Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

Today we will be hearing from four entities responsible for licensing or registering various occupations under the business and professions code: the Bureau of Automotive Repair, the Structural Pest Control Board, the Tax Education Council, and the Acupuncture Board.

For each portion of today's hearing, we will begin by hearing from representatives of the entity under review, open the discussion up to questions of the two committees, then hear from Members of the public who will be limited to a maximum of two minutes per organization.

In addition to hearing from those here in the room today, we will be using a moderated telephone service. The call in number for this hearing is 877-862-8957. Again, that was 877692-- I'm not sure if I said that right--877-692-8957. Again, 877-692-8957. Access code 1850-1100. Again, the access code is 18501100.

I'm looking forward to today's hearing, where I anticipate we will have a productive dialogue with the regulatory entities about how they are working to protect the public and how we in the Legislature can further empower them in the work they do. Before we begin, I will turn it over to my Senate counterpart, the esteemed Chair Roth, for any introductory remarks.

Thank you.

Hit the mic button. There it is.

There we go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for hosting us. Look forward to the hearing.

I hope that that brevity is a sign of things to come for this hearing. I appreciate that, Chair Roth. Without further ado, we will begin with our first panel of representatives of the Bureau of Automotive Repair. Come on up.

Let me just find my . . . and I believe testifying with us today are, of course, Kimberly Kirchmeyer, Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs, and, Patrick, I apologize Patrick Dorais, the Bureau Chief. Ready when you are. I think you might just need to press the microphone button.

Okay, there we go. Sorry about that. All right, let me start over. Good morning, Chair Berman, Chair Roth, and committee Members. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to come before you today to discuss the Bureau of Automotive Repair, also known as BAR. I would also like to thank your staff for their diligent preparation for this hearing. The materials are very well written.

Since 1972, the Bureau has been mediating consumer complaints, investigating violations, and initiating disciplinary action against automotive repair dealers and break min lamp stations and adjusters who fail to comply with the Automotive Repair Act. The Bureau also administers the Smogcheck program and the Consumer Assistance Program that both help improve air quality and reduce the environmental and public health impacts from air pollution in California.

I'm happy to report that since its last sunset review, the Bureau implemented new electronic processes to streamline application processing and initiated a comprehensive information technology modernization project to further improve processing times.

Additionally, the Bureau now has a dedicated Web page providing information on the licensing resources available to military members and their families, and shares military information in newsletter articles, social media messages, and informational inserts included with mailed renewal notices to licensees. The Bureau continues to leverage information technology to manage its enforcement workload, including an increase in the number of disciplinary actions, most significantly, actions resulting in revocation or probation.

The Bureau is also an active participant in the Governor's Joint Enforcement Strike Force and partners with other agencies to perform compliance sweeps. The Bureau continuously monitors online listings and sets up covert sting operations to engage unlicensed operators and takes appropriate action. These are just a few of the strides the Bureau has made since the last sunset review. Here with me to talk about the Bureau and to answer questions is Bureau Chief Patrick Dorais, and he will provide more information on the progress of the Bureau.

Thank you, Director Kirchmeyer. Good morning, honorable chairs and committee Members. I am Patrick Dorais, Chief of the Bureau of Automotive Repair. I appreciate the opportunity to represent the Bureau today and would like to extend my gratitude to the Committee staff for their guidance and collaboration in this important legislative process.

Along with the accomplishments that Director Kirchmeyer mentioned, the Bureau has also made significant enhancements to help consumers make more informed decisions about the maintenance or repair of their vehicles. Highlights include a mobile friendly auto shop locator application that allows consumers to perform location and service based searches of licensed automotive repair dealers.

Regulations also were adopted to allow electronic estimates and consumer authorization of automotive repairs through email and text formats, bringing this industry and the Bureau's regulation into the 21st century. And safety recall information was added to the vehicle inspection report that stations must provide to consumers after every Smogcheck inspection.

The Bureau continues to work with various stakeholders to strengthen our regulatory programs to better serve consumers and licensees. Examples include development of a comprehensive vehicle safety systems inspection program and strategies to improve the efficiency of the formal discipline process, including electronic transmittal of cases to the Office of the Attorney General.

Additionally, the Bureau has identified several new issues that we hope to collaborate with the Legislature and other stakeholders on potential solutions. Thank you for your time today. I look forward to responding to questions from the Committee and discussing the recommendations provided in the background paper.

Thank you very much, Director. So with that, I want to open it up to colleagues on the committee, if anybody has any questions or comments for either the Director or the Bureau Chief.

Chair just a couple of questions, Mr. Chair. With respect to military applicants, I noticed the analysis said that indicates that the Board has not received any request to waive renewal fees or requirements for a licensee or registrant held active duty. Do we notify applicants of the waiver opportunity.

We do. That's part of our application process.

Perfect.

I believe, Chief Dorais, also, that you include information about the renewals in the renewal notices mailed out to licensees.

That's also correct. Thank you.

Thank you. With respect to the collection of data on exam pass rates, maybe you mentioned that and I missed it because I was doing something else. Could you cover that for us?

Data on exam pass rates?

Right. You noticed in the analysis the background paper during a prior sunset review, those here at the time questioned your ability to analyze the efficacy of your exams without collecting data on exam pass rates and suggested that you might want to consider that has that happened? And if not, why not?

We have not had a chance to explore the pass rate of our three licenses that require an examination for Smog check inspectors and repair technicians and then lamp and brake adjusters. That is something, having seen that in this year's report request for information, we have reached out to our, and we'll be actually reaching out to our department's Office of Professional Examination Services to look at how we might be able, through the department's exam contractor, look at pass rates.

Perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any questions or comments from anyone else on the committee? Just one question. I know issue number seven kind of highlights storage fees and some of the complications around this issue. Are there any possibilities in your mind for expanding oversight over towing and storage fees?

Towing and storage fees is probably an issue that's better less to consumer and towing industry groups as it relates to storage fees that occur as a result of an automotive repair transaction that hasn't yet been entered into or an automotive repair transaction that's been completed. And then the vehicle sits and storage fees are become a part of the transaction.

That is something I think naturally fits within the Bureau's jurisdiction. There is one caveat to that, though. The storage fee laws are laid out in the Vehicle Code, and the Bureau does not have specific authority or jurisdiction in the Vehicle Code. The only enforcement as it relates to our efforts to bring any justice to any outlandish fees that might be charged would be a link to our statutory authority as laid out in the Business and Professions Code, namely, fraud, false and misleading statements and those ayes of serious actions. We do look forward to working with the Legislature and the committees on possible solutions to this issue.

In response to that, we were getting a bunch of concerns raised to us about some of the storage fee issues laid out in the vehicle code as brought to us by the insurance industry. And we offered to set up last year, in January of last year, a dedicated email account so that they could refer issues to us to look at as it relates to the automotive repair dealers and their transactions with consumers.

So we've been monitoring that email address for the better part of a year and received close to 300 referrals from the insurance industry. Many of those are mediated with the Bureau's investigators to bring relief back to either the insurance company itself, which translates to reduce fees, or, excuse me, increase payouts to consumers who are looking to have that vehicle repaired at the full amount.

