Assembly Business And Professions Committee

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to today's meeting of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee, where we'll be considering several bills that will re-refer to the committee pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2. Before we begin with our agenda, I would like to remind everyone that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoint they express. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, and I think our time is limited, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. For each of the measures being presented today, we will be allowing primary witnesses here in the room to speak for up to two minutes each, with up to two primary witnesses per side. Any additional witnesses will be limited to name, position on the bill, and organization they represent, if any. For those wishing to provide further comments, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the committee's website. And I am very, very, very, very, very, very sad to announce that the magnificent Republican consultant, Bill Lewis, is retiring, and tonight will be his last BNP hearing. And I think we all – I know the Democratic committee staff definitely feel this way. I think we all are very sad to see Bill go, are very grateful for his many years of service to the people of California and thanks for the wonderful way in which you done your job for however many decades I don know how long that you done it With that, we're going to let Bill have the last word. So stick around for that. It's going to be open mic. But we're going to begin the hearing. And we have – oh, we have a quorum. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

And Assemblymember Chen, would you like to present agenda item number 4, SB 1347 Nilo?

Thank you. Assemblymember Chen, do we have any primary witnesses in support of the bill? Or any Me Too's in support of the bill?

Thank you.

Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, any witnesses who want to add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, bring it back to colleagues for motions in seconds. Got a motion in a second. Questions or comments? We're all talked out after session. Assemblymember Chen, would you like to close?

Thank you, Assemblymember Chen, for your presentation on behalf of Senator Nilo. Happy to support the bill. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you so much. I can steal that if you want. Are you good? Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. AB 2772 is the sunset bill for the California Council for Interior Design Certification. While interior designers are not required to become certified in California, those who choose to obtain certification are granted the authority to use protected titles in their advertising. In addition to extending its sunset date by four years, this bill would recognize the council's quasi-public status by requiring it to adhere to laws promoting accountability and transparency in state agencies. I respectfully ask for your I vote. And with me today is Rose Wiebe with the council to answer any technical questions you may have. Rose is not with me today, so I'm flying blind. Don't ask any questions, y'all.

Good evening, Mr. Chair members. My name is Amy Costa with Full Moon Strategies, and we represent IIDA, or the International Interior Design Association. We proudly represent 1,500 commercial interior design professionals in the state. And unfortunately and respectfully, we must oppose AB 2772. In three consecutive sunset reviews, CCIDC has not complied with basic open meeting laws. and the bill before you actually expands CCIDC's authority to allow them to levy a civil penalty against designers of up to $5,000. I think we can rest assured that the one thing CCIDC will not do is conduct an open meeting to discuss that and the penalties against our members. So for those reasons, we respectfully request a no vote. Thank you.

Oh, are there questions?

Text me. Don't text me. That's not open meeting laws.

Respectfully ask your aye vote.

On AB 2772 Berman the motion is with recommendation that Senate amendments be concurred in Berman Aye Berman aye Johnson Not voting Johnson not voting Addis Aye Addis aye Aarons Alanis Alanis, not voting. Baines. Baines, aye. Barcahan. Colosa. Chen. Chen, not voting. El Huori. Aye. El Huori, aye. Hadwick. Hadwick, not voting. Haney. Haney, aye. Hart. Hart, aye. Irwin. Irwin, aye. Jackson. Jackson aye. Lowenthal aye. Lowenthal aye. Macedo? Huen? Aye. Huen aye. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. SB 1303. I know there's been a lot of interest in this bill over the last 96 hours. A bunch of amendments were made to the bill. All the controversial amendments were taken out of the bill. So we're in a good place. SB 1303 is the sunset bill for the California Board of Naturopathic Medicine. On behalf of Chair Wahab, I am accepting the committee amendments described in the analysis, Hi, hi. Which remove 100% of the language recently added to the bill relating to scope of practice. The remaining language in the bill makes changes to the board stemming from the Senate review oversight process and extends the operations of the board to January 1, 2031. I respectfully ask for your I vote. And with me today is Dr. Dara Thompson, board president, and Rebecca Mitchell, executive officer, to make any comments and answer any questions.

