SB784 — Add-on item 19, SB 784, Durazo, is voted on.
SB784 — Add-on item approved.
Natasha Blazer — Natasha Blazer is introduced as a witness and then begins her testimony, identifying herself as a staff attorney with Housing and Economic Rights Advocates, a legal aid organization co-sponsoring the bill with the Consumer Federation of California, and indicating support for SB 784.
Rebecca May — Rebecca May, Chief of Legislation for the State Contractors' Licensing Board, was introduced as a witness and then testified on behalf of the Contractor State License Board in support of SB 784.
Mrs. Wilson — Mrs. Wilson is presented as an elderly, disabled Central Valley homeowner living on Social Security who was used as an example of deceptive solar sales practices. She was pressured into signing by tapping as instructed, then later received a bill before the solar panels were operational and learned she had been placed into an $85,000 loan obligation over 25 years.
Robert Horell — Testified in support on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California and said progress had been made on remaining issues.
Eduardo Rubalcava — Testified in support on behalf of AARP members in California.
Renee Bayardo — Testified in support on behalf of SEIU California and Rise Economy.
Shea Spector — Testified on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association, changing to a support position.
Vanessa Lugo — Testified in opposition on behalf of the California Bankers Association, citing overly broad definitions.
Scott Governor — Testified in opposition on behalf of the California Financial Services Association and the American Financial Services Association.
Mike Knutzen — Testified on behalf of Wells Fargo, saying the bill should be narrowed and that conversations with the author have been extensive.
Sylvia Solis-Shaw — Testified in opposition on behalf of Tesla.
SB403 — SB 403 is taken up in committee and introduced by the author as a bill to remove the January 1, 2031 sunset on the End-of-Life Option Act so the option remains available to Californians. The discussion includes multiple public comments both in support and in opposition, with several witnesses urging support or a no vote. The committee then enters questions and clarification about the bill, and the discussion concludes with support for moving the bill, including mention that a motion and second are in place and that the measure simply removes the sunset.
SB403 — Placed on call and then voted on in the add-on sequence.
SB403 — Item 10 is called up and then reported out after votes.
SB403 — SB 403 (Blake Spear) is called up as an add-on/catch-up item and then receives approval, with a recorded aye vote.
Tim Valdarama — Tim Valdarama, representing Compassion & Choices, is introduced as the person presenting Dan Diaz's testimony. He then explains that he is reading the testimony on Diaz's behalf because Diaz cannot be present, and the testimony references Brittany Maynard's experience with the law.
Dan Diaz — Dan Diaz’s testimony was introduced as the husband of Brittany Maynard and read into the record because he could not attend. The testimony then continued with his remarks about the law’s impact, arguing that it has not led to more deaths and noting that, ten years later, the effort is to make the law permanent through SB 403.
Brittany Maynard — Described as having died in 2014 after using medical aid in dying.
Dr. Ryan Spivak — Dr. Ryan Spivak, a family physician and medical director for Sutter Health’s End-of-Life Option Act services, testified that he oversees the institution’s implementation of the law and that it works as intended. He described his experience with patients and hospice participation and concluded by urging the committee to vote in favor of SB 403.
Bonnie McKeegan — Bonnie McKeegan, a licensed clinical social worker from Grass Valley, identified herself and shared that her mother used medical aid in dying with a Sutter Health physician in 2018. She spoke in strong support of SB 403.
Deborah Dacosta — Deborah Dacosta of Sacramento testified in strong support of SB 403, briefly sharing that her grandparents or family suffered in the 1970s when this option was not available.
Jessica Pena — Jessica Pena, a social worker from San Diego County, testified in support of SB 403 and noted that she has served terminally ill families for 25 years.
Dan Okunfuss — Dan Okunfuss, public policy manager for the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers, testified in opposition to SB 403 on behalf of the disability rights community. He argued that the End of Life Option Act’s sunset provision is an important safeguard that allows legislative review, noted concerns that the law has not received sufficient substantive evaluation or transparency in its implementation, and warned that removing the sunset would eliminate one of the Legislature’s key oversight tools. He concluded by urging a no vote on SB 403.
