Sen. María Elena Durazo

(1) Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a legislative body, as defined, of a local agency be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend and participate. This bill would, beginning July 1, 2026, and until January 1, 2030, require an eligible legislative body, as defined, to comply with additional meeting requirements, including that, except as specified, all open and public meetings include an opportunity for members of the public to attend via a 2-way telephonic service or a 2-way audiovisual platform, as defined, and that the eligible legislative body take specified actions to encourage residents to participate in public meetings, as specified. The bill would require an eligible legislative body, on or before July 1, 2026, to approve at a noticed public meeting in open session a policy regarding disruption of telephonic or internet services occurring during meetings subject to these provisions, as specified, and would require the eligible legislative body to comply with certain requirements relating to disruption, including for certain disruptions, recessing the open session for at least one hour and making a good faith attempt to restore the service, as specified. (2) Existing law prohibits a majority of the members of a legislative body, outside a meeting authorized by the act, from using a series of communications of any kind to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. Existing law defines "meetings" for these purposes to mean any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and location, as specified, to hear, discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. Until January 1, 2026, existing law excepts from the prohibition a member engaging in separate conversations or communications outside of a meeting with any other person using an internet-based social media platform for specified purposes, provided, among other things, that a majority of the members do not use the internet-based social media platform to discuss among themselves business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. This bill would make the above-described exception related to communications on an internet-based social media platform applicable indefinitely. (3) Existing law requires a legislative body, prior to taking final action, to orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on specified forms of compensation for a local agency executive, as defined, during the open meeting in which the final action is to be taken. This bill would also require the legislative body to make that oral report, as provided above, prior to taking final action on those specified forms of compensation for a department head or other similar administrative officer of the local agency. (4) Existing law requires a legislative body of a local agency or its designee, at least 72 hours before a regular meeting, to post an agenda that meets specified requirements, including that the agenda contain a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, as specified. This bill would, beginning July 1, 2026, and until July 1, 2030, require the agenda for each meeting of an eligible legislative body, as defined, to be translated into all applicable languages. The bill would define "applicable languages" to mean languages, according to data from the most recent American Community Survey, spoken jointly by 20% or more of the applicable population, as specified, provided that 20% or more of the population that speaks that language that in that city or county speaks English less than "very well," as specified, and except as provided. Existing law requires every agenda for regular meetings to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest of the public, as specified. Existing law specifies that the agenda is not required to provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body on any item that has already been considered by a committee, as specified, except if the item has been substantially changed since the committee heard the item, as determined by the legislative body. This bill would add certain exceptions to the provision related to an item that has already been considered by a committee, including excepting committees whose primary subject matter jurisdiction focuses on elections, budgets, police oversight, privacy, removing from, or restricting access to, materials available in public libraries, or taxes or related spending proposals, except as specified. (5) Existing law authorizes a legislative body of a local agency to require a copy of the act to be given to each member of the legislative body and specified persons elected to serve as a member of the legislative body, and authorizes an elected legislative body member to require a copy to be given to each member of each legislative body all or a majority of whose members are appointed by or under the authority of the elected legislative body. This bill would instead require a local agency to provide a copy of the act to any person elected or appointed to serve as a member of a legislative body of the local agency. Existing law authorizes legislative bodies of local agencies to impose requirements upon themselves which allow greater access to their meetings than prescribed by the minimal standards set forth in the act, and authorizes an elected legislative body of a local agency to also impose those requirements on those appointed legislative bodies of the local agency of which all or a majority of the members are appointed by or under the authority of the elected legislative body. This bill would remove the above-described requirement that members of an appointed legislative body of a local agency must be appointed by or under the authority of the elected legislative body of a local agency in order for the elected legislative body to impose the above-described requirements on the appointed legislative body. (6) Existing law provides any person attending an open and public meeting of a legislative body of a local agency with the right to record the proceedings with an audio or visual recorder or a still or motion picture camera, as specified. This bill would remove the reference to an audio or visual recorder or a still or motion picture camera for purposes of recording the proceedings, as described above. (7) Existing law authorizes a legislative body of a local agency to use teleconferencing, as specified, and requires a legislative body of a local agency that elects to use teleconferencing to comply with specified general requirements, including that the local agency post agendas at all teleconference locations, identify each teleconference location in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and have each teleconference location be accessible to the public. Existing law also requires that, during the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as specified. Existing law authorizes members who are outside the jurisdiction of a health authority, as defined, that conducts a teleconferencing meeting to, notwithstanding the above-described general teleconference provisions, count towards the establishment of a quorum when participating in the teleconference if, among other things, at least 50% of the number of members that would establish a quorum are present within the boundaries of the territory over which the authority exercises jurisdiction. Existing law authorizes, in certain circumstances, the legislative body of a local agency to use specified alternative teleconferencing which include provisions related to, among others, notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment and identifying and including an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option. Those circumstances in which the legislative body of a local agency is authorized to use the alternative teleconferencing provisions include specified circumstances relating to a state of emergency, as defined, and, until January 1, 2026, subject to specified limitations, a member's need to participate remotely due to just cause, defined to include, among other things, a need related to a physical or mental disability, or emergency circumstances, as defined, if certain quorum and disclosure requirements are met. Existing law also authorizes certain eligible legislative bodies, including neighborhood councils and student body associations and student-run community college organizations to, until January 1, 2026, use alternate teleconferencing if, among other requirements, the city council or board of trustees, as applicable, has adopted an authorizing resolution and 23 of the neighborhood city council or specified student organization, as applicable, votes to use alternate teleconference provisions, as specified. This bill would revise and recast the above-specified teleconferencing and alternative teleconferencing provisions to uniformly apply certain noticing, disclosure, accessibility, and public commenting provisions. The bill would require a legislative body of a local agency that elects to use teleconferencing pursuant to these alternative teleconferencing provisions to comply with, in addition to any other applicable requirements under the act, specified requirements, including that the legislative body provides at least either 2-way audiovisual platform or 2-way telephonic service and a live webcasting of the meeting as a means by which the public may, among other things, remotely hear and visually observe the meeting, and that a member of the legislative body who participates in a teleconference meeting from a remote location pursuant to these alternative teleconferencing provisions and the specific provision of law that the member relied upon to permit their participation by teleconferencing are listed in the minutes of the meeting. The bill would require a local agency to identify and make available to legislative bodies a list of one or more meeting locations that may be available for use by the legislative bodies to conduct their meetings. The bill would specify that nothing in the bill's provisions is to be construed to prohibit a member of a legislative body with a disability, as defined, from participating in any meeting of the legislative body by remote participation as a reasonable accommodation pursuant to any applicable law. The bill would apply certain provisions relative to, among other things, quorum establishment to that circumstance. The bill would instead authorize a health authority, as defined, to conduct a teleconference meeting pursuant to the above-described alternative teleconferencing provisions. The bill would revise and recast the alternative teleconferencing provisions applicable in a state of emergency, as defined. The bill would also include a local emergency, as defined, as a circumstance in which a legislative body of a local agency is authorized to use the alternative teleconferencing provisions. The bill would revise and recast the alternative teleconferencing provisions applicable in cases of a member's need to participate remotely due to just cause or emergency circumstances, as defined, to remove the provision applicable to emergency circumstances, to revise related definitions, including broadening the definition of just cause to include, among other things, a physical or family medical emergency that prevents a member from attending in person, and to require the minutes for a meeting to identify the specific provision of law that each member relied upon to participate remotely, as specified. The bill would extend the authorization to use the alternative teleconferencing provision until January 1, 2030. The bill would revise and recast the alternative teleconferencing provisions applicable to neighborhood councils and student body associations and student-run community college organizations. In regards to the alternative teleconferencing provisions applicable to student body associations and student-run community college organizations, the bill would exempt the California Online Community College from specified requirements for an in-person quorum, a physical location for public participation, and certain accommodations under the authorization, and remove the ability for a person with a disability that requires certain accommodations to count towards the in-person quorum requirement. The bill would specify that the student body associations and student-run community college organizations described above are those in any community college recognized within the California Community Colleges system, and would extend the authorization to the Student Senate for California Community Colleges. The bill would extend the authorization to use the alternative teleconferencing provisions applicable to neighborhood councils and student body associations and student-run community college organizations until January 1, 2030. The bill would, until January 1, 2030, also authorize a specified subsidiary body of local agencies to conduct a teleconference meeting pursuant to the above-described alternative teleconferencing provisions, provided that it complies with the requirements for alternative teleconferencing described above and additional requirements, including that the subsidiary body designates one physical meeting location within the boundaries of the legislative body that created the subsidiary body where members of the subsidiary body who are not participating remotely shall be present and members of the public may physically attend, observe, hear, and participate in the meeting, as specified. The bill would, until January 1, 2030, also authorize specified multijurisdictional bodies of local agencies to conduct a teleconference meeting pursuant to the above-described alternative teleconferencing provisions, provided that it complies with the requirements for alternative teleconferencing described above and additional requirements, including that the eligible multijurisdictional body has adopted a resolution that authorizes the multijurisdictional body to use teleconferencing at a regular meeting in open session. The bill would specify that these teleconferencing provisions are cumulative, and would authorize a legislative body to elect to use any teleconferencing provisions that are applicable to a meeting, regardless of whether any other teleconferencing provisions would also be applicable to that meeting. Existing law defines "teleconference" for purposes of the authorization for a legislative body of a local agency to use teleconferencing to mean a meeting of a legislative body, the members of which are in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both. This bill would specify that "teleconference" does not include the attendance of one or more members of a legislative body in a meeting of the body solely by watching or listening via webcasting or any other similar electronic medium that does not permit members to interactively speak, discuss, or deliberate on matters. (8) Existing law authorizes a special meeting to be called any time by, among other persons, the presiding officer of the legislative body of a local agency, by delivering specified written notices and posting a notice on the local agency's internet website, if the local agency has one. Existing law requires specified legislative bodies to comply with the internet website posting requirement. The bill would remove the requirement that only specified legislative bodies comply with the internet website posting requirement, thereby imposing that requirement on all legislative bodies. (9) Existing law authorizes a legislative body of a local agency to hold an emergency meeting without complying with specified notice and posting requirements in the case of emergency circumstances, as specified, and imposes various requirements under these provisions applicable to either legislative bodies generally or legislative bodies which are a school board. This bill would remove the school board distinction from the above-described provisions, thereby imposing the same requirements to hold an emergency meeting on all legislative bodies of local agencies. By imposing additional duties on legislative bodies of local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (10) Existing law authorizes, in addition to other related specified authorizations, the presiding member of the legislative body conducting a meeting or their designee to remove, or cause the removal of, an individual for disrupting the meeting. Existing law defines "disrupting" for these purposes to mean engaging in behavior during a meeting of a legislative body that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting, as specified. This bill would specify that a meeting for purposes of that provision includes any teleconferenced meeting. The bill would specify that the existing authority of a legislative body or its presiding officer to remove or limit participation by persons who engage in behavior that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting, as specified, applies to members of the public participating in a meeting via a 2-way telephonic service or a 2-way audiovisual platform, as those terms are defined. (11) The bill would make other updates to references in the act. (12) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (13) The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (14) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. (15) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, until December 31, 2025, requires an employer, as defined, to offer its laid-off employees specified information about job positions that become available for which the laid-off employees are qualified, and to offer positions to those laid-off employees based on a preference system, in accordance with specified timelines and procedures. Existing law, until December 31, 2025, also prohibits an employer from refusing to employ, terminating, reducing compensation, or taking other adverse action against a laid-off employee for seeking to enforce their rights under these provisions. These provisions are enforced by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, as prescribed. Existing law defines "laid-off employee" for these purposes to mean an employee who was employed by the employer for 6 months or more and whose most recent separation from active employment by the employer occurred on or after March 4, 2020, and was due to a reason related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including a public health directive or reduction in force, among other reasons. Existing law also creates a presumption that a separation due to a lack of business, reduction in force, or other economic, nondisciplinary reason is due to a reason related to the COVID-19 pandemic, unless the employer establishes otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence. This bill would extend operation of these provisions until January 1, 2027, except as specified.

