Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings Teleconference topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Psychology committee backs SB 470 to extend remote‑meeting rules, flags member‑safety and access concerns
Summary
California Board of Psychology legislative committee voted to recommend a support position for SB 470, a bill that extends pandemic-era teleconferencing rules for state bodies. Members praised access gains but raised safety, logistics and public‑participation concerns and asked staff to press the author for fixes.
The California Board of Psychology Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Committee voted to recommend that the full board support Senate Bill 470, legislation that extends rules allowing state bodies to hold public meetings by teleconference.
The bill would keep rules that require remote meetings to be visible and audible to the public, allow remote public comment, require agendas to be posted in advance and keep roll‑call votes on the public record; staff described earlier draft language as permanently removing the current sunset date. A Department of Consumer Affairs legislative staff member said the bill was amended on April 9 to extend the sunset instead to Jan. 1, 2030.
Committee members said the teleconference option has expanded public access since the pandemic, allowing more people to attend and reducing travel and state costs. "There is cost savings to the state...and more opportunities to participate," said Dr. Rogers, a committee member.
At the same time, members raised operational and safety issues about publicly posting board members' physical addresses when appearing remotely. "I have some real concerns about that," said Dr. Cervantes, urging staff to press the author for language that better protects board‑member safety and ensures equal public access at noticed locations. Anthony, speaking from member services and legal perspective, said the bill largely preserves a middle ground created after the pandemic and noted that, in some configurations, boards already disclose fewer meeting locations than before COVID‑19.
Staff and members discussed options including taking support if amended, monitoring the bill, or lodging comments with the author. After discussion and public comment noting the April 9 amendment, the committee voted 2–1 to recommend a support position to the full board (Chair Dr. Kasuga and Dr. Rogers voted aye; Dr. Cervantes voted no).
The committee asked staff to continue raising the safety and public‑participation concerns with the author and DCA, and to bring any further amendments back to the board for review.
Votes at a glance: The committee recommended the full board support SB 470; committee vote: Kasuga — aye; Cervantes — no; Rogers — aye.
Ending: The committee forwarded the recommendation to the full board and asked staff to continue discussions with the bill author and the Department of Consumer Affairs to address the safety and access issues raised by members.
