A performance audit of the Board of Technical Registration

              STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT
OF THE
BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION
OCTOBER 1981
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 81 - 1 3
DOUGLAS R. NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
October 26, 1981
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor
M s . Judi E. Ross, Executive Director
Board of Technical Registration
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Board of Technical Registration. This report is i n response
t o a June 10, 1980, resolution of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.
The performance audit was conducted as a part of the Sunset review s e t
f o r t h i n A. R. S. § § 41- 2351 through 41- 2379.
The blue pages present a summary of the report; a response from the
Executive Director is found on the yellow pages preceding the appendices.
My s t a f f and I w i l l be pleased t o discuss or c l a r i f y items i n the report.
Respectfully submitted,
D O U ~ ~ R. SN orton
Auditor General
Staff: Gerald A. Silva
William Thomson
Robert T. Back
William A. Wright
Enclosure
LEGISLATIVE SERVICES WING SUITE 200 STATE CAPITOL PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85007 255- 4385
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT O F THE
BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 81- 13
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
SUNSET FACTORS
FINDING
Of the 22 recommendations in Auditor General Report No. 79- 9,
the Board of Technical Registration and the Legislature
have implemented 15 recommendations, proposed rules and
regulations which would implement four recommendations, and
not implemented three recommendations as of September 30,
1981.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION
WRITTEN RESPONSE TO AUDITOR GENERAL REPORT
Page
i
1
3
5
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I - Procedures for Handling Complaints
APPENDIX I1 - Attorney General Memorandum Promulgations of
Rules and Regulations, April 15, 1981
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has evaluated the Board of Technical
Registration i n response to a June 10, 1980, resolution of the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee. This evaluation was conducted as a part of
the Sunset process s e t f o r t h i n Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s ( A. R. s.)
$ $ 41- 2351 through 41- 2379.
The Board of Technical Registration was established i n 1921 to regulate
the practice of a r c h i t e c t u r e , assaying, engineering and land surveying.
Geology was added i n 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 comprised of two a r c h i t e c t s , three professional
engineers, one land surveyor, one landscape a r c h i t e c t , one assayer or
geologist and one lay member. Each member is appointed by the Governor to
a three- year term.
The Board is responsible for the administration and enforcement of Arizona
laws concerning the practice of the aforementioned professions. Board
duties include:
I. Administration of i n i t i a l licensure examinations.
2. Issuance of licenses t o individuals who meet the Board's
educational, 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 was reviewed previously i n Auditor General Report no. 79- 9, A
Performance Audit of the Arizona S t a t e Board of Technical R e g i s t r a t i o n .
I n t h a t r e p o r t , we noted t h a t the Board had been remiss i n its duty to
p r o t e c t t h e s a f e t y , h e a l t h and welfare of the public. I n a d d i t i o n , the
absence of w r i t t e n p o l i c i e s and adequate records precluded a determination
t h a t the Board had exercised its d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y i n the public
i n t e r e s t . Further, changes were needed t o improve the e f f i c i e n c y and
e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the Board. F i n a l l y , t h e Board had been substandard i n
its encouragement and use of public input i n its operations.
Our review of the Board's performance s i n c e Auditor General Report
No. 79- 9 was issued has revealed t h a t of the 22 recommendations i n Auditor
General Report No. 79- 9, the Board of Technical R e g i s t r a t i o n and the
L e g i s l a t u r e have implemented 15 recommendations, proposed r u l e s and
r e g u l a t i o n s which would implement four recommendations and not implemented
t h r e e recommendations as of September 30, 1981. ( page 5)
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has evaluated the Board of Technical
Registration i n response to a June 10, 1980, resolution of the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee. This evaluation was conducted as a part of
the Sunset review s e t f o r t h i n Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s ( A. R. s.) $$ 41- 2351
through 41- 2379.
The Board of Technical Registration was established i n 1921 to regulate
the practice of a r c h i t e c t u r e , assaying, engineering and land surveying.
Geology was added i n 1956 and landscape a r c h i t e c t u r e was added i n 1968.
- 2 4
The nine- member Board is comprised of * da r c h i t e c t s , three professional
- engineer s, , ct- one land surveyor, o v 12-
geu3sgist and eae lay member. Each member is appointed by the Governor to
a three- year term.
The Board is responsible f o r the administration and enforcement of Arizona
laws concerning the practice of the aforementioned professions. Board
duties include:
1. Administration of i n i t i a l licensure examinations.
2. Issuance of licenses t o individuals who meet the Board's
educational, 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 operations are funded through fees charged f o r
application, examination and license renewal. Ten percent of t h e f e e s
received are deposited i n the S t a t e General Fund while the remaining
90 percent are used f o r Board operations within the l i m i t s of an annual
budget approved by the Legislatilre .
The Board was reviewed previously i n Auditor General Report No. 79- 9, A
Performance Audit of the Arizona State Board of Technical Registration.
That report noted that the Board had been remiss i n its duty to protect
the safety, health and welfare of the public. In addition, the absence of
written policies and adequate records precluded a determination that the
Board had exercised its discretionary authority i n the public i n t e r e s t .
Further, changes were needed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of the Board. Finally, the Board had 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 had not been provided adequately to licensees or consumers of
licensees' services.
The objective of the reevaluation was to determine:
1. I f the recommendations i n Report No. 79- 9 have been implemented.
2. I f the Board has implemented procedures to enable it to protect
the safety, health and welfare of the public i n addition to those
procedures recommended i n Report No. 79- 9.
3. What changes, i f any, are necessary for the Board to improve i t s
performance.
The Auditor General expresses gratitude to the members of the Board of
Technical Registration and its administrative s t a f f f o r t h e i r cooperation,
assistance and consideration during the course of the evaluation.
SUNSET FACTORS
Auditor General Report No. 79- 9 s t a t e d t h a t the Board of Technical
R e g i s t r a t i o n had been remiss i n its duty t o p r o t e c t t h e s a f e t y , h e a l t h and
welfare of the public. I n t h a t r e p o r t , a number of recommendations were
presented which, i f implemented, could increase Board e f f i c i e n c y and
e f f e c t i v e n e s s . The L e g i s l a t u r e d i r e c t e d the Auditor General t o review the
Board's performance again. This review has been r e s t r i c t e d t o the Board's
e f f o r t s t o comply with the recommendations made i n Report No. 79- 9.
Inasmuch as the Sunset Factors were addressed i n Report No. 79- 9, these
f a c t o r s a r e not readdressed i n t h i s r e p o r t . For f u r t h e r information on
the Board of Technical R e g i s t r a t i o n ' s Sunset Factors, the reader is
r e f e r r e d t o Report No. 79- 9, pages 10- 13.
FINDING
OF THE 22 RECONMENDATIONS IN AUDITOR GENERAL REPORT NO. 79- 9. THE BOARD OF
TECHNICAL REGISTRATION AND THE LEGISLATURE HAVE IMPLEMENTED 15
RECOPQ'IENDATIOBS, PROPOSED RULES AND REGULATIOWS WHICH WOULD IMPLENENT POUR
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND NOT IMPLENENTED THREE RECOMMENDATIONS AS OF
SEPTEMBER 30. 1981.
The Board of Technical Registration has stated its goals as follows:
" Provide for the safety, health and welfare of the
public by licensing only those applicants who meet the
standards of qualification and by enforcing the
regulations by investigating and resolving complaints
against those registered by the Board and against
non- registrants."
Auditor General Report No. 79- 9 stated that the Board had been remiss in
its duty to protect the safety, health and welfare of the public. Of the
22 recommendations in Auditor General Report No. 79- 9, the Board of
Technical Registration and the Legislature have implemented 15
recommendations, proposed rules and regulations which would implement four
recommendations, and not implemented three recommendations as of
September 30, 1981.
