DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENERaL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
September 5, 1995
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
DEPUTIAUDlTORTENEmAL
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Fife Symington
Mr. Michael J. Miller, Chairman
Board of Technical Registration
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the
Board of Technical Registration. This report is in response to a May 5, 1993,
resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The performance audit was
conducted as part of the sunset review set forth in A. R. S. 5541- 2951 through 41- 2957.
The audit found that three of the six professions licensed by the Board could be
deregulated. The state licensure of geologists, landscape architects, and assayers is
unnecessary because these professions pose no significant harm to the public and other
adequate safeguards exist to ensure the proper and safe delivery of services. In
addition, the Board has not resolved complaints against engineers, architects, and land
surveyors in a timely manner. A review of complaints found that the Board took a
median time of 314 days to resolve a complaint when complaints should be resolved
in an average of 175 days.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on September 6, 1995.
Sincerely,
~ o&& dRs . Norton
Auditor General
DRNlmn
Enclosure
2910 NORTH 44Tn STREET . SUITE 410 I PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 l( 602) 553- 0333 I FAX ( 602) 553- 0051
SUMMARY
The Ofice of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit and sunset review
of the Board of Technical Registration ( BTR), pursuant to a May 5,1993, resolution of the
Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The audit was conducted under the authority vested
in the Auditor General by Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) 5541- 2951 through 41- 2957.
The Board of Technical Registration regulates architects, engineers, assayers, land sur-veyors,
geologists, and landscape architects. The agency is overseen by a nine- member
Board responsible for examining and licensing members of these professions, enforcing
laws that govern their practice, and investigating and resolving complaints. As of June
30,1994, BTR reported 19,760 registered professionals. BTR was authorized 15 full- time
employees and appropriated $ 858,700 for fiscal year 1994- 1995.
Our audit recommends deregulating three licensing categories and improving the agency's
complaint resolution process.
State Licensure of Geologists,
Landscape Architects, and Assayers
Is Unnecessary ( See pages 5 through 8)
The Legislature should consider deregulating the assayer, geologist, and landscape ar-chitect
professions. Licensing is justified only when there is a need to protect public health,
safety, or welfare. Otherwise, licensing may unnecessarily reduce competition. In the
case of these three professions, the need for public protection does not exist.
Assayers, geologists, and landscape architects do not engage in activities that signifi-cantly
threaten the public. None of the 29 complaints filed against licensees from these 3
professions in the past 5 years related to public health, safety, or welfare. Furthermore,
none of the persons we interviewed from the three professions, and the users of their
services, could relate to us any instances of bodily harm.
Even if a greater potential for harm existed, the main users of these three professionsr
services - largely mining companies, developers, and governmental entities - can suf-ficiently
assess the qualifications of the professionals they use and already have adequate
safeguards in place to ensure the proper and safe delivery of services.
A final indication that licensure is unnecessary is that many other states do not license
these professions. Only one state, Arizona, licenses assayers. Only 20 states license geolo-gists,
and 31 states license landscape architects.
Complaints Against
Engineers, Architects, and Land Surveyors
Are Not Resolved In a Timely Manner
( See pages 9 through 13)
The Board needs to take basic steps to better manage its complaint resolution process.
BTR had a one- year backlog of complaints as of March 31,1995. In addition, complaints
filed against licensed practitioners took a median time of 314 days to resolve when they
could have been resolved in approximately 175 days. The Board can reduce its complaint
backlog and improve its timeliness in resolving complaints by a) eliminating unnecessary
delays in processing complaints, and b) making better use of its computer system. At the
time of our review the Board had, but was not using, a manual system for tracking com-plaints.
The Board has since resumed tracking complaints using this manual system, but
we believe it can modify its computer system to perform this function more effectively.
Table of Contents
Introduction and Background ................................................................. I
Finding I: State Licensure of Geologists,
Landscape Architects, and Assayers
Is Unnecessary ................................................................................... 5.
Many States Do Not License
Assayers, Geologists, or
Landscape Architects ................................................................................................... 6.
Little Evidence of Harm To
Public Health, Safety, or Welfare .............................................................................. 6.. .
Knowledgeable Users of Services
Employ Adequate Safeguards ................................................................................. 7.. ..
Deregulation Will Have
Minimal Economic Impact ......................................................................................... 8..
Recommendation .......................................................................................................... 8
Finding II: Complaints Against Engineers,
Architects, and Land Surveyors Are Not
Resolved In a Timely Manner ............................................................. 9
Complaint Backlog Exists ............................................................................................. 9
Substantial Delays Have Hampered
the Board's Enforcement Process ............................................................................... 1 0
BTR Can Improve Complaint
Tracking and Management ....................................................................................... 1. 2
Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 1.. 3
Table of Contents ( con9t)
Sunset Factors .................................................................................... 15
Agency Response
Tables
Table 1 Board of Technical Registration Licensing Activities
Fiscal Years 1992, 1993, and 1994 ............................................................ 2
Table 2 Board of Technical Registration Complaint Statistics
Fiscal Years 1991- 92 through 1993- 94. ....................................................... 1. 0
Table 3 Median and Suggested Time Frames for
Steps in the Licensee Complaint Resolution Process
for Fiscal Year 1993- 94 ............................................................................... 1.. 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit and sunset review
of the Board of Technical Registration ( BTR), pursuant to a May 5,1993, resolution of the
Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The audit was conducted under the authority vested
in the Auditor General by Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) 5541- 2951 through 41- 2957.
Board Responsibilities
A. R. S. 532- 101 assigns the Board responsibility for regulating the practice of architects,
engineers, assayers, land surveyors, geologists, and landscape architects. Statutes autho-rize
the Board to exercise this responsibility through examining and licensing members
of these professions, renewing licenses triennially, and investigating and resolving com-plaints.
BTR reported 19,760 licensed professionals as of June 30, 1994, and 164 open
investigations as of March 31,1995. Measurements of the Board's licensing activities are
presented in Table 1, page 2.
Staffing and Budget
The agency is overseen by a nine- member Board appointed by the Governor. The Board
is comprised of two architects, three engineers, one landscape architect, one geologist,
one land surveyor, and one public member. The Board employs an executive director and
deputy director who oversee agency operations. For fiscal year 1994- 95, BTR was autho-rized
15 full- time equivalent ( FTE) employees to carry out its investigative ( 5 employees),
licensing ( 4 employees), and administrative ( 6 employees) duties.
The Legislature appropriated $ 858,700 for agency operations in fiscal year 1994- 95. The
Board is self- supporting, deriving its revenues from fees charged for applications, examina-tions,
and license renewals. While 90 percent of its fees are used for Board operations as
appropriated by the Legislature, the remaining 10 percent of its fees are deposited in the
State General Fund. In addition, all fines collected by the Board are deposited in the State
General Fund.
Table 1
Board of Technical Registration Licensing Activities
Fiscal Years 1992,1993, and 1994
Activity
Total Licenses by Profession:
Architect
Assayer
Engineer
Geologist
Landscape Architect
Land Surveyor
Total Number of Licenses:
Licenses Granted:(")
Professional:
Architect
Assayer
Engineer
Geologist
Landscape Architect
Land Surveyor
In Training:@)
Architect
Assayer
Engineer
Geologist
Landscape Architect
Land Surveyor
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
1992 1993 1994
( a) These figures are included in the Total Number of Licenses shown above. Licenses are renewed trien-nially.
( b) An individual who is in training has partially completed the requirements for registration.
Source: Board of Technical Registration licensing and enforcement records for fiscal years 1992- 94.
1985 Report Follow- up
and Update
As part of our current audit, we revisited some concerns identified in our 1985 perfor-mance
audit report of the Board ( Auditor General Report 85- 3) and found:
1985 FindinglRecommendation: The practices of geology, landscape architecture, and
assaying posed little threat to the public's health, safety, or welfare and could be elimi-nated
without significantly threatening the public health, safety, or welfare.
Follow- Up: Currently, based on the histories, work practices, clientele, and existing
safeguards associated with these practices, licensure is not needed to protect the pub-lic
or the economic well- being of these practitioners ( see Finding I, pages 5 through 8).
1985 FindinglRecommendation: The Board did not appear to use nationally recog-nized
standards and procedures in developing its licensing examinations. In addition,
inconsistencies in grading and errors in scoring further reduced the Board's ability to
make sound licensing decisions. We recommended that the Board play an active role
in addressing deficiencies in its licensing examinations.
Follow- Up: Over the past ten years, the Board has participated in the development
and adoption of nationally accepted examinations. In addition, in cases that require
the use of local examinations, the Board has sought assistance from professional test-ing
experts to help validate exam content.
1985 FindinglRecommendation: A statutory exemption that allowed unlicensed prac-titioners
to design commercial and multifamily structures did not protect the public
because it was based on a dollar amount and calculated differently by building permit
officials from one jurisdiction to another. Also, professional liability carriers were not
required to report malpractice claims against licensed professionals. We recommended
that the Board make statutory changes to strengthen its enforcement program.
Follow- Up: Since 1985, the Board has successfully sought an amendment to A. R. S.
§ 32- 144. A. 3. Unlicensed practitioners were allowed to design buildings or structures
that cost less than $ 75,000. This statute was changed to reflect a size rather than a price
limitation on structures designed by unlicensed practitioners. Currently, unlicensed
practitioners are allowed to design buildings less than 3,000 square feet in size.
In addition, the Legislature adopted A. R. S. 532- 146 to require plaintiff attorneys in
malpractice suits involving Board registrants to forward a copy of the complaint to the
Board. This requirement improves Board enforcement by ensuring that BTR is receiv-ing
available complaint information.
Other Pertinent Information: In 1985, only 6 of Arizona's 15 counties were issuing
permits. The building permit process protects the public by ensuring that structures
comply with all relevant state and local laws and codes.
Follow- Up: At least 12 counties in Arizona are now issuing building permits.
Audit Scope
Our audit work focused on the Board" s licensing, enforcement, and administrative proce-dures.
We present findings and recommendations in two areas:
The deregulation of geologists, landscape architects, and assayers and,
The need to address the extensive complaint backlog and the untimely resolution of
complaints.
The audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Board of Technical Registra-tion,
the Executive Director, and staff for their cooperation and assistance throughout the
audit.
FINDING I
STATE LICENSURE OF GEOLOGISTS,
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, AND ASSAYERS
IS UNNECESSARY
The Legislature should consider deregulating the assayer, geologist, and landscape ar-chitect
professions. None of these professions require regulation to protect the public
health, safety, or welfare. These professions cause little, if any, harm to the public and are
utilized primarily by knowledgeable parties. Moreover, the economic impact of deregu-lation
on the professions would be minimal.
A. R. S. 532- 121 authorizes the Board of Technical Registration to license assayers, land-scape
architects, and geologists. Assayers determine the mineral content of ore. Geolo-gists
assess various characteristics of the earth. Landscape architects design adjunct fea-tures
of buildings such as sidewalks and lawns. However, statutes exempt licensure re-quirements
for landscape design for buildings under 3,000 square feet.
The Council of State Governments ( CSG) states that professions should only be licensed
to protect the public health, safety, or welfare. CSG, in its publication Occupational Licensure:
Questions A Legislator Should Ask, suggests that licensure can actually have an adverse
impact on the public by reducing competition. Thus, licensing decisions should focus on
public protection rather than benefits to professions. CSG states:
" Licensing makes it illegal for anyone who does not hold a valid license to engage in the
occupation, profession, trade, etc. covered by the statute. Thus, the power to license can be
used to deny individuals the legal opportunity to earn livelihoods in their chosen fields.
This is an awesome power - one that must be exercised judiciously."
The CSG lists three criteria or questions that a state must answer when evaluating the
need for licensure:
" 1) Whether the unlicensed practice of an occupation poses a serious risk to the
consumers' life, health, and safety or economic well- being;
2) Whether potential users of the occupational service can be expected to pos-sess
the knowledge needed to properly evaluate the qualifications of those
offering services; and
3) Whether benefits to the public clearly outweigh any potential harmful effects
such as a decrease in the availability of practitioners, higher costs of goods and
services, and restrictions on optimum utilization of personnel." ( emphasis added)
Many States Do Not License
Assayers, Geologists, or
Landscape Architects
The fact that many states do not license assayers, geologists, or landscape architects is an
indication that there is little actual evidence of harm to the public health, safety, or wel-fare
from those professions. Currently, only 1 state ( Arizona) licenses assayers, 20 states
license geologists, and 31 states license landscape architects.
Further, interviews with officials from some states that have instituted licensing of geolo-gists
and landscape architects in the past ten years reveal that licensure was driven more
by economic interests of the professions rather than concern for public health, safety, or
welfare.
Little Evidence of Harm to
Public Health, Safety, or Welfare
Our review found no evidence that assayers, geologists, or landscape architects harm the
public health, safety, or welfare. Our examination of the past five years' complaints against
licensees of these professions found that few complaints were received and none involved
any threat to public health, safety, or welfare. In addition, interviews with persons knowl-edgeable
about these professions found that no one could identify a single incident where
bodily harm was caused.
Only 29 complaints had been filed against licensed members of these professions over the
past 5 years. During the period from July 1, 1989, through June 30,1994, 2 complaints
were logged against licensed assayers, 4 against licensed geologists, and 23 against li-censed
landscape architects. As of 1994, BTR licensed a total of 40 assayers, 570 geologists,
and 474 landscape architects. An average of only 6 complaints per year for more than
1,000 licensees is further indication that there is little harm.(*)
More important than the number of complaints, analysis of the 29 that were filed revealed
that none involved any risk to the public health, safety, or welfare. BTR ranks complaints
in terms of risk to the public. All of the 29 complaints over the past 5 years were deemed
By comparison, the Board of Medical Examiners annually receives approximately 68 complaints per
1,000 licensees, and the Board of Dental Examiners annually receives approximately 58 complaints
per 1,000 licensees.
by BTR as posing no public threat or harm. Typical examples of these complaints include
failure to seal plans, expired registrations, and contractual problems.
