A performance audit of the Arizona State Board of Technical Registration

              STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT
of
THE ARIZONA STATE
BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION
SEPTEMBER 1979
THE STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION
HAS BEEN REMISS IN ITS DUTY TO PROTECT THE
SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 78- 9
DOUGUS R. NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
LINDA J. BLESSING, CPA
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
September 10, 1979
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor
Members of the Arizona Legislature
Members of the State Board of Technical Registration
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the State Board of Technical Registration. This report is
in response to a September 19, 1978, resolution of the Joint Legislative
Budget Committee and a January 18, 1979, resolution of the Joint
Legislative Oversight Committee.
A summary of this report is found on the blue pages at the front of
the report. A response to this report from the members of the State
Board of Techincal Registration is found on the yellow pages preceding
the appendices of the report.
My staff and I will be happy to meet with the appropriate legislative
committees, individual legislators or other state officials to discuss
or clarify any items in this report or to facilitate the implementation
of the recommendations.
Respectfully submitted,
~ 0 ~ ~ R. 1 N% or ton
Auditor General
Staff: Gerald A. Silva
Brian C. Dalton
Brent L. Nelson
2700 NORTH CENTRAL AVE. SUITE 700 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 ( 602) 255- 4385
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
Page
1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
SUNSET FACTORS
FINDINGS
FINDING I
The S t a t e Board of Technical Registration has been
remiss i n its duty to protect t h e s a f e t y , health
and welfare of the public.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION
FINDING I1
The absence of written p o l i c i e s and adequate records
of proceedings precludes a determination t h a t the
Board of Technical Registration has exercised its
discretionary authority i n the public i n t e r e s t .
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION
FINDING I11
Changes needed t o improve the efficiency and effec-tiveness
of t h e S t a t e Board of Technical Registration.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION
FINDING I V
The S t a t e Board of Technical Registration has been
substandard i n its encouragement and use of public
input i n its operations. Information regarding
meeting notices, proposed r u l e s and regulations, and
Board action h a s n o t been adequately provided t o
licensees of the Board or the consumers of the
l i c e n s e e s t services.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
Page
WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I - Legislative Council memorandums
APPENDIX I1 - Summary of complaints received by the Board
from April 1964 through June 1979
APPENDIX I11 - Summary of Board discussions regarding investi-gations
and fund balance
APPENDIX IV - Trend line analysis of the number of annual
license renewals
APPENDIX V - Trend line analysis of Board of Technical
Registration expenditures
APPENDIX VI - Summary of the results of an Auditor General
survey of licensees of the State Board of
Technical Registration
APPENDIX VII - State Board of Accountancy's disciplinary
procedures
APPENDIX VIII - Summary of evaluative criteria adopted by
the Board since March 1, 1979
APPENDIX IX - Summary of licensure examinations administered
by the State Board of Technical Registration
APPENDIX X - Attorney General memorandum regarding public
notice
APPENDIX XI - An evaluation of examinations administered by
by the architects section of the Architects,
Professional Engineers, Designers and Land
Surveyors Examining Board ( State of Wisconsin)
APPENDIX XI1 - Technical Registration Act ( ARS 32- 101 through
32- 146)
APPENDIX XI11 - State Board of Technical Registration Rules
and Regulations ( R4- 30- 01 through R4- 30- 76)
SUMMARY
The Arizona S t a t e Board of Technical Registration was established in 1921. The
i n i t i a l l e g i s l a t i o n provided f o r the regulation of the p r a c t i c e of
a r c h i t e c t u r e , assaying, engineering and land surveying. Geology was added in
1956 and landscape a r c h i t e c t u r e was added in 1968.
The Board is responsible for the administration and enforcement of Arizona laws
r e l a t i n g to the p r a c t i c e of the s i x professions. These duties include the
evaluation of applicants for licensure, the issuance of licenses to those
individuals who have f u l f i l l e d the licensure requirement, the annual renewal of
licenses and t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n of complaints and violations of the Technical
Registration Act.
The S t a t e Board of Technical Registration c o n s i s t s o f nine members; three
a r c h i t e c t s , f i v e engineers, and one other member who must be e i t h e r an assayer,
a geologist, a landscape a r c h i t e c t or a land surveyor. Each Board member is
appointed by the Governor t o serve a three- year term.
The a c t i v i t i e s of the Board and its a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e are funded through
fees charged for a p p l i c a t i o n , examination and license renewal, ten percent o f
which is deposited i n the S t a t e General Fund.
Our review revealed t h a t the S t a t e Board of Technical Registration has f a i l e d
t o i n v e s t i g a t e numerous a l l e g a t i o n s of i l l e g a l or incompetent work performed by
persons licensed by the Board. A s a consequence o f t h e Board's nonfeasance,
some public agencies and a number of licensees have ceased f i l i n g complaints
with the Board, and the Board has not f u l f i l l e d its r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o protect
the public against incompetent or unscrupulous licensees. ( page 14)
In addition, our review disclosed t h a t the Board has not 1 ) established
s u f f i c i e n t standards to ensure t h a t a l l applicants for licensure are evaluated 4
equitably, and 2) s u f f i c i e n t l y documented its proceedings and decision- making
process. This absence o f standards and documentation precludes a thorough,
independent, q u a l i t a t i v e evaluation o f the manner i n which the Board has
exercised its d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y . However, our review of the limited 4
records t h a t are a v a i l a b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t the Board may have exercised its
discretionary authority i n an a r b i t r a r y and capricious manner and t h a t the
absence of formal p o l i c i e s causes confusion f o r applicants with r e s u l t a n t
unnecessary expenditures of time and money. ( page 41 )
Our review also disclosed t h a t several changes are needed to improve the
efficiency and e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the Board. The implementation of these changes
could r e s u l t i n a savings of $ 61,741 and 668 s t a f f days over a four- year q
period. ( page 57 )
Further, our review revealed t h a t the S t a t e Board of Technical Registration has
been substandard i n its encouragement of public input from the consumers of a
licensees' services and i n n o t i f y i n g l i c e n s e holders of Board meetings,
proposed r u l e s and regulations, and Board actions. The Board needs t o expand
its e f f o r t s to encourage p a r t i c i p a t i o n by p o t e n t i a l and a c t u a l consumers and to
n o t i f y a l l licensees of Board meetings, a c t i v i t i e s and actions. ( page 67)
Finally, a Legislative Council opinion pointed out t h a t a Board i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
of Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s section 32- 125 may well v i o l a t e federal and s t a t e
laws r e l a t i n g to r e s t r a i n t o f t r a d e . ( page 79) 6
It is recommended that:
1. The State Board of Technical Registration establish an aggressive peer
review program that would work in conjunction with the various building
safety departments throughout the state.
2. The Board increase its license renewal fee to fund additional complaint
investigations work.
3. The Board inform the public and its licensees of its oversight
responsibilities and the results of its disciplinary actions.
4. The Board make a concerted effort to continue to develop formal evaluative
criteria regarding 1) the determination of the adequacy of an applicant's
experience, and 2) the requirement for examination. Once developed,
these criteria should be incorporated into the Board's Rules and Regula-tions.
5. The Board improve the documentation of its decision- making process to
allow for a thorough, independent, qualitative evaluation of the process.
6. Arizona Revised Statutes section 32- 127 and the Board's Rule R4- 30- 29 be
amended to allow for the implementation of a triennial renewal system.
7. The Board's Rule R4- 30- 17 be amended to delete the mandatory requirement
for personal audiences; and, the Board implement an application review
process similar to the one used by the Kansas Board.
8. The Board adopt a policy requiring non- governmental recipients of the
annual roster to pay a nominal fee to cover publication and distribution
costs.
9. The Board of Technical Registration adopt methods to encourage public
input and participation in the promulgation of rules and regulations, the
development of legislative proposals and other decision making processes
of the Board.
10. Arizona Revised Statutes sections 32- 102 and 32- 103 be amended to provide
for public membership on the State Board of Technical Registration.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
In response to a September 19, 1978, resolution o f t h e Joint Legislative Budget
Committee and a January 18, 1979, resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight
Committee, we have conducted a performance audit as a part of the sunset review
of the S t a t e Board of Technical Registration i n accordance with ARS 41- 2351
through 41- 2374.
The S t a t e Board of Technical Registration ( Board) was established in 1921 t o
regulate t h e p r a c t i c e of a r c h i t e c t u r e , assaying, engineering and land
surveying. Geology was added in 1956 and landscape a r c h i t e c t u r e was added i n
1968. The nine member Board is composed of three a r c h i t e c t s , f i v e professional
engineers and one other member who must be an assayer, landscape a r c h i t e c t ,
geologist or surveyor. Each member is appointed by the Governor for a three-year
term.
The Board is responsible for t h e administration and enforcement of Arizona laws
concerning the p r a c t i c e of the aforementioned professions. Board d u t i e s
include :
1. Administration of i n i t i a l licensure examinations.
2. Issuance of licenses to individuals meeting the Board's education,
t e s t i n g and experience requirements.
3. Annual renewal of licenses.
4. Resolution of complaints and violations of the Technical
Registration Act.
The Board and its o f f i c e are funded through fees charged for application,
examination and l i c e n s e renewal. Ten percent of the fees received a r e
deposited i n the S t a t e General Fund while the remaining 90 percent are used for
Board operations within the l i m i t s of an annual budget approved by the
Legislature.
The Board employs a full- time staff of four and r e n t s o f f i c e space i n the
Occupational Licensing Building. The employees include an executive
d i r e c t o r , an administrative secretary I, one secretary I1 and one t y p i s t 111.
Employee and r e n t a l expenses are included i n the following budget information
f o r f i s c a l years 1974- 75 through 1978- 79, as shown on Table 1. Also shown is a
summary of the Board's a c t i v i t y l e v e l s f o r the same f i s c a l years.
TABLE 1
REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND
ACTIVITY LEVELS FOR THE STATE
BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION DURING
FISCAL YEAR 1974- 75 THROUGH 1978- 79
Description
F i s c a l Year
1974- 75 1975- 76 1976- 77 1977- 78 1978- 79
Balance Forward $ 1371948 $ 151,470 $ 137,086 $ 120,649 $ 94,747*
REVENUE :
Renewals and penalties 96,884 69,803** 71,149 75,891 80,480
Application fees 25,520 23,005 25,725 26,505 34,559
Examination fees 21,425 21,780 22,295 24,915 29,295
Miscellaneous fees 171 89 123 150 - 0-***
( 10% - General Fund)
EXPENDITURES :
Personal services 48,517 49,594 54,932 61,200 57,324
Employee related 5,887 6,997 7,504 9,900 10,738
Professional services 27,247 22,992 22,956 24,100 26,963
Travel - S t a t e 3,117 3,852 3,704 4,100 2,679
Out of S t a t e 1,417 2 ,593 1,761 3,900 3,846
Other operating 29,661 30,763 32,361 35,100 42,093
Equipment 115 644 282 1 ,500 2,105
Expenditures 115,961 117,435 123,500 139,800 145,748
Refunds 117 158 300 383 - 0-
Total Expenditures 116,078 117,593 123,800 140,183 145,748
Balance Forward $ 151,470 $ 137,086 $ 120,649 $ 95,388 $ 78,900
ACTIVITY MEASUREMENT
FTE Positions
Renewals
Applications - professional
- i n t r a i n i n g
Registrations - professional - i n t r a i n i n g
Examinations - Architects - Engineers & others
Formal hearings
* **** MDInuicsrlicunegdl leafsni saeodcujausls ytfmeeeaersn ta1sr9 et7o 5i- 7nc6co, l rurdreeecndte wwp raiitlho f rae eperpsr lowicresare. t i odne cfreeaesse. d from $ 15 to $ 10.
Regulation O f The Technical
Professions
The first l e g i s l a t i o n r e g u l a t i n g t h e practice of a r c h i t e c t u r e i n the United
S t a t e s was established i n I l l i n o i s i n 1897. Wyoming was the first s t a t e to
adopt l e g i s l a t i o n regulating t h e p r a c t i c e o f engineering and land surveying i n
1907. In 1921, the Arizona Legislature passed the s t a t e r s first Technical
Registration Act which created the S t a t e Board of Registration, the forerunner
of the present Arizona State Board of Technical Registration. By the l a t e
1930rs, 86 percent of the s t a t e s had enacted laws regulating the profession of
a r c h i t e c t u r e , while 88 percent of the states had enacted laws regulating the
p r a c t i c e of engineering and land surveying.
A s shown i n Table 2, all 50 s t a t e s regulate the practice of a r c h i t e c t u r e ,
engineering and land surveying; 35 s t a t e s regulate the practice of landscape
a r c h i t e c t u r e ; seven s t a t e s r e g u l a t e t h e p r a c t i c e o f geology; and f i n a l l y , from
the available information, Arizona is the only state t h a t regulates the
p r a c t i c e of assaying.
TABLE 2
A COMPARISON OF STATE
REGULATION OF TECHNICAL PROFESSIONS
State
Alabama
Alaska
ARIZONA
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
I l l i n o i s
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washing ton
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Architects
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Engineers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Land
Surveyors
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Landscape
Architects Geologists Assayers
A s of January 1 , 1979, engineers accounted for almost two- thirds of the 8024 9
persons licensed by the Board, while a r c h i t e c t s accounted for almost one- fourth
of the licensees. The other four professions comprise the remainder of the
Board's licensees. Table 3 summarizes the numbers, type and residence of those
persons licensed by the Board as of January 1, 1979. 4
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF THE NUMBER, TYPE
AND RESIDENCE OF THOSE PERSONS
LICENSED BY THE BOARD AS
OF JANUARY 1, 1979
Type of Residence of Licensees
License In- State Out- of- State Total
Architects 799 1075 1874 a
Assayers 29 2 3 1
Geologists 9 3 70 163
Landscape Architects 8 2 54 136 •
Land Surveyors 258 256 514
Engineers :
Aeronau t i c a 1
Agricultural
Chemi ca 1
Civil
E l e c t r i c a l
Engineering Science
Geological
Geophy s i c a 1
Highway
I n d u s t r i a l
Mechanical
Metallurgical
Mining
Nuclear
Petroleum
Sanitary
S t r u c t u r a l
Combined Licenses
Total Engineers
Total Licenses
A s Table 3 i l l u s t r a t e s , more than 51 percent of those persons licensed with the
Board reside outside o f t h e S t a t e of Arizona. A s of January 1 , 1979, there were
799 a r c h i t e c t s , 29 assayers, 26 18 engineers, 93 g e o l o g i s t s , 258 land surveyors
and 82 landscape a r c h i t e c t s licensed and residing i n Arizona.
The majority of the licensure examinations administered by the Board* are
developed and updated by three national councils:
1. The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards ( NCARB),
2. The National Council of Engineering Examiners ( NCEE), and
3. The Council of Landscape Architecture Registration Boards ( CLARB).
The S t a t e Board of Technical Registration is an a c t i v e member of a l l three
councils.
The Office o f the Auditor General expresses its g r a t i t u d e t o the members o f t h e
S t a t e Board of Technical Registration and the Board's administrative staff for
t h e i r cooperation, assistance and consideration during the course of our audit.
* Appendix I X contains a summary of the Board's examinations.
SUNSET FACTORS
I n accordance with ARS 41- 2351 through 41- 2374, nine factors were considered to
determine, i n p a r t , whether the S t a t e Board of Technical Registration should
be continued or terminated.
These f a c t o r s are:
1. Objective and purpose in e s t a b l i s h i n g the Board,
2. The degree to which the Board has been able to respond to the needs of the
public and the efficiency with which it has operated,
3. The extent to which the Board has operated within the public i n t e r e s t ,
4. The extent to which rules and regulations promulgated by the Board are
consistent with the l e g i s l a t i v e mandate, a
5. The extent to which the Board has encouraged input from the public before
promulgating its rules and regulations and t h e e x t e n t to which it has
informed the public a s t o its actions and t h e i r expected impact on the
public,
6. The extent to which the Board has been able to i n v e s t i g a t e and resolve
complaints t h a t are within its j u r i s d i c t i o n ,
7. The extent to which the Attorney General or any other applicable agency of
s t a t e government has the authority to prosecute actions under the enabling a
l e g i s l a t i o n ,
8. The extent to which the Board has addressed deficiencies in its enabling
s t a t u t e s which prevent it from f u l f i l l i n g its s t a t u t o r y mandate, and
9. The extent to which changes are necessary i n the laws of the Board to
adequately comply with the f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n t h i s subsection.
a
SUNSET FACTOR: OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE
I N ESTABLISHING THE BOARD
A 1970 amendment to the Technical Registration Act included the following:
" The purpose of t h i s chapter is to provide for the safety, .
health and welfare of the public through the promulgation
and enforcement o f standards of q u a l i f i c a t i o n f o r those
individuals licensed and seeking licenses pursuant t o t h i s
chapter. tt
SUNSET FACTOR: THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE
BOARD HAS BEEN ABLE TO RESPOND TO THE NEEDS
OF THE PUBLIC AND THE EFFICIENCY WITH WHICH
IT HAS OPERATED
The S t a t e Board of Technical Registration has been remiss i n its duty to
protect the public through the promulgation and enforcement of standards o f
p r o f e s s i o n a l p r a c t i c e . ( page 14)
Our review of the S t a t e Board of Technical Registration has revealed t h a t
several changes are needed to improve the efficiency of the Board's operations.
( page 57
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE
BOARD HAS OPERATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST
Because of inadequate records and a lack o f formal written guidelines, we were
unable to evaluate the manner i n which the Board has exercised its
discretionary power i n two of its primary functions-- the conduct of
d i s c i p l i n a r y proceedings ( page 18) and the review of applicants'
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r licensure. ( page 41 )
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH RULES
AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE BOARD
ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
After reviewing the r u l e s and regulations promulgated by the S t a t e Board of
Technical Registration, we have determined t h a t these rules and regulations,
except as noted below, are consistent with ARS 32- 101 et seq.
ARS 32- 124 s p e c i f i e s t h a t " The Board s h a l l publish i n its rules a schedule of
f e e s . . . f o r services rendered a s required which s h a l l not exceed one hundred a
dollars." Our review shows t h a t the fees, as presented i n A r t i c l e 3 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, exceed t h e s t a t u t o r y l i m i t a t i o n of one hundred
d o l l a r s . ( page 63)
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE
BOARD HAS ENCOURAGED INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC
BEFORE PROMULGATING ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS
AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT HAS INFORMED THE
PUBLIC AS TO ITS ACTIONS AND THEIR EXPECTED
IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC
The meetings of t h e S t a t e Board of Technical Registration are open t o the
public. Notices of meetings are posted i n the Occupational Licensing Building. ( I
The Board a l s o indicated t h a t they n o t i f y professional s o c i e t i e s of scheduled
hearings regarding proposed r u l e s and regulations changes. Our review,
however, revealed t h a t the Board has not c o n s i s t e n t l y n o t i f i e d these
professional s o c i e t i e s of the hearings. ( page 72)
In addition, our review showed t h a t the Board has been substandard i n its
encouragement and use o f public input i n its operations. ( page 67)
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE
BOARD HAS BEEN ABLE TO INVESTIGATE AND
RESOLVE COMPLAINTS THAT ARE WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION
Because of the nonfeasance of prior boards, a number of licensees and some
public agencies no longer f i l e complaints with the Board. In addition, it
appears t h a t some consumers a r e not f i l i n g complaints with the Board.
( page 32)
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE
AGENCY OF STATE GOVERNMENT HAS THE
AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE ACTIONS UNDER THE
ENABLING LEGISLATION
According t o the Board's current Assistant Attorney General, the Technical
Registration Act provides s u f f i c i e n t grounds f o r the Board t o
i n i t i a t e d i s c i p l i n a r y proceedings. S p e c i f i c a l l y , ARS 32- 128( A) s t a t e s :
" The board may take d i s c i p l i n a r y action against the holder
of a c e r t i f i c a t e under t h i s chapter, charged with the
commission of any of the following acts...."
" 2. Gross negligence, incompetence, bribery, or other
misconduct i n the practice of h i s profession."
In addition, ARS 32- 106.01 allows the Board t o p e t i t i o n t h e superior court for
an injunction t o enjoin the practice of any of the regulated professions by an
unregistered person.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE
BOARD HAS ADDRESSED DEFICIENCIES I N
ITS ENABLING STATUTES WHICH PREVENT
IT FROM FULFILLING ITS STATUTORY
MANDATE
The S t a t e Board of Technical Registration worked for the passage of the
amendment t h a t provided the Board with injunctive powers t o stop unlicensed
a c t i v i t i e s . However, the Board has not a c t i v e l y supportedanylegislation since
1974. ( page 72)
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH
CHANGES ARE NECESSARY I N THE LAWS OF
THE BOARD TO ADEQUATELY COMPLY WITH
THE FACTORS LISTED I N THIS SUBSECTION
For a discussion of t h i s issue see pages 40, 65 and 66.
FINDING I
THE STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION HAS BEEN REMISS I N ITS DUTY TO
PROTECT THE SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
The S t a t e Board of Technical Registration ( Board) has f a i l e d to investigate
numerous a l l e g a t i o n s of i l l e g a l or incompetent work performed by persons
licensed by the Board. A s a consequence of the Board's nonfeasance, some
public agencies and a number of licensees have ceased f i l i n g complaints with
the Board, and the Board is not f u l f i l l i n g its r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to protect the
public against incompetent or unscrupulous licensees.
Board's Oversight Responsibility
A 1970 amendment t o the Technical Registration Act contains a s p e c i f i c
statement of l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t regarding the Board's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o
maintain professional standards. Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s section 32- 101,
subsection A reads:
" The purpose of t h i s chapter is to provide for t h e s a f e t y ,
health and welfare of the public through the promulgation
and enforcement of standards o f q u a l i f i c a t i o n s for those
i n d i v i d u a l s l i c e n s e d and seeking licenses pursuant t o t h i s
chapter . "
Additionally, i n 1958 the Arizona Supreme Court issued a j o i n t decision on
t h r e e r e l a t e d cases t h a t challenged d i f f e r e n t sections of the Technical
Registration Act. In the Case of S t a t e Board of Technical R e ~ i s t r a t i o n v. a
McDaniel, the c o u r t o u t l i n e d the Board's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e investigation
of complaints by s t a t i n g :
" Indeed the Board would be remiss in its duty if it did not
i n v e s t i g a t e complaints made t o it t o see if such a c t s
constituted professional misconduct s u f f i c i e n t upon which
t o predicate formal charges."*
* The 1958 Supreme Court ruling provided the Board with a clear d e f i n i t i o n
of its r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o i n v e s t i g a t e complaints against r e q i s t r a n t s . A
review of Board records indicates t h a t the Board has known of the 1958 ruling.
For example, at the Board's June 1974 meeting, a Board member referred
s p e c i f i c a l l y to the 1958 ruling by s t a t i n g :
"...( In) a Supreme Court decision of ten t o 15 years ago... the court
s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d we would be neglectful i n our d u t i e s if we did
not a c t i v e l y engage i n enforcing our s t a t u t e s . "
Further, the Board has i d e n t i f i e d as one of its goals the protection of the
safety, health and welfare of the public "... by enforcing the regulations
governing professional performances through investigation and resolution of
violations."*
Our review of the Board has revealed t h a t i n s p i t e of s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i v e
i n t e n t , legal precedent and its own statement of goals the Board has f a i l e d to
adequately pursue numerous a l l e g a t i o n s of illegal or incompetent work
performed by its licensees.
Board's Disciplinary Activity
From April 1964 to June 1979, Board records indicate t h a t the Board has
received and accepted 96 complaints.** Table 4 summarizes these complaints.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINTS RECEIVED AND ACCEPTED
BY THE STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION
FROM APRIL 1964 TO JUNE 1979
Basis of Complaint
Unlicensed practice
Aiding and abetting unlicensed practice
Illegal use of t i t l e
Working outside d i s c i p l i n e
Negligence, incompetence, misconduct
Unethical conduct***
Incomplete/ faulty design
Fee dispute
S o l i c i t i n g bids
Failure to complete project
Contract default
Plagiarism
Total Complaints
Percentage of Complaints
Complaint Filed Against
Licensee Non- Licensee Total
* Source: Statement of goals as presented i n the Board's budget requests
***** pATrypepppee anrodefidx mIii1ns c Acoonudngutuacsitt nns1 o9a7t 4ss, ypn1e9oc7ip6fsi ieasdn do ifn 1t9 hc7eo8sm. ep l9a6i ncto mfiplela. i nts.
A s shown i n Table 4, a majority ( 56%) of the 96 complaints received and
accepted by the Board were against non- licensees. Further a n a l y s i s o f these 96
complaints revealed t h a t a vast majority of the complaints received and a
accepted by the Board ( 69%) are f i l e d by licensees and not by the public, a s
shown i n Table 5.
TABLE 5
SOURCE OF COMPLAINT RECEIVED AND
ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD FROM
APRIL 1964 TO JUNE 1979
Number of Complaints
Complaints Filed By Filed
Licensees
Public
Not indicated
Percentage
Of the above 96 complaints, only 15 resulted in any d i s c i p l i n a r y actions. •
Table 6 summarizes the 15 formal hearings and subsequent d i s c i p l i n a r y actions
t h a t resulted from the 96 complaints received by the Board during the 15 year
period from April 1964 through June 1979.
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF THE 15 DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS
THAT HAVE BEEN HELD BY THE BOARD OF
TECHNICAL REGISTRATION FROM APRIL 1964
TO JUNE 1979
Disciplinary Action
Taken by the Board
License License
Revoked Suspended None
Charges
Against
Licensee
Hearing
Date Comment
December 1967 Aiding and Abetting an
Unlicensed Person Decision reversed by
Superior Court because
the revocation "... was
too severe a p e n a l t y ,
and t h e r e f o r e an
unreasonable a c t i o n . .."
September 1969
September 1969
December 1970
P r a c t i c i n g Outside of
D i s c i p l i n e
Aiding and Abetting an
Unlicensed Person
Aiding and Abetting an
Unlicensed Person
X ( 1 month)
X ( 1 month)
X ( 6 months) Board immediately
r e i n s t a t e d l i c e n s e
February 1971
February 1971
February 1971
February 1971
Aiding and Abetting an
Unlicensed Person
Aiding and Abetting an
Unlicensed Person . .. .
Aiding and Abetting an
Unlicensed Person
Aiding and Abetting an
Unlicensed Person
X ( 3 months)
X ( 6 months)
X ( 90 days) Not an a c t i v e l i c e n s e
when suspended
August 1972 Negligence, Misconduct
o r Incompetence
Negligence, Misconduct
o r Incompetence
Incompetent Design
Aiding and Abetting an
Unlicensed Person
Aiding and Abetting an
Unlicensed Person
Negligence, Misconduct
o r Incompetence
X ( 90 days) Surveying e r r o r
January 1973
X ( 120 days) Surveying e r r o r
September 1974
December 1974
X ( 30 days)
X ( 90 days)
December 1974
February 1976
It should be noted
t h a t the Board found
the l i c e n s e e not
g u i l t y i n s p i t e of an
e a r l i e r Superior Court
r u l i n g a g a i n s t t h e
l i c e n s e e i n a r e l a t e d
C i v i l Case.
May 1977 Aiding and Abetting an
Unlicensed Person X ( 6 months)
Inadequate Records
Our examination o f the complaint records revealed t h a t most of the files do not
contain s u f f i c i e n t information to allow for a thorough analysis of the Board's
d i s c i p l i n a r y procedures.* Many of the files indicated t h a t the complaint was
closed without any indication of 1) formal Board action closing the file or 2)
how the complaint was resolved. In most cases, however, we were able to
determine t h e s u b j e c t , source and nature of the complaint.
