Performance audit, Board of Technical Registration

              DOUGLAS R. NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
February 12, 1985
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor
Mr. Ronald Dal rympl e, Executive Director
Board of Technical Registration
Transmitted herewith i s a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Board of Technical Registration. This report i s i n response
to an April 27, 1983, resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight
Committee. The performance audit was conducted as a part of the Sunset
Review set forth in A. R. S. § § 41- 2351 through 41- 2379.
This performance audit report i s submitted to the Arizona State
Legislature for use in determining whether to continue the Board of
Technical Registration beyond i t s scheduled termination date of
July 1, 1986. The report makes recommendations to 1 ) terminate licensing
for geologists, assayers and landscape architects, 2) improve the Board's
ability to develop 1 icensi ng examinations, and 3) strengthen enforcement
activities.
Ply staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify i terns in the report.
Respectfully submitted,
Staff: William Thomson
Mark Fleming
Martha Brad1 ey
Ronald E. Ludders
Jayne M. Hewitt
Vivian A. Look
Enclosure
~ ougtii$ R . Norton
Auditor General
1 1 1 WEST MONROE SUITE 600 PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85003 ( 602) 255- 4385
SUMMARY
The Office o f the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit o f
the State Board o f Technical Registration i n response t o an A p r i l 27,
1983, resolution o f the J o i n t Legislative Oversight Committee. This
performance audit was conducted as p a r t o f the Sunset Review set f o r t h i n
Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S. ) § § 41- 2351 through 41 - 2379.
The Board o f Technical Registration regulates architects, engineers,
assayers, 1 and surveyors, geologists, and 1 andscape architects. The
Board i s responsible f o r examining and l i c e n s i n g members o f these
professions and enforcing 1 aws governing t h e i r practice. Current Board
membership consists o f two architects, three engineers, one landscape
architect, one land surveyor, one geologist o r assayer, and one public
member.
State Regulation O f Geologists
I s Unnecessary ( see pages 11 - 1 6)
State 1 icensure o f geologists could be e l iminated without s i g n i f i c a n t l y
affecting the publ i c heal t h y safety and we1 fare. Evidence suggests t h a t
1 i t t l e harm has resulted from the practice o f geology. Furthermore,
users o f geological services are 1 argely commercial , i n s t i t u t i o n a l and
i n d u s t r i a l c l i e n t s who are able t o assess the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f
geologists they use. To the extent t h a t the practice o f geology poses
any threat t o the public, the American I n s t i t u t e o f Professional
Geol ogists o f f e r s a vol untary c e r t i f i c a t i o n process t h a t appears adequate
t o protect the publ i c . The Legislature should consider deleting A. R. S.
$ 32- 101 . B. 11 through 32- 101 . B. 13, which requires the 1 icensing o f
geologists, and other pertinent portions o f the statutes r e l a t i n g t o
geologists.
State Regulation Of Assayers
I s Unnecessary ( see pages 17- 22)
Arizona does not need t o license assayers. No other state regulates
assayers i n any form. Assaying poses no potential harm t o the general
public. Although mining fraud i s cited as a potential danger of the
assaying practice, the general public has effective recourse for
resolving mining fraud cases through the Securities Division of the
Arizona Corporation Commission. Moreover, the general public rarely uses
assaying services. Users are 1 argely commercial institutions, which can
and do use a variety of routine procedures to identify reliable assayers
and assay 1 abs. The Legislature should consider deleting A. R. S.
532- 1 01 . B. 4 through 32- 1 01 . B. 6, which requires the 1 icensi ng of assayers,
and other pertinent portions of the statutes relating to assayers
licensed by the Board of Technical Registration.
State Regulation Of Landscape
Architects Is Unnecessarv ( see Daaes 23- 32)
The pub1 ic receives 1 i t t l e pEotection from the 1 icensure of 1 andscape
architects. L i t t l e harm to the public actually results from the practice
of 1 andscape architecture because most potentially harmful conditions are
not serious, and can be readily identifed and corrected. Existing
Federal, State, and local government regulations adequately protect the
public from any threats posed by landscape architecture. Most users of
1 andscape architectural services are commercial and i nsti tutional users
who can assess the qua1 ifications of landscape architects. However,
current statutes provide the 1 east protection to the 1 ess know1 edgeabl e
individual users. Yet, despite the minimal protection for individual
users, no identifiable harm has occurred from the practice of landscape
architecture. In addition, current 1 icensing provisions for 1 andscape
architects may also unnecessarily r e s t r i c t the scope of practice of
re1 ated professions.
The Legislature should consider deleting A. R. S. 532- 1 01 . B. 14 through
32- 1 01 . B. 16, which requires the 1 icensing of landscape architects, and
other portions of the statutes relating to landscape architects licensed
by the Board of Technical Registration. If the Legislature decides to
continue regulating 1 andscape architects, it should consider amending
A. R. S. 532- 101 . B. 14 through 32- 1 01 . B. 16 to provide a less r e s t r i c t i v e
form of regulation, such as regulation of the t i t l e of landscape
architect, which would not limit the ability of people i n related
professions t o practice.
Deficiencies In The Board Of Technical Registration's
Licensina Examination Mav Prevent The Board From
~ d e ~ u a t~ esis~ e s snig competency ( see pages 33- 43')
Licensing examinations developed by the Board of Technical Registration
contain deficiencies that may limit the Board's ability to defend
licensing decisions. The Board does not appear to use nationally
recognized standards and procedures i n devel oping i t s 1 icensi ng
examinations. As a result, tests may not adequately measure appl icants'
competence, and Board licensure decisions may be subject to legal
challenges. In addition, inconsistencies i n grading and errors i n
scoring further reduce the Board's ability to make sound licensing
decisions. The Board should: 1) follow established standards and
procedures for the development and val idation of professional 1 icensi ng
examinations, 2) consider the joint development of regional exams w i t h
neighboring states, and 3) verify test scores before notifying applicants
of exam results. The Legi sl ature shoul d consider appropriating funds
from the Board's existing fund balance so the Board can obtain the
services of professional testing experts.
The Complaint Review Process Has
Im~ roved. B u t A Few Chanaes Could
s& ength; n Enforcement ( Gee pages 43- 51 )
The Board of Technical Registration has strengthened i t s enforcement
function i n recent years and i s more effective in resolving complaints.
However, a few changes could further improve enforcement. The statutory
exemption that allows nonregistrants to design commercial and multifamily
structures does not protect the public because i t i s based on a dollar
amount and calculated differently by building permit official s from one
jurisdiction t o another. A1 so, the ~ o a r ds' enforcement activities coul d
be further improved if professional l i a b i l i t y carriers were required to
report malpractice claims against registrants. The Legislature should
consider amending: 1 ) A. R. S. $ 32- 144. A. 3, t o change the exemption
a1 1 owing nonregistrants t o design s t r u c t u r e s costing less than $ 75,000 t o
an exemption based on s t r u c t u r e s i z e and occupancy; and 2) A. R. S.
$ 20- 1742 and A. R. S. $ 32- 101 et. seq., t o require t h a t insurance companies
report malpractice claims and settlements against Board r e g i s t r a n t s t o
the Board o f Technical Registration through the Department o f Insurance,
and t o r e q u i r e t h e Board t o i n v e s t i g a t e r e p o r t s o f malpractice claims and
settlements against registrants.
TABLE OF COtdTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SUNSETFACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
FINDING I: STATE REGULATION OF GEOLOGISTS
IS UNNECESSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
L i t t l e Need For State Licensing Exists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Alternative To State Licensure Provides
Sufficient Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
FINDING 11: STATE REGULATION OF ASSAYERS
IS UNNECESSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Arizona Is The Only State That
Licenses Assayers. . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
L i t t l e Harm Occurs To The Public
From Assaying Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Users Have Methods Of Finding
Qua1 i fied Assayers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
FINDING 111: STATE REGULATION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
ISUNNECESSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 2 3
Landscape Architecture Poses L i t t l e Harm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Most Users Can Protect Themselves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Current Licensing Provisions May
Restrict Other Professions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
FINDING IV: DEFICIENCIES IN THE BOARD OF TECHNICAL
REGISTRATION'S LICENSING EXAMINATION MAY PREVENT
THE BOARD FROM ADEQUATELY ASSESSING COMPETENCE . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Exam Content May Not Relate Directly To Skill
Levels Needed To Ensure Competent Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( cont . )
FBuoarrtdh ePr roRceedduucer esI tFso Ar bAild im tyin Tisot eArisnsge stsh eC oEmxapmetse nce . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
FINDING V : THE COMPLAINT PROCESS HAS IMPROVED. BUT
A FEW CHANGES COULD STRENGTHEN ENFORCEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Complaint Processing Is More Effective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3
The Current Statutory Exemption Does Not Protect The Pub1 ic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6
Insurance Carrier Reporting Could Improve
Board Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
AREAS FOR FURTHER AUDIT WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
AGENCY RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Page
TABLE 1 - Licensure And Enforcement Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
TABLE 2 - Revenues And Expenditures Fiscal Years 1980 Through 1984. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
TABLE 3 - Regulation O f Landscape
Architecture In The United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
TABLE 4 - Board Use O f Professional Testing Standards. . . . . . . . 3 5
TABLE 5 - Board Enforcement Actions Fiscal Years 1982 Through 1985. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4
FIGURE 1 - Average Time To Resolve Complaints 1979 Through 1983. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of t h e A u d i t o r General has conducted a performance a u d i t o f the
State Board o f Technical R e g i s t r a t i o n i n response t o an A p r i l 27, 1983,
r e s o l u t i o n o f the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Oversight Committee. This performance
audit was conducted as p a r t o f the Sunset Review set f o r t h i n A. R. S.
§ § 41- 2351 through 41 - 2379.
Development O f The Board's
R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s And Membership
The Board o f Technical R e g i s t r a t i o n regulates a r c h i t e c t s , engineers,
assayers, 1 and surveyors, geologists and 1 andscape architects. The State
Board of Registration, the forerunner o f the present State Board o f
Technical Registration, was establ i shed i n 1921 t o regul a t e t h e p r a c t i c e
of architecture, assaying, engineering, and 1 and surveying. The
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r regulating geology was added i n 1956 and regulation of
landscape a r c h i t e c t u r e was added i n 1968.
The current Board has two a r c h i t e c t s , three engineers, one landscape
a r c h i t e c t , one land surveyor, one geologist o r assayer, and one p u b l i c
member. The o r i g i n a l Board consisted o f seven members: s i x i n d i v i d u a l s
registered as architects, engineers or assayers; and the dean of the
I, College o f Mines and Engineering for t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Arizona. The
Board's membership was increased t o nine i n 1952; membership a t t h a t time
consisted o f t h r e e a r c h i t e c t s , f i v e engineers and the ex o f f i c i o member
from the University of Arizona. Board membership was changed t o i t s
c u r r e n t s t a t u s i n 1980.
Current Responsibil i t i e s
o f the Board
The Board i s responsible f o r administration and enforcement of Arizona
laws concerning the p r a c t i c e o f the aforementioned professions. Board
d u t i e s i n c l u d e :
a Administering i n i t i a l license examinations.
a I s s u i n g l i c e n s e s t o i n d i v i d u a l s who meet the Board's education,
experience, and t e s t i n g requirements.
a Renewing 1 i censes tri enni a1 l y .
8 Resolving compl aints and i n v e s t i g a t i n g v i o l a t i o n s o f the
Technical Registration Act.
Licensure and complaint closure information f o r the past 4 years are shown
i n Table 1.
TABLE 1
LICENSURE AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
FISCAL YEARS 1 980- 81 THROUGH 1 983- 84
L i censure
Professional r e g i s t r a n t s
Examinations administered
Professional r e g i s t r a t i o n s
granted
I n - t r a i n i n g r e g i s t r a t i o n s
granted
Enforcement
Cases c a r r i e d forward from
p r i o r years
Cases opened
Cases closed
Actual Actual
1980- 81 1981 - 82
Actual
1982- 83
Actual
1 983- 84
Source : Board o f Technical Registration budget request for f i s c a l year
1 984- 85
( 1 ) The information i s not available.
( 2) Includes an estimated 600 land surveyor grandfather clause
appl icants.
( 3) Due t o recording changes and the reopening of some cases, cases
c a r r i e d forward i n t o 1983- 84 do not equal the balance from 1982- 83.
Budget and Personnel
The Board and its operations are funded through fees charged for
application, examination and license renewal. Ten percent of the fees are
deposited i n the General Fund; the remaining 90 percent are used for Board
operations as appropriated by the Legislature. Expenditures for fiscal
year 1980- 81 through 1982- 83 and estimated amounts for fiscal year 1983- 84
and 1984- 85 are shown i n Table 2.
TABLE 2
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEARS 1 980- 81 THROUGH 1 984- 85
Actual Actual Actual Estimated Approved
1 980- 81 1981 - 82 1 982- 83 1983- 84 1984- 85
Full - time employees 5.5 6 6 7 8
Revenues -
Balance begi nni ng
of fiscal year N/ A $ 169,000 $ 179,000 ( 2) $ 214,300 $ 247,000
Fees N/ A ( 1) 282,200 316,000 400,800 41 3,000
Total funds
avai 1 abl e $ 41 6.027 $ 451 ,200 $ 495.000 $ 615.100 $ 660.000
Expenditures -
Personal services $ 90,233 $ 100,300$ 124,600 $ 1 39,600
Empl oyee- re1 ated
expenditures 14,464 17,800 23,500 30,700
Professional services 64,648 97,500 77,100 123,400
Travel :
In- State 6,448 6,000 6,500 10,100
Out- of- State 4,609 2,500 2,600 5,200
Other Operating 52,278 44,500 46,300 59,100
Equipment 14,347 0 100 0
Total
expenditures $ 247.027 $ 268.600 $ 280,700 $ 368.1 00 $ 398.600
Source: Appropriations Reports for fiscal years 1982- 83 through 1984- 85
( 1 ) The information i s not available on Appropriations Reports.
