Committee of Reference final report of the Arizona State Board of Technical Registration

              Diana Clay O'Dell
Legislative Research Analyst
(602) 926-3745
Arizona House of Representatives
House Majority Research
MEMORANDUM
1700 West Washington
Phoellix,~ona85007
FAX (602) 417-3097
To: JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE
Representative Laura :r<:naperek,Co"'Chair
Senator Robert Blendu,.Co...Chair
HE: ARIZONA STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION - SUNSET REVIEW
Date: December 1, 2005
Attached is the final report of the sunset review of the Arizona· State Board of Technical
Registration, whishwassongllct~g Py th~ Hollse.of ~epresentatives Commerce and the Senate
Commerce >and Economic Development Committee of Reference. This report has been
distributedto the following individuals and agencies:
Governor of the State of Arizona
The Honorable .Jcm~t Napolitano
President of the Senate
Senator Ken Bennett
Senate Members
Senator Barbara Leff,Co-Chair
Senator Ken Cheuvront
Senator Richard Miranda
Senator Jay Tibshraeny
Senator Jim Waring
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Representative James P. Weiers
House Members
Representative John McComish, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Konopnlcki
Representative Debbie McCune-Davis
Representative Robert Meza
Representative Michele Reagan
Miscellaneous
Arizona State Board of Technical Registration
Office of the Auditor General
Department of Library, Archives & Public Records
Office of the Chief Clerk and Secretary of the Senate
Senate Republican Staff
Senate Research Staff
Senate Democratic Staff
House Majority Staff
House Research Staff
House Democratic Staff
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE
Arizona House of Representatives
Committee on Commerce
Arizona State Senate
Committee on Commerce and Economic Development
FINAL REPORT
OF THE
ARIZONA STATE BOARD
OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION
DECEMBER
2005
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE REPORT
House 0/Representatives Committee on Commerce and
Senate Committee on Commerce and Economic Development
ARIZONA STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION
To: JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE
Representative Laura Knaperek, Co-Chair
Senator Robert Blendu, Co-Chair
Date: November 9, 2005
Pursuant to Title 41, Chapter 27, Arizona Revised Statutes, the Committee of Reference, after
performing a sunset review and conducting a public hearing, recommends the following:
The Arizona State Board 0/ Technical Registration be continued/or ten years.
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE
RepresentativeDebbie McCune-Davis
/7
......Pow<eu,
Senator Barbara Leff,
/
Re entative Jo McComish, Co-Chair
~-
COMMITIEE OF REFERENCE
House ofRepresentatives Committee on Commerce and
Senate Committee on Commerce and Economic Development
Arizona State Board of Technical Registration
Final Report
I. Background
Pursuant to §41-2953, Arizona Revised Statutes, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee
(JLAC) assigned the sunset review of the Arizona State Board of Technical Registration to the
House of Representatives Commerce and the Senate Commerce and Economic Development
Committee ofReference. [Attachment A]
II. Committee of Reference Sunset Review Procedure
The Committee of Reference (COR) held one public hearing on Wednesday, November 9,
2005, to review the performance audit ofthe Arizona State Board ofTechnical Registration (BTR)
and to receive public testimony. [Attachment B]
At the public hearing, the Committee ofReference heard testimony from the following:
Mr. Ronald W. Dalrymple, Director, Arizona State Board of Technical Registration
Canan D'Avela, Assayer
The director of BTR presented information regarding the specific professions that are
regulated by the agency, as well as the related statutory responsibilities. Additionally, the director
summarized the agency's internal organization and provided information that allows the board to
function more effectively in the public interest.
The Arizona State Board of Technical Registration was created in 1921 and functions as a
90/10 Board, deriving revenues from fees that are assessed for applications, licensure and other
miscellaneous services. There are approximately 22,000 architects, engineers, assayers, land
surveyors, landscape architects, geologists, home inspectors, certified drug laboratory site
remediation supervisors and workers. The nine-member board is appointed by the governor to
three-year terms, and consists of various industry personnel and one public member.
Mr. Dalrymple outlined the obstacles to success that face the agency. Specifically, the
Certified Remediation Specialist Program was instituted in 2001 as a result of the Greenfields
Program through the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). The program has
never completed a project using a certified remediation specialist and ADEQ recently allowed the
associated administrative rules to repeal. Further, since the program has so few people, Mr.
