Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disciplinary Guidelines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves responses to public comments and advances disciplinary guideline rulemaking
Summary
The California Board of Behavioral Sciences approved staff responses to public comments and voted to finalize and submit regulatory text amending the uniform standards and disciplinary guidelines; board motions carried unanimously.
The California Board of Behavioral Sciences voted May 9 to approve staff responses to 45-day public comments on proposed changes to the board's enforcement regulations, and then authorized staff to complete the formal rulemaking process and submit the final package to the Office of Administrative Law.
Board regulatory manager Christy Berger told members the comment period produced two substantive letters, both seeking clarification and flagging the financial impact of longer probation terms. Berger said staff recommended no changes to the proposed language because the amendments clarify—but do not change—how the board treats violations that involve drugs or alcohol and because the board's experience supports the proposed probation lengths for certain categories.
The board's action matters because the regulation changes refine when the "uniform standards" on substance abuse apply and adjust recommended probation durations for specific violations, including provisions that address unlicensed activity and the gaining or supervision of qualifying experience hours. Staff said the clarified text would reduce ambiguity about when the uniform standards automatically apply and align penalties to risk to public safety.
During public comment, representatives from the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) and other stakeholders thanked staff for clarifying the intent of the changes and urged the board to remain mindful of the financial strains longer probations can impose on licensees. Board members acknowledged those concerns while stressing that public safety guided the proposed penalty lengths.
The board first voted to direct staff to respond to the comments as drafted, and then voted to proceed with completing rulemaking and filing the final rulemaking package with the Office of Administrative Law if no adverse comments or hearing requests are received. Both motions were carried by roll-call vote.
Board Chair Christopher Jones and staff said the next step is OAL review; if the OAL approves and there are no adverse comments, the amendments will proceed through the usual regulatory timeline before becoming effective.
The adopted responses and the final rulemaking package will be posted to the board's rulemaking docket, and staff said they will notify stakeholders when the rulemaking package is filed and again if OAL posts the final rule.
Notes: The board's action addressed comments about (1) whether the proposed presumption that a violation involving drugs or alcohol is a substance-abuse violation changes practice (staff said it codifies current implementation policy), and (2) comments that increasing certain probation lengths could impose financial burdens on probationers (staff said public safety considerations support the proposed terms).
