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 --