Board staff and members spent substantial time Feb. 7 reviewing a long list of possible legislative concepts and upcoming rulemaking priorities, and public commenters and professional associations concentrated on one emerging issue: whether psychiatric technicians and vocational nursing instructors should be barred from teaching didactic (theory) coursework in their training programs.

Staff overview: Executive Officer Elaine Yamaguchi presented a menu of concepts for future legislative or regulatory work including: codifying scopes of practice in statute; considering limits on the number of licensing-exam attempts; clarifying the split of theory and clinical hours; addressing alternate pathways (for example, CNA-to‑VN conversions under method 5); creating fees for school provisional review and curriculum-change work; expanding site‑and‑fine authority; evaluating post‑licensure certifications; and codifying rules about independent‑contractor status and the ABC test. Yamaguchi recommended staff draft detailed proposals and timelines for the board and Rules/Legislation Committee to review.

Public and stakeholder reaction — PT/LVN instructor rule: Multiple public commenters — program directors, psychiatric technician educators, school representatives and the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians (CAPT) — urged the board not to include in the initial regulatory package a proposed restriction that would require only registered nurses to teach psychiatric technician didactic theory. Commenters said PT instructors have specialized, hands‑on knowledge of developmental disabilities and psychiatric care that RNs may not possess; they offered pass‑rate evidence and asked for data before rulemaking. Several speakers asked that any proposed language be removed from the forthcoming package and that the ad hoc committee on psychiatric technicians include broader PT representation. One educator asked the board to provide datasets (including historical pass-rate data) for review before a public comment period.

Board and staff response: Yamaguchi and staff confirmed the proposed regulations are still in development and described the standard rulemaking timeline: staff will present draft language (targeted for the May meeting), open a public comment period, hold hearings and process changes. She said that data collection and stakeholder input would be part of the process and invited interested parties to submit formal records requests for data. Board members and staff acknowledged concerns from program directors and agreed to coordinate further stakeholder outreach; several board members urged that any draft language allow time for dialogue.

Other concept highlights: Staff reiterated interest in a fee study to align revenues with workload, potential statutory language to prevent expedited legislative exceptions for boards that meet processing standards, and consideration of stronger oversight and fee mechanisms for schools requesting substantial curriculum changes or placed on provisional approval.

Ending: Staff will take the concepts back for more detailed proposals and recommended the Rules/Legislation Committee refine priorities and timelines. The board did not vote on changes during the Feb. 7 meeting; it signaled that the PT‑instructor theory restriction is an issue the board intends to develop, but that staff and the ad hoc committee should expand stakeholder engagement before presenting final rule language.