BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Senator Jerry Hill, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: SB 467 Hearing Date: April 27, 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |Hill | |----------+------------------------------------------------------| |Version: |April 21, 2015 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- |Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes | ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant|Bill Gage | |: | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Professions and vocations. SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Consumer Affairs to receive approval of the Legislature to levy any pro rata charges against any of the boards, bureaus, or commission for administrative expenses of the Department; requires the Attorney General's Office to submit specified reports and information to the Legislature annually; provides that the Director or the Department, through its Division of Investigation, shall work with the health care boards to standardize referral of complaints; extends until January 1, 2020 the provisions establishing the California Accountancy Board and the term of the executive officer; and allows the Board to provide for certain practice restrictions on the license of an accountant for disciplinary reasons. Existing law: 1) Specifies that there is in the state government, in the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency, a Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). (Business and Professions Code (BPC) § 100) 2) Specifies that the entities under DCA are established for the purpose of ensuring that those private businesses and professions deemed to engage in activities which have potential impact upon the public health, safety, and welfare are adequately regulated in order to protect the people of California. (BPC § 101.6) SB 467 (Hill) Page 2 of ? 3) Specifies the powers and duties of the Director of DCA. (BPC § 310) 4) Provides that a charge for the estimated administrative expenses of the DCA, not to exceed the available balance in any appropriation for any one fiscal year, may be levied in advance on a pro rata share basis against any boards, bureaus, commissions, divisions, and agencies, at the discretion of the Director and with the approval of the Department of Finance. (BPC § 201 (a)(1)) 5) Requires the DCA to submit a report of the accounting of the pro rata calculation of administrative expenses to the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature on or before July 1, 2015, and on or before July 1 of each subsequent year. (BPC § 201 (a)(2)) 6) Requires the DCA to conduct a one-time study of its current system for prorating administrative expenses to determine if that system is the most productive, efficient, and cost-effective manner for the DCA and the agencies comprising the DCA and that the study shall include information as specified. (BPC § 201 (b)) 7) Requires the Director of the DCA to submit to the Governor and the Legislature on or before January 1, 2003, and annually thereafter, a report of programmatic and statistical information, as specified, regarding the activities of the DCA and its constituent entities for the previous fiscal year. (BPC § 312) 8) Requires the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to submit a report to the DCA, the Governor, and the Legislature on or before January 1, 2016, and on or before January 1 of each subsequent year that includes specified statistical information regarding cases referred to each office of OAH. (BPC § 312.1) 9) Specifies that it shall be the duty of the Director to receive complaints from consumers concerning various violations of the Business and Professions Code relating to SB 467 (Hill) Page 3 of ? businesses and licensed professions, unfair or deceptive acts or practices by any person in the conduct of any trade or commerce, and the production, distribution, sale and lease of any goods or services undertaken by any person which may endanger the public health, safety or welfare. (BPC § 325) 10)Requires the Director to transmit any valid complaint to the appropriate local, state or federal agency whose authority provides the most effective means to secure the relief and it shall be the continuing duty to the Director to discern patterns of complaints and to ascertain the nature and extend of action taken with respect to the probably violations or pattern of complaints. (BPC § 326) 11)Provides that in order to ensure that its resources are maximized for the protection of the public, the Medical Board of California (MBC) shall prioritize its investigative and prosecutorial resources to ensure that physicians and surgeons representing the greatest threat of harm are identified and disciplined expeditiously and that cases be given the highest priority as specified. (BPC § 2220.05 (a)) 12)Provides that the MBC may by regulation prioritize other cases that are not designated as high priority cases. (BPC § 2220.05 (b)) 13)Provides that the California Board of Accountancy (CBA) within the DCA is responsible for the licensure and regulation of accountants and is required to designate an executive officer and repeals these provisions on January 1, 2016. (BPC § 5000 et seq.) 14)Provides that