Ms. Geranen: Originally, there were pages and pages – a laundry list — of tasks for RVTs. We had immediate supervision, direct and indirect.
It was pretty much unworkable. Nobody could tell what anybody was supposed to do. We eliminated the immediate direct and indirect
language in 1982 or 1983. Our RVT committee was made up of governor appointees. There was a California RVT association in
the 1980s that never went anywhere. In the 1990s, there was no appointment to the committee. Basically there wasn't anything
happening in the RVT profession on a regulatory level. Then we went through sunset review. The committee was "sunsetted" as
a separate government appointee committee. It became an advisory committee to the board, with the board making appointments.
In 1998, we had our first full committee in 20 years. So they got very active. During the first meeting of the RVT committee
in California, they wanted to look at job tasks, authority, requiring name badges for hospitals that show name and title –
who's registered, who isn't. There was a whole rash of issues. This is an emerging profession. It's something we need to address
with the association, regulators, with different states like Texas. This is all consumer-driven. They are asking for more
services, higher-level services, we're being told there's a shortage of veterinarians. There's a critical need for more staff,
more RVTs, which is one of the items driving the grandfather clause, along with increasing educational opportunities for registration
as a veterinary technician.