( 2) There i s a discrepancy i n the Appropriations Reports of fiscal year
1981 - 82 and fiscal year 1982- 83 in the category " Revenues - Balance
a t beginning of fiscal year."
Audit Scope And Purpose
Our audit addressed issues set forth i n the 12 Sunset Factors i n A. R. S.
$ 41 - 2354. Additional detail ed work was done t o determine the foll owing
issues.
Whether the professions of assaying, geol ogy, and 1 andscape
architecture need to be regulated by the Board;
e Whether local 1 icense examinations test appl icants' competence;
and
0 Whether the Board has been effective i n hand1 ing and resolving
complaints against i t s registrants.
Due to time constraints, we were unable to address all potential issues
identified during our preliminary audit work. The section Areas For
Further Audit Work describes these potential issues. In addition, we
developed information on county building permits which i s presented i n the
section Other Pertinent Informati on.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the staff and
members of Board of Technical Registration for their cooperation and
assistance during the course of our audit.
SUNSET FACTORS
I n accordance with A. R. S. 541 - 2354, t h e L e g i s l a t u r e should consider the
following 12 factors i n determining whether the State Board o f Technical
Registration should be continued or terminated.
The objective and purpose i n establishing the Board
The objective and purpose o f the Board o f Technical Registration i s t o
protect the public by ensuring the competency o f p r a c t i t i o n e r s o f s i x
technical professions. This purpose i s c l e a r l y stated i n A. R. S.
$ 32- 1 01.
" The purpose of t h i s chapter i s t o provide f o r the
safety, health and welfare o f the public through the
promul gation and enforcement o f standards o f
qua1 i f i c a t i o n f o r those i n d i v i d u a l s 1 icensed and
seeking licenses pursuant t o t h i s chapter."
2. The effectiveness with which the Board has met i t s objective and
purpose and the e f f i c i e n c y with which the Board has operated
The Board has been generally e f f e c t i v e i n meeting i t s objective and
purpose. The Board has improved i t s compl a i n t resolution process,
r e s u l t i n g i n an enhanced reputation among r e g i s t r a n t s and b u i l d i n g
safety departments throughout the State ( see Finding V, page 43).
However, the Board could improve i t s effectiveness by developing
examinations f o r geologists, 1 and surveyors and assayers t h a t meet
national standards f o r ensuring val i d content ( see Finding IV,
page 33).
Some improvements are needed t o increase the Board's efficiency i n
carrying out i t s operations. Security for important documents and
checks received by the Board o f f i c e i s weak. Board staff does not
deposit funds received i n a t i m e l y manner. F i n a l l y , Board staff does
not f o l l ow general ly accepted accounting p r i nci pl es i n mai n t a i n i ng
financial records. The Board's executive d i r e c t o r should devel op
management reports t o a i d i n monitoring these a c t i v i t i e s . The
executive d i r e c t o r has indicated t h a t he plans t o take c o r r e c t i v e
action i n these areas.
The extent t o which the Board has operated w i t h i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t
The Board's 1 icensure and enforcement functions serve the publ i c
i n t e r e s t by ensuring t h a t a r c h i t e c t s , engineers and land surveyors
operating i n Arizona meet minimum competency standards and t h a t
unregistered i n d i v i d u a l s do n o t p r a c t i c e these three professions
except as provided by law. However, State l i c e n s i n g o f assayers,
geologists and landscape a r c h i t e c t s does not serve the general publ i c
i n t e r e s t ( see Finding I, page 11; Finding 11, page 17; Finding 111,
page 23).
4. The extent t o which rules and regulations promulgated by the Board are
consistent w i t h the 1 egi s l a t i v e mandate
The Board updated i t s r u l e s and regulations i n 1983, t o make them more
consistent with 1983 s t a t u t o r y amendments. The Attorney General ' s
Office reviewed the r u l e s and bylaws t o ensure consistency.
5. The extent t o which the Board has encouraged i n p u t from t h e p u b l i c
before promulgating i t s r u l e s and regulations and the extent t o which
it has informed the p u b l i c as t o i t s actions and t h e i r expected impact
on the ~ u bi cl
The Board uses several methods t o encourage p u b l i c i n p u t and inform
the p u b l i c of i t s actions. The Board has posted notices i n newspapers
informing the p u b l i c o f impending r u l e and regulation changes. I n
addition, the Board stated it n o t i f i e s b u i l d i n g s a f e t y departments and
professional associations when r u l e and regulation changes are
proposed, and n o t i f i e s professional associations and b u i l d i n g safety
departments when it takes enforcement action a g a i n s t r e g i s t r a n t s .
Finally, in 1984 the Board instituted a newsletter advising
registrants, professional societies and building safety departments of
current Board activities.
6. The extent t o which the Board has been able to investigate and resolve
complaints that are within i t s jurisdiction
The Board adequately investigates and resolves complaints against
registrants and nonregi strants. Over the past 5 years complaint
closure time has been reduced substantially. A1 though the Board has
strengthened i t s enforcement function, the Board could improve i t s
consistency of enforcement i f : 1) the exemption for nonregistrants who
design structures were based on objective design and use criteria
rather than dollar amounts, and 2 ) the Board was notified of and
investigated 1 iabil i ty claims and judgments against registrants ( see
Finding V , page 43).
7. The extent t o which the Attorney General or any other applicable
agency of the State government has the authority to prosecute actions
under enabl i ng 1 egi sl ati on
The enabling legislation for the Board provides the Attorney General
and county attorneys adequate authority to prosecute actions. The
Board's Attorney General representative feel s that amendments to the
Board's statutes since 1980 have increased the ability of the Attorney
General and county attorneys to prosecute violations of the Technical
Registration Act. Registrant violations, investigative procedures and
grounds for disciplinary action have been clarified i n the past 4
years.
8. The extent to which the Board has addressed deficiencies in the
enabl ing statutes which prevent i t from f u l f i l l i n g i t s statutory
mandate
In 1983, on the advice of i t s Attorney General representative, the
Board proposed changes to A. R. S. $ 32- 1 28. A to specify the disci pl inary
actions the Board may impose upon registrants. I n addition, the Board
recommended changes t o A. R. S. $ 32- 128. C t o c l a r i f y the Board's
authority t o empl oy expert witnesses, appoint advi sory commi ttees and
s e t t l e cases informally.
9. The extent t o which changes are necessary i n the laws o f the Board t o
adequately comply with t h e f a c t o r s 1 i s t e d i n the Sunset Laws
Based on our audit work we recommend t h a t the Legislature make the
f o l l owing changes.
e Delete A. R. S. $ 32- 101.8.4 through 32- 1 01 . B. 6, which requires
1 icensi ng of assayers, and other pertinent statutes re1 a t i ng t o
assayers 1 icensed by the Board ( see Finding I, page 11 1.
Delete A. R. S. S32- 101 . B. 11 through 32- 1 01 . B. 13, which requires
the licensing of geologists, and other pertinent portions o f the
statutes r e l a t i n g t o geolgists licensed by the Board ( see Finding
111, page 23).
e Delete A. R. S. $ 32- 101. B. 14 through 32- 101. B. 16, which requires
1 icensing of 1 andscape architects, and other pertinent statutes
r e l a t i n g t o landscape architects licensed by the Board ( see
Finding 111, page 23).
Amend A. R. S. $ 32- 144. A. 3 t o change the exemption allowing
nonregi strants t o design structures costing less than $ 75,000 t o
an exemption based on structure size and occupancy. The
exemption should allow nonregistrants t o design only structures
t h a t 1 ) do not exceed a specified square footage and 2) are not
open t o the general pub1 i c ( see Finding V, page 43).
e Amend A. R. S. $ 20- 1742 t o require: 1) insurance companies to
report ma1 practice claims and settlements against Board
r e g i s t r a n t s t o the Department o f Insurance, and 2) the Department
o f Insurance t o forward a l l such reports t o the Board o f
Technical Registration ( see Finding V, page 43).
a Amend A. R. S. $ 32- 101 et. seq. t o d i r e c t the Board t o investigate
reports of ma1 practice claims and s e t t l ements against
registrants. This change would require the Board t o determine i f
v i o l a t i o n s o f Technical Registration statutes, rules and
regulations have occurred ( see Finding V, page 43).
10. The extent t o which the termination of the Board would s i g n i f i c a n t l y
harm the publ i c health, safety or we1 fare
Termi n a t i ng the Board coul d s i g n i f i c a n t l y harm the publ i c by
el i m i n a t i ng essenti a1 regulation of the architecture, engineering and
land surveying professions. The absence o f regulation would create a
void by removing competency requirements and an enforcement process
necessary t o protect the public from personal i n j u r y or f i n a n c i a l
loss. However, terminating the 1 icensure o f assayers, geologists and
1 andscape architects would not s i g n i f i c a n t l y harm the publ i c health,
safety or welfare ( see Finding I, page 11 ; Finding 11, page 17;
Finding 111, page 23).
11. The extent t o which the level of regulation exercised by the Board i s
appropriate and whether less or more stringent l e v e l s of regulation
woul d be appropri ate
The level of regulation exercised by the Board with regard t o
architecture, engineering and 1 and surveying appears t o be general ly
appropriate, and major changes i n t h i s regulation are not necessary.
However, the Board does not need t o regulate assayers, geologists, and
landscape architects ( see Finding I, page 11 ; Finding I1 page 17;
Finding 111, page 23).
12. The extent t o which the Board has used p r i v a t e contractors i n the
performance o f i t s duties and how effective use o f p r i v a t e contractors
coul d be accompl i shed
The Board has used p r i v a t e contractors f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g cases and
developing, proctoring and grading exams. However, the Board
recentlyhired i t s own investigator and no longer requires a p r i v a t e
i n v e s t i g a t i v e f i r m ' s services. The Board w i l l continue t o use private
contractors f o r examination- related functions and needs t o increase
i t s use of t e s t development s p e c i a l i s t s t o ensure t h a t exams developed
by the Board adequately measure competence. I n f i s c a l year 1982- 83
the Board expended approximately $ 60,000 f o r p r i v a t e contractors'
services. The Board's expenditures f o r private contractors increased
t o approximately $ 76,000 i n f i s c a l year 1983- 84. The Board w i l l
expend approximately $ 71,000 f o r these services i n f i s c a l year 1984- 85.
FINDING I
STATE REGULATION OF GEOLOGISTS IS UNNECESSARY
State 1 icensure of geologists coul d be el imi nated without significantly
threatening the public health, safety and welfare. To the extent that the
practice of geology creates any potential harm, an alternative to
1 icensure would provide adequate protection.
Little Need For State
Licensi nu Exists
State licensing of geologists i s not needed to protect the public.
Licensure of a profession i s justified only i f unlicensed practice can
cause significant injury to the public. Yet, evidence suggests that
1 i t t l e harm has resulted from the practice of geology. Moreover, users of
geological services are primarily institutional , commercial, and
industrial firms w i t h the capability to determine the qualifications of
geologists they use.
Justification For Regul ation - Regul ation of a profession i s necessary
only when i t s absence i s likely to result i n injury to the public. The
Council of State Governments has identified three conditions that must
exist before a compelling argument for regulation can be made.
o Unregulated practice would threaten the public health, safety and
we1 fare.
o Users of services do not possess adequate knowledge or resources
t o evaluate the qualifications of those offering services.
o Benefits of regulation to the public outweigh i t s costs.
According to Benjamin Shimberg, an authority on regulation, when
conditions indicate a need for regulation licensure i s not necessarily the
most appropriate mechanism to use. The method chosen for regulation
should bear some relationship to the seriousness of harm that is likely to
result from i t s absence. Licensure is the most r e s t r i c t i v e form of
regulation because i t makes it illegal for unlicensed people to practice
an occupation. For this reason, licensure should be limited to those
professions i n which the 1 i kel i hood and 1 i kely degree of harm is greatest,
and should be used s t r i c t l y as a l a s t resort. By comparison,
c e r t i f i c a t i o n is a form of regulation that recognizes individuals who have
met predetermined qua1 i fications. For example, individual s applying for
c e r t i f i c a t i o n may be required to have an appropriate degree and a
specified amount of professional experience. Certification d i f f e r s from
licensure i n that others may provide similar services as long as they do
not describe themselves as " certified." According to Shimberg,
c e r t i f i c a t i o n is particularly appropriate i n cases i n which the pub1 ic
needs assistance i n identifying competent practitioners b u t the risks are
not severe enough to warrant licensure.
L i t t l e evidence of harm - Although the s t r i c t e s t regulatory alternative,
licensure, i s used to regulate geologists, we found l i t t l e evidence of
harm resul ti ng from geol ogi cal practice. Neither the revi ew of compl ai nts
to the Board nor examination of lawsuits revealed harm from the geological
practice i tsel f.
From July 1, 1981 to September 20, 1984, the Board of Technical
Registration received only 10 complaints re1 ated to geological practice.
In no case did the complaints relate to the actual 1 icensees' competence
i n geol ogi cal practice. Nine cases i nvol ved geol ogi s t s a1 1 egedly
practicing without being registered, i n violation of Board statutes. The
Board closed all of these cases a f t e r routine investigation uncovered no
evidence of violations. In the remaining case, a licensed geologist
a1 1 egedly practiced outside his fie1 d i n making recommendations bordering
on those more appropriately made by a civil engineer. The Board cautioned
the respondent to use care i n issuing future recommendations, b u t d i d not
impose any penalty. Again, i t was not the practitioner's competence
i n geology that was being questioned.
Examination of lawsuits related to geology gave further evidence of the
1 ack of potential harm from geological practice. Professional geol ogi sts
identified some potential harm from their profession, b u t the actual harm
resul ted from re1 ated engineering subspecial ties - geological , geophysical
or civil engineering - not geology i tsel f. Practicing geologists working
commercially examine the earth's crust to determine the 1 ikely location of
reserves of o i l , water, ore, or other material of interest to a company.
However, the design of any structure to access such reserves i s not w i t h i n
the purview of geological practice, b u t i s the primary responsibility of
engineers trained to do such design work. A we1 1 collapse i n Flagstaff,
Arizona, resulting i n a lawsuit, was cited as an example of harm from the
practice of geology. However, the collapse was due to a design error
rather than an error i n geological practice. Because no identifiable
instances of harm have resulted from geological practice as such,
regulation of the profession provides no benefits i n excess of the costs
incurred.
Knowledgeable Users - Cl ients of geological consultants are generally
capable of determining the qual i fications of geologists. Most users have
access to resources that allow them to ascertain such qualifications.
Furthermore, statutory exemptions and excl usions recognize that empl oyers
of geologists can adequately assess geologists' qual if ications.
Most users of geological services have the a b i l i t y t o assess the
qual i fications of geol ogi sts. Cl ients using geological services are
primarily institutional , commercial , and industrial cl ients: the oil , gas,
and mining industries; utility companies; developers; and 1 ocal , state and
Federal governments. Some clients, such as agencies of the Federal
government, employ their own geologists as well as using geological
consultants, and thus may use their own staff geologists i n hiring
geological consul tants. Geological consul tants obtain their business
largely by word of mouth, indicating that potential users can and do make
decisions based on recommendations from others i n the business. Since
almost a1 1 institutional cl ients a1 so use geologists continual ly , they
have opportunity to judge the quality of work as a result of their own
experience.
Moreover, statutory exclusions and exemptions also recognize the ability
of employers to assess qualifications. The statutory definition of
" geologist" ( A. R. S. $ 32- 101 . B. 12) states:
". . . A person employed on a full- time basis as a
geologist by an employer engaged i n the business of
developing mining or treating ores and other minerals
shall not be deemed to be engaged i n geological
practice for the purposes of this chapter i f he engages
i n geological practice exclusively for and as an
employee of such employer and does not hold himself out
and is not held out as available to perform any
geological services for persons other than his
empl oyer. "
In addition, A. R. S. $ 32- 144. A. 1 exempts Federal employees, among others,
from statutory requirements for licensure.
A1 ternative To State Licensure
Provides Sufficient Protection
To the degree that the practice of geology results in any threat to the
pub1 i c heal t h , safety and we1 fare, certification offered by the American
Insti tue of Professional Geologists ( AIPG) provides sufficient
protection. Since l i t t l e harm is likely to ensue from geological
practice, vol untary certification offers a more appropriate 1 eve1 of
protection than 1 icensure. AIPG certification by i tsel f provides a
satisfactory indication of competence.
Appropriate level of protection - Results of the Auditor General review of
complaints to the Board of Technical Registration indicate that risks from
geological practice do not create a need for licensure. If regulation i s
warranted a t a l l , a less r e s t r i c t i v e form of regulation, such as
c e r t i f i c a t i o n , i s more appropriate. The AIPG offers a voluntary
c e r t i f i c a t i o n process that appears to be more than adequate.
The stated purpose of the American Institute of Professional Geologists is:
". . . t o establish professional q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r ,
and t o evaluate continuously the conduct o f geological
s c i e n t i s t s ; t o enhance and t o preserve the profession;
t o establ i s h e t h i c a l standards t h a t insure the
protection o f the p u b l i c and the profession i t s e l f from
non- professional practice. . . ." Lemphasis addedJ
The AIPG then describes t h e f u n c t i o n o f c e r t i f i c a t i o n .
" C e r t i f i c a t i o n provides a means by which the p u b l i c can
recoqnize those qeoloqists who are . iudaed bv t h e i r
~ e e r st o be worth; " of - ~ u b l i ct r u s t i n " t- h ; - ~ r. a- c. t - i c- eo. f
t h e i r profession. The 1 e t t e r s CPGS ( C e r t i f i e d
Professional Geol oqical S c i e n t i s t ) f o l l owinq a name . . . proclaims t o t h e pub1 i c t h a t t h a t has been
c e r t i f i e d by the I n s t i t u t e as possessing proper and
necessary qual i f i c a t i o n s . . . " [ emphasis added]
AIPG c e r t i f i c a t i o n indicates professional competence - I n the event t h a t
users would require assistance i n determining the competence of a
geologist, AIPG c e r t i f i c a t i o n , without 1 icensure, would adequately provide
an i n d i c a t i o n o f some competence 1 eve1 . Only 11 s t a t e s r e g u l a t e geol g i sts
i n any form. At l e a s t one o f those states accepts AIPG c e r t i f i e d
geologists as being automatical ly qual i f i e d f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n by the
state. To the extent t h a t users o f geological services i n t h e o t h e r 39
states r e q u i r e assistance i n assessing a g e o l o g i s t ' s competence, AIPG
c e r t i f i c a t i o n may meet t h e i r needs.
I n Arizona, Board license requirements are s i m i l a r t o AIPG c e r t i f i c a t i o n
requirements f o r education and experience. AIPG requires a bachel o r ' s
degree and 5 years of professional experience; the Board o f Technical
R e g i s t r a t i o n requires a combination of 8 years o f education and
professional experience. I n addition, the Board requires appl i c a n t s t o
pass a professional license examination, unless they are judged by the
Board t o be q u a l i f i e d on t h e b a s i s of A. R. S. S32- 123. A. I n accordance
w i t h A. R. S. $ 32- 123. A, the Board licensed 15 out o f 16 AIPG members i n
f i s c a l year 1983- 84 without examination. Therefore, it would seem t h a t
AIPG c e r t i f i c a t i o n a1 one could be used to determine professional
competence.
CONCLUSION
State 1 icensure of geologists i s unnecessary. The practice o f geology
does not pose a s u f f i c i e n t r i s k t o the public t o warrant licensure. To
the degree t h a t r i s k s do e x i s t from geological practice, voluntary
c e r t i f i c a t i o n through AIPG provides s u f f i c i e n t protection.
RECOMMENDATION
The Legislature should consider deleting A. R. S. $ 32- 1 O1. B. ll through
32- 1 01 . B. 13, which requires the 1 icensing of geologists, and other
p e r t i n e n t p o r t i o n s of the statutes r e f e r r i n g t o geologists.
FINDING I1
STATE REGULATION OF ASSAYERS IS UNNECESSARY
The State does not need t o regulate assayers. Arizona i s the only state
t h a t licenses assayers. Assaying practice does not pose a threat t o the
public health, safety and welfare. Users o f assaying services have the
means t o adequately protect themselves from incompetent and unethical
practice.
Arizona I s The Only State
That Licenses Assayers
Arizona i s the only state t h a t licenses assayers. Forty- two assayers are
currently licensed i n Arizona. No other state has laws regulating
assayers i n any form. One other state, Nevada, proposed such l e g i s l a t i o n
i n the 1983 l e g i s l a t i v e session but the b i l l was not enacted.*
L i t t l e Harm Occurs To The
Public From Assavina Practice
State 1 icensure o f assayers coul d be e l iminated without endangering the
pub1 i c . Avail able evidence suggests t h a t 1 i ttl e harm has resulted from
the practice of assaying. I n cases o f mining fraud i n which harm may
occur, the general public has stronger and more appropriate avenues o f
recourse.
L i t t l e evidence o f harm - L i t t l e i d e n t i f i a b l e harm related t o assaying
can be found by examining complaints t o the Board o f Technical
Registration or 1 awsui t s involving assayers.
* The Nevada b i l l was proposed ostensibly t o a s s i s t small miners and
prospectors i n i d e n t i f y i n g re1 iabl e assayers. However, i n testimony
. regarding the b i l l opponents expressed doubts as t o whether b e n e f i t
woul d ensue from regulation. Even among supporters, controversy
existed as t o whether licensing would be the most e f f e c t i v e method o f
regulation.
The 1 ack of substanti a1 compl a i nts demonstrates the re1 a t i vely mi nor harm
associated w i t h assaying. During the 3- year period between July 1, 1981
and September 20, 1984, the Board received and i n v e s t i g a t e d o n l y seven
complaints r e l a t e d t o assaying. Six o f the complaints were against
people a l l e g e d l y p r a c t i c i n g without a 1 icense, and i n only one case was
the complainant a user o f assaying services. The Board found no basis
for the complaints i n three cases, and closed four other cases
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y w i t h o u t penalty.
Only one l a w s u i t against an assayer was i d e n t i f i e d , and it was r e l a t e d t o
n e i t h e r t h e assayer's competence o r e t h i c a l conduct. According t o people
f a m i l i a r w i t h the s u i t , the p l a i n t i f f s had bought a bar misrepresented t o
them as a s o l i d gold bar. The assayer had cautioned the buyers against
purchasing it, i n s p i t e o f h i s own assay r e s u l t s t h a t confirmed the
s e l l e r s ' assertions about the bar. The buyers discovered the fraud too
l a t e t o l o c a t e the s e l l e r s , and sued the assayer, who was not involved i n
the scam, as the only party available from whom they even had a chance t o
obtain r e s t i t u t i o n . The assayer s e t t l e d o u t o f court, f o r an amount less
than what h i s court costs would have been had he chosen t o challenge the
s u i t .
Mining fraud - Supporters o f continued 1 icensing i d e n t i f i e d mining fraud
as the only major concern r e l a t e d t o assaying p r a c t i c e t h a t affects the
general public. However, assayers themselves have not p a r t i c i p a t e d i n
these frauds. Even i f assayers were involved, the p u b l i c has e f f e c t i v e
recourse through the Securities D i v i s i o n o f the Arizona Corporation
Commi ssion.
Some members of the general p u b l i c are affected i n d i r e c t l y , but
adversely, by assays when they decide t o i n v e s t i n mining properties
based on assay reports t h a t l a t e r prove t o be fraudulent. Although an
assay r e p o r t i s often a necessary p a r t o f such schemes, r a r e l y , if ever,
are assayers involved i n p e r p e t r a t i n g mining fraud. An o f f i c i a l a t the
U. S. S e c u r i t i e s and Exchange Commission ( SEC) , who has investigated cases
of mining fraud across the United States f o r t h e past 10 years, could
recall no case i n which SEC charged and convicted an assayer for
involvement i n such a crime. In fact, cases of mining fraud, as they
relate to assaying, more frequently involve deceptive practices occurring
before a sample i s submitted to the assayer. As a result, erroneously
high and misleading reports of precious metal s content occur regard1 ess
of the competence or ethical conduct of the assayer.
Even i f an assayer were involved i n perpetrating a fraudulent mining
scheme, other agencies have more effective penalties than the Board of
Technical Registration. The Securities Division of the Arizona
Corporation Commission investigates cases of securities fraud involving
the investing publ ic. The Securities Division prosecutes cases through
the Attorney General ' s Office and can impose a wide range of
administrative, c i v i l , and criminal penal t i e s as applicable to a case.
Because securities fraud i s a class 4 felony, there is no limit on civil
or criminal penalties that can be imposed.
In contrast, the Board of Technical Registration i s re1 atively power1 ess
to take definitive action i n fraud cases, except i n cases involving Board
registrants. The Board i s limited to penalties allowed by statutory
authority, i ncl uding revocation of 1 icense, suspension of 1 icense not to
exceed 3 years, imposition of an administrative penalty not to exceed
$ 2,000 per violation, and imposition of probation requirements adopted to
protect the publ i c heal t h , safety and we1 fare. Because Board options are
1 imited, recourse through the Corporation Commission i s a much more
powerful tool for investors victimized by mining fraud.
The general public i s also more aware of the role of the Corporation
Commission i n prosecuting fraud cases. No member of the general public
brought an assaying- related case to the Board i n the past 3 years;
complaints were brought by employees of other State agencies, a member of
the mining industry ( prospector), and members of the Board staff i t s e l f .
In comparison, the Corporation Commission conducts most of i t s inquiries
in mining fraud cases as a result of complaints from the investing
public, w i t h a smaller proportion of i t s inquiries resulting from
a c t i v i t i e s of i t s own staff or the staff of the Attorney General Is Office.
Users Have Methods Of
i ndi ng Qua1 i f i ed Assayers
Most users of assaying services have a variety of ways to identify
reliable assayers and assay laboratories. Users are primarily commercial
and industrial clients who a r e f u l l y able to determine the qualifications
of the assayers they use. Individual prospectors unable to ascertain
assayer qua1 ifications may use c e r t i f i c a t i o n by the Arizona Association
of Certified Laboratories to aid i n identifying reliable assay labs.
Knowledgeable users - Primary users of assaying services i n Arizona have
a wide variety of methods to assess the re1 i a b i l i t y of assayers. The
general public rarely uses assaying services. Users of assay labs are
largely commercial and industrial cl ients : mining companies, exploration
companies, exploration geologists, and to a limited degree commercial
dealers i n precious metals. Many mining companies employ their own
in- house assayers i n addition to using independent assay labs, and are
thus able to assess the qualifications of assayers they use. Other users
have access to resources from which they can determine the r e l i a b i l i t y of
assay labs. According to assayers and members of related professions
( e. g., mining engineers and geologists), most assayers obtain their
business through word of mouth and retain t h e i r business based on their
work.
Even without access to information regarding assayer re1 iabil i ty, mining
companies are able to ascertain the quality of assay work using other
techniques. For commercial and industrial firms, good business practice
demands the use of reliable assay labs, since a company's economic
welfare depends i n part on accurate assay results. Users commonly send
duplicate samples to more than one independent laboratory and compare the
different lab results. Even a f t e r becoming regular users of a lab,
clients continue to send i n check samples to assess the r e l i a b i l i t y of
lab results. Because assayers are aware of these practices and are
1 argely dependent on business from mining and exploration a c t i v i t i e s ,
assayers a1 so have economic incentives to maintain ethical and competent
practice. Because assayers as well as users have incentives to assure
re1 iable practice, the industry i s sufficiently abl e to protect i tsel f
without State regulation.