a person shall be deemed to be engaged in the practice of public accountancy if he or she performs certain acts, makes certain representations, and renders accounting services to the public and clients for compensation. (BPC § 5051) 15)Provides that the CBA, after notice and hearing, may revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew any permit or certificate granted by the CBA, or may censure the holder of that permit or certificate for unprofessional conduct that includes, but is not limited to, one or any combination of criminal acts, SB 467 (Hill) Page 4 of ? specified false statements or omissions, dishonesty, fraud, gross negligence or repeated negligent acts in performance of professional standards, and other acts or violations as specified. (BPC § 5100) This bill: 1) Requires the DCA to receive approval of the Legislature to levy in advance a charge for the estimated administrative expenses of the DCA on a pro rata share basis against any of the boards, bureaus, commissions, divisions, and agencies for the estimated administrative expenses of the DCA. 2) Requires the Attorney General (AG) to submit a report to the DCA, the Governor, and the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature on or before January 1, 2017, and on or before January 1 of each subsequent year that includes specific statistical information regarding cases referred to the AG by each constituent entity comprising the DCA and the Division of Investigation (DOI) of the DCA. 3) Provides that in order to implement the complaint prioritization guidelines as specified by the Department in 2009, titled "Complaint Prioritization Guideline for Health Care Agencies," the Director, through the DOI, shall work cooperatively with the health care boards to standardize referral of complaints to the DOI and those that are retained by the health care boards for investigation. 4) Extends until January 1, 2020 the provisions establishing the CBA and the term of the Executive Officer. 5) Provides that the CBA, after notice and hearing may, for unprofessional conduct, permanently restrict or limit the practice of a licensee or impose a probationary term or condition on a license, which prohibits the licensee from performing or engaging in any of the acts or services as provided for in the practice of accountancy, and that unprofessional conduct shall include, but not be limited to, those grounds for discipline or denial as specified in Item # 15 above. 6) Provides that a practice restriction may include, but not be limited to, the prohibition on engaging in or performing any SB 467 (Hill) Page 5 of ? attestation engagement, audits or compilations. 7) Allows a licensee to petition the CBA as provided for reduction of penalty or reinstatement of the privilege to engage in the service or act restricted or limited by the CBA. 8) Provides that the authority of sanctions provided are in addition to any other civil, criminal, and administrative penalties or sanctions provided by law, and do not supplant, but are cumulative to, other disciplinary authority, penalties or sanctions. 9) Specifies that failure to comply with any restrictions or limitation imposed by the CBA is grounds for revocation of the license. FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has been keyed "fiscal" by Legislative Counsel. COMMENTS: 1.Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the Author . This bill is one of five "sunset bills" the Author is sponsoring this session. According to the Author, this bill is necessary to extend the sunset date of the Accountancy Board in order to ensure continued oversight of accountancy profession. This measure would require approval of the Legislature for the administrative pro rata charges of the DCA against any of its boards, bureaus, commissions, divisions, and agencies (boards) for the estimated administrative expenses of the DCA. With current pro rata costs incurred by most boards, and the potential for additional costs because of the BreEZe project and the potential for fee increases for many of these boards, the Legislature needs to give careful consideration to pro rata costs charged to the boards, rather than just the Department of Finance. This bill will also establish and enhance mandatory reporting requirements for the AG's office and require health care boards to prioritize complaints to SB 467 (Hill) Page 6 of ? assist policy makers in determining how best to solve the long standing problem of delayed disciplinary action. 2.Sunset Review Process. The sunset review process provides a formal opportunity and mechanism for the DCA, the Legislature, the boards and bureaus, interested parties and stakeholders to provide oversight, evaluate and discuss the performance of the boards and bureaus and other programs under the DCA and make recommendations for improvement. This is performed on a standard four-year cycle and was mandated by SB 2036 (McCorquodale, Chapter 908, Statutes of 1994). The legislation pertaining to this bill is based on specific issues raised and addressed in the reports ("Background Papers") released by the Senate and Assembly committees. 3.Oversight Hearings and Sunset Review of Licensing Boards and Programs. In 2015, the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee and the Assembly Business and Professions Committee (Committees) conducted joint oversight hearings to review 12 regulatory entities: California Accountancy Board; California Architects Board and Landscape Architects Committee; California State Athletic Commission; Board of Barbering and Cosmetology; Cemetery and Funeral Bureau; Contractors State License Board; Dental Board of California; Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists; Board of Registered Nursing; Bureau of Security and Investigative Services and; Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians. The Committees began their review of the aforementioned licensing agencies in March and conducted two days of hearings. This bill, and the accompanying sunset bills, are intended to implement legislative changes as recommended by staff of the Committee's and which are reflected in the Background Papers prepared by Committee staff for each agency and program reviewed by the Committees for this year. 4.Review of the Department of Consumer Affairs: Issues Identified and Recommended Changes. The mission of DCA is to "protect and serve the interests of California consumers." By statute, consumer protection is the primary purpose for all of the regulatory programs located within DCA, which consists of 26 boards, nine bureaus, two committees, one program, and one SB 467 (Hill) Page 7 of ? commission (hereafter referred to as "boards" unless otherwise noted). Collectively, these entities regulate more than 100 types of businesses and 200 different industries and professions. For example, doctors, auto mechanics, private security companies, and beauty salons are all regulated by DCA. As regulators, these entities perform two basic program functions: licensing and enforcement. Licensing entails ensuring only those who meet minimum standards are issued a license to practice, and enforcement entails investigation of alleged violations. During the March 2015, Sunset Review Oversight Hearing, and in the Committee Background Paper on the DCA, several issues were raised relating to the administration and operations of the DCA. This bill addresses some of the issues raised during the Sunset Review process regarding the DCA, including Legislative oversight of pro rata charges which are charged to the boards, prioritization of disciplinary cases, and specific enforcement reporting requirements for the AG's Office. The following provides background information on these issues and the recommendations which are being made by Committee staff regarding the particular issue area and which issues need to be addressed by statutory changes. a) Issue: Pro Rata of the DCA . Background: The Committees continue to be interested in exploring the manner in which the DCA boards are charged for administrative services provided by the DCA. Business and Professions Code Section 201 gives the Director, with approval of the Department of Finance, the authority to charge the boards for estimated administrative expenses. B&P Code Section 201 reads: "A charge for the estimated administrative expenses of the department, not to exceed the available balance in any appropriation for any one fiscal year, may be levied in advance on a pro rata share basis against the funds of any of the boards, bureaus commissions, division and agencies, a the discretion of the director and with the approval of the Department of Finance." SB 467 (Hill) Page 8 of ? Through its divisions, the DCA provides centralized administrative services to all boards. Most of these services are funded through a pro rata calculation that is based on "position counts." Other functions (call center services, complaint resolution, and correspondence unit) are based on past-year workload. The pro rata charges fund the entire DCA operations. For FY 2015-16, DCA is budgeted $94 million with 727 employees. Importantly, the boards have no control over the pro rata charges, regardless of the quality or quantity of services provided by the DCA. This is true, despite the fact that Executive Officers are held responsible for managing their budgets, as well as spearheading requests for fee increases. Pro rata charges in actual dollars are significant for some boards. Perhaps more importantly, pro rata can be as much as 40% of a board's annual operating budget. Under the current model, some boards are be charged for services (again, based on position count) that they may not be receiving. Some of the DCA's larger programs, like the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) and Contractors' State License Board (CSLB), may not use the full complement of the DCA services. For example, both BAR and CLSB have their own sophisticated in-house public information units that serve the sole purpose of supporting their own regulatory program. Basically, it appears as if these larger boards are subsidizing the program needs of smaller ones. The DCA's pro rata calculations are based on position authority, rather than actual number of employees, which may inflate pro rata charges. In recent years, there have been a number of statewide efforts to reduce expenditures and staffing levels throughout state government. Those cost-control measures reduced staffing levels at the boards, and it was unclear if or how pro rata charges were adjusted