BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    







         ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
        |Hearing Date:April 29, 2013        |Bill No:SB                         |
        |                                   |308                                |
         ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 


                      SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS 
                               AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
                          Senator Curren D. Price, Jr., Chair
                                           

                          Bill No:        SB 308Author:Price
                      As Amended:April 18, 2013       Fiscal:Yes

        
        SUBJECT:  Professions and vocations.
        
        SUMMARY:  Extends until January 1, 2018, the provisions establishing  
        the Interior Design Law, and the Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind.   
        Extends, until January 1, 2016, the provisions establishing the Board  
        of Barbering and Cosmetology and the term of the executive officer of  
        the Board.  Makes other changes regarding the Interior Design Law and  
        the regulatory programs of the boards, as specified.

        Existing law:
        
       1)Authorizes a certified interior designer, as defined, to obtain a  
          stamp from an interior design organization, as defined, that  
          uniquely identifies the designer and certifies that he or she meets  
          certain qualifications and requires the use of that stamp on all  
          drawings and documents submitted to any governmental agency by the  
          designer, and repeals these provisions on January 1, 2014.   
          (Business and Professions Code (BPC)  5800 et seq.)

       2)Licenses and regulates guide dog schools, guide dog instructors, and  
          fundraising programs to open new guide dog schools by the  Board of  
          Guide Dogs for the Blind  (BGDB) in the Department of Consumer  
          Affairs (DCA), and repeals these provisions on January 1, 2014.   
          (BPC  7200 et seq.) 

       3)Establishes a pilot project to provide an arbitration procedure for  
          the purpose of resolving disputes between a guide dog user and a  
          licensed guide dog school, as specified, and repeals these  
          provisions on January 1, 2014.  (BPC  7215.6)






                                                                         SB 308
                                                                         Page 2



       4)Licenses and regulates the practice of barbering, cosmetology and  
          electrolysis under the Barbering and Cosmetology Act (Act) by the  
          State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology (BBC) within DCA and  
          authorizes the BBC to appoint an executive officer subject to the  
          approval of the Director of the DCA, and repeals these provisions on  
          January 1, 2014.  
       (BPC  7303)

       5)Provides that a BBC-approved school of barbering and cosmetology is  
          one that is licensed by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary  
          Education or a public school in the state, and offers a course of  
          instruction approved by the BBC, as specified.

        
        This bill:

       1)Revises the provisions of the  Interior Design Law  as follows:

           a)   Includes in the definition of "certified interior designer"  
             that a certified interior designer provides plans and documents  
             that illustrate partition layouts, horizontal exiting, rated  
             corridors, reflected ceiling plans and lighting orientation,  
             location of power and communication outlets, materials, finishes,  
             furniture, interior alterations, fixtures, millwork, appliances,  
             and equipment, and engages in coordination and collaboration with  
             other design professionals who may be retained to provide  
             consulting services, including architects, engineers, and other  
             specialty consultants.

           b)   Requires a certified interior designer to use a written  
             contract that includes specified information when contracting to  
             provide interior design services to a client and specifies that  
             nothing in these provisions prohibit interior design or interior  
             decorator services by any person or retail activity.

           c)   Requires all meetings of an interior design organization to be  
             subject to the open meeting requirements applicable to state  
             agencies.

           d)   Additionally makes it an unfair business practice for any  
             person who does not hold a valid certification to use a term such  
             as "licensed," "registered" or "CID," that implies or suggests  
             that the person is a certified interior designer.

           e)   Extends, until January 1, 2018, the provisions relating to  
             interior design.





                                                                         SB 308
                                                                         Page 3




       2)Revises the provisions of the  Guide Dogs for the Blind  as follows:

           a)   Extends, until January 1, 2018, the provisions authorizing the  
             BGDB.

           b)   Extends the operation of the arbitration program until January  
             1, 2018.

       3)Revises the provisions relating to the  Board of Barbering and  
          Cosmetology  (BBC) as follows:

           a)   Extends, until January 1, 2016, the provisions authorizing the  
             BBC, and the executive officer.

           b)   Requires a school to be approved by the BBC before it is  
             approved by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education  
             (Bureau) and authorizes the BBC and the Bureau to simultaneously  
             process a school's application for approval.  

           c)   Authorizes the BBC to revoke, suspend, or deny its approval of  
             a school on the following grounds:  

             i)     Unprofessional conduct, as specified.

             ii)         Failure to comply with the requirements of the Act.

             iii)        Failure to comply with the health and safety rules  
               adopted by the BBC and approved by the State Department of  
               Public Health, for the regulation of approved schools.

             iv)         Failure to comply with the rules adopted by the BBC  
               for the regulation of establishments, or any practice licensed  
               and regulated under the Act.

             v)     Continued practice by a person knowingly having an  
               infectious or contagious disease.

             vi)         Habitual drunkenness, or habitual use of or addiction  
               to the use of any controlled substance.

             vii)        Obtaining or attempting to obtain practice in any  
               occupation licensed and regulated under the Act, or money, or  
               compensation in any form, by fraudulent misrepresentation.

             viii)       Failure to display the license or health and safety  





                                                                         SB 308
                                                                         Page 4



               rules and regulations in a conspicuous place.

             ix)         Refusal to permit or interfering with an inspection  
               authorized by the Act.

             x)     Any action or conduct that would warrant the denial of a  
               school approval.

        FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown.  This bill has been keyed "fiscal" by  
        Legislative Counsel.

        COMMENTS:
        
       1.Purpose.  This bill is one of six "sunset review bills" authored by  
          the Chair of this Committee.  Unless legislation is carried this  
          year to extend the sunset dates for Board of Guide Dogs for the  
          Blind, and the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, they will be  
          repealed on January 1, 2014.  In addition, unless legislation is  
          carried this year to extend the sunset date for the  Interior Design  
          Law, the entire chapter relating to certified interior designers and  
          authorizing an interior design organization to issue a certification  
          stamp to an interior designer will be repealed as of January 1,  
          2014.  This bill extends the Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind and  
          the Interior Design Law for four years to January 1, 2018.  The bill  
          would extend the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology for two years to  
          January 1, 2016.  This bill further makes a number of legislative  
          changes recommended by the boards and the CCIDC as well as  
          recommendations made in the Committee's background paper.

       2.Oversight Hearings and Sunset Review of Licensing Boards and  
          Commission of DCA.  In 2013, this Committee conducted oversight  
          hearings to review 14 regulatory boards within the DCA.  The  
          Committee began its review of these licensing agencies in March and  
          conducted three days of hearings.  This bill, and the accompanying  
          sunset bills, is intended to implement legislative changes as  
          recommended in the Committee's Background/Issue Papers for all of  
          the agencies reviewed by the Committee this year.

       3.Review of the California Council for Interior Design Certification  
          (CCIDC), Issues Identified and Recommended Changes.  The following  
          are some of the major issues pertaining to the CCIDC, or areas of  
          concern reviewed and discussed by the Committee during the review of  
          the CCIDC, along with background information concerning each  
          particular 

       issue.  Recommendations were made by Committee staff and members  





                                                                         SB 308
                                                                         Page 5



          regarding the particular issues or problem areas which needed to be  
          addressed.  

            a)   Issue  :  Written Contracts.

            Background  :  In its report, CCIDC recommended amending the law to  
             require Certified Interior Designers (CIDs) to use a written  
             contract when providing interior design services to a client.   
             CCIDC pointed out that there are not current requirements in the  
             law of interior designers to provide a contract or written  
             agreement.  In fact, in a number of the complaints made against  
             designers by clients, there is no written contract.  CCIDC feels  
             that requiring CIDs to use a written contract would provide  
             clarity and structure to the transaction between the CID and the  
             consumer.

           Although CCIDC has received only 71 complaints against certified  
             interior designers in the 20 plus years it has been in operation,  
             the large amount of those complaints related to unfulfilled  
             contract obligations, disputes over charges for goods sold, and  
             failure to deliver goods.  No doubt the use of written contracts  
             would lend clarity to those types of disputes.

           Written contracts are an effective tool for protecting all parties  
             in business transactions.  Architects, contractors, engineers and  
             land surveyors are required to use written contracts.  Written  
             contracts enhance protection of consumers by ensuring fair  
             contracting and billing practices.  They also would protect  
             certified interior designers by ensuring that both parties  
             understand the essential terms of the agreement.

            Recommendation  :  The Committee staff recommended amending the  
             Interior Designer Law to require a CID to use a written contract  
             when entering into an agreement with a client for interior design  
             services.  [The current language in this measure reflects this  
             recommended change.]

            b)   Issue  :  Use of the term "CID."

            Background  :  The Interior Designer Law defines the term "certified  
             interior designer" (CID) (BPC  5800) and makes it an unfair  
             business practice for a person to represent themself as a CID  
             unless they comply with the requirements of the certified  
             interior designer law (BPC  5812).  This is the provision in the  
             law which restricts the use of the title "certified interior  
             designer" to those who meet specified requirements of the law.   





                                                                         SB 308
                                                                         Page 6



             This is a practice known as "title protection."

           CCIDC indicates that the abbreviation CID is often used to indicate  
             one's status as a certified interior designer, and requests that  
             title protection be extended to the use of that term as well when  
             used within the context of interior design services.

           The Committee staff notes other title acts in the BPC, such as  
             those for registered dietitians and massage therapists, contain  
             similar restrictions against the use of abbreviated titles.   
             Staff further advises that if the amendment requested by CCIDC  
             were made relating to certified interior designers, that it would  
             not prohibit the otherwise legitimate use of the initials CID in  
             other contexts.