Hi, my name is Rebecca Mitchell. I am the executive officer of the California Board of Naturopathic Medicine, and I appreciate you allowing us to be here today. Consumer protection is our core mission. The most persistent issue we face is public confusion between those licensed naturopathic doctors and unlicensed naturopaths. So these amendments remain strongly consumer-focused. They improve clarity, reduce enforcement burdens, support graduates. and they increase public understanding without creating new costs or regulatory obligations for unlicensed individuals. The unlicensed naturopaths amendments strengthen transparency and reduce confusion. They create no new costs. They simply align disclosures with the Medical Practice Act so that consumers know who they are seeing and who's licensed and what services are being offered. The Department of Education amendments preserves licensure eligibility for graduates regardless of federal changes, ensuring stability for students and for California health care workforce. The fictitious name permit program further improves consumer protection and lowers enforcement costs. Many complaints arrive under a business name with no clarity about who's responsible, and the FNP program fixes that by providing clear ownership information and a direct point of accountability. These issues are not new. Opposition representatives raised them during the publicly available March 24th joint hearing, and they've been a part of our sunset review process for months. transparency and consumer protection have consistently guided the board's recommendations. Additionally, amendments, had they been taken, would have further enacted legislature's original intent reflected in current statutes, recognizing naturopathic doctors have same authority and responsibility in public health as physicians and surgeons. We appreciate the opportunity to continue working with the committees and with the industry stakeholders who, despite opposing some of those amendments that had been removed, expressed interest in continuing discussions about including naturopathic doctors in the workers' compensation and insurance framework. These amendments strengthen public protection, improve transparency, and resolve longstanding issues raised throughout Sunset Review. We respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you so much.

Madam Chair and members, Monica Miller on behalf of the California Naturopathic Doctors Association in support and really want to thank both your staff as well as Senator Wahab's staff. They have done a lot of work on this legislation and we're extremely appreciative of the work, the conversations, and look forward to continue conversations as well as everyone on your teams We had a lot of thorough discussion and look forward to having those in the future So thank you And we urge your support Thank you All right And now is there any opposition

Just more me too.

Tim Madden representing the California Rheumatology Alliance, the California Chapter of the American College of Cardiology, the California Society of Plastic Surgeons, and also pinch hitting for representing the California Society of Anesthesiologists. We had been opposed with the amendments that had gone into the bill. We appreciate working with the committee to work out those amendments, and with that, we are removing our opposition.

Good evening. George Soares with the California Medical Association. appreciate the chair this committee and the staff and working on these amendments will be moving to neutral when those amendments go into print thank you thank you uh jason schmelzer on behalf of the california coalition on workers compensation prism and the rest of the coalition on the workers compensation issue removing our opposition want to thank the committee and the author as well thank you ryan spencer on behalf of the california orthopedic association the california podiatric Medical Association, the California Society of Pathologists, and the California Radiological Society, and the American College of OBGYNs, District 9, who were opposed. But thankfully for the staff of your committee, Mr. Berman, we're happy to go in neutral with

Vanessa Kahena with KP Public Affairs on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians, representing 11,000 primary care doctors throughout the state. Very much appreciate the ear of this chair and the committee staff and all the members here to get us to where we are today. With the amendments going into print, we will be removing our opposition.

Kelly McAmel on behalf of the California Society of Dermatologists. We also will be moving our opposed to neutral with the amendments.

I appreciate all the hard work that's gone into this by everybody. And on behalf of Chair Wahab, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

On SB 1303, Wahab, the motion is do pass as amended. Berman? Aye. Berman, aye. Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye. Addis? Aye. Addis, aye. Aarons? Alanise? Alanise, aye. Baines? Baines, not voting. Barakahan? Colosa? Coloza aye Chen Chen aye Ahuori Ahuori aye Hadwick Hadwick not voting Haney Haney aye Hart Irwin Irwin aye Jackson aye Jackson aye Lowenthal Lowenthal aye Macedo Macedo aye Huen Huen aye Pellerin aye Pellerin aye

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Special thank you to Kaitlyn Curry for her work on the bill. SB 342, the Contractors Licensure Fairness Act provides a balanced approach to contractor licensing and contractors to receive payment for a time that they worked on the project. What this bill does, here's the issue the bill corrects, is that if you've got, for example, a project that takes three years and there's any period of time when your license has expired and it hasn't been immediately renewed so there's no gap, then you forfeit the entire value of that contract. That is unfair. It provides a windfall to unintended parties, and that's what this bill does. It simply says that for the period of time that you're unlicensed, then you can't collect for that period of time. But otherwise, there's not going to be a windfall. It only applies to large projects, does not apply to residential projects. Therefore, I urge and I vote. With me here is Mr. Donnie Wilcox, testify I'm hoping in support. You've got two minutes, Mr. Wilcox. Thank you. Don Wilcox, California Conference of Carpenters. Briefly, nothing in SB 342 prohibits the License Board from administratively revoking the license for any violation authorized under existing law. If the License Board revokes a contractor's license, the contractor would be unlicensed and the law would prohibit them from receiving any civil remedy. SB 342 works to prevent folks from being driven out of business. Essentially, it's the death penalty for our contractors. And so we think proportional judgments will work to actually reduce court cases, reduce litigation, and enable our guys to stay at work. Keeping it brief.

Good evening, Chair and members. Sasha Horowitz with the Los Angeles Unified School District, and you're here in respectful opposition to SB 342. We're the largest school district in the state, educating nearly 400,000 students and responsible for building and maintaining safe spaces for students across our thousands of classrooms, laboratories, gyms, and other facilities. Like all public entities, we will be significantly impacted by what at first glance seems to be a reasonable change to allow minor lapses in a contractor's license that will occur between a bid and construction activity. We want to make clear that SB 342 is not limited to inadvertent administrative or short-term lapses in licensing that are easily monitored by the CSLB and retroactively corrected under current law. Maintaining a license is a very low hurdle for contractors. Before a license expires, the board will send a 90-day, a 60-day, a 30-day, and a 15-day reminder. And renewal steps are simple. The contractor must pay a renewal fee and demonstrate that they have active insurance and contractors bond, and this can be done online. A lapse in a license can be indicative of many more serious violations like financial misconduct insurance and bonding lapses workmanship regulator violations or criminal activity and misconduct Their inability to properly maintain a license should not be rewarded SB 342 simply rewards bad contractors The amendments added to the bill most very recently expand the bill beyond just public works. Current law obligates a contractor to be licensed at all times during the performance of that act or contract. 20 years ago, the California Supreme Court has held that this all-or-nothing philosophy is directly at odds with the premise that contractors with lapses and licenses may nonetheless recover partial compensation by narrowly segmenting the licensed and unlicensed portions of the performance. Therefore, if a contractor is unlicensed at any time during the performance of the contract, it is entirely precluded from recovering money for its work and may be required to disgorge any amount paid to it, even if it was properly licensed for some period of time during the performance of the contract. The all-or-nothing approach was intended by the legislature to deter unlicensed conduct and encourage contractors to self-regulate to avoid this significant penalty. The approach was adopted because the CSLB is not able to effectively monitor all licensed contractors in the state. SB 342 would reverse current law by adopting a piecemeal approach rejected by the Supreme Court. SB 342 would allow a contractor to recover compensation for work performed while it was licensed, even if it was precluded from recovering for work while unlicensed for some period during the performance of the contract.

Yes, sir. This simply rewards contractors for failing to maintain proper licenses and places an impossible burden on consumers, public entities, and the CSLB. For these reasons, we must respectfully oppose SB 342.

With brevity in mind, Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities, also representing the California State Association of Counties and the California Special District Association opposed for the following reasons, but also just unlicensed contractors shouldn't be able to profit.

McKinley Thompson Morley on behalf of the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, regretfully in opposition. Thank you.

I urge an aye vote.

On SB 342 Umberg, the motion is due pass as amended. Berman? Aye. Berman, aye. Johnson? Johnson, aye. Addis? Aye. Addis, aye. Aarons? Al-Anise? Al-Anise, aye. Baines? Baines, aye. Barakahan? Colosa? Colosa, aye. Chen? Chen, aye. El-Hawari? Aye. El-Hawari, aye. Hadwick Hadwick aye Haney Haney aye Hart Hart aye Irwin Irwin aye Jackson Aye Jackson aye Lowenthal Aye Lowenthal aye Macedo Macedo aye Huen Huen aye Pellerin Pellerin aye

Thank you for acknowledging that this is Bill Lewis's last business and professions committee as he's retiring. I have only been here one short year, so I had to do some digging. He started in 1987. He worked for a member. He then went to the caucus. Then he left and went to the Dental Association and then back to the caucus twice. So he's chosen us three times, actually. But we just want to say thank you. Your imprint, your work, and your steadfast knowledge and excitement for our committee has been incredible. And he was actually very excited that we had some fun work to do today, and this was his last committee hearing instead of it being boring. So I just want to say thank you, but please enjoy your retirement. It's well-deserved.

On AB 2772, Berman. Caloza? Caloza, aye. Macedo? Macedo, no. On SB 1303, Wahab. Hart? Hart, aye. On SB 1347, Nielo, Coloza? Coloza, aye. El Huori? El Huori, aye. Macedo? Macedo, aye.

On AB 2772, Berman. Ahrens? Aye. Ahrens, aye. Barcahan? Maybe, okay, aye. Barcahan, aye. On SB 342, Umberg. Ahrens? Aye. Ahrens, aye. Barcahan? Aye. Barcahan, aye. On SB 1303, Wahab, Ahrens? Aye. Ahrens, aye. Barcahan? Barcahan, aye. On SB 1347, Nilo. Ahrens? Aye. Ahrens, aye. Barcahan? Aye. Barcahan, aye.