as a result of staffing reductions. For this reason, on January 28, 2014, Assembly Member Curt Hagman sent a letter to the DCA asking that pro rata be calculated based on filled positions, not based on allocated positions. SB 467 (Hill) Page 9 of ? Citing added workload and volatility of staffing levels, the DCA was resistant to changing the pro-rata model from authorized position count to filled positions last year. But the department indicated it was willing to pursue a study of pro-rata methodology. The department indicated, "The Department would need time to procure the services of a qualified entity to perform an independent and objective study?" After discussing pro rata at the 2014 oversight hearing, the Committee Chair authored Senate Bill 1243 (Lieu, Chapter 395, Statues of 2014), which requires DCA to conduct a one-time mandatory study of its "current system for prorating administrative expenses to determine if that system is the most productive, efficient, and cost-effective manner for the department and the agencies compromising the department". The bill requires that the study consider whether some services should be outsourced or if DCA boards could elect to opt out of some of the administrative services. The DCA is conducting a survey of board executives regarding pro rata. Participation in the survey requires respondents to identify themselves, which may inhibit candid responses. The pro rata report is due to the Legislature by July 1, 2015. Based on some of the observations above, there is growing interest in increasing transparency of pro rata calculations to allow for better understanding of how these assessments are calculated and what impact they have on board operations, especially in light of assessments now being made for the BreEZe project. [The DCA has been working since 2009 on replacing multiple antiquated standalone IT systems with one fully integrated technology system. In October 2013, DCA launched its new customized information technology (IT) system, which it calls BreEZe. Unfortunately, there were significant problems with the planning, design, project management, and training associated with BreEZE which were pointed out by a recent audit conducted by the Bureau of State Audits. The future of the project is now in question.] The BreEZe assessments by DCA on the boards will have a SB 467 (Hill) Page 10 of ? significant impact on several boards' overall budget. On February 24, 2015, the DCA provided fund condition reports that demonstrate the impact of development and maintenance of BreEZe on all of the DCA's special funds. According to these reports, 18 of the funds are projected to have less than 3 months in reserve in FY 2016-17. Typically, boards consider seeking fee increases when they project the funds will dip below a three-month reserve. If these projections are accurate, those same 18 regulatory programs could be seeking fee increases next fiscal year. The time has come to provide better oversight by the Legislature on what administrative charges are being incurred and charged to the boards by the DCA, rather than just a review of pro rata by the DCA and the Department of Finance. Recommendation and Proposed Statutory Change: Given the significant impact of pro rata on the boards' operating budgets, Business and Professions Code Section 201 should be amended to require Legislative approval, through the budget process, for the DCA's annual pro rata assessment. b) Issue: Consumer Protection Enforcement Initiative (CPEI) - A Systemic Solution to a Systemic Problem . Background: Some of the DCA's health care boards have a long history of taking three years or longer to take disciplinary action on their licensees when discipline is warranted. In response to pressure from the media and the Legislature, the DCA created CPEI in 2010. The specific goal of CPEI was to reduce the average length of time it takes health care boards to take formal disciplinary action from three years to 12 to 18 months. Key components of CPEI include administrative changes, ensuring the boards' enforcement programs are sufficiently staffed and have adequate technology to conduct their regulatory functions, and establishing and publishing precise performance targets. The Legislature has been very supportive of the DCA's efforts to establish and meet performance measures. In prior years, the Legislature has authorized 220 additional enforcement staff, approved funding for the BreEZe project, SB 467 (Hill) Page 11 of ? and established performance measures for the OAH. All of these efforts have been in support of CPEI. Aside from BreEZe, many components of CPEI have been implemented. For example, enforcement staff has been increased and most health care boards have adopted changes in procedure designed to expedite certain enforcement transactions. However, the impact of those efforts have not been identified or measured and most boards have failed to meet their performance targets for formal discipline, which is the stated purpose of the entire initiative. The DCA continues to work with the boards on improving performance targets and believes that by July of 2015 it will be able to provide more accurate performance reports, but it has also been determined that reporting performance measures for two other