Further, our review of the records o f the complaints t h a t resulted in the 15
formal hearings showed t h a t t r a n s c r i p t s of the proceedings were included i n
only three of the files. Finally, most of the files for the formal hearings did
not include s u f f i c i e n t information regarding why the Board 1) reached t h e i r
decision or 2) imposed d i f f e r e n t d i s c i p l i n a r y sanctions f o r similar
v i o l a t i o n s .
Board's Failure t o I n v e s t i ~ a t eC omplaints
The 96 complaints and t h e i r u l t i m a t e r e s o l u t i o n represent the sum and substance
o f t h e Board's d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n s during the 15 year period from April 1964
to June 1979, However, our review of the Board's i n v e s t i g a t i o n and resolution
of a l l e g a t i o n s of i l l e g a l or incompetent work being performed by its licensees
revealed t h a t the Board's performance is more notable f o r its absence of
appropriate action than for the actions t h a t have been taken. The following
cases are i l l u s t r a t i v e of the Board's consistent f a i l u r e t o pursue a l l e g a t i o n s
of illegal or incompetent work by its licensees.
* See page 41 for further discussion o f t h e Board's records.
Case 1
The City of Phoenix - During the l a t e 1960' s and early 19701s, the Plans
Review Section o f the City of Phoenix Building Safety Department experienced a
workload problem. A backlog of reviews had resulted from a dramatic increase
i n the number of plans t h a t required multiple reviews. These multiple reviews
were required because design professionals ( a r c h i t e c t s and engineers licensed
by the Board) were submitting substandard work. City o f f i c i a l s who were
involved i n the plan review process f e l t t h a t many of the submitted design
p r o j e c t s were grossly incompetent.
On several occasions building s a f e t y o f f i c i a l s requested the Board to review
design plans they felt were examples of incompetent work. According to one of
the City o f f i c i a l s , the Board refused to review the work because t h e C i t y had
not f i l e d a sworn complaint against a s p e c i f i c licensee. The City refused t o
f i l e a formal complaint with the Board because -
1. Such an action might jeopardize t h e i r ongoing, working r e l a t i o n s h i p
with the design professionals, and
2. City Building Safety o f f i c i a l s f e l t t h a t the Board should take an
a c t i v e d i s c i p l i n a r y posture and i n i t i a t e the necessary formal
complaints.
The following sequence of events chronicles the Board's f a i l u r e to i n v e s t i g a t e
the City of Phoenix's a l l e g a t i o n of incompetent design work.
December 1 1, 1970
Situation - A t its December 11, 1970 meeting, the Executive Director o f
the Board reported t h a t the City of Phoenix wanted the Board
to appoint a committee to review design plans submitted to
the City. During the meeting the Chairman of the Board
commented, " The Board has had considerable discussion i n
the past of plans being prepared by incompetent people, but
complaints were not acted on t h a t were submitted by the City
of Phoenix." It was the Chairman's opinion t h a t a committee
should be established to review the plans and s e l e c t any t h a t
required f u r t h e r Board action.
Board Action - An ad- hoc committee was assigned to study the need for the
requested review committee.
February 18, 1971
Situation - A t the February 18, 1971 Board meeting, the ad- hoc committee
presented its report to the Board, which s t a t e d , in part:
" On Wednesday, December 30, 1970, Committee on
Plan Review met with City of Phoenix
staff.. . for the purpose of discussing means of
reviewing construction drawings for buildings
submitted f o r building permit which do not have
s u f f i c i e n t information to assure construction
of a building conforming t o Safety Code
requirements.
( City o f f i c i a l ) s t a t e d t h a t the submission of
incomplete plans has become a chronic problem
with some r e g i s t r a n t s - t h a t additional plan
checking fees and resubmittal time have not
been e f f e c t i v e i n correcting the problem. The
City of Phoenix staff i n cooperation with
American I n s t i t u t e of Architects have suggested
the appointment of a Committee for reviewinq
plans and f i l i n g complaints a ~ a i n s rte g i s t r a n t s
who continually submit incomplete plans,
however, City Attorney has expressed the
opinion t h a t u n t i l Building Permit has been
issued, plans are not available f o r public
review. The City w i l l not allow review of such
plans due t o l i a b i l i t y involved.
City Attorney suggested S t a t e Board of
Technical Registration provide for plan review
committee under its Rules and By- Laws with
authority t o review plans prior t o issue of
Building Permit. This would operate a t a S t a t e
level and would reduce l i a b i l i t y of p a r t i e s
concerned provided review requirements conform
to reasonable consistent professional
practice . ( Emphasis added)
Board Action - The Board directed its ad- hoc committee t o "... make a
concrete suggestion on the plans review committee f o r the
City. "
June 18, 1971
Situation - The ad- hoc committee reported to the Board a t its June 18,
1971 meeting, that a group of local licensed architects and
engineers had volunteered to review design plans for the
City.
Board Action - None
COMMENT - The ad- hoc committee never made a formal recommendation to
f u l l Board regarding the establishment of a plans review
committee for the City of Phoenix.
January 19, 1973
Situation - The volunteer group of architects and engineers appeared
before the Board a t its January 19, 1973 meeting to request
the Board's assistance because they had reviewed a number of
design projects that were examples of substandard work.
Board Action - The Board directed the volunteer group to f i l e verified
complaints with the Board a f t e r they had sufficient
evidence.
December 14, 1973
Situation - A t the December 1 , 1973 Board meeting, a Board member
recommended t h a t the Board hire a full- time investigator
"... due to the poor quality of plans being submitted to the
City of P h ~ e n i x . ~
Board Action - None
In spite of continual reports of incompetent work by its licensees over a
period of a t l e a s t 3 years the Board failed to investigate the complaints. A s a
r e s u l t of its inaction, the Board was " remiss in its duty. ..( to) investigate
complaints... to see i f such acts constituted professional misconduct
sufficient upon which to predicate formal charges." ( page 14)
According to the licensed a r c h i t e c t who served as chairman of the volunteer
group, t h e i r primary goal was t o i d e n t i f y the major problem areas as a means t o
help improve the overall q u a l i t y of design work i n the Phoenix area. It was not
the group's o r i g i n a l intention to file complaints with the Board. However,
a f t e r the group encountered some design projects t h a t they considered to be
" f l a g r a n t v i o l a t i o n s , " t h e chairman felt the group should file complaints with
the Board. Other members o f t h e group, however, refused to sign complaints
because of t h e t h r e a t of personal l i a b i l i t y . According to the chairman of the
volunteer group, the Board refused to consider anything other than a verified
( notarized) complaint.
It should be noted t h a t i n its fiscal year 1975- 76 Budget Request ( which was
prepared i n August 1974) the Board i d e n t i f i e d , as a " Pressing Issue,"
" Co- ordination with all p o l i t i c a l subdivisions empowered
t o issue building permits..."
However, our review revealed t h a t the Board has not attempted to e s t a b l i s h a
working r e l a t i o n s h i p with the building safety departments functioning within
the p o l i t i c a l subdivisions o f the state.
( I
Case 2
The City of Phoenix - A Concerned Licensee - Minutes of the Board reveal
t h a t a t least one other person was concerned about the q u a l i t y of work being
submitted t o the City o f Phoenix. This individual, a licensed engineer,
reported these concerns along with a l l e g a t i o n s of i l l e g a l practices t o the
Board. The individual was unsuccessful i n persuading the Board to take
appropriate a c t i o n , a s chronicled by the following events.
December 13, 1968
Situation - A licensed engineer appeared before the Board a t its
December 13, 1968 meeting t o discuss the inadequacies of
several sets o f plans t h a t had been submitted to the City o f
Phoenix.
Board Action - According to the Board's minutes:
"... the consensus o f t h e Board was t h a t if ( t h e
complainant) would produce the plans together
with supplemental information to the o f f i c e of
the Board with a letter in writing, the matter
could be taken i n t o consideration by Grievance
Committee # 1 f o r investigation." ( Emphasis
added)
December 16, 1968
Situation - The complainant submitted a written complaint t o the Board
which s t a t e d , i n part:
" The City Plan Check Department has uncovered
many s e t s of plans t h a t are in d i r e c t v i o l a t i o n
or fail completely to comply with the accepted
minimums of good engineering practice.
The e l e c t r i c a l engineers have set up some
minimum standards f o r e l e c t r i c a l plans which
have been reviewed and accepted ( by the Board)
as guidelines for basic requirements.
A s an i n t e r e s t e d e l e c t r i c a l engineer, I have
been working closely with the City on codes,
standards and revisions, and feel the following
from a list of u n s a t i s f a c t o r y plans should be
reviewed by the Board as a start." ( Emphasis
added)
March 28, 1969
Situation - A t the Board's March 28, 1969 meeting, Grievance Committee
# 1 recommended t h a t the f u l l Board consider the submitted 0
complaint.
Board Action - The Board directed its Executive Director and Assistant
Attorney General t o investigate the l e t t e r of complaint and
r e p o r t t h e r e s u l t s of t h e i r investigation t o Grievance a
Committee # I before the next Board meeting.
COMMENT - There is no indication t h a t an investigation was ever
conducted o r t h a t a report was ever submitted t o Grievance
Committee # I.
May 29, 1970
Situation - The complainant submitted the following l e t t e r t o the
Assistant Attorney General responsible for the Board:
" You w i l l r e c a l l from our recent correspondence
and telephone conversation that we f e e l the
Arizona Technical Board of Registration has
f a i l e d t o a c t on behalf of the c i t i z e n s i n
connection with the violation of s t a t e law. I
have s e l e c t e d t h r e e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e examples for
your information and further investigation and
I have i n my possession s e v e r a l o t h e r
s i t u a t i o n s t h a t a r e similar in nature.
You w i l l note that the reference items number
one and two are signed by a r c h i t e c t s and advise
t h e i r c l i e n t that they are not responsible for
a complete s e t of plans and/ or the e l e c t r i c a l
contractor is responsible for i n s t a l l a t i o n and
calculations. I n e i t h e r case the professional
is aiding and abetting contractors to perform
engineering services. The t h i r d example is of
a contractor signing as an engineer without a
seal." ( Emphasis added)
wThe first and t h i r d examples were presented to
the S t a t e Technical Board of Registration and
they have taken no action for over one year. In
f a c t several other of my personal requests for
i n v e s t i g a t i n g malpractice have been ignored.
Please do not consider my own experiences as
the only times t h a t the Board has f a i l e d to a c t
or even i n v e s t i g a t e unprofessional conduct or
professional p r a c t i c e not short of fraud. The
City of Phoenix Building Department haspp--
l i t e r a l l y given up trying to get action. The
exact number of unprofessional designs
submitted to the City is unknown, but I would
judge they are i n the hundreds. These records
can be subpoenaed to s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e f a c t s , if
necessary.
I w i l l appreciate a reply to t h i s matter at
your e a r l i e s t convenience, and volunteer t o
a s s i s t you i n any way possible to see t h a t the
Technical Registration Board begins to function
i n the best i n t e r e s t of a l l people in our f i n e
State. Maybe your o f f i c e needs to give them
additional support i n matters effecting public,
health and safety." ( Emphasis added)
June 5, 1970
The Assistant Attorney General responded to the complainant as follows:
" While I appreciate your i n t e r e s t , I must
inform you t h a t t h i s o f f i c e , pursuant t o ARS
41- 191, is limited to rendering l e g a l services
to departments and agencies of the S t a t e , and
has no supervisory control over such agencies.
Additionally, there are no common law powers or
d u t i e s which a t t a c h t o t h e o f f i c e o f the
Attorney General, but only those prescribed by
s t a t u t e . Shute v. Frohmiller, 53 Ariz. 483,
90 p. 2d 998. n( Emphasis added)
" As I note t h a t a copy of your correspondence
has already been directed t o t h e o f f i c e of the
Chief ~ x e c u t i v e , I am forwarding your
suggestions t o the Board of Technical
Registration for review or whatever action they
deem necessary." ( Emphasis added)
June 24, 1970
Situation - A t its June 24, 1970 meeting, the Board reviewed the l e t t e r
sent t o the Assistant Attorney General and the Assistant
Attorney General's response.
Board Action - The Board directed t h a t :
n... the Assistant Attorney General be advised
the Board had no j u r i s d i c t i o n i n the matters
presented to him.. . ."
No f u r t h e r a c t i o n was taken.
By not taking any a d d i t i o n a l a c t i o n t h e Board f a i l e d , a f t e r a year and a half
delay, t o pursue a complaint t h a t included a l l e g a t i o n s of violations of the
Technical Registration Act. Our review o f t h e Board's complaint files revealed
t h a t a f i l e does not e x i s t for t h i s complaint. ( page 18) Consequently, the ( I
Board's reasons for not pursuing t h i s complaint cannot be documented.
Case 3
I n s u f f i c i e n t Access f o r the Physically Handicapped - In May 1976, the
Assistant Attorney General for the Board sent a letter t o the Board informing
them t h a t he had received three letters alleging t h a t several buildings were
not properly designed o r b u i l t t o accommodate the physically handicapped. The
complainant s t a t e d t h a t t h i s s i t u a t i o n was a v i o l a t i o n of Arizona Revised
S t a t u t e s ( ARS) Title 34, Chapter 4, A r t i c l e 1. The Board f a i l e d to a c t on these
charges of s t a t u t o r y violations as detailed by the following events.
June 11, 1976
Situation - The Assistant Attorney General advised the Board a t its June
11, 1976 meeting t h a t it could i n i t i a t e its own in-v
e s t i g a t i o n o f alleged s t a t u t o r y violations by its licen-
- sees.
Board Action - The Board directed its Executive Director to assess the
problem and report to the Board a t its next meeting.
December 10, 1976
Situation - A t its December 10, 1976 meeting, the Board discussed a
l e t t e r they had received from the same a r c h i t e c t t h a t had
previously contacted the Board's Assistant Attorney General.
The subject of the letter was again violations of ARS T i t l e
34, Chapter 4, Article 1.
Board Action - The Board responded to the a r c h i t e c t t h a t :
"... the law does not provide for policing the
profession as to the conformance t o the l o c a l
codes but if he wants to file a complaint - 9
against a c e r t a i n a r c h i t e c t , it is
permissible." ( Emphasis added)
February 4, 1977
Situation - The a r c h i t e c t f i l e d a formal complaint with the Board
regarding violations of Arizona S t a t u t e s .
Board Action - The Board responded to the a r c h i t e c t that: ". . . t h i s Board does not have any j u r i s d i c t i o n
over this."
By not i n i t i a t i n g its own i n v e s t i g a t i o n or pursuing a formal complaint, the
Board f a i l e d to take appropriate action on a l l e g a t i o n s of s t a t u t o r y v i o l a t i o n s .
In addition, our review o f the Board's complaint files revealed t h a t a file
does not e x i s t f o r t h i s complaint. ( page 18)
Case 4
The Mohave County Attorney - In September 1977, the Board was informed by a
Mohave County Deputy Attorney of s t a t u t o r y violations by a licensee of the
Board. The Deputy Attorney subsequently f i l e d a formal complaint with the
Board; however, the Board never investigated the charges or imposed any
d i s c i p l i n a r y sanctions a g a i n s t t h e l i c e n s e e as outlined by the following
events. 0
September 9, 1977
Situation - On September 9, 1977, the Board received a l e t t e r from the
Office of the Mohave County Attorney. The correspondence
included evidence supporting the a l l e g a t i o n t h a t a
registered land surveyor had violated the provisions of ARS
33- 105.*
Board Action - The Board informed the Deputy County Attorney t h a t its
j u r i s d i c t i o n was limited t o violations of the Technical
Registration Act.
December 2, 1977
Situation - A t its December 2, 1977 meeting, the Board considered a
formal complaint t h a t had been f i l e d by the Mohave County
Deputy Attorney which s t a t e d :
" 1 am enclosing your l e t t e r of September 9,
1977, and am again sending t h e e x h i b i t s , along
with an executed complaint.
Although, as you accurately state, my o r i g i n a l
l e t t e r sets forth a violation of ARS 33- 105, 5
seems c l e a r to me t h a t the Board is empowered
t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s matter and take any
appropriate d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n under the
provisions of ARS 32- 128( A) ( 2) and 32- 128( B)
( providing for i n v e s t i g a t i o n upon o r a l or
written complaints not under oath). n ( Emphasis
added)
* The provisions o f ARS 33- 105 specify the requirements for the recordation
of land surveys.
" Mohave County has encountered some serious
problems with boundary discrepancies due, i n
p a r t , to the f a c t t h a t some surveyors and
engineers have f a i l e d t o c o n s i s t e n t l y a c t i n
complete accord with recording s t a t u t e s
concerning such discrepancies. It is incumbent
upon your board, a s t h e l i c e n s i n g agency for
such individuals, to assure the public t h a t
your licensees w i l l not engage i n such
misconduct. While I don't believe t h a t
criminal action is appropriate or t h a t the
i n d i v i d u a l ' s l i c e n s e should necessarily be
revoked, c e r t a i n l y , if found g u i l t y of
misconduct or gross negligence, a serious
reprimand would be i n order." ( Emphasis added)
Board Action - The Board voted to reaffirm its decision t h a t t h e a l l e g e d
v i o l a t i o n was not within its j u r i s d i c t i o n . .
March 3, 1978
Situation - A t its March 3, 1978 meeting, the Board reviewed the
following letter from the Mohave County Deputy Attorney:
" In l i g h t of your recent letter, it has become
evident to me t h a t there is e i t h e r very l i t t l e
within the j u r i s d i c t i o n of your board or t h a t
you are not q u i t e c e r t a i n which if any matters
are properly within your j u r i s d i c t i o n .
Accordingly, it is my intention to request the
Governor and the Attorney Generalls Office t o
apprise us of the precise purpose of your
existence. It seems incredible to me t h a t you
would i n s i s t t h a t v i o l a t i o n o f a s t a t e law
r e q u i r i n g recordation of surveys does not
c o n s t i t u t e professional misconduct by _ a
licensed surveyor. l1 ( Emphasis added )
Board Action - The Board voted to reconsider its previous decision.
September 8, 1978 0
Situation - A t its September 8, 1978 meeting, the Board reconsidered its
previous decision.
Board Action - The Board issued the following statement: ". . . the Board's position is t h a t all
r e g i s t r a n t s s h a l l comply with a l l state laws
a f f e c t i n g professional practice and the Board
s h a l l exercise its j u r i s d i c t i o n to assure such
compliance."
A s of June 30, 1979, or nearly two years a f t e r receiving the i n i t i a l complaint
the Board has not taken any action on the complaint f i l e d by the Mohave County
Deputy Attorney other than a d i r e c t i v e to send a l e t t e r to the licensee s t a t i n g
t h a t surveyors are to comply with a l l laws regarding the recording of surveys. a
Case 5
Bridge Failures - During the latter part of 1978 and the e a r l y p a r t of 1979,
the State of Arizona experienced several bridge f a i l u r e s . ARS 32- 1 42 ( A) a
requires t h a t :
" Drawings, plans, s p e c i f i c a t i o n s and estimates for public
works of the state or a p o l i t i c a l subdivision thereof
involving a r c h i t e c t u r e , engineering, assaying, geology,
landscape a r c h i t e c t u r e o r land surveying, s h a l l be
prepared by or under the personal direction of, and the
construction o f such works s h a l l be executed under the
d i r e c t supervision of a qualified r e g i s t r a n t within the
category involved.
Further, major p r o j e c t s o f the S t a t e Department of Transportation are designed
and constructed under the personal supervision of an engineer licensed by the
Board. During our review we found no indication t h a t the Board has taken any
formal action on these bridge f a i l u r e s or the a l l e g a t i o n s of faulty designs.
According to the Executive Director, the Board is waiting for the outcome of
the i n v e s t i g a t i o n s t h a t a r e being conducted by other agencies.
On June 18, 1979, t h e consulting engineers commissioned by the S t a t e Department
of Transportation issued t h e i r report regarding the f a i l u r e s of the Maricopa
Freeway S a l t River bridge and the Arizona 74 bridge over the Agua Fria River.
The consultants found t h a t the bridges "... experienced p i e r settlements
because c e r t a i n footings were not designed and constructed at a depth
s u f f i c i e n t to accommodate scour caused by heavy runoffs...." A s of August 6,
1979, the Board had taken no action regarding the bridge f a i l u r e s or the
consulting firm's report.
Inconsistent Policies
In addition to the aforementioned cases where the Board has f a i l e d o r refused
t o take action, our review showed s e v e r a l i n s t a n c e s i n which the Board has
refused to consider a complaint because the complainant did not file a v e r i f i e d
( notarized) complaint. We a l s o found, however, t h a t t h i s policy is not
c o n s i s t e n t l y applied i n t h a t the Board has conducted s e v e r a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s
based on e i t h e r an o r a l complaint or written complaint which had not been
notarized .
The Board's informal policy is to require a v e r i f i e d complaint before it w i l l
i n i t i a t e any d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n s , including investigations, against
licensees. According to the Board's Executive Director, v e r i f i e d complaints
are necessary to help weed out unfounded and frivolous complaints. Further,
the Board feels t h a t t h i s requirement is j u s t i f i e d due to t h e s e r i o u s p o t e n t i a l
consequences of a formal hearing to a licensee.
However, according to the Board's Assistant Attorney General, it is c l e a r l y
within the Board's j u r i s d i c t i o n t o i n v e s t i g a t e e i t h e r an o r a l complaint or a
written complaint which has not been notarized, per ARS 32- 128( B) which states:
" The board s h a l l have authority to make investigations,
employ i n v e s t i g a t o r s and conduct hearings... when the
board, a f t e r receiving an o r a l or written complaint not
under oath, makes an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o such complaint and
determines t h a t there is s u f f i c i e n t evidence to warrant a
hearing...."
Adverse Effect of the Board's I n a c t i v i t y
The S t a t e Board of Technical Registration is not viewed, by various building
safety department o f f i c i a l s and many of its own licensees, as an e f f e c t i v e
vehicle for investigating and resolving complaints regarding professional
incompetency. In addition, it appears t h a t some consumers have incurred
f i n a n c i a l or physical harm as a r e s u l t of incompetent service provided by Board
licensees but t h a t these consumers have not f i l e d complaints with the Board
regarding t h e s e i n s t a n c e s of possible professional incompetency.
A s a means to assess the Board's complaint review process and the presence of
professional incompetence on the p a r t of Board licensees, the Office o f the
Auditor General contacted: 1) ten building s a f e t y departments in Arizona, 2)
licensees of the Board, and 3) several professional l i a b i l i t y insurance
c a r r i e r s . The r e s u l t s of t h i s process are summarized below.
Building Safety Department - The ten l o c a l building safety departments
contacted were :
City of Phoenix City of Tucson
City o f s c o t t s d a l e City of Flagstaff
City of Tempe Maricopa County
City of Mesa Pima County
City of Yuma Navajo County
A l l ten of the building s a f e t y departments responded to the Office of the
Auditor General t h a t they have received design projects prepared by licensees
of the Board t h a t are examples of substandard work. A l l ten departments also
responded t h a t they do not, however, f i l e complaints with the S t a t e Board of
Technical Registration. I n s t e a d , t h e s e departments merely refuse to issue
building permits u n t i l the design projects meet minimal building code
standards. The Phoenix Building Safety Department indicated t h a t the reason
they do not f i l e complaints with the Board is because of the Board's f a i l u r e to
t a k e appropriate action i n the past. ( page 21) According to one City
o f f i c i a l , because of corrections made during the plan review process, the
ultimate consumer of t h e s e p r o f e s s i o n a l services ( t h e public) may never be
aware of the amount or nature of such substandard work.
Licensees o f t h e Board - A survey* of 557 licensees of the Board by the
Office o f the Auditor General revealed an element of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the
Board's complaint review process. Three common bases for l i c e n s e e d i s -
s a t i s f a c t i o n with the complaint review process centered on the Board itself and
were : 1 ) the lack o f Board action, 2 ) the Board ' s leniency in those cases
where it has taken action, and 3) the lack of information regarding the
Board's d i s c i p l i n a r y functions. For example, one licensee s t a t e d t h a t
"( Board's) Response is lacking and penalty is non- existent." Many felt t h a t
the previous d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n s have been nothing more than " mere wrist-slappings."
Another licensee echoed the f e e l i n g s of many o f t h e respondents i n
h i s statement, " 1 b e l i e v e t h e Board should be more aggressive in looking f o r
poor practice." According to one engineer, "( The Board is) hesitant t o deal
out d i s c i p l i n e when such is required.
Many of t h e l i c e n s e e s surveyed made additional comments about the Board's
d i s c i p l i n a r y actions, such as:
" It is well known t h a t the board w i l l go t o almost any
length to avoid r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n d i s c i p l i n a r y cases and
t h a t it also has limited power and j u r i ~ d i c t i o n . ~
" They always seem r e l u c t a n t to get involved."
" I feel t h a t as with any professional board the board is
r e l u c t a n t to d i s c i p l i n e fellow engineers."
" The Board is very apathetic to even i n v e s t i g a t e charges
of unethical conduct or incompetency f i l e d by one or more
r e g i s t r a n t s c i t i n g lack of authority."
"( A licensee) was convicted i n Federal Court f o r land
fraud, however, he is a current r e g i s t r a n t . The Board
takes no i n i t i a t i v e toward d i s c i p l i n a r y action. Should it
be up to i n d i v i d u a l ( s ) t o file a complaint with the Board?"
* Appendix V I contains a summary of the survey r e s u l t s .
" The o f f i c e is a record keeping office. Their concern is
business as usual - ' don't rock the boat. Instead of
publishing the r o s t e r a s t h e i r main duty, they need to
enforce the law f o r ( t h e ) s a f e t y of the general public."
" Not comprehensive, not c o n s i s t e n t , not s t r i n g e n t enough."
" There is very l i t t l e d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n r e l a t i v e to the
current level of incompetence displayed i n the
profession.
" Although I have seen some serious e r r o r s , I have never
heard of any d i s c i p l i n a r y actions. Human nature d i c t a t e s
t h a t a member of the ' clubv w i l l not be too hard on another
member . "
Other problem areas in the Board's d i s c i p l i n a r y procedures, a s i d e n t i f i e d by
the surveyed licensees, included:
- I n s u f f i c i e n t funding to conduct thorough investigations,
- I n s u f f i c i e n t l e g a l advice,
- The t h r e a t of personal l i a b i l i t y for p o t e n t i a l complainants,
- The practice of the regulated professions by non- registrants, and
- The law is too vague and does not give the Board enough authority to
prosecute those t h a t v i o l a t e t h e law. a
It is i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t i n a survey of the current Board members
conducted by the Office of the Auditor General, three of t h e n i n e Board members
shared some of the same concerns expressed by the surveyed licensees. For a
example, these Board members responded:
- " The board has been able t o resolve most complaints
handled very adequately - however, I believe there are
many obvious v i o l a t i o n s of the law t h a t a r e not
i n v e s t i g a t e d o r pursued for lack of resources."
- " Well on complaints brought t o our a t t e n t i o n - we should be
doing more on our own - and we plan to do so."
- " Very limited ( complaint a c t i v i t y ) due to the Attorney
General s work load.
Professional L i a b i l i t y Insurance Carriers - To further a s s e s s t h e Board's
complaint review process and the presence of professional incompetence on the
part of Board l i c e n s e e s t h e Office o f t h e Auditor General contacted four
professional l i a b i l i t y insurance c a r r i e r s operating i n Arizona.*
Unfortunately, only one insurance c a r r i e r could produce claims data. However,
the claims data from t h i s one insurance c a r r i e r revealed t h a t , as of March
1979, there were twenty claims pending against licensees of the Board. The
estimated t o t a l value o f these 20 claims was $ 541,800, of which two claims
alone accounted for more than $ 350,000. A review of complaints f i l e d with the
Board indicates t h a t associated complaints have not been f i l e d with the Board
for these 20 claims.
Board Reasons For I n a c t i v i t y
According to Board members and the Executive Director of the Board the reasons
f o r the Board's limited i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f a l l e g a t i o n s of i l l e g a l or incompetent
work performed by its licensees are 1 ) limited resources, and 2) lack o f l e g a l
support. Our review of the Board, however, revealed t h a t the Board has had
ample resources to conduct i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and has v i r t u a l l y ceased t o request
l e g a l assistance from the Office of the Attorney General.
Available Resources - From fiscal year 1970- 71 through f i s c a l year 1978- 79,
the S t a t e Board of Technical Registration has had a surplus of available funds
ranging from a low of $ 54,878 to a high of $ 1 51 ,470. In fact, the Board has
reduced the already r e l a t i v e l y low annual renewal fee it charges its licensees
twice during t h a t period; from $ 20 to $ 15 to $ 10, i n order
"... to maintain a reasonable balance in the fund without
undue cost to the registrants...."**
Table 7 summarizes t h e r e c e i p t s , expenditures, fund balances and annual
renewal fees for the Board from f i s c a l year 1970- 71 through 1978- 79.
An Office of the Auditor General survey of persons licensed by the Board
indicated t h a t over one- third carry professional malpractice insurance.
** A( Apppepnednidxi x I1V1I chronicles Board discussions o f funding i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and
methods to reduce the Board's fund balance during the period from December
1969 to July 1979.
TABLE 7
F i s c a l
Year
SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, EXPENDITURES,
FUND BALANCES AND ANNUAL RENEWAL FEES
FOR THE STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL
REGISTRATION FROM FISCAL YEAR
1970- 71 THROUGH 1978- 79
Receipts
( Net of
Reversion to
General Fund) Expenses
Excess ( Shortage)
of Receipts Over
Expenditures
Fund
Balance
June 30
Annual
Renewal
License
Fee
Includes adjustment to correct prior e r r o r s .
It should be noted t h a t the Board has c o n s i s t e n t l y maintained a high fund
surplus i n s p i t e of the fact t h a t the annual license renewal fee it charges to
its licensees is s i g n i f i c a n t l y less than t h a t charged by other professional
boards. Table 8 compares the annual license renewal fee charged by the Board
to t h a t charged by o t h e r s e l e c t e d Arizona professional regulatory boards.
TABLE 8
COMPARISON OF THE ANNUAL LICENSE RENEWAL FEE
CHARGED BY THE STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL
REGISTRATION TO THAT CHARGED BY OTHER SELECTED
ARIZONA PROFESSIONAL REGULATORY BOARDS
Contractors
Physicians ( M. D. Is)
Accountants ( C. P. A.' s and P. A.* s)
Optometrists
Dentists
Psychologists
Physiciants Assistants
Pharmacists
TECHNICAL REGISTRATION
3 6
Annual
License Renewal
Fee Charged
An Office of the Auditor General trend analysis of the number of Board license
renewals and Board expenditures* revealed t h a t the Board's June 30, 1979 fund
balance surplus of $ 78,900 w i l l be eliminated by f i s c a l year 1983- 84 unless the
Board's annual renewal fee of $ 10 is increased. However, a modest renewal
fee increase of $ 10 w i l l not only maintain the June 30, 1979 fund surplus but
w i l l increase it t o approximately $ 415,069 by June 30, 1984. Such a fee
increase could provide the Board with ample funding for i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of
a l l e g a t i o n s of i l l e g a l or incompetent work performed by its licensees. Table 9
contains projections of 1 ) annual increases ( decreases) of the fund balance
and 2 ) t h e r e s u l t i n g Board fund balances a t June 30, 1980 through June 30, 1984
based upon annual license renewal fees of $ 10, $ 15, and $ 20.
PROJECTED BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION
REVENUE, EXPENDITURES, INCREASES ( DECREASES)
TO FUND BALANCES AND ENDING FUND BALANCES
FOR FISCAL YEARS 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983,
AND 1984, BASED UPON ANNUAL LICENSE
RENEWAL FEES OF $ 1 0, $ 15, AND $ 20.
FISCAL YEARS
1979- 80 1980- 8 1 198 1- 82 1982- 83 1983- 84
Projected Total Revenue:**
$ 10 Renewal Fee
$ 15 Renewal Fee
$ 20 Renewal Fee
Projected Expenditures ( 150,175) ( 157,549) ( 164,923) ( 172,297) ( 179,670)
Projected Increase ( Decrease)
of Fund Balance:
$ 10 Renewal Fee
$ 15 Renewal Fee
$ 20 Renewal Fee
Projected Ending Fund
Balance:***
$ 10 Renewal Fee
$ 15 Renewal Fee
$ 20 Renewal Fee
See Appendix I V and V. ** Net of the 10% reversion t o the State General Fund. * * The fund balance at the beginning of fiscal year 1979- 80 was $ 78,900.
It should be noted t h a t the Board a t its December 12, 1969 and
December 14, 1973 meetings considered h i r i n g a full- time i n v e s t i g a t o r
and/ or increasing t h e i r complaint review and oversight a c t i v i t i e s as a
meansto decreasing t h e i r fund surplus. The Board, however, opted for
decreasing its annual license renewal fee as an a l t e r n a t e means of
decreasing its fund surplus.
It should also be noted t h a t a t its July 20, 1979 meeting, the Board
voted to:
"... retain a consultant t o gather and assimilate
information t o develop a p o s i t i o n a l r e p o r t and model law
for u t i l i z a t i o n during the Sunset Review...." ( Emphasis
added )
The cost is not to exceed $ 5,000.
( I
Such an action on the part o f t h e Board is p a r t i c u l a r l y notable in view o f t h e
following:
1. The Board's contention t h a t the lack of funds is a cause of
inadequate complaint investigations. a
2. The Board has spent a t o t a l of $ 3,547 on complaint investigations and
hearings during the three- year period from f i s c a l years 1975- 76
through 1977- 78 - an average of only $ 1,182 per year.
Thus, it appears t h a t the Board w i l l expend more of its resources defending
itself during the " Sunset Reviewn process than it spent on investigating
a l l e g a t i o n s of professional incompetence on the part of its licensees during
the three- year period ending June 30, 1978.
A v a i l a b i l i t y of Legal Support - Our review of Board records revealed t h a t
h i s t o r i c a l l y some l i m i t a t i o n s have been placed on t h e s e r v i c e s provided by the
Office of the Attorney General to the Board. For example, at the December 1975
Board meeting, the Board's Assistant Attorney General s t a t e d t h a t he was
limited to handling one case per each of the boards he represented. However,
the c u r r e n t A s s i s t a n t Attorney General assigned to the Board s t a t e d t h a t t h i s
l i m i t a t i o n is no longer i n e f f e c t . Although the Board's Assistant Attorney
General indicated t h a t the current workload of the Attorney General's Office
does create some p r a c t i c a l l i m i t a t i o n s on the amount of service t h a t can be
provided to the Board, he has been able t o respond to the Board's needs f o r
l e g a l services. In f a c t , according to the Board's Assistant Attorney General,
the S t a t e Board of Technical Registration has requested v i r t u a l l y no legal
assistance from the Office o f the Attorney General since March 1978.
CONCLUSION
The Board is not f u l f i l l i n g its r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to protect the public against
incompetent or unscrupulous licensees. In s p i t e of s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i v e
i n t e n t , l e g a l precedent and its own statement of goals; the Board has f a i l e d t o
adequately pursue numerous a l l e g a t i o n s of i l l e g a l or incompetent work
performed by its licensees. A s a r e s u l t o f t h e Board's inaction, some public
agencies and a number of licensees have ceased f i l i n g complaints with the
Board.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Board should:
1. Establish an aggressive peer review program similar t o the one currently
used by the S t a t e Board of Accountancy. ( See Appendix VII)
2. Make a s p e c i a l e f f o r t t o work with the various building s a f e t y departments
throughout the state.
ARS
1.
Maintain better records of its disciplinary process, including:
- More complete records in the complaint f i l e s ( t h i s may include a
transcript of formal hearings), and 0
- A clear indication in each f i l e of how the complaint was resolved and
a record of formal Board actions relating to the resolution of the
complaint.
Inform licensees and the public of the Board's oversight responsibility 0
and the r e s u l t s of its disciplinary actions. ( See page 67 for a more
thorough discussion of public participation. )
Increase the license renewal fees to allow for the investigation of
allegations of i l l e g a l or incompetent work performed by its licensees.
Discontinue the current policy which requires a verified formal complaint
p r i o r t o Board action.
Include the Office of the Attorney General more completely in a l l Board
deliberations. ( I
32- 101 e t . seq. should be amended to include the following provisions:
Include censure and probation as disciplinary alternatives available to
the Board.
Require professional l i a b i l i t y insurance c a r r i e r s to report insurance
claims to the Board.
Provide personal immunity for anyone acting i n good f a i t h with regards to
the enforcement of the Technical Registration Act.
FINDING I1
THE ABSENCE OF WRITTEN POLICIES AND ADEQUATE RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS PRECLUDES A
DETERMINATION THAT THE BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION HAS EXERCISED ITS
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY I N THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
The Technical Registration Act conveys t o the S t a t e Board of Technical
Registration broad discretionary powers with regard t o 1 evaluating
applicants for licensure, and 2) enforcing standards o f professional
p r a c t i c e . ( page 14) Our review of the Board revealed t h a t , despite warnings
from the Office of the Attorney General, the Board has not 1) established
s u f f i c i e n t standards to ensure t h a t a l l applicants f o r licensure are evaluated
equitably, and 2) s u f f i c i e n t l y documented its proceedings and decision- making
process. This absence o f standards and documentation precludes a thorough,
independent, q u a l i t a t i v e evaluation o f t h e manner i n which the Board has
exercised its d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y . However, our review of the limited
records t h a t a r e a v a i l a b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t the Board may have exercised its
discretionary authority in an a r b i t r a r y and capricious manner and t h a t the
absence of formal p o l i c i e s causes confusion for applicants with r e s u l t a n t
unnecessary expenditures of time and money.
Evaluation of Applicants
Through the provisions of Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s ( ARS) section 32- 101 et
seq., the S t a t e Legislature delegated a great deal of discretionary authority
to the Board of Technical Registration with regard to evaluating applicants for
licensure. ARS 32- 122, 32- 123 and 32- 126, pertaining to t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r
l i c e n s u r e , provide:
" 32- 122. Qualifications of applicant
A. An applicant for registration as an architect,
engineer, geologist or landscape architect shall be
of good moral character and repute, and shall have
engaged actively for at least eight years in
architectural, engineering, geological or landscape
architectural work of a character satisfactory to the
board. . . .
B. An applicant for registration as an assayer or a land
surveyor shall have engaged actively for at least
four years in assaying or land surveying work of a
character satisfactory to the board,...
32- 123. Application for registration
A. A person desiring to practice architecture, assaying,
engineering, geology, landscape architecture, or land
surveying shall make application for registration on
a form prescribed by the board, subscribed under oath
and accompanied by the registration fee. If the
evidence submitted satisfies the board that the
applicant is fully qualified to practice the
profession for which registration is asked, it shall
give him a certificate of registration, signed by the
chairman and secretary and attested by the official
seal.
B. If in the jud~ ment of the board the applicant has not
furnished satisfactory evidence of qualifications for
registration, it may require additional data, or may
require the applicant to submit to an oral or written
examination.
32- 126. Re~ istration without examination
The board may register without examination an applicant
who holds a valid and subsisting certificate of
registration issued by another state or foreign country
which has requirements for registration satisfactory to
the board, or who holds a certificate of qualification
issued by a national bureau of registration or
certification." ( Emphasis added)
In administering the Technical Registration Act, the board has promulgated the
following rule:
" R4- 30- 03. Experience
Qualifying experience, other than time allowed f o r
education, s h a l l i n general be limited t o t h a t time i n
which an applicant has been d i r e c t l y employed i n a
responsible position of a character s a t i s f a c t o r y t o the
Board. l1 ( Emphasis added)
Our review of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s for licensure t h a t have been submitted to the
Board revealed t h a t the two primary reasons for the Board's r e f u s a l to l i c e n s e
an applicant were:
- The a p p l i c a n t d i d not have adequate experience, and
- The applicant had not passed the appropriate examination prior to
applying for licensure.
In addition, prior to March 1979' the Board had no written c r i t e r i a other than
Rule R4- 30- 03, as shown above, regarding what constituted lt... requirements f o r
r e g i s t r a t i o n ( from another s t a t e or foreign country) s a t i s f a c t o r y t o the
Board... ll or experience "... of a character s a t i s f a c t o r y to the Board..."
These deficiencies e x i s t i n s p i t e of warnings from the Board's Assistant
Attorney General t h a t unwritten evaluative c r i t e r i a are inappropriate. For
example :
- A t the February 1978 meeting of the Board the Board's Assistant
Attorney General warned the Board t h a t they should "... define i n
t h e i r Rules what is experience of a character s a t i s f a c t o r y to the
Board.
* See Appendix VIIIfor a summary of Board actions taken since March 1979.
- A t the March 1978 meeting of the Board, t h e i r Assistant Attorney
General again addressed the lack o f written guidelines by s t a t i n g , ". . . as ( I have) advised before, these requirements ( f o r prior 0
examination) cannot be based on an unwritten policy but should be i n
the rules as to why the Board makes t h e i r decision."
Further, a majority of Board licensure a p p l i c a t i o n d e n i a l s are based upon a
Board perception of i n s u f f i c i e n t experience on t h e p a r t of the applicant.
Board files do not, however, contain s u f f i c i e n t information to document the
manner i n which the Board arrived a t t h a t conclusion. In addition, most
applicants for licensure are reviewed and evaluated by Board subcommittees
( Evaluation Committees). The d e l i b e r a t i o n s of these subcommittees are not
formally recorded and thus cannot be reviewed."
Finally, our review of the Board's application review process revealed t h a t the r)
Board is not complying with ARS 32- 106 ( A) which requires t h a t the Board s h a l l :
7 Keep a register which s h a l l show t h e d a t e of each
application f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n , the name, age,
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and place of business of the
applicant, and the disposition of the application."
A t the time of our review, the Board did not have the required r e g i s t e r of
applicants.
A s a r e s u l t of the l a c k o f formal applicant evaluation c r i t e r i a , the
insufficency of information in Board f i l e s regarding applicants, and the
absence of formal records o f Board subcommittee's meetings; the decision-making
process o f t h e Board and the manner i n which it exercised its
d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y a r e n o t adequately documented to allow for a thorough,
independent, q u a l i t a t i v e analysis.
Such a procedure is allowed under ARS 38- 431.01( B)
However, our review of the limited Board records that are available indicates
that 1) the Board may have exercised its discretionary authority to evaluate
applicants for licensure in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and 2) the
absence of formal applicant qualification policies creates confusion for
applicants which can result in an unnecessary expenditure of time and money on
the part of applicants.
The Board May Have Exercised Its Discretionary
Authority To Evaluate Applicants For Licensure In
An Arbitrary And Capricious Manner
Examinations. The Board has an informal policy that all applicants must pass
appropriate examinations* prior to being licensed in Arizona. However, our
review of Board minutes regarding appeals of Evaluation Committee rulings
indicates that the Board has been inconsistent in applying this policy. The
following cases illustrate that inconsistency.**
Case 1
Situation - The applicant requested waiver of the Architectual Theory
Examination*** because 1) he had passed the other
parts of the examination, and 2 ) of his experience and
background with the Federal Housing Authority.
Board Action - The Chairman of the Board was requested to explain to the
applicant.
"... that to our knowledge, this Board has not -
registered anyone without passing all parts of
the examinations; second, advise the applicant
that there are particular courses which could be
taken by correspondence to assist him, and
recall his own statement that he plans to go
into private practice in seven years and
others who are in private practice have passed-the
examination.. ." ( Emphasis added)
The Board required the applicant to take and pass the
remaining part of the examination.
* See Appendix IX for a summary of the Board's examinations. ** All appeals presented in this section were reviewed by the Board between
March 1975 and June 1976. *** The Architectural Theory Examination is a portion of the Equivalency
Examination which is used to evaluate an applicant's eligibility for the
Professional Licensure Examination.
Case 2
S i t u a t i o n - The a p p l i c a n t requested waiver of the e n t i r e A r c h i t e c t u r e
Examination on the b a s i s o f h i s experience i n Texas where he
was licensed without examination because he was a graduate a
of a Texas School.
Board Action - A member of the Board s t a t e d :
" . . . t h e r e a r e times people come before t h i s
Board who have outstanding past experience who
a r e q u a l i f i e d to be r e g i s t e r e d without f u r t h e r
exanination and because of t h e i r age and
experience t o submit t o a w r i t t e n or o r a l
e ~ a m i n a t i o n . . . . ' ~ ( Emphasis added).
The Board waived the examination.
Case 3
S i t u a t i o n - The a p p l i c a n t requested waiver o f P a r t s 1 and 2
( Fundamentals of Engineering)" o f t h e Mining Engineering ( I
Examinat ion bcause 1) he had passed P a r t s 3 and 4
o f t h e examination, and 2) o f , h i s experience and background
with a copper company.
Board Action - The Board waived P a r t s 1 and 2 o f t h e examination.
Case 4
S i t u a t i o n - The a p p l i c a n t requested waiver of P a r t s 1 and 2
( Fundamentals of Engineering)* of t h e E l e c t r i c a l Engineering
Examination on t h e b a s i s of recommendations from h i s
employer and other consulting engineers.
Board Action - The Board waived P a r t s 1 and 2 o f t h e examination.
Case 5
S i t u a t i o n - The a p p l i c a n t requested waiver of P a r t s 1 and 2
( Fundamentals of Engineering)' of the Highway Engineering
Examination which the a p p l i c a n t had previously f a i l e d . a
Board Action - The Board waived P a r t s 1 and 2 of the e. xamination.
* The Fundamentals of Engineering c o n s t i t u t e p a r t s 1 and 2 of a l l
engineering exams given by the Board.
Case 6
Situation - The applicant requested waiver of Part 1* of the Sanitary
Engineering Examination on the basis t h a t he had passed
Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the examination.
Board Action - The Board required the applicant t o take Part 1 of the
examination.
Case 7
Situation - The applicant requested waiver o f P a r t 2% o f t h e Mining
Engineering Examination on t h e b a s i s t h a t he had passed the
o t h e r t h r e e p a r t s .
Board Action - The Board required the applicant to take Part 2 of the
Mining Engineering Examination.
Case 8
Situation - The applicant requested waiver of Parts 1 and 2
( Fundamentals of Engineering)* of t h e E l e c t r i c a l Engineering
Examination on the basis 1) t h a t he had passed Parts 3 and 4
of the examination and 2) t h a t he was Chief E l e c t r i c a l
Engineer f o r t h e City of Phoenix.
Board Action - The Board required the applicant to take P a r t s 1 and 2 of
the E l e c t r i c a l Engineering Examination.
Case 9
Situation - The applicant requested waiver of Parts 3 and 4 of Mechanical
Engineering Examination on t h e b a s i s of 1) h i s r e g i s t r a t i o n
i n California ( which he obtained without examination) and
2) h i s 14 years o f experience as a principal engineer.
Board Action - The Board waived the Mechanical Engineering Examination
and licensed the applicant.
* The Fundamentals of Engineering c o n s t i t u t e p a r t s 1 and 2 of a l l
engineering examinations given by the Board.
Case 10
Situation - The applicant requested waiver of Parts 3 and 4 of the
E l e c t r i c a l Engineering Examination on the b a s i s o f 1) h i s
r e g i s t r a t i o n i n Massachusetts ( which he obtained without
examination), and 2) h i s many years of experience in the
profession.
Board Action - The Board denied the request for waiver and required the 0
applicant t o take Parts 3 and 4 of the E l e c t r i c a l Engineering
Examination.
Case 11
Situation - The applicant requested waiver of Parts 3 and 4 of the Land
Surveying Examination* on the basis of 1) h i s r e g i s t r a t i o n
i n New Mexico ( which he obtained without examination), and
2) h i s law degree and f a m i l i a r i t y with Arizona S t a t u t e s
r e l a t i n g to surveys.
Board Action - The Board waived the examination and licensed the
applicant.
Case 12
Situation - The applicant requested waiver of Parts 3 and 4 of the
Mechanical Engineering Examination on the basis of 1 ) h i s
r e g i s t r a t i o n i n Texas ( which he obtained without
examination), and 2 ) t h e recognition he had received
( various awards) for his work i n the f i e l d .
Board Action - F i r s t , the Board moved and seconded t h a t the waiver be
granted. However, after further discussion the Board voted
t o deny the request for waiver. Board minutes of the
discussion o f t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s appeal included:
* Part 4 of the Land Surveying Examination is prepared l o c a l l y and is
designed to test t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s knowledge of Arizona S t a t u t e s as they
relate to surveys.
" During discussion of the motion, ( Board member) noted
that we have had similar applicants come to the Evaluation
Committee and who are highly qualified but we have held
them for the examination of Parts 3 and 4. ( Board member)
stated that those in the past in the academic field who
have taken the examination and passed it has given the
successful applicant far more authority in his teaching
career than those who were granted under the Grandfather -
Clause. He told ( applicant) that he believed it would be
to his benefit to take the examination and he could stand
up in front of his students and say I took the
examination." ( Emphasis added)
Experience Satisfactory to the Board. The Board has delegated the
responsibility for the initial review of an applicantls experience to various
subcommittees ( Evaluation Committees).* Because of the exemption provided in
ARS 38- 431.01( B), the Board does not record the deliberations of these
subcommittees. The lack of such records precludes a review of the Evaluation
Committees1 deliberations and rulings. However, our review of subsequent
appeals of Evaluation Committee actions, as found in the Board minutes,
indicates that the Evaluation Committees may have acted in an arbitrary and
capricious manner. Because our review was limited to records of cases that
were appealed to the full Board, we were unable to fully evaluate the potential
magnitude of the problem.
The following cases are illustrative of the appeals of Evaluation Committee
decisions regarding the sufficiency of an applicant's experience.
Case 1
Situation - The applicant requested that the full Board reconsider the
Evaluation Committeels decision that 1) persuaded him to
change his application from civil to structural engineering
and 2) required him to take Parts 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the
Structural Engineering Examination. The Evaluation
Committee felt that the experience record that the applicant
had submitted indicated that he was qualified for the
Structural Engineering Examination but not the Civil
Engineering Examination.
* Board records indicate that the Board routinely adopts the
recommendations of the Evaluations Committees.
Board Action - Based on the additional information provided by the
applicant, the Board voted to accept the c i v i l engineering
application and to r e q u i r e t h e a p p l i c a n t to take Parts 3 and
4 of t h e C i v i l Engineering Examination. However, a f t e r
f u r t h e r discussion, the Board voted to license the applicant
as a Civil Engineer based on h i s prior examination and
licensure in Indiana.
Case 2
Situation - The applicant requested t h a t the f u l l Board reconsider the
Evaluation Committee's decision t h a t 1) persuaded him to
change h i s application from c i v i l to s t r u c t u r a l engineering
and 2) required the applicant to take Parts 3, 4, 5 and 6 of
the S t r u c t u r a l Engineering Examination. The basis for h i s
appeal was 1) h i s p r i o r examination and licensure i n
Colorado and 2) h i s experience i n the f i e l d of c i v i l
engineering.
Board Action - The Board voted t o accept the c i v i l engineering
application and license the applicant on t h e b a s i s of 1) h i s a
experience and 2) h i s prior examination and licensure i n
Colorado.
Case 3
Situation - The Board reviewed the experience record of a c i v i l
engineering applicant. The applicant s t a t e d t h a t h i s
experience had been i n a supervisory capacity of
construction with the Corps of Engineers and t h a t he had no
design experience nor formal or informal education.
Board Action - The Board voted to allow the applicant to t a k e t h e Civil
Engineering Examination.
Case 4
Situation - The applicant requested waiver of Parts 3 and 4 of t h e C i v i l
Engineering Examination on t h e b a s i s o f 1) h i s experience, 0
and 2) h i s prior licensure i n Ohio ( which he obtained
without examination).
Board Action - Because the a p p l i c a n t ' s experience was i n mechanical
engineering, the Board required the applicant to take Parts
3 and 4 of t h e C i v i l Engineering Examination.
Case 5
Situation - The applicant presented the Board an o u t l i n e of h i s
experience which included research work for the EPA
( Environmental Protection Agency) and the Office of Water
Resources Research in addition t o h i s teaching i n the Civil
Engineering Department of a major university.
Board Action - The Board denied the application because o f a lack o f
s a t i s f a c t o r y experience.
Case 6
Situation - The applicant presented additional information regarding h i s
experience i n the f i e l d of a r c h i t e c t u r e , including a b r i e f
statement from h i s present supervisor ( a registered
a r c h i t e c t ) . The a p p l i c a n t ' s supervisor s t a t e d t h a t the work
the applicant had been doing was "... no d i f f e r e n t than
working for an a r c h i t e c t in private practice."
Board Action - The Board Chairman s t a t e d , ' l.. . an applicant should also
have in addition to t h i s type of experience how to run an
a r c h i t e c t u r a l o f f i c e from payroll d u t i e s t o seek in^
additional work f o r the o f f i c e , and prepare documents in a l l
types of construction." The Chairman f u r t h e r explained, ". . . the object of t h e r e g i s t r a t i o n a c t is t o protect l i f e and
property and it is the Board's duty to r e g i s t e r qualified
applicants ."
The Board denied the application for licensure a s an
a r c h i t e c t because o f a lack of experience s a t i s f a c t o r y t o
the Board.
Case 7
Situation - The supervisor ( a registered a r c h i t e c t ) of an applicant
seeking licensure a s an a r c h i t e c t wrote t o the Board a
concerning the decision o f the Architectural Evaluation
Committee. The Committee had found t h a t ' I.. . ( t h e applicant)
did not have a well rounded experience and may have to change
h i s employment where he can get the experience needed. - The a
candidate should be aware of what c o n s t i t u t e s good
experience and seek out jobs where he can do t h i s . It is the
candidate's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to evaluate his own experience
record.. . l1
The supervisor responded t h a t ''...( the applicant) has worked
f u l l time, d i r e c t l y under my supervision, for the last three
years during which time he has received comprehensive and a
p r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g i n design, d r a f t i n g , s t r u c t u r a l
c a l c u l a t i o n s , o f f i c e p r a c t i c e , cost estimating,
s p e c i f i c a t i o n writing, job supervision and customer
r e l a t i o n s of an i n t e n s i t y quite comparable with what he #
would be offered anywhere e l s e i n a Tucson a r c h i t e c t ' s
office.. ."
Board Action - The Board directed the Chairman o f the Board to write to
the a p p l i c a n t ' s supervisor s t a t i n g ' I... we simply question
the f a c t t h a t h i s experience he had received was not a type
s u i t a b l e t o the Board and we f e l t he needed a wider variety
which we did not feel he could get there a s the work
indicated i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r a p p l i c a n t ' s record did not
indicate h i s experience was s a t i ~ f a c t o r y . . . ~ ~ T he Board
denied t h e a p p l i c a t i o n because o f lack o f s a t i s f a c t o r y
experience.
It should be noted that the Board expected t h e a p p l i c a n t to evaluate h i s own
experience record, yet they had no written c r i t e r i a regarding what constituted
" experience s a t i s f a c t o r y to the Board.
Our review revealed that the Board is aware o f t h e problems created by the lack
of written evaluative c r i t e r i a and has begun to develop some p o l i c i e s in t h i s
area. ( See Appendix VIII for a summary of Board actions regarding the
development of written p o l i c i e s . )
The Absence Of Formal Applicant Q u a l i f i c a t i o n
P o l i c i e s Creates Confusion For Applicants Which
Can Result In An Unnecessary Expenditure
Of Time And Money On The Part O f Applicants
The S t a t e Board of Technical Registration has unwritten p o l i c i e s regarding what
an applicant must do in order t o o b t a i n l i c e n s u r e i n Arizona through comity*.
These policies are not only unwritten but are apparently not communicated to
applicants for comity prior t o t h e i r incurring the expense of traveling t o
Arizona f o r t h e mandatory personal audience with the Board's Evaluation
Committee. ( page 60) A s a r e s u l t of these unwritten and uncommunicated
p o l i c i e s , applicants have incurred unnecessary expenditures of time and money.
The following two cases are examples.
Case 1
The applicant was a graduate of an a c c r e d i t e d c o l l e g e and had passed a 16- hour
examination prior t o being licensed i n Ohio. Further, the applicant was
licensed and had practiced i n seven other s t a t e s . After traveling to Arizona
for h i s mandatory personal audience, the Engineering Evaluation Committee
informed t h e a p p l i c a n t t h a t an ( unwritten) Board policy required a l l s t r u c t u r a l
engineering candidates t o pass a 24- hour examination. Consequently, the
applicant would be required t o pass an additional eight hours of examination to
q u a l i f y f o r l i c e n s u r e i n Arizona. The a p p l i c a n t ' s l o c a l chapter of Society of
Professional Engineers wrote to the Board regarding the Evaluation Committee's
decision. Their letter s t a t e d , i n part:
* Comity is a process by which any individual who meets a specified s e t of
standards is granted a license t o p r a c t i c e despite t h e i r s t a t e of
residence. No reciprocal agreement between the s t a t e s is required a s i n a
system of reciprocity.
" In your correspondence with ( the applicant) you forwarded
copies of Rules and By- Laws and the Code of the S t a t e Board
of Technical Registration and i n s t r u c t i o n s for f i l i n g of
the application sent t o him. Upon s a t i s f a c t o r y completion
of the application requirements, he was n o t i f i e d by the
board t o appear for a personal interview and a 20 t o 30
minute examination covering t h e S t a t u t e s and Rules. The
time for the foregoing was set by the board and the tone of
the notice was such t h a t it was imperative t h a t the
candidate should keep the appointment or be assigned a
later date set by the discretion of the board. A t
considerable expense and the use of the b e t t e r part of two
business days, ( the a p p l i c a n t ) t r a v e l e d t o Phoenix, where
he took the aforementioned exam ( passed) and was
interviewed by the Evaluation Committee.
A t the close of the interview the applicant was t o l d t h a t
i n s p i t e of h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and a c t i v e practice as a
s t r u c t u r a l engineer, he must undergo eight hours of
examination t o obtain r e g i s t r a t i o n as a s t r u c t u r a l
engineer i n the s t a t e of Arizona because the board has an
unwritten policy requiring t h i ~ . . . . ~ ( Emphasis added)
Board records i n d i c a t e t h a t one of the Board members was directed to respond to
the l e t t e r and t h a t the a p p l i c a n t d i d not pursue licensure i n Arizona.
Case 2
The following l e t t e r t o the Board, dated September 6, 1977, describes the
experience of another applicant for comity.
" On Friday, August 12, 1977 I appeared as required for a
personal audience with the Architectural Evaluation
Committee of the Board. A t t h a t time, I took and passed
the 20- minute test on the Code, Rules and By- Laws of the
S t a t e Board of Technical Registration. My education,
experience and the f a c t t h a t I am a registered Architect i n
the S t a t e of Washington, v i a t h e NCARB Professional
Examination, was duly noted and accepted. However, I was
informed t h a t I would be required t o take the Design and
S i t e Planning portion of the NCARB Equivalency
Examination. I did not l e a r n of t h i s requirement u n t i l
less than ten minutes before my audience with the
committee. This exam is only given i n June, which means I
can not get my l i c e n s e f o r the S t a t e of Arizona u n t i l
September 1978 ( over a one year delay).
I have again reviewed a l l t h e w r i t t e n material I have
received from the Board; there is nothing i n t h i s material
i n d i c a t i n g t h e requirement of the Design and S i t e Planning
Exam. There is, however, a s p e c i f i c mention o f t h e
requirement for a Seismic Treatise in t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s for
f i l l i n g out the Application f o r Registration t o Practice
a s well a s the Rules and By- Laws under General Provisions
R- 4- 30- 01, a requirement aimed only a t a portion o f the
A r c h i t e c t u r a l a p p l i c a n t s . I find it inconsistant t h a t
t h i s requirement is duly noted and y e t there is no mention
of a Design and S i t e Planning Examination requirement.
I do not contest the r i g h t of the Board to set the
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s for t h e p r a c t i c e o f Architecture i n the
S t a t e of Arizona; however, I believe t h a t it is the duty of
the Board to e s t a b l i s h , in writing, its requirements and
to make them known t o r e g i s t r a t i o n applicants on demand.
Therefore, I believe t h a t the Board has been negligent in
not publishing its requirements and informing applicants
of a l l t h e p r e r e q u i s i t e s necessary to obtain a license to
p r a c t i c e Architecture in Arizona and thereby causing a
hardship for myself in terms of money ($ 700), time and
If c l i e n t goodwillff l o s t . Therefore, I request t h a t the
Board waive the Design and S i t e Planning Exam requirement
and grant me Architectural r e g i s t r a t i o n i n the S t a t e of
Arizona. ( Emphasis added)
The applicant subsequently passed the remaining portion of the examination i n
June 1978 and was licensed to p r a c t i c e a r c h i t e c t u r e in Arizona.
CONCLUSION
The Technical Registration Act grants the S t a t e Board of Technical Registration
broad discretionary powers regarding the approval of applicants for licensure.
The Board has not, however, 1) established s u f f i c i e n t evaluative criteria t o
insure t h a t a l l applicants a r e evaluated and t r e a t e d equally, and 2)
s u f f i c i e n t l y documented t h e i r decision- making process t o allow f o r an
independent q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s o f the process. A review of the limited Board
records t h a t are a v a i l a b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t 1) the Board may have exercised its
discretionary authority to e v a l u a t e a p p l i c a n t s for license i n an a r b i t r a r y and
capricious manner, and 2) the absence of formal applicant q u a l i f i c a t i o n
p o l i c i e s creates confusion f o r applicants which can - r e s u l t in an unnecessary
expenditure of time and money on the part of applicants.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Board make a concerted effort to continue to develop a formal
evaluative criteria regarding 1) the determination of the adequacy of an 9
applicant's experience and 2) the requirement for examination. Once
developed, these criteria should be incorporated into the Rules and
Regulations of the State Board of Technical Registration.
2. The Board improve the documentation of their decision- making process to
allow for a thorough, independent, qualitative evaluation of the process.
3. The Board comply with ARS 32- 106( a) which requires the Board to keep a 111
register of applicants showing the date of each application, the name,
qualifications, and place of business of the applicant and the disposition
of the application.
FINDING I11
CHANGES NEEDED TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE STATE BOARD
OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION.
Our review of the S t a t e Board of Technical Registration has shown t h a t there
are several changes needed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
Board. These changes are:
1. Implement a t r i e n n i a l renewal system; ( page 58)
2. Delete the mandatory requirement for personal audiences; ( page 60)
3. Impose a minimal charge upon non- governmental r e c i p i e n t s of the
annual r o s t e r ; ( page 61)
4. Delete the Board r u l e t h a t requires an applicant t h a t is denied
licensure to wait one year before reapplying, ( page 63) and,
5. Amend ARS 32- 124 t o allow the Board to e s t a b l i s h fees charged to
applicants commensurate with costs to the Board. ( page 63)
The implementation of these changes could r e s u l t in a savings of $ 61,741 and
668 s t a f f days over a four- year period, a s summarized below:
Method of
Realizing
Savings
Triennial Renewal System
Eliminate Mandatory Personal
Audiences
Charge for Annual Roster
SOURCE AND NATURE OF
POTENTIAL SAVINGS
Estimated Cost Estimated Time
Savings Over, Savings, Over
A Four- Pear Period A ~ hree- year Period
$ 13,865 380 s t a f f days
288 s t a f f days
47,876
$ 61,741 668 s t a f f days
In addition, the earlier c o l l e c t i o n o f revenue t h a t w i l l r e s u l t from the
implementation of a t r i e n n i a l renewal system w i l l generate increased i n t e r e s t
earnings for the S t a t e General Fund. The increased i n t e r e s t earnings could be
as much as $ 52,000 over a four- year period.
Implement A Triennial
Renewal System
The Technical Registration Act requires the licensees of the Board to renew
t h e i r licenses prior to December 31 of each year. ARS 32- 127 states, i n part:
" A. C e r t i f i c a t e s of r e g i s t r a t i o n s h a l l expire on
December 31 of each year, and s h a l l be invalid a f t e r
t h a t date unless renewed by payment of the required
renewal fee...."
" C. The board s h a l l e s t a b l i s h the annual renewal fees for
each proficiency registered under t h i s chapter which
s h a l l not exceed twenty- five d o l l a r s .
Each year the Administrative Office of the S t a t e Board of Technical
Registration processes an increasing number of renewals." Based on estimates
o f t h e Board's Executive Director, t h e o f f i c e staff spent a t o t a l of 167 work a
days during f i s c a l year 1978- 79 processing 8,024. renewals. Because o f t h e
backlog of work created by the renewal process during the months of November,
December and January; the Board has considered requesting additional part- time
c l e r i c a l help f o r t h i s period.
One means of reducing the number of renewals processed each year and the
r e s u l t a n t s t r a i n on the operations of the Administrative Office is to implement
a t r i e n n i a l renewal cycle.** With such a system, only one t h i r d of the Board's
licensees would renew t h e i r licenses each year. By adopting a t r i e n n i a l
renewal cycle the S t a t e Board of Technical Registration could r e a l i z e estimated
cost and time savings over a four- year period, as shown on Table 10.
* See Appendix I V f o r a trend l i n e a n a l y s i s o f the number of annual
renewals. ** Currently, the California S t a t e Board of Registration for Professional
Engineers operates a quadrennial renewal system. *
TABLE 10
ESTIMATED SAVINGS RESULTING
FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
A TRIENNIAL RENEWAL SYSTEM
F i s c a l Year*
Total
Estimated Cost
Savings
Estimated Staff
Time Savings
118 Work Days
127 Work Days
135 Work Days
380 Work Days
When questioned by the Office o f the Auditor General about the p o s s i b i l i t i e s
of using an extended renewal cycle ( two or t h r e e y e a r s ) , Board members
expressed no major objections. In f a c t , one o f t h e members felt t h a t it would
be " a very good way to reduce ( the Board's operating) expenses."
Increased I n t e r e s t Earnings Generated By The E a r l i e r Collection O f Revenues -
Revenues collected and deposited i n the Technical Registration Fund ( 90 percent
of the Board's revenue) and the S t a t e General Fund ( 10 percent o f Board's
revenue) are invested by the S t a t e Treasurer u n t i l they are needed. A l l
i n t e r e s t earnings from such investments are retained i n the General Fund. A s a
r e s u l t of converting to a t r i e n n i a l renewal cycle, additional i n t e r e s t earnings
of as much a s $ 52,000" w i l l be generated over a four- year period assuming a
nine percent r a t e o f r e t u r n on investmentsi**.
The increase in i n t e r e s t earning w i l l r e s u l t because revenue collected during
the i n i t i a l years o f implementation w i l l exceed the amount need t o finance
those years operations. The additional amount can be invested u n t i l needed,
thus generating the additional i n t e r e s t earnings.
* No cost or time savings would be incurred during the first year because
a l l renewals would be processed during the implementation of the
t r i e n n i a l renewal system. ** This estimate is based on an annual renewal fee of $ 20.00 i l l u s t r a t e d on
page 37. *** According t o the State Treasurer, the annual r a t e of return on
investments for 1979 is projected to be nine percent.
Delete The Mandatory Requirement
For Personal Audiences
During fiscal year 1978- 79, the State Board of Technical Registration processed
over 800 applications for licensure. Under the requirements of Rule R4- 30- 17,
each applicant must appear for a personal audience with one of the Board's
Evaluation Committees. Based on estimates of the Executive Director, fiscal
year 1978- 79 personal audiences required over: 1) 384 hours of Board members'
time, and 2) 576 hours of administrative staff time. By implementing the
changes recommended below the Board could reduce the amount of administrative
staff time involved in the application review process by as much as 288 days
over a four- year period.
The current process used by the Board to evaluate applicants is as follows.
The Executive Director of the Board reviews the applicant's file and evaluates
the applicant's qualifications. Based on his review, the Executive Director
recommends the type of action that should be taken by the Evaluation Committee.
The Evaluation Committee conducts personal interviews with the applicants and
determines which applicants should be licensed, held for examination or
rejected. The Evaluation Committee submits its recommendations to the full
Board for ratification. Our review of 171 applications for licensure,
processed by the Board between August 1978 and January 1979, revealed that:
1. The Executive Director made recommendations on 142 ( 83%) of the
applications. ( The Executive Director routinely does not make any
recommendations on those applications that he feels should not be
licensed or held for examination because of an obvious lack of
experience. )
2. The Evaluation Committees subsequently agreed with the Executive
Director's recommendations for 133 ( 94%) of the 142 applicants.
