 I welcome it is Wednesday, April 6th. And we are a general housing military affairs. And we are working on each 329 I like this to be the last hour that we're working on a 229. If possible, I mean we just don't have time to working on it but I think close to just having it be in a place where as I mentioned yesterday. We've been working on this was to straighten out this was a priority bill for for me and for others. We've been working on this since crossover to try to get language that is sufficient for the stakeholders. We're from Heather went who is on our website today which gives the these current opinions on the bill. And as I stated yesterday at our at our National Guard meeting the goal here is to be in a place where we can share this language as an amendment whether it's to. There are two amendments within this bill based on germane this. We would split the fair housing piece off and consider it for the housing bills that are in front of us. And the employment piece would be considered in context of age 320, which is an employment discrimination bill as well so they have germane this there. And I think I would ask Damian to share the screen and so this is version 4.3. It should reflect the changes that we put into it specific I think specifically the language that we took a straw hole on. There is a piece of it where there was a there was some some dyspepsia over what I suggested the change in 4 to without bringing it to the committee so we'll do that language and see where we are. So, Damian welcome. All right. Good morning for the record Damian Leonard office of legislative council. Okay, so draft 4.3 dated last week on the 30th at 1041 am. So the changes here, as usual are highlighted in yellow. So the changes here, not withstanding any state or federal judicial precedent. The contrary we've renumbered because we got rid of the dash out construed this broadly and liberally to accomplish the remedial purposes law language. So renumbering in subdivisions one and two. And moving on to section two. No changes in that section in section three. With respect to the legislative intent for the fair housing and public accommodations act we have eliminated the not withstanding precedent to the contrary language. So we have now capitalized the at the beginning of the sentence. So section four this section I left highlighted, even though we looked at it last week. And so this provides connect some corrections in the discriminator harass language here so clarifying that we're referring to with the dwelling or other real estate, adding a comma after harass. The definition of harass being added here in subdivision D one, which is the language in here reflects the language that we actually use in the fair housing statute. And then moving on to subdivision D two. We have the not withstanding judicial precedent to the contrary. We have the not withstanding that it need not be severe or pervasive to be unlawful. And then in determining whether conduct constitutes unlawful harassment. Determination shall be made on the basis of the record incident shall be considered in the aggregate conduct may constitute unlawful harassment regardless of whether, and then the list of items that matches up to the employment law. One thing to note is that in the employment law, we provide that behavior that a reasonable person would consider to be a heavy sleight or trivial inconvenience does not constitute harassment. That language is not here. So the one question that we have here is should that language be added. We did back in in the employment law. I don't think we reached a decision on this the last time we talked. I think we briefly touched on it and then went off in a different direction so I just wanted to reflight that for the committee. And wasn't in the original draft, and then, and then deleted. Yes, I believe so we did blow up. I mean I'll say inadvertently, that's how we felt about the employment section. Yeah, I believe I deleted it at the same time. I did not add it back in when we were discussing it when we added it back in for the employment section. So, but I do want to just flag that for the committee without assuming that that's something that you want to add back in but that would clearly establish a floor that, you know, sort of petty slides and trivial inconveniences wouldn't constitute housing, or discrimination. I just was going to echo that I think it is important to have the floor. I think that's an important piece that we have had. And I think that I would support me back in. And I think that was the intent of the bill. And so that's so if the third struggle. So, so let me stop sharing that's it for the changes. Okay, before you. I'm sorry. Oh, can you address. Did you return. Like, again, I asked you to do something based on a letter. Where was that and what did where is this, how does it show up in 4.3 I just want to make sure we go around and right so that language would have been down. It would have been another subdivision below this here so it would have been I believe a deep three here and that basically would have provided nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to public accommodations, or an action brought under 570 F, but because this is already says, as used in this section rather than this chapter, it's already construed to them only applies to actions under this section. So, section section, not chapter. So, I'm going to open up the document, and if there's committee discussion I may be able to get a draft 5.1 with the additional language in it that we just discussed. So, yeah, you can work on that I mean committee any any comments right now on where we are with this and then so Damien would be separating out the appropriate sections. When I mean, maybe when you go to. I would put a little star, which would show where the, you know, or something that would show where the sections would be separated. I see. I see. Or Yang has just joined us. Heather Lin is here. Heather may ask you to come on line. Good morning. Welcome back. Hi. Nice to see you all. Nice to see you all look at springtime. I'm in California so and it's 630 here so it's bright and early I'm still on my first cup of coffee so I will try to be coherent. Sounds like a classic zoom situation here. So you sent a list. You sent us a letter. Can you just sort of recapture it for us and in a nutshell about where we are with with the bees on this. Absolutely. The draft that your alleged counsel just walked you through is acceptable to us. We had concerns with the prior draft. We appreciated the language saying