state agencies that provide legal services to the DCA boards could also be useful to the DCA and the Legislature. The DCA boards rely on the AG and OAH to perform certain functions in the formal disciplinary enforcement process and the boards do not have direct control over when and how cases are handled once the cases have been referred to the AG's Office. In 2010, the DCA's CPEI states, "DCA has been working with the Attorney General's Office and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to establish performance agreements that will expedite the prosecution of cases. The DCA and the AG's Office are developing expectations for filing accusations, setting settlement conferences, and filing continuance requests." In March 2014, the DCA was still working on those agreements. The DCA reported that it planned to "continue to work with both OAH and the AG's Office to develop performance measures." It also has been reported that the DCA legal staff were meeting regularly with OAH and the AG's Office to discuss methods and efforts to reduce enforcement time frames. Absent an agreement between the DCA and the OAH regarding performance measures, Senate Bill 1243 (Lieu, Chapter 395, Statutes of 2014), established performance measures for the OAH beginning January 1, 2016. The OAH issued its First SB 467 (Hill) Page 12 of ? Annual Caseload Statistics and Hearing Timeframe Report to the Legislature on September 30, 2014. Notably, the report was published over a year ahead of the due date. In addition to measuring workload and timelines, the OAH reports that it is in the process of developing targets for those timelines. This effort is consistent with the Committees' past recommendations. Performance measurements and targets have not been established for the AG's Office. By requiring performance reports from the AG, the information could be expanded to include additional major milestones, such as all investigations (not just those that do not result in formal discipline), length of time to file accusations and other milestones in prosecution, as well as the length of time to conduct a hearing. This would help management, stakeholders, the general public, and lawmakers determine where there is room for improvement by reviewing all three agencies. There does not appear to be any good reason why both the DCA and the OAH are required to provide performance measurements and targets dates for actions taken but the AG's office is not. Another essential part of CPEI was enhancing the use of non-sworn investigative staff to conduct less complex investigations for the health care boards. According to the CPEI Budget Change Proposal (BCP), which was approved in FY 2010-11, "Recognizing the need to make internal changes and acquire additional resources, and as part of these proactive efforts to develop a greater level of consistency as to how these complaints could be categorized, DCA issued 'Complaint Prioritization Guidelines' for Boards to utilize in prioritizing their respective complaint and investigative workloads." The guidelines established three categories of complaint identification: Urgent, High and Routine. Urgent included acts that could result in serious patient harm, injury or death and involve, but are not limited to, gross negligence, incompetence, drug/alcohol abuse, practicing under the influence, theft of prescription drugs, sexual misconduct while treating a patient, physical/mental abuse, conviction of a crime etc. SB 467 (Hill) Page 13 of ? High included acts that involve negligence/incompetence (without serious injury), physical/mental abuse (without injury), mandatory peer review reporting, prescribing/dispensing without authority, involved in aiding and abetting unlicensed activity, complaints about licensees on probation, exam subversion, etc. Routine involved complaints that involve fraud, general unprofessional conduct, unsanitary conditions, false/misleading advertising, patient abandonment, fraud, failure to release medical records, recordkeeping violations, applicant misconduct, continuing education, non-jurisdictional issues, applicant misconduct. As designed, investigations of routine cases could be conducted by non-sworn staff at the boards. Cases categorized as urgent or high would be investigated by sworn staff at the DCA's DOI. These guidelines, coupled with staff training, were designed to free up sworn staff so that they could work on complex investigations. It also would allow the non-sworn staff to focus on and keep cases moving that might have been a lower priority if they were assigned to sworn staff. If this model is not being used, cases handled by sworn and non-sworn investigative staff could become bogged down, thus elongating investigative timeframes. CPEI staffing enhancements were approved by the Legislature with this model in mind. It does not appear as if these Complaint Prioritization Guidelines are being implemented appropriately by boards under the DCA. There are, however, at least two boards that have set their own prioritization requirements for complaints, one of them being the Medical Board. The DCA should work more closely with the boards to assure that the complaint prioritization requirements are more closely adhered to when necessary. Recommendations and Proposed Statutory Changes: Require the AG to submit a report to the DCA, the Governor and the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature on or before January 1, 2017, and on or before January 1 of each subsequent year that includes specific statistical information regarding cases referred to the AG by each constituent entity comprising the DCA and the DOI of the SB 467 (Hill) Page 14 of ? DCA. Specify that in order to implement the complaint prioritization guidelines the Director of DCA, through the DOI, work cooperatively with the health care boards to standardize referral of complaints to the DOI and those that are retained by the health care boards for investigation. 