Our review of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n review process of other similar s t a t e boards*
revealed t h a t the Kansas S t a t e Board of Technical Professions has developed a
system that requires s u b s t a n t i a l l y less s t a f f time. In place o f the mandatory
personal audiences, members of the Kansas review committees received a summary
for each applicant and a b a l l o t on which they indicate approval or disapproval
of t h e a p p l i c a n t . If the committee members agree on t h e a p p l i c a n t the only
remaining action is for the f u l l Board t o approve the decision o f t h e
committee. If the committee members disagree on an applicant e i t h e r the
committee members resolve t h e i r differences or the applicant is interviewed i n
person at the next Board meeting. The Executive Director o f t h e Kansas Board
estimated t h a t Board members spend only 10 to 15 minutes on each application.
The applicant evaluation system used by the Kansas Board was reviewed by the
Executive Director o f the Arizona Board of Technical Registration. The
Executive Director agreed t h a t the implementation of a s i m i l a r system i n
conjunction with h i s own review of the a p p l i c a t i o n s , presented no p r a c t i c a l
problems and could s u b s t a n t i a l l y reduce the workload r e s u l t i n g from the
mandatory personal audiences.
Impose A Minimal Charge
Upon Non- Governmental Recipients
Of the Annual Roster
I n June 1979, the S t a t e Board of Technical Registration mailed out over 8,000
copies of t h e i r Fifty- Seventh Annual Report with Roster of Active Registrants
at no charge to the licensees of the Board. The publication and d i s t r i b u t i o n
c o s t s f o r t h e r o s t e r were approximately $ 12,000. It appears t h a t t h i s
represents an unnecessary expenditure f o r t h e Board in t h a t 1) a c t u a l usage of
the Roster by licensees is limited, and 2) there is a precedent i n Arizona
government f o r imposing a minimal charge upon non- governmental r e c i p i e n t s o f
such a r o s t e r .
* Only 13 of 88 other statest boards t h a t license engineers and a r c h i t e c t s
require personal audiences of a l l applicants.
In a survey of t h e l i c e n s e e s o f the Board conducted by the Office o f the Auditor
General* t h e r e c i p i e n t s of the annual Roster were asked t o evaluate how
frequently they need the Roster. Ninety- six percent of the licensees
responding indicated t h a t they use the r o s t e r infrequently. Only four percent
of the l i c e n s e e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t they use the Roster as frequently as once a
week. Further, 92 percent of the licensees s t a t e d t h a t they would d i r e c t any
i n q u i r i e s they might have regarding r e g i s t r a n t s to the Board Administration
Office if they did not have the Roster. However, the survey a l s o showed t h a t
those licensees t h a t frequently use the Roster feel t h a t its publication and
d i s t r i b u t i o n is a very necessary function of the Board.
The Registrar of Contractors publishes a very similar r o s t e r of over 12,000
licensees. However, instead of d i s t r i b u t i n g the r o s t e r s free, they charge
$ 4.00 per copy to those persons who request a copy of t h e r o s t e r . During fiscal
year 1978- 79 the Registrar published 2,000 copies o f t h e annual r o s t e r and had
requests for approximately 1,900 copies which were sold a t $ 4.00 each. The
t o t a l revenue generated exceeded the publication and d i s t r i b u t i o n costs.**
If the Board of Technical Registration were t o adopt a r o s t e r policy similar t o
t h a t of t h e R e g i s t r a r of Contractors, then: 1) the t o t a l number of r o s t e r s
published and d i s t r i b u t e d would decrease because it appears t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a l
percentage of licensees would not request a copy, and 2) t h e c o s t s of
publication and d i s t r i b u t i o n could be recovered, provided the sales price was
appropriately established.
Appendix V I contains a summary of the survey r e s u l t s . ** Total costs include the publication and d i s t r i b u t i o n of s i x month
supplement.
When the members o f the Board were questioned a s t o the concept of imposing a
charge for the annual r o s t e r , seven of the nine members responded that they had
no objections to implementing a charge for the r o s t e r to o f f s e t publication and
d i s t r i b u t i o n coats.
Delete The Board Rule That Requires
An Applicant Who Is Denied Licensure
To Wait One Year Before Reapplying
The S t a t e Board of Technical Registration Rule R4- 30- 01( G) requires:
" When an application f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n is denied or
withdrawn. the a-~ - p l i c a n t w i l l be s o n o t i f i e d of the
Board's action. No reapplication w i l l be accepted u n t i l
one year has elapsed from t h e d a t e of the formal Board
action denying the o r i g i n a l application." ( Emphasis
added)
Our review of the S t a t e Board of Technical Registration revealed that Rule R4-
30- 01( G) has caused s u b s t a n t i a l and unnecessarydelaysin the licensure process.
Further, our review revealed t h a t the Board is inconsistent i n imposing Rule
R4- 30- 01( G) i n t h a t some applicants are made to wait one year before reapplying
while others are not. According to the Executive Director o f the Board, Rule
R4- 30- 01( G) is oftentimes imposed as a " penaltytt for those applicants
t h a t t h e Board f e e l s have been uncooperative during t h e a p p l i c a t i o n process.
Amend ARS 32- 124 To Allow The Board
To Establish Fees Charged To Applicants
Connnensurate With Costs To The Board
Our review of the Board's Rules and Regulations revealed t h a t t h e f e e s
established i n Board Rules R4- 30- 27 and R4- 30- 28 exceed the s t a t u t o r y l i m i t of
$ 100 as provided i n ARS 32- 124. However, our review also revealed t h a t the
fees currently charged by the Board are reasonable and t h a t any s u b s t a n t i a l
reductions i n these fees would preclude the recovery o f associated costs
incured by the Board.
Arizona Revised S t a t e s section 32- 124 s t a t e s :
" The board s h a l l publish in its r u l e s a schedule of fees
for applications, examinations, and such other
miscellaneous fees for services rendered as required which
s h a l l not exceed one hundred dollars."
In e s t a b l i s h i n g its fees, the Board had i n t e r p r e t e d the provisions of ARS 32-
124 t o mean t h a t the $ 100 l i m i t a t i o n applies to each type o f f e e catagory
individually. A s a r e s u l t , the c u r r e n t a p p l i c a t i o n and examination fees
charged by the Board for licensure a s an Architect or Landscape Architect a r e
$ 1 15 and $ 105 respectively. According to t h e L e g i s l a t i v e Council these fees
are not i n compliance with ARS 32- 124. In an April 13, 1979 opinion the 4
Legislative Council s t a t e d :
" The s t a t u t o r y l i m i t of one hundred d o l l a r s pertains to
the items mentioned i n section 34- 124, Arizona Revised
S t a t u t e s , c o l l e c t i v e l y . Thus the maximum fee chargeable
against an applicant for r e g i s t r a t i o n is limited t o one
hundred d o l l a r s .
Our review o f the application and examination fees, a s provided i n Rules R4- 30-
27 and R4- 30- 28, revealed t h a t , while two of these fees exceed the s t a t u t o r y
l i m i t a t i o n s i n ARS 32- 124, they are reasonable when compared to the associated
a
expenses incurred to administer examinations and process application.
* See Appendix I for the f u l l t e x t of the Opinion.
CONCLUSION
Our review of the S t a t e Board of Technical Registration revealed t h a t by 1)
implementing a t r i e n n i a l renewal system, 2) eliminating the mandatory personal
audiences, and 3) charging non- governmental r e c i p i e n t s a minimal fee for the
annual r o s t e r , t h e operating expenses of the Board could be reduced by as much
a s $ 61,741 and the workload of the administrative staff could be reduced by as
much a s 668 work days over a four- yearperiod. In addition, the e a r l i e r
collection of renewal fees r e s u l t i n g from the implementation of the t r i e n n i a l
renewal system w i l l increase i n t e r e s t earnings by as much a s $ 52,000 over a
four- year period.
Further, our review revealed t h a t 1) Rule R4- 30- 01( g) is i n c o n s i s t e n t l y
enforced, and 2) when it is enforced it is an unnecessary delay for licensure
applicants. Finally, our review showed t h a t , although fees charged by the
Board exceed the s t a t u t o r y l i m i t , they are reasonable when compared t o the
associated expenses incurred by the Board.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s section 32- 127 and Rule R4- 30- 29 should be
amended to allow for the implementation of a t r i e n n i a l renewal system.
2. Rule R4- 30- 17 should be amended to d e l e t e the mandatory requirement for
personal audiences. Further, the Board should implement an application
review process similar to the one used by the Kansas Board.
3. The Board should adopt a policy requiring non- governmental r e c i p i e n t s of
the annual r o s t e r t o pay a nominal fee t o cover the publication and
d i s t r i b u t i o n c o s t s ( similar to the requirement used by t h e R e g i s t r a r of
Contractors).
4. Rule R4- 30- 01( G) should be deleted t o remove the p o s s i b i l i t y of
unnecessary delays for applicants.
6
5. Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s section 32- 124 should be amended to allow the
Board to e s t a b l i s h fees charged to applicants commensurate with costs t o
the Board.
FINDING I V
THE STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION HAS BEEN SUBSTANDARD I N ITS
ENCOURAGEMENT AND USE OF PUBLIC INPUT I N ITS OPERATIONS. INFORMATION REGARDING
MEETING NOTICES, PROPOSED RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND BOARD ACTION HAS NOT BEEN
ADEQUATELY PROVIDED TO LICENSEES OF THE BOARD OR THE CONSUMERS OF THE
LICENSEES' SERVICES.
The S t a t e Board of Technical Registration has been substandard i n its
encouragement of p u b l i c i n p u t from the consumer of l i c e n s e e s 1 s e r v i c e s and i n
n o t i f y i n g l i c e n s e holders of Board meetings, proposed r u l e s and regulations,
and Board actions. The Board needs t o expand its e f f o r t s t o encourage
p a r t i c i p a t i o n by p o t e n t i a l and actual consumers and t o notify a l l licensees of
Board meetings, a c t i v i t i e s and actions.
Board Actions Regarding
Public Notice Of Meetings
Arizona Revised, S t a t u t e 38- 431.02A defines the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the S t a t e
Board of Technical Registration t o provide public notice of a l l meetings:
" Public notice of all meetings of public bodies s h a l l be
given as follows:
1. The public bodies of the s t a t e s h a l l file a
statement with the secretary of s t a t e s t a t i n g
where a l l public notices of t h e i r meetings w i l l
be posted and s h a l l give such additional public
notice as is reasonable and practicable as t o
meetings . l1
The Board has not f i l e d a statement with the Secretary of S t a t e identifying the
location where meeting notices w i l l be posted. However, notices have been
c o n s i s t e n t l y posted i n the Occupational Licensing Building a t the S t a t e
Capi to1 .
The Attorney General i n a memorandum t o a l l s t a t e agencies dated August 19,
1975, noted t h a t an:
lllopen meeting' is open only i n theory i f the public has no
knowledge of the time and place a t which it is t o be held."
The Attorney General s t a t e d f u r t h e r t h a t the law on open meetings was
not s p e c i f i c , and o u t l i n e d g u i d e l i n e s t o be followed i n complying
with the public meeting law. He a l s o cautioned agencies against the
serious consequences for f a i l u r e t o comply with the law:
" Decisions made a t a meeting for which defective notice
was given may l i k e l y be declared n u l l and void..."*
In providing guidelines to agencies regarding what would c o n s t i t u t e s u f f i c i e n t
" additional" public notice of meetings beyond posting p r i n t e d n o t i c e s , the
Attorney General s t a t e d :
llF. Additional Notice
I n deciding what types of notice s h a l l be given i n addition
t o posting, governing bodies should consider the
following:
1. Newspaper Publication
In many cases, n o t i c e o f meetings can be
disseminated by providing press releases t o
newspapers published i n the area i n which notice
is t o be given. In addition, paid l e g a l notices
i n such newspapers may be purchased by the
governing body.
2. Mailing L i s t
Some bodies may wish t o provide a mailing list
whereby persons desiring t o o b t a i n n o t i c e s of
meetings may ask t o be placed on a mailing list.
A l l nitices of meetings issued w i l l then be
mailed t o those appearing on the current mailinq
- list." ( Emphasis added)
* Appendix X contains the f u l l t e x t of the Attorney General's memorandum.
" 3. Articles or Notices i n Professional or Business
Publications
In addition, the governing body may obtain
publication of a r t i c l e s or notices i n those
professional and business publications r e l a t i n g
t o the agency's f i e l d or regulation.
It is not necessary t h a t a l l of these types o f notices be
given. Indeed, merely providing notice through the use of
a mailing list and by posting should be s u f f i c i e n t i n most
cases. Neither should the above l i s t i n g s be considered
exclusive and, t o the extent other forms of notice a r e
reasonably available, they should be used." ( Emphasis
added)
The Board has not adopted any of the " additional noticen methods for notifying
the public and its licensees of meetings as outlined by the Attorney General.
It should be noted t h a t i n a survey by the Office of the Auditor General of the
Boardls licensees*, 70 percent ( 382) of the 544 licensees responding s t a t e d
they were not aware of scheduled Board meetings. Thus, by the current public
notice methods used by the Board, only 30 percent o f the l i c e n s e holders, and
only those consumers who are n o t i f i e d through the postings i n the Occupational
Licensing Building, would be aware of meetings.
Board Actions Regarding
Public Notice Of Proposed
Rules And Regulations And
Other Board Actions
When proposing changes i n r u l e s and regulations, each agency is required by ARS
41- 1002 ( Administrative Procedures law) t o f i l e a notice of such changes with
the Secretary o f S t a t e at least 20 days prior t o the proposed adoption date.
The Secretary o f S t a t e publishes the proposed changes monthly i n the
Administrative Procedures Digest.
The S t a t e Board of Technical Registration has complied with t h i s s t a t u t e ;
however, a review of the d i s t r i b u t i o n list f o r the Digest, as of May 1, 1979,
reveale