Auditor General Report No. 79- 9
Auditor General Report No. 79- 9 found not , only that the Board had been
remiss in its duty to protect the safety, health and welfare of the
public, but that the absence of written policies and adequate records
precluded a determination that the Board had exercised its discretionary
authority in the public interest. Further, changes were needed to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of the Board. Finally, the Board had
been substandard in its encouragement and use of public input in its
operations. Information regarding meeting notices, proposed rules and
regulations, and Board actions had not been adequately provided to
licensees or consumers of licensees' services.
These deficiencies were presented in four findings and were accompanied by
22 recommendations to improve the Board's performance. Table 1 summarizes
the recommendations and the results of our review as to their status as of
September 30, 1981.
Recommendation
FINDING I
1. The Foard should e s t a b l i s h an
aggressive peer review program
s i m i l a r to the one c u r r e n t l y used
by the Board of Accountancy.
SUMMARY OP TIIE : i'? A'?" Ut; OF ?! IS HECCY? T! I? A'? IS.: S I! J
A'; I? ITOR CWFRAL REPORWO. '! 1- 9 AS OP :' F? T!: KFFP 70, 1QR!
2. Xake a s p e c i a l e f f o r t t o work with
various building s a f e t y departments
throughout t h e S t a t e .
3. Maintain b e t t e r records of its
d i s c i p l i n a r y process.
4. Inform l i c e n s e e s and the public o f t h e
Board's oversight r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and
the r e s u l t s of its d i s c i p l i n a r y actions.
5. Increase l i c e n s e renewal fees t o allow
for the investigation 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.
6. Discontinue policy which requires a
v e r i f i e d formal complaint before
Board action.
7. Include the Office of the Attorney
General more completely i n
d e l i b e r a t i o n s .
8. The Legislature should amend A. R. S.
532- 101 e t . seq. t o include the
following provisions:
a. Include censure and probation
as d i s c i p l i n a r j a l t e r n a t i v e s t o
the Board.
b. Require professional l i a b i l i t y
insurance c a r r i e r s t o report
insurance claims to the Board.
c. Provide personal immunity f o r
those acting in good f a i t h with
regard t o the enforcement of the
Technical Registration Act.
FIPIDING I1
1. The Board should make a concerted e f f o r t
t o continue t o develop a formal
evaluative c r i t e r i a regarding: a ) the
determination of the adequacy of an
a p p l i c a n t ' s experience, and b) the
requirement for examination. Once
developed, these c r i t e r i a should be
incorporated i n t o the rilles and
regulations of the Board.
2. Improve documentation of its
decision- making process t o
allow f o r a thorough, independent,
q u a l i t a t i v e evaluation of the process.
3. Comply with A. R. S. 532- 106 ( A)
whlch r e q u i r e s t h e Board t o keep n
r e g i s t e r of applicants showing t h e d a t e
of esch application, name,
q u a l i f i c a t l o o s and place of business
of the applicant and the d i s p o s i t i o n
of the application.
STATUS
Inp? i? mented : iot I n p l r ~ e n t e d
Addressed i n
S t a t u t o r i l y Administratively Proposed Rules S t s t u t o r i l y Adninistrrriue1::
Recommanda tion
FINDING I11
1. The L e g i s l ~ t u r e or the Board should
amend A. R. S. $ 32- 127 and Rule R4- 30- 29
to allow for the implementation
of a t r i e n n i a l renewal system.
2 . Amend Rille R4- 30- 17 t o
d e l e t e the mandatory requirement for
personal audiences..
Further, implement an application
review process similar t o the one
used by the Kansas board.
3. Adopt a policy requiring
nongovernmental r e c ~ p i e n t s
of the annual r o s t e r t o pay a
nominal fee to cover publication
and d i s t r i b u t i o n costs.
4. Delete Rule 84- 30- 01 ( G) t o
remove t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of unnecessary
delays for applicants.
5. Amend A. R. S. $ 32- 124 t o
allow the Board to e s t a b l i s h applicant
fees commensurate with Board costs.
FINDING IV
1. The Legislature or the Board
should adopt methods to encourage
p u b l i c i n p u t end p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n
promulgation of riles and regulations,
development of l e g i s l a t i v e proposals
and other Board decision- making
processes.
2. F i l e a statement with the
Secretary of S t a t e i n d i c a t i n g where
p u b l i c n o t i c e s of meetings
w i l l be posted.
3. Amend A. R. S. $ 532- 102 and 32- 103
to provide for public membership on
the Board.
STAT:!::
!? plrmentcd ': ot Tr~? emer. ted
Addressed ~ c
S t a t u t o r i l y A ' t n i n i s t r a t i v e l y Proposed Rules S t a t u t o r i l y Administrative:::
The earlier report's recommendations and their status as of September 30,
1981, are detailed below.
FINDING I: THE STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION HAS BEEN REMISS IN
ITS DUTY TO PROTECT THE SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
Auditor General Report No. 79- 9 found that the Board had failed to
investigate numerous allegations of illegal or incompetent work by persons
licensed by the Board. As a result of the Board's nonfeasance, some
public agencies and a number of licensees had ceased filing complaints
with the Board, and the Board was not fulfilling its responsibility to
protect the public against incompetent or unscrupulous licensees.
The finding listed eight specific recommendations which, if implemented,
would improve the Board's performance of its statutory responsibility.
Each recommendation is listed below, followed by the results of our review.
Recommendation 1: The Board should establish an agressive peer review
program similar to the one currently used by the Board of Accountancy.
Review Results: The peer review program that was recommended is one in
which an investigator compares public filings by registrants to a
preliminary review checklist containing the basic elements of " generally
B
accepted auditing standards" and " generally accepted accounting
principles." The investigator reports exceptions from these standards to
the board for its consideration and action.
The Board of Technical R e g i s t r a t i o n has taken some preliminary s t e p s t o
comply with the recommendation regarding a peer review program. The
current executive d i r e c t o r of the Board has proposed a two- part peer
review program. The f i r s t phase involves the establishment of an
informational program t o provide s p e c i f i c performance guidelines t o
building i n s p e c t o r s , l i c e n s e e s and the general public. Once these
guidelines have been e s t a b l i s h e d , consumers of l i c e n s e e s e r v i c e s and the
l i c e n s e e s w i l l have a basic understanding of adequate performance.
Instances of substandard performance may be reported t o the Board f o r
i n v e s t i g a t i o n and possible d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n . The second phase c o n s i s t s
of a peer review program wherein the p r o f e s s i o n a l work of a r e g i s t r a n t
would be reviewed by another r e g i s t r a n t appointed by the Board randomly.
The review would encompass the e f f i c i e n c y , e f f e c t i v e n e s s and adequacy of
t h e r e g i s t r a n t reviewed. Instances of substandard work would be reported
t o the Board f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n and possible d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n .
Board members have expressed concern regarding the usefulness of a peer
review program. A t the J u l y 31, 1981, Board meeting, s e v e r a l members
s t a t e d t h a t peer review programs could degenerate quickly i n t o witch
hunts. The discussion a t t h a t meeting came t o no s u b s t a n t i v e conclusions.
The Board has employed a l a w c l e r k t o d r a f t new Board r u l e s and
' regulations. The d r a f t includes general r u l e s of p r o f e s s i o n a l conduct f o r
a l l r e g i s t r a n t s and s p e c i f i c s t a n d a r d s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l conduct f o r each of
the s i x professions licensed by the Board. Hearings a r e scheduled f o r t h e
f a l l of 1981. The c u r r e n t Board chairman f e e l s t h a t the p r o c e s s o f formal
adoption w i l l not be completed u n t i l February 1982.