            
           Recommendation  :  The Committee staff recommended amendments to  
             include the term "CID" and other terms such as "licensed" or  
             "registered" in connection with interior design in the title  
             protection provisions of BPC  5812.  [The current language in  
             this measure reflects these recommended changes.]

            c)   Issue  :  Acceptance of Stamp.

            Background  :  The CCIDC raised the issue in its report that, in  
             recent years, two separate bills have been introduced to license  
             or register interior designers under a practice act within the  
             Business and Professions Code.  Both of these bills, SB 1312,  
             (Yee in 2008) and AB 2428 (Ma in 2012) were the focus of a good  
             deal of controversy, and were ultimately never enacted and  
             eventually died in the legislative process.

           One of the biggest concerns raised by the proponents of these bills  
             was the issue of interior designers being able to submit  
             non-structural, non-seismic interior design plans to local  
             building departments for building permit approval and acquisition  
             purposes and being denied access without an architect or an  
             engineer's stamp.  The proponents felt that a state program for  
             registered interior designers would provide greater acceptance in  
             local building departments across the state.

           A significant issue in this discussion is the use of the title  
             "registered design professional" in the International Building  
             Code, and concern that local building departments in California  
             might refuse to accept designs from an interior designer who was  
             "certified" as provided in the Interior Designer Law (BPC  5800  





                                                                         SB 308
                                                                         Page 7



             ff.), rather than "registered."

           CCIDC contends that use of the "registered design professional" in  
             building codes typically is a general title used to refer to  
             registered architects and licensed engineers, and is for the  
             benefit of building officials so that they know who can stamp and  
             sign structural and seismic drawings used for permitting and  
             construction purposes.  CCIDC states that the issue of  
             "certified" or exempt persons who are allowed by both the  
             building code and state law to do non-structural and non-seismic  
             work, is not addressed in the building code.

           A certified interior designer under the Business and Professions  
             Code is defined in part as "a person who prepares and submits  
             nonstructural or nonseismic plans consistent with Sections 5805  
             and 5538 to local building departments . . ."

           The BPC  5538 provides that the Architects Practice Act does not  
             prohibit the submission of plans or drawings for nonstructural or  
             nonseismic work provided the work does not change or affect the  
             structural system or safety of the building.  This is regarded as  
             exempting certified interior designers, all other interior  
             designers, building designers, contractors, owner builders, and  
             the general public from the Architects Practice Act for these  
             purposes.

           BPC  5805 provides that nothing in the interior design law  
             precludes certified interior designers or any other person from  
             submitting interior design plans to local building officials,  
             except as provided in the BPC  5538.  This section further  
             provides that in exercising discretion with respect to the  
             acceptance of interior design plans, the local building official  
             shall reference the California Building Standards Code.

           Taken as a whole, these provisions of law allow certified interior  
             designers to prepare and submit plans to local building  
             departments for permitting purposes.  However, it remains true  
             that the law does not require a local building official to accept  
             plans or drawings from a certified interior designer or from any  
             other person regardless of whether the person has a license,  
             registration or certification in the design profession.  A  
             building department must use its discretion, including looking at  
             the character of the plans, and the project involved.

           However, the law relating to interior designers is still a source  
             of contention and controversy.  To address this concern CCIDC  





                                                                         SB 308
                                                                         Page 8



             recommended amendments to clarify the law as it relates to the  
             acceptance of plans from a certified interior designer by local  
             building officials.

           The Sponsor of both SB 1312 and AB 2428, the Interior Design  
             Coalition of California (IDCC), has also submitted its concerns  
             to the Committee staff of the lack of uniformity in stamp  
             acceptance across the state by building departments.  IDCC has  
             proposed amendments to the BPC and the Health and Safety Code to  
             expressly use "registered design professional" for purposes of  
             the building codes use by local building departments to include  
             certified interior designers.

           It appears appropriate to clarify the law relating to the  
             acceptance of certified interior designer plans and designs by  
             local building departments.  However, more input is needed from  
             all stakeholders before acceptable amendments are drafted.   
             Stakeholders should include not only CCIDC and IDCC, but also  
             other trade or professional associations for interior design,  
             architecture, building officials, other state regulators.  Any  
             legislative proposal must allow building officials to retain the  
             authority to accept submittals from architects, engineers,  
             interior designers, building designers, and owners, as  
             appropriate to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

            Recommendation  :  The Committee staff recommended that CCIDC and  
             other stakeholders should seek to find a consensus on this issue.  
              Committee staff will further work with stakeholders in an effort  
             to seek an acceptable solution to this issue.  [The current  
             language in this measure does  not  reflect any changes to the  
             Interior Design Law regarding this issue.]   

              Issue  :  NCIDQ examination.

