BILL ANALYSIS
SB 475
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 16, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
Mary Hayashi, Chair
SB 475 (Padilla) - As Introduced: February 26, 2009
SENATE VOTE : 36-0
SUBJECT : Guide dogs for the blind.
SUMMARY : Increases the annual renewal fee limit for guide dog
schools from 0.004 to no more than 0.005 of the schools annual
expenses, requires the State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind
(Board) to establish the exact amount of the fee by regulation,
and requires the renewal fee to be paid by April 30th of each
year.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes within the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA),
the Board which licenses schools for the training of guide
dogs for the blind and the instruction of blind persons in the
use of guide dogs.
2)Requires a fee equal to 0.004 of a school's annual expenses to
be paid for renewal of a school's license.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
Purpose of this bill . According to the author's office: "Guide
dog training schools operate as non-profits and do not charge
the blind for the cost of training service dogs. The Board is
100% special funded by licensee fees. The current fund reserve
or the operations of the Board will have a projected negative
balance by the end of FY 2012-13.
"The existing fee is no longer sufficient for the Board to
maintain its levels of service. The Board's stakeholder group
of consumers, puppy raisers, donors, businesses and guide dog
users has increased since 1994. The number of guide dog
trainers has doubled since 1994."
Background . In the 1940s, before the California State Board of
SB 475
Page 2
Guide Dogs for the Blind was created to maintain professional
standards of training, the guide dog field suffered from many of
the same problems the service dog industry is experiencing
today. Besides considerable public confusion as to the role and
function of guide dogs in public places, a long list of
scandalous activities historically characterized their field.
Providing dogs with no training; raising funds with no plans to
produce trained dogs; selling dogs; accepting people for
training and not providing any; and selling unauthorized
certification papers were significant features of many of the
"guide dogs schools" operating in California.
While dogs had been used to assist blind people for thousands of
years, the aftermath of the unregulated Industrial Revolution
and horrible wounds of World War II increased the number of
persons who were visually impaired. With no minimum standards
set for schools, it was possible for any person to start a guide
dog program. By the 1940s, programs of varying quality and
competence were emerging throughout the country, most of them in
California.
Many people and organizations that provided services to the
blind felt that the growth of unregulated operations was
potentially so dangerous to consumers that something had to be
done. A small group of blind people, the California Council of
the Blind, and the editors of the Pasadena Star-News joined with
highly supportive legislators to lay the groundwork for an
agency that would ensure that blind people would receive
competent instruction with properly trained dogs. It would also
ensure that funds raised for guide dogs would be spent properly
and that the public would be educated as to the services a dog
provides. The Guide Dog Act that created the Board became law
in 1947.
The Board was established effective January 1, 1948 for the
specific purpose of enabling blind persons to receive
well-trained dogs and the important training of blind persons as
dog handlers. A secondary purpose was to assure that donors to
guide dog charities might be certain that their donations would
be utilized for the intended purpose. California is the only
state that has such a regulatory program.
The Board developed licensing examinations for guide dog
instructors, and criteria for use in determining whether guide
dog school license applicants possess the requisite resources
SB 475
Page 3
and special capacities important to providing guide dogs to
blind persons.
DCA legal opinion . In 2007, Guide Dogs for the Blind, Inc.
submitted a request to the Board to have all direct expenses of
its Oregon Campus excluded from the calculation of its annual
renewal payment on the grounds that it was unfair for them to
pay license fees for expenses for services provided outside
California and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Board. In
response, the Board requested a DCA legal opinion on the matter
and on March 21, 2008, the Board adopted findings of that
opinion. The DCA opinion stated that the direct costs for
operating the Oregon campus should not be included within the
total expenses used for the calculation of the annual renewal
fee. The Board believes this decision will reduce its annual
revenue by $30,000. In response to this shortfall, this bill
would increase the Board's statutory authority to set annual
school renewal fees.
Arguments in support . The California Council of the Blind
writes in support, "We believe the modest increase in
registration fees for guide dog schools provided for in this
bill will provide needed funds that will allow the California
State Guide Dog Board to continue its important work. We also
believe the Board is striving to improve its ability to provide
effective oversight of the dog guide industry in California, and
to ensure the rights of guide dog handlers are protected."
The Veterinary Medical Board writes, "Adequate funding is
necessary to provide an avenue for redress of consumer
grievances and to maintain minimum standards of practice. The
Board of Guide Dogs must have the flexibility to set annual
renewal payments at a rate that insures protection for the
public and their animals and maintains minimum standards of
practice for instruction of guide dogs and their users."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (sponsor)
California Council of the Blind
Guide Dogs of America
Veterinary Medical Board
SB 475
Page 4
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Rebecca May / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301