Great. Thank you very much. I'm going to go Senator Wahab, Senator Ashby, back to the chair.

Thank you. I'm going to piggyback off of the chair's comments in regards to towing. So about two weeks ago, one of my vehicles was stolen and eventually found after a bunch of paperwork with police and so forth. It was towed from wherever it was found, and the fee for the towing was $700.01.

In particular, towing fees, they tend to start to add up day over day. Even 15 minutes of storage is $500 in the Bay Area in particular. And it can bankrupt a family, right? Especially if there's a weekend or a holiday or they are not able to receive their vehicle that evening or whatever the case may be. And there doesn't seem to be a cap on these daily $500 storage fees, if not more than $500. There's no rhyme or reason around this.

And, at the same time, we take a look at this and we see our growing senior population that's on a fixed income, that their vehicle could be, let's say an older vehicle, unreliable vehicle, whatever, and it gets picked up. Or do we have any programs or plan on incentivizing or helping out those on fixed incomes in this regard with.

The fees as it relates to towing, charges in the--

The fees and also with the growing housing and lack of parking for new developments and so forth. I just see this as a growing problem and I just want to see if are we being proactive of attending to our fixed income or lower income individuals?

The only program that we have that addresses that, statutorily speaking, is our Consumer Assistance Program, which is specifically looking at helping individuals with repairs or possibly retiring a vehicle that is unable to pass a small check inspection.

As it relates to towing charges, as I mentioned, the Bureau doesn't have specific authority to regulate tow trucks and towing transactions, but we always encourage a consumer who thinks there might be a link to an automotive repair dealer to file a consumer complaint with us, and we will investigate it to the best of our abilities.

Okay.

Thank you. Senator Ashby?

Thank you. In the prior sunsets discussion items that were brought forward, prior issue number five, we call that breezy, or just BreEZe?

BreEZe.

BreEZe.

Okay. So it looks like there was quite a bit of effort put into trying to make it work, and it didn't. And I see that the final sentence in that paragraph is that the licensing portion of that is still expected to be implemented this year. So I just wanted to ask for a little update on that program.

How much of it have we been able to salvage? How much of the people's expenses that went into making that work are turning into a benefit for them? And are we sure that as we continue to rely on that even in this year, that we think it's going to produce what we want it to produce for the people of the State of California?

I'll start and then I'll turn it over to the Director. BreEZe was initially laid out in three phases. The Bureau of Automotive Repair, with several other Department of Consumer Affairs clients, were slated for the third and final phase for implementation. That project, after the first two phases, was canceled with respect to the parties, the entities in that third phase.

But we were still expected to look at modernizing our licensing and enforcement systems, the legacy systems that date back to the 1960s, I believe. We have undertaken that task. We are actually moving forward with a project called our Enforcement Licensing Modernization Effort that will look to leverage some of the successes of some of the other phase three clients who were unable to participate in the BreEZE project.

There's at least two cohorts at the Department of Consumer Affairs have already initiated a modernization effort. Ours will be split into two phases. Our licensing phase will be rolled out this year, and then, our enforcement effort to modernize that legacy system will be done in the coming months and years, probably at least a year away before we get to undertake that effort.

One quick follow up. Do you have any idea how much we've expended on that program?

On our enforcement licensing modernization on set?

On all three phases?

Yes, because the prior analysis shows that we still paid into it after it came kind of apart.

Oh, on the BreEZe project alone?

Correct. The Bureau, through the pro rata of the Department of Consumer Affairs, expended roughly 1.6 million over about eight fiscal years. We no longer pay into Breeze as of 2018-2019. That supports a number of efforts, however that we participate in. There's a data reporting tool. There's a license search that the Department has rolled out for all boards and bureaus. So that has been a benefit to the Bureau of Automotive Repair.

And Senator, I just like to add, actually it wasn't a failed project. It just didn't move to release three. But we do have 18 within the Department of Consumer Affairs, we have 36 different boards and bureaus, and we have 18 of them that are actually in the BeEZe system and functioning.

They use licensing, enforcement, and as Chief Durazo said, the money that the release three entities did pay in it did go to basically a data warehouse that was built that does include those release three boards, as well as a license search. So you can go in and you can search within DCA and you can just put in a name, and it'll give you whatever board that that individual is licensed within, and even multiple boards, if they were licensed with multiple boards.

So those are things. And then we learned so much from the project that we've made, like organizational change management. We knew that that needed to be more incorporated so that funding was able to also Fund that for the release three boards. So we learned so many lessons from the project.

Chair Roth, I believe you had a follow up.

Just a question I neglected to ask, has to do with issue number ten. I noted in the background it talks about unlicensed automotive repair referral businesses as being a new issue. Perhaps you could explain that and what the solution is.

We will have some instances where there have been some companies who have set up theirselves as almost as an Angie's list type of service where they will collect the fees up front for the entire automotive repair transaction and then they'll farm that out or refer that to someone. Hopefully in the automotive repair industry that's licensed as an automotive repair dealer to have those services performed on the vehicle.

Oftentimes, however, the consumer is lost as to if they want recourse as to an automotive repair transaction that's gone sideways. They'll go to the person that did the repairs and they'll say, I didn't collect the fees, go back to the entity that you paid to and then they'll have trouble locating those individuals or those companies that have been set up in that manner. So we are wrestling with low to improve the regulatory oversight of those entities. We look forward to working with the committees on possible solutions.

Well, correct me, in the normal course of events, if you're doing automotive repair or you're seeking automotive repair, there are a series of documents that have to be signed, are there not? Estimates and the rest? Yes. Before you collect money? Yes. What you're saying is in this unlicensed automotive repair referral business, the automotive repair referral entity is collecting money for the repair.

Yes, they are.

Without signing anything?

In many cases that is the case, yes, and locating them is a challenge for us when we go to find and have a discussion to mediate a consumer's complaint as an unlicensed activity, we will be struggling with trying to locate someone who we can have a conversation with that with them and bring them into the club to have them registered.

Well, there are others up here who have more experience with this than certainly I do, but why not prohibit, then, the unlicensed automotive repair referral process or in the alternative subject that process to some form of regulation?

I concur wholeheartedly that that's something we need to look at as far as strengthening the statutory authority to either prohibit those kinds of transactions. There are a number of business models, I think, that are out there where consumers do like that type of online, not your standard brick and mortar operation to be able to engage in an automotive repair transaction with someone.

Well, referral. Is one thing, but referral and collecting the money for the repair and then contracting with a repair facility to do it, I assume at some point the customer has to interface with the repair facility. You're dropping a car off and forms are signed, right?

Well, sometimes this is just done at your place of convenience to you at your home or at your office, in the parking lot, at your office, perhaps. And these mobile operations are a challenge.

Well, we certainly want to respond to the fact that we're in the 21st century, but this is the time to make changes. So perhaps, as I said the other day, lickety split. We focus on this issue and see what we need to incorporate in the sunset vehicles that my colleague, the Chair, is grappling with today. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Look forward to that dialogue in that process. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know we've had some new colleagues join us. Anybody else with any questions? Yes, please. Senator Alvarado-Gil.

This one.

There you go.

