes unless Sonoma County can grant an ad hoc COLA. After 18 years without a COLA, retirees' need for financial relief is dire, and the two ad hoc COLA options available on the Searle are cost-prohibitive for Sonoma County. Sarah's Factuary produced four cost studies with various pension COLA options that cost between $30 million and $366 million. Two of those COLA options require a change in Searle law to target specific groups of retirees or to allow COLA funding from additional sources. AB 1601 will allow Sonoma County the flexibility to target those retirees who are most in need

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing this bill forward as someone who has a large, large amount of state workers that live in my district. And you mentioned that in your comment. I recognized many of them that actually came here. They come to my crochet club, my charm club, my community events, and they make a point to come up to me to say, where do you stand on this? and I said well I mean of course I support it because you wouldn't be here coming out to these community events and supporting the community and you know being able to talk to your representative and so I want to thank everybody that came out I know it took some time it's always hard to find parking here and make your way up here but you truly do care about this and we Awesome individuals that also brought out their children as well. And as we take a look at what's happening right now and the cost of living going up and, you know, just gas going up, everything, right, that is going up, we need to find a way to be able to support our state workers because they are the fabric of the state that makes the state go on and on and be able to support all the departments here. I recognize that. I know that. And that we need to be able to have a balanced approach, but find opportunities to be able to support them so that they can continue to support our state and support all of us in the jobs that we do. Because while we sit here, we also know that each and every single one of them does that work to be able to help us to do the work that we do here at the Capitol. And with that, I support this bill. I'd like to make the motion, if I can, Madam Chair, to be able to move this bill out.

Yes, thank you. And I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I actually authored AB 55 in 2022 to make teleworking permanent in the state of California for everyone. So when I was getting calls about this bill, I was like, I wrote the bill four years ago. I'm glad everybody caught up. So I'd like to be added as a co-author. Happy to second the motion.

And I wanted to thank, yeah, you can applause if you want. I don't know. I'll put the chair. Don't piss off the chair. I want to thank all the state workers for coming out. I thought it was really interesting to hear all the wide range of careers. Like we know state workers, we've talked to them. I've served eight years, or this is my eighth year. And it was so fascinating to hear the range of careers that people can have. So I hope our young people who are watching this, maybe who did political science, you may want to look at other jobs, too, because it seems like there's a wide range of very fascinating careers that the state offers as well.

Thank you, Assemblymember Rodriguez. Thank you. I appreciate the thought effort. That said, I do believe that this is part of a broader conversation. we must continue to engage in thoughtfully and responsibly. In particular, I think it's important that we more closely examine the impact of state workforce policies and our local economies, as well as how evolving workplace structures, including remote work, may shape professional advancement opportunities, especially for navigating career growth for women. These are complex and important considerations that deserve continued dialogue as this measure moves forward, but that I'm prepared to support the bill today in committee, while respectfully reserving my right to reassess my position as the bill advances to the assembly floor. Thank you, though, and thank you to all the state workers that came out today.

Yeah, I just want to say that I think a lot of times public employees are mischaracterized. I'm very thankful and very proud of the fact that I've been a public employee most of my adult life. So I think it's important that we understand flexibility needs and the diverse needs within the public employee system because we stereotype people as a society, and I think it's hurtful. So I'm very, very thankful to support this bill and proud to be a public employee. Thank you.

Yes, I would just like to thank all the members for your conversation. I also respectfully acknowledge Assemblyman Rodriguez's points, and we'll have more further conversation about that as it hopefully advances to the floor. But I really do want to appreciate all the members compensating the supportive comments and also acknowledging the wide range of state workers that showed up today Many also all across the state one even from my constituency all the way here And I want to also acknowledge that, yes, while we also are facing a budget deficit where $225 million could really be real cost savings to provide people health care or fight climate change, provide child care or housing to people. At the same time, as some of our witnesses talked about, or Assembly Wynne talked about, too, is telework was—or the new telework policy as we exist today was a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Today's response is the Iranian war, where the fuel prices have skyrocketed across the world. Other places in the world now are having fuel shortages. And this is also a response where we can cut down emissions and cut down costs by having people preserving what they do now is teleworking. And I really truly believe that there is still a preservation of productivity. So we don't have to sacrifice productivity to increase the quality of life and efficacy of our workers. And truly right now, I think as you saw so many great people come out from across the state, these are the people that make our aspirations become reality. All the bills that we pass and all the things that we want to do, they're the ones who execute it day on, day out. And I really think this is one of those small things we can do for them to continue their strong quality of life. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Berner.

Berner, aye.

Aye.

Nguyen.

Nguyen, aye.

Aye.

That bill is out six to zero. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we'll have file item two, AB 1630, Colosa.

Thank you This is a lot. We don't need to have a lot of people. Hi. Hi. Thank you. Assembly member, you may start. Good morning.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Medical residents are isolated by exceptionally long hours and the mental and physical demands of their jobs. They're often placed in areas where they're socially isolated without a support network, and 50 to 70 percent of residents experience depression and burnout. The union is a support network. It provides a sense of belonging and control over their working conditions, both of which improve mental health. but residents' opportunities to engage in the union are limited by their inflexible schedules. This bill would make union engagement more accessible by allowing residents to listen to bargaining sessions remotely from wherever they can, whenever their schedule allows it It wouldn change the role of the bargaining team which would still be the only union members that are actively engaged in negotiations CIR represents residents in five other states where they allow this practice of having remote observation And in California the current law allows the UC and the CSU to do the same, but the CSU and UC can refuse those requests. The CSU and UC allow in-person observers, but they have refused to provide remote access to observers. One of the concerns is that this bill could disrupt bargaining. However, disrupting bargaining is already prohibited under existing law, and any disruptions could subject the union to an unfair practice charge at PERB. Providing remote access is the simplest way that the UCNCSU can recognize the work of all their employees, but especially the medical residents who sacrifice their mental and physical well-being to take care of patients. It's a simple way to help make them feel more connected with their union, especially compared to the larger structural changes that would be needed to reduce the number of 24-hour shifts. Thank you.

Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come to the mic. Give your name, organization, and position. Seeing no other witnesses, are there any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. You have two minutes each.

and I'll pass it to my colleague at CSU. Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. I'm Adriana Gomez with the CSU office of the chancellor. We appreciate the conversations we've had with the author's office and sponsors. However, we do remain concerned about the potential impacts of the bill. I echo my colleagues' comments from UC and would just like to additionally note that there is significant ambiguity in the bill at the moment. For example, the bill stipulates one or more observers may attend collective bargaining meetings at the exclusive representative's discretion without any defined parameters around that attendance and passive observation and ground rules are also not defined. So without clear limits, as noted in the analysis, this language could be interpreted to permit an unlimited number of observers and create logistical and security challenges. We're worrying about this potentially undermining the candid dialogue that's necessary at the bargaining table to reach agreements. And employers and unions can already come to mutual agreements at the bargaining table, as my colleague noted, that consider the different needs for different employee groups and that set the necessary ground rules. We feel that this bill overrides the necessary ability to come to these mutually agreed to frameworks and can significantly alter the dynamics of collective bargaining in a manner that might delay agreements or further complicate bargaining sessions. So we respectfully request a no vote. Thank you.

Yeah, I just have a question. Listening to the opposition, How is this not making these delicate discussions from being public?

Yeah, I do believe that negotiations are a very delicate part of the process and need to be respected and limited within access. And this is a scary move from keeping it private to expanding that. And I think it's a little bit dangerous. That's all.

Thank you, Chair and members, for your consideration. As we heard from the witness testimony some of our workers across the state and even from the prior bill are working excruciating hours and aren able to participate in a meaningful way I think our bill moves in the right direction of allowing more meaningful participation given the demands of the work schedule of all of our workers across the state So thank you. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Aye.

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to present AB 1750, which is a bill about making sure that we fully support our teachers. Thank you as well to the committee consultants and staff for all your hard work on this bill. AB 1750 is built on a principle that we must stand for, that teachers, the people who show up for our children every single day, should not have to pay the price for things outside of their control. This bill ensures that when certified and classified school employees exhaust their sick leave and are absent due to illness or accident, that they will continue to receive their full salary for an additional five months. It is a policy grounded in dignity, stability, and respect for the essential workforce that keeps our schools running every single day. Our teachers from our bus drivers, custodians, the school staff are more than just employees, are the backbone of our education system. They show up for students in moments big and small and are often going above and beyond their job descriptions. But when life takes an unexpected turn. When a serious illness, a surgery, or an injury occurs, too many of these dedicated professionals are forced to choose between their health and their financial security. And in some of the most staggering polls recently show that one in five teachers struggle financially, and over 33% of them have a second job just to make ends meet. And nearly half of our teachers in California plan to leave the workforce in the next 10 years. And so AB 1750 is making a step towards really looking at our teacher workforce and figuring out how can we do more to retain the current workforce that we have by making sure that they are more secure in their most dire moments of need We also know that teacher salaries are not where they should be They are one of the most underpaid professions, and the salaries that they received often do not reflect the value of their work or the cost of living in our state. On top of that, we know that many teachers routinely spend their own money on classroom supplies, covering everything from the most basic necessities to books, to learning resources, and pretty much anything that students need to learn. We know that many teachers pay out of pocket. And so providing a full salary for teachers is a critical bridge when they're in dire need. This is a really important safety net that I think will help with retention so that they can fully heal and return in the classroom. And this will make our students more successful and our schools more successful and our communities more successful. With that, I am proud to welcome Raul Gonzalez, a TK teacher with Visalia Unified as my witness. Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come to the mic. Give your name, your organization, and position.

Senator Barrero on behalf of SEIU California and the California Faculty Association.

Seeing no other witnesses Are there any witnesses in opposition Please come forward You have two minutes each. Thank you.