Recommendation 2: The Board should make a s p e c i a l e f f o r t t o work with
building s a f e t y departments throughout the S t a t e .
Review Results: The new executive d i r e c t o r has i n s t i t u t e d a program t o
inform building s a f e t y departments of the Board's s t a t u t o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
and of the Board's willingness t o work with the agencies f o r the
p r o t e c t i o n of the public. The program was i n s t i t u t e d i n August 1981; its
impact cannot be evaluated a t t h i s time.
The executive director hopes to expand the Board's work with the building
safety departments by providing them with published performance standards
for each of the regulated professions. However, t h i s cannot be
accomplished u n t i l the Board formally adopts the standards as part of its
administrative rules and regulations. Such Board adoption is scheduled
for February 1982.
Recommendation 3: The Board should maintain b e t t e r records of its
disciplinary process, including:
- More complete records i n the complaint f i l e s ( t h i s may include a
transcript of formal hearings), and
- A clear indication i n each f i l e of how the complaint was resolved
and a record of formal Board actions relating to its resolution.
Review Results: The maintenance of records of the disciplinary process
remains inadequate. The current reporting system does not provide
sufficient documentation to provide a clear indication of investigative
results or the ultimate disposition of a complaint. However, the Board
s t a f f has taken steps to improve the system.
We examined the disciplinary f i l e s awaiting f i n a l Board action, as well as
cases which had already been closed. We were unable to determine quickly
what action, i f any, had been taken i n a particular case or where the case
was i n the review process. Closed f i l e s contained no statement of
resolution, and it was not possible to determine accurately which f i l e s
were closed and which were still awaiting Board action. It was necessary
to review Board minutes to determine which cases were closed. We were
informed by the Board s t a f f that one complaint had been " lost" f o r two
years because they thought that the complaint had been closed when, i n
f a c t , it had never gone before the Board.
Board s t a f f has made a concerted e f f o r t to create a more e f f i c i e n t system
of case review. From June 1 to August 30, 1981, the s t a f f has presented
85 cases to the Board for review and disposition; as of September 30,
1981, 20 of the cases had been closed.* The Board's executive director
said that the reduction i n the backlog of disciplinary f i l e s was essential
to the disciplinary process. The Board s t a f f has new procedures for
handling complaints which should improve the documentation of the
disciplinary process. ( see Appendix I for the complaint handling
procedures. )
Recommendation 4: The Board should inform licensees and the public of i t s
oversight responsibility and the r e s u l t s of its disciplinary actions.
Review Results: On July 1, 1981, the Board entered into a contract for
consultant services i n the areas of research and technical writing. These
services include:
- Identifying the Board's goals, objectives and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ,
- Describing the functions of the agency,
- Preparing a synopsis of meeting agendas and actions taken by the
Board, and
- Preparing reports of Board a c t i v i t i e s for internal analysis and
external information.
The contract runs through March 1982 a t a cost not to exceed $ 4,500.
The contractor has prepared a mailing list of governmental agencies,
professional associations and the Arizona media. These groups receive
copies of Board agendas as well as news releases prepared by the
contractor.
* Three additional cases were sent back to the complaint committees for
further review.
There is, however, a potential problem with t h i s contractual arrangement
in that it may countermand l e g i s l a t i v e intent. The Board requested a
budget appropriation to fund a public information position f o r f i s c a l year
1981- 82. The request was denied by the Legislature. According to the
past executive director of the Board, the members of the Board directed
him to hire the consultant, knowing f u l l well that t h i s was against
l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t . He believes that his refusal to enter into the
contractual arrangement contributed to his dismissal.
According to the former Board chairman, it was his understanding that
there was no specific l e g i s l a t i v e rejection of the public information
function, but only of the request for a full- time position; further, he
f e l t there was a direct mandate to perform such function expressed i n the
Auditor General's Report No. 79- 9, and that the contract i n question did
not contravene l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t and was indeed necessary i f the mandate
to inform the public of the Board's actions was to be met.
Recommendation 5: The Board should 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.
Review Results: The Board has raised its license renewal fees twice since
1979. On July 20, 1979, the Board increased its renewal fee from $ 10 to
$ 15 a year. The fee was increased again to $ 21 a year on May 1, 1981.
The higher fees have increased the Board's revenues and its fund balance
significantly. On June 30, 1979, the Technical Registration Fund had a
balance of $ 78,924. On June 30, 1981, the balance of the Fund had
increased $ 90,045 to $ 168,969. According to the former Board chairman,
the $ 21 annual fee w i l l provide sufficient funds for investigations,
provided that the Legislature appropriates monies for t h i s purpose.
Recommendation 6: The Board should discontinue t h e p o l i c y which requires
a verified formal complaint before Board action.
Review Results: The Board has placed greater emphasis on complaint
i n v e s t i g a t i o n and does not require verified formal complaints before
i n v e s t i g a t i o n and/ or Board action. The current policy of the Board is to
investigate a l l verbal and/ or written complaints, even i f a complaint is
anonymous.
Recommendation 7: The Board should include the Office of the Attorney
General more completely i n deliberations.
Review Results: The Board has begun to include a c t i v e l y an a s s i s t a n t
Attorney General i n every deliberation. Additionally, the Board has used
the services of a law clerk from the Office of the Attorney General to
a s s i s t Board s t a f f i n drafting new administrative rules and regulations.
Further Recommendations i n Finding I: A. R. S. $ 72- 101 e t . seq., should be
amended t o include the following provisions: a
1. Include censure and probation a s d i s c i p l i n a r y a l t e r n a t i v e s
available to the Board.
2. Require professional l i a b i l i t y insurance c a r r i e r s to report
insurance claims t o the Board.
3. Provide personal immunity f o r those acting i n good f a i t h with
regard t o the enforcement of the Technical Registration Act.
Review Results:
1. A. R. S. $ 72- 128. D was amended effective April 26, 1980, and now
s t a t e s :
" If seven or more members of the board find the accused
g u i l t y , he may be censured, or placed on probation, and
fined an amount not to exceed two thoysand d o l l a r s or
h i s c e r t i f i c a t e may be suspended or revoked but may be
reissued upon t h e a f f i r m a t i v e vote of seven or more
members of the board.. .. " ( ~ m ~ h a saidsd ed)
2. The s t a t u t e s have not been amended to include a requirement t h a t
professional l i a b i l i t y insurance c a r r i e r s report claims t o the
Board.
3. A. R. S. $ 32- 110, e f f e c t i v e April 26, 1980, s t a t e s :
" Members and employees of the board are immune from
personal l i a b i l i t y with respect to a c t s done and
actions taken i n good f a i t h within the scope of t h e i r
authority."
FINDING 11: THE ABSENCE OF WRITTEN POLICIES AND WRITTEN RECORDS OF
PROCEEDINGS PRECLUDES A DETERMINATION THAT THE BOARD OF TECHNICAL
REGISTRATION HAS EXERCISED ITS DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY I N THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.
Auditor General Report No. 79- 9 found t h a t , despite warnings from the
Office of the Attorney General, the Board had not: 1) established
s u f f i c i e n t standards t o ensure t h a t applicants for licensure were
evaluated equitably, and 2 ) s u f f i c i e n t l y documented its proceedings and
decision- making process. The absence of standards and documentation
precluded a thorough, independent, q u a l i t a t i v e evaluation of the manner i n
which the Board had 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 were available indicated t h a t the Board
B
may have exercised its discretionary authority i n an a r b i t r a r y and
capricious manner i n evaluating applicants.