Hello. Hi, how are you? Good morning. Thank you for coming here today and educating us on some of these issues. My question is in regards to issue number eleven, and I'm looking at the Smog Check inspection of model years 1976 to 1995 vehicles. And I'd like to share that the classic car culture or the low riding culture is very much a staple of the history of California.

And many times these are investments that are made from one generation to another. They are linked to business, to family heritage, to genealogies. And I see the impediment of not being able to get a Smog or not being able to get registration to be able to bring these vehicles onto the road. You'll see them a lot in my district and a lot of our rural communities as part of our parades, our holiday celebrations.

And I'm wondering, in terms of this issue, what can we do more? What has been done more to help to support the culture of classic car renovations and classic car celebrations in the history of California?

Thank you very much for the question, a very good one. I would like to add that many of the staff at the Bureau of Automotive Repair, they come from the automotive repair industry. Certainly in our investigative classifications, they are classic car enthusiasts as well. Many of them are restoring vehicles and working on them. Go around the building and ask, how was your weekend? What did you do? Worked on a car. That's what they do.

As it relates to the Smog Check program, everything older than 1976 model year is exempt from the Smog Check program. That's laid out clearly in statute. And then there's a process for anything that's subject to the program to be able to go through the process of having that vehicle designated a classic car for the purposes of getting a much streamlined and scaled back inspection, where a visual inspection of normally required visual, excuse me, emissions control components and systems would not be undertaken.

Or perhaps why there would be a process for accepting some of those parts from the inspection process. As far as promoting that, we do have information available on our website about that process. There is a fairly extensive set of laws strewn about through the health and safety code, the vehicle code, and maybe even one other code that I may be remiss and leaving out.

And some of that is challenging to work through, but we do our best to get that information out to consumers so that they know that there is a process. Most of the times, it does start with an application process at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Follow-up question: So, I have a 15 month old grandson, and he's got his cozy coupe. That's his first car. And the good thing is it doesn't require a smog check. But as you can imagine, culturally, it is part of California's history to be able to pass on those cars to our children, our grandchildren.

And oftentimes we're moving into this electronic age. We're moving into computerized car chips. And so a lot of our smog centers right now, you input a code, and the computer tells you everything, right? But there's still this heritage preservation of good old fashioned grease and wrenching.

And so I'm hoping that there are centers or there's an option for those of us who continue to glorify the grease and wrenching of automotive, of the automotive industry and those heritage vehicles even coming into 1976 and above, because that's kind of my age group, and I still feel like I'm a classic age.

But there are those vehicles that are preserved from family to family that we want to make sure are still within the rotation of being able to be on the road. I think of my first car was an 87 Suzuki Samurai that I bought for $800 because that's what I could afford then. But I had to fix it up to make sure it was worthy of the road.

And that story resonates over and over again with families, middle income families, working income families that really just want to be able to give that gift to their children as they age into the driving age. So I hope that as you look for solutions, that there's automotive centers, smog centers that are tailored towards these classic cars even above 1976, because to me, it still feels like that's a classic age if you've got a 1970s or 80s vehicle. Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator, If I can just add and pat, you can add on that's exactly what this issue is about, is trying to produce something like that where there would be a location statewide that would be able to do that.

Thank you. Senator, last call. Questions, comments from colleagues. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Good morning. I also had a Suzuki Samurai, so I was like, okay, I remember that very cute jeep. I apologize. I had a question about workforce and training and wanted to hear a little bit more about that. And I come from obviously, a very traffic, car heavy district, lots of residents going to so many different sectors of a huge county.

And we know that these vehicles are going to be transitioning soon. And we want to make sure that every resident of our district, whether they be in South Central, Skid Row or in Westchester, Santa Monica Mar Vista, has an opportunity to participate in the electrical vehicle space.

I'm curious about how you all are thinking about workforce and the ways in which your current membership, the current business owners and practitioners in your field are preparing flora that shift. I looked through some of the materials and issues. I did not see anything that spoke to me in that way.

I'm curious about it because as the state is investing and we're at this crossroads, I'm curious, how is the industry really focusing on making sure that our automotive and particularly our repair and maintenance sectors are ready for this shift? And that everyone, particularly those underrepresented communities, communities that have limited access to workforce training and pathways, how are you all preparing for that and preparing them?

We participate with and host an advisory group that has a number of auto repair trade association representatives on there. We bring to those discussions. We meet quarterly periodic discussions with educators to have a frank discussion about how to prepare our marketplace and our labor force for the changing automotive repair industry. There's tremendous advancements and technology advancements that are being made every day.

We, ourselves, are preparing for advanced driver assistance systems that are on vehicles and helping with lane departure technology and rear view mirror and other protective safety measures that are on the vehicle to ensure consumers are safe. We have done an extensive amount of training just recently with our own staff, and that's something that we'd like to share with the automotive repair industry.

I can't speak to specific initiatives being undertaken by the automotive repair industry itself. Some of our participants who might be in the room today representing the automotive repair industry could elaborate a little bit more on that. I do know that we, when asked to come speak at high schools, community colleges, private educational providers such as United Technical Institute just up the road here off of Highway 80, we will go and have discussions and speak to graduating classes.

We will speak to classes where the instructor has invited us to participate. We also have sponsored a number of grants and scholarship programs for high schools and trade associations that are looking to get more people into mathis and excited about this industry.

So BAR, you all actually conduct workforce development activities and you sponsor workshops and training and education on the licensing requirements. You also do a Cars for School program where you donate those vehicles. I appreciate that there's some discussion within the sector about this.

I'm just curious, how do you encourage participation, particularly for disadvantaged and minority groups in these kinds of vocational training and particularly as it relates to what seems to be an emerging focus, though not an organized, intentional effort, but a focus around the transition of electric vehicles coming into this space.

But I'm curious, how do you encourage those disadvantaged communities to participate in the automotive repair, vocational and training opportunities? Because certainly that infrastructure is necessary if we are to ensure that all communities get a chance to fully engage in this 2030 transformation. We're about to participate in terms of moving from fossil fuel into the electrical vehicle space.

Thank you for the question. We are always seeking out to participate in job fairs and that's just a way to try and reach out to the public in all communities about the tremendous opportunities, both public and private as it relates to automotive repair. We have another advisory group that I failed to mention called our Educational Advisory Group, where a lot of attention is focused on the Smog Check program.

But there are other opportunities to discuss how to get to those communities, especially as it relates to electric vehicles. Another hot topic area where we're going to need automotive repair facilities to be equipped to enable competent to prepare to repair those vehicles. I look forward to working with that advisory group to see how we might be able to reach out to those communities.

Appreciate that and my office is very open to supporting that effort and work. We have eight years, right, to get to where we need to get to, and we know if we're talking about developing training programs and creating those centers and working back from that date, this industry is going to need to do a significant transformation in its training and education workshops and supporting the automotive repair industry in that sector.

So, looking forward to working with you and looking forward to getting that information back from you. In terms of what the Education Committee is working on, my next question has to do with economic barriers for licensing and processes. New to this Committee, but across the board, the cost of licensing is tough and particularly for those businesses that are still clawing their way out of the COVID impact and I know the automotive industry took a major hit as folks stayed home and got off of the roads.