Individual prospectors make up the remainder of c l i e n t s served by
assayers. Prospectors have access to information regarding the quality
of assay 1 abs through prospectors' associations. Moreover, people who
prospect for a live1 ihood - w i t h the ultimate goal of selling a property
or a claim to a mining company - can obtain information during regular
contacts and transactions w i t h different mining companies.
Arizona Association Of Certified Laboratories - In the event that
prospective users of assaying services do not have access to resources
enabling them to determine the r e l i a b i l i t y of assay 1 abs, certification
by the Arizona Association of Certified Laboratories ( AACL) can aid i n
assessing lab qua1 i t y and re1 iabil ity. Supporters of continued 1 icensing
argue that not a1 1 prospectors are necessarily know1 edgeabl e about
assayer r e l i a b i l i t y and that licensing i s needed to protect t h i s group.
Currently, every i ndependent assay 1 aboratory i s required to operate
under the supervision of a registered assayer. However, a less
r e s t r i c t i v e mechanism, voluntary 1 aboratory c e r t i f i c a t i o n , i s available
and can adequately serve t h i s same function.
AACL certification differs from 1 icensing i n that c e r t i f i c a t i o n i s
voluntary, and aspects of the laboratory i t s e l f - f a c i l i t i e s and
equipment - are reviewed prior to certification. Formed i n 1980, the
AACL c e r t i f i e s laboratories of a l l types on the basis of on- site
evaluations. AACL estimates that i t currently c e r t i f i e s 68 percent of
the commercial 1 aboratories i n the major metropolitan areas of Arizona
( Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff). To maintai n membership, laboratories
must participate i n a check sample program designed to monitor their
performance on a continuing basis. No national check sample program
e x i s t s f o r assaying 1 aboratories; AACL o f f e r s t h e only organized program
monitoring assay labs on an ongoing basis. AACL officers provide
assistance i n resol ving probl ems and are authorized to terminate
membership i f a laboratory i s unwilling or unable to take remedial
action. A t least four of the estimated 15 independent assaying
laboratories operating i n Arizona are members of the AACL.
CONCLUSION
State regulation of assayers i s unnecessary. The practice of assaying
does not pose a s u f f i c i e n t r i s k to the general public to warrant
licensure. Most users of assaying services have adequate methods to
assess the competence of the assayers they use. To the degree that harm
to the general public does occur, the public has stronger and more
appropriate alternatives for action than licensing by the Board of
Technical Registration.
RECOMMENDATION
The Legislature should consider deleting A. R. S. 932- 1 01. B. 4 through
32- 1 01 . B. 6, which requires 1 icensing of assayers, and other pertinent
portions of the statutes relating to assayers licensed by the Board of
Technical Registration.
FINDING I11
STATE REGULATION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS IS UNNECESSARY
The public receives l i t t l e protection from the licensure of landscape
architects. Little harm to the general public results from the practice
of 1 andscape architecture. Most users are know1 edgeabl e users who can
assess the qua1 ifications of 1 andscape architects. Moreover, existing
1 icensing provisions for 1 andscape architects may r e s t r i c t the scope of
practice of other re1 ated professions.
Landscape Architecture Poses L i t t l e Harm
The practice of landscape architecture results i n l i t t l e harm to the
general publ ic. Proponents of continued regul ati on cite several threats
b u t the potential harm i s minimal. Moreover, existing evidence does not
support other arguments for the licensure of landscape architects. The
differing perspectives of the need for licensure are demonstrated by the
f a c t t h a t only 23 states license the actual practice of landscape
architecture as a means of protecting the general public from potential
harm.
Potential Harm Minimal - Landscape architects do not engage in activities
that significantly threaten the publ ic. The potential dangers cited by
proponents of 1 icensure are not sufficiently serious to warrant
regulation, and other existing regulations adequately protect the
publ ic. Landscape architects consider their profession to be a design
profession similar to architecture and engineering, b u t evidence suggests
the inherent risks are negligible.
Risks from 1 andscape architectural practice do not significantly endanger
the publ ic. Interviews w i t h a cross section of landscape architects*
x Peopl e interviewed included members of the American Society of
Landscape Architects, the 1 andscape architectural representative of
the Board of Technical Registration, and other 1 andscape architects
working i n the publ ic and private sectors.
revealed some p o s s i b i l i ty o f p o t e n t i a l harm. For example, incompetent
p r a c t i c e can r e s u l t i n improper s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f p l a n t material near
rights- of- way, on median s t r i p s and i n parking areas; which can r e s u l t i n
trees and shrubs being located where they obstruct d r i v e r v i s i b i l i t y and
c o n t r i b u t e t o t r a f f i c accidents. Thorny p l ants placed near pedestrian
walkways may cause pedestrian i n j u r y . I n j u r y can also r e s u l t from poorly
designed walkways and outdoor structures. Improper design o f i r r i g a t i o n
systems can cause contamination o f potable water supplies. Inadequate
provision f o r drainage o f r u n o f f water can cause flooding and water
damage t o adjacent properties, as we1 1 as making surfaces s u f f i c i e n t l y
slippery t o c o n s t i t u t e a hazard t o d r i v e r s and pedestrians. Potential
harm from the p r a c t i c e o f landscape a r c h i t e c t u r e also includes
environmental degradation and poor u t i l i z a t i o n o f natural resources. For
example, s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f plants t h a t use excessive water o r are unable
t o adapt t o desert environments may r e s u l t i n higher maintenance and
replacement costs and i n e f f i c i e n t use o f natural resources.
However, the incidents o f p o t e n t i a l harm c i t e d are not extremely serious,
i n t h a t many o f these conditions can be e a s i l y i d e n t i fed by the publ i c
and c o r r e c t i v e action can be taken. I n f a c t , one municipal o f f i c i a l
stated t h a t h i s c i t y has taken c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n i n the past as a r e s u l t
of c i t i z e n complaints regarding median 1 andscaping t h a t 1 i m i ted d r i v e r
v i s i b i l i t y .
Moreover, e x i s t i n g regulations p r o t e c t the publ i c from the most serious
threats. Federal, State, and l o c a l highway and t r a f f i c engineering
agencies r e q u i r e the review o f design plans t o ensure t h a t landscaping
along State highways, rights- of- way, and major a r t e r i a l s t r e e t s does not
jeopardize safety and d r i v e r v i s i b i 1 i ty. Local governments have a
v a r i e t y of regulatory requirements such as zoning codes, ordinances and
s u b d i v i s i o n r e g u l a t i o n s t h a t govern b u i l d i n g and design a c t i v i t i e s t o
p r o t e c t residents. I n Arizona, some c i t i e s a1 so have special regulations
for f l o o d p l a i n s and water r e t e n t i o n basins. The City o f Chandler, for
example, has special 1 andscaping guide1 ines r e l a t i n g t o f l o o d r e t e n t i o n
basins, and the City o f Phoenix requires special review of a l l
development i n designated f l o o d p l a i n areas.
In addition, potential risks from 1 andscape architectural practice do not
even approach those inherent i n architecture and engineering. Some
1 andscape architects assert t h a t t h e i r profession should be 1 icensed
because i t i s similar to the other design professions of architecture and
engineering. Landscape architects and architects both engage i n s i t e
planning, for example. Landscape architects a1 so may work w i t h engineers
i n determining patterns of vehicular access to and from s i t e s . Because
of s i m i l a r i t i e s i n practice, some landscape architects maintain that
their profession should be licensed as long as architects and engineers
are 1 icensed.
Yet, evidence reveal s that compared w i t h architects and engineers,
landscape architects present f a r l e s s risk, indicating that 1 andscape
architectural products pose much less harm to the general public.
Collapsed buildings and structures are the most dramatic examples of
danger to the publ ic from architectural and engineering practice. The
American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that a t l e a s t 500 sizeable
building failures per year occur i n the United States. An a r t i c l e i n
Fortune magazine estimated that insurance companies paid approximately
$ 235 million i n 1979 for claims resulting from structural failures.
According to a major insurer of architectural and engineering firms,
claim settlements averaged $ 1 00,000 per claim d u r i n g 1983, excluding
claims s e t t l e d f o r more than $ 250,000. In contrast, a major insurer of
landscape architectural firms paid a total of $ 100,000 i n claims
settlements nationally i n 1983 and 1984. As a result, only 25 percent of
practicing 1 andscape architects carry professional 1 iabil i ty insurance.
In contrast, insured architectural and engineering firms do approximately
95 percent of all construction.
The minor nature of the few complaints received by the Board also
suggests minimum danger to the public from landscape architecture and
points to the effectiveness of existing regulatory a1 ternatives. The
Board received only 11 complaints re1 ating to 1 andscape architecture
between July 1, 1981 and September 20, 1984. None of the complaints
originated w i t h the publ i c y and a l l alleged that people who were not
landscape architects were practicing landscape architecture. The Board
d i smi ssed nine cases, a1 1 i nvol v i ng nonregi strants, administratively
without penalty. The other two complaints involved an a r c h i t e c t and an
engineer a1 1 egedly practicing outside t h e i r f i e 1 ds i n drawing 1 andscapi ng
plans f o r roadway medians. A1 though the Board imposed a $ 200 c i v i l
penalty i n each case, i n neither case did the Board f i n d the plans
themsel ves t o be substandard. Moreover, the compl a i n t was submitted by
an employee o f a State agency w i t h r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r ensuring the
adequacy o f the plans. Even i f plans had been substandard, it i s
u n l i k e l y t h a t they would have been carried out because agency review
would have prohibited t h e i r imp1 ementation.
Other Arguments For Licensure Are Not Supported - Evidence does not
support arguments o f economic harm i n the absence of continued
licensure. Supporters of continued licensure argue t h a t deregulation
would be detrimental t o the profession i n Arizona and would thus a f f e c t
Arizona's economy. However, 1 i ttl e evidence indicates t h a t deregulation
would adversely affect the economic welfare of the State.
Landscape architects have stated t h a t deregulation would place them a t a
disadvantage i n competing f o r out- of- State jobs. Without regulation,
landscape architects would not be able t o obtain licenses by
reciprocity. Thus, they would be unable t o contract f o r work i n states
p e r m i t t i n g o n l y registered ( 1 icensed) landscape architects t o practice.
However, the impact o f deregulation would not be widespread. Many
landscape architects 1 i m i t t h e i r practice t o Arizona and do not need
1 icenses i n other states. I n addition, landscape architects who
currently hold licenses i n Arizona would s t i l l be able t o obtain 1 icenses
i n other states. Auditor General s t a f f found t h a t landscape architects
i n Colorado were able t o obtain 1 icense by r e c i p r o c i t y through
c e r t i f i c a t i o n by the Council of Landscape A r c h i t e c t u r a l Registration
Boards ( CLARB) a f t e r t h a t state deregulated t h e p r a c t i c e i n 1977.
Thirty- three of the 38 states t h a t license landscape architects accept
CLARB c e r t i f i c a t i o n f o r licensing by r e c i p r o c i t y . Landscape architects
entering the profession i n Arizona a f t e r deregulation, however, woul d
have t o obtain new 1 icenses i n any state t h a t requires licensure i f they
wish t o practice i n t h a t state.
26
Many States Do Not Regulate Practice - The perceived harm r e s u l t i n g from
1 andscape a r c h i t e c t u r e v a r i e s among the states. The v a r i a t i o n i n types
o f regulation used by the 50 states i s shown i n Table 3.
TABLE 3
REGULATION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
IN THE UNITED STATES
TYPE OF REGULATION STATES USING THIS TYPE OF REGULATION
Regulation o f practice( 1 ) A1 abama
Arizona
Cal i f o r n i a
Connecticut
Delaware
Fl orida
Georgia
Hawai i
Kansas New York
Kentucky Nevada
Loui s i ana Oklahoma
Mary1 and Pennsyl vani a
Minnesota Rhode Island
Mississippi South Carolina
Montana Texas
Nebraska
Regulation o f t i t l e only Arkansas Massachusetts Oregon
Idaho Michigan Tennessee
I n d i ana New Jersey Washington
Iowa North Carol i na West V i r g i na
Maine Ohio
Voluntary c e r t i f i c a t i o n V i r g i ni a
No regul a t i on A1 aska New Hampshire ~ t a h ( ~ )
Col orado( 2 ) New Mexico Vermont
I l l i n o i s North Dakota W i sconsi n
Missouri South Dakota Wyoming
Source: Council of Landscape A r c h i t e c t u r a l Registration Boards, " State
Comparison Chart ," May, 1984
) Nearly a1 1 states r e g u l a t i n g t h e practice o f 1 andscape architecture a1 so
have r e s t r i c t i o n s on the use o f t i t l e .
( 2 ) Colorado deregul ated 1 andscape architecture i n 1 977 i n accordance with
sunset review recommendations.
( 3) Utah deregul ated 1 andscape architecture i n 1981 i n accordance with sunset
review recommendations.
A1 though 38 states regul ate 1 andscape arc h i tects, only 23 states,
including Arizona, regulate the actual practice of landscape
architecture. One s t a t e has vol untary c e r t i f i c a t i o n , and 14 have t i t l e
laws, which allow anyone to practice landscape architecture as long as
they do not call themselves 1 andscape architects. Two states, Colorado
and Utah, deregulated landscape architecture as a result of sunset
reviews i n 1977 and 1981 , respectively. Since deregulation, Col orado
hand1 es compl aints re1 ating to 1 andscape architects through the Office of
the Attorney General. The consumer speci a1 i st of the Col orado Attorney
General ' s Office stated that since the deregulation of 1 andscape
architecture no problems concerning the profession have indicated that
there i s a need to reestablish the Colorado Landscape Architects Board.
Most Users Can
Protect Themsel ves
Another reason harm to the public is limited is that most users of
1 andscape archi tectural services can adequately assess the competence of
practitioners they use. Most cl ients are commercial and institutional
cl ients w i t h methods of determining qual ifications of 1 andscape
architects. In fact, i t is the individual users, who would presumably
lack the a b i l i t y of commercial users to judge competence, that Arizona's
current licensing law does not protect.
Sophisticated Users - Most users of landscape architectural services are
government agencies and private developers and builders, who a r e f u l l y
able to judge the qual ifications of landscape architects. Since
commercial and institutional users bear the primary 1 iabil ity for any
unsafe design or construction, i t is i n their best interests to ensure
that 1 andscape architects they select actual ly have the necessary
qualifications, experience and competence.
These users have developed ways to evaluate the competence of landscape
architects. Governmental agencies contracting for landscape
architectural work frequently use 1 andscape architects on their s t a f f s to
develop requests for proposals and evaluate and select firms. Private
sector cl ients may select 1 andscape architects based on the architects '
reputation. Builders who have used a firm before often return to the
same firm if they have been satisfied i n the past. Developers choosing a
firm for the f i r s t time ( e. g., i n areas where they have not previously
built) usually seek recommendations from business contacts and
engineering, architectural , or related professional firms that regularly
conduct business w i t h 1 andscape architects. Developers may even obtain
recommendations from 1 aw firms that special ize i n representing design
firms.
Small Commercial And Individual Users - Small commercial and individual
users constitute the remainder of cl ients using 1 andscape architectural
services. They represent a smaller proportion of clients served by
landscape architects, i n part because it i s not cost effective for large
design firms to accept small jobs. In addition, the statutes do not
require providers of landscaping services for private residences and
small commercial f a c i l i t i e s to be board registrants. Thus, the very
individuals who regulation, i n theory, i s supposed to benefit - the less
knowledgeable general public - are not protected by current licensing
requirements. Yet, i n spite of the absence of protection by the
statutes, no identifiabl e harm has occurred.
Current Licensing Provisions
Mav Restrict Other Professions
Current 1 icensing provisions for 1 andscape architects may restrict the
scope of practice of related professions. The practice of landscape
architecture includes a c t i v i t i e s t h a t over1 ap several other professions.
For this reason, licensing of landscape architects may prohibit people i n
related professions from engaging fully i n their trades or occupations.
Overlap With Other Professions - Many activities of landscape
architecture are a1 so common to other professions. Landscape architects
are not the only professionals who engage i n practices related to
pl anning, 1 andscaping, irrigation and s i t e design. Landscape contractors
also work on drainage and sprinkler systems, and landscape designers
specify planting plans. Physical 1 and planners and regional / urban
planners engage i n large scale land evaluation and analysis. Fifteen
professions and occupations involve activities similar to those of
1 andscape architecture. Three of these - 1 andscape contracting,
architecture and civil / electrical engineering are regulated in some form
i n Arizona.
Restricted Scope Of Practice - The definition of " 1 andscape architectural
practice" encompasses duties of professions other than landscape
architecture. This broad definition of practice potentially restricts
people i n related professions and occupations from engaging i n the
1 egi timate practice of their professions.
Each portion of the definition of 1 andscape architectural practice
describes activities not only of landscape architects b u t of a t least one
other profession, such as planning and landscape design. As defined by
A. R. S. S32- 101 . B. 16., landscape architectural practice is:
". . . the performance of professional services such as
consul tations, investigation, reconnaissance, research,
pl anni ng, design, or responsible supervision in
connection w i t h the development of land and incidental
water areas where, and to the extent that, the dominant
purpose of such services i s the preservation,
enhancement, or determination of proper land uses,
natural 1 and features, ground cover and pl anting,
natural i s t i c and esthetic [ sic] values, the settings
and approaches to buil dings, structures, facil i ties, or
other improvements, natural drainage and the
consideration and the determination of inherent
problems of the land relating to erosion, wear and
tear, light or other hazards. This practice shall
incl ude the 1 ocation and arrangement of such tangible
objects and features as are incidental and necessary to
the purposes outlined in this paragraph. . . ."
Regulation of the practice may impose hardships on people in other
related professions by restricting their scope of practice. Arizona
regul ates the practice of 1 andscape architecture w i t h 1 icensure, which
makes unlicensed practice illegal. The exemption of certain professions
and occupations from regul ation presumably provides 1 egal recognition of
over1 apping functions among related professions. These statutes ( A. R. S.
$ 32- 1 44) currently include exemptions for nonregi strants who provide
horticultural consul tations or prepare planting plans.
Yet, these exemptions do not necessarily protect a1 1 re1 ated professions
from undue hardship resulting from the r e s t r i c t i o n of the scope of
1 andscape architectural practice. For exampl e, pl anners who engage i n
planning a c t i v i t i e s for e n t i t i e s other than governmental subdivisions are
not exempt. The Board received one complaint against a planner who had
completed a s i t e plan. According to planning professionals, s i t e
planning is w i t h i n the proper domain of the practice of planning. Yet,
the Board found the planner i n violation of statutes for practicing
1 andscape architecture, a f t e r seeking technical advice from a 1 andscape
architect serving as an advisor to the Board. A1 though the Board closed
the case administratively without penal t y , t h e decision that s i t e
planning performed by a planner was, indeed, i n violation of the statutes
shows that 1 icensing 1 andscape architects can r e s t r i c t the practice of
other ( unregul ated) professions.
If 1 icensure is continued, one way to resolve t h i s problem would be to
more clearly define the practice so the definition covers only a c t i v i t i e s
unique to 1 andscape architecture. However, because 1 andscape
architectural a c t i v i t i e s overlap those of so many other professions,
modification of the practice definition to make i t specific to landscape
architecture might severely 1 imi t the scope of 1 andscape architectural
practice.
Another alternative would be to use a less r e s t r i c t i v e form of
regulation, such as reserve of t i t l e . Reserve of t i t l e is a form of
regulation that recognizes individuals who have met certain
qualifications. I t differs from licensure i n that others may provide
similar services as 1 ong as they do not call themselves " landscape
architects." I t would allow those i n other professions to engage fully
i n the 1 egi timate practice of their professions and occupations, while
continuing to differentiate 1 andscape architecture from other re1 ated
professions.
CONCLUSIONS
The State receives 1 i t t l e additional protection from the 1 icensure of
1 andscape architects. L i t t l e harm actually resul t s from the practice
because existing codes, ordinances and other regul ations protect the
public against much of the harm that could occur. Primary users of
1 andscape architectural services are i nsti tutional and commercial users
who can assess qua1 i fications of 1 andscape architects i n several ways.
In addition, evidence indicates that current practice regulation may
cause undue hardship on people i n other related professions.
RECOMMENDAT I ONS
1. The State Legisl ature should consider del e t i ng A. R. S. § 32- 101. B. 14
through 32- 1 01. B. 16, which requires the 1 icensure of 1 andscape
architects, and other pertinent portions of the statutes relating to
landscape architects 1 icensed by the Board of Technical
Registration.
2. If the State Legislature decides to continue regulation of landscape
architects, i t should consider amending A. R. S. $ 32- 101 . B. 14 through
32- 101 . B. 16 to provide a l e s s r e s t r i c t i v e form of regulation, such as
regulation of the t i t l e of landscape architect, which does not 1 imi t
the a b i l i t y of people i n re1 ated professions to practice.
FINDING IV
DEFICIENCIES IN THE BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION'S LICENSING
EXAMINATIONS MAY PREVENT THE BOARD FROM ADEQUATELY ASSESSING COMPETENCE
Professional examinations developed by the Board of Technical
Registration contain deficiences that may limit the Board's ability to
make correct, defensible 1 icensi ng decisions. Procedures for developing
exams 1 imi t the Board's ability to successfully defend exam validity and
re1 iabil i ty. In addition, procedures for administering the exams further
reduce the Board's abil i ty to assess competence.
The Board prepares examinations for professions for which no national or
regional exams exist or special knowledge and qualifications are needed
due to 1 ocal conditions. Those professions requiring Board developed
exams i n Arizona i ncl ude: assaying, geology, geological engineering, 1 and
surveying and structural engineering. These exams are prepared by
individual s or committees who, because of their background, are
considered by the Board to be eminent i n their fields. During fiscal
year 1983- 84, 114 persons took exams prepared by the Board while 1,124
took national exams.
Exam Content May Not Relate Directly To Skill
Levels Needed To Ensure Competent Practice
Board procedures for developing exams 1 imit the Board's ability to
successfully defend exam val i d i ty and re1 iabi1 i ty. Very specific
standards, concepts, and procedures exist f o r devel oping examinations.
The Board does not appear to use these standards.
Recognized Testing Standards Exist - Nationally recognized testing
standards and procedures exist f o r developing license examinations and
determining the knowledge necessary for competent practice of an
occupation*.
* National standards for 1 icensi ng examinations have been developed by
a joint committee of the American Educational Research Association,
the American Psychological Association and the National Council on
Measurement i n Education. These standards cover a wide range of areas
i ncl udi ng examination preparation, val idation, administration and
scoring.
33
Testing experts consider the f o l l o w i n g guide1 ines t o be an important
element i n exam preparation and scoring because they provide assurances
t h a t exams accurately and c o n s i s t e n t l y measure competence.
0 Task Analysis - Task analysis i d e n t i f i e s the c r i t i c a l s k i l l s
t h a t characterize a given occupation. It addresses concerns f o r
p u b l i c p r o t e c t i o n by ranking those tasks i n terms o f frequency,
importance and c r i t i c a l i ty. With task analysis, t e s t developers
can determine exam content, the number o f questions t o be asked
about a p a r t i c u l a r function, and the r e l a t i v e importance
( weight) o f questions o r groups o f questions.
0 V a l i d i t y - V a l i d i t y i s t h e e x t e n t t o which a t e s t measures the
c r i t i c a l s k i l l s i d e n t i f i e d i n the task analysis. A v a l i d t e s t
should provide the Board with a passing score which ensures t h a t
an appl i c a n t possesses the ski1 1 s, a b i l i t i e s and knowledge
needed t o successfully practice and e f f i c i e n t l y perform c r i t i c a l
occupational tasks. According t o a l o c a l t e s t i n g authority, an
examination without p r o p e r l y v a l i d a t e d content may be subject t o
l e g a l challenge.
0 R e l i a b i l i t y - Test r e l i a b i l i t y i s the extent t o which the
r e s u l t s o f an examination are consistent. For example, the
scores from two separate t e s t administrations should be
re1 a t i v e l y consistent, assuming a re1 a t i v e l y normal d i s t r i b u t i o n
of qua1 i f i e d appl icants.
Equating - Equating ensures t h a t scores from various forms o f an
exam are equivlent. I d e a l l y , a l l revisions o r t e s t formats
should be equally d i f f i c u l t . If they are not, examinees taking
the easier form would have an advantage over those t a k i n g t h e
more d i f f i c u l t version. Equating, therefore, converts raw scores
from each t e s t form i n t o a comparable, meaningful score.
These f o u r standards are necessary t o ensure examinee competence; t h e i r
absence l i m i t s the a b i l i t y o f any professional l i c e n s i n g agency t o defend
examination r e s u l t s and ensure competence.
Exam Content Not Validated - The Board does not f o l l o w national t e s t i n g
standards t o prepare i t s exams. No evidence i s available t o show t h a t the
Board or i t s t e s t devel opers consi s t e n t l y meet accepted requirements for
task analysis, v a l i d i t y , r e l i a b i l i t y or equating f o r any o f i t s
examinations ( Table 4). As a r e s u l t , these t e s t s may not adequately
measure appl i c a n t s ' a b i l i t y t o perform s k i l l s necessary f o r competent
practice.
TABLE 4
BOARD USE OF PROFESSIONAL TESTING STANDARDS
Assayers
Task Analysis Val i d i ty Re1 i a b i 1 i ty Equating
Geol ogi s t s x x x
Geological Eng. x x x
Land Surveyor x x x
S t r u c t u r a l Eng. x x x
SOURCE: Compiled by the Auditor General s t a f f from a series of
interviews w i t h t e s t development personnel used by the Board,
and confirmed by the executive d i r e c t o r
Interviews with i n d i v i d u a l s who prepare examinations, Board s t a f f and the
Board's examination fil es showed no evidence t h a t examinations are
developed i n a manner consistent w i t h national standards. Test preparers
could not document any analysis o f occupational tasks o r attempts t o
weight exam content t o r e f l e c t c r i t i c a l ski1 1 s and knowledge. Moreover,
the Board has not provided a w r i t t e n scope o f exam content, degree o f
d i ff i c u l ty, o r other t e s t devel opment c r i t e r i a t o t e s t preparers.
A1 though the t e s t developers are well qua1 i f i e d i n t h e i r subject f i e l d s ,
and several have doctorate degrees, they have not received adequate
i n s t r u c t i o n from the Board on developing v a l i d professional l i c e n s i n g
examinations. These findings were confirmed by Board staff, exam
developers and the executive d i r e c t o r .
Although some of the Board's tests, such as the land surveyor
examination, have been improved i n recent years, the Board has not
ensured that examination difficulty i s consistent from one testing period
to another. A review of exam content suggests that the skill levels
required to demonstrate competence may vary for each test
administration. For example:
e One section of the 1983 assayer examination contained 15
questions. In 1984 the same section contained 25 questions.
The weights of questions on both exams were changed without
explanation and w i t h no evidence that the Board equated the
results of one exam w i t h the other. On the land surveyor exam a
multiple choice portion of the exam was changed from four
possible answers in 1983 to five i n 1984, reducing the chance of
a correct answer from 25 to 20 percent.
e The format of the land surveyor exam changed from essentially a
true/ false and essay exam i n 1980 to a multiple choice and essay
test i n 1983. This change i s significant because on a
true/ false exam an examinee has a 50 percent chance of answering
questions correctly. On a multiple choice exam w i t h four
possible answers, the examinee's chance of selecting the correct
answers is reduced to 25 percent.