D
Also, the absence of formal p o l i c i e s caused confusion f o r applicants,
causing unnecessary expenditures of time and money.
The report l i s t e d three s p e c i f i c recommendations which, i f implemented,
would improve the Board's f u l f i l l m e n t of its statutory responsibility.
Recommendation 1: The Board should make a concerted e f f o r t to continue t o
develop a formal evaluative c r i t e r i a regarding: 1) determination of the
adequacy of an a p p l i c a n t ' s experience, and 2) the requirement f o r
examination. Once developed, these c r i t e r i a should be incorporate6 i n t o
the rules and regulations of the Board.
Review Results: The Board has not yet implemented this recommendation.
The development of professional standards was one of the main projects of
a law clerk employed by the Board from June to August 1981. The law clerk
completed a draft copy of professional standards regarding applicant's
educational and experience requirements before examination and licensure.
The draft currently is being reviewed for comment by Board members,
professional societies and registrants. The former Board chairman has
stated that he hopes that the standards will be formally adopted as
administrative rules and regulations, but conceded that this action
probably cannot be completed before February 1982.
Recommendation 2: The Board should improve documentation of its
decision- making process to allow for thorough, independent, qualitative
evaluation of the process.
Review Results: We found that the extent of documentation of the
decision- making process remains inadequate. Recommendation 2 also is
explained in Recommendation 3, Finding I. ( see page 11 for further review
results.)
Recommendation 3: The Board should comply with A. R. S. $ 32- 106. A which
requires it to keep a register of applicants, showing the date of each
application, name, qualifications and place of business of the applicant
and the disposition of the application.
Review Results: At the time Auditor General Report No. 79- 9 was issued,
A. R. S. $ 32- 106.~ stated, in part:
" The Board shall:
" 7. Keep a register which shall show the date of each
application for registration, the name, age,
qualifications and place of business of the
applicant, and the disposition of the application."
The section was amended by Laws 1980, Chapter 250, effective April 26,
1980. A. R. S. $ 32- 106.~ now s t a t e s , i n part:
" The Board shall:
" 7. Keep a r e g i s t e r which s h a l l show the date of each
application for r e g i s t r a t i o n , the name of the
applicant, the practice or branch of practice in
which the applicant has applied for r e g i s t r a t i o n
and the disposition of the application."
Our review of the r e g i s t e r revealed that the Board has complied with the
requirements of A. R. S. $ 32- 106. A. 7.
FINDING 111: CHANGES NEEDED TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION.
Auditor General Report No. 79- 9 found that there were several changes
needed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Board. The
report l i s t e d five specific recommendations which, i f implemented, would
improve the Board's performance of its statutory responsibility:
Recommendation 1: A. R. S. s32- 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.
Review Results: A. R. S. $ 32- 127 was amended effective April 26, 1980, and
the Board has implemented a t r i e n n i a l renewal system.
Recommendation 2: Rule R4- 30- 17 should be amended to delete the mandatory
requirement for personal audiences. Further, the Board should implement
an application review process similar to the one used by the Kansas
technical r e g i s t r a t i o n board.
Review Results: The Board discontinued the requirement f o r personal
audiences i n March 1981. It currently is i n the process of drafting new
administrative rules and regulations. According to the former Board
chairman, personal audiences w i l l be optional and conducted only a t the
request of the applicant. This w i l l allow an applicant an opportunity to
appear before the Board or its designated representative to c l a r i f y or
present information which the applicant deems appropriate for Board
consideration.
The Board has made no significant changes i n its application process since
Auditor General Report No. 79- 9 was issued. The former Board chairman has
informed our s t a f f that major changes which w i l l reduce significantly the
application processing delays have been discussed and that such changes
w i l l be implemented i f the draft rules and regulations become effective.
Recommendation 3: The Board should adopt a policy requiring
nongovernmental recipients of the annual roster to pay a nominal fee to
cover publication and distribution costs.
Review Results: The Board adopted Rule R4- 30- 30 which lists fees for its
services. Copies of the annual report may be purchased for one dollar.
An alphabe t i c a l r o s t e r of active r e g i s t r a n t s may be purchased for $ 4.50
and a numerical r o s t e r of r e g i s t r a n t s is $ 2. It appears that the purchase
prices cover publication and distribution costs of the roster.
Recommendation 4: Rule R4- 30- 01 ( G ) should be deleted to remove the
p o s s i b i l i t y of unnecessary delays for applicants.
Review Results:
Rule R4- 30- 01 ( G) required:
" When an application for r e g i s t r a t i o n is denied or
withdrawn, the applicant w i l l be so notified of the
Board's action. No reapplication w i l l be accepted
u n t i l one year has elapsed from the formal Board action
denying the original action." ( Emphasis added)
Our previous review o f t h e Board revealed t h a t R4- 30- 01 ( G) had caused
s u b s t a n t i a l and unnecessary delays i n the l i c e n s u r e process and t h a t the
Board w a s i n c o n s i s t e n t i n imposing Rule R4- 30- 01 ( G) i n t h a t some
a p p l i c a n t s were made t o wait one year before reapplying while o t h e r s were
not. According t o a past executive d i r e c t o r of the Board, Rule
R4- 30- 01 ( G) had o f t e n been imposed a s a " penalty" f o r those a p p l i c a n t s
t h a t the Board judged had been uncooperative during t h e a p p l i c a t i o n
process.
Since Auditor General Report No. 79- 9 was issued, the Board has made
l i t t l e e f f o r t t o address t h i s deficiency. The Board did attempt t o amend
the r u l e t o eliminate the one year delay f o r i n d i v i d u a l s who withdrew
t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n s . The r u l e was not c e r t i f i e d by the Attorney General
and was never implemented. However, the Board's proposed r u l e s do not
include a provision f o r a one year w a i t i n g p e r i o d f o r a p p l i c a n t s denied
licensure.
Recommendation 5: A. R. S. 532- 124 should be amended t o allow the Board t o
e s t a b l i s h f e e s charged t o a p p l i c a n t s commensurate with c o s t s t o t h e Board.
Review Results: A. R. S. $ 32- 124 has been amended t o allow the Board t o
charge f e e s f o r s e r v i c e s up t o $ 200. Previously, the maximum charge was
I) $ 100.
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.
Auditor General Report No. 79- 9 found t h a t the Board had been substandard
i n its encouragement of public input from consumers of l i c e n s e e s ' s e r v i c e s
and i n notifying l i c e n s e holders of Board meetings, proposed r u l e s and
r e g u l a t i o n s and Board a c t i o n s . The Board needed 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 a c t u a l consumers and to n o t i f y
l i c e n s e e s of Board meetings, a c t i v i t i e s and a c t i o n s .
The report l i s t e d t h r e e s p e c i f i c recommendations which, i f implemented,
would improve the Board's performance of its s t a t u t o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
Recommendation 1: The Board should adopt methods to encourage public
input and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the promulgation of r u l e s and regulations,
development of l e g i s l a t i v e proposals and other decision- making processes.
Consideration should be given t o the methods used by other Arizona
regulatory bodies and other methods of increasing public input and
p a r t i c i p a t i o n , including:
- Press releases,
- Special n o t i c e s ,
- Public s e r v i c e announcements, and
- Direct mail.
Review Results: On March 3, 1981, the Board adopted a policy which allows
f o r a public- comment period a t each Board meeting. The f i r s t such period
occurred a t t h e J u l y 31, 1981, Board meeting. Representatives from
several professional associations appeared and provided input t o the Board
regarding its p o l i c i e s . The Board has circulated a copy of proposed rules
and regulations to t h e s e a s s o c i a t i o n s and has s o l i c i t e d written comments
from them f o r Board consideration.
