BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 921
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 14, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
Susan Bonilla, Chair
AB 921
(Jones) - As Introduced February 26, 2015
SUBJECT: Private investigators: Disciplinary Review Committee.
SUMMARY: Establishes a Private Investigator Disciplinary Review
Committee (DRC), to which a licensed private investigator, under
the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS), may
appeal the assessment of an administrative fine and to which a
person denied a license to work as a private investigator may
appeal the denial.
EXISTING LAW
1)Establishes the Private Investigator Act (Act), which provides
for the licensure and regulation of private investigators by
the BSIS, within the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), and
requires the director of Consumer Affairs to administer and
enforce the act. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) §
7512-7573)
2)Authorizes the director to deny, suspend, or revoke a license
if the director determines, among other things, that the
licensee has violated any provision of the act. (BPC § 7561.1)
AB 921
Page 2
3)Authorizes the director to impose a civil penalty of no
greater than $500 instead of suspending or revoking a license
issued under the Act for the violation of specified provisions
if the director determines that the imposition of the civil
penalty better serves the purposes of the Act. (BPC § 7563)
4)Establishes two Private Security DRCs, one in northern
California and one in southern California, which licensees
have the option of using to review administrative fines and
licensure decisions, except as specified. (BPC
§§7581.1-7581.5)
5)Establishes an Alarm Company Operator DRC, which licensees
have the option of using to review administrative fines and
licensure decisions, except as specified. (BPC §§
7591.17-7591.20)
THIS BILL
1)Requires the Governor to appoint a Private Investigator DRC,
and allows the Governor to remove any member of the committee
for misconduct, incompetency, or neglect of duty.
2)Requires the DRC to consist of three members actively engaged
in the business of a licensed private investigator and two
public members. The public members shall not be licensees or
registrants, or engage in any business or profession in which
any part of the fees, compensation, or revenue thereof, is
derived from any licensee.
3)Requires the DRC to meet every 60 days, or more or less
frequently as may be required. The members shall be paid per
AB 921
Page 3
diem pursuant to BPC § 103 and shall be reimbursed for actual
travel expenses. The members shall be appointed for a term of
four years.
4)Authorizes a person licensed with the BSIS to appeal the
assessment of an administrative fine to the committee and
authorizes a person denied a license under the act to appeal
the denial of a license, unless the denial of a license is
ordered by the director in a formal administrative hearing.
5)Requires a request for an appeal to the DRC to be made in
writing to the BSIS within 30 days of the assessment of an
administrative fine or denial of a license.
6)Requires that, following review of the appeal, the appellant
shall be notified in writing, by regular mail, within 30 days
of the committee's decision.
7)Authorizes the appellant to request a formal administrative
hearing to appeal a DRC decision. A request for such a hearing
shall be made by written notice to the DCA within 30 days
following notice of the committee's decision.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the California Association
of Licensed Investigators. According to the author, this bill
"would amend the Private Investigator Act in the Business and
Professions Code to require the establishment of a
AB 921
Page 4
disciplinary review committee [DRC], to which a licensed
private investigator could voluntarily opt into, to contest
the assessment of an administrative fine or to appeal a denial
of a license."
"This bill would save the [DCA] money, and would also save
licensees time and money if they chose to opt-in to the new
disciplinary review committee to resolve their situation."
2)Background. Current law provides for three DRCs within the
BSIS. The Private Security Services Act establishes two DRCs,
one in Northern California and one in Southern California, and
the Alarm Company Act establishes one DRC. The DRCs provide
their respective applicants and licensees an alternate path to
consider appeals of the BSIS's decisions to deny, suspend, or
revoke licenses, or assessments of administrative fines.
The purpose of the DRC is to consider appeals from applicants
and licensees on the BSIS's
decisions to issue a fine, or deny, suspend, or revoke a
license. The scheduling of the DRC is dependent on the number
of appeals received; therefore, BSIS states is not feasible to
establish an annual calendar for DRC meetings.
The BSIS posts notices and agendas for its meetings of the
Private Security DRCs and Alarm Company DRC in accordance with
the noticing requirement prescribed by the Bagley-Keene Open
Meeting Act. Currently, meeting notices and agendas remain on
the website indefinitely. However, older information is
archived by year to ensure current information is accessible.
The BSIS does not post draft or final minutes for its DRC, or
webcast DRC meetings.
AB 921
Page 5
This bill seeks to establish a similar DRC for private
investigators. However, this bill does not include language
permitting the appeal of a firearm permit.
Private Security DRCs. The two Private Security DRCs are each
comprised of five members. The members are appointed by the
Governor and may be removed for misconduct, incompetency, or
neglect of duty. Three members are industry representatives
and two are public members. Of the three industry members,
one member must be actively engaged in business as a licensed
private patrol operator, one member must be actively engaged
in business as a firearm training facility, and one member
must be actively engaged as a security guard.
The Private Security DRCs are authorized to hear appeals
relating to the BSIS's denial, suspension, or revocation of a
license and the imposition of fines from:
a) Security guard applicants and registrants;
b) Private patrol operator applicants and licensees;
c) Proprietary private security officer applicants and
registrants;
d) Firearm training facilities;
e) Instructor applicants and certificate holders; and,
f) Baton training facilities, instructor applicants, and
AB 921
Page 6
certificate holders.
Those who are authorized to obtain a BSIS-issued firearm
permit may also appeal the BSIS's denial or suspension of the
firearm permit to a DRC if the denial or suspension is not
attributable to a DOJ firearm prohibition.
Alarm Company Operator DRC. The Alarm Company Operator DRC
consists of three members who are actively engaged in business
as a licensed alarm company operator and two public members.
The members are appointed by the Governor and serve at the
Governor's pleasure.
The Alarm Company DRC is authorized to hear appeals relating
to the BSIS's application denials, license suspension, and the
imposition of fines from alarm company operator applicants and
licensees, alarm company operator qualified manager applicants
and certificate holders, and alarm agent applicants and
registrants. These individuals may also appeal the BSIS's
denial or suspension of a BSIS-issued firearm permit to the
DRC if the denial or suspension is not attributable to a DOJ
firearm prohibition.
3)DRC Process. The Private Security Services Act and the Alarm
Company Operator Act have different processes. For private
security, applicants and licensees have the option of filing
an appeal with the DRC or through the administrative hearing
process. If the applicant or licensee requests the appeal to
be heard first by the DRC, the applicant or licensee may still
appeal a DRC decision through the administrative process.
For alarm companies, applicants and licensees are required to
file their appeal with a DRC first, and then provide the
applicant or licensee the authority to appeal a DRC decision
AB 921
Page 7
through the administrative process.
When applicants and licensees file their appeals to a DRC,
BSIS staff schedule the appeal review for an upcoming meeting
and mail the respondent information about the meeting and what
to expect when attending the DRC meeting.
Approximately two weeks before a scheduled DRC meeting, BSIS
staff provides each DRC member with a case file for each
appeal to be heard during the meeting. Each file contains the
pertinent information the BSIS considered in reaching its
decision.
DRC meeting proceedings are carried out in accordance with the
committee's adopted Rules of Order. During the hearing, the
applicant or licensee is afforded the opportunity to present
his or her case. He or she may be represented by an attorney
and may bring witnesses as character references or observers
of the incident resulting in the BSIS's action. DRC members
ask questions to clarify issues related to the case to obtain
the information needed to make a decision on the appeal. The
average hearing time per person is 15-30 minutes.
The BSIS staff mail the applicant or licensee the DRC's
decision on their appeal within 30 days.
4)DRC Statistics. In March of this year, the Assembly Committee
on Business and Professions and the Senate Committee on
Business, Professions and Economic Development held a joint
sunset oversight hearing to review several of the boards and
bureaus under the DCA, including the BSIS.
In the BSIS's sunset report, it noted, "To maximize the
AB 921
Page 8
efficiency of its disciplinary activities, the [BSIS] ensures
that those licensees eligible to have their appeals heard by a
Bureau [DRC] are properly notified of this option in a timely
manner. Each year, approximately 900 [BSIS] licensees request
an appeal of their denials, suspensions, or imposition of
fines through DRC[s]."
The BSIS notes that the number of pending appeal cases changes
depending on the fluctuating quantity of incoming appeal
requests from applicants and licensees. It also states that
it has been able to address a high number of pending appeals
by scheduling two-day hearings and meeting monthly to
accommodate the number of appeals. Once an appeal is received
by the BSIS, an appellant is generally scheduled for hearing
within 30 to 60 days. According to the BSIS, this approach has
resulted in no ongoing backlogs.
In each of the last three FYs:
1) The private security DRC held an average of 20 meetings
and had an average caseload of 35 appeals per meeting. The
alarm DRC held an average of 3 meetings and had an average
caseload of 9 appeals per meeting.
2) The private security DRC overturned an average of 203
decisions and upheld an average of 345 decisions. An
average of 505 appellants did not appear for their appeal
(skewed because in FY 2011 - 12 there were 607 no shows).
The alarm DRC overturned an average of 5 decisions and
upheld an average 7 decisions. An average of 10 appellants
did not appear.
3) The private security DRC received an average of 12
citation and fine appeals. The alarm DRC received 1
AB 921
Page 9
citation appeal (FY 2013 - 14).
4) There were an average of 11 requests for formal
administrative appeals for citations and fines for all BSIS
professions. The BSIS also notes that, the overall average
time for cases to be considered through the administrative
hearing process is 290-300 days.
By way of comparison, for private investigators, in each of
the last three FYs:
a) There were 8 citations and 0 appeals-an average of 3
citations and 0 appeals.
b) There 7 license denials and 1 appeal-an annual average
of 2 - 3 license denials and 0 - 1 appeal (which took 354
days).
The number of BSIS licenses and permits at the time of the DCA
2015 snapshot:
a) Private security - 292,120.
b) Alarm Company - 24,625.
c) Private Investigators - 9981.
d) Total permits - 157,319.
AB 921
Page 10
Costs. The annual costs of the DRC meetings are:
a) Southern California private security DRC (11 meetings) -
$27,820.32.
b) Northern California private security DRC (10 meetings)
-$12,700.00.
c) Alarm company DRC (4 meetings) - $7,978.69.
1)Current Related Legislation. AB 281 (Gallagher) of the current
legislative session, would establish a DRC within the
Collateral Recovery Act for licensed repossessors. STATUS:
This bill is pending in the Assembly Committee on Business and
Professions.
2)Prior Related Legislation. AB 409 (Yee) Chapter 381, Statutes
of 2006, provides a licensee under the Board of Barbering and
Cosmetology with appeal rights to the disciplinary review
committee established by the board and would require the board
to reinstate the license upon the licensee's completion of all
probationary terms and conditions.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The California Association of Licensed Investigators writes in
support, "This option could save the licensee time as the matter
could be resolved more quickly. This option could save the
Department of Consumer Affairs [DCA] time and expense as a DRC
decision accepted by the licensee would not proceed through the
more expensive adjudicatory route. A licensee who disagrees with
a DRC decision would be able to return to the current process.
AB 921
Page 11
At the recent Sunset Review Hearing of the Bureau of Security
and Investigative Services [BSIS] within DCA, conducted by this
committee together with the Senate Committee on Business,
Professions and Economic Development, BSIS noted the value of
the DRCs that currently exist for security guards and alarm
companies. For these reasons, CALI supports AB 921 and we look
forward to working with you to ensure its passage."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None on file.
SUGGESTED COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
The process surrounding the review of a DRC decision overturning
a BSIS fine or denial is unclear. The author may wish to amend
the bill to specify the details of this process.
SUGGESTED TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
On page 2, line 9, strike "of" and after "business" insert:
or
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
AB 921
Page 12
California Association of Licensed Investigators (sponsors)
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:Vincent Chee / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301