Board of Accountancy approves staff bills to modernize CPA mobility and update licensure rules

The California Board of Accountancy voted Sept. 20 to approve two staff‑sponsored legislative proposals that would (1) modernize the state’s CPA mobility rules and (2) change minimum education and experience requirements for CPA licensure.

The board approved the mobility proposal after a staff presentation from Licensing Division Chief Michelle Senter describing a package that would add a definition of “comparable licensure requirements,” replace the term “substantially equivalent” in parts of the Business and Professions Code, and retain consumer‑protection safeguards. "This will define comparable licensure requirements," Senter said, describing the proposal’s focus on requiring passage of the uniform CPA exam and considering another jurisdiction’s education and experience requirements "collectively" when the board decides whether a state’s standards meet or exceed California’s.

Executive Officer Dominic Franzella framed the pair of measures as a practical step to preserve California’s authority over mobility while giving the board flexibility to consider national competency‑based models. "I believe the board should feel comfortable in making decisions today on the proposals you have before you," Franzella told members, emphasizing the timing advantage of acting now to secure a bill author and shepherd legislation through the fall calendar.

Key changes in the mobility draft include automatic practice privilege for many out‑of‑state CPAs without notice or fee while adding a clearer, board‑defined test for when the board may remove no‑notice mobility for an entire jurisdiction. Senter said the draft also clarifies which out‑of‑state board will serve as an agent in disciplinary matters and adds an avenue for licensees from jurisdictions that do not meet the board’s comparable standard to seek practice privilege by meeting specified criteria (for example, four of the last 10 years of practice, passing the CPA exam, a baccalaureate with accounting concentration and at least one year of general accounting experience).

The companion licensure proposal would set a baccalaureate degree with an accounting concentration as a baseline for licensure and set minimum qualifying experience at two years, with a one‑year option for applicants who hold a master’s degree in accounting or taxation. The draft creates an "expressway" mechanism to allow certain accounting or taxation degrees to satisfy education requirements by regulation and includes transition or legacy pathways for individuals already in the licensure pipeline. Staff said they will return in November with proposed implementation dates and regulatory details.

Board members broadly praised the staff work and the annotated draft materials. Several members pressed staff for clarity on who would define the details of the "expressway" and how foreign degrees would be evaluated; staff said the board has existing regulatory authority and uses board‑approved evaluation services such as WES and NASBA for foreign education review. Member Katrina Salazar and others voiced caution about downstream effects on outbound mobility and urged continued monitoring as other states consider changes.

Public commenters included Jason Fox of CalCPA, who told the board CalCPA "supports the board's recommendation," and an academic who urged the board to retain control over degree‑approval criteria to avoid unwanted legislative definitions. Earlier in the meeting a public speaker, Kevin Long of the Employee Benefits Law Group, asked the board to consider policies that support employee ownership in accounting firms.

Both staff recommendations passed on roll‑call votes. For the mobility proposal (H1) the clerk recorded affirmative votes from members present and the chair announced, "The motion carries." For the licensure proposal (H2) the motion likewise passed on roll call and the board authorized staff to seek an author, combine the two proposals if appropriate, and make non‑substantive edits as needed.

Next steps: staff will seek a legislative author to carry the board‑sponsored bills, return in November with implementation‑date options and additional regulatory detail, and the board authorized the president and executive officer to schedule an interim virtual meeting before the November session to review NASBA and UAA exposure drafts and to coordinate any formal response on competency‑based licensure and automatic mobility messaging.

Actions recorded at the meeting: votes to approve (1) the mobility legislative proposal and (2) the licensure legislative proposal; staff were authorized to seek an author and to combine the proposals where appropriate. The board also scheduled an interim meeting to review national exposure drafts and communications strategy.

The board’s actions do not change law until (a) a bill is authored and carries the proposal through the Legislature and (b) the governor signs it. Separately, staff reported other legislative items (for example, AB 3251, the board’s sunset‑review bill, was on the governor’s desk) and routine agency business including budget updates, licensing metrics, enforcement statistics, outreach, and committee reports.