In fact, the most significant case we could identify involved a licensed landscape architect
entangled in a contractual dispute with the complainant over the architect's failure to
disclose a financial relationship with a materials supplier and the basis for establishing
fees. Normally, these types of problems can be solved through small claims court or the
Better Business Bureau rather than a licensing board.
Our interviews with some major employers and other users of these professions, as well
as professional trade representatives, found that none could identify a single harmful
incident connected with the practices of assaying, geology, and landscape architecture.
We interviewed two assaying firms and three consumers ( mining companies), three land-scape
architect firms and three entities using their services, and four geologist firms and
five geologic services consumers. Although most of these groups generally favor contin-ued
regulation, none could provide examples of these professions negatively affecting
public health, safety, or welfare.
Knowledgeable Users of Services
Employ Adequate Safeguards
Most users of assayers, geologists, and landscape architects are not the general public.
They are comprised of business and government entities that utilize their own profes-sional
experience and safeguards put in place to ensure that appropriate services are pro-vided.
Several told us that they use a licensee's reputation rather than licensure as a means
of selection. The following illustrates these points for each of the three professions.
Assayers - The primary users of assayers are large mining companies. The general
public has little, if any, interaction with assayers. Mining companies employ a variety
of measures to ensure that assayer services are accurate. These include sending " blind
or duplicate samples to various laboratories, purchasing pre- analyzed samples and
sending them to assayers to test their accuracy and methodology, and also interview-ing
assaying firms to help determine competence.
Geologists - The primary users of geologic services are developers, engineering firms,
and the government. These entities generally employ in- house professionals who can
monitor geologists' work. In some cases, geologists are required to carry liability in-surance.
Other users of geologic services follow government or professional guide-lines
to ensure that work performed is appropriate.
Landscape Architects - The primary users of these services are the government and
developers of larger projects. Particularly in this profession, government building codes
and guidelines serve to ensure that landscapes are appropriately designed. Plans for
landscapes are reviewed by municipal or state planning offices and are not approved
unless they comply. Government building codes provide appropriate specifications
for landscape design including such aspects as water conservation and protection,
safety, and allowable vegetation. In addition, users often require liability insurance.
Deregulation Will Have Minimal
Economic Impact
Deregulating assayers, geologists, and landscape architects will not significantly impact
the economic well- being of those professions. These professions are practiced in many
other states that do not have licensure requirements. In fact, according to licensure theory,
deregulation would probably lower the cost of these services because of increased com-petition.
Users of these services told us that deregulation would not impact their selection
methods for choosing a member of these professions. Again, they utilize reputation and
previous performance as primary selection criteria.
Some representatives of these professions told us that deregulation could cause them to
be unable to obtain contracts in other states that require licensure. Before deregulation
occurs, current licensees can utilize reciprocal licensing agreements with other states to
obtain out- of- state licensure. After deregulation, members of these professions can seek
licensure in other states just as anyone else would who desires to practice there.
RECOMMENDATION
The Legislature should consider deregulating the practice of geology, landscape architec-ture,
and assaying.
FINDING II
COMPLAINTS AGAINST ENGINEERS,
ARCHITECTS, AND LAND SURVEYORS
ARE NOT RESOLVED IN A TIMELY MANNER
The Board needs to take fundamental steps to better manage its complaint resolution
process. Our review found that the Board had a one- year complaint backlog as of March
31,1995. In addition, the Board takes a median of 314 days to resolve a complaint when
approximately 175 days would be more appropriate. BTR can reduce its backlog and
resolve its complaints in a more timely manner by using and improving its complaint
tracking system and by providing better management oversight.
The Board's fundamental purpose is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The
Board's enforcement unit helps protect the public by investigating complaints of unsafe
practices by regulated professionals and taking appropriate enforcement action. More-over,
timely complaint handling helps to ensure problems are quickly addressed and
minimizes public exposure to possible substandard practice by engineers, architects, and
land surveyors.
Complaint
Backlog Exists
During the last three fiscal years, the Board has had a complaint backlog. As shown in
Table 2, page 10, the Board has resolved an average of 142 complaints annually since
fiscal year 1991- 92 and has received an average of 157 complaints annually over the same
period. As of March 31, 1995, the Board had 164 complaints pending. If the Board re-ceived
no more complaints, it would take about 1 year to eliminate the 164 unresolved
complaints.