5.Review of the California Accountancy Board (CBA): Issues Identified and Recommended Changes. CBA is a public majority board and is composed of 15 members: seven CPAs and eight public members who shall not be licensees of the CBA, or registered by the CBA. The CBA enforces the Accountancy Act which defines the practice of public accountancy as the process of recording classifying, reporting and interpreting the financial data of an individual or an organization. In California, the accounting profession's licensed practitioners are the CPAs and the Public Accountants (PA). Shortly after World War II, the PA license was awarded to individuals who demonstrated experience in public accounting and possessed a specified educational background. As of January, 2015 only 82 individuals held PA licenses. The last PA license was issued in 1968, and as these particular licenses expire, California eventually will no longer have licensees with this designation. A CPA is a person who has met the requirements of California state law, including education, examination, and experience requirements, and has been issued a license to practice public accountancy by the CBA. Only persons who are licensed can legally be called a CPA or a PA. Additionally, the CBA exercises regulatory authority over accountancy firms. As accounting practitioners, CPAs and PAs are proprietors, partners, shareholders and staff employees of public accounting firms. They provide professional services to individuals, private and public companies, financial institutions, nonprofit organizations, and local, state and federal government entities. CBA's regulatory authority over CPAs, PAs, and accounting firms is guided by CBA's statutory mandate to protect the public. In concert with this statutory mandate and Strategic Plan, the CBA establishes and maintains entry level standards of qualification and conduct within the accounting profession, primarily through its authority to license. Through its Examination and Initial Licensure Programs, the CBA qualifies California candidates for the national Uniform CPA SB 467 (Hill) Page 15 of ? Examination, certifies and licenses individual CPAs, registers accountancy partnerships and accountancy corporations. Additionally, CBA ensures that licensees maintain the current professional knowledge necessary for competent performance, permits qualified out-of-state CPAs to practice public accountancy in California pursuant to a practice privilege, and exercises disciplinary authority over CPAs, PAs and accounting firms. The CBA was last reviewed by the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee in 2011. At that time, this Committee raised nine issues with several recommendations. On November 1, 2014, the CBA submitted its required sunset report to the Committees. In this report, (which was actually completed on June 30, 2014) the CBA described actions it has taken since its prior review to address the issues and recommendations of this Committee. The CBA addressed all of the nine issues raised by this Committee and attempted to comply with the recommendations of this Committee. There was only one current issue that Committee staff considered as necessary to be addressed through a statutory change to the Accountancy Act, besides the need to also extend their sunset provisions for four years. The following provides background information concerning the particular issues and the recommended statutory changes. a) Issue: Permanent Practice Restrictions . Background. The CBA has the authority to revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew any permit or certificate, or censure the holder of that permit or certificate due to unprofessional conduct. Over the years the authority (BPC section 5100) has been modified, with the last substantive change occurring in 2005 when the Legislature took steps to further clarify the meaning of dishonesty, fraud, and gross negligence contained in the provision, as well as add the following to unprofessional conduct: unlawful practice of public accountancy in another state, and the imposition of any discipline, penalty, or sanction on a licensee by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board or the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. This provision, however, does not presently allow the CBA, and SB 467 (Hill) Page 16 of ? Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), the authority to consider including permanent practice restrictions. Currently, practice restrictions may only be imposed beyond the probationary term when specifically agreed to by the licensee via a stipulated settlement. Some circumstances may warrant permanent practice restrictions in order to protect the public; however, if the licensee is unwilling to agree to such terms via a stipulated settlement, the only recourse for the CBA is to seek revocation of the license. This change would allow the CBA, and ALJs, to include permanent practice restrictions as part of a disciplinary order, as opposed to seeking a complete license revocation, and permit the licensee to retain a license and be able to practice and earn income in such areas where competency is not compromised. Recommendation and Proposed Statutory Change: BPC section 5100.5 should be added to the Accountancy Act to allow the CBA, and ALJs, to include permanent practice restrictions as part of a disciplinary order, while still permitting the licensee to retain a license to practice in such areas where competency is not compromised. b) Issue: Continued Regulation of the Accountancy Profession by the CBA . Background: The health, safety and welfare of consumers are protected by a well-regulated certified public accounting profession. The CBA has shown over the years a strong commitment to improve the Board's overall efficiency and effectiveness and has worked cooperatively with DCA, the Legislature and the Committees to bring about necessary changes. The CBA should be continued with a four-year extension of its sunset date so that the Committees may review once again if the issues and recommendations in this Paper and others of the Committees have been addressed. Recommendation and Proposed Statutory Change: It was recommended that the certified public accounting profession continue to be regulated by the current CBA members in order to protect the interests of the public and be reviewed once again in four years. 6.Related Legislation This Session. SB 465 (Hill) extends the SB 467 (Hill) Page 17 of ? operation of the Contractors' State License Board until 2020 and makes various changes to the Contractors' State License Law. ( Status: The bill will also be considered by this Committee at today's hearing.) SB 466 (Hill) sunsets the Board of Registered Nursing. ( Status: The bill will also be considered by this Committee at today's hearing.) SB 468 (Hill) extends the operation of the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services and the Alarm Company Act, Locksmith Act, Private Investigator Act, Private Security Services Act, Proprietary Security Services Act, and Collateral Recovery Act until January 1, 2020. Subjects the Bureau to review by the appropriate committees of the Legislature. Makes various changes to provisions in the aforementioned Acts to improve the oversight, enforcement and regulation by the Bureau of licensees under each Act. ( Status: The bill will also be considered by this Committee at today's hearing.) SB 469 (Hill) extends the operation of the California State Athletic Commission until 2020. Makes changes to the laws governing the Commission's operations and the Commission's oversight of professional and amateur boxing, professional and amateur kickboxing, all forms and combinations of full contact martial arts contests, including mixed martial arts and matches or exhibitions conducted, held or given in California. ( Status: The bill will also be considered by this Committee at today's hearing.) AB 177 (Bonilla) extends the operation of the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists and California Architects Board and Landscape Architects Committee until January 1, 2020. ( Status: The bill is pending in the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions.) AB 178 (Bonilla) extends the operation of the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians until January 1, 2020. ( Status: The bill is pending in the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions.) AB 179 (Assembly Committee on Business and Professions) extends the operation of the Dental Board of California until January SB 467 (Hill) Page 18 of ? 1, 2020. ( Status: The bill is pending in the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions.) AB 180 (Assembly Committee on Business and Professions) extends the operation of the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau until January 1, 2020. ( Status: The bill is pending in the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions.) AB 181 (Assembly Committee on Business and Professions) extends the operation of the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology until January 1, 2020. ( Status: The bill is pending in the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions.) 7.Arguments in Support. The California Board of Accountancy (CBA) is in support of this measure and indicates that the Board plays an important role in protecting consumers by ensuring only qualified licensees practice public accountancy in accordance with established professional standards. CBA believes it is vital for the CBA to continue regulating the practice of public accountancy, which includes both licensing and enforcement functions of more than 97,000 licensees. SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION: Support: California Board of Accountancy California Society of CPAs (CALCPA) Opposition: None on file as of April 21, 2015. -- END --