The Board has contracted with a technical writer to a s s i s t it i n
increasing public awareness of the Board. ( see page 12) The technical
writer has prepared, and the Board has issued, a number of press releases
d e t a i l i n g Board actions and decisions. The f i r s t such release was issued
on June 15, 1981.
Recommendation 2: The Board should f i l e a statement with the Secretary of
State indicating where public notices of t h e i r meetings w i l l be posted.
Review Results: On March 7, 1981, the Board f i l e d the statement with the
Secretary of S t a t e , advising that notices of meetings w i l l be posted i n
the occupational licensing building a t 1645 West Jefferson i n Phoenix.
Recommendation 3: A. R. S. § $ 32- 102 and 32- 10? should be amended to provide
for public membership on the Board.
Review Results: The s t a t u t e s have been amended t o provide f o r public
membership on the Board. A t the present time, the Board is comprised of
the following:
Two a r c h i t e c t s ,
Three engineers,
One land surveyor,
One landscape a r c h i t e c t ,
One geologist or assayer, and
One lay member.
The lay member was appointed by the Governor on October 16, 1980. It is
not yet possible to evaluate adequately the impact of a lay member on
Board actions. However, Benjamin Shimberg, a recognized authority on
occupational regulation, questions whether one member representing the
public is s u f f i c i e n t on a Board t h i s size. I n a 1978 Council of S t a t e
Governments publication,* Shimberg commented:
" How many public members should be on a board? There
is no simple answer, but i f impact is the major
c r i t e r i o n , one public member i s probably too few, two
would be the minimum, and three or four would increase
the likelihood t h a t the impact of public members would
be f e l t , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f the board had from seven to 10
members. I n California, the Legislature has decreed
t h a t f o r c e r t a i n boards** a majority s h a l l be public
members. "
* Shimberg, Benjamin, and Roederer, Doug. Occupational Licensing:
Questions a L e-~ t i s l a t o rS hould Ask. Lexin- g ton. Kentuckv: Council of
State Governments, 1978.
** In C a l i f o r n i a , t h e boards t h a t regulate a r c h i t e c t s , engineers,
geologists, landscape a r c h i t e c t s and land surveyors have public
representation which c o n s t i t u t e 6 majority of the boards' membership.
The Board has provided f o r public membership on i t ' s s i x Enforcement
Advisory Committees, one f o r each of the d i s c i p l i n e s regulated by the
Board, which a r e comprised of four p r o f e s s i o n a l members and one l a y
member. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e Board has provided f o r l a y membership on the s i x
R e g i s t r a t i o n Advisory Commit t e e s proposed i n new Board r u l e s and
r e g u l a t i o n s .
Board Draft of New
Rules and Regulations
The Board p r e s e n t l y is i n the process of promulgating and adopting new
r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s which address some of the recommendations i n Auditor
General Report No. 79- 9.
These recommendations a r e :
Finding I Recommendation 1 ( page 9)
Finding I1 Recommendation 1 ( page 15)
Finding I11 Recommendation 2 ( page 17)
Finding I11 Recommendation 4 ( page 18)
It should be noted t h a t the proposed r u l e s may not be formally adopted a s
c u r r e n t l y d r a f t e d , pending the r e s u l t s of the p u b l i c h e a r i n g s on the r u l e s
proposal.
The former Board chairman has s t a t e d t h a t formal Board adoption of
c u r r e n t l y proposed r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s may not occur u n t i l February
1982, because of the Board's d e s i r e t o encourage and consider p u b l i c i n p u t
and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the promulgation of t h e r u l e s and the time
requirement d i c t a t e d by s t a t u t e f o r adoption of rules."
" Appendix 2 o u t l i n e s the various s t e p s i n the r u l e making process.
22
CONCLUSION
Of the 22 recommendations in Auditor General Report No. 79- 9, the Board of
Technical Registration and the Legislature have implemented 15
recommendations, proposed rules and regulations which would implement four
recommendations, and not implemented three recommendations as of
September 30, 1981.
Consideration should be given to the following:
The Board of Technical Registration ' file a written report to the
Legislature when its proposed rules and regulations are certified by the
Attorney General and filed with the Secretary of State. The report should
cite specifically those rules that address the recommendations made in
Auditor General Report No. 79- 9.
State of Arizona
BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION
FOR ARCHITECTS, ASSAYERS, ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND LAND SURVEYORS
1645 W. JEFFERSON, SUITE 315 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007 ( 602) 255- 4053
October 20, 1981
Mr. Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
State of Arizona
State Capitol, Suite 200
Legislative Services Wing
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear Mr. Norton:
First, on behalf of the Board of Technical Registration and i t s s t a f f , I would like
to express our appreciation for the cooperation and assistance provided by you and
your s t a f f , specifically Mr. Gerald Silva, Mr. Robert Back and Mr. William Thomson,
during the course of the performance audit. Having just assumed the position of
Executive Director when the audit was conducted, I was particularly grateful for the
opportunity to review the content of the previous audit and to discuss various items
of concern with the audit team.
The results of the 1981 audit reflect, I believe, the substantial progress the Board
has made toward compliance with the recommendations of the previous audit, # 79- 9.
The members of the Board are determined t o ensure that the Board meets fully i t s
statutory responsibility to protect the public safety, health and welfare and that
i t does so in an effective, efficient and equitable manner.
As noted in the audit report, the Board is in the process of developing new rules t o
govern i t s operations, and the adoption of these rules will satisfy several of the
remaining compliance items. The promulgation of rules is a difficult and time-consuming
b u t necessary undertaking, and i t ranks among the highest priorities of
the Board. An e a r l i e r e f f o r t to p u t into effect new rules was unsuccessful ( only
the portion addressing the fee schedule was approved), apparently due principally to
statutory conflicts; however, a law clerk, working under the supervision of the
Assistant Attorney General assigned the Board, has been employed to draft the currently
proposed rules. His expertise, coupled with the close cooperation and assistance of
the Assistant Attorney General and the Board's awareness of the problems encountered
in the previous attempt to adopt rules, should permit the Board t o avoid such d i f f i -
culties and facilitate approval. While the Board recognizes the urgent need to
implement these rules, i t nevertheless wishes to assure that the public and the
professions have adequate opportunity to participate in the rule- making process and
has encouraged comment on the preliminary drafts. The response has been positive, and
a draft incorporating those comments will be completed in the near future. The Board
i s more than willing t o comply with the recommendation that i t submit a written report
to the Legislature when the proposed rules are certified by the Attorney General and
filed with the Secretary of State.
Of the three recommendations not yet implemented, one requires statutory change, and
efforts are underway to address the remaining two. Finding I , Recommendation 3
Page 2
Auditor General
October 20, 1981
stipulates that the Board should maintain better records of i t s disciplinary process. •
As mentioned in the most recent report, the Board staff has taken steps to improve
the system. Working with the Attorney General's Office, the staff has designed
standardized forms which will allow accurate tracking of a complaint from initiation
to closure. Formats for required documents - letters of notification, notices of
violation, consent orders, etc. - have been developed. The Board has adopted
Enforcement Advisory Committee procedures and is planning a workshop to familiarize a
members and alternates with these procedures and with their responsibilities. The
intention is to ensure that the Board has in place a thorough and smoothly- functioning
process which will permit an equitable and expeditious treatment of each complaint
and will guarantee that a1 1 parties are accorded due process. The greatest obstacle
t o full implementation of this process is lack of staff and money. Currently, the
Board has no enforcement position. The Administrative Assistant, t o the detriment 4
of other Board operations, has been assigned this function. He must perform and
coordinate the numerous actions necessary to bring a case to closure: from conduc-ting,
where possible, the preliminary investigation; t o preparing information and
documentation for the Advisory Committees; to scheduling committee meetings and
serving as staff to the committees; to acting as liaison with all parties involved;
to negotiating consent agreements and reporting to the Board. Throughout the ( I
process, he must initiate and maintain all paperwork requisite for complete records.