What are the ways in which you all have identified some significant barriers for the licensing, economic barriers for the licensing process and particularly for those minority disadvantaged groups and business owners?

Well, the good news is that the automotive repair industry is open to anyone. There is a registration. It's not a license that requires an exam, it's a $200 a year registration. So we welcome all who are interested in repairing vehicles to become an automotive repair dealer.

Secondly, there are no license requirements for automotive repair technicians, with the exception of three programs where certification of a vehicle is required to inform the public that the vehicle has met various state standards for Smogcheck or emissions, and then lamp and brake and the safety of those systems as required by a statute that was chaptered.

In 2021, we will look to incorporate, or excuse me, merge those two lamp and brake programs into a more comprehensive vehicle safety systems inspection program that will look at performing an inspection on salvage title vehicles. Those are vehicles that are deemed a total loss and then eventually resurrected and put back on the road. Currently, they just require a Smog, lamp, and brake inspection.

We will be looking to, in addition to the Smog, having a more comprehensive safety systems inspection of not just the lamp and brake, but the windshield, seat belts, the airbags and so forth. Those three programs do require, and they're probably less than 10,000 individuals who perform those inspections on those vehicles that are licensed with us. For Smog, probably roughly 7500, and then maybe lamp and brake. And there's usually, duplication, about 1000 to 1500 licensees there. So a little under 10,000, I think, licensees that do require an exam.

And we work with the department's Office of Professional Examination Services to perform job analyses and ensure that the exams aye reflective of the types of questions and are supportive of allowing more individuals to pass those exams and become part of our licensed network min those three disciplines.

And I just wanted to add we actually have a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Steering Committee that we've just started. We've had two meetings so far, and some of the things that we're looking at is not only looking at dei within our workforce as far as the Department, but also out in the profession and seeing are there barriers to licensure in any of our professions and looking at identifying set communities that we can use as contacts.

We're also going to be reaching out to those communities to help us identify and build our strategic plans so we can look at things like that as we're working through strategic plans and have input from those communities where maybe in the past they haven't been able to participate.

And we've actually developed already a page, a strategic planning page specifically for that, where we can drive individuals to that page and they'll know when different ones of our boards and bureaus aye actually looking into do a strategic plan.

And so once we have those contacts made and that's one thing that our committee is going to be working for is just building a base, right, and looking we would grove to work with you and identify individuals that we can make, individuals that aye on our contact list when we want to send out information and get feedback. So we would really look to partnering with you on that as well, but also looking at it within the workforce, outside of our own workforce, but in our workplace, of our licensees.

Great. Appreciate that and looking forward to learning more about the DEI work and how to make sure that 28th District can participate in that. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Any last questions, comments or not last, questions or comments from colleagues? No? All right. We're going to open it up to the public. So once again, as a reminder, for every portion of today's hearing we'll hear from Members of the public, we'll be limited to a maximum of two minutes per organization.

So if anybody would like to come to speak to the Bureau of Automotive Repair, please come on up. And as they leave, just really want to thank Director Kirchmeyer and Bureau Chief Dorais. Thank you for those very thoughtful and comprehensive answers. Look forward to working together with you both. Go ahead.

Okay, thank you. Good morning, Jack Molodanof on behalf of the Automotive Service Councils of California, California Automotive Business Coalition and the California Auto Body Association, the BAR serves an accessional function by protecting the public through oversight of the automotive repair industry.

Without the BAR, the automotive repair industry would be the Wild West. Continuing the BAR oversight of the automotive repair industry remains just as important today as it did back in 1971 when it was created. We have submitted a letter and comments have been incorporated in the committee background paper.

But let me just briefly touch on a few issues that were raised. The first issue on the background paper was with respect to the BAR Advisory Committee meetings. We believe the BAR advisory committee meeting group committee meetings are important. We encourage their continuation.

Issue number five in the background paper was with respect to automotive service riders. Automotive service riders are employed by the automotive repair dealer. Service riders directly communicate with the customer about estimates, repairs, authorization.

These individuals should be required to attend remedial training of laws and regulations being proposed currently by the BAR, but not necessarily the principal, who may be the absentee owner. But due to lack of statutory authority, BAR is not able to accomplish this request. And we believe there may be an opportunity for some cleanup legislation there.

Issue number seven in the background paper storage fees and insurers. I know you've talked about that briefly. The BAR is accepting referrals from insurers to determine if unreasonable storage rates were charged. Now, some of these ayes involving excessive storage fees result directly from the unreasonable delay by the insurer to inspect the vehicle. And there may be an opportunity to address these issues.

One of the ideas was creating the Task Force, which would include the BAR, the Department of Insurance, automotive repair dealers, insurers and other stakeholders to develop solutions. One thing I just want to comment, I know there was discussion on towing and storage.

The comments from the Assembly Member. Her comments were directly dealing with non consensual tows versus consensual tows. The tows we're talking about here in the BAR context are customer wants to have their car repaired in facility, they are consenting or authorizing the car to be at that facility. So there's a big distinction between non consensual and consensual.

And finally, on issue number eight in the background paper, with respect to automotive repair management software, there have been some issues that arisen with respect to some software point of sale applications that may put the automotive repair dealer at risk, violating estimate, work order and invoice requirements. BAR should have some jurisdiction hoover these software vendors that purport to comply with BAR estimate and invoice regulations. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Any additional comments from within the hearing room? Seeing none, we'll go to the phone lines. I think we might have one caller online. Operator, is there anyone on the phone who wants to speak to the Bureau of Automotive Repair?

Thank you. If you would like to ask questions or if you'd like to speak, please press one then zero on your telephone keypad. You will hear an indication noting that you've been placed into queue and an AT&T specialist will provide you with your line number. And that's how we will introduce you. If you're using a speaker phone, we ask you to please pick up your handset before pressing any buttons. Again, if you're wanting to speak on this issue, please press one, then zero at this time. Mr. Chair, we have no one queuing up at this time.

Thank you very much, Mr. Operator. All right. With that, we're fong to move on to review of the next board, which is the Structural Pest Control Board. And with us today, I believe we have Kyle Finley, Board President, Sophia Cornejo, Executive Officer And I think that's it. Great. Please begin whenever you're ready.

I think you might need to hit the button, the Mic button. Is it lit up?

It is lit up now.

There we go.

There it is.

Okay. Good morning, Senator Roth and Assembly Member Berman and the Members of the committees. Thank you for the opportunity to present our Sunset Review Report today. My name is Kyle Finley and I am a licensed board Member currently serving as the President of the Structural Pest Control Board. With me today is Executive Officer Sophia Cornejo.

The Structural Pest Control Board protects the General welfare of California by promoting outreach and education to licensees and consumers, and by the effective Administration of the Structural Pest Control Act. The Board oversees approximately 25,000 licenses throughout California, and over 3200 companies approves continuing education providers and continuing education courses.

Consumer protection is the primary focus of all actions taken by this board and is the guide for all decisions made. To accomplish this, the board's enforcement program assists consumers by mediating and investigating complaints of possible violations of the act, auditing company records for compliance, and monitoring probationers to ensure they fulfill the terms and conditions of their probation.

Some of the Board's accomplishments since our last Sunset Review include awarding five major contracts for research projects. As of August 31, 2022, four of the research projects have been completed and the final reports are posted on the board's website. The board expects to award additional research contracts in the coming fiscal year.

The Board also began Business Modernization to acquire and implement a new information technology platform. This project will greatly benefit consumers in the pest control industry by offering online payment and document submission capability, as well as many other features allowed by modern technology.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Board implemented a telework program and seamlessly continue to provide services to an essential industry and fulfill its primary mission of protecting the public.

Legislatively, the Board developed language requiring registered companies to carry workman's compensation insurance coverage. This language was incorporated into the Senate Bill 1064 and will strengthen protections for licensees and consumers. Thank you for allowing us here today and giving us the opportunity to discuss our board with you. Our Executive officer, Sophia Cornejo, and I will gladly take any questions that committee Members may have.

Thank you, President Finley and Executive Officer Cornejo. Did you have any comments you want to make or just available for questions?

I'm available for questions.

Great, thanks so much. Want to open it up to some of the Assembly Members on the committee to see if anyone has any comments or questions? Assembly Member Irwin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could you just explain the discrepancy between the staff report that says that you haven't conducted any research? Is it just not updated on the website? Is that the conflict?

The Sunset Report actually reflected the correct information that there were research projects conducted. I contacted staff and notified them of the discrepancy in the background paper. I don't believe it was updated on the website.

Great. Any additional questions, comments? I just have one because my briefing says there are very few issues, which. Is a good thing. You always want there to be very few issues. But in terms of some of the Board's low examination passage rates, which are identified under issue three in the background paper, are there any trends that the Board has identified? Is the examination too difficult or are training options too limited?

So the Board's Licensure examinations have either very minimal or no minimum qualifications on education, experience and training. These license exam pass rates are typically between 40 and 60%. So the Board's pass rates are slightly higher, at a range of about 62%. Since 2020. Due to COVID, we were unable to conduct exam development workshops as we normally would due to the lack of the SME recruitment and participation. However, the workshop process is being restarted again, and hopefully we're going to lee a slight improvement in our exam pass rates in the future.

And I would say, just being in the industry, one of the common practices is we hire somebody and we tell them almost, hey, go and take the test and see what's on it, and then you can kind of study for it, and the second time pass it, so that affects the rate quite a bit as well.

That's how I pass most of my test. Yes, Assembly Member McKinnor.

Good morning. I have two questions. The first question is, what's the status on your Vacancies? I see that as under issue number two. And then secondly, when you do the criminal background check, what are you looking for on those criminal background checks? And if they volunteer and tell you when they're taking these tests to get the license, if they volunteer and tell you what their background is, how does that affect their chances?

So, regarding the vacancy rates, currently we have four vacant positions, two of which were just vacated probably, I think, in January and February. And we are recruiting those and filling those positions. The Assistant Executive officer is also vacant, and I plan to fill that at the beginning of the fiscal year, so in July. Over the past four years, we have had approximately 16 Vacancies, which is not a whole lot. I don't see any issues with our vacancy rates. I think it's a pretty our vacancy is a standard or steady rate. We fill them right away. We don't have a whole lot of turnover.

And then what about the background checks?

The background checks? Yes. So all licensees or applicants are required to submit fingerprints, and we get results from the Department of justice on federal results as well as state DOJ. And when something hits on a license or an applicant, we look at the background and we make sure that it's substantially related to the profession.

So we look at what the convictions are. And we do have disciplinary guidelines. We have certain guidelines that we go off of in determining whether or not we're going to take action. Deny a license, put them on probation, revoke, suspend. So it just depends on what their background comes back at. And we also receive subsequent arrest reports, and that's when we decide if we're going to take any action against any of our against the licensee that was subsequently arrested.

Thank you. Is it somewhere where we can find those guidelines? Just interested.

It's something that I can provide to you.

Thank you. Great, thank you so much.

Great. Any additional questions?

I just was curious, how prevalent is that hitting of, so the fingerprint is required when you go through the licensing process? But in the application process, there's no box. No one has to check whether they've been...

That question was removed. I believe it was Assembly Bill 2138 that required that to no longer be asked. So we rely on the Corey system to provide once they're fingerprinted their background, and then at that point, we obtain additional information.

And at that point, do you go back to the applicant, or is it your internal disciplinary view?

Both.

And what happens with the applicant at that point? You talk with them about what was found...

The applicant can, if they're forthcoming with their information, honest about what's and provide the court documents. That, of course, is taken into consideration, but it just depends on who we license are people that are going into your homes, and we just want to make sure that we're protecting consumers and the public.

And how many of would you say of the applicants that have to go through this disciplinary process, how many are not licensed because of the process? How many are not able to participate in the opportunity of joining your industry.

I don't actually have that statistic in front of me, but it's something that I can provide. It is in our Sunset Report, and I can provide that to you.

Okay. I just saw it in the notes. It's at 47. Okay. And out of how many?

About. In one year, approximately 700 convictions.

700 convictions?

Oh, I'm sorry. Applicants total in a year? Yeah.

What's your total number?

I think that's around 1700.

1700. Okay. Thank you.

Great. Any additional questions, comments, scanning, seeing none. We're going to open up to the public. Anybody from the public in the audience today want to come and speak to the Structural Pest Control Board. Seeing none, let's turn to the thank you. And thank you both so much. Thank you, President Finley. Thank you, Executive Officer Cornejo. I appreciate it.

Any Members of the public on the phones? Operator I want to turn it over to you to see if there's anyone on the phones who wants to speak to the Structural Pest Control Board.

Ladies and gentlemen, at this time, if you have any questions or comments, please press one then zero. You'll be put into a queue and given your line number and that's how we will identify you for questions. Once again, one and zero. If you have any questions or comments.

And Mr. Chair, we don't have anyone queuing up at this time. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Operator. So next we'll move on to review of the California Tax Education Council. I believe there's a group of folks here in person today and then also possibly somebody participating via Webex. So operator I'm not sure who it is who's participating via Webex, but if you can, maybe see if there's anybody participating via Webex as well and pull them onto the line.

I'm going to let all of you go ahead and self introduce and if folks have introductory comments, please start whenever you're ready.

I'm intimidated. I'm going to be honest.

Testing perfect. Good morning. My name is Lester Crawford and I am the current chair of the California Tax Education Council, CTEC. Also here with me are Celeste Heritage, the CTEC administrator, Tabitha Bolkish, CTEC staff, Rebecca Landeros and Denis Armstrong from the Franchise Tax Board, Gigi Campbell with GG Jones, public relations appearing remotely, and Alison Siegel, our legal counsel.

We appreciate the opportunity today to discuss our program with you. Mathis is my second time representing CTEC as board chair before the joint committees. By way of background, in 1996, a law was passed by the California Legislature and signed by the Governor that authorized the California Tax Education Council as a private nonprofit entity and charged it with ensuring that qualified tax preparers serve California taxpayers.

This law transferred the responsibility for approving tax schools and certifying the education of tax preparers. From the tax preparer program in the Department of Consumer Affairs to the California Tax Education Council. CTEC regulates any person who, for a fee, assists with or prepares federal or state tax returns for another person.

