Flynn,, P., Jr.

English

University of San Diego

REGULATORY AGENCY ACTIONThe truck weight fee increase wouldyield and expected $2 billion. Theserevenues would be deposited in theState Highway Account, whose fundsmay be used only for transportation pur-poses. Proposition 108, also on the Juneballot, would authorize the sale of bondsfor rail transit capital improvement andurban rail construction; it is expected toraise $3 billion.The purpose of these propositions isto raise money to implement measuresdesigned to improve California's trans-portation system and to reduce highwayand freeway congestion. Such measuresinclude interregional road systems inrural areas; urban rail construction;more meters or diamond lanes on free-ways to facilitate traffic flow; freewaysound walls; and maintaining the pre-sent system. Both measures were subse-quently successful on the June ballot.The Board also discussed a proposalto introduce a bill amending section9884.8 and 9884.9 of the Business andProfessions Code. The proposal wouldrequire automobile repair estimates toinclude the specific time estimated andthe hourly rate charged for the necessaryrepairs. Additionally, the repair dealerwould be required to itemize and list onthe invoice the time actually spent andthe hourly rate charged to service thecar.Since the proponents of the proposal(Automobile Club of NorthernCalifornia) were unable to attend themeeting, some questions and concernsof Board and audience membersremained unanswered. For example,automobile industry representativesexpressed fears that such invoice item-ization would increase the time spent inrecordkeeping. They also worried thatsuch a measure would effectively renderunemployed those workers who actuallywork more slowly than the listed hourlyrate. BAR representatives were con-cerned that questions of enforcementand possible penalties are not addressedin the proposal's present form. BARtabled the measure pending clarificationof these issues.At the Advisory Board's May 11meeting in Sacramento, the Board heardan update regarding BAR's referee sta-tions. If a motor vehicle cannot pass theSmog Check inspection and cannot berepaired to pass, then the vehicle owneris referred to a referee station. Thesestations then determine whether a waiv-er will be issued. At present, approxi-mately 6,000 referee actions are takeneach week statewide, with the vastmajority of problems involving vehicleswhich cannot be repaired within thestatutorily designated cost limits.The Advisory Board next discusseddraft regulatory changes dealing withthe invoicing of shop supplies and partsand toxic waste disposal charges.Section 3356, Chapter 33, Title 16 of theCCR, would be amended to require thatall service work and all parts be sepa-rately listed as invoice items in order fora consumer to be charged. If the itemsare not individually listed, then the con-sumer may not be charged for them. Asto the toxic waste disposal issue, a deal-er may charge a customer for such costs,but that charge must be disclosed to thecustomer as a separate item on the esti-mate and on the invoice. BAR maintainsthat these provisions would remedy pastabuses, and ensure that consumers areaccurately and fairly charged for ser-vices actually rendered. These draft reg-ulations will probably be ready fornotice and public hearings in the fall.FUTURE MEETINGS:November 9 in San Luis Obispo.BOARD OF BARBEREXAMINERSExecutive Officer: Lorna P. Hill(916) 445-7008In 1927, the California legislaturecreated the Board of Barber Examiners(BBE) to control the spread of disease inhair salons for men. The Board, whichconsists of three public and two industryrepresentatives, regulates and licensesbarber schools, instructors, barbers, andshops. It sets training requirements andexamines applicants, inspects barbershops, and disciplines violators withlicensing sanctions. The Board licensesapproximately 22,000 barbers, 5,000shops, and 20 schools.BBE's enabling act is found atBusiness and Professions Code section6500 et seq.; the Board's regulations arelocated in Chapter 3, Title 16 of theCalifornia Code of Regulations (CCR).MAJOR PROJECTS:Merger with Board of Cosmetology.On March 4. BBE held a special jointmeeting with the Board of Cosmetology(BOC) for purposes of discussing theprovisions of Assemblymember DelaineEastin's AB 3008, which would at longlast merge the two boards. (See infraLEGISLATION; see also CRLR Vol.10, No. 1 (Winter 1990) p. 58; Vol. 9,No. 4 (Fall 1989) p. 46; and Vol. 7, No.1 (Winter 1987) p. 1 for extensive back-ground information.) The boards wereable to reach agreement on severalissues, including provisions for a seven-member board which meets four