The Committee on Professional Conduct on Friday began a structured conversation about whether California should participate in a national discussion on reducing the current requirement of 80 continuing education hours every two years for active CPA renewal.

Sarah Benedict, manager of the Licensing Renewal and Continuing Competency Unit, told the committee the Uniform Accountancy Act model rules currently recommend 80 hours over two years and staff surveyed other jurisdictions. Staff found most states follow the model rule, but noted exceptions and a range of practices. Benedict said the California Board of Accountancy requires more CE than most other boards and that a statutory change might be needed to alter the hour requirement.

Committee members emphasized the need to establish a clear rationale before proposing a lower hour total. "In a perfect world, there would be multiple peer‑reviewed studies that show that 20 hours of continuing education each year is enough ... That doesn't exist," Chair Doug Aguilera said. Member Hines recommended the board define why continuing education is necessary and identify priority subject areas — for example, ethics and technical updates — before deciding on an hours standard. Member Corrigan said the 80‑hour requirement has existed for a very long time and cautioned against leaving hour decisions entirely to licensees.

Several members suggested the board use its two‑member CE work group (members Aguilera and Bachelor) or create an ad hoc committee to conduct deeper research. Staff explained the existing work group has already started the conversation and offers flexibility for ongoing work; some members noted ad hoc committees have greater formal authority but are subject to Bagley‑Keene public‑meeting rules. Staff advised that statutory amendments may be required if the board decides to change the number of hours.

Jason Fox of the California Society of CPAs told members his organization values competency and lifelong learning and urged a careful, data‑driven evaluation of any changes, including engagement with national organizations and other state boards. Committee members generally agreed the board should remain active in national conversations and directed staff and the work group to gather more data and stakeholder input to support any future rulemaking or legislative proposals.

No formal vote to change the hour requirement was taken; the discussion recorded direction to continue research, engage stakeholders, and return with recommendations for the committee’s consideration.