As our members may know, Senate Bill 132 (SB 132), a bill to establish educational and training requirements for sleep technologists, was introduced into the General Assembly on February 9, 2009 and referred to the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development for a hearing on March 23. SB 132 presents the same language that was in Senate Bill 1526 (SB 1526). Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed SB1526 last year in response to a protracted, contentious debate over the California state budget. The Governor chose to veto SB 1526 along with 137 other bills in order to send a message to the state legislature. The Governor’s veto was completely unrelated to the merits of the bill, which had passed the legislature with a significant bipartisan majority, and was based solely on political reasons. On Monday, March 23, SB 132 was presented to the Senate Business and Professions Committee. The California Sleep Society (CSS) was present along with their lobbyist, as was the California Society for Respiratory Care and the California Medical Association. After a short discussion the Committee voted 10-0 in favor of SB 132.

We have had another successful vote in the Senate. SB 132 has passed with a unanimous vote Ayes: 34, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 6. This is good news since the bill passed unanimously out of the Senate gaining far more then 2/3 vote needed for passage of an Urgency Bill. The bill is now at the Assembly and has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions. We do not have a hearing date set yet. We have been contacted by The Department of Finance (DOF) regarding technologist registration fees under SB 132. As we all know the State is going through difficult budget negotiations and DOF has stated that fees need to be cost neutral. They made it clear that if we do not accept increased registration fees we are likely to face another veto. If these fees are accepted they will drop their opposition. Since DOF did not engaged us in our original bill their correspondence is a good sign that we will not face opposition from the Gov's Office this year - provided that we agree to the increase in costs. They have suggested the following: $182 for the initial fee and $100 biannually. The CSS Board believes this is reasonable and has given our support to the proposed increases. The Legislative Action Committee will continue to keep you posted on further legislative activities as they occur.

To view the bill's progression please Click Here