timesper year, a southern California fieldoffice, the minimum age and education-al requirements for barbers and cosme-tologists, and provisions regarding disci-plinary proceedings.However, at an April 18 hearing onAB 3008 before the AssemblyCommittee on Governmental Efficiencyand Governmental Protection (chairedby Asscmblymember Eastin), BBE tookan oppose position on the bill as writtenat that time. At its May 6 meeting, BBEdiscussed several amendments whichwould make the bill more palatable,including a provision to establish a nine-member board which meets six timesper year; deletion of language allowingthe Director of the Department ofConsumer Affairs (DCA) to reject thenew board's appointment of an execu-tive officer; deletion of language requir-ing each licensed establishment to pro-vide a public toilet; a provision requir-ing the new board to inspect all estab-lishments twice per year; and deletion oflanguage requiring barbers to have com-pleted a nail and skin care course in aschool approved by the new board.Although these amendments werenot incorporated into the June 7 versionof the bill, the Board took a supportposition on AB 3008 in a May 31 letterto Assemblymember Eastin. Noting thatBOC has submitted numerous proposedamendments (many of which are consis-tent with BBE's proposed amendments),BBE urged Eastin that "if you accepttheir amendments, we request that yougive the Barber Board what it wants,which is our fee bill unencumbered byany double joining or restrictive lan-guage." AB 1108 (Epple), BBE's much-needed fee bill, previously containedmerger language which has now beendeleted; if AB 3008 were "double-joined" to AB 1108, the fee bill wouldnot become effective (even if it passed)unless the merger bill also passes. (Seeinfra LEGISLATION for more informa-tion on AB 1108.)Cyclical License Renewal. Presently,all BBE licensing fees are paid everytwo years on the same date. To help easemonetary dry spells and facilitate budgetcalculations, the Board recently voted toinstitute a cyclical payment system,whereby fee deadlines would be spreadout over the year. BBE hopes to con-vince Assemblymember Epple toinclude authority for this cyclical renew-al system in amendments to AB 1108.The Shave. At its April 9 meeting,BBE once again addressed the validityThe California Regulatory Law Reporter Vol. 10, Nos. 2 & 3 (Spring/Summer 1990)*REGULATORY AGENCY ACTIONof requiring barber applicants to demon-strate ability to shave with a straightrazor. Although this is the only licensurequalification which currently distin-guishes barbers from cosmetologists,shaving is rarely performed in practice,due to its time-consuming nature andcost. (See CRLR Vol. 9, No. 4 (Fall1989) p. 46 for background informa-tion.) BBE industry member EltonPamplin moved that licensure applicantsbe allowed to shave with an electricrazor, which generated heated debate.Audience members argued that a goodhaircut requires a straight edge aroundthe ears; and questioned whether theBoard would incur liability by licensingbarbers to shave with a straight edgewithout testing their ability. After con-siderable argument, BBE defeatedPamplin's motion by a vote of 3-2.LEGISLATION:AB 3008 (Eastin), as amended June7, would repeal the Business andProfessions Code sections which estab-lish both BBE and BOC, and create theBoard of Barbering and Cosmetology(BBC). The bill would generally revise,recast, and consolidate the two actspresently governing the practice of bar-bering and cosmetology; and provide forthe licensing and regulation of personsengaged in practice as a barber, cosme-tologist, electrologist, manicurist, oresthetician. BBC would consist of sevenmembers: four public members andthree members representing the profes-sions. The bill, which would becomeoperative on July 1, 1992, would requirethe new board and the Department ofConsumer Affairs to assess the results ofmerging the two boards and to report tothe legislature on or before June 30,1995. This bill is currently pending inthe Assembly Ways and MeansCommittee.AB 1108 (Epple), as amendedJanuary 10, would delete existing maxi-mum limits on licensing fees charged byBBE until January 1994 and wouldincrease the maximum fees effectiveJanuary 1, 1992. The bill has passed theAssembly and is pending in the SenateBusiness and Professions Committee.RECENT MEETINGS:At its March 5 meeting, BBE mem-bers discussed the low pass rate on itsinstructors' examination, and decided toinvestigate the possibility of havingDCA's Central Testing Unit review theexam.FUTURE MEETINGS:To be announced.BOARD OF BEHAVIORALSCIENCE EXAMINERSExecutive Officer: Kathleen Callanan(916) 445-4933Authorized by Business andProfessions Code section 4980 et seq.,the eleven-member Board of BehavioralScience Examiners (BBSE) licensesmarriage, family and child counselors(MFCCs), licensed clinical social work-ers (LCSWs) and educational psycholo-gists (LEPs). The Board administerstests to license applicants, adopts regula-tions regarding education and experi-ence requirements for each group oflicensees, and appropriately channelscomplaints against its licensees. TheBoard also has the power to suspend orrevoke licenses. The Board consists ofsix public members, two LCSWs, oneLEP, and two MFCCs. The Board's reg-ulations appear in Chapter 18, Title 16of the California Code of Regulations(CCR).MAJOR PROJECTS:Consumer Brochure on Psychother-apist Sexual Misconduct. Pursuant o SB1277 (Watson), enacted in 1987, psy-chotherapists are required by the law toprovide a copy of Professional TherapyNever Includes Sex! to any patient whohas been a victim of sexual exploitationby another psychotherapist. Thebrochure gives the patient excellentinformation on options for reporting themisconduct and receiving personal help.(See CRLR Vol. 9, No. 4 (Fall 1989) p.47; Vol. 7, No. 4 (Fall 1987) p. 42; andVol. 7, No. 2 (Spring 1987) p. 60 forbackground information on SB 1277.)Reporting options include adminis-trative action, criminal action, civilaction, and professional associationaction. Personal help options includeindividual or group therapy, self-helpsupport groups, and therapy mediationsessions. Twenty-five copies may bepurchased for $5 by writing to: Office ofProcurement, Publications Section, P.O.Box 1015, North Highlands, CA 95660.Regulatory Changes. On January 8,the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)approved BBSE's adoption of section1805.1, Chapter 18, Title 16 of the CCR,which implements the Permit ReformAct of 1981. On February 5, OALapproved BBSE's adoption of sections1833.1 and 1833.2, and its amendmentsto sections 1833 and 1833.3. These reg-ulations implement AB 3657(Vasconcellos) (Chapter 1365, Statutesof 1986), which rewrote the laws gov-erning the experience requirements forMFCC licensure. (See CRLR Vol. 10,No. 1 (Winter 1990) p. 59 and Vol. 9,No. 3 (Summer 1989) pp. 41-42 forbackground information on thesechanges.)On January 22, OAL disapprovedBBSE's amendments to regulatory sec-tions 1806, 1812, 1832, and 1833.1.(See CRLR Vol. 9, No. 3 (Summer1989) pp. 41-42 and Vol. 8, No. 4 (Fall1988) p. 46 for extensive backgroundinformation on these regulatorychanges.) OAL primarily found faultwith section 1812, which would havedefined conduct "substantially related"to the qualifications and duties of BBSElicensees for purposes of license denial,revocation, or suspension. OAL foundthat the amendments to section 1812failed to comply with the clarity, consis-tency, and necessity standards ofGovernment Code section 11349.1, andthat BBSE's final statement of reasonsfailed to include an adequate summaryof and response to each public commentmade.Executive Officer Kathleen Callananseparated out the amendments to section1812 from the amendments to sections1806, 1832, and 1833.1 (which pertainto the abandonment of applications);these latter changes were approved byOAL on May 17. At BBSE's April 20meeting, Callanan suggested that theBoard refer section 1812 to theEnforcement Committee for redrafting.LEGISLATION:SB 2222 (Watson) as amended April19, would establish increased separatefees for the written and oral examinationfor MFCC, LEP, and LCSW licensureapplicants, increase the renewal fees forthose licenses, and make relatedchanges. This bill is pending in theAssembly Health Committee.SB 2245 (Davis) would include therelationship between a patient and anMFCC corporation, as well as the rela-tionship between patients and any psy-chotherapist employed by those corpora-tions, in the definition of the relation-ship of a psychotherapist and patient toprovide the privilege of confidentialcommunications. This bill passed theSenate on May 17 and is pending in theAssembly Judiciary Committee.AB 3229 (Polanco). Existing lawrequires that the licensure requirementsfor clinical social workers, among oth-ers, in state and other governmentalhealth facilities, be not less than forthose in privately owned health facili-ties. The state Department of HealthServices is authorized to grant a waiverfrom licensure requirements for clinicalsocial workers employed in publiclyThe California Regulatory Law Reporter Vol. 10, Nos. 2 & 3 (Spring/Summer 1990)

Board of Barber Examiners

https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2281&amp;context=crlr

Board of Barber Examiners

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of San Diego