that it didn't apply to schools, but we felt that the description in that section that's been now taken out was incomplete. I agree with what your alleged counsel just stated, which is this section really makes clear that it's limited to, you know, not the full chapter, but to the section and by doing that, our concerns fade away. Okay. Thank you for your input on this bill. It's I know it's been a little rough at times but I appreciate the time that you spent on it and and board if are you available to talk. I am thank you. Hi. Good to see you. Good to see you too. I'm curious if you have any thoughts on where the language is on this I know it's not as complete as what the original bill was intending, but this is where we are now and we'd like to be able to explain this right before you came on you may have heard it just about the idea that that we will, we have identified potential vehicles for this language we just need to make sure. I would like to make sure that our committee is fine with this language so that when we see it again. We don't have to have the same conversations with now we've had for the last couple of months. And thank you for inviting me I do just want to say that the Human Rights Commission is in support of draft 4.3. And I know that it took a lot of work, a lot of debate, a lot of discussion. And I really appreciate all of that I think all the people that this bill really seeks to represent and work for also knows that it took a lot of work to get here. I think that the bill, the current draft as it is definitely signifies that the committee and the legislature is staying neutral on the issues of schools and places of public accommodations, so that the future can address those issues should this bill be introduced in that area. And I think that's important because that actually reflects what happened in committee, which is there wasn't enough time. But I really do appreciate all of the hard work that has been put into it, and we do support the current draft. Thank you. Okay, and thank you for your perseverance and patience. So, you know, same, you know, whenever. Well, it's the legislative process that saw that's that's that's the best I can say so. So, thank you very much for for bringing this forward and for and for helping us understand the problem we're trying to address here, which is, which is incredibly important. And as he said, we'll start with employment and housing and we'll, and it will be up to the proponents of another bill to address the next steps so thank you so much. Thank you. Again, committee my idea is that if we were not taking a vote on this because there's no vote necessarily to be had, except as perhaps as a straw vote to say are we done with work on this bill at this time. And then it'll be up to the continuing process to see if we can fit the language, or we're going to wait to see I mean that's the question to me on the table is is, are we ready to just sort of put this aside and be ready to add this if we consider it for other bills. That's that's where we are representative angle. Thank you. I just want to say a couple of things until yesterday at the end of our hearing with the National Guard I was not aware that the reason that we were working on this language was because it might be inserted into other bills, the housing bills and that that part of the process disturbs me. So, just wanted to put that out there that I feel like those bills are complicated enough, both of them, as they are without adding this to it a complete change in statute for discrimination and harassment. The other thing is in regards to removing the language for schools and public accommodations. Well I really appreciate that that it's made this bill a little bit simpler without having to consider those those places. I am concerned, particularly after Miss Yang just gave her her final statement about future work on this issue so we had h320 earlier, which built on one particular change in statute from an act that was enacted in 2018 or 2019 I can't remember which and then all of a sudden it was like well we did this for this situation so now we've got to do it these three or four situations. So I'm envisioning this definitely coming back and we're going to have to address the school and public accommodation section. So I feel like this is just prolonging that and my preference would be to have one bill that deals with all of the areas that are a place where someone could harass or discriminate. This piecemeal approach, and I'm sure that others share my feelings about this throughout the building. It's not just me who feels like this about about bills the way we're seeing them being constructed this session. So I just wanted to voice my frustration with that. I just wanted to share that I have been talking earlier and representative Colacchi and said maybe I should share that this. This is a first for so many at this table because even those that are sophomores representatives didn't finish a biennium in the building and didn't even finish I mean there was like an extra five months to finish so it was really weird. And this actually isn't abnormal. I mean it really it's really really hard. I'm dealing with several students who aren't getting responses on bills and when you look the bill up there's not really any action on it but the language is very familiar so I know it actually got put in somewhere. And they're in other areas they aren't from our committee room but they're in other areas. So there is this frustration of how do you track a piece of language that is legislative intent and action. As it gets popped around to see where it fits and where it can move. And it's a level of frustration that just occurs and I mean things will get put into the budget bill that that are they feel like it's new policy but it could be something that another committee really did push through and just so there's a piece of I guess I'm just trying to say there's a piece of just hold on to your hat. Use the search mechanism for for language if there's something that you really want to see kind of where it came from or where it's going or if it's going anywhere and to try to do the portion you can you can get your arms around and and make a contribution on and just not hold too dear to anything because it gets crazy and and you know for those listening and for all of us that as I told John earlier I may not be this calm for an hour let alone in three days or four weeks but all you can do is take a deep breath and just keep trying and it is frustrating and things do always lay groundwork for