Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Experts and industry groups tell commission professional licensing needs structural reform, clearer discipline and modernization
Summary
A Vanderbilt law scholar and industry representatives told the Little Hoover Commission on April 24 that the state’s reorganization is a rare chance to redesign professional licensing—reducing self‑regulation, separating discipline from rulemaking, and modernizing exams and oversight—rather than simply moving boards into a new cabinet agency.
Rebecca Allensworth, an academic who has written a book on professional licensing, told the Little Hoover Commission the existing licensing board structure in many states, including California, “is broken.” Speaking remotely on April 24, Allensworth said the proposal to move boards under a new Business and Consumer Services Agency presents an opportunity to redesign regulation rather than merely reshuffle boxes.
“All 1 in 5 American workers have to have a professional license,” Allensworth said, adding that the current self‑regulatory model gives professional associations outsized control: “Professional licensing boards … are self regulatory. They're made up of members of the profession. They're kind of volunteering their time. They're not paid. They moonlight as their own regulators.” She warned that the combination of self‑governance and thin discipline can both raise barriers to entry and allow some dangerous or low‑quality providers to remain in practice.
Allensworth recommended structural approaches drawn from other jurisdictions: limit the dominance of professionals on rulemaking bodies, separate rulemaking from adjudication and disciplinary tribunals, require more specific criteria for “public members,” consolidate some boards to achieve economies of scale, and provide adequate funding for enforcement. She cited the United Kingdom’s medical oversight model and Vermont’s advisory‑board approach as examples that reduce profession‑dominated discipline.
Industry witnesses urged caution about sweeping deregulation but agreed reform and modernization are possible. Fred Jones, legal counsel for the Professional Beauty Federation of California, disputed blanket assertions that licensing in cosmetology is an entry barrier. “Don't talk to me about barriers to entry because we're not doing a very good job of erecting those barriers to protect our interests,” he said, noting about 2 percent of California adults — “over 600,000 individuals in California have a State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology license.” Jones argued that licensing protects consumers from harm and called for consolidation of overlapping state functions that affect cosmetology schools, apprenticeships and discipline.
Jason Fox, vice president of advocacy and public affairs for the California Society of Certified Public Accountants, told commissioners that accounting is a heavily regulated, evolving profession and that boards and professions can work collaboratively to modernize pathways into the field. Fox said the profession is exploring alternatives to traditional clock‑hour requirements and noted that licensing regulators and boards need support for faster regulatory changes, better technology, and cross‑jurisdictional coordination.
The transcript includes a dispute over cosmetology training hours. Industry witnesses said national averages and state changes inform that debate: “The average of all 50 states is 1500 hours,” Jones said, and he noted SB 803 reduced cosmetology clock hours in California to 1,000 three years earlier; industry representatives argued competency‑based pathways and stronger licensing exams would be preferable to arbitrary hour counts.
Commissioners asked detailed questions about whether discipline should be handled by administrative law judges or separate tribunals, about data on consumer harm tied to clock hours, and about examples of successful reform. Allensworth urged better empirical study of harms and costs, and she recommended statutory changes to board composition, discipline panels and funding mechanisms if the commission pursues deeper licensing reform during implementation of the reorganization.
Ending: Witnesses agreed the reorganization is a timely moment to modernize professional licensing. Advocates called for clearer board composition rules, better funded and independent disciplinary mechanisms, and technical upgrades and exam reforms to enable competency‑based licensing where appropriate.