Another continuing problem i s the use of irrelevant questions and
questions that test superficial rather than fundamental knowl edge. Some
questions that appear to be significant may not adequately measure the
actual knowl edge needed for competent practice. In some cases,
individuals not educated i n the professional field could select a correct
answer without knowing the principle being tested. Such questions appear
on most of the exams to varying degrees. The following are examples of
questions that do not test the conceptual aspects needed to determine
proficiency.
e List a t least four books and authors or references that you use
for assaying ( assayer exam).
The f a c t t h a t an examinee can o r can n o t remember an author o r
t i t l e does not reveal whether technical knowledge i s present o r
absent.
0 According t o A. R. S. $ 33- 121, Arizona Coordinate System, which o f
t h e f o l l o w i n g counties would f a l l i n the West zone? a) La Paz
b) Maricopa c ) Pinal d) Yavapai e) none o f the above ( land
surveyor exam).
The purpose o f the question i s t o determine an examinee's
knowledge o f the Arizona Plane Coordinate System. However, a
basic knowledge o f Arizona counties could prompt a c o r r e c t
answer without the respondent possessing fundamental
understanding o f the p r i n c i p a l being tested.
0 Blunders may be pro- rated. True o r False. ( land surveyor exam)
An i n d i v i d u a l who c u r r e n t l y develops the land surveyor exam, who
d i d not author t h i s question taken from a previous t e s t , was not
sure of t h i s question's meaning or technical merits.
8 Lack o f content v a l i d i t y and use of i r r e l e v a n t questions means t h a t
examinees ' performance may n o t adequately demonstrate know1 edge and
ski1 1 s necessary f o r competent practice. Therefore, people may be
licensed who are n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y competent; conversely, competent
i n d i v i d u a l s may be denied licenses. These deficiences r a i s e questions
about the Board's a b i l i ty t o make defensible 1 icensing decisions.
The Board needs t o follow national t e s t i n g standards i n preparing i t s
examinations. Otherwise, there i s a p o t e n t i a l f o r a l e g a l challenge on
the grounds t h a t w i t h o u t t h e use of t e s t i n g standards the Board cannot
adequately d i s t i n g u i sh between peopl e demonstrating minimum competence t o
p r a c t i c e a l i c e n s e d profession and those l a c k i n g such knowledge. The
technical nature of these standards may necessitate the assistance o f
professional t e s t i n g experts. Although t e s t i n g experts or companies may
be expensive," the Board has several hundred thousand d o l l a r s o f
unallocated revenues, o f which a p o r t i o n could be appropriated f o r t h i s
purpose. The Board may also be able t o work with neighboring states t o
prepare a regional examination f o r some professions and thus share the
cost of val i d a t i o n w i t h other p a r t i c i p a t i n g boards.
Board Procedures For Administering The Exams
Further Reduce I t s A b i l i t y To Assess Competence
I n addition t o d e f i c i e n c i e s i n examination val i d i t y and re1 i a b i l i ty,
grading v a r i a t i o n s , c u r v i n g o f exam r e s u l t s , and scoring d i f f i c u l t i e s
and e r r o r s f u r t h e r reduce the ~ o a r d ' s a b i l i t y t o make sound l i c e n s i n g
decisions. Furthermore, varying i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and practice o f Board
rules may create an u n f a i r advantage f o r some examinees.
Arizona statutes and Board r u l e s do not i n d i c a t e how t e s t s are t o be
graded or scored. Grader i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s required on subjective exam
questions, i n contrast t o objective questions f o r which the answer i s
e i t h e r r i g h t o r wrong. Subjective questions include essay and short
answer responses, w h i l e o b j e c t i v e questions include t r u e / f a l s e and
mu1 t i p l e choice questions.
Grading Procedures Vary - The Board does not ensure t h a t examinations are
graded consistently. Although more than one person grades t h e l a n d
surveyor and geologist exams, the Board has not standardized procedures
t o ensure grading consistency for exams. Two i n d i v i d u a l s grade the e n t i r e
exam for h a l f o f t h e l a n d surveyor 1 icense applicants. However, exams are
not cross graded t o ensure consistency. Four people grade each section of
the Geologist exam and the scores are averaged. However, i n 1982 the
sections were averaged d i f f e r e n t l y . Part One of the 1982 exam was
reviewed by four graders with t h e low score being dropped before
* Testing s e r v i c e fees may vary widely i n price. Education Testing
Service estimates i t s costs a t approximately $ 6,000 per exam, or
$ 30,000 for the f i v e exams. A l o c a l t e s t i n g authority, however,
indicated t h a t charges would consist o f a r e t a i n e r fee and an hourly
rate.
averaging. On Part Two of the exam, a l l four scores were used f o r
averaging. The varation s i g n i f i c a n t l y affected the resul t s ; a1 1 examinees
would have f a i l e d P a r t One i f a l l four scores had been averaged.
Grading procedures a1 so d i f f e r among exams. While exams f o r some
professions use m u l t i p l e graders, others, such as the assayer and
s t r u c t u r a l engineering exams, are graded by a sing1 e individual. Mu1 t i p l e
graders add consistency t o subjective grading by reducing grader bias or
misunderstanding. The Board's reliance on single graders f o r these exams
increases the 1 i k e l ihood t h a t a candidate's responses may not be f u l l y
considered.
One Exam Graded On Curve - The land surveyor examination i s scored on a
curve basis. The e f f e c t o f t h i s action i s t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l ' s score i s
adjusted based upon a comparison o f each examinee's performance t o t h a t
o f others taking the exam. With t h i s method, the performance l e v e l
required for licensure can change from one t e s t administration t o the
next. For example, i f a f i x e d passing score o f 70 percent were used t o
score the land surveyor exam only 16 percent ( 22 examinees) o f 136
i n d i v i d u a l s t a k i n g t h e t e s t between October 1982 and A p r i l 1984 would
have passed. Forty- seven percent ( 64 examinees) a c t u a l l y passed based on
a curved passing score. A1 though n e i t h e r s t a t u t e s nor r u l e s p r o h i b i t t h i s
practice, an adjusted curved score does not represent a specific l e v e l o f
competency as would appear necessary t o comply with the Board's charge to
provide " for the safety, health and welfare of the public through the
promulgation and enforcement o f standards of qua1 i f i c a t i o n f o r those
individuals 1 icensed and seeking 1 icenses. . . ."
I n contrast, t h e o t h e r four Board exams are scored with a d e f i n i t e
passing point. This p r a c t i c e provides a specific performance standard
examinees must demonstrate t o be licensed. A l i c e n s i n g exam i s to
measure professional competency, therefore the passing point must
represent the lowest score t h a t would j u s t i f y licensure.
Because o f t h i s , The National Council o f Engineering Examiners, the
national t e s t i n g organization f o r land surveyors, has changed from a
curved score t o a f i x e d pass score and established minimum passing scores
t o determine competency on the national portion o f the land surveyor
exam. Moreover, Arizona 1 aw speci f i c a l ly p r o h i b i t s curved scores on a t
l e a s t one professional examination. For example, A. R. S. $ 32- 1 724. C
s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o h i b i t s the Arizona State Board o f Optometry from grading
i t s exams on a curve.
Scorers Make Errors - Scoring d i f f i c u l t i e s also occur i n evaluating the
mathematical accuracy of scores. Graders generally report only f i n a l
scores rather than the mathematical computations used t o a r r i v e a t
scores. Additionally, Board s t a f f were uncertain whether the Board was
required t o v e r i f y scoring accuracy. The Board therefore cannot be
assured of the correctness o f scores due t o lack o f d e t a i l . I n the few
cases i n which computations were available, two errors i n averaging were
found. I n the f i r s t instance the examinee f a i l e d the exam regardless of
the error. I n the second case the i n d i v i d u a l was o r i g i n a l l y given a
passing grade, however, a chance review before examinee n o t i f i c a t i o n
revealed t h a t the score was below the passing score.
Preexam Review - The practice o f allowing i n d i v i d u a l s the opportunity t o
review t h e i r previous exams may also reduce the Board's a b i l i t y t o
adequately assess competence. Board rules a1 1 ow f a i l i ng candidates t o
review t h e i r exams by submitting a w r i t t e n request t o the Board w i t h i n 30
days a f t e r receiving n o t i f i c a t i o n o f a f a i l i n g grade. Applicants may
review t h e i r previous t e s t booklets any time a f t e r submitting a request,
up t o a few weeks or days before retaking the exam. Because local exams
are given every 6 months and most contain only minor or moderate changes
i n exam content, applicants may become f a m i l i a r w i t h the exam questions
and t e s t administration practices. Therefore, exami nees taking advantage
o f the review process may be able t o pass the licensing examination
because they have become f a m i l i a r with the questions instead of by
demonstrating the fundamental knowledge needed f o r competent practice.
Thus the Board cannot ensure t h a t a l l applicants have mastered the
c r i t i c a l knowledge for competent practice. By improving exam development
techniques, the Board could vary t e s t questions while ensuring exam
content and v a l i d i t y .
CONCLUSION
The Board of Technical Registration's f i v e professional 1 ocal 1 icensing
examinations do not comply with generally accepted t e s t i n g standards.
Content of each o f the f i v e exams may not be v a l i d o r r e l i a b l e .
Furthermore, the Board has not provided gui del i nes or standards
forgrading or scoring o f local exams. Therefore, various nonstandard
methods o f grading and scoring have been used, causing review inequities
between professions, and i n some instances, inconsistencies w i t h i n the
same profession. Because o f t h i s , the degree o f technical competency of
examinees cannot be adequately or consistently determined.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Board should:
1. Ensure t h a t standards and procedures f o r determining exam content are
f o l l owed and c l e a r l y documented. Where necessary, the Board should
seek the assistance o f professional t e s t i n g experts. A t a minimum
documentation should include:
0 An analysis of the c r i t i c a l tasks and knowledge required f o r
competent practice;
0 The r e l a t i v e weight assigned t o each task and area o f knowledge,
and procedures used t o determine passing scores; and
Procedures used t o change exam content between admi n i s t r a t i ons
and t o equate scores on d i f f e r e n t exam formats.
2. ' Consider p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the development o f regional exams with
neighboring states with local conditions simil i a r t o Arizona.
3. Develop procedures and i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r mu1 t i p 1 e graders t o decrease
the p o t e n t i a l f o r bias and misunderstanding.
4. Standardize the format f o r reporting scores t o ensure s u f f i c i e n t
d e t a i l f o r v e r i f i c a t i o n o f the mathematical accuracy o f scores. The
Board or staff should check the mathematical accuracy o f graders'
reports before n o t i f y i n g appl icants o f exam results.
5. Stop grading the land surveying exam on a curve.
The Legislature should consider:
Appropriating funds from the Board's surplus funds f o r the purpose o f
empl oyi ng professional t e s t i n g experts t o assi s t the Board i n developing
i t s examinations.
FINDING V
THE COMPLAINT PROCESS HAS IMPROVED, BUT, A FEW CHANGES COULD STRENGTHEN
ENFORCEMENT
A1 though the Board o f Technical R e g i s t r a t i o n p r e s e n t l y hand1 es complaints
e f f e c t i v e l y , a few improvements coul d f u r t h e r strengthen enforcement. The
s t a t u t o r y exemption f o r commercial and m u l t i f a m i l y structures does not
p r o t e c t the public and needs c l a r i f i c a t i o n . F i n a l l y , r e q u i r i n g
professional 1 i a b i l i ty insurance c a r r i e r s t o r e p o r t i nsurance c l aims woul d
a s s i s t the Board's i n v e s t i g a t i v e s t a f f .
Complaint Processing
I s More E f f e c t i v e
The Board has strengthened i t s enforcement function, making complaint
resol u t i o n more e f f e c t i v e . The Board i s taking stronger d i s c i p l inary
actions, and it has improved i t s d i s c i p l inary action documentation. I n
addition, use of advisory commi ttees has he1 ped decrease compl a i n t
r e s o l u t i o n time while allowing f o r a thorough peer review.
The Board i s c u r r e n t l y taking stronger d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n on more of i t s
cases. The Board had a h i s t o r y o f inaction. The 1979 performance a u d i t
c i t e d the Board f o r n o t f u l f i l l i n g i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o p r o t e c t the
public health, safety and welfare. The a u d i t found the Board had f a i l e d
t o pursue a l l e g a t i o n s o f i l l e g a l o r incompetent work. The Board's weak
enforcement action caused many b u i l d i n g safety departments t o discontinue
r e p o r t i n g substandard work t o the Board. However, the ~ o a r d ' s recent
enforcement e f f o r t s , as shown i n Table 5, have improved i t s reputation.
As a r e s u l t , b u i l d i n g safety o f f i c i a l s now r e p o r t substandard work and
nonregi s t r a n t a c t i v i t y t o the Board.
TABLE 5
BOARD ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
FISCAL YEARS 1 982 THROUGH 1 985
Fiscal 1982 Fiscal 1983 Fiscal 1984 Fiscal 1 9 8 5 ( ~ )
Peer review 3 1
Letter of reprimand 1 1
Letter of concern 1 3
Probation 2 2
Suspension 1
Practice r e s t r i c t i o n 1 2
Admi ni s t r a t i ve fines :
Number N/ A N/ A 6 6
Total col 1 ected $ 2 50 $ 7 50 $ 2,850 $ 4,200
Cases closed
Source: Compiled by the Board of Technical Registration
N/ A Information was not available.
( 1) Cases as of November 19, 1984.
( 2) Restitution was added to the Board's statutes i n 1983.
The Board has a1 so improved i t s documentation of disciplinary actions.
While the 1979 and 1981 performance audits of the Board found that
disciplinary actions were not fully documented, most cases requiring Board
action are now well documented, as evidenced by the complaint analysis.
Complaint f i l e s now contain the nature of complaints, investigative
informati on, advisory committee recommendations and subsequent Board
actions. The few case closures that were not well documented were a l l
administratively closed and did not require Board action.