Table 2
Board of Technical Registration Complaint Statistics
Fiscal Years 1991- 92 throu~ h1 993- 94
Number of
Beginning of Year
Received
Resolved
End of Year
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
1991 - 92 1992- 93 1993- 94
(*) The numbers in Table 2 pertain to both licensed and unlicensed practitioners. We found that approxi-mately
30 percent of BTR's caseload represents complaints filed against unlicensed practitioners. The
remaining 70 percent of BTR's caseload represents complaints filed against licensed practitioners.
Source: Information compiled from BTR enforcement unit data.
Substantial Delays Have
Hampered the Board's
Enforcement Process
Significant delays in the complaint resolution process impede the Board's ability to re-solve
complaints in a timely manner. Our review of 30 complaints closed in fiscal year
1993- 94 found that it took the Board a median time of 314 days to resolve complaints filed
against licensed practitioners. As illustrated in Table 3, page 11, we estimate the Board
could close complaints in approximately six months. The Executive Director concurs that
complaints on average should be resolved in six months. Moreover, we have found in
other audits that state regulatory boards could resolve complaints within six months. For
example, our 1994 report of the Board of Medical Examiners estimated they could resolve
complaints in 172 days.
Although the Board completes most steps in the complaint resolution process in a timely
manner, our analysis identified two steps in BTR's enforcement process that accounted
for most of the excess complaint processing time. After BTR receives a complaint it is
investigated by in- house staff for about three weeks ( Step 2). Then, BTR utilizes a profes-sional
registrant volunteer to review and validate the complaint. BTR typically utilizes a
second professional opinion to provide further validation. As shown in Table 3, addi-tional
assessments ( Step 4) take nearly twice as long to complete than the suggested time
frame. In 1 incident it took 113 days to complete an assessment when it should have been
done within 30 days. After the assessments, BTR uses an enforcement advisory commit-tee
to develop a recommendation for Board action. The recommendation is received by
BTR staff and then forwarded to the Board.
An extensive delay ( over 100 days) occurs in forwarding complaints to the Board ( Step 7).
Because the Board meets about every 90 days, a complaint referred to the Board typically
should take a median of 45 days for Board approval ( Step 7) versus the current 149 days.
In 1 case it took BTR staff more than 190 days to refer a complaint to the Board for action.
Table 3
Median and Suggested Time Frames for
Steps in the Licensee Complaint Resolution Process
for Fiscal Year 1993- 94
Step Description
Median Suggested
Time Time ( a'
1 Number of days from receipt of complaint until the case is opened 8 days 3 days
2 Number of days from opening a case until it is assigned to
an assessor ( b) 21 days 21 days
3 Number of days from assignment of complaint to an assessor
until the assessor's report is returned ( first assessment) 17 days 17 days
4 Number of days from receipt of first assessment to receipt of
final assessment ( second or more assessment^)(^) 59 days 30 days
5 Number of days from final assessment to enforcement advisory
committee meeting date 46 days 45 days
6 Number of days from the enforcement advisory committee meeting
date to receipt of its recommendation 14 days 14 days
7 Number of days from receipt of enforcement advisory committee's
recommendation until it is forwarded to the Board for review and
final disposition(*) 149 davs 45 days
Total of steps 1- 7 314 days 175 days
( a) Suggested times determined by Auditor General staff review of BTR statutes and its complaint pro-cess,
and interviews with BTR management.
@) Cases are given a preliminary investigation by BTR enforcement staff before being forwarded to an
assessor. BTR uses professional volunteers ( assessors) to provide technical assistance ( assessments)
when evaluating a complaint.
( ) One complaint may have multiple assessments.
(*) During this time frame, BTR staff review the committee recommendation for consistency with Board
policy and attempt to negotiate a settlement with the registrant. For some cases, these activities may
require more than 45 days.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of 30 complaints closed in fiscal year 1993- 94.
BTR Can Improve
Complaint Tracking
and Management
The delays described above could be attributed to BTR's failure to fully use its current
complaint tracking system and a lack of management oversight.
Tracking system not used - The Board does not effectively monitor the timeliness of its
complaint resolution process. According to the Board's Executive Director, the agency
tracks complaints with a " tickler sheet." A tickler sheet allows the enforcement unit man-ager
to manually review a complaints progress throughout the complaint resolution pro-cess.
However, we noted that this system was not being used. For example:
A review of complaints sent to the Attorney General's ( A. G.) Office for advice showed
that 7 of these cases have been open for more than 1,400 days. For example, on Febru-ary
5,1991, the Board received a complaint alleging that a land surveyor changed a
map after it was approved by the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors. On August
28,1991, BTR sent a request for advice to the A. G.' s office. At the time of our review,
over three and one- half years later, we found that the A. G.' s Office had not responded
nor had BTR ever followed up on its request.
To remedy additional complaint resolution delays, BTR has reinstated the use of its tick-ler
sheet tracking procedure.
Better utilization of the agency's computer system could have identified delays within
the various steps of the Board's resolution process and could also have served as a better
tracking system than the agency's current tickler file system. For example, the Board could
modify its database to capture each step of the complaint resolution process, including
corresponding time frames. As a result, time frames and delays can be easily computed.
BTR's management should consider developing these reports to monitor the complaint
resolution process and identify unnecessary delays.
Stronger management oversight could have prevented delays - The Board's unnecessary
delays and backlog could have been reduced if management had provided adequate over-sight.
The Executive Director attributes much of the unnecessary delay and backlog to
former problematic staff who discontinued tracking complaints and did not follow up
when problems arose. However, the Executive Director told us he should have acted
sooner to address this situation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. BTR should improve its complaint resolution time by eliminating administrative de-lays
in its complaint resolution process. Specifically, BTR staff should:
a) reduce delays associated with case assessments, and forward cases to the Board as
soon as recommendations are received by BTR staff.
b) improve its complaint tracking system by enhancing and making better use of its
computer system.
c) assume a more aggressive role in overseeing the Board's complaint process to en-sure
that complaints are processed in a timely manner.
SUNSET FACTORS
In accordance with A. R. S. 541- 2954, the Legislature should consider the following 12 fac-tors
in determining whether the Arizona Board of Technical Registration should be con-tinued
or terminated.
1. Objective and purpose in establishing the Board.
A. R. S. § 32- 101 defines the purpose of the Arizona Board of Technical Registration,
which is to provide for the safety, health, and welfare of the public through stan-dards
of qualification for individuals licensed, or seeking licenses, as architects,
assayers, engineers, geologists, landscape architects, and land surveyors.
To carry out this responsibility, a nine- member Board is statutorily empowered to
ensure the competency of these practitioners by evaluating applications for licensure,
conducting examinations for in- training and professional registration, initiating and
conducting investigations to determine the validity of complaints and charges, and
by disciplining violators of the Board's rules or regulations. The Board employs an
executive director and investigators, and licensing and other administrative staff to
carry out these duties.
2. The effectiveness with which the Board has met its objective and purpose and
the efficiency with which the Board has operated.
The Board can improve its effectiveness and efficiency in fulfilling its statutory re-sponsibility
to protect the public from incompetent professionals. The Board has
been slow to resolve licensee complaints. Our review found that complaint resolu-tion
could have been more timely if agency management had exercised appropriate
oversight and better utilized its complaint tracking system ( see Finding 11, pages 9
through 13).
3. The extent to which the Board has operated within the public interest.
The Board's licensure and enforcement functions serve the public interest by ensur-ing
that Board- licensed professionals operating in Arizona meet minimum compe-tency
standards and that unlicensed individuals do not practice these professions
except as provided by law. However, state licensing of geologists, landscape archi-tects,
and assayers does not serve the general public's interest because the practice of
these professions does not threaten the public's health, safety, or welfare ( see Find-ing
I, pages 1 through 8).
Moreover, within the last ten years, the Board has improved its licensing examina-tions
by participating in the development of and adopting nationally accepted ex-aminations.
For example, through a joint effort initiated by the Board, a regional
land survey examination was developed and is now used by the National Council of
Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. The Board also played a major role in
the development of the National Geologist Registration Examination.
4. The extent to which rules adopted by the Board are consistent with the legis-lative
mandate.
According to the agency's Attorney General representative, all required rules have
been promulgated. However, as part of its review process, the Board is currently
amending some of its rules. For example, an environmental engineer classification is
being introduced to provide environmental protection to the public.
5. The extent to which the Board has encouraged input from the public before
adopting its rules and the extent to which it has informed the public as to its
actions and their expected impact on the public.
In addition to providing required public notice of rules, the Board notifies licensees
and industry associations of rule- making activities in its newsletters and through
other written correspondence. In addition, other agency actions, including sanctions
imposed by the Board, are also provided in the newsletters. These newsletters are
sent twice a year to licensed practitioners, professional associations, building offi-cials,
and public libraries.
6. The extent to which the Board has been able to investigate and resolve com-plaints
that are within its jurisdiction.
Statutes and rules provide the Board authority to investigate and resolve complaints
of misconduct by licensed practitioners. After investigation by Board staff, an advi-sory
committee comprised of public and professional volunteers assesses the com-plaint
information to determine whether the complaint is valid and then makes a
recommendation for discipline, if necessary. Then, through a negotiated consent
process the complaint is usually resolved, thereby minimizing the need for formal
hearings. According to the Executive Director, both of these steps serve to reduce the
costs to the Board and its respondents.