Dalrymple suggested the Legislature should consider repealing BTR's regulation of certified
remediation specialists.
Additionally, Mr. Dalrymple noted there are 32 registered assayers in the state, and Arizona
is the only state regulating the profession; therefore, perhaps certification ofassayers would be more
appropriate. The cost to administer and regulate these programs, including updating an examination,
will require more revenue resources. Likewise, other budgetary and fiscal restraints have impacted
BTR's ability to recruit and retain qualified personnel, including investigators. The BTRincluded a
salary survey comparison for investigator positions in their report, reflecting a $10,000 difference in
some instances.
III. Committee Recommendations
The Committee ofReference recommends the Arizona State Board ofTechnical Registration
be continued for a period often years.
IV. Statutory Report Pursuant to Section 41-2954, Arizona Revised Statutes
[Attachment C]
V. Attachments
A. Meeting Notice
B. Minutes of Committee of Reference Hearing
C. Committee of Reference Report
Final Report
Page2
Attachment A
Interim agendas can be obtained via the Internet at http://www.azleg.state.az.usllnterimCommittees.asp
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
INTERIM MEETING NOTICE
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES COMMERCE COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE
FOR THE SUNSET REVIEW OF:
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA,
BOILER ADVISORY BOARD
EMPLOYMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW BOARD
ARIZONA STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION
ARIZONA POWER AUTHORITY
Date:
Time:
Place:
Wednesday, November 9, 2005
8:30 a.m.
House Hearing Room 3
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Opening Remarks
3. Presentation of Performance Audits:
Larry Etchechury, Executive Director, Industrial Commission of Arizona
• Industrial Commission of Arizona
• Boiler Advisory Board
• Employment Advisory Council
• Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Committee
Diana Clay O'Dell, Research Analyst, House Committee on Commerce
• Occupational Safety and Health Review Board
4. Public Testimony
5. Discussion
6. Recommendations by the Committee of Reference
7. Presentation of Performance Audit
Ronald W. Dalrymple, Executive Director, Board of Technical Registration
• Arizona State Board of Technical Registration
8. Public Testimony
9. Discussion
10. Recommendations by the Committee of Reference
11. Presentation of Performance Audit
Joseph W. Mulholland, Executive Director, Arizona Power Authority
• Arizona Power Authority
12. Public Testimony
13. Discussion
14. Recommendations by the Committee of Reference
15. Adjourn
Members:
Senator Barbara Leff, Co-Chair
Senator Ken Cheuvront
Senator Richard Miranda
Senator Jay Tibshraeny
Senator Jim Waring
10/24/05
jmb
Representative John McComish, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Konopnicki
Representative Debbie McCune Davis
Representative Robert Meza
Representative Michele Reagan
People with disabilities may request reasonable accommodations such as interpreters, alternative
formats, or assistance with physical accessibility. If you require accommodations, please contact the
Chief Clerk's Office at (602) 926-3032, TOO (602) 926-3241.
Attachment B
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Forty-seventh Legislature - First Regular Session
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES COMMERCE COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE
FOR THE SUNSET REVIEW OF
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA
BOILER ADVISORY BOARD
EMPLOYMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW BOARD
ARIZONA STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION
ARIZONA POWER AUTHORITY
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, November 9, 2005
House Hearing Room 3 -- 8:30 a.m.
Chairman McComish called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m. and roll call was taken by the
secretary.
Members Present
Senator Cheuvront
Senator Tibshraeny
Senator Waring
Senator Leff, Cochair
Senator Miranda
Members Absent
Speakers Present
Representative Konopnicki
Representative McCune Davis
Representative Meza
Representative Reagan
Representative McComish, Cochair
Larry Etchechury, Director, Industrial Commission of Arizona
Laura McGrory, Chief Counsel, Industrial Commission of Arizona
Diana Clay O'Dell, House Majority Research Analyst, Commerce Committee
Willie Johnson, representing self
Ronald Dalrymple, Executive Director, Arizona State Board of Technical Registration
Canan D'Avela, representing self
Joseph Mulholland, Executive Director, Arizona Power Authority
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMERCE
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE FOR THE SUNSET REVIEW
OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, ETC.
November 9,2005
Industrial Commission of Arizona
Larry Etchechury, Director, Industrial Commission of Arizona (lCA), said he believes the ICA is
efficient and effective in fulfilling its statutory responsibilities. The ICA was established in 1925
to implement the constitutional provisions creating the worker's compensation system in
Arizona. The duties of the agency have been expanded over time to include occupational safety
and health issues, regulation of child labor, resolution of wage disputes, vocational rehabilitation
for injured workers, and other activities. The ICA has 313 employees, an operating budget of
approximately $17.7 million, and is funded by a three percent tax on worker's compensation
premiums. The policy-setting body is a five-member commission appointed by the Governor
and confirmed by the Senate. The members serve five-year staggered terms.
Mr. Etchechury related that the agency has four major focuses, three of which are regulatory in
nature, and the fourth is almost an insurance function. He reviewed the responsibilities of the
Claims Division and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Division, noting that the average time
to adjudicate a case in 2005 was 118 days. There is a significant amount of concern that the time
frame should be less. Trying to accommodate the schedules of physicians, in particular, to make
live testimony is extremely difficult, and in some cases, may not be necessary, so the agency is
working with the attorney community about being more selective as to when and where a
doctor's testimony is needed as opposed to written reports. He provided an overview of the
Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health (ADOSH), which involves the Compliance
Program, the Consultation/Training Program and the Boiler and Elevator Programs (Evaluation
Report from the U.S. Department of Labor from October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004,
Attachment 1).
He related that the Commission has an Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Committee, an
Elevator Advisory Board, a Boiler Advisory Board, and an Employment Advisory Committee,
which are typically composed of industry representatives, both labor and management, to assist
in adopting standards. The Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Committee is appointed by
the ICA, and in addition to assisting in adoption of standards, provides input to the Governor's
Office for appointments to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Review
Board. The Committee can also be used in other areas. For example, several years ago, fatalities
occurred involving excavations, so the Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Committee
helped develop a comprehensive program that eradicated fatalities for about a five-year period.
Mr. Etchechury reviewed the responsibilities of the Labor Department in relation to wage
disputes, youth employment laws, licensing of employee paid employment agencies, and the
Employment Advisory Council whose members are appointed by the ICA for three-year terms.
The Employment Advisory Council reviews new or existing licensees and advises the ICA on
matters involving employment agencies. A number of years ago a request was made to the
Legislature to delete this function"from the ICA's jurisdiction, but the industry testified as to the
benefits of the Council as a regulated element. In reviewing jurisdictions in other states, much
fraud was found, particularly in career counseling and some employment agencies, so the
Legislature decided to retain the Council as part of the jurisdiction of the lCA, which has
prevented fraud from occurring in Arizona.
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMERCE
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE FOR THE SUNSET REVIEW
OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, ETC.
2 November 9, 2005
Mr. Etchechury said the fifth function is the Special Fund, which consists of about $280 million,
to provide insurance for uninsured claimants and continue worker's compensation benefits for
claimants of insolvent carriers and insolvent self-insured employers. In 2001, the Special Fund
had an $80 million surplus, but now there is a $190 million deficit because about 16 insurance
companies became insolvent from 2001 to 2005. Last year, the Legislature provided the
authority to revert excess monies from the Administrative Fund to the Special Fund at the end of
the year, which provided a cushion to meet annualized expenses; however, it is not known how
much insolvency may occur in the future. He noted that the Arizona Department of Insurance
(DOl) has deposits on file for insurance carriers regarding liabilities, but those deposits are not
sufficient; however, if the deposits were not on file, as in most states, the deficit would be much
larger. The ICA is working with DOl on that issue. He added that the Special Fund also shares
the responsibility with insurance carriers or self-insured employers for a portion of liabilities for
certain loss of earning capacity awards, provides vocational rehabilitation benefits, and provides
continuing medical benefits for pre-1973 worker's compensation claims. (For more details see
Attachment 2).
He advised Senator Leff that the Special Fund is funded by a 2.5 percent assessment against
employers, which is the maximum amount and became effective in 2004. He indicated that he
does not desire to increase the assessment.
