As we come into the second half of the legislative calendar, we find bills moving forward in the second house. Assembly bills are now being heard in the Senate, and Senate bills are now being heard in the Assembly. Because of the state’s huge deficit, about 30% of bills placed in the suspense file, the place where bills with a large expense are held, died in the Appropriations Committee and will not move forward.

There are hundreds of bills that PERK Advocacy has been reviewing and watching, and we have taken action on many bills. If you haven’t already, please visit our Action Campaign page to review bills we feel are especially important to share your opinion on.

Let’s highlight some bills going through the legislature this year. PERK Advocacy needs the people of California to get more involved in civic engagement, and that starts with gaining knowledge. So, let’s take a look:

There are two financial literacy bills going through the legislature. The intent is to provide financial literacy education. Assemblymemer KevinMcCarty’s bill AB 2927 establishes a financial literacy course requirement for 9-12 graders. There may be concern that 9-12th grade already has a list of course requirements for graduation. This bill will mean sacrificing an elective or another important class to fulfill this added class, specifically stating “(iii) (I) A local educational agency may elect to eliminate one or more locally required courses established pursuant to paragraph (2) in order to accommodate the requirement that pupils, commencing with pupils graduating in the 2030–31 school year, complete a one-semester course in personal finance.” Assemblymember Juan Alanis’ bill AB 1871 will require curriculum to include personal financial literacy within social sciences courses for grades 7-12. Here there is concern that the requirement is too broad. 

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2927

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1871

Interesting bill comparisons: take a look at this!

AB 1949 vs. AB 1414

AB 1949 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks is a very important bill that needs to pass because it will raise the age of protection of minor children’s personal information to age 18, instead of the current age of 16. PERK Advocacy values bills that protect privacy and especially bills that protect our children. This bill does both by identifying children as including children ages 16 and 17. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1949

Another very important bill PERK Advocacy is supporting is SB 1414 by Senator Shannon Grove. This bill would make it a punishable offense to solicit a minor ages 16 and under. Originally the bill was drafted to protect any minor under the age of 18, but hostile amendments were put in during the committee hearing and the bill author stated in the hearing she does not agree with the amendments and pled with the committee not to force them into the bill, but she accepted them as the only way the committee would allow the bill to move forward. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1414

PERK Advocacy hopes to see both bills pass, and we hope the legislature will see the duplicity in their definition of a minor and work to protect all children under 18.

AB 1955 vs SB 957

AB 1955 is a gut and amend bill that came into the legislature after getting through the assembly as a different bill. Now that it is in the Senate, the bill author has reframed the bill to be a bill that will prohibit teachers and school employees and contracted workers from disclosing to the child’s parent (who is their family, responsible party, and primary caregiver) if the child asks to be identified in any way other than what is specified in the intake and enrollment forms completed by the parent. Although we see the caring intent to protect children’s control over their identity and when and how they choose to come out as LGBTQ or curious, PERK Advocacy stands on our values of parental rights. It is understood that such conversations can be scary, and it is a real concern that disclosing such sensitive information can lead to bullying, abuse and neglect from parents who will refuse to accept it. However, creating laws that will prohibit teachers, who are secondary caregivers, from disclosing information about their child to them without the child’s consent. The bill author is calling it a forced outing bill but this is not a bill that will force the teacher to out the child to their friends, classmates, the school, or the public. This is about a private communication to the parent about their child. A better way to deal with concerns of creating trauma in the parent child relationship, the bill authors need to work to improve the parent child relationship so children can feel more comfortable and parents can be more welcoming to the idea of discussing such a sensitive topic.This bill is not the right answer to the problem they seek to solve. Strengthening parent-child relationships is the true answer to the fear and trauma involved, not building walls of secrecy. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1955

So while AB 1955 seeks to prohibit parents from knowing their child’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or related information, SB 957 will require the government to collect that same information! Basically, the legislature wants to prohibit parents from knowing how their child wants to identify while requiring the people of California to tell the government how they identify. And the profoundness of the words “prohibit” and “require” being extreme opposites regarding the same information, sadly, speaks volumes about who the people at the Capitol value.  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB957

More about the problems with AB 1955: this plays into last year's bills that are now law.

AB 5

Mandates teachers to complete training on how to identify and profile students whose parents don't affirm their child's gender identity, identify and implement inclusive curriculum, and counseling services for LGBTQ youth. 

Unintended Consequence 

Will train teachers to profile and document parents based on their personal beliefs.

AB 665

Removes decades of safeguards that say a child can only “self-consent” out of home and into a government “residential shelter” to receive “mental health services” without their parents’ / guardians’ knowledge if they are the victim of abuse or incest, or a risk of harm to self or others.

Unintended Consequence

Guardrails removed so will remove due process of verification with or notification to the parents before children get placed in residential shelter services.

*Remember how AB 665 said school counselors would make an attempt to contact parents. AB1955 would erase that caveat as it would prohibit notification to the parents.

As we comb through which bills have made it onto the second house, we will give you an update on the list of bills we are taking a position on. If you see a bill that is important to you, share it with us at info@perk-group.com, and make sure to call your legislator’s office to voice your concerns.