CPAs who are licensed by the California Board of Accountancy, enrolled agents who are enrolled with the Internal Revenue Service, attorneys who are active Members of the State Bar of California, and employees of these entities are allen exempt from the law at the time of the transfer from Consumer Affairs, there were approximately 27,000 registered tax preparers min the state. Today CTEC registers almost 40,000 preparers annually.

As of July 1, 2020, new applicants for registration are required to successfully pass a background investigation, which includes fingerprinting submittals to the California Department of justice. Those who pass the background check are then required to pay a registration fee, take an initial 60 hours of qualifying education, pass a final exam given by the provider, obtain a $5,000 surety bond, and obtain a personal tax identification number from the Internal Revenue Service.

Once registered min order to renew a CTEC registered tax preparer is required to pay a registration lee Ayes 20 hours of continuing education annually from a CTEC approved provider, have a $5,000 tax prepared surety bond, and have a personal tax identification number from the IRS.

CTEC not only registers preparers, but also approves tax education schools. Providers of the 60 hours course develop their own course material and final exam that must include specific subject matter as outlined in CTEC policy. Both the 60 hours and 20 hours curriculum providers go through an extensive review process by both CTEC administrative staff, CTEC curriculum reviewers, and other...

Every three years, an approved provider is required to have their materials re reviewed. Currently, CTEC has approximately 100 approved schools offering both classroom and online courses. Annually, CTEC holds a virtual Curriculum Provider Task Force meeting to review provider policies, answer provider questions, and receive input from providers on how to improve and resolve any issues they may have with the CTEC program.

Essential to the success of the CTEC program has been the development of a state of the art computer system for online registration. With the online registration, CTEC approved curriculum providers are required to submit student course information to CTEC electronically. Providers are given a certain time frame by which this information must be submitted to CTEC.

During annual registration cycles, CRTPs are able to go online, view their education and renew their registration. If the student education has not been submitted by a provider, a renewing CRTP or new applicant would not be able to register. Unlike the manual random auditing of selected CPAs and EA's, CTEC verifies the education requirements of every preparer prior to their initial registration and subsequent annual renewal registration.

One of the most important responsibilities undertaken by CTEC is to educate California taxpayers on the selection process of a qualified tax professional. An annual budget of approximately $391,000 is allocated for paid advertising throughout the state. For this purpose, CTEC contracts with a public relations firm to develop a clear and concise message regarding tax professionals. This includes producing a podcast in English and Spanish, as well as implementing advertising campaigns through the Internet, social media, audio platforms and mobile devices. CTEC uses Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube to get the message out on social media regarding unscrupulous tax preparers. Over the past two years, CTEC has continued to expand its guest list for the podcast.

This year, we are now partnering with Forbes, the Internal Revenue Service, as well as the California Franchise Tax Board to educate the public about how to find a CTEC registered preparer and avoid fraud. Guests include a senior editor and tax attorney from Forbes Franchise Tax Boards taxpayer advocate Brenda Volt, the Taxpayer advocate past taxpayer excuse me advocate Steve Sims, as well as a victim of fraud who provided his testimony to our listeners in Spanish.

The key to any law is enforcement. For this reason, CTEC partners with the California Franchise Tax Board to provide the needed enforcement arm of the program. CTEC budgets between 300,000 and 400,000 annually to the Franchise Tax Board to provide this service.

In return, the Franchise Tax Board Fraud Unit investigators are out in the field identifying and citing unregistered preparers. All penalties collected by the franchise tax board go into the State of California General Fund.

Since its inception in 1997, no state funds have ever been spent on the Administration of the CTEC program. It is mostly funded from the annual registration fee of $33 and a late registration fee of $55. Moreover, there has not been an increase in registration fees since August 1, 2014.

In closing, I would like to personally thank the legislators for authorizing this entity, the legislative staff, for keeping us on track in our interfacing with the Legislature, Franchise Tax Board's representatives to our Board for their partnering with us in getting the unregistered preparers off the street CTEC's administrative staff and outside contractors who have been paramount in the success of CTEC.

And finally, to the dedicated volunteer Members of the Board who have truly shown their desire to carry out the goals and mission of the California Tax Education Council for the benefit of California taxpayers. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Crawford. Does anybody else want to make any opening remarks or here to answer questions? All right, Chair Roth.

With respect to your Fund condition and fiscal issues, have you determined the actual amount that you're going to need in order to carry out your function with respect to new applicants or the total budget, actual revenue that you need? It's a revenue issue.

The revenue issue. Currently I have the our budget in front of me now, and I have served as the Budget Finance Chair for many years of the California Tax Education Council. Currently, our income stands at about 1.7 million, which is enough to fund all of the programs outlined for our responsibilities min administering the program without a future fee increase.

Without a future fee increase. Fine. One final question from me. Fingerprint and background checks.

Perennial issue for those of us in the sunset review process with the DOJ. When you were told that the legislative language providing for fingerprint checks and background investigations was insufficient to allow the FBI to provide the necessary information to you, that's what our backgrounder suggests. Did the Department of justice provide you with specific language needed to fix the problem? And if not, what are we going to do about it?

No, they did not. They did not provide us. We had several conversations with DOJ and they said that they initially had sent over language to the Legislature with regard to this problem, this issue, and they said it just never went anywhere. The Bill was not changed. And so we just haven't been able after many, many conversations with DOJ, we have not been able to get that language. If we could, we would provide it.

You mean after making that statement, they didn't provide it to you again?

Yes, that's correct.

Well, that's consistent with my experience as well. So one way or another, we're going to get the language and we're going to fix this. So you might try again. And then the next thing they're going to get is a request, I'm sure from the two of us, for some language to fix this problem.

Because either we allow you the language, make sure you have the language necessary to get the information from the FBI, or we simply delete the requirement if it's not possible. But you can't have a requirement with language that doesn't work. So why don't you try again and then we'll try for you?

Yes, I appreciate that because one of the first registrants, new registrants that we had was a gentleman who filled out the application and indicated on the application that he had some criminal activities.

And when we got the report back from DOJ, it was a clear report, so we were going to let him through. Except on the criminal activity was he spent eight years in prison for money laundering, which that's a significant offense, especially in our industry. So we really do need that language.

Well, the Department of justice and the Attorney General, last time I checked, is the attorney for the state agencies, not the Legislature, but the state agencies. So perhaps they need to start functioning like the attorney for the state agencies. So we'll make sure you get the language. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Nothing to add to that. Any questions, comments? No, thank you, Chair Roth. Yes?

Just real quickly, from the background, it states that you do not have any internal employees, but you use an Advocation strategies group. And can you explain why? And have you put that out for an RFP. And what is the reasoning behind...

Having served, I'm the most senior person on the California Tax Education Council, and I remember that issue came up many, many years ago. We actually looked into having our own staff, but it was prohibitively expensive. We needed retail space, commercial space, hire the administrator, hire staff and all the insurance that it entailed. And we just could not afford to do such. And so we've elected to maintain an administrator to help us with the administrative functions for CTEC.

But you still look to make sure that it is less expensive to use it?

Absolutely, yes. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Assembly Member Jackson yeah.

Just a question. It looks like you have the ability to have people on the board that actually do not live in California.

That is correct.

Why are we allowing folks outside of California to be on our boards.

To be a Member of the California Tax Education Council, if you are not a CTEC registered preparer, you can also be a Member from a profit or nonprofit taxing agency such as H and R Block, Liberty Tax Service. We have no oversight responsibility for who they select to serve on the council. And so we have two council Members that actually reside outside the state of California, but they are from an appointing nonprofit or profit business that actually has offices outside the state of California.

We've never had a problem with having Members from the outside, but we don't have a lot. Again this year, it's two Members.

Okay. Yeah. Might be something to take a look at. I understand the argument in terms of you have H and R block. You have Jackson Hewitt, Liberty Tax, right? They also have a seat on the board, which is also maybe I'm new, but some red flags for me, but definitely something. Are we requesting at least from these folks that these corporations that they choose someone in California? Because I'm sure they have a lot of folks in California.

We have not. That's something that we certainly could look into.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member interesting issues to discuss. Senator.

And thank you for that response of finding good folks. I know I've met some H and R block folks from California, so I know they're here. My question has to do about the private right of action that you have as an enforcement tool, kind of a primary mechanism for folks to address or remedy problems that they see with a member of CTEC. And I understand private right of action, I think that is an important tool to have.

But when you look at different incomes and you look at different communities in many cases in the work that I've done prior to coming here representing low wage and unwage communities or folks who've lost their jobs, and at times there isn't the resources to find a private attorney to take these cases. And so when there's an appearance that a person's right or they've been aggrieved in some way, they just simply have to swallow it because they can't afford to move forward with private right of action.

So I wonder if you feel that is the most adequate tool to have for enforcement as sort of a primary and sole mechanism, given the expense that's involved with invoking it.

Yes, good morning. I'm CTEC Special Counsel. And I want to say that in addition to the private right, there is, of course, the ability for anyone to bring a complaint to CTEC. CTEC has they're interesting because there's two different sort of pieces of enforcement. Enforcement that's done by FTB is done for those who are not registered, so they have the authority to take action against individuals who should be registered with CTEC but are not.

Additionally, CTEC has their own policies, procedures, and law that allows them to take action if they were to receive, for example, some kind of consumer complaint about fraudulent action. So it would be dual actions. There could be the private right to action, but CTEC could also take action against that individual.

And how does the public get access to that complaint process? Is there an outreach hotline? How does that work?

On our website we have a complaint form that they would fill out. And then most of the time it goes to franchise tax board. And if it's something related to CTEC, they would let us know because the people go online and they just fill out that form.

Thank you for that.

Thank you very much. Any additional questions? Comments from colleagues? Seeing none. Let's take it to the public. Anybody in the audience today who wants to speak to the CTEC California Tax Education Council review process? And just a reminder, everyone gets two minutes.

Good morning. My name is Anna Hasselblad with the United Ways of California as well as with the CaliETC coalition. And I just wanted to note that we submitted a memo with a series of recommendations to improve the Tax Preparation Act section of the BNP Code.

Some of our suggested improvements would help protect low income tax filers from fraudulent or predatory practices, including improving transparency with fee disclosures, standardizing the statement of free tax prep assistance and resources, publicizing complaints for consumer review, revisiting and improving the standardized exam, closing loopholes for exempt persons, reviewing the bond amount and transparency of that, and protecting filers seeking refund anticipation loans.

Our memo outlines each of these recommendations, and we would be eager to continue conversations with this body as well as the representatives presenting today. We look forward to exploring those recommendations and potential improvements as the sunset process moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that. I know you've had recent meetings with my team and look forward to future conversations. Appreciate that.

Any additional comments here in the hearing room?

My name is Karen Devaney. I'm from Modesto, California. I strongly support this board. It has done tremendous work on helping people get a fair, clean tax return prepared. Please keep them.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that feedback. I don't see any additional comments in the room. Let's take it over to the operator. Operator is there anyone on the line who wants to speak to the California Tax Education Council?

Ladies and gentlemen, at this time, if you have a comment, please hit one, then zero on your telephone keypad. You'll be given your line number, which we will use to identify you for your comment. So once again, please press one, then zero if you have a comment and there's no one queuing up for questions, please go ahead, chair.

Thank you, Mr. Operator. So with that, we'll move on to the next board. Thank you for kindly thank you, everyone. Appreciate it. Look forward to chatting more as we move through the process. So next up, we have the California Acupuncture board. And we've got a handful of folks. I think we've got John Harabedian, Ruben Osorio, Amy Matecki, and Benjamin Bodea. Ready when you are. Thanks so much.

Good morning, honorable chairs Roth and Berman, Members of the joint committee and the legislative staff. It is both an honor and a pleasure to be here with each and every one of you. My name is Rubio Osorio. I am the vice President of the California State Board of Acupuncture. I am joined here today with my colleagues, Dr. Amy Matecki, licensed Acupuncturist and board Member, and Ben Bodea, our Executive officer, our Board President, John Harabedian, had a previously scheduled engagement that he cannot reschedule. The Board is compromised of seven Members, four public and three professionals. Currently we have a four vacancy for a public Member.

The Acupuncture Board regulates just under 12,000 licensees. The Board has 37 approved curriculums taught at 26 educational training programs, 51 tutorial students, and 344 continuing education providers. The Board's mission is to protect the people of California by upholding Acupuncture practices, acupuncture practice standards through the oversight and enforcement of the Acupuncture Licensure Act.

I now turn this over to Board Member Dr. Matecki to highlight some of the work we have accomplished since our last review. Thank you.

Good morning. Honorable Chairs Roth and Berman, Members of the committee and staff. I'm humbled to appear before you again since our last sunset hearing five years ago. Since that time, our Board Members, staff and stakeholders have worked closely and diligently to address previous concerns raised at these hearings and address critical strategic plan items.

Some of these great accomplishments include transitioning to computer based testing for the licensing exam, obtaining the first fee increase in the last 30 years to support our services, and implementing a new licensing system to allow our licensees to renew and pay online. I would like to thank the stakeholders and the lawmakers, as well as our board Members and staff, for caring our program through the Pandemic and supporting our Acupuncturist as a part of the essential workforce during that time.

I would also like to thank the Department of Consumer Affairs and their offices, OIS and Solid, for helping facilitate and carry out our remote meetings during the Pandemic. This too was essential. I will now invite our Executive Officer, Mr. Bodea, to provide a few words. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Matecki. Good morning, honorable Chairs and Members of the Committee. We are humbled, as Dr. Matecki said, to be here before you and to answer your questions. We look forward to dialoguing with you on how we can continue to protect the people of California. President Harabedian sends his regards and apologies for not being able to attend in person. And, please.

Thank you very much. Want to open it up to colleagues for any questions or comments that colleagues might have? Not seeing any at the moment. Why don't we open it up to the public? I think there are a couple of people on the line, and then I might have a couple of questions afterwards. Anybody here in the room who wants to speak to the California Acupuncture board? I believe we have one person on the way up. Just a reminder, you get two minutes.