Compl aint resol ution time1 i ness has improved since the 1 979 performance
audit of the Board. An analysis of randomly selected complaint f i l e s
revealed that cases opened i n 1979 took approximately 700 days to be
resolved, as shown i n Figure 1. The Board was able to resolve cases
opened i n 1983 i n an average of 160 days.* Board members feel that the
advisory committees have he1 ped decrease complaint resol ution time. The
Board established enforcement advisory committees i n 1983 to a s s i s t i t i n
further expediting complaint review and discipl inary action. Advisory
committees review cases under investigation, interview the respondents and
complainants, and analyze investigative reports and other pertinent
information.
FIGURE 1
AVERAGE TIME TO RESOLVE COMPLAINTS
1979 THROUGH 1983
YEAR CASE CLOSED
Source: Compiled by Auditor General staff from compl aint f i l es
* The Board' s executive director feel s compl ai n t resol ution time w i 11 be
decreased further when the complaint f i l e s are computerized. Case
investigation and advisory committee review i s timely, however, the
Board's quarterly meeting schedule, in part, contributes to a delay.
The advisory committees have a1 so he1 ped improve the Board's complaint
review. Board members and b u i l d i n g safety o f f i c i a l s feel t h a t the
advisory committees provide a mechanism t h a t allows f o r a more thorough
review than the Board was previously able t o conduct. Before advisory
committees were established the Board was hampered i n i t s e f f o r t s f o r two
reasons. One, agendas f o r the Board's q u a r t e r l y meetings do not allow
much time f o r each i n d i v i d u a l case. Two, i f a complaint goes t o a formal
hearing, the Board needs t o be objective i n i t s judgments. O b j e c t i v i t y
could be questioned i f the Board had previously reviewed the case
thoroughly i n an attempt t o close it informally.
The Board i s also p l a c i n g a greater emphasis on enforcement a c t i v i t i e s .
I n f i s c a l year 1984- 85 the Board added an a d d i t i o n a l p o s i t i o n t o the
i n v e s t i g a t i v e area. I n addition, i n f i s c a l year 1983- 84 the Board
purchased computer equipment t o a i d i n documenting a1 1 complaint f i l e s
properly and decrease t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e time needed t o generate
enforcement documents. Standardized documents have a1 so he1 ped decrease
the time the Board's Attorney General representative spends reviewing
legal documents, thus f u r t h e r decreasing complaint r e s o l u t i o n time.
According t o the Board's Attorney General representative, h i s document
review time has decreased by 50 percent.
The Current Statutory Exemption
Does Not Protect The Public
The s t a t u t o r y exemption a1 lowing nonregistrants ( i n d i v i d u a l s n o t
registered w i t h the Board o f Technical ~ e g i s t r a t i o n ) t o design buildings
or structures t h a t cost less than $ 75,000 does n o t p r o t e c t the public. An
exemption based on a d o l l a r amount i s not an objective, constant
standard. As a r e s u l t , the Board cannot c o n s i s t e n t l y enforce requirements
t h a t r e g i s t r a n t s design c e r t a i n structures. Therefore, nonregistrants may
be designing unsafe buildings.
State 1 aw does not require t h a t a r c h i t e c t s or engineers design commercial
buildings o r mu1 ti family structures c o s t i n g less than $ 75,000 ( A. R. S.
$ 32- 144. A. 3). The exemption has always been a monetary one, and has
increased over the years. I n 1952 the Board's statutes were amended t o
exempt nonregi strants who designed structures costing 1 ess than $ 3,000.
The Legislature increased the c e i l i n g t o $ 10,000 i n 1956. I n 1970 the
exemption was increased t o $ 50,000. The exemption remained a t t h i s level
u n t i l 1982, when the Legislature increased it t o i t s c u r r e n t l e v e l .
Present Exemption I s Not Objective - The present d o l l a r exemption i s not
an objective measure o f the need f o r a r e g i s t r a n t ' s assistance. The
exemption f o r commerci a1 and mu1 ti family structures does not prescribe how
to calculate the d o l l a r value. A. R. S. S32- 144. A. 3 s t a t e s o n l y t h a t
nonregistrants may design buildings or structures costing 1 ess than
$ 75,000.
Building safety departments enforce the Board's statutes by r e q u i r i n g t h a t
plans f o r commercial buildings o r mu1 ti f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e s t h a t cost more
than $ 75,000 be prepared and stamped by a r e g i s t r a n t . These departments
review plans before issuing building permits and decide which structures
come under the Board's regulation. Because t h e s t a t u t e s do not specify
how cost should be calculated, b u i l d i n g safety o f f i c i a l s have been forced
to adopt t h e i r own valuation methods t o determine exemptions.
Because b u i l d i n g permit o f f i c i a l s adopt t h e i r own valuation methods, no
standard formul a i s used throughout Arizona. * One bui 1 ding permit
o f f i c i a l estimates t h a t structure cost calculations and subsequent Board
regulation vary 25 percent statewide as a r e s u l t o f the current
exemption. Approximately 80 percent o f the b u i l d i n g stafety departments
use the International Conference o f Buil ding O f f i c i a l s val u a t i o n t a b l e s t o
determine exemptions. However, the tab1 es' e f f e c t i v e dates span from 1978
to 1984. For example, Pima County uses 1978 valuation tables and the City
* Additional problems arise i n counties t h a t do not issue b u i l d i n g
permits. Although counties are required t o issue building permits,
many are not doing so. ( See Other Pertinent Information, page 53 f o r
additional information on county b u i l d i n g permit departments).
of Tucson uses 1983 valuation tables. A nonregistant could design a 2,830
square f o o t store i n Pima County because t h e s t r u c t u r e would be valued a t
$ 74,500. This same s t r u c t u r e would be valued a t $ 87,680 i n Tucson, and
the law would require a r e g i s t r a n t t o prepare the plans. I n addition,
i n f l a t i o n a r y changes could a l l o w a nonregistrant t o design a s t r u c t u r e one
year and p r o h i b i t t h a t i n d i v i d u a l from designing t h a t same s t r u c t u r e a
year l a t e r . S i m i l a r l y , the costs o f goods and services are d i f f e r e n t i n
various areas, a1 1 owing nonregistrants t o design structures i n one area
and r e q u i r i n g r e g i s t r a n t s t o design the structures i n another, higher cost
area.
Maricopa County's valuation method f u r t h e r ill ustrates the s u b j e c t i v i t y o f
the present valuation method. I n d i v i d u a l s applying f o r permits i n
Maricopa County are a1 1 owed t o establ i sh a s t r u c t u r e ' s val ue themselves.
I f they are aware o f the Board's statutes, they may s t a t e a s t r u c t u r e ' s
value a t be1 ow $ 75,000 and proceed w i t h o u t a r e g i s t r a n t ' s assistance.
According t o a Maricopa County b u i l d i n g o f f i c i a l , unless a s t r u c t u r e i s
grossly underval ued a bui 1 d i n g p e r m i t wi 11 be issued. *
Because o f the s t a t u t e ' s ambiguity, a 600- seat church being b u i l t i n Lake
Havasu City was considered by b u i l d i n g safety o f f i c i a l s t o be s t a t u t o r i l y
exempt because a l l materials and labor were donated. A1 though the
s t r u c t u r e ' s actual cost was below the $ 75,000 c u t o f f , t h i s church's value
i s approximately $ 1 65,000.
Inconsistent Enforcement And Unsafe Buildings May Result - The current
exemption may r e s u l t i n inconsistent pub1 i c protection and unsafe
buildings. An objective standard should be used t o determine whether a
r e g i s t r a n t ' s assistance i s needed on various buildings o r structures.
* Areas t h a t have adopted the Uniform B u i l d i n g Code may require
r e g i s t r a n t s t o complete s t r u c t u r a l c a l c u l a t i o n s for any s t a t u t o r i l y
exempt structures. This option i s also subject t o the b u i l d i n g
o f f i c i a l s' judgment.
Several Board members have questioned the do1 1 ar exemption' s pertinence,
and two Board members stated t h a t an exemption based on s t r u c t u r e s i z e and
occupancy type would be more objective than the present dollar- based
exemption.*
A size and occupancy exemption would o f f e r several advantages over the
current monetary exemption. F i r s t , it would not be subject t o varying
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by b u i l d i n g safety o f f i c i a l s . Furthermore, questions about
structures b u i l t with donated materials and labor would not occur. Having
r e g i s t r a n t s design buildings used by the general pub1 i c would reduce the
r i s k t o the general public. I n addition, square footage and occupancy
information are obtained e a s i l y through the plan review and b u i l d i n g
permit process. This type o f exemption would also make it easier t o
i n v e s t i g a t e and decide cases, according t o the Board's executive
d i r e c t o r . Rather than facing enforcement inconsistencies due t o a
changing variable, the Board could have a concrete, objective i n d i c a t o r on
which t o base i t s findings.
Insurance Carrier Reporting Could
Improve Board tnforcement
The Board's enforcement a c t i v i t i e s coul d be improved by s t a t u t o r y changes
r e q u i r i n g professional insurance c a r r i e r s t o r e p o r t malpractice claims
against registrants. The Board c u r r e n t l y l a c k s i n f o r m a t i o n because no
such requirement exists. Implementing a s t a t u t o r y insurance c a r r i e r
reporting system s i m i l a r t o statutes o f a t l e a s t f o u r other l i c e n s i n g
boards could provide valuable information t o the Board.
The Board i s not receiving a l l useful information regarding r e g i s t r a n t
a c t i v i t i e s . The Board's s t a f f c u r r e n t l y t r i e s t o review newspapers t o
obtain ma1 practice insurance claim settlement information. However, t h i s
* Connecticut uses a 5,000 square footage exemption, however, Technical
Registration Board members f e e l t h i s method coul d a l l ow small,
compl icated commercial b u i l dings t o be designed by nonregi strants.
. Use of occupancy would address t h i s problem.
does not ensure that the Board is consistently receiving a l l available
information, and is not the most efficient use of investigative staff
time.
The Board would benefit from a statute similar to statutes requiring
insurance claim reporting for other professions such as physicians,
physical therapists, podiatrists and pharmacists. In 1982 and 1984 the
insurance code was amended requiring that the Department of Insurance
obtain reports of malpractice claims and settlements from insurers and
forward the information to the licensing boards. This allows the
Department of Insurance clear authority to penalize companies that do not
report. Furthermore, the 1 aw requires that the appropriate boards review
malpractice reports and determine i f 1 icensees violated any s t a t u t e s o r
rul es. The Board of Technical Registration ' s executive director and
Attorney General representative support this recommendation because i t
will improve the Board's a b i l i t y t o identify registrants who violate the
Technical Registration Act. A1 though a simil ar recommendation requiring
insurance carrier reporting was made i n the 1979 performance audit, this
has not been implemented statutorily.
CONCLUSION
Although the Board has improved the effectiveness of its enforcement
e f f o r t s , two changes could further improve i t s enforcement function. The
statutory exemption allowing nonregistrants to design structures costing
less than $ 75,000 does not protect the public and should be changed to an
objective standard. Insurance carrier reporting could a1 so improve the
Board's enforcement abil i t i e s .
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Legislature should consider amending A. R. S. 932- 1 44. A. 3 to change
the exemption a1 1 owing nonregi strants to desi gn structures costing
less than $ 75,000 to an exemption based on structure size and
occupancy. The exemption shoul d a1 1 ow nonregi strants to design only
structures that do not exceed a specified square footage and are not
open to the general pub1 i c.
2. The Legislature should consider amending A. R. S. 520- 1742 to: 1 )
require insurance companies to report ma1 practice insurance cl aims and
settlements against Board registrants to the Department of Insurance,
and 2) require the Department of Insurance to forward a1 1 such reports
to the Board of Technical Registration.
3. The Legislature should consider amending A. R. S. $ 32- 101 e t seq. to
direct the Board to investigate reports of malpractice claims and
settlements against registrants. This change woul d require the Board
to determine if violations of Technical Registration statutes, rules
and regulations have occurred.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
During the audit, we developed pertinent information on county building
permi ts.
County Bui 1 ding Permits
Statutes require all counties to issue building permits. However,
building permits are currently being issued i n only six of Arizona's
fifteen counties. A. R. S. Sll- 321. A. states that "[ elxcept i n those cities
and towns which have an ordinance relating to the issuance of building
permits, the board of supervisors shall require a building permit for any
construction of a b u i l d i n g or an addition thereto exceeding a cost of one
thousand dollars w i t h i n i t s jurisdiction. . . ." The counties issuing
building permits are Maricopa, Pima, Yuma, Coconino, Mohave and Navajo.
The building permit process protects the public by ensuring that
structures comply w i t h all relevant State and local laws and codes.
According t o several building safety offici a1 s, serious problems can
develop when plans are not checked to ensure compliance with codes. If
plans are not checked, inadequate or incorrect structural calculations may
not be identified." Such errors could lead to a building's collapse,
seriously endangering pub1 ic safety. Simi 1 arly, handicapped codes may n o t
be complied w i t h . Therefore, structures in counties without building
safety departments may not accomodate handicapped individuals.
One county recently implemented a building safety program due to concerns
about unsafe structures. Mohave County did not issue building permits
until 1983 because of pressures against increased regulation and i t s
associated costs. Increased nonregistrant activity caused concern and
* The Registrar of Contractors does n o t have authority over commercial
contractors, therefore, counties without codes do not have any
mechanism requiring that commercial contractors comply with the
Uniform Building Code. Residential contractors i n counties without
codes are regulated by the Registrar of Contractors and i t s rules.
l e d the Board o f Supervisors t o e s t a b l i s h the b u i l d i n g permit program 1 ast
year. According t o the d i r e c t o r o f b u i l d i n g safety, a t l e a s t two
restaurants and one apartment complex were designed ill egal ly by
nonregi strants.
