Assembly Standing Committee on Business and Professions

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this morning's Business and Professions Committee hearing. We have 16 bills on today's agenda, far too many of which are mine, including the following eight bills on consent, AB 1852 by Assembly Member Vince Fong, AB 3029 by Assembly Member Baines. AB 2164, 2688, and 3054 by me, and AB 3252, 3253, and 3254 by the Committee on Business Professions. Please note that several bills were pulled by their authors late last week, so please consult the most recent version of the daily file for today's agenda.

Also note that Assembly Member Grayson is unable to attend today's hearing. He will be replaced by Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry for this hearing only. For each measure being presented today, we will be allowing primary witnesses here in the room today to speak for up to two minutes each, with up to two primary witnesses per side. Any additional witnesses will be limited to name position on the Bill and the organization they represent, if any.

For those wishing to provide further comments, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. With that, we're going to begin today's hearing as a Subcommittee. Assembly Member Carrillo word on the street is that you are ready to go. All right, let's do this. This is agenda item six, AB 2622.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members.

Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2622 and I want to begin by letting you know that I will be accepting all the Committee amendments. Many of us have come across a home improvement or construction project that requires skills beyond our capability. Despite the abundance of do it yourself hardware stores and information at our fingertips, we must often call on these professionals for guidance, and I'm not unfamiliar with this kind of work.

Many professionals who perform this work are immigrants who bring with them valuable skills and traits. They may obtain a contractor's license or conditionally operate without a contractor's license. The minor work exemption allows handymen to remain exempt from a contractor's license so long as the projects they take are less than $500, inclusive of labor and materials, and so long as they are casual, minor, or inconsequential. This $500 cup has not been updated since 1998, and several issues have arisen because of its outdated figure.

First, are there skyrocketing costs of labor and materials. Many simple projects, such as spinning a fence, may easily surpass a $500 cap, meaning that unlicensed professionals are taking on these small jobs illegally.

Licensed professionals under those same market pressures may turn down these smaller jobs by increasing the minor work consumption to $1,000 and letting the Contractors State Licensing Board tied to the California Consumers Price Index ongoing. AB 2622 ensures that these folks are able to be hired legally and pursue work knowing they will be able to charge a reasonable amount. This increases common sense and is in line with inflationary pressures of today's market.

Importantly, the bill provides several conditions these professionals must meet in order to work at the higher amount. They are prohibited from hiring employees as well as performing any projects for which a building permit is required. When it comes to performing work, there are parameters in the bill which mirror the restrictions from the B two contractor's license. This bill is an important step in ensuring handyman can make a living while also protecting consumers. I don't have any primary witnesses with me Mr. chair.

Thank you, thank you Assemblymember Carrillo. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Come on up, you can provide two minutes. I did miss the order there so we'll come back around to people who want to add on but is primary witness in opposition? Do you want to come on up? You can take two minutes. Two minutes each.

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Eddie Bernanke, on behalf of the National Electrical Contractors Association and the California Legislative Conference of the Plumbing, Heating and Piping Industry, representing over 3,000 signatory, mechanical, electrical and plumbing contractors throughout the state. We do have opposition to the bill in print, but have been working with the author and his staff and appreciate those efforts as always. And when, in light of the Committee's suggested amendments, I think they address the preponderance of our concerns with the bill.

We do have opposition to the CPI provision, but have had conversations up to this morning with the author on removing that provision from the bill, which would most likely remove our opposition. So with that we are in opposition to the bill in print, but we see a path forward with the author and the sponsors. So thank you.

Great, thank you.

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members. Mike West, on behalf of the State Building Trades, we have basically the same position as my colleague Eddie does, appreciate the dialogue with the author and we also have some issues with the CPI amendment to the bill, but we're looking forward to continued dialogue with the author and I appreciate your time.

Thank you very much. Appreciate both those testimonies. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in support of the bill?

Let's do anybody wants to add on in quick support of the primary witness in support or just a me too. Come on up. Perfect, name organization you're with, if any, and position on the bill.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of AB 2622. My name is Alastair Whitney, and I am a legislative counsel for the Institute for Justice. IJ is a nonprofit public interest law firm that works to protect civil liberties and including economic liberty.

We just ask this Committee to support the bill for three reasons. First, it would obviously benefit unlicensed people just trying to make a living. By raising the unlicensed contractor exemption from $500 to $5,000 more unlicensed contractors could take on small scale projects without the burden of licensing. IJ's research shows that easing occupational licensing burdens tremendously helps low income workers and individuals from marginalized communities.

And AB 2622 would offer these folks and many others a pathway to gain valuable experience, earn money, and establish themselves in the industry without the initial financial burden of licensure. Second, it would benefit consumers without compromising on safety and quality assurance. The costs of home ownership are skyrocketing in the state, and many Californians, including members of my family, are struggling to afford basic upkeep and repairs.

This bill would give homeowners greater access to affordable services, and such services generally do not implicate public safety and quality assurance issues. Small scale projects might involve, for example, minor repairs to a home siding or business cabinetry. These are simple tasks that do not require licensure. Third, and finally, California is one of only a handful of states, which includes Florida, that conducts sting operations on unlicensed workers. Earlier this month in Kern County, several workers were cited in a sting operation for offering unlicensed contracting services.

One individual faces fines and even jail time for offering to provide $600 worth of work. Folks shouldn't face arrest or hefty fines for trying to climb the economic ladder. And this state, which has long been recognized as a trailblazer in criminal justice reform, should take this opportunity to ensure that people aren't needlessly ensnared in the criminal justice system. In closing, California has one of the lowest unlicensed contractor exemptions in the country. Other states, including Alabama, Georgia, Idaho and Hawaii, have much higher thresholds.

And the last time, as Assemblyperson Creole had explained, that this bill was amended to adjust the threshold was 1998, when dollar 500 went a lot farther than it does today. California should be a leader, not a laggard, in providing economic opportunities for hardworking individuals. We encourage this Committee to support the bill, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that.

And just for for clarity, the authors taking some amendments that change some of the things that were referenced in the testimony, but that's all good. Anybody who wants to add on, thank you very much. Anybody who wants to add on in opposition to the bill? Anybody wants to add on name, organization, position on the bill. Seeing none. Going to bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments. Colleagues, any questions or comments?

We are unfortunately don't have a quorum yet, but I appreciate the exuberance, so we're gonna- oh, excuse me. Assemblymember would you like to close?

Mister Chair, just want to let the opposition know I'm appreciative of the conversations we had from day one when we submitted this bill. We had a lot of conversations and I really appreciate the opportunity to have those conversations. Yeah, we will continue to work on those.

The CPI, as was mentioned, I believe that it makes more sense to remove it because it will create maybe an event, even a cent amount based on that percentage, whatever that's going to be. But looking forward to continue to have those conversations and thank you. I respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you Assemblymember and glad that you're having productive conversations with various stakeholders and look forward to watching the bill move forward. I'll have an aye recommendation when the time comes.

I think Senator Schiavo, you've got AB 2015 and 2233. Dealer's choice, whichever one you prefer. Go ahead. Ready? Thank you. Is Justin. Yes. All right. We submitted it. I'm glad he upgraded. Okay, Mr. Chair and Members, according to the National Center for Disease Control and Prevention, there are over 7 million Californians that suffer from a disability and over 800,000 with limited mobility disabilities. Many of these individuals use wheelchairs. Mobility devices suffer from arthritis and severe respiratory, circulatory or cardiac conditions.

AB 2233 creates a path for limited mobility individuals to have access to additional restroom stalls with grab bars. The measure will require the Division of State Architecture to consider proposing building standards that allow for additional restrooms for mobility challenged individuals. I want to thank the Committee for its Feedback and will continue to work with my sponsors and the Committee as the Bill moves forward. Excuse me, I have Carol Lutnis who. This was her brain child. She brought this to me.

She's a constituent from my district, a longtime leader and community advocate in Assembly District 40, here to testify on behalf of this measure and also our Bill sponsor, Gregory Kramer from Disability Rights California, to speak on the measure. Good morning, my name is Carol Lutnas from Valencia. Last week I was at Costco. There are. I had to go to the bathroom seven stalls, one the disabled and six others with no bars. I cannot get up and down without the bar.

I had to stand while all these other women came in behind me and went to those stalls. We really need this. I don't need. I'm trying to stay out of a wheelchair. I need to be able to get up and down. I think the regulations now say you can't put the bars on non retaining walls. But I go into plenty of bathrooms that have the bars on non retaining walls so it can be done. And this is since it's the business Committee. I had to.

I was a victim of traffic assault six years ago and you all. I had to close my business and had to learn how to walk. I had to give up my activism, social justice and environmental activism. So it's important that you all really recognize that issue as well. But please, please think about AB 2233. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Good morning Mister chair and Members Gregory Kramer on behalf of Disability Rights California and we're proud to support Assembly Bill 2233 as amended, and appreciate the collaboration that the author and this Committee have afforded us to this point. Point. We also appreciate the remarks that are highlighted in the Committee analysis, suggesting that the author consider striking paragraph three of subdivision a of the Bill at a future opportunity.

That's a change that DRC is comfortable with and so we would relish the opportunity to continue work with the author's office in this Committee to reflect that in any additional changes moving forward. Just wanted to add that the Bill would greatly impact the vital need of all individuals to use the restroom while directly impacting individuals with temporary and permanent disabilities, chronic illnesses, disease, those with children, those are pregnant and those who are elderly.

And so just to drive a point on that, this Bill would create additional compartments that could be of benefit to an individual with a temporary disability, such as a broken ankle, which an individual would want, additional room for their crutches, or those with a chronic illness who may need grab bars for support. Folks with the disease such as Crohn's, where an individual may need additional space or supplies changing an ostomy.

Those who are neurodivergent or have sensory sensitivity issues may need to use larger accessible compartments to reduce anxiety. In addition, folks with small children or need a support with toileting from their parents could also benefit from these facilities, along with pregnant individuals who could utilize the grab bar and elderly individuals who may be ambulatory but need to have some additional assistance raising and lowering one's body.

You know, we believe that this Bill would not affect the building Standard Commission's authority or approval of any building code rather than just. Rather just provide the recommending agency, the Department of State architecture knowledge that ambulatory compartments are a helpful proposal to make. And if you could wrap up, that'd be great. And for those reasons, we support the Bill and urge your support. Thanks. Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in support of the Bill?

Anyone who wants to add on in support? Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Anybody wants to add on in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Bringing it back to colleagues questions or comments? Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close? Just very grateful that Carol traveled up here from the district today to speak on this Bill.

I know she's very passionate about it, and for anyone who has needed to go to the bathroom and can't wait, this is a really critical Bill. So we really appreciate support of the Committee and at the point at which you can cast an I vote. We appreciate an I vote. Thank you. Thank you some of the Member Shiva for bringing this important Bill. Thank you to your witness for traveling such a far away and for your advocacy.

And this is a really important issue to a lot of folks, and I'm happy to support the Bill today once we have a quorum and appreciate ongoing conversations to fine tune any language as necessary. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Can you push that? Okay. zero, there's my hubby. Okay, I think we have agenda item number two. AB 2015. Yes. Thank you, Mister chair. And Members, again, thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2015 to you today.

Okay. I think we have agenda item number two, AB 2015.

Yes. Thank you, Mister Chair and Members again. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2015 to you today. I want to start by thanking Committee staff for their hard work on this Bill and that I'll be accepting the Committee's amendments. The current process of nurse faculty approval for some programs depends on the nurse program to apply for faculty approval, essentially at the point at which the candidate has been provided an offer letter. Any hiccups in the approval can derail the applicant search. AB 2015 fixes this by making the faculty approval process similar to teaching credentials.

This means that a nurse can apply directly to the Board of Registered Nursing for approval, making the credential portable instead of each school having to submit an application for faculty approval. Additionally, 2015 creates a new path toward faculty approval by allowing the board to provide temporary approvals while a nursing program works to address any gaps in their faculty's qualifications. These changes streamline the faculty approval process and help nurses meet the necessary qualifications to be faculty.

Here to testify and support are Lori Melby, the Executive Officer of the Board of Registered Nursing.

Great. You have two minutes.

Thank you. So, I took the Executive Officer position in 2020. I was a prior nursing education consultant before that for four or five years. And the faculty approval process was a problem. It hindered employment, it blocked approvals, and it delayed processes exponentially.

So when looking at how we can fix this, we knew that we were kind of limited with regulatory or legislative updates, and so that's why we're asking for a legislative update so that we can improve this process.

Thank you very much.

Any additional witnesses in support of the Bill? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Come on up, you've got two minutes.

Thank you.

I won't need nearly that much. Thank you, Chair. Alex Graves with the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities. We had been opposed to the Bill, but with the Committee amendments, we will be removing our opposition. And thank you all for the engagement.

I love it when that happens. Great. Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Bringing it back to colleagues for questions or comments. Seeing none. Assembly Member Schiavo, would you like to close?

Just, we know that there is a nursing shortage crisis and it's so critical for us to make sure that we have as many opportunities to build up and educate nurses and bring them into the profession. And so, this Bill is really aimed at helping to do that and aimed to address that crisis. Respectfully ask for an aye vote when you have an opportunity to do that. Thank you.

Awesome. I want to thank the author and sponsor for working with us to remove inconsistencies with our prior sunset review recommendations, but also for trying to address an important issue. I'm happy to support the Bill today when the time comes.

Thanks.

Thank you very much. Assembly Member Gabriel's better substitute, Assembly Member Rubio. I'm a little hurt, I'll be honest. I'll go on the record that the Assembly Member didn't ask me to present his Bill. He knew I would be here. We spend far too much time together as is.

But you are better than I am at this so.

Thank you.

He said that I would probably get this reception and you were going to be upset, so. But thank you Mister Chair and Members, for allowing me to present AB 2550. On behalf of Assembly Member Gabriel. On behalf of Assembly Member Gabriel, I would like to thank the Committee for their thoughtful feedback and assistance with this Bill.

Good to see you.

Neighborhood restaurants are the backbone of communities across California and employ one of the most diverse workforces in the state. Too many are struggling as they seek to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and continued inflation. AB 2550 will support these essential small businesses by cutting red tape, removing outdated and needless regulations that drive up costs. AB 2550 was written in partnership with the Small Business Leaders to address the issues head on.

The Bill provides flexibility so that restaurants can make the design decisions that are most appropriate for them and their customers. In short, it creates a set of options, guided by experts, that will allow these small businesses to flourish. I would like to emphasize that the author has been in conversations with local environmental health experts and enforcement professionals. They will continue to collaborate to refine the Bill as it moves through the process.

AB 2550 is supported by a broad coalition that includes the Los Angeles County Business Federation, the California Restaurant Association and numerous chambers of commerce for from across the Golden State. There is no registered opposition to this Bill. With me today to testify in support of this measure are Eddie Navarrette, the Executive Director of the Independent Hospitality Coalition, and Christy Vega, owner of Casa Vega, a beloved, beloved family-owned Mexican restaurant in the San Fernando Valley. Thank you.

Great. And you have two minutes each.

Good morning, Members. My name is Eddie Navarrette.

And I think you might need to hit the microphone button. Perfect.

Thank you. Newbie here. Good morning Members. My name is Eddie Navarrette, Executive Director of the Independent Hospitality Coalition. Our coalition is an organization of hospitality operators, advocates, and workers whose whole purpose is to provide community support and awareness of our role in the economic fabric of society.

Today, speaking for a diverse community of neighborhood restaurants, the throughout the LA County landscape. Within just the last year, media outlets such as the Fresno Bee, the SFGATE, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, and many more have all reported substantial losses of our restaurant service community. Post-pandemic, businesses have been faced with some of their largest challenges from increased costs on everything, environmental challenges and red tape. Red tape creates barriers for underserved communities, making the American dream much less attainable.

The layers of outdated, contradictory policies that exist do not reflect the progress of our industry.

AB 2550 is an adaptive reuse initiative for small business by lowering the barriers to entry, supporting an already struggling community and supporting investment into our older building stock, reducing carbon emissions from new construction, we provide updates to a few handfuls of outdated, low to no-impact code sections that give small business owners tools to build existing businesses and to reconstruct new ones, fostering small business growth and equity in our communities.

These updates will give exceptions in areas where local jurisdictions are powerless. While insignificant to a larger business, to a smaller business they may mean all the difference. On behalf of small business owners, local chambers and community associations, we look forward to your aye vote in moving this important piece of policy forward. Thank you, Members.

Thank you very much. Go ahead.

Good morning. Good morning, Members. My name is Christy Vega.

I am the second-generation owner of the legacy restaurant founded by a family of Mexican immigrants, Casa Vega in Los Angeles, celebrating our 68th year of business. I am here in support of AB 2550. As a woman and minority-owned family business, I am really struggling to keep up with the skyrocketing costs of business in California due to inflation, ongoing wage increases, and extensive and burdensome regulations that are inequitable to little operators like myself. I have no equity group investors or big money behind me.

I work on a 5% profit margin. No banks will own a restaurant money, certainly not one owned by a female. I am truly one woman all alone who is fighting to stay in business in a restaurant that I love so dearly. Big chains, restaurant groups with massive money can withstand these burdensome and costly regulations that require many hoops to jump through. They can afford to pay years of dead rent before even opening, which is often required.

However, a little operator like myself, these regulations create huge barriers of entry for renovations and growth of my business. In true entrepreneurial spirit, I have plans to renovate my restaurant in hopes of opening a little Mexican restaurant or market next door and creating a tapas and agave bar where women feel comfortable. These aspirations need help of our government. I am asking you to level the playing field for small independent minority operators like myself. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in support of the Bill. Come on up. Just provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the Bill.

Hi, good morning. Carol Gonzalez here on behalf of Inclusive Action for the City in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, good morning. Marlon Lara on behalf of the California Restaurant Association, in support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Anyone who wants to add on as me a too in opposition to the Bill?

Seeing none. Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments. Any questions or comments? Seeing none. We're getting closer to a quorum. If you all are on B and P, come to Room 1100 so we just establish a quorum real quick and then you can run away and do other things. Assembly Member Rubio, would you like to close on behalf of Assembly Member Gabriel?

Yes. Thank you. Mister Chair and Members, on behalf of Assembly Member Gabriel, I respectfully request your aye vote when appropriate. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much for presenting on behalf of your negligent colleague. I'm happy to support the Bill when the time comes.

Thank you, Members.

Thank you very much. And I see Assembly Member Patterson. Vice Chair's prerogative. Vice Chair's request. Assembly Member Patterson, agenda item number four, AB 2194.

Thanks. I was going to say I missed being on this Committee until the Vice Chair acted up like that.

I get it, I get it, I get it.

Got other things to do.

I get it.

Yes. Yes. Nope. Heath or Mr. Flores to your left, okay, check. All right. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. First of all, I want to thank the Committee for working on this Bill. I will be accepting the amendments. I'm here to present AB 2194, sponsored by the California Podiatric Medical Association, which moves barriers and improves the structure in which physician assistants may assist doctors of podiatric medicine in providing podiatric care.

While current law may authorize PAs to assist DPMs in the same medical group, its current structure is untenable as it specifies that the PA may only assist the DPM under patient-specific orders from their supervising physician. AB 2194 addresses this problem by removing the requirement that a PA may only assist a DPM per a physician's patient specific orders, and instead authorize PAs to assist DPMs under a practice agreement which is developed along with the PA's supervising physicians.

So again, this will only happen on agreement of the parties. This Bill is important because it allows for more access to care since it will free up some time for MDs if they can have PAs assist with the task. I also want to note, I know there have been concerns raised late last week about liability, and I know the sponsors and myself were committed to addressing that, and we'll continue to work on that, just like we've been doing on this Bill for the last several months.

I have with me Dr. Phong Le, President Elect for CPMA, today to speak and support, and also Ryan Spencer, who represents them.

Great. You have two minutes each.

Thank you so much for your time. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, my name is Dr. Phong Le. I practice here in Sacramento as a board-certified podiatrist, foot and ankle surgeon. Also, President Elect of California Podiatrist Medical Association. We are sponsors of this Bill, AB 2194.

As we know, physician assistants can assist podiatrists in various ways, such as conducting patient evaluations, doing procedures in the office like nail procedures, wound care checks, seeing our post-op patients, and interpreting diagnostic tests, and providing patient education to our patients. They can also help with administrative tasks, freeing up the podiatrist to focus on more complex cases or surgeries. As we all know, burnout is real in medicine. So having someone to assist us with that would be very amenable.

Overall, PAs can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of a podiatrist practice by providing support across a range of clinical and administrative functions. As Assemblymember Patterson discussed, existing law recognize these benefits by authorizing PA to assist DPMs currently. However, the way the law is currently written, they can only assist podiatrists within a medical group, as we know, and only in patient-specific orders, which would be our orders as a podiatrist.

This has proven unattainable, creating a barrier that is largely, you know, it should be mute at this point. I practice in orthopedic practice as well, and I understand, I don't know many physicians out there who would kind of raise their hand or volunteer to do more work, you know, so like I said earlier, I think burnout is real.

So by allowing these practice agreements to occur, which is the contract between the PA and the MD, what this does is allows to determine the extent a PA can assist the DPM. This barrier and physician burden is thereby removed. AB 2194 will relieve that burden from MDs and DOs, instead place it on a DPM who is currently treating that patient. So I humbly ask for your support on this Bill. Thank you for your time.

Great. Thank you very much.

Ryan Spencer with the California Podiatric Medical Association. Like Doctor Le mentioned, we are the sponsor of the measure, and I just simply ask for your aye vote, and here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody who wants to add on in support of the Bill? Seeing none, any primary witnesses in opposition? Come on up. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association in very respectful opposition. Orthopedics.

Orthopedic surgeons have very good relationships with both PAs and podiatrists, and a tremendous amount of respect for both professions. However, they have grave concerns for this Bill, both for sort of patient safety and liability issues. The patient safety issue is, so the orthopedist who issues in a patient-specific order has seen that patient, knows what's going on and, for lack of a better word, kind of blesses what's going to happen to them.

Generalized practice orders means that that doctor has not seen that patient, doesn't know exactly what's going on. And so the orthopedists are afraid that the PA, who has a plenary practice where they can deal with anything in the body, sort of being not exactly supervised, but under the direction of the podiatrist, who's got only the foot and ankle scope. What if there's something going on in the other parts of the body that affects that, that the doctor didn't see?

The liability concern, which I really appreciate the commitment to work with, is same thing. If it's a generalized agreement where the orthopedist says, "okay, go forth and practice," but the orthopedist has sort of ultimate responsibility and liability for what happens to that patient, but hasn't met with that patient, hasn't seen what's happening, hasn't directed that care, that's risky for them. For those reasons, we must be respectfully opposed. If the Bill does proceed, we will continue to work. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Anybody want to add on in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none, bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments. We are now two away from a quorum. Members, get over here. Doctor Bains.

I appreciate the work on the amendments. One of the things I want to bring up, though, is the fact what happens quite often in medical practice is the physician doesn't even know who they are supervising.

So, for example, when it comes to health systems, whatever health system you're working for, they will tell you you are supervising for PAs or nurse practitioners, but they will not tell you who their name is. So there is a big concern when it comes down to making sure that the physicians know what patients are being taken care of, which PA or nurse practitioner. This is actually something that does happen. If you go up to any physician, you ask them, hey, who are you supervising?

Not very many can tell you who they are supervising, because if you work for a health system, it's dictated under them that they will. So the mutual agreement that you had just talked about, Assemblymember Patterson, sometimes does not happen, because there isn't a mutual agreement between the physician and the PA, nurse practitioner, because that mutual agreement happens at the health system and not the individual physician. So I do have that concern.

And of course, I also have a concern that the physician is not held liable under the law, as we had heard from opposition as well, to make sure that the physician is not held liable for a patient that they don't even know about. If it's a mutual agreement that happened between the health system and the PA, nurse practitioner, physician wasn't even involved in that. So I just want to know that that is something that you guys will continue working on. I didn't hear that from the initial comments.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Yes, we will continue to work on those items together. We introduced this Bill pretty early on in the process to kind of hopefully flesh out some of the concerns. And, you know, as they come up, even as recently as last week, we're committed to keeping to do it, especially on the liability portion of that. I completely understand that. So we'll keep working on it.

And, you know, we want to come up with something that everybody can agree with and ultimately something that's best for the patients that actually both physicians and podiatrists are, you know, responsible for treating. So, and obviously, welcome your input if I'm sure you're busy enough, but welcome your input at any time, being a subject matter expert yourself.

Yeah, thank you for that. I will not be supporting this today. However, I do look forward to making sure that we put in the work to make sure that physicians A, do know who they are supervising so they have that and the mutual agreement doesn't happen at the health system side, but, but also B, that they are not held liable for a patient that they didn't even know that they were taking care of, so.

Thank you.

[Roll Call].

Great. We have a quorum now. We'll take motions and seconds. Had a second first and then a motion by Flora and then Alanis. It's true. Any additional questions or comments? Seeing none, Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you very much. Appreciate the opportunity. I think this is the first Bill I've had before this Committee, although I've listened to many bills. I really appreciate the trust that the Committee has with me moving this forward through the process to continue working on it, not trying to jam anybody. And hopefully we'll come to agreement with all the parties and be able to present a better solution for you. But thank you for working with me on it. I sincerely appreciate that and looking forward to hopefully this continuing to move down the road.

Great. Thank you to the author and stakeholders for working with the Committee on the Bill. I understand and we've heard today that there are still concerns around physician liability and the risk benefit of the policy. But I know that the author and sponsors are committed to continuing to address those concerns. And with that, I'm happy to support the Bill today. Madam Secretary, please call a vote.

On AB 2194 Joe Patterson, the motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That Bill has nine votes. We'll leave the roll open. Thank you. Assemblymember Chen, you're already on the way. AB 3167, Agenda Item number 8.

Good morning. Thank you so much for your time.

I think the mic might not be on. Thank you. That much of a hurry, which we appreciate.

Appreciate you. First and foremost, I want to thank your staff for their incredible professionalism and their work. We will be taking all the amendments suggested by the Committee. Under current law, many nonprofit universities fall into the same regular category as vocational schools. This important law established a method to protect students from predatory institutions. How is an outsized effect on institutions that merge with California schools such as North Eastern University and Mills College College?

Well, this important law protects against fraud that could lead to the loss of students tuition and fees. It no longer serves students attending certain highly qualified institutions that remain committed to serving California students as more nonprofit colleges and universities merge. Students attending those institutions are unfairly burdened with fees and requirements that other students do not face. Currently, students attending non profit universities regulated by the private post secondary bureau must declare a course study a major before beginning courses.

Students must also pay a fee to the student tuition recovery Fund. Students attending a private University that are exempt from the bureau regulation are not required to declare a major to pay into the STRF. AB 3167 offers highly qualified institutions an alternative approval process and pathway while maintaining bureau oversight and safeguard for students, this Bill ensures important safeguards are in place.

To be considered highly qualified institution must be nonprofit, not have operated for profit in the last 20 years, awarded at least 500 degrees per year, be accredited for at least 10 years, and the board directors must not have an equity interest in the accrediting agency. Here to testify for expert testimony, we have Renée Jadushlever, of Northeastern University, and Mister Alex Graves of AICCU. We also have Mike Ferrari of Northeastern University. For any of the technical questions.

Great. You have two minutes each.

Mister Chairman and Members of the Committee on Business and Professions thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning on Assembly Bill 3167 offered by assemblymember Chen my name is Renée Jadushlever. I'm Vice President of campus Administration and strategic initiatives at Northeastern Oakland. Prior to joining Northeastern for 31 years, I served in a variety of leadership roles at Mills College, historic private liberal arts college, and leader on issues of equity, social justice and women's leadership.

Founded in 1898, Northeastern is a comprehensive, nonprofit global research University and the recognized leader in experiential lifelong learning. In July 2022, Mills College merged with Northeastern, joining Northeastern's network of 13 campuses across the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, including a campus offering graduate degree programs in San Jose, which opened in 2015.

Under current law, high quality nonprofit institutions that maintain a physical presence in California, which are headquartered outside the state, such as northeastern, fall into the same regulatory category as private nonprofit vocational schools offering short term training programs. The intent of AB 3167 is simple, to streamline the registration process for high quality nonprofits like northeastern, but only when those institutions meet rigorous quality standards, protect students, and maintain consumer safeguards. Importantly, the Bill would eliminate requirements that impede student academic progress and relieve financial burdens on California.

Students at comprehensive Research University's academic exploration and discovery are the hallmark of an undergraduate education, particularly during the first year. This Bill would correct the practice of requiring students at such institutions to enroll in a degree program before they have decided on a major or career pathway. Additionally, students at such institutions are required to make payments into stref, the student tuition recovery Fund. The fees are based on a student's expected four year course of study.

This drives up the cost of attendance for students by hundreds of dollars prior to their enrollment. Students should not be required to pay this additional fee if they attend high quality nonprofits that are not at risk of closure. AB 3167 will waive this fee if such institutions issue a surety bond to cover the risk on behalf of their students.

Finally, the Bill would ease compliance burdens on institutions and reduce delays for new program approvals so that highly qualified nonprofits can respond quickly to market demands and meets the needs of California employers for skilled talent. For these reasons, I respectfully request your. I vote.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Good morning again. Chair and Members Alex Graves with the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities. We are the membership organization for 90 private, nonprofit, accredited institutions of higher education in the state here in support of this legislation. The issues of northeastern, I think, are indicative of those issues that would be faced by any nonprofit operating in California that had a different accreditation.

As was mentioned, BPPE was established in 2009 to provide important consumer protection and oversight, but again, their function has predominantly been to provide those as it relates to proprietary and for profit institutions. And given the changing landscape we see with higher education, again, we think this is a, a common sense but important fix that will improve this process, both for students attending institutions like northeastern and Oakland, but also for that process to better reflect the quality of the institution while still maintaining appropriate oversight. So for those reasons, we'd ask for your support.

Thank you very much. You're here for technical questions. Beautiful. Anybody else wants to add on in support of the Bill? Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments. Motions in seconds that was very skeptical motion and a more assertive second. Any additional questions or comments? Assemblymember, would you like to close?

It's really nice to have lukewarm friends on the Committee. Thank you. That I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member Chen. With the Committee amendments, I'm happy to support this Bill today. Madam Secretary.

Please call the vote on AB 3167. Chen. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. Berman. Berman aye. Flora. Flora aye. Alanis. Alanis aye. Baines. Baines aye. Juan Carrillo. Juan Carillo aye. Chen. Chen aye. Dixon. Aguiar-Curry. Aguiar-Curry aye. Jackson. Jackson aye. Lowenthal. Lowenthal aye. McKinner. Nguyen. Nguyen aye. Pellerin. Pellerin aye. Sanchez. Soria. Zbur.

We have gone off the rails. Congratulations. That Bill has enough votes. I'm pretty sure. Maybe. If not, it will eventually. That bill's got 10 votes. The Bill is out. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you very much. Holy cow. Now, I'm nervous to go present my bills, but I'm going to hand the mic or the gavel over to the Vice Chair.

All right, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm assuming we'll start with file item number 12. AB 3251.

Beautiful. We're going to start with 3251. The board of Accountancy Sunset Bill. Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair and colleagues. AB 3251 is the sunset bill for the board of accountancy, which is authored by this committee. The bill currently deletes an obsolete provision, but with the committee amendments it will extend the sunset date for the board by four years and make additional technical changes and policy reforms in response to issues raised during the board sunset review oversight process.

I'm accepting the committee amendments on behalf of the committee because it would be awkward if I didn't and respectfully ask for your aye vote. And with me today is Dominic Franzella, the board's executive officer.

Thank you very much, two minutes sir.

Thank you again. I am Dominic Franzella. I'm the executive officer for the board of accountancy. The board is in support of AB 3251. I want to thank the chair and members and the committee staff for their work as we continue through the sunset review process. And I'm here to answer or do my best to answer questions that members may have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses in support of AB 3251?

Jason Fox with the California Society of Certified Public Accountants, in support and support of the proposed amendments in the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Any opposition to AB 3251? Seeing none. Bring it back to the committee. Motion is second. See nothing from the committee. Mr. Chair, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask your aye vote.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On AB 3251, Business and Professions. The motion is due pass as amended. [Roll Call]

The bill is out. We'll leave it open for absent members. Put on the file item 16. AB 3255.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and colleagues, I respectfully present AB 3255, the Sunset Bill for the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians. With the accepted committee amendments, this bill creates a retired license category, makes improvements to the school approval process, extends the board by four years and makes other changes requested by the board. And here with me for technical questions is the board's Executive officer, Elaine Yamaguchi. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First witness. Two minutes, please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, members, good morning. My name is Elaine Yamaguchi, the Executive officer of BVNPT. Thank you so much to the Committee and its staff for all of its hard work and support, and I'd be delighted to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 3255? Seeing none. Any opposition to AB 3255? Seeing none. Bring back to the committee any questions from the committee? Got a motion. A second. Mr. Chair, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

On AB 3255, Business and Professions. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is out. We'll leave it up for absent members.

Okay. I think we have some bills we need motions and seconds on. Now that we have a quorum, why don't we start at the top with consent? Got a motion and a second.

On the consent calendar. AB 1862, Vince Fong, AB 3029, Baines, AB 2164, Berman, AB 2688, Berman, AB 3054, Berman, AB 3252, Business and Professions, AB 3253, Business and Professions, AB 3254, Business and Professions. The motions are do pass to the Committee on Appropriations for all bills on the consent calendar. [Roll call] Thank you.

Consent calendar is out. I believe we need a motion and a second on agenda item number two. Assembly Member Schiavo, AB 2015. Got a motion. Got a second. Madam Secretary, when you're ready, please call the vote.

On AB 2015, Schiavo. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

That Bill is out, and we'll leave the roll open for absent Members. I think we need a motion and second on the next one, agenda item number three. I've got a lot of motions and seconds. We'll make it bipartisan by giving it to Flora and then Pellerin. And.

Madam Secretary, please call a vote.

On AB 2233. Shivo the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is out, we'll leave the roll over for absent colleagues. I think we need on agenda item number five by Assemblymember Gabriel, very smartly presented by Assemblymember Rubio. Got a motion and a second.

Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On AB 2550, Gabriel. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

That Bill is out.

We'll leave the roll open for absent colleagues and then I think we still need a motion in a second on agenda item number six by Senator Carrillo. Got a motion? Got a second. Madam Secretary, please call a vote.

On AB 2622. Juan Carrillo. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is out. We'll leave it open for absent members. Let's see. I move on to file item number eight. AB 3165 or 67. Chen.

I'll be back in five minutes.

Moving on to file item number eight, AB 3165 or 67, Chen.

On AB 3167, Chen. [Roll call]

Bill is out. We'll leave it open for absolute members. File item number 12. AB 3251. Please call the roll.

Members, file item number 12, AB 3251. Please call the roll.

On AB 3251, Business and Professions. [Roll call]

That bill is. I will leave it open. Moving on to file item number 16. AB 3255, please call roll.

On to file item number 16, AB 3255. Please call the roll.

On AB 3255 Business and Professions. [Roll call]

That bill is out. We'll leave it over absent Members. I think we're caught up for now. Or actually, Cecilia. Okay, we're going to start back at the top with the consent calendar.

On the consent calendar. [Roll call]

Moving to file item number two. AB 2015, Shiavo.

On AB 2015, Shiavo. [Roll Call]

All right. Moving on to file item number three. AB 2233 Schiavo.

AB 2233 [Roll call]

All right, we're moving on to file item number four, AB 2194, Patterson.

On AB 2194, Joe Patterson. [Roll call]

That Bill is out. Leave it open for absent Members. Gabriel, good?

I miss you. Great to see you, Assembly Member McKinnor. Madam Secretary, please run through the roll for add ons.

On the consent calendar. [Roll call] On AB 2015, Schiavo. [Roll call] On AB 2233, Schiavo. [Roll call] On AB 2194, Joe Patterson. [Roll call] An AB 2550, Gabriel. [Roll call] On AB 2622, Juan Carrillo. [Roll call] On AB 3167, Chen. [Roll call] I will get him next.

Okay.

On AB 3251, Business and Professions. [Roll call] On AB 3255, Business and Professions. [Roll call] On the consent calendar. [Roll call] On AB 2015, Schiavo. [Roll call] On AB 2233, Schiavo. [Roll call] On AB 2194, Joe Patterson. [Roll call] On AB 2550, Gabriel. [Roll call] On AB 2622, Juan Carrillo. [Roll call] On AB 3167, Chen. [Roll call]

Thank you, Assembly Member Zbur.

And with that, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you.