However, the Board needs to improve the overall timeliness of its complaint resolu-tion
process. Our review found that the agency had a one- year complaint backlog as
of March 31,1995. Moreover, the Board takes 314 days to resolve a complaint when
approximately 6 months would be more appropriate. BTR could reduce its backlog
and resolve complaints in a more timely manner by using and improving its corn-
plaint tracking system and by providing better management oversight ( see Finding
11, pages 9 through 13).
7. The extent to which the Attorney General or any other applicable agency of
State government has the authority to prosecute actions under the enabling
legislation.
Criminal sanctions can be prosecuted by the Town, City, County Attorney, or State
Attorney General on behalf of the State, depending on the violation. According to the
Executive Director, the agency has had some success in initiating criminal complaints
against unlicensed practitioners; however, there is a reluctance on the part of pros-ecutors
in the larger municipalities and counties to accept what they perceive to be
" technical complaints."
8. The extent to which the Board has addressed deficiencies in its enabling stat-utes
which prevent it from fulfilling its statutory mandate.
According to the Executive Director, the agency corrected most of its legislative de-ficiencies
in 1986, when a number of bills were introduced and changes were made
in statutes. During the 1994 legislative session, BTR obtained authority to contract
for exam administration services. In the 1995 legislative session, BTR obtained au-thority
to recognize qualifying experience not gained under the direct supervision
of a licensed professional. Also, the legislature granted BTR authority to impose
civil penalties of no more than $ 2,000 per violation against unlicensed practitioners
and to set term limits for Board members of no more than 2 consecutive terms.
9. The extent to which changes are necessary in the laws of the Board to ad-equately
comply with the factors listed in the subsection.
Based on our audit work, we recommend that the Legislature delete references to
geologists, landscape architects, and assayers from A. R. S. § 32- 121, which requires
the licensure of these professions, and other pertinent statutes relating to these pro-fessions,
because licensing is not needed to protect the public health, safety, or wel-fare
( see Finding I, pages 1 through 8).
10. The extent to which the termination of the Board would significantly harm the
public health, safety, or welfare.
Terminating the Board could significantly harm the public by eliminating essential
regulation of the architecture, engineering, and land surveying professions. The ab-sence
of regulation would create a void by removing competency requirements and
an enforcement process necessary to protect the public from personal injury or fi-
nancial loss. However, terminating the licensure of assayers, geologists, and land-scape
architects would not harm the public health, safety, or welfare ( see Finding I,
pages 1 through 8).
11. The extent to which the level of regulation exercised by the Board is appropri-ate
and whether less or more stringent levels of regulation would be appropri-ate.
The level of regulation exercised by the Board with regard to architecture, engineer-ing,
and land surveying appears to be generally appropriate, and major changes in
this regulation are not necessary. However, as noted above, the Board does not need
to license geologists, landscape architects, and assayers ( see Finding I, pages 1 through
8) -
Furthermore, during the audit, legislation was passed requiring BTR to participate
in developing a plan to " provide for standards of qualification for professionals
practicing in environmental disciplines, including environmental consultants and
environmental contractors." An amendment to House Bill 2188 requires that BTR,
the Department of Environmental Quality, the State Fire Marshal, and the Registrar
of Contractors examine registration, licensing, and certification as options for quali-fying
these professionals. In addition, these agencies must research and identify any
existing regulatory authority to establish standards and make recommendations for
any additional regulatory authority that would be needed. The plan is to be submit-ted
to the Legislature and to the Governor by November 15,1995. We did not con-duct
audit work on this issue.
12. The extent to which the Board has used private contractors in the performance
of its duties and how effective use of private contractors could be accom-plished.
The Board has used private contractors for services it cannot provide in- house. For
example, the Board contracts with private vendors to develop, proctor, and grade
some exams. Our audit work does not indicate the need for further private sector
contracting.
IAgency Response
I
I Ii State of Arizona
BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION
I FOR ARCHITECTS, ASSAYERS, ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND LAND SURVEYORS
1951 W. CAMELBACK ROAD SUITE 250 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85015 ( 602) 255- 4053 FAX: ( 602) 255- 4051
August 24, 1995
Mr. Douglas R. Norton
I Auditor General
State of Arizona
2910 N. 44th. Street
Suite 410 I Phoenix, Az. 85018
Dear Mr. Norton:
The Board of Technical Registration has reviewed the Draft Copy
I of the performance audit. Our reply is attached.
We would like to compliment your auditors for their
professionalism and thank them for the constructive criticism
relayed during discussions while the audit was in process.