Mrs. McCune Davis asked if the insolvencies are a backlash to what happened in California.
Mr. Etchechury responded that a few elements took place. In the early 1990s, everyone
recognized that all kinds of money could be made in the market. Insurance carriers marketed to
get business and let down some protections. Suddenly, the market began tightening up and
reversals started to take place. At that point, people were in the system that were at much larger
risk and not paying those risks. For example, Reliance Insurance Company reported three
quarters of a billion dollar loss in the third quarter ofoperations, and at the same time, asked DOl
for a deviation from the insurance rates.
He advised Senator Leff that the penalty for a company that does not carry workmen's
compensation insurance ranges from $1,000 to $10,000, and depending upon the repetitiveness,
the ICA can go to Superior Court and obtain an injunction to keep the company from operating.
Collecting the money is difficult because many times companies declare bankruptcy and go
through the federal bankruptcy process, which is extremely difficult and onerous. The collection
rate is about 20 percent. If the ICA finds that a company declared bankruptcy and has not paid
the penalty, the injunctive process is used whereby a superior court judge rules that the company
cannot operate or the owner will be sent to jail. Unfortunately, some companies are probably
still in operation that the ICA is not aware of because when bankruptcy is declared, the owner
can change the name of the company and start again.
When Mr. Konopnicki asked for further details about the increase in insolvencies,
Mr. Etchechury related that from 1970 to 2001 the Special Fund had about 350 open claims.
From 2001 to the present there are in excess of 1,200 open claims. When an insurance carrier
obtains a license, financial reports are filed with DOl, and based on those reports, a deposit is
made with DOl that is supposed to be sufficient to cover potential liabilities. In reality, the
deposits were not adequate by about 50 percent.
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMERCE
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE FOR THE SUNSET REVIEW
OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, ETC.
3 November 9,2005
Mr. Etchechury 'explained that as an example, the domicile insurance carrier in California knew
the Freemont Insurance Company was in trouble long before bankruptcy was declared, so the
company was under a restitution process to resolve problems. In the process, their companies
were consolidated into one company, and DOl had deposits for each of the companies. The
domiciliary said any assets associated with the companies must be given to the domiciliary for
that one company. DOl must have good reason to keep the deposits and did not because the
outcome is not known, so the domiciliary can legally do that. The ICA then calculated what the
deposit would be for the one company, which, in reality, would be the same, but in this particular
case, it was not, so there was a major hit to the Special Fund. Other elements were also
involved, but he was told that DOl did everything possible to sustain the deposits.
Mr. Konopnicki said he would like the name of the person involved from DOr.
Laura McGrory, Chief Counsel, Industrial Commission of Arizona, agreed that carriers are
required to make a deposit with DOr. Carriers file an annual financial statement with DOl on an
annual basis and fill out a form regarding prior losses, premiums written, and reinsurance credits.
There is a present value discount, but the formula calculates a number that becomes the statutory
deposit. The statute says what is required to be posted, so if the number is lower according to the
formula, DOl may be required to return some deposit money to align with the formula. In the
Freeman scenario, a merger occurred and the companies, which mayor may not have been in
conjunction with the domiciliary because they were in some type of receivership, indicated to
DOl that they came up with a lower number so 001 was holding excess deposit money that
should be returned. An enormous amount of dialogue went on between DOl and California, but
ultimately, the deposit money was returned. There were some difficulties afterward with the
nature of the security DOl accepted, which essentially declined in value. It was some type of
Fannie Mae mortgage-based security, so the Special Fund is left with a deficiency as the
liabilities are higher than the deposit.
Senator Leff submitted that the deposit then is meaningless. Ms. McGrory answered that when
an insurance company sees the writing on the wall, an attempt is made to marshal assets in order
to have as much money as possible to facilitate the process of drawing things down, so 001
frequently receives requests for release of deposit money. When DOl knows a company is in
trouble, everything possible is done to hold on to the money. There is a current situation in
which an insurance carrier is headed for insolvency and the carrier and domiciliary are asking for
money to help the company. DOl has worked hard to retain the deposit by having an actuarial
analysis to justify the numbers. Because of what happened in the past, more dialogue goes on
between DOl and the ICA. DOl no longer releases deposit money without asking the ICA if
there is a problem.
