Assembly Standing Committee on Business and Professions

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to today's meeting of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee where we'll be considering several bills that will re refer to the committee pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2. Before we begin with our agenda, I would like to remind everyone that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings regardless of the viewpoint they express.

In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, and I think our time is limited, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

For each of the measures being presented today, we will be allowing primary witnesses here in the room 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 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, and I am very, very, very, very, very, very sad to announce that the magnificent Republican consultant Bill Lewis is retiring, and tonight will be his last BNP hearing. And I think we all I know I know the the the the Democratic committee staff definitely feel this way.

I think we all are very sad to see Bill go, are very grateful, for his many years of service to the the people of California.

And thanks for for the wonderful way in which you've done your job for however many decades. I don't know how long that you've done it. You know? With that, we're gonna let Bill have the last word. So stick around for that.

It's gonna be open mic. But we're gonna begin the hearing, and we have oh, we have a quorum.

Madam secretary, please call the roll. Berman?

Here.

Johnson? Here. Addis? Here. Arons?

Alanis? Here. Banes? Barakahan? Kaloza?

Chen? El Hawari? Hadwick? Haney? Here.

Hart? Erwin? Jackson? Lowenthal? Yes.

Mesito? Quinn? Pellerin?

Good. And we have a quorum. And as a member, Chen, would you like to present agenda item number 4 SB 1347 Nilo? Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mister Chair, for the opportunity to present on behalf of Senator Nilo. It's Senate Bill 1347. Again, it's authored by our leader, Senator Nilo, relating to stock butyrrole in schools. SB 1347 is a simple cleanup measure that clarifies existing law for the stocking of albuterol in public schools. In 2023, the legislature passed on bipartisan basis AB 1283, Chen, which authorized stock in albuterol in public schools.

Since the passage of AB 1283, the state has mandated access to preschool a priority and is now expanding to universal preschool. SB 1347 clarifies that stock albuterol is authorized in

all public schools, which now includes preschool. The recent amendments we are at request at the Board of Pharmacy and the CDPH and are technical in nature. In closing,

this bill simply modernizes a program that has been working and potentially saves lives. With that, I'll accept the last for aye vote.

Thank you. Assembly member Chen, do we have any primary witnesses in support of the bill? Or any Me Too's in support of the bill?

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Jennifer Tannehill with Erin Reed and Associates on behalf of the California Society for Respiratory Care, in full support, and we appreciate the author and the committee's work on this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kelly McMillan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, any witnesses who wanna add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, bring it back to colleagues for motions in seconds. Got a motion in a second.

Questions or comments? We're all talked out after session. And so the number Chen, would you like to close? I respectfully ask

for my vote. Thank you, Mister chairman.

Thank you, assemblymember Chen for your presentation on behalf of Senator Nilo. Happy to support the bill. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On SB 1347 Nilo, the motion is do passed. Berman?

Aye.

Berman, aye. Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye. Addis?

Aye. Addis, aye. Arons? Alanis? Aye.

Alanis, aye. Baines? Baines, aye. Barakahin? Kolozah?

Chen. Chen, Aye, El Hawari. Hadwick, Hedwick, Aye, Haney. Haney, Aye, Hart. Hart, Aye, Erwin.

Erwin, Aye, Jackson. Aye. Jackson, Aye, Lowenthal. Aye. Lowenthal I Macedo?

Huynh?

Aye. Huynh? Aye.

Huynh? Aye. Pellerin, aye.

That bill is out.

Alright. That will take us to item one. Chair Berman. Soon as he takes the mic, We are ready for you, sir.

Thank you, Chair. AB17 AB17. AB2772 is the sunset bill for the California Council for interior design certification. While interior designers are not required to become certified in California, those who choose to obtain certification are granted the authority to use protected titles in their advertising. In addition to extending its sunset date by four years, this bill would recognize the council's quasi public status by requiring it to adhere to laws promoting accountability and transparency in state agencies.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And with me today is Rose Wiebe with the council to answer any technical questions you may have. Rose is not with me today, so I'm flying blind. Don't ask any questions, y'all.

Move the bill. Second.

Love that.

We have a motion and a second. Is there any other support that would like to register or me too? I saw you get up, so now we changed my mind. Okay. And then the opposition?

Good evening, Mister Chair members. My name is Amy Costa with Full Moon Strategies, and we represent IIDA or the International Interior Design Association. We proudly represent 1,500 commercial interior design professionals in the state. And unfortunately and respectfully, we must oppose AB 2772. In three consecutive sunset reviews, CCIDC has not complied with basic open meeting laws.

And the bill before you actually expands CCIDC's authority to allow them to levy a civil penalty against designers of up to $5,000. I think we can rest assured that the one thing CCIDC will not do is conduct an open meeting to discuss that and the penalties against our members. So for those reasons, we respectfully request a no vote.

Thank you. Any me too's that would like to register Opposition? Alright. Assembly member Berman Chair Berman, would you like to close? Oh, he said oh, are there questions?

Okay. Text me. Don't text me. That's not open meeting laws. That's not

Any other questions?

Respect for the rest of your vote.

Great. Did I hear a motion? And a second? Alright. And the secretary will call the roll.

On AB 2772 Berman, the motion is with recommendation that Senate amendments be concurred in. Berman?

Aye.

Berman, aye. Johnson?

Not voting.

Johnson not voting. Addis? Aye. Addis, aye. Arrons?

Alanis? Alanis not voting. Banes? Baines, Aye. Bauer Kehan.

Kolozha. Chen. Chen not voting. El Hawari? Aye.

El Hawari, Aye. Hedwig? Hedwig not voting. Haney? Hart.

Haney, Aye. Hart. Hart, aye. Erwin? Erwin, aye.

Jackson? Aye. Jackson, aye. Lowenthal? Aye.

Lowenthal, aye. Macedo? Aye. Huynh, aye. Pellerin?

Aye. Pellerin, aye.

That bill is out. Alright. Well, that takes us to Senate Bill 133. Senator Wahab's bill?

Thank you, Madam Chair? SB 1303, I know there's been a lot of interest in this bill over the last ninety six hours. A bunch of amendments were made to the bill. All the controversial amendments were taken out of the bill, so we're in a good place. SB 1303 is a sunset bill for the California Board of Naturopathic Medicine.

On behalf of Chair Wahab, I'm accepting the committee amendments described in the analysis. Hi. Hi.

Which remove 100, 100% of the language recently added to the bill relating to scope of practice. The remaining language in the bill makes changes to the board stemming from the sunset review oversight process and extends the operations of the board to 01/01/2031. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote. And with me today is, doctor Dara Thompson, board president, and Rebecca Mitchell, executive officer, to make any comments and answer any questions. It is now.

Thank you so much. Hello. My name is doctor Dara Thompson. I'm the president of the California Board of Naturopathic Medicine. And, I wanna thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

As board president, my foremost responsibility shared by all Board Members is the protection of the public in California. Our mission is to ensure that consumers are safe from individuals who violate the Naturopathic Doctors Act, whether those be our licensees practicing outside of the law or unlicensed individuals misrepresenting themselves to the public. This distinction is important. More than 70% of the complaints involve the complaints that our board receives involve unlicensed activity, and we've seen some tragic consequences of this activity.

And many complaints come from consumers who believe that they're seeing a licensed naturopathic doctor who's gone through a medical program and only to learn that they've been being treated by an unregulated individual.

California naturopathic doctors are rigorously trained at four year medical, doctoral level programs. I attended one myself. And, they serve communities across the state, including many of the under served communities in California where access to primary care is so needed. And we play a very important role in the health care system of California, including hospitals. However, the limitations in the current statutes create confusion for consumers and restrict safe and appropriate practice for licensed providers and undermine our ability to enforce against unlicensed activity.

Excuse me. SB 133 addresses these gaps by clarifying title protection and strengthening enforcement tools, ensuring that consumers can clearly distinguish between a licensed ND and an unlicensed individual. And those that were sorry. A licensed individual that was trained at an accredited medical school. The board is committed to transparency, accountability, and thoughtful regulation that keeps the public safe while supporting a modern well functioning health care system.

We welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with the legislature on solutions that strengthen consumer protection, clarify statutory authority, and enhance oversight of both licensed and unlicensed practice. Thank you for your consideration and your partnership, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Hi. My name is Rebecca Mitchell. I am the executive officer of the California Board of Naturopathic Medicine, and I appreciate you allowing us to be here today. Consumer protection is our core mission. The most persistent issue we face is public confusion between those licensed naturopathic doctors and unlicensed naturopaths.

So these amendments remain strongly consumer focused. They improve clarity, reduce enforcement burden, support graduates, and they increase public understanding without creating new costs or regulatory obligations for unlicensed individuals. The unlicensed nature paths amendments strengthen transparency and reduce confusion. They create no new costs. They simply align disclosures with the medical practice act, so that consumers know who they are seeing and who's licensed and what services are being offered.

The Department of Education amendments preserves licensure eligibility for graduates regardless of federal changes, ensuring stability for students and for California health care workforce. The fictitious name permit program further improves consumer protection and lowers enforcement costs. Many complaints arrive under a business name with no clarity about who's responsible, and the FNP program fixes that by providing clear ownership information and a direct point of accountability. These issues are not new.

Opposition representatives raised them during the publicly available March 24 joint hearing, and they've been a part of our sunset review process for months.

Transparency and consumer protection have consistently guided the board's recommendations. Additionally, amendments had they been taken would have further enacted legislature's original intent current statutes, recognizing naturopathic doctors have same authority and responsibility in public health as physicians and surgeons. We appreciate the opportunity to continue working with the committees, and with the industry stakeholders who, despite opposing some of those amendments that had been removed, expressed interest in continuing discussions about including naturopathic doctors in the workers' compensation and insurance framework.

These amendments strengthen public protection, improve transparency, and resolve long standing issues raised throughout sunset review. We respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. We'll now take a Me Too's.

Yeah. Madam Chair and Members, Monica Miller on behalf of the California Naturopathic Doctors Association, in support and really wanna thank, both, your staff as well as Senator Wahab's staff. They have done a lot of work on this legislation, and we're extremely appreciative of the work, the conversations, and look forward to continued conversations as well as everyone on your teams. We've had a a lot of thorough discussion and look forward to having those in the future. So thank you, and we urge your support.

Thank you. Alright. And now is there any opposition? Yeah. This is for primary opposition.

Just more of me to quick comment.

Okay. So short.

Tim Madden representing the California Rheumatology Alliance, the California Chapter of the American College of Cardiology, the California Society of Plastic Surgeons, and also pinching for representing the California Society of Anesthesiologists. We had been opposed with the amendments that had gone into the bill. We appreciate, working with the committee to work out those amendments. And with that, we are removing our opposition. Thank you.

Good evening. George Soares with the California Medical Association. Appreciate the Chair, this committee, and the staff on working on these amendments. We'll be moving to neutral when those amendments go into print. Thank you.

Thank you. Jason Schnelzer on behalf of the Coalition on Workers' Compensation, PRISM, and the rest of the Coalition on the Workers' Compensation issue removing our opposition. Wanna thank, the committee and the author as well. Thank you.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association, the California Podiatric Medical Association, the California Society of Pathologists, and the California Radiological Society, and the American College of OBGYN's District 9 who were opposed, but thankfully for the staff of your committee, Mister Berman, we're happily to go in neutral with the amendments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Vanessa Kahina with KP Public Affairs on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians representing 11,000 primary care doctors throughout the state. Very much appreciate the ear of this Chair and the committee staff and all the members here to get us to where we are today. With the amendments going into into print, we will be removing our opposition.

Good afternoon. Kelly McMillan on behalf of the California Society of Dermatologists. We also will be moving our opposed to neutral with the amendments. Thank you.

Alright. Not seeing any others. I'll bring it up to the dias for questions. We have a motion and a second. Assemblymember Chair Berman, would you like to close?

Appreciate all the hard work that's gone into this by by everybody. And on behalf of Chair Wahab, respectfully ask for your Ae vote.

Alright. We have a motion by Pellerin and a second by Macedo. Will you please call the vote?

On SB 133 Wahab, the motion is due passed as amended. [Roll Call]

Alright. That bill is out. Thank you very much. Alright. That'll take us to Senator Umberg's SB 342.

Well, thank you, madam Chair and members. Special thank you to Caitlin Curry for her work on the bill. SB 342, the contractors license Licensure Fairness Act provides a balanced approach to contractor licensing by allowing contractors to receive payment for a time that they worked on the project. What this bill does here's the here's the issue the bill corrects.

Is that if you've got, for example, a project takes three years and there's any period of time when your license has expired and it hasn't been immediately renewed so there's no gap, then you forfeit the entire value of that contract.

That is unfair. It provides a windfall to unintended parties, and that's what this bill does. It simply says that for the period of time that you're unlicensed, then you can't collect for that period of time. But otherwise, there's not gonna be a windfall. It only applies to large projects, does not apply to residential projects.

Therefore, I urge and I vote. With me here is Mister Donnie Wilcox. Testify, I'm hoping, in support.

You've got two minutes, Mister Wilcox.

Thank you. Don Wilcox, California Conference of Carpenters. Briefly, nothing in SB 342 prohibits the license board from administrating administratively revoking the license for any violation authorized under existing law. If the license board revokes a contractor's license, the contractor would be unlicensed and the law would prohibit them from receiving any civil remedy. SB 342 works to prevent folks from being driven out of business.

Essentially, it's the death penalty for our contractors. And so we think proportional, judgments, will work to actually reduce court cases, reduce litigation, and enable our guys to stay at work. Keeping it brief.

Thank you.

Always appreciate it. Thank you. Any additional witnesses wanna add on in support of the bill? Any me too is in support. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill?

Come on up. You've got two minutes. Feel free to speak from there. Come on up, whatever you want.

Right. Good evening, Chair and members. Sasha Horwitz with the Los Angeles Unified School District, and you're here in respectful opposition to SB 342. We're the largest school district in the state educating nearly 400,000 students and responsible for building and maintaining safe spaces for students across our thousands of classrooms, laboratories, gyms, and other facilities.

Like all public entities, we will be significantly impacted by what at first glance seems to be a reasonable change to allow minor lapses in a contractor's license that will occur between a bid and construction activity.

We want to make clear that SB342 is not limited to inadvertent administrative or short term lapses in licensing that are easily monitored by the and retroactively corrected under current law. Maintaining a license is a very low hurdle for contractors. Before a license expires, the Board will send a ninety day, a sixty day, a thirty day, and a fifteen day reminder and renewal steps are simple.

The contractor must pay a renewal fee and demonstrate that they have active insurance and contractors bond, and this can be done online. A lapse in a license can be indicative of many more serious violations like financial misconduct, insurance and bonding lapses, workmanship, regulator violations, or criminal activity and misconduct.

Their inability to properly maintain a license should not be rewarded. SB 342 simply rewards bad contractors. The amendments added to the bill most very recently expand the bill beyond just public works. Current law obligates a contractor to be licensed at all times during the performance of that act or contract.

Twenty years ago, the California Supreme Court has held that this all or nothing philosophy is directly at odds with the premise that contractors with lapses in licenses may nonetheless recover partial compensation by narrowly segmenting the license and unlicensed portions of the performance.

Therefore, if a contractor is unlicensed at any time during the performance of the contract, and it's entirely precluded from recovering money for its work, and we were required to disgorge any amount paid to it, even if it was properly licensed for some period of time during the performance of the contract. The all or nothing approach was intended by the legislature to deter unlicensed conduct and encourage contractors to self regulate to avoid the significant penalty.

The approach was adopted because contractors, the CSLB is not able to effectively monitor all licensed contractors in the state. SB 342 would reverse current law by adopting a piecemeal approach rejected by the Supreme Court. SB 342 would allow a contractor recover compensation for work performed while it was licensed, even if it was precluded from recovering for for work while unlicensed for some period during the performance of the contract.

And if

you could wrap up, that'd be great. Yes,

sir. This simply rewards contractors for failing to maintain proper licenses and places an impossible burden on consumers, public entities, and the CSLB. For these reasons, we must respectfully oppose SB 342.

Thank you. We have an additional primary witness in opposition. The me too. Perfect. Come on up.

Any additional me too's in opposition, please come on up.

With brevity in mind, Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities, also representing California State Association of Counties and the California Special Districts Association opposed for the following reasons, but also just unlicensed contractors shouldn't be able to profit it. Thank you. Thank you.

McKinley Thompson Morley on behalf of the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, regretfully regretfully in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Bring it back to colleagues in Centenburg just to confirm, that you're accepting the committee amendments. Thank you, sir. Any questions, comments, motion, seconds? Almost.

Got a motion and a second? Thank you very much. Any questions or comments from colleagues? Seeing none, Senator, would you like to close?

I urge an aye vote.

Thank you. I do too. Thank you for working with the committee on the bill, and I encourage an aye vote.

Madam secretary, please call the vote. On

SB 342, Umberg, the motion is do passed as amended. Berman?

Aye.

Berman, aye. Johnson? Johnson, aye. Addis? Aye.

Addis, aye. Arrons? Alanis? Alanis, Aye. Baines?

Baines, Aye. Barakahyan? Kolozah? Kolozah, Aye. Chen Chen, Aye, El Hawari?

Aye. El Hawari, Aye, Hadwick? Hadwick, Aye. Haney? Aye.

Haney, Aye. Hart. Hart, Aye. Erwin? Erwin, Aye.

Jackson?

Aye.

Jackson, Aye. Lowenthal? Aye. Lowenthal, Aye. Masito?

Macedo Aye. Huynh. Huynh Aye. Pellerin. Pellerin Aye.

Congratulations. That bill is out.

Thank you. Pleasure doing business with you. Always. Thank you.

Always. Vice Chair Johnson.

Yes. Thank you so much. I just wanna take the opportunity from from our side. Thank you for acknowledging that this is Bill Lewis' last business and professions committee as he's retiring. I have only been here one short year, so I had to do some digging.

He started in 1987. He worked for a member. He then went to the caucus, then he left and went to the dental association, and then back to the caucus twice. So he's chosen us three times, actually. But we just wanna say thank you.

Your imprint, your work, and your steadfast knowledge and excitement for our committee has been incredible. And he was actually very excited that we had some fun work to do today and this was his last committee hearing instead of it being boring. So I just wanna say thank you, but please enjoy your retirement. It's well deserved. Thank you, sir.

Mister Chair, a point of information, if you started in 1987, that means you might have been 11 years old at that time?

I promise to open mic night, but with that, I think we might take it from the top to for add ons for folks who miss bills.

Madam Secretary, please take it up from the top.

On a B2772, Bourbon, Colosa. Colosa, Aye. Macedo. Macedo, no. On s B13O3 Wahab.

White. Heart. Heart, Aye. On s B1347, Nielo, Colosa. Colosa Aye, Al Hori.

Al Hori, Aye. Masito? Macedo,

Aye.

On a B2772, Berman. Arrant?

Aye.

Arrant's aye. Bara Kayhan?

Maybe okay.

Bara Kayhan, aye.

She doesn't need my frostbite. S P third 342, Umberg. Arrant?

On

Aye.

Arrant's aye. Bara Kayhan? Barcahen, Aye. On SB 1303 Wahab, Aarons?

Aaron's, Aye. Barcahen? Aye. Barcahen, Aye. On SB1347 Nilo, Erens?

Aye.

Erens, Aye. Barakahan? Aye. Barakahan, Aye.

Aye.

And with that, thank goodness this hearing is adjourned.