I Michael J. ~ i l a
Chairman
I
State of Arizona
I BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION
I FOR ARCHITECTS, ASSAYERS, ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND LAND SURVEYORS
1951 W. CAMELBACK ROAD SUITE 250 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85015 ( 602) 255- 4053 FAX: ( 602) 255- 4051
RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
COMMENTS ON THE FINDINGS
FINDING I
The Board has consistently taken the position that the decision
to regulate, or not to regulate, a specific profession is a
matter to be decided by the state legislature and the members of
the profession, and the Board would remain neutral.
We would, however, point out that in the professions of Landscape
Architecture and Geology the emerging trend across the nation is
toward registration.
The increased need for environmental studies has caused many
private property owners to need geological information for ADEQ
mandated studies and reviews.
Private mining activity is increasing in the state and more
members of the public may have a need for assaying services.
FINDING I1
The Board acknowledges that an excessive backlog of cases existed
at the time of the audit. The audit identified the magnitude of
the problem. We thank the audit team for their comments. We have
made a number of changes based on their input.
There are many variables that may lengthen case resolution time
without detracting from the effectiveness of the process ( getting
equitable settlement at the lowest reasonable cost). Time needed
to effect closure should be important; however, we feel
appropriateness of action, attainment of a suitable final
disposition and control of cost are factors that are as
important.
A number of factors contributed to the number of cases more than
one year old. One factor was a decision made by a supervisor to
focus all resources on those cases opened after the supervisor's
assumption of control. This was an error. A lessening of
administrative monitoring controls on investigations initiated
when the supervisor was hired created a situation where the
problem was not fully recognized and corrected.
The problem was identified by the auditors and corrective action
has been taken. The previously enacted controls have been re-initiated.
This coupled with personnel changes, have eliminated
this problem.
An extended absence of one of the two field investigators also
contributed to the length of time needed to close some
investigations.
This problem has resolved itself and the investigative staff is
at full strength.
Some of the excessive delay problem was attributed to a failure
of the Attorney General's Office to provide requested advice in a
timely manner in some cases. This problem was exacerbated by the
Board staff failure to adequately monitor the progress on those
requests. We have had a number of discussions in the last three
months with representatives of the Attorney General and, coupled
with the re- initiation of the previous administrative controls,
we feel this situation has been corrected.
Cases involving settlements that incorporated a period of peer
review, periodic fine payments or suspension were carried as open
investigations after the Board and the respondent had signed a
consent order. After the consent order was signed, all that
remained to be done was compliance monitoring. A new procedure
has been initiated and cases are closed immediately after a
consent order is signed and accepted. Monitoring is done by
staff. If there is a failure to comply with the Board order, a
new case alleging a violation of 32- 150 ( failure to comply with a
Board order) will be opened. This change will reduce the number
of days some cases are open.
Cases were routinely sent out shortly after being opened to a
case reviewer to determine whether, in the reviewer's opinion,
there was a reasonable belief that a violation had occurred and
what additional evidence was needed to determine appropriate
Board action. If the initial reviewer stated there was no
reasonable basis for continued investigation, the case was sent
to a second reviewer for another review. If the second reviewer
also recommended no action, the case was sent to the board for
review and action. Cases are now being sent to two case
reviewers concurrently for preliminary review and recommendation
when it appears there is a question of jurisdiction.
Additionally, there was a reluctance to push volunteer reviewers
for rapid recommendations because of their volunteer status.
Volunteers provide this service in addition to meeting their
professional responsibilities. Currently, monitoring of every
case is done on a monthly basis and case material is pulled back
and given to another reviewer if the original reviewer cannot
complete the assignment in a reasonable time.
We are currently looking at commercially produced case
investigation software programs to replace the original Paradox
software used to try and develop a case tracking system. Paradox
has not been effective because of the need to develop all
operation and information retrieval instructions. We do not have
the capability to do that effectively. We feel the packages
developed by several companies for investigation tracking may
offer more operational capabilities and increase our
effectiveness in this area.
In the past our main concentration was on closing a case in a
manner we felt protected the public. We concentrated on getting
appropriate settlements without necessitating costly ( to the
Board and the Respondent) formal hearings. We feel we have been
very successful in this area. In fact, the Arizona Board is
recognized as a national model for informal settlement. We made
the length of time needed to close the case a less important
factor than the appropriateness of the settlement or the
utilization of the informal settlement process. We still consider
the three factors in that relative priority order, but we will be
placing more emphasis on those actions that unnecessarily slow up
the resolution process.
Currently, the Board is closing more cases per month than it is
opening. From March, 1995, through July, 1995, the Board opened
66 cases. During the same period, 110 cases were closed.
