Revision to SB 969

[mechtild5]

SB 969 has been revised as of yesterday, April 9th. It was reported somewhere else that the original bill has been
"95% scraped". That is a LIE. The majority of the bill is exactly the same. The changes I've found so far are:

Changes: calls licensee a 'certificate holder'
license is now called a 'certificate'

Call it what they may, this is still 'licensing'.

Seperate license/certificate for bather/brusher and process of certification

Creates a misnamed Council...only one groomer is on the council and it does not need to be a California groomer.
The council is within the Veterinary Medical Board. The part about the Council is:

"This bill would create the California Pet Grooming Council and would require any person engaged in pet grooming to be certified and regulated by the council."
4918.1. (a) The California Pet Grooming Council shall be created and shall have the responsibilities and duties set forth in this article. The council may take any reasonable actions to carry out the responsibilities and duties set forth in this article, including, but not limited to, hiring staff and entering into contracts.
(b) (1) The council shall be composed of the following members:
(A) Two members from Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) associations, one from northern California, and one from southern California, unless that entity chooses not to exercise this right of selection.
(B) One member selected by each state or nationwide pet specialty retailer that provides pet grooming services, with gross annual sales exceeding one hundred fifty million dollars ($150,000,000), unless the entity chooses not to exercise this right of selection.
(C) One member selected by the State Humane Association of California, unless that entity chooses not to exercise this right of selection.
(D) One member selected by the Director of Consumer Affairs, unless he or she chooses not to exercise this right of selection.
(E) One member selected by the Veterinary Medical Board, unless that entity chooses not to exercise this right of selection.
(F) One member selected by the California Animal Control Directors Association, unless that entity chooses not to exercise this right of selection.
(G) One member selected by the National Dog Groomers Association of America, Inc., unless that entity chooses not to exercise this right of selection.
(H) Two members selected by the State Bar of California, who have animal law experience and who have been nominated by a fellow animal law attorney, unless that entity chooses not to exercise the right of selection.
(2) The council’s bylaws shall establish a process for appointing other professional members as determined by the council."


Changes "a drying cage shall never be used" to:
(7) A drying cage shall meet all of the following conditions:
(A) Contain no-heat air dryers.
(B) Be kept clean and sanitary.
(C) Be large enough to comfortably contain the pet.

(actually makes a loop hole if you look closely and use your imagination)

Adds exception to 'caged separately' to allow pets from same household with consent. Still bans cage free.

Still no grandfathering in as experienced groomers must pass a certification test.

Adds a bunch of hoopla language to the certification/licensing process and has moved all the provisions about licensing from the bottom of the bill to the top.

Still has the criminal misdemeanor clause, all the recording keeping provisions, etc.

If I find any other significant differences I will post them. Do not be deceived by any statement this revision is better than the original bill, it is not. And saying it is is a lie. If fact, if Vargas should lose his Congress race, he could get on the council as a lawyer with "animal law experience". Maybe even Lucy's owner if he helped write the bill. Such fun!!!! (sarcasm) Barbara

[Admin]

Thanks for keeping us updated Mech.

I would like to say just step back everybody and look at one aspect of this bill. What do you think the author(s) think of groomers?

IMO, they think so low of us that they have to put our "profession" under the purview of other professions, such as veterinarians and others?

Really? A profession cannot standalone? Hairstylists for people can as I understand it, but nope, not groomers.

Isn't this humiliating? Yes? No?

IMO this is such an insult, a slap in the face, just that mechanism alone is a disgrace to us.

If this passes in CA, is that going to be how it is done in your state outside of CA? Vets and others are going to control your careers?

P.S. Do you remember how "odd" it was to have a vet judging on Groomer Has It reality show? Was that just a little hint of what it will be like to have grooming careers "managed" by vets? I really don't know but I know the large majority of the board during that show sensed how awkward it was.

To me you are not a profession unless you can stand alone and manage your profession. This is totally bad news. Vets and groomers can have great working relationships, we did indeed with dozens, and they can even counsel on things like pre-inspection procedures etc, but to effect control over the careers of groomers? And look at who else will have say too? Attorneys?

If you go back and read old posts here we and others have said for a long time that eventually "we would get done in" by legislators if we didn't do something on our own, and it appears those words were prophetic.

[mechtild5]

(Thanks for the thanks, Stephen)
(oh, btw, by a close reading, the big petcorps EACH get a member on the council, not just one member as it seems to appear.

Reply from an email I sent the AKC...my email text is below.

From: Dog_Law (doglaw@akc.org
RE: Cal SB 969
Thank you for your email. I’m not sure why the bill is not showing up for you. It is at this link: http://www.cqstatetrack.com/texis/vi...=49bfaef9bd#CA Assembly bills are listed first and then Senate bills below that.

I have been monitoring SB 969 and am currently reviewing the amendments that were released today. As AKC does not represent groomers as a group, this issue is not addressed by our position statements. I have a call into the author’s office to explain to them the potential impact on dog shows, but it is crucial that they hear from constituents about this issue, encouraging them to provide an exemption for folks engaged in grooming activities directly related to dog shows and events. Objections beyond that should also be communicated directly to Senator Vargas as well as the staff and members of the Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee. Please ask anyone else you know who shares these concerns to contact Senator Vargas and the committee members.

AKC Government Relations Department
919-816-3720
doglaw@akc.org

In reply to my email:

Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 9:57 PM
To: Dog_Law
Subject: Cal SB 969

Hi, I was on the AKC Legislation Tracking site but didn’t see Cal SB 969 listed. It is meant to regulate and license ‘pet groomers’, with the penalty of a criminal misdemeanor for violation of any of its provisions. However, the bill as written will regulate and require licensing of professional handlers and in fact any person who bathes, brushes, clips, and styles for compensation. This would also sweep in by its broad language employees of handlers who assist in grooming, boarding kennels who only offer grooming as an ancillary service and breeders who charge their puppy customers for ongoing grooming as the pups mature. Many boarding kennels are owned by dog show exhibitors.

The bill is due to be heard on Monday, April 16 by the Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee, a standing committee of the California Senate. The text of the bill is here: http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill...ntroduced.html

Thank you, Barbara

[mechtild5]

A simple thing everybody in Cal can do, groomer or not, is call this number and tell them you are opposed to SB 969:
(916) 651-4104
They, the Senate Business & Professions Committee, will register your vote.

[Emma123]

Is anyone working on an alternate bill? Clearly there is a desire for oversight of groomers in CA, and this has to be acknowledged. As long as a bill offers some oversight and accountability, it would probably get pretty far.
To me, the interest in legislation is a response to concerns about pet mortality and injuries. The desire to regulate and oversee groomers could be seen as a sign that we are being taken as seriously as doctors, veterinarians, lawyers, CPA's and other professionals. These other professionals are subject to incredibly demanding exams, lengthy schooling, and continuing education requirements. They have to jump through all sorts of hoops to practice their professions.
Hairstylists -- even in the worst case scenario -- do not make mistakes that seriously injure their clients. Groomers can seriously injure a pet.
Just another perspective...and I totally agree that it is up to groomers to propose better legislation.

[BossaNovaGirl]

I'm still hoping to get to this meeting next Monday.

I'm hoping to draft some questions and concerns to email to the board members and to print out and hand out prior to the meeting.

But the changes to the bill need some feedback from Cal groomers.

This IS going to happen.

The time to change it is NOW.

We have got to get more control of this or our livelihood is going to STOP, as we know it.

Vivien

[BossaNovaGirl]

After re-reading the changes, it sounds like a board of 10 (minimum) members, only one of which will have actually grooming experience!

Also a little ambiguous about the retailers-each state? Gross annual sales ? Retail or grooming sales?
No independant salon owners on the board?
And what's animal control got to do with it?

Oh brother!

Vivien

[mechtild5]

I'm still hoping to get to this meeting next Monday.

I'm hoping to draft some questions and concerns to email to the board members and to print out and hand out prior to the meeting.

But the changes to the bill need some feedback from Cal groomers.

This IS going to happen.

The time to change it is NOW.

We have got to get more control of this or our livelihood is going to STOP, as we know it.

Vivien

"our livelihood is going to STOP, as we know it." Yup.

I wonder if you call some of the Sacramento grooming shops you might find someone in Sac who is going too & you could hook up with. That would be fun! I'm taking the day off, listening on the computer. Will record it too.

Today I spoke to the Bus & Pro committee to see if the comment period would be extended, since we only had a week to revise comments. She said, no we only get a week. She also said something intriguing. That the bill had to be heard in Committee before April 23, which is the last day "fiscal" bills can be heard or they are automatically dropped, and that "there was a second party who wanted this bill heard." She said this twice, about a 2nd party requesting the bill be heard. Wonder who??? Barbara

[mechtild5]

I'm still hoping to get to this meeting next Monday.

I'm hoping to draft some questions and concerns to email to the board members and to print out and hand out prior to the meeting.

But the changes to the bill need some feedback from Cal groomers.

This IS going to happen.

The time to change it is NOW.

We have got to get more control of this or our livelihood is going to STOP, as we know it.

Vivien

"The time to change is NOW." Yup.

The reason it's imperative to stop this now is once the bill is passed the council can add, revise, the regulations as they please subject to one thing, and it is NOT the legislature. The legislature in the bill has give the Council the power to revise the enabling act as the council deems necessary, in one of the provisions. The bill itself is refered to as an Enabling Act. The process by which councils/boards (ie state agencies) can revise their enabling act is this:

The proposed revison/addition is published in the Register: This is the new one, published once a week: Proposed regulations at beginning, adopted regulations at the bottom: http://www.oal.ca.gov/res/docs/pdf/notice/14z-2012.pdf

Once it appears in the Register, there is a 45 day period for the public (us) to send in comments. Then the council/board decides whether to adopt the revision to the enabling act or not. Note, there is no voting by the legislature on the revision. There is just this 45 day comment period. And we have to watch the Register EVERY WEEK to see if there are new proposed regulations. If the regulation is adopted then it is again published in the Register and becomes law. By publication in the Register there is a irrebuttable presumption that the public has been adequate notice of the regulation. That means us. That is, one can be prosecuted for a crime simply by this publication of the new regulation in the Register. That is why it's imperative to stop this bill NOW with it's criminal sanctions.