Two minutes goes by pretty fast. Thank you very much. My name is Neil Miller. I'm the President of the California Acupuncture Traditional Medical Association. I personally have attended 80% of the Acupuncture board meetings since 1989. So I consider myself somewhat of an expert. Having been to all the Joint Legislative Review Committee hearings, this board, under the leadership of their Executive officer and the last Sunset Review, have done a great job. They've really elevated the board, and they've listened to the Sunset Review recommendations.

There's still a lot of room for improvement, but I can say as an acupuncturist and consumer advocate, they've really done a good job to listen to the suggestions that you've made, and it's improved the regulation and the efficiency of their job. There are several things that were highlighted in the report regarding the California and the NCCOM exam. They're very similar, and the board has been going about this, and we've been trying to make this change or discuss this change for many, many years.

Currently, we're both waiting for the occupational analysis, and I think that that will give the board a better clear picture on how to evaluate the two things. Number twelve on here talks about other professions doing acupuncture. One of the things, it's called dry needling. It's a form of acupuncture.

And I just wanted the Members who are in the committee to be aware that in many states the profession of the PTs and others have discredited acupuncture and saying that dry needling is something that is scientific and that acupuncture is something based in ancient rituals and things like that. And I just think it's important going forward because you're going to see legislation talking about dry needling. We don't want to keep other people from doing acupuncture, but you should call acupuncture, acupuncture. It's what it is.

Number 13 talks about whether or not there should be more professional Members. I do think that there should be. Currently we have three professional Members, and they all represent the Asian community. It's nothing against the Asian community, but more than half of the Acupuncturists are not Asian, and the majority of students are not Asian. So it's just something that we should look at in having a more diverse group of people representing the profession.

Continuing education, there's something about the new fees, and the new fees are quite out of line with the national standard. I know my two minutes is coming up. I'll try to rush this, but I think it's a very important point.

The NCCOM does a great job doing their continuing education. And I have a comparative analysis of the two point by point, and I think that investigating going to the NCCOM to do the continuing education, either alongside the CAB or instead of the CAB would save the state a whole lot of money, and it would be a lot more efficient. And there are specific reasons and I can outline them, but my two minutes will be up, so I don't want to take it up.

Appreciate it. Your three minutes is up, so maybe if you can just wrap up, that would be fantastic. And then feel free to please submit any information that you have to the committee, either in person today or through the...

Yeah, I've been meeting with staff, some of the suggestions that I made in here the thing about Acupuncture assistance is a great idea. It gives students a chance to work. Who've passed the clean needle technique. And lastly, to wrap it up, our profession has been trying to increase the level of education for decades. And it started in the 1990s when we had a lot of new technology.

And as we get more and more integrated into conventional medicine and I think it's an issue because now there are a lot of postgraduate doctoral programs and the state has no input, so there's no standardization of the education postgraduate. And I think in order to protect the public, the state should have a role in the amount of education. I have been in practice 40 years and my student gets out of school now and she's called the doctor. And I'm not it's not about the title, it's really about protecting the public and having the public know that somebody who's called the doctor who just graduated school might not have the same as I do.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for allowing me the extra time. I appreciate it. Looking forward to seeing you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate you being here. Thanks for your participation for decades. So, any additional comments or questions in the audience seeing none? We're going to kick it over to the phone lines. Mr. Operator, is there anyone on the Jones Wood like to speak to the California Acupuncture board?

As a reminder, if you would like to register a comment, please press one, then zero. At this time. We do have a couple of lines in queue. One moment, please. We will open up line number ten. Go ahead, please.

Apologies to the chair. The comment I have is for a previous item on the Tax Preparation Act. May I still comment?

We've closed that part of the hearing. If possible, would you please provide your comments to the committee through our website and we'll make sure that we consider those as we move forward with the Sunset review process this year.

Yes, thank you. And I'll send that via email from Anna Johnson, from John Burton, advocates for youth on behalf of foster youth who have had predatory practices and tax services in California, further leaving them in poverty. Thank you.

Thank you. Always happy to hear from JBay. I appreciate you.

We'll go to line eleven. Go ahead, please.

Good morning, chairs and committee Members. Eleana Binder representing Glide, a social service provider in San Francisco and a Member of the Cal EITC Coalition. So this comment is also regarding the Tax Preparation Act. My apologies, but we just wanted to highlight that there is a memo sent in from the coalition with recommendations, and we would really appreciate your time to review those recommendations and improvements to help protect low income filers. Thank you.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Line eight, go ahead, please.

Hello, this is Sarah Hart, I'm the President of CSOMA Acupuncture professional organization. And first we'd like to thank the CABs for protecting the public and representing Acupuncturists.

And we'd like to also ask to review the CEU fee schedule to make it easier accessible for CEU providers and to broaden the range of CEUs for Acupuncturists, including looking at the NCCOM comparison and allowing the NCCOM CEUs to apply to California. And would also request the committee to look at protecting the public from other professions using Acupuncture needles under the term dry needling. And as Neil Miller stated, other professions might introduce legislation regarding dry needling. And we are concerned that we want the public to be protected from lack of standards with the term dry needling. And thank you very much and please keep the Acupuncture board.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments. Any additional folks calling in?

Mr. Chair, we have no one else in queue at this time.

All right, thank you. Let's bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments. I'll just ask a couple of folks brought up the continuing education issue both the fee structure. Also, I don't know if this was brought up, but there's the issue of possibly using the national certification standards. Can you just talk a little bit about the continuing education issue?

Certainly, Chair. It was brought up in terms of the fee structure. We did institute increased fees for CE providers, continuing education providers. They now are at $500 a year to apply and to renew. And we've also instituted a new fee, which is $10 per hour of continuing education that the CE provider is looking to offer to our licensees. We have been doing this since the inception of the board that is reviewing and approving continuing education providers and courses.

And there was no per course fee charged before, so it was only the provider fees that were actually financing or supporting this aspect of the board. Since then, these fees are going to support the full function of the CE unit in the licensing unit. And we have not had a shortage of courses available in the time that we've been doing this.

As a matter of fact, since the per unit fee has been instituted, we've approved over 20,000 hours of continuing education for our licensees that are within California's scope and regulatory requirements.

So you're not concerned about availability?

We are not and Members of the board are not concerned as well.

Senator? Yeah.

I just have one curious question and it has to do with the diversity of the sector and how does the board communicate in terms of languages with folks who are interested in being licensed in part of this profession? Just in terms of just materials, websites. What are the languages that you're using that folks can access?

Certainly. English is our primary language of communication. In terms of additional languages, we don't have materials in other languages. We used to have a consumer brochure which we were in the process of updating and now felt it was providing too much information that perhaps the industry should be providing instead of the board. And so those were offered in Chinese and Korean, and we'll look at offering additional materials like that for consumer guidance in the future. But presently the board operates with translators if we need to talk to consumers calling in or applicants or licensees that do not have English as a first language. Additionally, the exam itself is offered in three languages: English, Chinese and Korean.

Thank you.

Great. Any additional questions, comments, seeing none? Thank you very much. Looking forward to working with you over the next year. And I think that's all for today's hearing. I want to thank all the senders and Assembly Members for joining and participating and all the questions. And I'm sure we'll have many more conversations as the year moves forward, and look forward to seeing everyone who can be there on Thursday. Thanks.