              Background  :  BPC  5801 authorizes the CCIDC to approve an  
             interior design examination which a certified interior designer  
             must pass in order to receive a certification stamp from CCIDC.

             Since certification was first introduced in 1992, one portion of  
             a six part National Council for Interior Design Qualification  
             (NCIDQ) examination was used through an initial grand-parenting  
             period which expired in 1994.  After that time, the full six part  
             NCIDQ examination was required by CCIDC in order to become a CID.  
              The CCIDC developed a supplemental examination on California  
             Codes and Regulations (CCRE) to address concerns of California  
             building officials who felt the national examination alone was  





                                                                         SB 308
                                                                         Page 9



             inadequate for California.

             Eventually, the National Kitchen & Bath Association (NKBA) and  
             the Council for Qualification of Residential Interior Designers  
             (CQRID) examinations were determined to be valid under BPC  139,  
             and were adopted as sufficient examinations for interior design  
             certification by CCIDC.

             In 2004 the Legislature amended BPC  5811 to require CCIDC to  
             assess the costs and benefits associated with the CCRE and  
             explore feasible alternatives to that examination.  The Sunset  
             Review Committee felt there were too many obstacles and costs  
             associated with becoming a CID in California which posed barriers  
             to entry into the field.  Ultimately the CCIDC agreed, and  
             developed an entirely new examination for California certified  
             interior designer candidates and replaced all of the national  
             exams and the CCRE with the Interior Design Examination (IDEX  
             California) as the only examination required in order to test  
             candidates for certification.

             IDCC indicated that in order to bid on federal projects or to  
             work outside of California in a state which has some type of  
             state interior design certification, an individual must pass the  
             NCIDQ Examination, and no reciprocity exists for the California  
             CID credential or the IDEX California.

             IDCC further stated that NCIDQ is an independent, nonprofit  
             organization of state and provincial credentialing bodies and has  
             issued interior design certificates since 1974.  IDCC also states  
             that most federal RFPs expressly require that the interior  
             designers included in a project bid must be an NCIDQ certificate  
             holder.  Ultimately, IDCC proposed adding the NCIDQ as an  
             alternative exam, to the IDEX California which would be accepted  
             by CCIDC to meet the examination requirement for the  
             certification of interior designers in California.  IDCC does not  
             argue to eliminate the IDEX for those interior designers who feel  
             the IDEX/CID alone meets their practice needs.

             Arguing against this idea, some have suggested that using a  
             national examination allows the standards for certification to be  
             dictated by the national examination vendor, and that California  
             would loose control.  However, Committee staff observes that many  
             professions in California use a national examination without  
             being deemed that California has lost control of the requirements  
             to enter a trade or profession.






                                                                         SB 308
                                                                         Page 10



              Recommendation  :  The Committee staff recommended that  
             consideration should be given to accepting passage of the NCIDQ  
             as an alternative to the IDEX California to qualify for interior  
             design certification in California.  The Committee staff will  
             further work with stakeholders in an effort to seek an acceptable  
             solution to this issue.  [The current language in this measure  
             does  not  reflect any changes to the Interior Design Law regarding  
             this issue.]

            d)   Issue  :  Should CCIDC be subject to the rules of the  
             Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.

            Background  :  A major public protection among regulatory programs is  
             the transparency of their operations.  Under state law, the  
             Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Bagley-Keene) (Government Code  
             (GC)  11120) generally requires all state boards and commissions  
             to publicly notice their meetings, prepare agendas, accept public  
             testimony and conduct their meetings in public unless  
                                                                                         specifically authorized under by the Act to meet in closed  
             session.  The public meeting requirement applies, not only to  
             board meetings but to all committee meetings as well.  A meeting  
             is "gathering" of a majority of the board or a majority of a  
             committee of 3 or more persons where board business will be  
             discussed.  This includes telephone and email communications.

           In its Sunset Report, in responding to the Committee's questions  
             about any committees formed under the CCIDC board, the CCIDC  
             indicates that it does not have any public committees per se,  
             only four internal committees as previously noted above in this  
             paper.  In addition in its response to the question about  
             strategic planning, CCIDC responds in part:  "The board regularly  
             conducts strategic planning meetings as an ongoing process the  
             day prior to each scheduled board meeting."

           Committee staff is concerned that these committees and planning  
             meetings may fall short of the open meeting standard that is the  
             standard in California.

           In considering this issue, it is important to point out that CCIDC  
             is not a state board or commission, and is not a public agency,  
             and CIDs are not certified by the state.  Indeed, the BPC  5804  
             makes it an unfair business practice for any certified interior  
             designer to represent that he or she is "state certified" to  
             practice interior design.  However, CCIDC is the entity that  
             meets the criteria of an interior design organization under the  
             interior design law and thus certifies certified interior  





                                                                         SB 308
                                                                         Page 11



             designers in California.  As such it is appropriate that CCIDC's  
             functions, operations and deliberations be open and transparent.

           Requiring private certification organizations that are authorized  
             by state law to issue specific certifications to comply with open  
             meeting laws is consistent with what the Legislature has recently  
             done regarding the massage therapy law, enacted in 2008.  The  
             same requirement should be placed upon CCIDC.

            Recommendation  :  The Committee staff recommended amending the  
             interior designer law to require that the meetings of an interior  
             design organization issuing stamps under Section 5801 shall be  
             subject to the rules of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.
           [The current language in this measure reflects this recommended  
             change.]

            e)   Issue  :  Continuation of the Interior Designer law.

            Background  :  The California law relating to certification of  
             interior designers was initially enacted in 1990 by SB 153  
             (Craven, Chapter 396, Statutes of 1990).  The current law  
             provides for a voluntary system whereby an interior designer may  
             become certified and obtain a stamp from an interior design  
             organization by demonstrating competency by means of education,  
             experience and examination.

           The voluntary certification for interior designers in California  
             serves a valuable benefit to the public, and should be continued  
             and reviewed again by the appropriate policy committees of the  
             Legislature in four years. 

            Recommendation  :  The Committee staff recommended that that the  
             Certified Interior Designer Law should be continued and be  
             reviewed once again in four years.  [The current language in this  
             measure reflects this recommended change.]


            f)   Issue  :  Continued Certification by CCIDC.

            Background  :  The CCIDC was created by a coalition of professional  
             interior design organizations in 1992 with the intent of being  
             the organization responsible for determining whether interior  
             designers met the education, experience and examination  
             requirements.  The CCIDC operates outside of the state  
             government, is not a state agency, and does not rely on any funds  
             from the state for its operations.





                                                                         SB 308
                                                                         Page 12




           As a private certifying organization, the CCIDC serves a valuable  
             benefit to the public, in certifying interior designers in  
             California and should be continued and reviewed again by the  
             appropriate policy committees of the Legislature in four years 

            Recommendation  :  The Committee staff recommended that interior  
             designers in California should continue to be certified by the  
             California Council for Interior Design Certification in order to  
             protect the interests of the public and be reviewed once again in  
             four years.
           [The current language in this measure reflects this recommended  
             change.]

       4.Review of the Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (BGDB), Issues  
          Identified and Recommended Changes.  The following are some of the  
          major issues pertaining to the BGDB, or areas of concern reviewed  
          and discussed by the Committee during the review of the BGDB, along  
          with background information concerning each particular issue.   
          Recommendations were made by Committee staff and members regarding  
          the particular issues or problem areas which needed to be addressed.

            a)   Issue  :  Arbitration Pilot Program.

            Background  :  BPC   7215.6 establishes an arbitration panel for the  
             settlement of disputes between a guide dog user and a licensed  
             guide dog school regarding the continued use of a guide dog by  
             the user in all cases except those in which the dog user is the  
             unconditional legal owner of the dog.  The arbitration program  
             has only been used two times during the nine years it has  
             existed.  In its 2012 Sunset Review Report, the Board states that  
             it is open to consumer feedback about whether the arbitration  
             program should be continued.  The program will sunset on January  
             1, 2014, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before  
             January 1, 2014, deletes or extends that date.

           The Committee is concerned that the arbitration program should  
             remain available if it is an important tool for guide dog users  
             and guide dog schools in resolving disputes between them.   
             However, due to the infrequent use of the program, if it is not  
             meeting the needs of the stakeholders, it should be allowed to  
             sunset. 

            Recommendation  :  The Committee staff recommended that the Board  
             should inform the Committee whether it believes the arbitration  
             program should be continued.  Subsequently the Board has  





                                                                         SB 308
                                                                         Page 13



             recommended the program be continued, and accordingly, the bill  
             extends the arbitration program until January 1, 2018. [The  
             current language in this measure reflects this recommended  
             change.]



            b)   Issue  :  Continued regulation by the BGDB.

            Background  :  Since 1948 the BGDB has sought to ensure that blind  
             persons receive well-trained guide dogs, and to confirm that  
             blind persons are thoroughly trained to be effective and safe  
             guide dog users, and to assure donors to guide dog charities that  
             their donations will be used for the intended charitable purpose.  
              In fiscal year 2011/12 the Board had a license base of 109  
             active guide dog instructors and 3 inactive guide dog  
             instructors.  The Board also oversees 3 guide dog schools located  
             throughout California.  

           The Board has seven members.  One member represents the Director of  
             the Department of Rehabilitation.  The other six are Governor's  
             appointees, two of whom must be blind persons who use guide dogs.

           The Board plays a significant role in the service of blind persons  
             in California.  The state is best served by a well-run Board of  
             Guide Dogs for the Blind.