what next session could bring it. It just it's the nature of the beast and I don't know that it's really a bad way it's just a really frustrating way and and so my contribution for what it's worth. That will be a recurring theme for the next month. So just know that while we may serve in different parties, some of us are, you know, my responsibility as a chair is to make sure that I keep the lanes of communication open. People can express their opinions about the bills or the process or you know whatever we're dealing with in front of us and that's. I will do my best to try to make sure that that no matter how testy it might get and I know it will. Speaking to someone who doesn't have a very small party. You know when somebody says quite partisan, I'll kind of like, but that's the non partisan groups there's three party. Yeah, I know. The unicorn. So we'll wait to see five. It's up. It's up. I'm not going to go back long and it's. And it's also on the website. Oh, wow. Okay. Yep. Just like that. So here's the added language. Behavior that a reasonable person with the same protective characteristic would consider to be a petty slight or trivial and convenience shall not constitute unlawful harassment or discrimination pursuant to this section so again, we've constrained it to the section. We're using the word reasonable person. Here in place of reasonable employee which we use in the employee section for employment law section. The other addition is you'll see throughout I've added breaks, the effective date. So we usually break that out statute of limitations. This could go in any number of bills. It could go in a miscellaneous official bill it could go into a bill that relates to either the housing or the employment. Because it ties to those. Again, I will emphasize if you have questions about trying to remain us. Please defer to the clerks opinion not mine. This is, this is my preliminary reading but the clerk is the final arbiter on germana. So, but this likely could be dropped into any number of bills. And then we've broken out sections three and four, which are fair housing. And sections one and two which are employment so I put those those highlights in there just that if you're looking at it you can see what all the sections are and track where they might end up. Other questions. I just saw I know that possibilities this could go as one amendment somewhere, or could this be broken out to two amendments, one around one on employment or no. So, yeah, so this, this language, you can now take this language and do with it as you please. So, you can offer it as an amendment to two, even three separate bills. So, theoretically you could put the employment language on to one of the employment, like h320 which you sent over to the Senate. If they send that back with a proposal of amendment you could add this to it. Alternatively, you could ask that committee to consider adding this language to that bill. And then with, I think it's s 226 is your housing bill. You could add the fair housing language to that. And then the, the statute of limitations language you could add to either of those bills, or if there's a bill in judiciary that relates to sort of miscellaneous judicial topics related to statutes of limitations and court procedure. There's a section five as well. So, all of those are vehicles and then of course, the big bill the budget bill is often seen as germane to pretty much everything so that's also often a vehicle for these things when we get into the FGHI JK letters for sections there. Thank you. Good to know. Yeah, I think we will. I mean, I have preliminary conversations with cleric take this language to the clerk and just, again, I'm being as I'm being as open on where what we may do with this I'm not no guarantee that this language will get into any bill but but I wanted to get to this point where we were satisfied with with the we can stop working on and help. I think we've come to a period so, but I would ask, you know, before from this point forward we'll talk to the next step for me will be to talk to the clerk and, and if, if it gets passed off if we split it in any particular way. So, are you looking for a full term. Yes, I just like a strong call for us to say are we. It's not even it's not about supporting the bill. It's just about are we finished with our work on this bill. So, all those who are all those who think we're all done with this bill please raise your hand. Thank you. And then we will. I mean, I'll, I'll, if you have a clean copy. Sure. I will take care of that in just a second. And I'll send it to the committee. I'll label this as final h3 29. I'll get it to you in just a second. Close the window instead of turning it into. All right, so thank you everybody this was this was a lot of work and I came true. So far. Thank you. Feel free to take it out. Thank you all and thank you again for letting me participate. This was a new experience and I'm very grateful for your patience as I worked through this and tried to explain our position. Very grateful and good luck. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Enjoy California. Thank you. All right, committee. Let's start next. So our next chunk of time is with this going to be with. For the rest of today. What I'd like to be able to do is we have some witnesses about what we need. I'd also like to have, you know, start a conversation about. How we can prepare the, how we can work through the sections of the bill. What we agree on what we, you know, what we need. What we need. We'll pass, you know, and which is always a conjecture. But let's take. Let's take time off now. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, yeah. There's a clackie. As we walked through this, I know that. We've taken account. The amendment. That are an s 226 to the S two. Or are we going to leave that when we talk to. Well, we'll talk with him and can. I mean, the only one that stands out to me. The VHIP language, which is mostly about ADUs, but anyway, yes, we'll take that into consideration. So I would like to be able to just tidy up the bills between themselves and work on concepts like this language behind me from 226, and then we're going to take, so of course we'll consider adding the fair housing piece when we deal with 226 full time tomorrow. But I think we're identifying just the pieces that we have to start, you know, things are going to get shuffled a few times over the next couple of weeks on these bills, but I just want to keep checking back and tidying them up and then start working on them again. So let's go ahead.