The passage of the bill is only the BEGINNING. And with the members of the council...well I don't want to be called a 'fearmongerer" again...but it's not to hard to extrapolate... Barbara

[BossaNovaGirl]

Oh, oh, oh!
This is awful.

So when is the comment period? For one week after the 16th?

I finally figured out why they want a member from animal control-
They want to make sure all the animals have a current LICENSE!!!

I'm not going to do this alone.
I'm not going to call groomers from Sac to come help.
If anyone out there cares, you better show up.
I'm going to try to get there by 10 am.
I'm going to email all of the board members with questions about this bill.
I'm going to pass out copies of this outside the committee room, if they'll let me.


Vivien

[mechtild5]

Oh, oh, oh!
This is awful.

So when is the comment period? For one week after the 16th?

I finally figured out why they want a member from animal control-
They want to make sure all the animals have a current LICENSE!!!

I'm not going to do this alone.
I'm not going to call groomers from Sac to come help.
If anyone out there cares, you better show up.
I'm going to try to get there by 10 am.
I'm going to email all of the board members with questions about this bill.
I'm going to pass out copies of this outside the committee room, if they'll let me.


Vivien

re: "So when is the comment period? For one week after the 16th?"
This week is the comment week. Till the 16th.

re: "I finally figured out why they want a member from animal control-
They want to make sure all the animals have a current LICENSE!!!"
ROFL...Bingo! Hadn't thought of that!


"I'm not going to call groomers from Sac to come help."
Just meant you might find someone who was already planning on going & you could hook up with. Not for 'help', but find someone like yourself who cares. I know the shop down the road from me cares too because they have a link to the petition on their website. They have a cage free option, so this bill would wipe that out. If the bill was being heard here, I'd give them a jingle and see if they wanted to go together.

The meeting is at either 1PM or 1:30PM. Barbara

[poodlecsigreen]

I have wanted to leave Ca for along time. I think now is that time. Until then I intend as a mobile to keep a very low profile.

[mechtild5]

Found what I think is meant to be a grandfathering in a provision in the revised bill. It's in the middle of the bill under section 4918.9 (a), (2), (A) for W-2 folks and (B) for self-employed folks. 4918.9 (a) begins with the word "Notwithstanding" and then refers back to the section of the bill which requires an experienced groomer to pass an examination. Thus it's confusing. But this 4918.9 is clearly a grandfathering in section. Barbara

[BossaNovaGirl]

OK, I'm calmer now and have thought a bit more about this.

If I'm not mistaken, IF this bill passes the committee, it will go to the Senate for a vote, and if it passes the Senate it will go to the Assembly for a vote.

I don't want them to 'improve' this bill while it is in committee. I want them to write a perfectly horrible bill.

THEN we can fight it when it gos to the Senate and Assembly. by contacting our Senators and Represntatives.

IF they improve it in committee, it will be much harder to defeat in the Senate and Assembly.

Think I'm on the right track?

Vivien

[mechtild5]

Found this on the California Legislative website:

II. Consideration by Policy Committee

A. Committee holds public hearing.
1. Date set by committee and published in advance in the Daily File of the house of origin.
2. Hearing may be scheduled any time beginning 30 days after introduction of the bill unless it is an urgency measure, in which case the 30-day provisions can be waived by a three-fourths vote of the house.
3. On the day of the hearing, the author presents the bill to the committee and explains why the committee should approve it. The policy committee is concerned primarily with the policy or programmatic features of the bill, not its fiscal consequences. Proponents and opponents also present their views on the measure. In addition, the committee may invite experts on the issue under consideration to testify.
Committee recommendations to the floor, which generally require a majority vote of the committee, are customarily in one of the following forms:
1. Do pass: If the committee wants the bill to become law.
2. Amend and do pass as amended: If the committee has rejected the original form of the bill, but has approved it with certain specified changes or amendments.
3. Amend and re-refer: If the committee wants the bill to be considered by a committee again after it is reprinted as amended. “Amend and re-refer” may bring the amended bill back to the same committee or it may specify another committee (usually a fiscal committee) that can properly consider the measure.
4. Do pass and re-refer: If the committee recommends the bill favorably without amendments but sends it to another committee. If the bill has a fiscal impact (“Fiscal committee: yes” at end of Legislative Counsel Digest), it will be re-referred to the fiscal committee.
5. Do not pass: If committee opposes the bill, but prefers to let the house decide.
6. To the house without recommendation: If the committee is divided or uncertain and wants the house to decide the bill on its merits.
7. Refer to Interim: If the committee believes the subject is of sufficient importance to need further in-depth study by a legislative committee before adequate legislation can be written, then this recommendation suggests that the bill receive detailed analysis and hearings during the Legislature’s recess (interim) period.
Instead of reporting its recommendation, the committee may effectively kill the bill by voting to “lay it on the table” or by taking no action (i.e., “holding” the bill in committee).

The whole process for a bill from which the above was taken is here:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/fisa/bag/legprcess.htm

Barbara