Existing law declares the public policy of the state regarding labor organization, including, among other things, that it is necessary for a worker to have full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment, and to be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. Existing law establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) in state government as a means of resolving disputes and enforcing the statutory duties and rights of specified public employers and employees under various acts regulating collective bargaining. Under existing law, PERB has the power and duty to investigate an unfair practice charge and to determine whether the charge is justified and the appropriate remedy for the unfair practice. Existing law, the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) , establishes a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating unfair labor practices on the part of employers and labor organizations in industries affecting interstate commerce, and vests in the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) the power to conduct elections to determine employee representatives and to prevent unfair labor practices affecting commerce. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires that public records, as defined, be available to the public for inspection and made promptly available to any person. This bill would expand PERB's jurisdiction by authorizing a worker, to petition PERB to protect and enforce prescribed rights under specified circumstances, including if the worker is employed in a position subject to the NLRA but the NLRB has expressly or impliedly ceded jurisdiction. The bill would authorize PERB to, among other things, decide unfair labor practice cases pursuant to a specified timeline and order all appropriate relief for a violation, including civil penalties, as prescribed. In order to pursue relief from PERB, the bill would require a covered worker or their representative to file an unfair practice charge or petition that includes specified information, including, where applicable, the original charge or petition filed with the NLRB. The bill would require PERB to hold the supporting documentation and evidence confidential and maintain it as part of its investigatory file and would exempt this documentation and evidence from the California Public Records Act. If PERB determines, among other things, it has insufficient resources to process certain cases or doing so would prevent it from meeting specified statutory deadlines, the bill would require PERB to process and prioritize charges, as specified. The bill would also establish the Public Employment Relations Board Enforcement Fund (fund) in the State Treasury, would require the above-described civil penalties to be deposited into the fund, and would make moneys in the fund available upon appropriation by the Legislature to PERB for the purpose of administering the above-specified provisions. The bill would authorize PERB to rely on its own decisions and precedent under the NLRA and would authorize review of its decisions by a state appellate court, as specified. Existing law, the Alatorre-Zenovich-Dunlap-Berman Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975, grants agricultural employees the right to form and join labor organizations and engage in collective bargaining, as specified, and prohibits agricultural employers and labor organizations from engaging in unfair labor practices. Those provisions establish the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) and empower the ALRB to prevent any person from engaging in those practices. Existing law establishes various definitions for these purposes. Existing law requires the ALRB to follow applicable precedents of the NLRA. This bill would specify that the ALRB has exclusive jurisdiction in all phases of the administration of the act, and to determine whether any person or entity meets one or more of those definitions. The bill would instead authorize the board to follow applicable precedents of the NLRA, but would not obligate the board to follow precedents where the ALRB deems it inappropriate to do so. This bill would make related findings and declarations and would make its provisions severable. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

(1) The Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) prohibits a provider of health care, a health care service plan, a contractor, or a corporation and its subsidiaries and affiliates from intentionally sharing, selling, using for marketing, or otherwise using any medical information, as defined, for any purpose not necessary to provide health care services to a patient, except as provided. The CMIA prohibits a provider of health care, health care service plan, or contractor from disclosing medical information regarding a patient of the provider of health care or an enrollee or subscriber of a health care service plan without first obtaining authorization from the patient, except if the disclosure is compelled by, among other things, a search warrant lawfully issued to a governmental law enforcement agency or a court order. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions that results in economic loss or personal injury to a patient punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would revise the definition of "medical information" to include immigration status, including current and prior immigration status, and place of birth, if that information is known or collected, as specified, and would define "immigration enforcement" to mean any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law, and also includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a person's presence in, entry or reentry to, or employment in, the United States. The bill would specify that a provider of health care, health care service plan, or contractor shall disclose medical information regarding a patient of the provider of health care or an enrollee or subscriber or a health care service plan pursuant to a valid search warrant issued by a judicial officer, including a magistrate, to a governmental law enforcement agency, or pursuant to a state or federal court order issued by a court of this state or a federal court. The bill would also prohibit, except to the extent expressly authorized by a patient, enrollee, or subscriber, or as otherwise permitted or required, a provider of health care, health care service plan, contractor, or corporation and its subsidiaries and affiliates from disclosing medical information for immigration enforcement. Because the bill would expand the scope of a crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Under existing law, the State Department of Public Health is responsible for the licensing and regulation of various facilities and settings that provide health care services, as specified. Existing law makes a willful violation of these provisions a crime. This bill would require health care provider entities, as defined, to establish or amend procedures for monitoring, documenting, and receiving visitors to health care provider entities to the extent possible. The bill would require health care provider entity personnel to immediately notify health care provider entity management, administration, or legal counsel of any request for access to a health care provider entity site or patient for immigration enforcement, and to provide any requests for review of health care provider entity documents, as prescribed. The bill would prohibit, unless required by state or federal law, a health care provider entity and its personnel from allowing any person access to nonpublic areas of the provider's facilities for immigration enforcement purposes, except as specified. The bill would require health care provider entities to inform staff and relevant volunteers on how to respond to requests relating to immigration enforcement that grants access to health care provider entity sites or to patients. The bill would require that health care provider entities comply with these provisions within 45 days from their effective date. By expanding the scope of a crime and increasing duties on local health officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Maddy summarySCR 95 is a ceremonial resolution that would establish September 20, 2025, and every September 20 thereafter, as "Soju Day" in the state. It does not create new laws or regulations, nor does it affect any specific individuals or groups. The resolution solely designates an annual date for recognition and celebration. This is purely symbolic, with no concrete policy changes or practical impact beyond the ceremonial observance.

This measure would proclaim the month of October 2025 as California Firefighter Appreciation Month and October 4, 2025, as California Firefighters Memorial Day.

This measure would state, among other things, the Legislature and the State of California's commitment to protecting, to the fullest extent of the law, all the data and information provided by students and their families to California's postsecondary education.

(1) Existing law establishes the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, which is administered by the State Department of Social Services, counties, and other entities, under which qualified aged, blind, or disabled persons are provided with supportive services in order to permit them to remain in their own homes. Existing law authorizes a county board of supervisors to elect to contract with a nonprofit consortium to provide for the delivery of in-home supportive services or to establish, by ordinance, a public authority to provide for the delivery of those services, in accordance with certain procedures. Existing law deems a public authority created under these provisions to be the employer of in-home supportive services personnel under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, which governs labor relations between local public employers and employees. Existing law also deems a nonprofit consortium contracting with a county to be the employer of in-home supportive services personnel for purposes of collective bargaining over wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Existing law grants recipients of in-home supportive services the right to hire, fire, and supervise the work of any in-home supportive services personnel providing services for them. Existing law prohibits the state and specified local public employers from deterring or discouraging public employees from becoming or remaining members of an employee organization. Existing law also requires specified public employers to provide exclusive employee representatives access to new employee orientations. Existing law generally grants the Public Employment Relations Board jurisdiction over violations of these provisions. Existing law defines "public employers" who are subject to these provisions as including, among others, public agencies, cities, counties, and districts. This bill would expand the definition of "public employer," for purposes of those provisions, to include an employer who is subject to the In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act, which the bill would create. The bill would establish a method for resolving disputes regarding wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment between the state and recognized employee organizations representing individual providers. The bill would provide for the right of employees, also known as individual providers under the act, to form, join, and participate in activities of employee organizations for the purposes of representation on all matters within the scope of employee organizations. The bill would define "employee" or "individual provider" for these purposes to mean a person authorized to provide in-home supportive services pursuant to the individual provider mode or waiver personal care services, as prescribed. This bill would, for purposes of collective bargaining, deem the state to be the employer of record of individual providers in each county. The bill would grant the in-home supportive services recipient with the right to hire, fire, and supervise the work of the individual providers providing services to them. Among other things, the bill would specify that individual providers employed by a predecessor agency before January 1, 2026, shall retain employee status and not be required by the state to requalify to receive payment for providing in-home supportive services. Among other things, for purposes of collective bargaining, this bill would provide that existing bargaining units consisting of individual providers in a single county that are represented by the same recognized employee organization shall be deemed merged into the largest possible multicounty bargaining units represented by that employee organization. In counties where no recognized employee organization exists as of January 1, 2026, the bill would specify that a bargaining unit consisting of all employees in that county shall be deemed an appropriate unit for collective bargaining. Under the bill, if individual providers in a county bargaining unit are represented by a recognized employee organization on January 1, 2026, the state would be deemed the successor employer of the predecessor agency for purposes of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement, subject to the obligation to meet and confer in good faith and meet other related legal requirements. This bill would require all recognized employee organizations, as of January 1, 2026, to negotiate jointly on behalf of all bargaining units they represent to reach a single memorandum of understanding with the employer. The bill would authorize the memorandum of understanding to contain addenda reflecting regional or county-level terms and conditions. The bill would establish procedures for voting and ratification of a memorandum of understanding, and for the employer to assume a predecessor agency's rights and obligations under a memorandum of understanding or agreement between a predecessor agency and a recognized employee organization that is in effect on January 1, 2026. This bill would prescribe the duties of the state under the bill, including requiring the Governor to meet and confer in good faith, and to follow specified procedures regarding collective bargaining. If an agreement is reached by a representative of the Governor and the recognized employee organizations, the bill would require those parties to jointly prepare a written memorandum of understanding and present it to the Legislature for determination by majority vote. The bill would require the Governor, for any side letter, appendix, or other addendum to a memorandum of understanding that requires the expenditure of $250,000 or more related to salary and benefits not included in the original memorandum or the Budget Act, to provide that to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, as specified. The bill would also establish mediation and arbitration procedures that would apply when the parties fail to reach an agreement. This bill would make certain actions by an employer and other entities involved in administering the IHSS program unlawful, including imposing or threatening to impose reprisals on employees or otherwise interfering with the exercise of their rights. The bill would authorize the Public Employment Relations Board to adopt reasonable rules and regulations pursuant to the bill, including the adoption of emergency regulations, as prescribed. (2) Existing law requires the Controller to provide for the administration of payroll deductions and salary reductions, and authorizes the Controller to establish procedures for that purpose. This bill would require the Controller to honor a written authorization for payroll deductions executed by an employee before January 1, 2026, and to make deductions for payments of dues to a recognized employee organization pursuant to the bill consistent with the above-described payroll deduction procedures. (3) Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires public records to be open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency that retains those records, and provides that every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as provided. Existing law provides that certain information regarding persons paid by the state to provide in-home supportive services, or other related public services, are not subject to disclosure under those provisions. Existing law further provides that copies of names, addresses, home telephone numbers, and other identifying information are required to be made available, upon request, to an exclusive bargaining agent and to any employee organization seeking representation rights under specified collective bargaining provisions. This bill would, with respect to the above-described personal identifying information, instead require this information to be made available to the exclusive bargaining agent and any employee organization seeking representation under the bill. The bill would require the state, or a county, public authority, or nonprofit consortium organized pursuant to the IHSS program, to promptly make the information available to the requesting entity. This bill would revise the IHSS program provisions to require the state to assume responsibilities as set forth in the bill. The bill would also require a county or city and county to continue to have certain IHSS program-related functions set forth in county ordinance or contract performed in accordance with specified provisions. (4) Existing law requires prospective providers of in-home supportive services to complete an in-person provider orientation at the time of enrollment that is developed by the department, in consultation with counties, that includes requirements to be an eligible IHSS provider and other related matters. This bill additionally would require that in-person provider orientation include any other information required to be communicated to prospective providers by a memorandum of understanding, appendix, or side letter between recognized employee organizations and the state. Existing law requires a specified mediation process, including a factfinding panel recommending settlement terms, to be held if a public authority or nonprofit consortium and an employee organization fail to reach agreement on a bargaining contract with in-home supportive service (IHSS) workers on or after October 1, 2023. This bill would make that provision inoperative. The bill would also require the department to appoint an IHSS Advisory Committee to provide ongoing advice and recommendations regarding in-home supportive services, as specified. The bill would require the employer, prior to finalizing a memorandum of understanding with one or more organizations that are the designated representatives of in-home services providers, to consult with specified advisory committee representatives to obtain input on county and public authority programmatic and fiscal implications. Existing law requires the state and counties to share the annual cost of providing IHSS pursuant to a specified cost ratio. Existing law requires all counties to have a rebased County IHSS Maintenance of Effort (MOE) , and requires the rebased MOE to be adjusted only by an inflation factor of 4% and for the annualized cost of increases in provider wages, health benefits, or other benefits that are locally negotiated, mediated, or imposed, as prescribed. This bill would prohibit the rebased County IHSS MOE from being adjusted based on any provision of any memorandum of understanding, or addenda, appendices, or side letters thereto, between the state and recognized employee organizations. Existing law requires the state to pay 100% of the allowable nonfederal share of county administration and public authority administration costs for each county, until the county's share of the General Fund moneys appropriated for this purpose is exhausted, and then requires the county to pay 100% of the remaining nonfederal share of county administration and public authority administration costs, as specified. This bill would require the state to also pay 100% of the nonfederal share of county administration and public authority administration costs for each county of any administration costs resulting from the provisions of any memorandum of understanding, or addenda, appendices, or side letters thereto, between the state and recognized employee organizations. Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a state body be open and public. This bill would exempt the IHSS Advisory Committee from the act. This bill would make other related changes. By imposing new duties on local government officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) This bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern and, therefore, apply to all counties. (6) The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (7) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (8) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

This measure would call on the state's Representatives in Congress to support legislation to repeal all of the provisions of the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act that adversely affect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs, to oppose privatization of these programs, and to protect and improve these programs, and would call on the President of the United States to immediately restore program staffing levels, to work with Congress to protect and improve these programs, and to disavow any efforts to privatize Social Security.

Existing law imposes certain requirements on grocery employers, as defined, upon the purchase or change in control of a grocery establishment, including requiring a successor grocery employer to retain eligible grocery workers for a specified period after transfer of the grocery establishment. This bill would prohibit a grocery retail store or a retail drug establishment, as those terms are defined, from providing a self-service checkout option for customers unless specified conditions are satisfied, including having at least one manual checkout station staffed by an employee who is available to any given customer at the time that a self-service checkout option is made available to that customer. This bill would require a grocery retail store or retail drug establishment that offers self-service checkout to include self-service checkout in the employer's illness and prevention program, as required by regulations of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health. The bill also would require a grocery retail store or retail drug establishment that intends to implement self-checkout to notify workers and their collective bargaining representatives at least 60 days in advance of the implementation, as specified. The bill would not preempt any city, county, or city and county ordinance that provides equal or greater protection to workers. This bill would make an employer who violates the bill's provisions subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation per day, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of $200,000.