Senator Leff then questioned the purpose of the deposit. Ms. McGrory agreed that is a concern,
noting that the ICA is reviewing ways to strengthen the ability to keep deposit money or increase
the deposits. Multiple things are occurring with credits for reinsurance and a present value
discount of six percent, so elements are decreasing the deposit.
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMERCE
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE FOR THE SUNSET REVIEW
OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, ETC.
4 November 9,2005
Senator Leff asked if credit for reinsurance goes away since the money is supposed to be there to
reinsure the money. Ms. McGrory replied that the benefits of reinsurance are not necessarily
realized when a carrier goes into liquidation because reinsurance deposits are considered an asset
of the estate. Although the deposit decreases because of the credit for reinsurance, the liquidator
marshals the reinsurance proceeds, and to the extent the proceeds are recovered,· a pro-rata
distribution is made amongst creditors, so there is not a dollar-for-dollar benefit from the
reinsurance posting.
Senator Leff noted that good employers are paying the maximum 2.5 percent assessment, partly
because of this and wondered why the employer community is not upset about what the
reinsurance community is doing. Mr. Etchechury responded that the ICA supported legislation
dealing with different elements, but even though the employer community was aware, there was
no involvement on their part.
Mr. Konopnicki said as an employer in Arizona he did not know about the situation, which is a
major problem. He recommended referring the matter to the Attorney General. Mr. Etchechury
indicated that employer representative organizations, such as the Chamber of Commerce, the
National Federation of Independent Business and others, were made aware, but he does not know
what was done with the information. He submitted that it is easy to say all that has to be done is
change the formula and make sure deposits are adequate; however, if that were done right now,
there may be insurance companies on the brink of disaster, so asking for an increase in deposits
by 50 percent could potentially create additional insolvencies.
Senator Leff suggested retaining the amount rather than increasing the deposit. Mr. Etchechury
responded that would not entirely solve the problem. What happened with the Freemont
Insurance Company is one particular situation, but there are other companies like Reliance
Insurance Company where the deposit was inadequate. Multiple issues created the problem,
such as large deductibles. For example, an employer may want a large deductible policy for
$1 million and the premium is calculated accordingly. When the deposit is calculated, the
$1 million is not considered in terms of liability, which would be counted beyond the $1 million.
Therefore, when the whole house of cards goes down there is the potential not only for liability
of the insurance, but also, the large deductible employer. An entity has been created that is not
even addressed in statute. A number of large deductible employers currently not identified are
acting as self-insured employers with no oversight whatsoever in terms of processing claims,
which was created with the insolvency debacle. He said the agency is becoming involved in
insurance law when it previously was not.
Mrs. McCune Davis asked if DOl and the ICA are notified when a company is going into
receivership and questioned if tools are in place to freeze deposits. She wondered if action is
being taken or legislation is needed to protect existing assets. Mr. Etchechury replied that
legislation was introduced to codify insolvency processes at DOl that were normally accepted,
but were challenged by others not necessarily involved in the process. That has helped, but there
is more to be done. The agency is working closely with DOl to address some issues, but it is
very complex.
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMERCE
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE FOR THE SUNSET REVIEW
OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, ETC.
5 November 9, 2005
Senator Leff remarked that she understands the deficit is over the lifetime payment and
wondered if the fund can be brought back into balance. Mr. Etchechury said he hopes so,
without affecting the principle in terms of existing investments. ICA is able to meet annualized
expenditures. In the long term, he hopes to resolve the issue so this does not reoccur, but the
number of potential insolvencies is not known.
Senator Leff commented that is why it was so important to some legislators not to privatize the
State Compensation Fund, which probably would have been severely diminished.
Mr. Etchechury acknowledged that the State Compensation Fund is a key element of the
worker's compensation system.
Mr. Konopnicki contended that major problems exist, not of the ICA's making, but due to
legislation and DOl. It is the responsibility of the Committee to offer legislation to solve these
problems, but he is hesitant to recommend a lO-year extension of the agency. Senator Leff
submitted that legislation should be introduced to address the problems, but there is no reason
not to extend the agency for 10 years.
Mr. Etchechury related to Chairman McComish that funding from the three percent tax paid by
employers is adequate. