SB 773 amends Business and Professions Code §2710.5 to delete the clause requiring the Board of Registered Nursing (BRN) to obtain permission from the Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) before forming advisory committees. The bill leaves intact the existing entitlement for committee members to receive a per diem and expense reimbursement as provided in §103.
The change is narrow in text but meaningful in practice: it removes a formal gatekeeping step and gives the BRN unilateral authority to stand up advisory groups to advise on implementing the Nursing Practice Act. That reduces a layer of departmental oversight and changes who controls timing, composition, and initiation of advisory work—issues that matter to practitioners, trade groups, and regulators who rely on those committees for policy input.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill deletes the requirement that the BRN obtain the DCA Director's permission before forming advisory committees; otherwise §2710.5 remains the same, including the per diem/expenses reference to §103. It is a targeted statutory edit rather than a rewrite of committee duties or powers.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the Board of Registered Nursing and the Department of Consumer Affairs; indirectly affects nurses, nursing associations, specialty advisory groups, and potential committee members who advise the board on implementing the Nursing Practice Act.
Why It Matters
Removing the permission step shortens the administrative path to creating advisory committees, potentially accelerating the board's ability to solicit expert advice. It also shifts control over committee formation from the DCA director to the board—an institutional change in regulatory governance.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Under current law BRN may form advisory committees to advise on implementation of the Nursing Practice Act, but the statute required the board to get permission from the Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs before doing so. SB 773 deletes that permission requirement and keeps the remainder of the section intact, including the line that committee members are entitled to a per diem and expense reimbursement under §103.
Practically, the bill removes a formal approval step. The BRN will be able to decide when to convene committees, who to invite, and how to set workstreams without first seeking sign‑off from the DCA Director.
The amendment does not create new substantive authority for those committees—they remain advisory—and it does not change how members are paid or reimbursed beyond continuing the existing statutory reference to §103.Because the change is limited to one clause, the immediate compliance implications are administrative rather than programmatic: the BRN may need to adopt internal procedures for forming and managing advisory groups, while other laws and regulations that govern public meetings, conflicts of interest, and recordkeeping will continue to apply. The statute does not address funding sources for per diem payments or whether the DCA will establish informal policies to coordinate board‑level advisory activity across departments.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 773 amends Business and Professions Code §2710.5 to remove the requirement that the BRN obtain the Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs' permission before forming advisory committees.
The bill leaves in place the existing sentence that members of advisory committees are entitled to a per diem and expenses as provided in §103.
The statutory purpose of the committees—advising the board on implementation of 'this chapter' (the Nursing Practice Act)—is unchanged by the amendment.
The bill text and digest identify no state appropriation for this change and note referral to the fiscal committee; the amendment itself is purely structural.
SB 773 alters only the permission clause in §2710.5; it does not change committee membership rules, powers, or the advisory-only nature of those groups.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Deletes DCA‑director permission requirement
The sole textual change is removal of the phrase that required the Board of Registered Nursing to obtain the Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs' permission before forming advisory committees. That deletion gives the BRN the statutory authority to form such committees on its own initiative. For attorneys and compliance officers, the practical import is that one statutory checkpoint disappears; any procedural constraints on committee formation will now come from the board's internal rules or from other statutes, not from §2710.5.
Per diem and expense entitlement remains tied to §103
SB 773 preserves the clause entitling advisory committee members to a per diem and reimbursement for expenses 'as provided in Section 103.' The bill does not change how those payments are calculated or funded; it merely keeps the existing cross‑reference. That leaves open administrative questions about which budget lines pay per diem and whether standing up more committees will increase claims against the board's appropriation.
Advisory role unchanged; no new statutory powers
Although the bill increases BRN's discretion to form committees, it does not expand what those committees may do: they remain purely advisory under the statute. The amendment therefore affects process (who decides and when) rather than substance (what committees may recommend). Stakeholders should look to other statutes and board regulations for constraints on membership selection, public‑meeting obligations, conflict‑of‑interest rules, and recordkeeping.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Board of Registered Nursing — Gains autonomy to convene advisory committees without a separate approval step, allowing faster response to policy questions and greater control over timing and priorities.
- Nursing associations and professional stakeholders — Can expect quicker opportunities to engage with the board via advisory groups when the BRN decides to form them, shortening the lag between issues arising and formal advice being solicited.
- Subject‑matter experts and prospective committee members — Face fewer administrative hurdles to being asked to serve because the BRN can initiate committee formation directly.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Consumer Affairs (Director's office) — Loses a statutory gatekeeping role that provided oversight and coordination across boards, potentially reducing its ability to ensure consistency across advisory groups.
- BRN administrative staff — Take on the operational burden of forming, managing, and documenting advisory committees without the additional check or administrative support that might have come from DCA review.
- State budget managers / BRN budget — While the bill contains no appropriation, increased or more frequent committees could raise per‑diem and expense claims against existing BRN funds, producing budgetary pressure if not planned for.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades centralized oversight for board autonomy: it empowers the BRN to act faster and more independently in convening advisers, but it reduces a departmental check designed to ensure coordination, consistency, and potentially fiscal prudence across California's licensing boards.
SB 773 is a surgical change to agency governance but leaves a number of operational and accountability questions open. The statute removes one approval mechanism without specifying alternative checks: it does not address how the BRN will ensure consistent selection criteria, transparency, or conflict‑of‑interest screening for committee members.
Those topics are governed elsewhere, but the bill creates a practical expectation that the BRN will adopt internal protocols or that DCA will issue nonstatutory guidance to preserve statewide consistency.
The financial consequences are ambiguous. The bill reaffirmed entitlement to per diem under §103 but did not allocate funds or change budget authority.
If the board uses the new authority to convene more or longer‑running committees, per‑diem payments and administrative costs could increase; absent a budget adjustment, those costs will need to be absorbed within the BRN's existing appropriation. Lastly, the amendment may shift informal power dynamics: removing the Director's permission could speed advisory formation but also reduce a central coordination point that can prevent duplication across boards or conflicting advisory panels.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.