            Recommendation  :  The Committee staff recommended that the sunset  
             date of the BGDB be extended and the Board reviewed again in four  
             years.  [The current language in this measure reflects this  
             recommended change.]

       5.Review of the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology (BBC), Issues  
          Identified and Recommended Changes.  The following are some of the  
          major issues pertaining to the BBC, or areas of concern reviewed and  
          discussed by the Committee during the review of the BBC, along with  
          background information concerning each particular issue.   
          Recommendations were made by Committee staff and members regarding  
          the particular issues or problem areas which needed to be addressed.

            a)   Issue  :  Continued Regulation by the Board of Barbering and  
             Cosmetology (BBC).

            Background  :  The potential for public health problems stemming from  
             unlicensed practitioners could be quite severe.  Although most  
             injuries caused during beauty services heal, there are some  





                                                                         SB 308
                                                                         Page 14



             injuries that can cause permanent injury and/or scarring.  In  
             addition, the practice of these professions requires physical  
             contact between licensees and consumers which increases the  
             chance of spreading disease from person to person.  These  
             professions are the only non-medical professions regulated by the  
             Department where licensees come into close contact with and touch  
             their clients while providing hair, skin, and nail services.   
             This is also the only other group of non-medical professions that  
             has the potential for spreading blood-borne diseases, as well as  
             diseases such as bacterial or fungal infections, lice and other  
             skin ailments that can cause physical harm to consumers.

           The BBC's vast licensing population and the contact of licensees  
             with millions of Californians also requires a successful,  
             organized and forward thinking regulatory body.  This BBC  
             continues to face challenges, many of which have been present for  
             at least a decade.  New, more sophisticated products and  
             techniques, such as skin care practices and other machines, and  
             the use of acids and chemicals, continue to come into the  
             marketplace every day.  These emerging technologies, combined  
             with the existing use of chemicals will continue to provide  
             challenges to the BBC.

            Recommendation  :  The Committee staff recommended that that the  
             barbering, cosmetology, electrology, manicure and esthetician  
             professions continue to be regulated by the current BBC members  
             in order to protect the interests of the public and be reviewed  
             once again in two years. [The Author will be requesting Author's  
             amendments to reflect the two year extension of the BBC's sunset  
             date.]

            b)   Issue  :  School Approvals.

            Background  :  The BBC approves many aspects of a barbering,  
             cosmetology and electrology program in California while the  
             Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) approves many  
             institutions and ensures student protections for individuals  
             attending schools.  What is the appropriate relationship for each  
             entity as it relates to school oversight, approval and actions  
             against bad schools? 

           The BBC plays an important role in ensuring the educational quality  
             of barbering, cosmetology and electrology programs in California,  
             as well as guaranteeing the health and safety of these facilities  
             and the practitioners and students working in them, as well as  
             consumers who may receive services at schools.  The BBC approves  





                                                                         SB 308
                                                                         Page 15



             curriculum, facilities, equipment and textbooks for schools  
             offering training programs for eventual licensees.  The issue of  
             what appropriate role the BBC should play in school and program  
             approval has been raised in prior sunset reviews and has been the  
             subject of proposed legislation, legislative amendments and  
             confirmation hearings before the Legislature during the past 
           5 years. 

           BPC  7362 states that a school that is approved by the BBC is one  
             which is licensed by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary  
             Education (BPPE).  A school that offers cosmetology, barbering or  
             electrology must first be licensed by the BPPE and then must  
             receive approval from the BBC.  The BBC issues schools a unique  
             code which is included on BBC applicants' proof of training  
             documents.  To receive approval from the BBC, a school must  
             possess certain equipment, have a certain amount of floor space,  
             use BBC-approved text books, receive BBC approval for the school  
             curriculum and provide the BBC with a list of potential bona fide  
             students.  However, the BBC does not receive a fee from schools  
             for the work it conducts to provide approval.  

           There have been serious problems with the approval and oversight of  
             private degree granting and non-degree granting (career and  
             vocational) schools by the state agencies charged with  
             regulation.  After numerous legislative attempts to remedy the  
             laws and structure governing regulation of private postsecondary  
             institutions, AB 48 (Portantino, Chapter 310, Statutes of 2009)  
             created a new, solid foundation for oversight and responded to  
             the major problems with prior law.  The California Private  
             Postsecondary Education Act (The Act) requires all unaccredited  
             colleges in California to be approved by the new BPPE and all  
             nationally accredited colleges to comply with numerous student  
             protections.  