Apache County i s also beginning t o implement a b u i l d i n g safety function,
a1 though b u i l d i n g codes have not y e t been adopted. This program w i l l
include reviewing plans, ensuring compl iance w i t h a1 1 codes and monitoring
on- si t e construction a c t i v i t y .
Bui 1 ding Permits Improve Enforcement - Bui 1 d i n g p e r m i t departments
strengthen the Board's enforcement function. B u i l d i n g s a f e t y departments
provide the Board w i t h a check against i t s own registrants. By r e q u i r i n g
a b u i l d i n g permit, a county ensures t h a t registered a r c h i t e c t s and
engineers are involved, when necessary, i n t h e p l a n preparation process.
Building permit plan review allows the counties to: 1) i d e n t i f y
r e g i s t r a n t s who may be working outside the f i e l d i n which they are
qua1 i f i e d , and 2) r e g i s t r a n t s whose work i s substandard. This information
can be provided t o the Board f o r possible d i s c i p l i n a r y action.
Nonregistrant a c t i v i t y could be decreased by r e q u i r i n g b u i l d i n g permits.
Bui 1 d i n g s a f e t y departments shoul d enforce the requirement t h a t
r e g i s t r a n t s prepare plans for commercial and mu1 ti f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e s
costing more than $ 75,000. This check makes it d i f f i c u l t f o r
nonregi strants t o design structures and bui 1 dings costing more than
$ 75,000.
The Board's enforcement e f f o r t s against r e g i s t r a n t s and nonregistrants are
reduced because several counties do not issue b u i l d i n g permits. The
effect of not issuing b u i l d i n g permits i s twofold. F i r s t , the Board has
no way t o i d e n t i f y r e g i s t r a n t s whose work i s substandard. These
i n d i v i d u a l s may continue producing i n f e r i o r plans unless a complaint i s
f i l e d against them. Second, nonregistrants a r e a b l e t o continue designing
structures because there i s no way t o enforce s t a t u t o r y requirements.
According t o the Board's executive d i r e c t o r , most nonregistrant a c t i v i t y
takes place i n counties t h a t do not have b u i l d i n g safety departments.
AREAS FOR FURTHER AUDIT WORK
During our audit, we i d e n t i f i e d several potential issues t h a t we were
unable to complete due t o time constraints. We have 1 i s t e d these issues
as areas f o r further audit work.
e I s the information required on the licensing application
necessary and relevant f o r assessing the applicants'
qual i fications?
The current licensing application requires information t h a t does
not appear t o be pertinent f o r assessing an applicant's
qual i fications. Required information i ncl udes the appl i c a n t ' s
photograph, and questions about state residence and United States
citizenship. Requiring appl icants t o submit t h i s information
could r e s u l t i n accusations of discrimination based on race, sex,
Arizona residency or United States citizenship. Further audit
work i s necessary t o determine whether t h i s information i s
necessary and whether requiring t h i s information has adversely
affected licensing decisions.
Should continuing competency checks be required f o r license
renewal ?
Currently, licensure renewal only requires the payment of a
t r i e n n i a l renewal fee. Continuing education or reexamination are
not required f o r license renewal. Registrants establish t h e i r
Competency only during the i n i ti a1 appl i c a t i on process. Several
Board members and r e g i s t r a n t s feel t h a t continuing education or
reexmi nati on are needed t o ensure professional competence.
Further audit work i s necessary t o determine whether the lack of
t h i s requirement endangers pub1 i c heal t h y safety and we1 fare*
e Should the exception allowing r e g i s t r a n t s t o accept professional
assignments outside o f t h e i r profession be more c l e a r l y defined
or 1 imi ted?
Board regulations a1 low r e g i s t r a n t s t o accept professional
assignments outside t h e i r registered profession i f the r e g i s t r a n t
i s : 1 ) qual i f i e d by education, technical knowl edge o r experience,
and 2) the assignment i s both necessary and i n c i d e n t a l t o the
professional work on t h a t assignment. This exception has caused
confusion for b u i l d i n g permit departments because it allows
r e g i s t r a n t s t o prepare a l l types o f plans. According t o the
Board's i n v e s t i g a t o r , complaints against r e g i s t r a n t s o f t e n a r i s e
because of t h i s exception. Advisory committee and Board members
have expressed concern about the exception. I n resolving
complaints, committee members must determine whether r e g i s t r a n t s
are qual i f i e d t o design various pl ans outside t h e i r registered
area and whether the work i s necessary and i n c i d e n t a l . However,
the regulations do not define the terms " q u a l i f i e d by education,
technical know1 edge or experience" o r " necessary and
i n c i d e n t a l . " Such an exception i s necessary p a r t i a l l y because of
the overlapping scope o f p r a c t i c e i n many o f the regulated
professions. For example, an a r c h i t e c t could not move the
l o c a t i o n of a l i g h t switch w i t h o u t an e l e c t r i c a l engineer's
assistance without t h i s exception. However, f u r t h e r a u d i t work
i s necessary t o determine the number o f cases t h a t a r i s e from
t h i s exception, the problems t h i s exception poses t o pub1 i c
health and safety, and whether the exception can be more c l e a r l y
defined o r meaningful ly 1 i m i ted.
State of Arizona
BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION
FOR ARCHITECTS, ASSAYERS, ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND LAND SURVEYORS
1645 W. JEFFERSON, SUITE 140 PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85007 ( 602) 255- 4053
3 0 U G L A S H. NORTON
AUDITOR GENERAL
lil W. ZONHOE
SUIYE 500
PHOENIX, AZ. 85003
DEAR HR. NORTON:
WE 3f; VE XECElVEbf Tiif REviSED DZAFT IF THZ sE,? FCt:? EANCE A i i D I T tjF
THE BGXHD CF TECHXXCAL HEGIS'TRATION. OUR COMMENTS ARE ATTACHED.
THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ? SANK TSE
XEMBERS OF TEE AUDIT TEAM FGR THEIR COURTESY A N i , PF~ CI~ EESIONAL
ATTITUaE ifURTNG THC AUDIT.
THE BOARD HAS FULLY ZOMEITTED ITS RESOURCES TO TZE TULFILLXENT OF
I T S MISSI3N EF PROTECTING THE i- jEALTH. SAFETY AND W Z L Y A 3 4 5F TEZ
PUBLIC AND APPRECIATES THE OPP04TPNITY GFFEREiI 3Y A U D I T
F I N D I X G S TO FURTXER IMPROVE ITS OPZ2AYICNS.
*
RONALD U. D
EXECUTIVE DLSECTOR
(-? ," f>- . - -.: i. lA* ch . 2r*
AUDTTiZtR GENERAL REPOR? 8 5 - 3
7142 a( 3ARD'S gcsPQl\ iSE IS Tpil\. T " TH" ; 3(] ARD FEELS ' YSE ; ~ E S P I J ~ S X ! ~ ~ ~ I T Y
FOR ? J E T E ~ > $ I N I ~ WGH ETHER NOT ANY PAHTICZLAK F2OFESSIDM SEOUL3
92 :? EGISYERED HrSTS WITS THE LEGIZLATURE f i N D TH'PEFGgE TEE BOARD
S A S NO COXMEKT UN THESE FINDINGS WITH TWE ZXCEPTION OF STATING
THAT THIS ISSUE WAS RAISZD IN THE LAST SirNSET REVIEW AND XG
ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THAT TIXE T 3 ELIMINATE TXOSE P R O F H S S I D N S FROM
3 0 A H D JUHISDICTICN.
FITNL> ING # 4
--- -------
VA141L~ ATIDN a$' A TEST ISVOLVE3 TEE A I J A L f . 5 1 5 CfF TASKS AND LNt3WLEDGE
HEQUIZED FOR COMFIETENT PF2ACTICZ AND ASSIGNING ZELATIVE WEIGHTS T3
THE TASKS $, ND AAEAS OF IlNOWLEDGE AND THEN DETE321LSIl'! G 1F YEE TEST
ACCURATELY AND CO3JS; S'TEBTEY MEAS: JRES CDXPETE!< GE. 25OFZ2SIONAL
*,- P, IS. - T LtESIG) JERS RELY 2ROFESSICNAI P2ACTITIOKERS A ~ ~ I ~ ~ A N ( > ~
2% 23ENTIFY; RG THDSZ - r" , Qq"-- t'.\ b ANL! ' l'!. IZlF? RELATZ'JE I?? PC'RTA? dCC. THE
BOAhD HAS ijTiLxZED P2OFFSSIONAL 2RAcTITIOXERS AND 2RClFE5SI7liN, 4L
E3UCATQRS TO => zSfi; N AND GE;; k; SE THE FI'IE LOCiIL EXAMINtlYI'lLINS.
AEG ISTE+ TED PRO" r" "; bkIcgAiS H; iVE YEEN FULLY : jT1LrZEz) Izi cjSVELGP;?, i2
THE CURRENT LOCAL EXA! qINATIONS AND TXESE EXHMINATTC? JS HAVE 3ES: i
GRADE2 BY HE[; ISTSSED PROFESSIC>< Aj'-, S. - 5 , - ~ ( - , ' A~ T1 TAWTL,--(~ ~ I q,. . 7,- , M. AJQR PROELEMS WITH Tiis ic( 2AL EXAI{ I? JATiCPiS' ASILIT'f TO
D~ FFE~ ENTIATE3 ET&, CEN THE Q ~ f i ~ i F ~ ANED 3T HE ~ ~ Q ~ A L T lE, ~ T ' ' li7jO iiLD
SEEN ? JfSi; OVgxEa BS' 7' W; qE T* dI' TIfE,
THE CONC: LLl53; 0N OF' THE HUDITGRS THAT TilE DZGiiEE t3F TECHNICAL
COMPETENCE OF EXAMINEES CANNOT BE ADEQUATELY OR COICSISTENTLY
DETERMIMED CANNOT 8E SUPPORTED BY THE CURSO2Y REVIEW OF THE
EXAMINATIONS CONDUCTED DURING THIS AUDIT. NU VALiD DETERMINATIONS
CAM RE MADE UNTIL AFTER VALIDATION STUDIES ARE COMPLETEC!.
THE BOARD DOES NOT ACCEPT ANY ASSUMPTION THAT THE FIVE LOCAL
EXAMINATIONS ARE NOT VAEIEI SIMPLY BECAUSE THE TESTS HAVE NOT BEEN
THROUGH A VALIDITY EXAXINATION, HOWEVER. THE bGARD XIES AGREE
THAT THE EXAMINATIONS SHOULD BE EXAMINED FOR VALIDITY IN ORDER TO
DZTERMINE WHETHER SOME CHANGES SHOULD BE MADE. THEREFORE, THE
BOARD CONCURS WITH THE RECOMMENDATIOHS CONTAINED i N THIS FINDING.
FUNDS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE 85- 86 BUDGET REQUEST FOR
VALIDATION STUDIES AND OTHER WESTERN STATES HAVE BEEN CONTACTED
TO SEE IF THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL EXAMINATIONS IS A FEASIBLE
ALTERNATIVE.
FINDING # 5 ----------
THE BOARD CONCURS WITH THE AUDITOR'S CONCLUSION THAT THE EQARD'S
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM i- iHS BEEN IMPROVED. IN THE LAST DERFCIRMANCE
AUDIT THE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM WAS FOUND TO BE EXTREMELY
DEFICIENT. THE HOARD HAS MADE A SIGNIFICANT EFFORT TO RECTIFY ALL
CIEFICIENCIES NOTED IN THAT AUDIT.
THE BOARLI SUPPORTS ? HE F< ECUM? IENDATIONS RELATING T8 THE FIMDINGS
AND WOULD BE WILLIXC TO WORK WITH THE LES; SLATURE, THE
? ROFESSIONS AND OTHER AFFECTED INDIVIDUALS TO TRY TO [) EVELOP
SUITABLE LEGSSLATION.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
THE BOARD Ci1: INI'JURS % I-,",, THE Ci2MMENTS CONTAINED I N YE15 SECTIDS
A N ~ I STJPpORTS ' THE iJSE OF &, IJI', DLNG PERMITS 1% ALL. COUNTIES.
AREAS FOR FURTXER AUDIT WORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - -
THE APPLICATION FORM HAS BEEN DZSCUSSE3 WITH THE BOARD'S LEGAL
AXsVISt2R REGARGING FOSSISLE 3 1 S C H I M I N A T O R Y LTEMS. T3E EXECLJTIVE
DIRE~ 3TOK WAS ADVISED THAT THERE D I D NOT APPEAR TO SE ANY
D T S G . F . : i X I ! \ i l \ l i i R Y QLJESTICtXS, riUWSVER, Ti35 BOAilD WILL i3E ASLELJ TO
APPEOVE CHANGES TO Tl4E APPLICATION TO ASSLST STAFF is EVALUATTCfN
AND IL~ ZNTiFICATION OF AP? LfCANTS. ALL CHANGES WILL BE SUBMITTED
TO THE ATTO2MEY GENERAL 4EPRZSENTATIVE FCIR REVIEW PRIOR TO
AD3PTiOiG.
THE 2 O A H 3 WILL EE CONDUCTING RESSARCH INTO THE USE OF CONTINUING
E3UCAYION 02 3THER XETHODS OF DETESHINLNG CONTINUEfj CGXPETENCE BY
LITHE-? STATE BOARDS 3EGULATZKG T3E SAME PROFESSIONS AND WZLL
r - 7' f ' 7- J,-,,, c THAT SESEAHCH TO XAKE A FUTUXE DETERNINATIOS OF THE
NEZ5 703' DE* YOXSTF? ATION QF CJNTZXUED CaifPETENCE.
TXE STAFF IS CiJHRENTLY REVIZWING THE CKCjSSOVER EXEMPTION AND
p :~~ c~~ A- B L S 7 RECOKXENDATIONS TO TEE BCIARD FOR CEANGSS I N TZE LAW.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FEBRUARY 7,1985