SB 389 — Professions and vocations.
Last action — From Assembly without further action.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed Assembly
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Summary
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of various professions and vocations by boards within the Department of Consumer Affairs. Existing law authorizes a board to suspend or revoke a license on various grounds, including, but not limited to, conviction of a crime, if the crime is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the business or profession for which the license was issued. Existing law requires applicants to certain boards to provide a full set of fingerprints for the purpose of conducting criminal history record checks. This bill would make that fingerprinting requirement applicable to the Dental Board of California, the Dental Hygiene Committee of California, the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau, the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, the California Board of Podiatric Medicine, and the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. The bill would require new applicants for a license and petitioners for reinstatement of a revoked, surrendered, or canceled license, to successfully complete a state and federal level criminal record information search. The bill would also require, commencing January 1, 2011, licensees who have not previously submitted fingerprints, or for whom a record of the submission of fingerprints no longer exists, to complete the process necessary for a state and federal level criminal offender record information search, as specified. The bill would require licensees applying for license renewal to certify compliance with that requirement, as specified, and would subject a licensee to disciplinary action for making a false certification. The bill would also require a licensee to, as a condition of renewal of the license, notify the board on the license renewal form if he or she, or any member of the personnel of record of the licensee, has been convicted, as defined, of a felony or misdemeanor since the last renewal, or if this is the licensee's first renewal, since the initial license was issued. The bill would provide that the Contractors' State License Board shall implement the provisions pertaining to renewal licenses on a specified schedule, after an appropriation is made for this purpose, utilizing its applicable fees.
Bill Text
- Amended 06/01/09 - Amended Senate Current pdf June 01, 2009
- Amended 05/05/09 - Amended Senate pdf May 05, 2009
- Introduced 02/26/09 - Introduced pdf February 26, 2009
- SB389 View text html
Action History
-
From Assembly without further action.
-
From committee without further action.
-
Set, first hearing. Failed passage in committee. Reconsideration granted.
-
(Heard in committee on June 30.)
-
From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
-
To Coms. on B. & P. and PUB. S.
-
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
-
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 37. Noes 1. Page 1178.) To Assembly.
-
Read second time. Amended. To third reading.
-
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 0. Page 1070.)
-
(Suspense - for vote only.)
-
Set for hearing May 28.
-
Placed on APPR suspense file.
-
Set for hearing May 18.
-
Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
From committee: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 705.)
-
Set for hearing April 28.
-
From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. (Ayes 9. Noes 0. Page 580.) Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
-
Set for hearing April 20.
-
To Coms. on B., P. & E.D. and PUB. S.
-
From print. May be acted upon on or after March 28.
-
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Sponsors
- Negrete McLeod · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Negrete McLeod
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (121)
121 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 121 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Furutani | — | Yea |
| Hagman | — | Yea |
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Ma | — | Yea |
| Ammiano | — | Yea |
| Gilmore | — | Yea |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 1 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 2 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 29% | 57% | 0% | 14% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Hagman | — | Nay |
| Hill | — | Nay |
| Ma | — | Nay |
| Ammiano | — | Not Voting |
| Furutani | — | Yea |
| Gilmore | — | Nay |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 8 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Republican | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 8 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| % of votes cast | 67% | 0% | 0% | 33% |
How each member voted (12)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Conway | — | Not Voting |
| Eng | — | Yea |
| John | — | Yea |
| A. | — | Yea |
| Perez | — | Yea |
| Hayashi | — | Yea |
| Hernandez | — | Yea |
| Nava | — | Yea |
| Ruskin | — | Yea |
| Smyth | — | Not Voting |
| Emmerson | — | Not Voting |
| Niello, Roger W. | Republican | Not Voting |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 35 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Democratic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 38 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 95% | 3% | 0% | 3% |