           Prior to the enactment of AB 48, California was without a  
             regulatory body for private postsecondary institutions after the  
             previous Bureau was allowed to sunset in 2008, leaving  
             approximately 1,500 private postsecondary institutions to operate  
             in California without state oversight.  During the sunset of the  
             former Bureau, many Boards, including the BBC, took on a more  
             direct role in institutional approval.  Prior to the BPPVE  
             Sunset, the BBC and BPPVE worked according to a formal Memorandum  
             of Understanding (MOU).  The Board was responsible for  
             establishing school curricula (BPC  7362), school size, and  
             minimum equipment standards, as well as enforcing health and  
             safety standards while the BPPVE was responsible for student  





                                                                         SB 308
                                                                         Page 16



             protections and ensuring financial solvency of schools.  The MOU  
             provided for an active working relationship to ensure that  
             schools met all requirements for licensure before being licensed  
             or approved.  The BBC and BPPVE worked collaboratively on school  
             inspections and shared information on a daily basis regarding  
             school compliance.  During the sunset of BPPVE and prior to the  
             reconstitution of the new BPPE, the BBC was granted authority to  
             approve schools until 2008 if the school met certain criteria  
             including entering into an agreement with the DCA and being  
             operational by a certain date.

           The BBC stated in its Sunset Report that it has been attempting to  
             work with the BPPE since it was reconstituted in 2010; however,  
             the BBC believes that many of the same problems that the BBC  
             experienced with the BPPVE "are repeating, to the great  
             consternation of all concerned, including most importantly  
             students.  While dual oversight explains a lot of the confusion  
             and issues, there are also intractable communication issues and  
             lack of consistent action on the part of BPPE enforcement staff.   
             This has created an environment where fraudulently operated  
             schools continue to exist and even proliferate, while honest and  
             well-established schools are being hit with costly new fees and  
             long delays in application reviews and approvals that seem  
             largely pointless."  The BBC outlined student confusion and  
             potential "harmful practices" that arise with both entities  
             overseeing certain, specific aspects of schools.  

           The BBC further stated that, "lack of communication between the BBC  
             and the BPPE is causing student harm and potentially increases  
             unlicensed activity in the industry."  The BBC also stated in its  
             report that it does not receive the information it needs to  
             ensure applicants are attending approved schools and that the BBC  
             is not made aware of schools that are out of compliance with the  
             BPPE.  The BBC stated that it must go online and monitor schools  
             on a regular basis to determine if schools are in compliance with  
             the BPPE because BPPE does not report this information to the  
             BBC.  The BBC stated that students "often are the last to know  
             and are usually informed by being denied admittance to the exam  
             from the BBC."

           Despite budget and staff constraints noted throughout the Report,  
             the BBC requested that it be granted sole oversight and sole  
             approval of barbering, cosmetology and electrology schools in the  
             state.  The BBC stated that "it is the best positioned regulatory  
             entity to have sole oversight of schools;" however, the BBC  
             currently has no laws related to upholding fair business  





                                                                         SB 308
                                                                         Page 17



             practices like contracts or recourse for students in the event of  
             an abrupt school closure when students have already paid tuition.

           Given the expertise of the BBC's staff in the educational and  
             training requirements for its licensees to safely interact with  
             patients, it is no doubt appropriate for the BBC to have approval  
             over barbering, cosmetology and electrology programs offered in  
             California.  Similarly, it is appropriate for the Board to have  
             the ability to remove its approval of schools and programs that  
             do not meet the educational quality standards necessary for an  
             individual to learn how to be a safe, effective beauty  
             practitioner.  However, it also appears as if the BPPE serves an  
             important function in providing approval to these schools and the  
             continued oversight it provides as well as the student  
             protections.
            Recommendation  :  The Committee staff recommended that the BBC  
             should continue to work with the BPPE under the MOU.  The Board  
             should be granted statutory authority to remove its approval of a  
             school, which will then allow the BPPE to take action for  
             offering a training program to students who will not be eligible  
             to sit for licensure and close down bad schools.  [The current  
             language in this measure reflects these recommended changes.]

       6.Current Related Legislation.   SB 304  (Price, 2013).  Makes various  
          changes to the Medical Practice Act and to the Medical Board of  
          California. (  Note  : This bill will also be heard before the BP&ED  
          Committee during today's hearing)  

       SB 305  (Price, 2013).  Extends until January 1, 2018, the provisions  
          establishing the Naturopathic Medicine Committee and the Respiratory  
          Care Board of California, and extends the term of the executive  
          officers of the Respiratory Care Board of California and the  
          California State Board of Optometry.  Specifies that the Osteopathic  
          Medical Board of California is subject to review by the appropriate  
          policy committees of the Legislature.  Exempts individuals who have  
          performed pulmonary function tests in Los Angeles County facilities  
          for at least 15 years, from licensure as a respiratory care  
          therapist.  Specifies that any board under the Department of  
          Consumer Affairs is authorized to receive certified records from a  
          local or state agency to complete an applicant or licensee  
          investigation and authorizes them to provide those records to the  
          board. (  Note  : This bill will also be heard before the BP&ED  
          Committee during today's hearing)  

       SB 306  (Price, 2013).  Extends until January 1, 2018, the provisions  
          establishing the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners,  





                                                                         SB 308
                                                                         Page 18



          Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology and Hearing Aid Dispensers  
          Board, the Physical Therapy Board of California and the California  
          Board of Occupational Therapy and extends the terms of the executive  
          officers of the Physical Therapy Board of California and the  
          Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology and Hearing Aid Dispensers  
          Board.  This bill also subjects the boards to be reviewed by the  
          appropriate policy committees of the Legislature.  (  Note  : This bill  
          will also be heard before the BP&ED Committee during today's  
          hearing)  

       SB 307  (Price, 2013) Extends, until January 1, 2018, the term of the  
          Veterinary Medicine Board, which provides for the licensure and  
          registration of veterinarians and registered veterinary technicians  
          and the regulation of the practice of veterinary medicine by the  
          Veterinary Medical Board.  (  Note  : This bill will also be heard  
          before the BP&ED Committee during today's hearing)  

       SB 309  (Price, 2013).  Extends the term of the State Athletic  
          Commission, which is responsible for licensing and regulating  
          boxing, kickboxing, and martial arts matches and is required to  
          appoint an executive officer until January 1, 2018.  (  Note  : This  
          bill will also be heard before the BP&ED Committee during today's  
          hearing)  
         
       7.Support if Amended.  Approximately 90 individuals have written  
          stating a "Support if Amended" position on the bill.  These letters  
          from California interior designers request the following amendments  
          to the bill:  

             (a)     Uniform stamp/seal acceptance  .  In order to ensure  
               uniformity amongst local building officials regarding  
               acceptance of plans containing a CID stamp for review, there  
               should be an amendment in the Business and Professions Code and  
               the Health and Safety Code that establishes CIDs as registered  
               interior design professionals.  It benefits California  
               consumers by increasing competition and ensuring access for  
               interior designers to work independently, as they are qualified  
               to do, in non-structural, non-seismic code-based built  
               environments.

             (b)     The addition of the NCIDQ exam as an alternative to the  
               IDEX California for certification eligibility  .  Inclusion of  
               the nationally recognized exam would give our state improved  
               reciprocity with other regulated states.

             (c)     More mechanisms should be in place to require transparency  





                                                                         SB 308
                                                                         Page 19
                           


               in the CCIDC  .  The CCIDC should hold public hearings and accept  
               public testimony.  Currently, there is no public testimony or  
               comment permitted at CCIDC board meetings, meeting minutes are  
               released months after the meetings take place, and the minutes  
               do not actually contain descriptions of decisions made by the  
               CCIDC.  Increased transparency will go a long way in giving the  
               public and the interior design community an interest and trust  
               in CCIDC.

          It should be noted that as amended, the bill adds BPC  5811.1 to  
          require CCIDC to comply with the requirements of the Bagley-Keene  
          Open Meeting Act.  Furthermore, as noted above, as this bill moves  
          through the legislative process, Committee staff will further work  
          with stakeholders in an effort to seek acceptable solutions to the  
          issues regarding the acceptance of an interior design stamp, and the  
          examinations for certification.

       8.Oppose Unless Amended.  The  Professional Beauty Federation of  
          California  (PBFC) has taken an "oppose unless amended" position on  
          the bill, arguing for sole oversight of beauty colleges by the BBC  
          only.  PBFC argues that regulation by both BBC and the Bureau of  
          Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) is costly, ineffective, and  
          duplicative, and that the latest amendments further adds another  
          layer of red-tape over all beauty colleges, by giving the BBC new  
          authority to remove deny or revoke its approval of a school.  PBFC  
          proposes amendments to exempt actions by students as a ground for  
          denial or revocation, and further asks that the bill be amended to  
          remove as a ground for denial or revocation of a school's approval  
          by the BBC the following:  failure to comply with the requirements  
          of the Barbering and Cosmetology Act; failure to comply with the  
          rules adopted by the BBC; failure to display a license or health and  
          safety rules in a conspicuous place; and any action or conduct that  
          would have warranted the denial of a school approval. 

       9.Author's Amendments.  The recommendation for the Board of Barbering  
          and Cosmetology is to extend the sunset date two years so that the  
          Committee could again review the regulatory program of the board.   
          As drafted, the bill extends the sunset date of the BBC four years,  
          instead of two years.  The following will be offered as Author's  
          amendments in Committee. 

       On page 9, line 4, strike out "2018" and insert "2016"
       On page 9, line 6, strike out "2018" and insert "2016"








                                                                         SB 308
                                                                         Page 20





        SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
        
         Support:  

        Guide Dogs of America
        State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind
        4CID.org 
        5 individuals
         
        Support if Amended:   89 Individuals

         Oppose Unless Amended  :  Professional Beauty Federation of California

         Opposition:  None received as of April 24, 2013



        Consultant:G. V. Ayers