HB2027 makes targeted changes to the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners and the committee on behavior analysts. The bill reduces the board from 10 members to 8 and changes the required composition of the board, while preserving gubernatorial appointment, five-year terms, compensation, and immunity provisions. It also updates the board’s duties to reflect a more direct role for the committee on behavior analysts in licensing and regulation matters.
The bill specifically authorizes the board to delegate to the committee on behavior analysts the board’s authority over behavior analyst licensing and regulation under specified statutes, and requires the board to adopt substantive policy statements for each delegated authority. It also keeps in place the committee’s role in making recommendations on behavior analyst licensing and regulatory issues, while requiring public input from behavior analyst licensees or their representatives before final recommendations are made. The act takes effect after June 30, 2026.
Impact
HB2027 would amend Arizona statutes governing the state board of psychologist examiners and the committee on behavior analysts, primarily by restructuring board membership and clarifying delegation authority for behavior analyst licensing functions. It changes A.R.S. sections 32-2062, 32-2063, and 32-2091.15, reducing the board size, revising membership requirements, and expressly allowing the board to delegate certain licensing and regulatory powers to the behavior analysts committee. The bill would affect board governance, administrative procedures, and the regulatory pathway for behavior analysts in Arizona.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had generally favorable support in the House, passing the House Health & Human Services Committee 10-2, the House Rules Committee 8-0, and the House Third Reading 39-15. That pattern indicates broad support among many legislators, though not unanimous. No committee transcripts were provided, so the discussion record does not show detailed arguments, but the votes suggest the bill was viewed positively overall.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the reduction in board size and the shift in authority over behavior analyst regulation. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a governance and efficiency measure that clarifies the committee’s role and streamlines board operations, while opponents may have been concerned about concentrating authority, changing professional/public representation on the board, or altering oversight of behavior analyst licensing. The 15 no votes on third reading indicate some resistance, but the record provided does not identify specific speakers or objections.