Given the severe staffing limitations, the up- dating of existing files will, unavoid-ably,
require time, although with the new procedures, records of recent complaints
should be complete and disposition of cases more readily discernible, The absence
of adequate staff has compelled the Board to contract with private investigators t o
conduct the preliminary investigations on the more complex and difficult cases, b u t a
this is an expensive alternative, and does not always provide the internal control
and direction desirable and contributes nothing t o the building of in- house expertise.
The necessity of employing outside investigators also detracts from the Board's
financial a b i l i t y t o hire " expert witnesses" - professionals in given disciplines -
to conduct in- depth professional reviews of cases where such are demanded. However,
even with these personnel and budgetary restrictions, the Board has made marked a
progress in closing o u t older complaints and in acting on in- coming cases.
Finding I1 Recommendation 2, which directs the Board t o improve documentation of i t s
decision- making process, is the second non- statutory item which the conclusions of
the audit indicate the Board has yet to implement. Again, steps are being taken t o
accomplish this. The proposed rules will establish, in writing, a framework for ( I
decision- making by setting forth both registration and regulatory provisions. Exam-ination
and registration procedures and requirements are therein defined, as well as
standards of professional conduct. Additionally, in the enforcement area, as noted
above, Advisory Committee procedures have been adopted and methods of providing
complete and accurate records developed. With regard t o documenting registration
functions, a contract has been signed for the production of a procedures manual for a
licensing and for staff training.
In addition t o the above, i t should be noted that the Board staff is attempting to
refine internal office procedures in order t o allow for greater internal control
and to increase efficiency and effectiveness. The Joint Legislative Budget
Committee management staff has recently conducted a management audit which makes a
number of recommendations in the areas of staffing and office management - several
of which have already been effected. Board staff has been in contact with the
State Records Management and Microfiliming Center to secure assistance in devising
a more appropriate records retention schedule and advice in developing a more
Page 3
Auditor General
October 20, 1981
effective records management system. Work has begun with the Arizona Financi a1
Information System ( AFIS) staff t o allow the early implementation of the new
accounting system, with manual reconciliation to the existing AFA system until
July 1, t o assure better accounting controls. These a c t i v i t i e s , coupled with the
improvements both already made and in process to comply with the recommendations
of the Auditor General's Report # 79- 9, substantiate both the Board's determination
to f u l f i l l and i t s progress toward fulfilling i t s obligation to protect the public
safety, health and welfare and t o do so in an efficient and responsive fashion.
One final comment should be made t o clarify the status of the contract for
consultant services noted in the discussion of the Finding I , Recommendation 4 and
of Finding IV, Recommendation 1. As mentioned in the report, the former Board
chairman has stated that i t was his understanding t h a t there was no specific
legislative rejection of the public information function and, indeed, that there
was a direct mandate to perform such a function expressed in the Auditor General's
Report # 79- 9. Certainly, the services provided by the consultant have proved
valuable in assisting the Board's in i t s attempts to inform the public and the
registrants of i t s activities. However, while the Board will continue t o strive
to increase public awareness, staff feels that with the development of the
mailing 1 i s t , public notices, press releases and other announcements can be
handled largely in- house, with the remainder of the contract devoted primarily
t o the research and writing of requisite technical and other reports.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I believe the audit was conducted in a
thorough and professional manner and, once again, to express my appreciation
for the assistance offered me by the audit team.
D di E. Ross
xecutive Director
cc: Board members
Procedure For tiandl i ng Compl a i n t s
1: Con~ plaint i s received by sworn complaint and a f f i d a v i t , l e t t e r or
telephone c a l l with written f o l l o ~ ~ u pan, o nymous or i d e n t i f i e d com-niunicatio~~
s. All co~ liplaints are confidential in nature.
2. Prcinvestigation:
A. Advise party of conlplaint and request t h e i r response.
5. Other necessary f i e l d investigation to f i l l in gaps. Staff
makes adliiinistrative decision to proceed to . next step, r e f e r
to other agency for lack of j u r i s d i c t i o n , or terminate where no basis i s
apparent.
3. A. On nontechnical iilatters - s t a f f verify evidence by f i e l d investi-c~
ation, here appropriate and prepare i n v e s t i g a t i v e r e p o r t s vri t h
evidence attached.
B. On nonrcgistrant tridtters referred to Board for authorization for
Cease and Desist Letters.
C. Prepares age~ daf or next Advisory Colli111ti t c e meeting.
U. Inforl~ is parties of progress.
4. Colliplaint referred to Advisory Co~ nrnti t c c
A. Technical matter - r e f e r to Technical Investigator, for investi -
gation and report.
B. Cor~ i~~ iittreeev iews the f i l e and:
1. Close due to lack of adequate con~ plaint; or
2. itears parties in informal hearirig; or
3. Refers ~ ~ i a t t eofr informal hearing to future meeting; or
4. Refers [\ latter for further investigation by s t a f f ; or
5. Del irieates findings and inakes reco~~ lnlcndationtso t h e Board.
C. Staff infornls parties of progress. Respondent: Consent Order
or Decision 5y Consent, etc.
5. Board receives Advisory Coni~ iiti t e e Recornnlendation
A. Thu Goclrd acts on Cornnli t t e e recon~ l~ cndaotnis :
1. Close the f i l e ; or
2. I n i t i a t e C e r t i f i c a t e of C o n u i- n- c - e- or Decision by Consen- t
Aqrcenien t;- br
--.-; T-- 3. In1 ~ i a t ein junctive and/ or n~ isderiiesnor action; or
4. Refer back to Conni t t e e .
B. Staff infornis parties o f progress, i n i t i a t e s Board action and
resolves problems through Compliance Conferences with Respondents
6. Bodrd received Consent Agreement for approval and signature, C e r t i f i -
cate of Conlplaince or Cease and Desist l e t t e r s for closing action.
A. Lacking acceptance of above docunlent by Respondent, the Board i n i -
t i a t e s further proceedings :
1. For Hearing; or
2. Injunctive and/ or mi sden~ eanor actions.
R. Fot- ma1 hearing - Set dates, provides parties with 30- day notice of
hearing, hear testin~ ony and act.
C. Followup l e t t e r monthly to Attorney General regarding pending
actions of othcr agencies, i. e . , Attorney General , Superior Court,
County or City Attorneys, e t c . , copy to p a r t i e s .
7. S t a f f closes f i l e a f t e r Board Action.
A. Send l e t t e r to complaining party ( i f a p p l i c a b l e ) and Respondent.
1. Both l e t t e r s should advise p a r t i e s of the d i s p o s i t i o n of the
~ n a t t e r and what Board action was taken.
B. Report to the Board to show action was c a r r i e d out and the matter
was closed.
C. Mark a l l logs,
0. Notify a l l p a r t i e s .
E . Take the Report Sheet from the case f i l e and put i t i n t h e f? egis-t
r a n t ' s f i 1 e ( where a p p l i c a b l e ) .
F. F i l e nonregistrarlt reports i n alpha history f i l e .
G. Maintain con~ puter f i l e ( d i s c i p l i n a r y code).
APPENDIX I1
ATTORNEY GENERAL MEMORANDUM
PROMULGATIONS OF RULES AND REGULATIONS
APRIL 15, 1981
FROM :
DATE :
A l l S t a t e Agencies
Bob Corbin, Attorney General
April. 1 5 , 1981
Promulgation of Rules and R e g u l a t i o n s
Aetacliod i s a copy of Senate n i l 1 1046 which has
r e c c n t l y been passcd by c!-, c Arizona L c g i s l n t x r e and s i g n
i n t o l a w effective i! iLrnedia~ ely by t h e Governor. T h i s bi-s
i g n i f i c a n t l y a l c e r s t h e procedures by c h i c h r u l e s and
r e g u l a t i o n s a r c promulgated by s t a t e a g e n c i e s . The pri11
changes vhich you should i n ~ n c d i ~ ~ t cbel y a warc of a r c ; is
fo 1 locqs :
1) Tire n o t i c e p e r i o d has been ch; ingcd t o rt> qui.- p
t h a t t h e Notice o: Adopci- on cppear i n ~ h oS c c r e t n r p of
S t a t e ' s Digest a t l e a s t 20 days p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n n .
P r e v i o u s l y the s t a c u t e r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e n o t i c e bc t i l e d
w i ~ ht h e Secretary of S t a t e 20 days p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g .
This c! iange s u h s t a r r t i o l l y a l t a r s the time p e r i o d s i- nvolirrd
i l l tile proiniilgacion of r u l e s and must bc complied v i t ' h .
With r e s p e c t t o r u l c p r o c c e d i n ~ s t h a t were i n process a t
the time t h c s t ; l t u t e becoine effective on Plarcii 2 7 , 19S1,
you should co11s1~ 1wt i t h your l e g a l counsel r e g a r d i n g r: h=\: hcr
or n o t those proceedings need t o be r c n o t i c e d .
.... 2) It i s no lotlger necessary t o submit the r u l e
to the Actorncy General f o r c e r t i f i c a t i c n p r i o r to. fo::: i. il
a d o p t i o n of t h e r i l l e , Agencies should adopt t h e r u l e
s u b j e c t to c c r t i E i . c o t i o n by t h e Attorney General 2nd
then forward ii: t o t h c Att: orney General f o r c e r t i f i c i ? t i o : i .
The r u l e , if certified, wil.: be d i r e c t l y fol- wardcd t o chc
S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e by t h i s o f f i c e and you \+ ili be so n o t i f i e d .
Accordingly, p l e a s e send us the o r i g i n a l and f o u r c o p i e s
of rile r u l e . ( 1; lc vii. 1 be r e t u r n e d t o you; one w i l l be kept
f o r our f i l e s ; t h e o r i g i n a l 2nd two c o p i e s w i l l be sent
to Lhe Sccrctal- y of S t a t e .
I
L
State of Arizona I
Senate '
T t i i r t y - f i f t h Legislature
F i r s t Regular Sesslon
1981
. ,
e
SENATE BILL 1046
AN ACT
RELATING TO STATE GOYCRPIIICliT; PRESCRIBING RULES AND R[ GuLATIO/~ ST O GC P ~ ~ I - I s / { ~ ~ ~ ;
PIIOVIDIIIG FOR TldEllTY DAY PERIOD AFTER PUBLICATION 1li TliE ACIIIil ISiRATIVE
RULES DIGEST OF lfOTICE OF ADOPTION, t? IiENDHENi OR RCPEAL OF AGE:; CY RULE
DEFORE CONKEIiCING PIIOCEEDINGS; PRESCRIBING CORTERTS OF NOTIC: TO BE FiLC@
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE; P R O V I D I N G FOR ADOPTION CF RULES SUDJECT TO
REVIEW AND ARTIFICtlTION BY THE ATTOIltIEY GENCRAL; PRESCR 15 1! 4G PROCEDIIRE FOI:
E I E R G E N C Y ADOPTION, Ai4ENDFii: IT OR REPEiiL OF RULES; ~ ROSC1R0 I NG PRQCED; R: Z
FOR FILING RULES liITii SECRETARY OF STATE, Ar: D AI; ENOIf: G SECTIO!: S 41- 12?,
41- 1002, 41- lGOE. Oi, 41- 1003, 41- 1004 A! lD 41- 1CO5, dRIZOi( A REV I S E 2
STATUTE; .
1 Be i t e r i a c t e d b y t h e L e g i s l a t u r e o i t h e S t a t c o f , Q r i z o n a :
2
3 read: Section 1. Section 111- 127, Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s , i s i; ier: ded : 3
41- 127. Pub1 ication of adiniiiistrative rules and r ~ o u l : t i o n s
\ ---- ---
A. The s e c r e t a r y of s t a t e shall pub1 is]: at least oilcc e ~ c hqu z:-: c5.
or. more often i f he 1- HE SECRETARY OF STATE deem i t adviszbie a1 1 STATE
AGENCY adininistrative rules and rcgulaiions f i lcd i n his T i i ~ o f f i c e OF
SECRETARY OF STATE subrequerlt to the e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t h i s scctioil aiir!
pursuani to section 41- 1004. The r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s s h a l l bc pvbiis!: cd
i n looseleaf Y O ~ ~ J ~ IaCnSd designed to be kept c ! i r r c ~ l t by the PI- occss of
updating and s u b s t i t ~ l t i o no f pages. Thcy shall be divided into dpproprizte
sections f o r easy reference and sliall contain an index and sucll 0: h. r
t - c s e ~ r c h ai ds as the s e c r e t a r y deems ncces sery.
8 . Publication by the secretary of s t a t e pursuant to t h i s section
silall c o r i s t i t u t e priri~ a f a c i e evidence of the ~ d o p t i o n and f i l i n g of sucll
rule pursuant to t h i s chapter.
Sec. 2. Sectiori 41- 1002, Arizona Reviscd S t a t u t e s , is c e n d c d to
read:
41- 1C02. - Notic e of proposed a d o p ~ m ~ r? i- n ondnlorlt or r ~ xl a
A. hMi211; t-+-~ oit~ itr -- y-+ r- l tcy- o5n - tPenr- lt so r otf on o- t icead; o_ tp_~ t- - 1p - c-~- q--,-~ _> r h~ i,-_ iL~ l-:- l, I_ lj; iIl E:~; I/: T~ C\! RE? C; t~
of any r u l e , notice of the proposed actiori s i ~ d l l be f i l c d i r i t : i thp
s e c r e t a r y of s t a t e . Toe n o t i c e s h a l l include:
1. A statoner! t of the time, place arid r: attlr- e of t} lc proc-: jin(,~ : g ~
tlie adoption, A OR REPEAL of the r u l e .
2. Reference to the autiiori ty uniier whit!? the rule i s propasc? : d be
adopted, ANEliOED OR REPEALED.
3. G 4 i e ~ An iriformstive su: irnary of tiic pr-~ gos12dru le,; i: ~: 13 ti:?
express terms iiit:! wof OF THE RULE.
4. Sucii other matters as are prcscribi. ij by s t z t u t c ep;) lic- Sle to
tile s p e c i f i c s t a t e agcllcy or to a: iy s p e c i f i c rule, or i l ~ : s i f r u l e s .
G . GEFORF COI4' iE: ICIliG AI4Y PROCECDINSS FOR i. 1;: ,!, COPTI@;{, : : E ~ ~ ~ : . I E ) O{ TR
REPEAL OF A RU!. E, A8 AGENCY SHALL ALLOli AT LFJIST TIbiENTY DAYS TO ELP'. S!.
AFTEfl THE PUOLlCATIOii DATE OF THE ADilINISTRATIYE RULES DIGEST E5TI: SLISI! L?
OY SECTIOI. 1 41 - 1 2' 1 I N iliilCH THE NO1 I C E OF THC I1/: OPOSE~ ,~ OOPTIC::,
OR REPEAL IS COtITAIirEi).
B, C. On tlic date and at the time dcsignateri i n the n o t i c c , tile
agency s h a l l afford any i n t e r e s t e d person, his duly authori : cd
r e p r e s c n t a t i ve, or iiotii, the oppol- turli t y to present ststernents, z. rau; riri: its
or contentions in writing r e l a t i n g ti+ r.,:~. tTaO TtiE RULE, \ vith or i i t h o u t
opportvni t y to prescrlt tiinn' o r a l l y .
Sec. 3. Section 41- 1002.01, Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s , i s ~ , ? ~ c n J etod
read:
41- 1W) 2.01. ----- 4L Rl~ lea noroval and c e r * t i f i c ? t i c n b- y attorney ae: iet;;; 7-
- i7-, - A. R% b- 5h- i-+ c~ b~ da $.~ t"~-- Ab ~ s t a t e a g p n c y bitk- t;+;&&. r-& ..: I
F C + ~ W - /~. IA Y ADOPT A RULE SUDJECT TO REVIEIU' AND CERiIFICtlTiCIi by the
at torney general. d ~ . k 4 & ~ . TH~ E , d~ i . ~ i l i jG~ C~ WE. R AL S I ~ ~ LRLE V is: j
AND CERTIFY t h a t tllc rulc is:
1. Approved as to for; n. -
2. Idi tiiirl the poirel- of the ai] mn; y to adopt and w i t ! ~ i n the
l e g i s l a t i v e stands:- ds + + = + cilactctl.
B . The ccr- ti fi catiiin of the attorney gencral stla11 i% tiiiir i ninety
days of r e c e i p t of tile rul c be endorsed on Mtih- npy TliE ORIGI;!,; i ,?: ID T\: 2
COPIES - of the r u l e : rhicll i s f i lcd DIRECTLY wit/) ttie sccr. c t w y of s t a t e
pursuant to section 41- iO04.
C. If the a t t o r ~ e yg eneral deter- nir~ est h a t suck TliE r u l e 2ccs not
conlply with subscctioti A of t h i s sectiorl tic stir11 endorse his P Cof
c e r t i fi c a t i on on e ~ c i l copy of w. k THE r u l e er; d retui- n sitsii TiiE ccpics to
t h e agency t h a t proposed tile r u l c within ninety days after his I- ezeipt of
st& THE proposed r u l e .
Sec. 4. Sccticn 4 1 - 1 0 0 3 , AI- izcna Revised S t a t i i t e s , is z:? en, i? d t~
read:
~ 1C 4 1 - 1 0 0 3 . Eiiicrconcv atloption, 2mcr: d: nent or- rcneal of 1- ulc
4 7 -- 7- -- A---- -
D
A. If in a { ~ a r l i c ~ q aiin- s t ~ n c eth e s t a t e r. gi? r; cy iz~ kcsa tlnding t : : ~ t
-+ ( 18 adoptiorl, E D I T OR REPEAL or a r.":~. is necessary f o r j r r r c d i p e
, 1 ' preservation of t! ie public, pedcc, hcaltii and : zfety a:: d tiiat no: i,- e a!; j
2 pub1 ic procedure t h r c o n age impracticable, unrlecessar; or contr. ar;, tc
3 public i n t e r e s t , the rule [ nay bc adopted, A:! EiiDED CR RE? CI, LED I: 21
4 erllergeJlCy the t.! iASU? IE, witiiout the r~ oitc e p;. ovi; jed by scc: ion 41- iQQ? i f
5 such rule has been f i r s t approved and c e r t i f i e d by tbc aitot- ncy ~ ~ f : ~ l . - a i
5 pursuant to section 41- 1002.01 and f i l e d w i t h tile secretat- y of s i r t e .
7 ' 3. No rule adopted, AHif4OED OR REPEALED put- suant to ttlis s e c t i ~ : i
3 s h a l l bc val id for nor- e tliarl riiriety ddys a f t e r ti;^ f i 1 irirj of sue!; ;- u] c wi : I;
9 the s e c r e t a r y of. s t a t e .
10 Sec. 5. Secticrl 41- 1004, i\ rizona Revised S t a t u t e s , is ? J ~ e r ~ h ~ d +
L L7 11 read:
11- 1004. _ F i_ el ix. nc_ ae p. rt _ u1 ol_ onssi with t- he : ccretarv- of s-: r t ~ . ----- A. Every r[ rTi- a j b - j a by cacti STATE ag(? i? cy shall be ccrtifiilc! : c,:
f i l e d with the o f f i c e of the secretary of s t a t e or s h a l l be of na force or
e f f e c t . The sccrctll- y of s t a t e shall keep a pe~- sl~ nenrtc gis: cr of such
r u l e s . Ttie secretat- y of s t a t e sliall not accept f o r f i i i r i g . i :- lrle of 2
z t a t e agency which does n o t have a c e r t i f i c a t i o i l and ~ p p r l i ~ ~( a~ lf t ! l ~
attorney general as ~ - c ( j ~ i i . ebyd sect ior~ 4 1- 100.' . O1 AtqO IF THE NOTICE OF T!! E
PROPOSED ACTION HAS hOT BEEN PULiLIStiED I:{ THE P, L>;~ l! NISTRATIIIE R U L E S U!;: ST
AS REQUIRED 6Y SECTICt4 41- 1002.
0. Nothing i n t h i s a r t i c l e sliall bc construed to r c q ~ ~ i rfei l i n g
i r i t h the s e c r e t a r y of s t a t e any rule which e s t e b l i s i l e s or f i x e s r a t e s ,
prices or t a r i f f s , or r e l r i t e s to tile use of public ivoi- ks, includin? s t r - e c t i
and hiyiivays under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of iiiy A s t z t e agency ir. l: en tt: e e f f e c t
of tlie order is i n d i c a t e d t o the public by rned: ls of sigrls or s i o n a l s .
Sec. 6 . Sectioil 41- 1005, Arizona Revised S t j t u t e s , i s mended to
read:
29 41- 1005. _ I___- E f f r c t i v e date of r u l e ; excentions
30
------ -
110 rule aaopteu or pro! ilulgated by aii A S. I: jIE sge!: cy shall, bccc- c
31 e f f e c t i v e u n t i l a c e r t i f i e d c- opy ORIGINAL AEiD TIi0 COPIES the!- eof l ~ d si' , l'JE
32 been f i l e d in the o f f i c e of the s c c r c t a r y of s t a t ? , unless:
3 3 1. O t h e r ~ i s i : speci f i c a l ly provided by s t a t u t e pul- sua~ it t o r. iliclr t! le
31 r u l e was adopted, i n i. ihicI1 event i t becc: iles c f f c c t i v c on tile day prescribcii
35 by the s t a t u t e . -.
2. A l a t e r d a t e i s Ft- escribed by tile st, lte agency i n w i t t e ~ i
in5trumei- it f i l e d ivitii or as a part of tile r u l e .
Scc. 7. E~ ncrqt~ iicv ----.-- _ A_ To preserve thc public p c ~ c e , health and s a f e t y i t is necessary t h a t
t h i s act bncos; i. in: mecliately operative. It i s tl~ crefot- e declared to be L r l
emrgency measure, to take e f f e c t as provided by law.
- $ larch 27, 1181
> - :,
F i l e d iri the Office of of S t a t e - iq! a)- ch 2 7 , 1981
I
l. 11- 4