Russell Dawson Rawlings — Russell Dawson Rawlings, a Sacramento County resident and person with a significant disability, testified in opposition to SB 403. He argued that the recent amendment requiring a stakeholder meeting does not improve oversight and that compliance data remains incomplete. He further said it would be irresponsible to remove the sunset because people with disabilities could be encouraged toward the option, and he urged that community support be prioritized instead.
David Bolog — David Bolog testified in opposition to SB 403.
Ms. Atshort — Ms. Atshort testified in opposition on behalf of the Alliance of Catholic Healthcare.
Molly Sheehan — Molly Sheehan testified in opposition on behalf of the California Catholic Conference.
Jamie Rosales — Jamie Rosales testified in opposition on behalf of the Lelous Project and the Patients Rights Action Fund.
Kathleen Domingo — Kathleen Domingo testified on behalf of the California Catholic Conference in opposition to the measure.
Kathleen Domingo — Testified for the California Catholic Conference in opposition unless amended, arguing for equal treatment between private and public institution victims.
SB577 — Introduced as the item being presented.
SB577 — SB 577 is introduced as the bill addressing the issue in this session, with the author noting it passed the Senate 35-0 and asking for support. Supporters describe it as a set of substantive adjustments to AB 218 intended to compensate survivors while preserving school district financial stability, though some note they would support it only if amended. Opponents then argue that, despite its goals, SB 577 is not genuine reform, leaves major problems unresolved, may increase payment values, imposes a lower standard of accountability on public institutions, and creates harsh deadlines and legal hurdles that could shut survivors out of justice without notice or outreach. The discussion concludes as the committee moves to a motion and second.
SB577 — SB 577 is discussed as a bill that has been worked on since its introduction in the Senate and was brought forward in response to financial strain faced by jurisdictions. The speaker also notes that if it passes the current stage and Appropriations, it will likely be modified further before final passage.
SB577 — Moved on call and then passed out on the add-on vote.
SB577 — Item 14 is taken up as an add-on and receives aye votes.
SB577 — SB 577 (Laird) is taken up as an add-on item and then approved by vote.
SB577 — Senator Laird presents Senate Bill 577, with a brief repeated mention of the bill name as part of the same introduction.
AB218 — AB 218 is discussed as a source of significant and growing costs and operational challenges for school districts and public employers. The transcript notes that settlements in AB 218 cases are allowable expenditures from the education fund, but also emphasizes the bill’s unintended consequences, including unsustainable costs that could lead to teacher layoffs and larger class sizes. It further states that since AB 218’s enactment, public employers have faced major difficulties responding to decades-old allegations and related records issues.
Nancy Peverini — Nancy Peverini is identified as one of the witnesses and as representing the Consumer Attorneys. She then gives testimony on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California, thanking the author, chair, and committee counsel, supporting survivor rights while acknowledging concerns from public entities, and concluding that the group has worked in good faith with public entities and others to develop substantive provisions while keeping survivors first.
Andy Liebenbaum — Andy Liebenbaum is introduced as one of the witnesses from the County of Los Angeles and then testifies in support of SB 577 if amended, explaining the need to address the trauma survivors face.
Sarah Petrowski — Sarah Petrowski is introduced as one of the witnesses and identified as representing the California Association of School Business Officials, then begins her testimony on behalf of that organization in support of amended SB 577.
Paul Yoder — Testifies in support amended on behalf of the Fresno County Board and says more work remains.
Trevor Nelson — Testifies in support on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services.
Faith Borders — Testifies in opposition to SB 577 as recently amended on behalf of the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities.
Chantelle Johnson — Chantelle Johnson introduces herself and testifies on behalf of the Youth Law Center, also conveying the concerns of her colleagues at the Children's Law Center of California.
Youth Law Center — The Youth Law Center opposed SB 577 in its current form, warning that the bill would harm survivors from foster care and juvenile justice systems. A later speaker also referenced the Youth Law Center while discussing clients affected by the issues raised earlier in the hearing.
Children's Law Center of California — Referenced as sharing concerns about the bill's impact on youth survivors.
Children's Law Center — Its proposed amendments were urged for adoption.