How each member voted (40)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Yee | — | Yea |
| Cedillo | — | Yea |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| Ducheny | — | Not Voting |
| Hancock | — | Yea |
| Harman | — | Yea |
| Hollingsworth | — | Nay |
| Huff | — | Yea |
| Leno | — | Yea |
| Lowenthal | — | Yea |
| Negrete | — | Yea |
| Runner | — | Yea |
| Liu | — | Yea |
| McLeod | — | Yea |
| Oropeza | — | Yea |
| Dutton | — | Yea |
| Alquist | — | Yea |
| Ashburn | — | Yea |
| Benoit | — | Yea |
| Pavley | — | Yea |
| Romero | — | Yea |
| Steinberg | — | Yea |
| Wiggins | — | Yea |
| Wright | — | Yea |
| Aanestad | — | Yea |
| Kehoe | — | Yea |
| Maldonado | — | Yea |
| Simitian | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Yea |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
| Wyland | — | Yea |
| Cogdill | — | Yea |
| Correa | — | Yea |
| Cox | — | Yea |
| DeSaulnier | — | Yea |
| Denham | — | Yea |
| Florez | — | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Strickland, Tony | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 12 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 12 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 92% | 0% | 0% | 8% |
How each member voted (13)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Hancock | — | Yea |
| Wyland | — | Yea |
| Yee | — | Yea |
| Runner | — | Yea |
| Leno | — | Yea |
| Oropeza | — | Yea |
| Kehoe | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Yea |
| Wolk | — | Not Voting |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| Cox | — | Yea |
| DeSaulnier | — | Yea |
| Denham | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (13)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Yee | — | Yea |
| Hancock | — | Yea |
| Runner | — | Yea |
| Kehoe | — | Yea |
| Leno | — | Yea |
| Oropeza | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Yea |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
| Wyland | — | Yea |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| Cox | — | Yea |
| DeSaulnier | — | Yea |
| Denham | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Hancock | — | Yea |
| Cedillo | — | Yea |
| Huff | — | Yea |
| Benoit | — | Yea |
| Leno | — | Yea |
| Steinberg | — | Yea |
| Wright | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 10 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 10 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 91% | 0% | 0% | 9% |
How each member voted (11)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Florez | — | Yea |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| Negrete | — | Yea |
| McLeod | — | Yea |
| Yee | — | Yea |
| Romero | — | Yea |
| Aanestad | — | Yea |
| Oropeza | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Yea |
| Wyland | — | Not Voting |
| Correa | — | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 389 do?
- Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of various professions and vocations by boards within the Department of Consumer Affairs. Existing law authorizes a board to suspend or revoke a license on various grounds, including, but not limited to, conviction of a crime, if the crime is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the business or profession for which the license was issued. Existing law requires applicants to certain boards to provide a full set of fingerprints for the purpose of conducting criminal history record checks. This bill would make that fingerprinting requirement applicable to the Dental Board of California, the Dental Hygiene Committee of California, the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau, the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, the California Board of Podiatric Medicine, and the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. The bill would require new applicants for a license and petitioners for reinstatement of a revoked, surrendered, or canceled license, to successfully complete a state and federal level criminal record information search. The bill would also require, commencing January 1, 2011, licensees who have not previously submitted fingerprints, or for whom a record of the submission of fingerprints no longer exists, to complete the process necessary for a state and federal level criminal offender record information search, as specified. The bill would require licensees applying for license renewal to certify compliance with that requirement, as specified, and would subject a licensee to disciplinary action for making a false certification. The bill would also require a licensee to, as a condition of renewal of the license, notify the board on the license renewal form if he or she, or any member of the personnel of record of the licensee, has been convicted, as defined, of a felony or misdemeanor since the last renewal, or if this is the licensee's first renewal, since the initial license was issued. The bill would provide that the Contractors' State License Board shall implement the provisions pertaining to renewal licenses on a specified schedule, after an appropriation is made for this purpose, utilizing its applicable fees.
- Who sponsors SB 389?
- SB 389 is sponsored by Negrete McLeod.
- What is the current status of SB 389?
- This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track SB 389?
- Track SB 389 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 389
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 389
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →