May 13, 2002 - Los Angeles - The California Acupuncture Board votes to accept the Task Force recommendations for a minimum of a 3000 hour curriculum, and sends a request to the Joint Legislative Committee asking for consideration for the Board's needs.

The Acupuncture Board members took time from their busy agenda to quiz a staff member of the Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee (JLSRC) regarding the intentions of that Committee's legislation, Senate Bill 1951, and the mixed messages that the Board was getting through the Capitol rumor mill. This was the first time that Board members had the opportunity to discuss the JLSRC's newly amended Bill, which will sunrise the Acupuncture Board for another two years, with a representative of its author, Senator Liz Figueroa. The Bill will also give the Department of Consumer Affairs the authority to hire an independent consultant at the Board's expense to review and report on a number of items under the Board's jurisdiction, including scope of practice, curriculum, examination, and school approval.

Board Chair Pei Li Zhong challenged Board members to work harder to understand the issues so they will be prepared to discuss and participate in the reviews that are due to be reported by the consultant by September 1, 2004. The Board had apparently been perplexed by the mixed messages they were getting. On the one hand, they felt compelled to move forward on the identified issues, since they were relavent to updating the regulation of the profession. On the other hand, Senator Liz Figueroa had claimed on May 1 that the Board was being "uncooperative," and rumors abounded that certain JLSRC members had threatened to sunset the Board in retaliation for legislation sponsored by the profession.

Seeking clarification, Board member Micheal Eng asked if anyone in particular, any Joint Committee member, or anyone else, had recommended sunsetting the board altogether. Figueroa's staff member, attorney Kristin Triepke, responded that nobody had made such a suggestion. Eng then asked whether it was expected that the Board should not take any actions on any of the items that the independent consultant would be reviewing, noting the SB 1951 said nothing about limiting the Board's responsibilities. Triepke responded that that her interpretation of SB 1951 would mean that the Board might consider actions that would speed the process along, but should not make any policy changes. Don Chang, legal counsel for the Board, asked about scope of practice issues, noting that legislation had changed the scope of practice beginning this year. Triepke responded that the Board should continue to implement its scope of practice as it is currently defined by the Board (even though it may be out of date).

Board members were not comfortable with the restrictions that SB 1951 was implicitely making on their functions and activities, and questioned Triepke about whether the Board could take an alternative approach by submitting recommendations to the JLSRC and to wait for a response and potential amendments before taking a support position. Triepke responded that "this is not a retailatory process," essentially giving the Board the green light to seek compromise language.

The Board was also concerned that it would be paying for the independent consultant, while having no hiring or supervisory control over them. The Board questioned Lynn Morris, Deputy Director of Board Relations for the Department of Consumer Affairs, who was also present at the meeting. Morris stated that the Engineering Board hired a consultant for $300,000 - $400, 000, and they they had twenty-six different licensing categories to review. She expected that the consultant for the Acupuncture Board would cost between $150,000 and $250,000. The Board seemed satisfied with this response, but was still concerned about the hiring process. Morris assured them that it was standard policy to put out for competitive bidding and to consult with the Board before hiring anyone.

Executive Officer Marilyn Neilsen asked whether the projects assigned to an independent consultant by SB 1951 were too aggressive an agenda, given that the sunset review process starts nearly two years before each board is due to sunset. Acupuncturist Brian Fennen, representing CAOMA, asked why the two-year sunset extension seemed to be tied to the report due date by the independent consultant, since that would give the Board and the Legislature little or not time to review any of the recommendations made by the consultant before the next sunrise legislation must be on the Governor's desk by September 1, 2004. Triepke stated that the timeline would be sufficient under SB 1951.

As a result of those assurances, but still concerned with the restrications that SB 1951 implied, the Board voted to take the position of "support if amended" on SB 1951, pending response from the JLSRC on its recommendations. The Board requested that the SB 1951 be amended to use more generic language for the "national" exam and school approval process, and to specify that nothing in the bill shall be construed to limit the Board's activities in those areas under the consultants review.

The next item of business was discussion and acceptance of the recommendations of the Curriculum Task Force, which had concluded its fifth and final day of meetings on April 10, and submitted its final report on April 24. Discussion ensued about whether to review the hours further. It was decided to accept the 3000-hour recommendation now, and to calendar further discussion and review until the next full board meeting in June.

The Board then discussed AB 1943, which had been amended to revise its orignial 3200 hour recommendation down to the 3000 recommended by the the task force. Discussion focused around whether implementation of the new continuing education hours would require significant board resources. Marilyn Neilsen reported that it would be fairly easy to implement. CE hours could be entered in existing unused fields in the database, and the board could decide to take the hours in a lump sum, or to log them with the bienniel license renewals. The Board could also specify what subjects that the extra CE hours must be in.

Still concerned with potential retaliation from the JLSRC, a clarification was made that the Board's support for the JLSRC's recommendations contained in SB 1951 was not at cross purposes with the board's desire to act on the recommendations of its own task force. The Board's had a long-standing commitment to improve education standards for the benefit of California consumers. With a desire by the members to be true to themselves and thier obligations, they voted to take a "support" position on AB 1943.

The Board meeting was somewhat unusual, in that few schools were represented, and only Tom Haines of PCOM testified (something about the conflict between what the practicing members of the profession thought its scope of practice was, and whent the schools thought it should be). Penny Ward, representing ACAOM was present, but did not make any public statements. Neal Miller and Brian Fennen represented the profession in testimony, mostly clarifying issues about the legislation. Board member Howard Moffet seemed out of synch with the rest of the Board, twice suggesting motions that were voted down, and twice voting against motions that were supported by the remainder of the Board. However, he seemed to take this all with a good sense of humor, smiling as the motions were raised and voted on. Roland and Denise Ng, members of Assembly Member Judy Che, were in attendance. Roland spoke briefly about AB 1943. Michael Divett of Acupuncture Today testified about the widespread support from the profession for AB 1943 that was published in their monthly newsletter. Marilyn Allen, also of Acupuncture Today, and others, simply observed.