increased funding at a time when districts are laying off staff to balance budgets. Differential pay allows previously budgeted funds to be used for qualified substitute coverage. To remove LEA's ability to use differential pay without adding additional funding would require budget cuts to other programs or services. For these reasons, I ask for a no vote on AB 1750. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of the Association of California school administrators also respectfully opposed to AB 1750, really focusing on staffing challenges and the increased costs. We think a change as significant as proposed in AB 1750 really needs to take in the full universe of existing leave time allowances, paid disability benefits, the return rights, the 39-month rehire practices for those who exhausted their sick leave, and all of the other considerations set for school-based positions, teachers and classifieds, compared to other public sector employment. So as my counterpart from Alameda County Office of Education mentioned, the staffing challenges are real and they're getting worse because as you may know, the extended period for substitutes from 60 days was no longer in effect. So now we have that 30-day revolving door and making matters worse, our retired annuitants who have supported staffing needs will lose their extended abilities as of July 1. We are particularly concerned again for special education students who do require and thrive when there's greater stability in their classroom settings. And then quickly speaking about costs, this would dramatically increase costs outside of Prop 98's current structure. So we're looking at dollars already committed to students and staff that would be drained. Another bill that would have provided three months of leave was estimated to cost about $500 million annually. So less time, significant costs. And I do want to re-emphasize At the end of the day, this would create incentives for staff to remain out longer and could create a paid off ramp as individuals seek other positions, either with different districts or outside education. So remain opposed. Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Please step forward and give your name. Good morning. Lucy Salcedo-Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education. I am representing in respectful opposition Dublin Unified, Hayward Unified, Livermore Joint Valley Unified, Newark Unified, Pleasanton Unified, Sunil Glen Unified School Districts, as well as California County Superintendents, California Suburban School Districts Association, Central Valley Education Coalition, and Kern County Superintendent of Schools. Good morning, Madam Chair and committee members. Michelle Gill on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials in opposition. Caitlin Jung on behalf of the San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools and the School Employers Association of California in opposition. Thank you. Madam Chair, members Nick Romley on behalf of the Small School Districts Association. Technically opposed unless amended. want to thank the committee for noting our concerns in the analysis. Thank you. Cristal Padilla with the Chief Executive Officers of California Community Colleges. We want to thank the author for working on us with amendments to address our concerns. Thank you. Yeah, I would just like to say a couple things. First of all, there's no one that thinks that teachers are overpaid. I would tell you, I started my career as a teacher knowing fully that I was never going to get the compensation that I felt I deserved. And I believe that the majority of teachers know that. They're not happy about that, but they find a way to survive through that. And I think that this bill is very noble and worthy in its intent. But, I mean, there's a reason Prop 98 passed with such overwhelming support. People want to fund education, but there's limited funds. There are limited funds, as we're finding within our own budget, within as legislators. We see there are limited funds available, and there's incredible competition for the money. So, what we have is a finite amount of dollars, and we have to figure out the most equitable way to spread that money. As a former school board member, it was a huge challenge to even understand the budget process. It becomes very, very complex. And so when we have policies like this, it overcomplicates the reality of being able to be fair to everyone. There's no one that doesn't, wouldn't like to fund people that have these medical emergencies that they're trying to manage. But the fiscal realities are different. And I just, I would love to be able to support this as a person who cares about people. But in the same right, I also care about being able to be equitable to all participants within the network. And I just feel like this is an unmanageable proposal. I would like to support it but I don think it realistic So I sorry to say that I not going to be able to support it Thank you Assemblymember Any other The bill was moved by Assemblymember Berner, second by Assemblymember Rodriguez. For me, I have one question for the opposition. you made a statement about folks just staying out and not coming back to work after they're sick. You do have to have some type of a doctor's excuse if you're out over three to five days, right? So they would still have to do that. They couldn't just be out. Yes, but we have learned from our practitioners that, you know, a medical provider wants to do what's in the interest of the patient. If a patient is indicating they need additional time, they often work with their medical providers to receive those notices or those leaves. So, again, we're not opposing or dismissing that, yes, people have ongoing medical needs. It's really about how we're going to provide that leave time and provide the staffing and support for our students and other employees. But, yes, you do normally need the medical notice or leave request. Thank you. Assemblymember Rodriguez? I did work in a doctor's office before. That's kind of where my career started. And I can honestly say we never gave patients notices to be off work because they asked for them. They really had to have a legitimate reason to be off. And we can't question anybody if they're sick or they have time off. You can't question illness. Thank you. And Assemblymember Coloza, thank you for working with my staff and working with the committee. We have some suggested amendments. You have offered to look at those amendments and work with us. I would also ask you to work with the opponents because it is their districts that that's going to be impacted. But with that today, I am giving an aye recommendation. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll? Item number. No, she didn't. I'm sorry. I move so fast sometimes. Assemblywoman, would you like to close? Thank you so much, Chair. Thank you to the opposition for coming forward. I look forward to working with you. Appreciate you sharing your concerns. Assemblymember Lackey, and thank you to the committee members for your additional thoughts. You know, I think for me, AB 1750 is a targeted investment in maintaining stability in the teaching profession. You know, this is, you know, if and when they need extended periods of leave if they are sick or have illness. Teachers also don't accrue leave in the same way that the traditional worker may accrue leave. You know, they accrue leave, I believe, about one sick day a month in some of the cases that we were hearing about. And so if you can imagine what that's like for a new teacher and something horrible happens to them, then only to have their wages garnished to pay for a substitute teacher to allow for them to recover during that time. And so I think this is a targeted investment. I look forward to working with the opposition. I thank the witness for their time and respectfully ask for your aye vote. And thank you, Chair. Thank you. And just hearing that teachers have to pay for substitutes, I never heard of that. That is unbelievable. But with that, Madam Secretary, can you call the roll? Item number three, AB 1750. The motion is due pass. And we refer to the Committee on Higher Education McKinner Aye McKinner aye Lackey Not voting Lackey not voting Alanis Berner Aye Berner aye Garcia Nguyen. Nguyen, aye. Rodriguez. Aye. Rodriguez, aye. You have sufficient votes. We'll place it on. Thank you. We will take a brief recess of three minutes. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. You're next, though. You're next. Real quick. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you I'd like to bring the meeting back to order. The next item, file number 5, AB 1896, Gonzalez. No, I'm joking. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, members. First, I would like to thank the committee staff for their work on this very, very important and needed bill today. I am pleased to present AB 1896, the GTFO Act, which says get the feds out. This bill says that individuals who participated in immigration enforcement activities between January 20, 2025 and January 20, 2029 will be disqualified from holding state, county, or local public employment in California, except for conduct already permitted under California's Senate Bill 54, the law that protects trust between our communities and our local government. This bill is authored by myself and our speaker, Mr. Rivas, whose continued partnership on this effort reflects a shared commitment to making sure California stands strong in defending our communities, our civil rights, and the values that define our great state. Since the start of January 2025, our neighborhoods have lived with raids, intimidation, and fear. And I want to give a point of personal privilege to thank our chair of the delegation, our chair of this committee, who helped put together a press conference and immediate attention, especially as ICE was focused on neighborhoods in Los Angeles and my district, including hers. Families waking up wondering if today is the day someone knocks on their door to kidnap them. Folks who are just selling flowers, going to graduations, just simply trying to live their day, being kidnapped in broad daylight. Communities that wonder and understand what this federal government is doing and wondering if people who swore to protect them are actually working against them. This is not an abstract thought. This is our reality. We have seen with our very own eyes horrible, horrible acts of terror, violence, and hate committed against our communities. These acts are not isolated. They are not faceless. A pattern has been shown, a pattern of poor training, poor decision-making, and poor values. Terrible events like the immigration enforcement officials publicly executing Renee Good, shooting Alex Preddy in the street, kidnapping five-year-old Liam Cornejo Jr. to use as political bait, and shooting and killing Keith Porter Jr. during a holiday. Whistleblower documents and complaints presented to Congress show alarming changes to ICE training. Current ICE recruits receive 250 fewer hours of training and are only receiving a 14-week training program. ICE eliminated a dozen practical exams and reduced the number of tests that a trainee needs to pass from 25 to just nine. ICE has also removed entire courses from their training program, like how to approach use of force, the structure of United States government, and how to determine a criminal versus a civil removal proceeding. In comparison, peace officers in California must go through a minimum of 40 weeks of training just to graduate from the academy. California expects its public employees to be moral, to defend its people against all enemies, and to support and defend both the Constitution of the United States and of California. And anyone who has participated in these raids has shown that they did not live up to the bar that California deserves their public servants. So today, California answers with clarity. If you participate in cruel, baseless immigration enforcement, if you violated civil rights, ignored due process, or followed unlawful orders, you will not be welcome to California's public workforce. Today, in primary witnesses and support is Christian Ramirez, vice president of SCIU-USWW, representing SCIU California, and Peter Trujillo, director of organizing with CHERLA. And I know today is their day of action as well. So I thank you both for being here. Take it away. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. My name is Christian Ramirez. I'm the vice president of STIU-USWW, and I'm representing STIU California today. I'm here in support of AB 1896 on behalf of 750,000 members in our families. We appreciate the Assemblymember Gonzalez's leadership and the speakers leadership on this important issue and their commitment to upholding the values that California's expect from public service. AB 1896 ensures that individuals who participated in immigration enforcement activities between January 20th, 2025 and January 20th, 2029 are disqualified from holding state, county, and local public employment in California, except for conduct already permitted under SB 54. Since the start of this administration, ICE and Border Patrol have unleashed a wave of aggressive, unchecked, military-style immigration rates. These actions have resulted in kidnappings, beatings and shootings, and even the deaths of unarmed civilians. We represent workers, immigrants and citizens alike across industries like health care, child care, education, janitorial, security officers, airport workers, public service workers. We are the folks that make the state run. And yet the very same people that we trusted with our tax dollars have turned their guns against us. Our members expect to be good stewards of public trust and to serve their communities with integrity every single day. That's the expectation members have. It's the expectations we have also of federal law enforcement. California sets a high bar for its public servants. We expect them to uphold the Constitution, respect due process, and serve all communities with dignity. The same individuals carrying out these rates are harming the very communities they have claimed to serve and protect. We also want to ensure that this bill is meaningful and enforceable in practice, so it delivers on the promise and truly protects the rights and dignity of California's workers and their families. Anyone who participated in these rates has shown that they do not meet the standards that California expects from them. Thank you. Thank you. Sir, you have two minutes. Thank you. Mike Chuck here. Good morning, Madam Chair, members. My name is Pedro Trujillo. I'm the organizing director at CHERLA, also known as the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. and CHERLA is a non-profit immigrant rights organization that's been serving the state of California for almost 40 years and 40 years at the end of this year. I've been at CHERLA for 14 years as an organizer at a non-profit organization with the mission statement to achieve a just society fully inclusive of immigrants. I, along with colleagues, were called by the threat of mass deportations to reactivate the Los Angeles Rapid Response Network in 2017 during the first Trump administration. and this network comprised of nonprofit immigrant rights, civil rights orgs unions faith and grassroots organizations had to come together to train the community on know your rights and train volunteers as rapid responders to document any immigration enforcement But the threats of mass deportations during the first Trump administrations mostly remained as that as a threat because most of the operations that we were able to document and witness were similar to what was happening prior during the Obama administration. During the next presidential administration, which was the Biden administration, The structure of the Rapid Response Network remained, but it was largely unused, given that most of the issues were happening at the border at that time. There were still some operations in the interior, but we did not need to activate the large Rapid Response Network. During this last Trump administration, the current Trump administration, I had to reactivate the Rapid Response Network in November of 2024. and the Rapid Response Network began training volunteers and getting ready for mass operations, deportations, and arrests. In a few months, we trained hundreds of volunteers, and to date we have over 2,000 individuals trained by the network. It is clear by our documented reports from volunteers that cruelty and injury and racial profiling has been used by these agents, ICE agents and Border Patrol agents, and that they're even targeting rapid responders who are peacefully documenting what is happening and ensuring that people's due process is followed. We had to adjust our training to get the ACLU to actually give us a little bit more of like, how do we keep ourselves safe and document safely and protect ourselves, given that they directed their attention from not just the community, but also to the people helping out. Thank you. Thank you. We ask you to support. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come forward, give your name, your organization, and your position. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Christopher Sanchez on behalf of the Central American Resource Center, Cades, and strong support. Edgar Guerra with SEIU California in support. Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. You'll have two minutes, sir. Thank you. Madam Chair and members, Corey Salazillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in opposition to the bill. To be clear, this is not a comment about what the federal government is or isn't doing in regards to immigration enforcement. This is about the impact that this bill will have on county sheriff offices across the state of California. This bill will restrict California law enforcement agencies from hiring otherwise qualified individuals as peace officers simply because they happen to work for a federal agency that has some connection to federal immigration enforcement. And it's important to note that this bill is not limited to persons who work for federal agencies like ICE that have a primary responsibility connected to immigration enforcement. A plain reading of this bill would indicate that somebody who worked for the Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard, FEMA, maybe as a military reservist, somebody who worked for TSA or even the Secret Service, during the time period in the bill would not be allowed to serve as a peace officer under California law. It also, the bill doesn't restrict future employment of just persons who actively participated in actual immigration enforcement. Under this bill a person for example who was employed as a mail clerk by DHS during the dates described in the bill would be ineligible to become a California peace officer not to mention someone who worked for TSA or even the Secret Service The bill also neglects the fact that any person who ultimately employed as a California peace officer is subject to extensive background checks and high statutory and departmental qualifications as they exist in statute and across the state. And this is the crux of our concern is that recruiting and retaining qualified peace officer candidates is already hard enough in the state, and this bill will unnecessarily make that process more difficult. So for those reasons, we'd respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. State your name, organization, and position. Seeing none, I'd like to bring it back to the dais. Any members like? The bill is moved by, first by Assemblymember Berner and seconded by Assemblymember Garcia. Assemblymember Rodriguez? I just want to thank the author. And in my own district, a constituent of mine was taken in a manner that left an entire community shaken and searching for answers. It drew a national attention, but more importantly, it left an lasting impact on the people I represent. This is not something that I can ignore. With that being said, we support the measure today. But I know that this isn't the end of the conversation. And I know I've talked to my Assemblymember Gonzalez, and I know he will engage with law enforcement and see if there's any amendments that can be taken. So with that, I will be supporting the bill today. Thank you. Any other member? Have any comments? Any questions? No? Okay, I have a couple. You talked about workforce shortages. You claim this worsens workforce shortages. What evidence do you have that allowing individuals with concerning prior conduct improves recruitment or retention outcomes? Madam Chair, I mean, it's a simple matter of numbers. We're not looking to hire people who have questionable backgrounds or who have done things that have violated the law or that would violate law enforcement policies. But that's taken care of by the fact that anybody who wants to become a peace officer has to undergo an extensive background check, including with the agencies with whom they formerly worked. And again, it's not limited to someone who took place in an actual immigration enforcement action on the street, enforcing a removal order or something like that that's found objectionable by the proponents. So, again, the bill is saying there is some number of people, how big or how small, depending on what the bill says in terms of definitions, that simply are not available to be in the possible employment pool of California peace officers. Okay. Okay. Let's see. When we think about public trust, how do you respond to community concerns about individuals with problematic histories continuing to serve in the law enforcement roles, especially when we look at the ICE, what's happening with ICE? And I think we just had a shooting, a murder yesterday or a couple of days ago. Madam Chair, if you're referring to the Patterson incident, I don't believe the person was killed. So thankfully But again I think it the same response It assuming that I mean the bill is based on the premise that anybody who worked for any federal agency that touches immigration enforcement law has necessarily been actively affirmatively and personally involved in some kind of job or job duty that the proponents or whomever find objectionable So that an opinion But when it comes to hiring somebody there a process Law enforcement California sheriffs don just look and say okay well this person worked for the Homeland Security so they okay Or they work for Secret Service, so they're okay. They still go through background checks. They're still very high standards. So anything that's unlawful or undesirable in terms of an action, that's going to come out in a hiring investigation. And if it's something that's done while they're employed as a California peace officer, they'd be subject to discipline if it's violative of state law or policy. Thank you. Thank you for those answers. One more time. Anybody else from the dais? Assemblymember Gonzalez, would you like to close? Yes, just two pieces here. One is we are going to be continuing, and I did make that commitment to Ms. Rodriguez about continuing to work with law enforcement on this bill. Again, the bill is going after people who are part of the enforcement piece. We're not going after the clerical people. We're not going after people who are not part of the enforcement piece. If you take the bonuses, you take the consequences. That's what this bill is about. And so today we have a choice to stand together to choose dignity over cruelty, law over lawlessness, and people over power. If you choose to terrorize communities instead of serving them, California will not reward you with a public paycheck. And with that, Madam Chair and committee members, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Item number 5, AB 1896. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Public Safety. McKinner? Aye. McKinner, aye. Lackey? No. Lackey, no. Alanise? Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Winn? Aye. Winn, aye. Rodriguez? Rodriguez, aye. That bill is out. Five to one. Thank you. The next item is item 6, AB 2120, Salache. I thought I saw him. Okay, so maybe Salache is not in. The next item is item number 7, AB 2129, Flora. It's a lot to eat. Lost it. We lost him. Support the firefighters today. I gotta behave the bosses here now. All right, colleagues, Madam Chair, thank you again. Today I'm presenting AB 2129, which approves compensation for Cal Fire firefighters to ensure that their salaries are more competitive with local fire departments. AB 2129 aims to improve the hiring and retention and will reduce the loss of firefighters to higher paying jurisdictions, which will also assist Cal Fire in a meeting to stage public safety needs. Today with me is Terry McHale, representing Cal Fire Local 2881 with Aaron Reed Associates. Terry. Madam Chair, members of the committee, it's a privilege to be here in your committee. I'm always reluctant to come to your committee because my personal resemblance to your chief consultant, consultant Michael Bolden is so disturbing to people when we're in the same room together. And I like to remind people the way to tell us apart is that Michael is a couple years older and doesn't work out as much as I do. But I do want to take, since we are so close, if I were Michael Bolden, I would certainly take credit for the analysis that was done today. It is spot on. This legislation was before you in a different version last year. The governor did not sign it. He wanted to make sure that it was not free of a bargaining equation. And so we rewrote it. It makes it absolutely clear that it creates a flaw. but this still has to go through bargaining. This committee understands as well as anyone, CAL FIRE is the largest fire department not only in California, it is the largest and most diverse fire department in the United States. And shockingly, it is one of the lowest paid fire departments in the United States. And what this bill does is it creates a floor taking fire departments chosen by HR that are now memorialized in the bill and says that they must be paid, the employees must be paid within 15% of the average of those fire departments. So instead of being the lowest paid, we will inevitably be somewhere in the middle. It is a smart bill. I appreciate a former firefighter carrying this bill, and I very much appreciate the support that this committee has shown in the past, and I ask that you please support it again. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come forward, give your name, organization, and position. Seeing none, are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, are there any witnesses that would like to state their name, organization, and position? Seeing none, I'd like to bring it back to the dais. Assemblymember Berner moved the bill. Assemblymember Wynn second. Would you like to close? Disrespectfully ask for your aye vote. Appreciate all the support. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Item number 7, AB 2129. The motion is due, pass, and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. McKinner? Aye. McKinner, aye. Lackey? Of course, aye. Lackey, aye. Alanis? Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. When I Rodriguez, we have sufficient votes. We'll place it on hold for absent members. Thank you. Thank you. So we didn't get to latch a back, did we? No. The next item number nine, AB 2367, Carla. Carl, Carl, Carl, Ra. Thank you, Carl. Well, good morning and thank you, Madam Chair and members. AB 2367 will require state-run health care facilities to report on a quarterly basis their staff vacancy, overtime, and contract data with additional breakdowns by classification and facility. Per the direction of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the state auditor reviewed staffing levels at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of Developmental Services, and the Department of State Hospitals last year. They focused on three facilities, and the audit found that over five years, the staff vacancy rates at all three facilities had increased. To address the vacancies, the facilities had to increase their use of contract workers, which cost more per hour than their state civil service counterparts, even after taking into account the non-wage costs associated with state civil service employment, such as benefits. The contract workers also had two to three years less tenure than state employees in the same classification, which resulted in a need for additional training and time. The auditor also found that CDCR, DDS, and DSH do not have a formal process for reporting their shift staffing minimums, which are critical to ensuring the provision of legally required levels of care. To promote transparency, accountability, and oversight, the auditor recommended all three departments immediately require their facilities to track and report publicly their staffing levels with explanations for any missed minimums. AB 2367 builds on the auditor's recommendation and require state healthcare facilities to report quarterly by facility information regarding vacancy and overtime data registry contract data and the number of shifts by which the facility fell short of its required shift staffing minimums and explanation for why it missed those minimums With me to provide supporting testimony is Vanessa Seastrong, RN, BSN, PHN, Bargain Unit 17 Chair for SEIU Local 1000, and Kenny Sims, Research Director for SEIU Local 1000 to help address technical questions. Thank you, BSN. Good morning, Chair and Committee. My name is Vanessa Seastrong. I'm a registered nurse working for the state of California. I'm proud to serve as the Bargain Unit Chair for SEIU Local 1000. Through my union, I represent healthcare workers in state facilities across California. I'm here today about AB 2367, speaking directly what my coworkers and I live through every day on the job. For years, our facilities have been short-staffed. Vacancies gone unfilled. And when there aren't enough state employees, the solution is often mandatory overtime or expensive contractors. This means state workers are required to work longer hours and multiple double shifts to keep things running. This has real consequences. It leads to burnout, unsafe working conditions, high turnovers, which only makes staffing shortage worse. And while contract staff can help short-term, but relying on them year after year caused the state far more than investing in civil service workers. As a state worker, we have raised these concerns over and over, and we've asked how many positions are vacant, How much overtime is being mandated and how much money is going to contractors? Right now, the answers aren't always available for the legislators or even the workers affected by these decisions. AB 2367 is about transparency and accountability. It requires regular reporting of vacancies, overtime use, and contracts, so policymakers, departments, workers can clearly see what's happening in the state health facilities and begin to address the root problems. State Auditor's recent report confirms what workers have been saying for years. This system isn't working. AB 2367 gives us the information we need to do better for patients, workers, and taxpayers. I respectfully ask for your support on AB 2367. Good morning and thank you for your time. My name is Kenny Sims. I'm the research director for SCIU Local 1000. And I have with Vanessa and our team been working on the mandatory overtime problem for at least 15 years. And one of the things that we have discovered and fully understood is that this issue of the mandatory overtime usage combined with outsourcing is quite intricate and difficult to understand because it is not a statewide problem. It is a facility by facility problem. When we look at the data that we have gotten over the last couple of years, we come to realize that the issues that are affecting one institution aren't necessarily the same types of issues or the magnitude of the overtime or MOT that's affecting another institution, which requires that any solution that we have, that we're going to achieve a reduction of mandatory overtime, while at the same time making sure that civil service work is done by civil service employees requires an understanding on the ground of both the vacancy issue, the usage of registry contracts, and the amount of mandatory overtime that occurs on a case-by-case basis. Because the conversation the discussion then dissection of the problem is not something where a decade ago we may have said it a statewide problem Now we know it a statewide problem in terms of the administrative policies and management solutions that the state has used to solve the issue for staffing shortages But the solutions need to be a little bit more focused and understood at a more detailed level. And for that reason, we're asking for your support to provide us the information on a real-time, ongoing basis so that we can actually address and track this issue as it grows, changes, and hopefully comes to an end in the near future. So thank you very much. Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come forward and give your name, organization, and position. Edgar Guetta with ICIU California, sponsor of the bill and in support. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Gina Lindsey. I am with Fiscal. I am an A1 specialist and I support this bill. Annika Walls, Social Security Disability Evaluation Analyst with Social Services and proud president of SCIU Local 1000 in strong support of this bill. Thank you very much. Terry Gray, Public Utilities Commission. I strongly support this bill as well. Good morning. Irene Green, Employment Program Representative with Unemployment, and I stand in support with my siblings, with Local 1000, strong support of this bill. Jose Regalado, California Department of Insurance, and I strongly support this bill. Good morning. I'm Skylar Waldeck-Meyers with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and I support this bill. Hi, my name is Crystal Coles. I'm with Housing and Community Development and also with SEIU Local 1000 in strong support of this bill. Kevin Laybourne, SEIU 1000 and Department of Consumer Affairs, I support this bill. I.C. Williams, California Department of Public Health, I fully support this bill. Christine Lugo, CDCR nurse, fully support this bill. Good morning. David Jimenez, Disability Analyst with Social Services Department, and I fully support this bill. Joshua Gall, DLC 768 President and Secretary of State's Office is where I work. I'm strong support of this bill and the 4,000 members I represent. Thank you. Nate Cruz, I work at Department of Health Care Services. I'm a member of SAU Local 1000, and I support this bill. Thank you. Lisa Hoagie, Analyst 2 at Housing and Community Development, member of SEIU Local 1000. I strongly support this bill. Thank you. Omega Brewer-Gonzalez, Director of Government Affairs for SEIU Local 1000, representing over 100,000 state workers. Strong support of the bill. Seeing no more witnesses, are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, are there any witnesses? Seeing none, I'd like to bring it back to you. The bill was moved by Assemblyman Quinn, seconded by Assemblyman Warren Berner. Anyone have any questions? Berner, would you like to? Respectfully asked for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Item number nine, AB 2367. The motion is due pass and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. McKinner? Aye. McKinner, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Alanise? Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Nguyen? Aye Nguyen aye Rodriguez We have sufficient votes so we place it on hold for absent members Thank you And the next item is item number eight AB 2223 Lowenthal Or 2223. My age. Right. Mine too. Thank you. Assembly member Berner. Burner. Burner. Not get me in trouble. Thank you, Carl. How are you doing, Josh? Hey, Josh. My man. Here's his band, too. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I'm so pleased to present AB 2223, which requires CDCR to report standardized information regarding the number of contracted workers, the classifications they perform, and the total cost of these contracts to the state. This information will improve transparency, accountability, and help ensure that state resources are being used appropriately and efficiently, ultimately resulting in important cost savings for the state of California. In 2024, I requested a state audit examining the use of contracted medical and mental health staffing at certain state facilities, and the auditor subsequently found that vacancy rates at some facilities remain extremely high, exceeding 30% at some state hospitals, more than 50% at Salinas Valley State Prison. These shortages have led departments to rely heavily on private staffing contractors to fill critical positions and often cost more per hour than comparable state employees. So let me give some examples of that. Recent Budget Subcommittee 7 oversight hearing highlighted these discrepancies. For example, a state psychologist is paid $91 an hour, whereas a contracted psychologist is paid $196 an hour. The audit also revealed that departments do not consistently evaluate whether recruitment strategies are effective in addressing vacancies. In addition, the auditor noted that departments lack standardized processes to track contractor staffing levels and assess the long-term impact of outsourcing on workforce planning. In March 2026, the LAO overview of state correctional population and spending trends revealed that health care accounts for nearly a third of CDCR spending. As we face significant budget shortfalls in the state of California, it is paramount that we use limited state resources efficiently. It is concerning that the department does not have a clearer picture of contractor staffing levels, especially in an area where they are spending nearly one third of their budget. Despite the growing reliance on contractors, the legislature currently lacks consistent and standardized information about the number of contracted workers, the classifications they perform, and the total cost of these contracts. AB 2223 addresses this gap by requiring CDCR to provide standardized disclosure of key information regarding contracts that substitute for civil service work. I'm very pleased to be joined by Carl Miller, president of AFSCME 2620, Stuart Bussey, president of UAPD, who are here to testify in support of the bill. Doug Chiappetta is also here with us. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Madam Chair, committee members. Real briefly, Doug Chiappetta, UAPD executive director. I've been here 24 years. It's unfortunate that we're still addressing a problem that is a core issue within the public sector, the outsourcing of our jobs. Now more than ever, with the tremendous deficit that we have here at the state level, it'd be an opportunity to really hone in on these outrageous contractual costs and bolster civil service. I'm here to introduce our board president, who's also been here a long time, Dr. Stewart Bussey, who's actually testified before comparable committees. Joan Buchanan had an oversight hearing on contracting out IT stuff 2012. I mean, it's like, you know, the more things remain the same, the more things remain the same. So, God, hopefully we can move here and advance a piece of vital, clear legislation. Thank you, Assemblyman Lowenthal, for the JLAC study. This is good stuff, and it's really important. Thank you. Dr. Busse, your board president. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and everyone. Like Doug said, it's deja vu all over again. I was here giving some solutions to these problems. So I had the top 10 solutions, including transparency. But I'll briefly, you know, this bill starts it off, but there's so much more to be done. strengthen the government code that defines emergency, take the salary savings from the vacancies and give it to the civil servants, provide triggers to when contracts should be done, term limits for contractors. And of course, what Mr. Lowenthal has recommended, improve the transparency. We tried in many ways to do this. We had a bargaining session right after the PEPRA bill and when this hearing was done in 2013 to create a contracting out committee when we bargained with CDCR, we found some really amazing things. Some of the contracts making $130,000 a month. When you take the cumulative amount of money that has been spent on contractors between $50 and $70 million a year for CDCR, it's almost a billion dollars since this hearing was done in 2012. There's simply a huge problem in how to be precise about where this money is going and how to, you know, customize the incentives in certain prisons so that it's a better business model. We went to the state of California in 2020 and did a white paper with them, which the legislator didn't see for nine months. It was kind of buried in there. And, you know, this bill of Mr. Lowenthal addresses things that the Skipper's website, and I don't know if you have a Skipper State Procurement and Recruitment Services, and the e-procurement website that Jerry Brown put out in an executive order. They don't address what Mr. Lowenthal's bill does. So basically, as you know from the bill, it addresses any liabilities that the vendors might have, any unlawful labor practices that they have, the number of total contracted workers, the annual amount, as CDCR does now, they put out a cumulative amount for the year, which is hundreds of millions of dollars, which is confusing for the budgetary process. Thank you, sir. So this bill will address all of that. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Carl Miller, and I am the interim president of AFSCME Local 2620. I currently work at the California Healthcare Facility in Stockton as a licensed clinical social worker. I represent hundreds of frontline state workers who deliver critical medical and mental health services inside of the California correctional system. I here today in full support of AB 2223 which at its core is about transparency and accountability and how the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is increasingly relying on private contractors to perform work that has historically been done by state civil service employees The lack of transparency around contracting makes it difficult for policymakers, unions, and the public to determine whether outsourcing is being used appropriately or whether taxpayer dollars are being spent efficiently. Contracting creates instability in our workforce, disrupts the continuity of care, and often results in significantly higher costs to the state. We are seeing situations where contract workers are paid significantly more per hour, yet facilities like ours continue to struggle with recruitment and retention of permanent staff. I personally will never forget the day I was sitting at my computer at CHCF typing in notes and overheard two contract social workers literally right next to me on the phone with their agencies discussing renewing their contracts, and they were negotiating higher rates. The rate that both of them were asking to be raised from was already more than twice what I currently make. And this was right out in the open. I sat there and I just felt demoralized and shocked. Like, what am I doing? You know, state civil service employees, we are held to a rigorous hiring standard, rigorous training requirements. We have lots of professional oversight. We provide continuity, institutional knowledge, and a long-term commitment to public service to our incarcerated patients. When our work is outsourced without transparency, it becomes much more difficult to ensure quality care, control costs, and build a stable workforce. AB 2223 gives us the tools to have an honest conversation about these decisions. It doesn't eliminate contracting, but it ensures those decisions are made in the light with full understanding of their impact. Thank you for your time and consideration, and we are asking for an aye vote on this bill. Thank you. Are there any further witnesses in support? Please step forward and give your name, organization, and position. Good morning, Madam Chair. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California. We are proud co-sponsors of the bill. Thank you. Good morning, Chair members. Elmer Lizardo here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Good morning again. Irene Green, I work for the Unemployment Office and stand in support of this bill. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Skylar Waldek-Meyers with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and I support this bill. Thank you. I.C. Williams, California Department of Public Health. I happily and gladly support this bill. Anika Walls, Disability Determination Services Division with the Department of Social Services and proud president of SCIU Local 1000 representing 100,000. I support this bill. Thank you. Morning. Gina Lindsey with the Department of Fiscal with the position AA1 specialist, and I fully support this bill. Terry Gray, Public Utilities Commission, SCIU Local 1000, and I support this bill. Hi, my name is Crystal Coles. I work for Housing and Community Development. I'm also on the Board of Directors with SEIU Local 1000 in strong support of this bill. Hi, again. Josh Gallup, DLC 768 President, in charge of 4,000 members, Political Reform Division, Secretary of State's Office, in strong support of this bill. Thank you Hi my name is Nick Cruz I work at the Department of Health Care Services I a member of SEIU Local 1000 and I in support of this bill Thank you Hi my name is Nick Cruz I work at the Department of Healthcare Services I a member of SEIU Local 1000 and I in support of this bill Thank you Kevin Laybourne, steward for SEIU 1000, Department of Consumer Affairs. I strongly support this bill. Sandra Barrero on behalf of SEIU California in support. Melissa Hoagie, Analyst 2 at Housing and Community Development, member of SEIU Local 1000. I strongly support this bill. Thank you. Jose Regalado, California Department of Insurance, steward for SEIU 1000. I support this bill. Omega Borr-Gonzalez, Director of Government Affairs for SEIU Local 1000, representing over 100,000 workers throughout the state of California. Stand in strong support and proud co-sponsor. Georgia Osborne for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, in support. Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing no witnesses in opposition, any witnesses that would like to come up and give a, state their name and organization? Seeing none, let's bring it back to the dais. Anyone? Assemblymember Berner moves the bill. Assemblymember Wynn seconds. Any questions, comments? Would you like to close? Respectfully ask for your aye vote. I think transparency, accountability, especially in this time of challenging financial conditions, the state of California should be welcomed by everybody so we can make decisions out in the open. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Assemblymember Ahmed, Secretary. Can you please call the roll? Item number 8, AB 2223. The motion is due passed and be referred to the Committee on Appropriations. McKinner? Aye. McKinner, aye. Lackey? Not voting. Lackey, not voting. Alaniz? Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Winn? Aye. Winn, aye. Rodriguez? We have sufficient votes. We'll place this on hold for absent members. Thank you. Thank you. The next item is item number 6, AB2120, Salache. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I would like to sincerely thank committee staff for their thoughtful analysis and engagement with my office. As a former school board member and personnel commissioner, I am proud to present AB2120. A selective certification has been used by Los Angeles Unified Hiring since 2003 with the most recent sunset extension in 2020. AB 2120 simply removes the sunset on this longstanding practice now that it's been proven and provisions will be this limited manner make a difference in hiring for certain positions. The policy has been extended by the legislature seven times and has received unanimous support on both Senate and House floor since 2005. Selective certification is used when a position requires specialized skills, certifications, or abilities beyond what is listed in the job description. Selected certification is used by other merit system Employers with large number of employees Including the U.S. Federal Government Los Angeles County and the cities of San Francisco And Sacramento This bill will add to language around the potential future reductions In force for the limited positions including in this bill AB 2120 would allow the district to skip over these employees during any potential future reductions in force for the specific positions in this bill following the typical layoff pattern with district from a special skill for which employees was hired. Selected certifications primarily used for less than 1% of all AUSD classified positions, specifically for district-represented managerial and confidential positions, and six classifications represented by the Teamsters Local 572. Selected certification allows Los Angeles Unified to maintain the rigorous hiring standards created by the merit system while effectively hiring for a district with over 30,000 classified employees across schools and offices. Having served as a personal commissioner for Lingua Unified District, I understand the value of the merit system and especially the importance of working collaboratively with our labor partners. Continuing engagement with our labor remains top priority for me. And with us, we have David Grego, a personal commissioner himself for LAUSD. Good morning, Madam Chair and esteemed members. David Grego, I'm actually personnel director of the personnel commission for Los Angeles Unified School District. LA Unified supports AB 2120 in order to permanently authorize the district to use selective certification in its hiring process. We've employed flexibility since 2003 with SelectCert, and we believe it's time for a permanent authorization. LA Unified adheres to the merit system, a set of laws that are over a century old promoted for excellence in hiring government positions. Under the merit system, an employer is required to hire from the top three ranks. The selective cert allows us to hire somebody outside of those top three ranks that may have a particular certification or license. For example, we have an office of general counsel that employs approximately 40 attorneys in different specializations. If we're hiring for a labor and employment attorney, for example, and we take only from the top three ranks, those top three ranks might be special ed attorneys and not have the necessary skill set for the labor and employment needs. So with the select cert, it allows us to hire somebody to hit the ground running, and it's the best, most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. In addition to removing the sunset of the select cert, this bill also is asking to logically apply the same process in the reduction of force process. So if a layoff pattern creates an elimination of a position in the classification of attorney, for example, but we need somebody specifically in the labor and employment again, we can skip that person with those certifications and move on to the next seniority. In closing, select cert allows the district to, again, use taxpayer dollars the most efficiently. And I ask for your support in this, maybe 2120. Thank you. Are there any more witnesses in support? Please come forward and give your name, organization, and position. Probably duplicative, but on IOC meetings on behalf of Los Angeles, unified and strong support. Thank you. Are there any, seeing no more witnesses, are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, are there any witnesses that would like to come and give their name and organization? Seeing none, I would like to bring it back to the dais. Assemblymember Burner moved the bill Assemblymember Lackey second Assemblymember I'm sorry let me make sure no one had a comment or question Assemblymember Salache would you like to close Thank you Madam Chair and committee members again as a former personal commissioner myself and understanding the merit system and respecting the merit system this is critical to ensure that our labor partner are involved and engaged. And so this is why we are doing this to move this forward and ensure that our school district also is being in consideration as they move forward to having the best practices of hiring the employees. So with that, thank you. Assemblymember, thank you for carrying this bill. I am a public worker again. And every time I hear things that doesn't go with my old way of thinking, it kind of shocks me when I don't hear about the top three because that's how I got hired. But love what you guys are doing to modernize the system. And with that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Item number six, AB 2120. The motion is due pass and will be referred to the Committee on Education. McKinner. Aye. McKinner, aye. Lackey. Aye. Lackey, aye. Alanise. Berner. Aye. Berner, aye. Garcia. Aye. Garcia, aye. Winn. Winn, aye. Rodriguez. We have sufficient votes. We'll place this on hold for absent members. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we'll have item number 10, AB 2417, Zabur. Almost there. Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair, members. I am proud today to present AB 2417, sponsored by the California Federation of Teachers, which helps close a vital gap for our California community college staff by making sure that educators get the retirement information and options they need to plan for their future. The community college system has become a critical pathway allowing Californians from all backgrounds to access higher education and economic mobility, and faculty, including part-time faculty, play a critical role in educating and enriching our communities. Part-time community college faculty are often individuals who have chosen to give back to their communities by becoming educators in their local college districts after long careers and other sectors. These individuals may be less familiar with retirement options available to them as educators, including CalSTRS, which requires years of teaching to vest, and other options like defined benefit contribution programs. While current law also allows the option of Social Security, this option is not always made available and is often not promoted like other retirement options. When an educator is making a decision regarding which retirement system to enter into, there are many important considerations. For example, an individual in a tech sector who teaches a class on coding later in life but then moves away, retires or switches second careers, is unlikely to vest in a CalSTRS pension. While the dollars they may contribute into the pension still remain with them, the educator will, without vesting, forego ongoing retirement benefits that are paid out on a regular basis through their retirement. In this case, it may yield better retirement benefits for that individual to have continued to pay into Social Security system, where the amount is determined based on the duration of contributions and not subject to a vesting period. AB 2417 merely ensures the option of Social Security as a retirement benefit is provided to community college faculty. Specifically, this bill would ensure that part-time faculty understand that they can select to pay into Social Security and community colleges would be required to allow that option and also pay into that retirement account for that employee. AB 2417 also provides information to faculty including part faculty about the most common retirement options so that they are equipped and empowered to make the best informed decisions about their retirement security. For individuals that have elected to give back to their communities through teaching, AB 2417 provides clarity to make the best financial decisions for secure and stable future. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time, and with me today as sponsor of the bill and to answer technical questions is Tristan Brown, Legislative Director with the California Federation of Teachers. Thank you. You have two minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. Good morning, members. Tristan Brown with CFT. Just like you to visualize two types of part-time community college faculty that exist, the one who is a go-getter, they have their master's, they're early in their career, they're really going out to get as much assignment as they can, perhaps working in several districts. These are folks that are long-term lifers. They're going to be faculty for a long time. They will invest in their pensions or utilize whatever best retirement option is a best fit for them. The alternate is someone who's late in their career, perhaps even a retiree who wants to provide a little bit of their expertise and knowledge into the system. This is something that is, I don't want to say a hobby, but not a full-time second career. This is something that they are utilizing their experience to provide a great service for students. Those folks are not typically going to vest all the way in the defined benefit program. It takes quite a bit of years to actually do that as a part-timer. And we've had many members who've turned around later on and said, boy, if I had just known what my options were for a more secure retirement, I probably would have just continued to contribute to my social security credit that I accumulated in the private sector in my primary first career. So all we're trying to do with this bill is make sure that those options are presented to every new part-time hire, and that they're provided with some very basic information on how the differences between continuing in Social Security could look versus joining the defined benefit or other options that exist. We encourage everybody to have their own financial advisor that we are not providing anything more than just the basic info there. So this is a very good transparency and informative bill for new hires to make the best decision they can. So with that, we ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come forward and give your name organization, and position. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sandra Brero on behalf of SEIU California. Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses, are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, are there any witnesses that would like to come up and state their name and organization? Seeing none, I'd like to bring it back to the dais. Assemblymember Berner? Well, I'd like to move the bill, first of all. And second of all, I might have been category two in your category one, because in my 20s, I was part-time faculty. I think there's a pension out there somewhere. I never vested. I get things in the mail that I can't log into. That's some other problem. That might be a me problem. But I think having that transparency for whatever part you are in your career, whether you know you're going to stay in academia and you're a lifer, or if you think you're going to go into the private sector, having those options are really important.

Thank you.

I suggest that you look into those forms that they keep sending you. Are there any more comments or questions? I have a first from Assemblymember Berner, a second from Assemblymember Garcia. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Madam Secretary please call the roll Item number 10 AB 2417 The motion is do pass and re to the Committee on Higher Education McKenna Aye McKenna aye Lackey Aye Lackey aye Alanise Berner Aye Berner aye Garcia Aye Garcia aye Nguyen. Rodriguez. We'll place this on hold for absent members to add to the roll. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members. Thank you. So we save our best for last. Last but not least, we have item number 12, our own member committee member assembly member Garcia AB 2142.

Thank you. You have two minutes each.

Try not to repeat too much of what Assemblymember Garcia just said.

Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come forward and give your name, organization, and position.

Elmer Lazardi on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. You have two minutes each.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Please come forward and give your name, organization, and position.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. And we'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions, comments? Assemblymember Berner moves the bill. Assemblymember Rodriguez seconds. Assemblymember Garcia, would you like to close?

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Item number 11, AB 2142. The motion is due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Higher Education. McKenna? Aye. McKenna, aye. Latke? Alanis? Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Nguyen? Rodriguez. Aye. Rodriguez, aye. We'll place this on hold. We have sufficient votes for absent members. Thank you. Thank you. Sergeant, can you please contact absent members? And Madam Secretary, should we go back over the roll? Thank you. Item number one AB 1601, the current vote is four to zero. Motion is due pass. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Rodriguez? Aye. Rodriguez, aye. That bill is out six to zero. Item number 2, AB 1630, that bill is out 5-0. Item number 3, AB 1750, the motion is due passed and referred to the Committee on Higher Education. The current vote is 4-0. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. That bill is out 5-0. Item number 4, AB 1729 was out on 6-0. Item number 5, AB 1896, that bill is out on a 5 to 1. Item number 6, AB 2120, the current vote is 5 to 0. The motion is due passed and we refer to the Committee on Education. Rodriguez. Aye. Rodriguez. Rodriguez, aye. That bill is out on a 6 to 0. Item number 7, AB 2129, 5 to 0. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Rodriguez. Aye. Rodriguez, aye. The bill is out on a 6 to 0. Item number eight, AB 2223, the current vote is four to zero. Motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Rodriguez. Aye. Rodriguez. Rodriguez, aye. Motion. Bill is out on a five to zero. Item number nine, 2367, the current vote is five to zero. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Rodriguez. Rodriguez, aye. The bill is out on a 6-0. Item number 10, AB 2417. The current vote is 4-0. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Higher Education. Wynne, Rodriguez. Rodriguez, aye. The bill is out on a 5-0. We'll hold the bill open for absent members. Did she answer? Thank you. Thank you

Madam Secretary, please call the roll for absent members. Item number 10, AB 2417. The current vote is 5 to 0. Motion is do pass and be referred to the Committee on Higher Education. Win. Win. Aye. That bill is out 6 to 0. Item number 11. 2142. The current vote is 4-0. The motion is due passed and we refer to the Committee on Higher Education. When? When? That bill is out. 5-0. Seeing no more business, this meeting is adjourned.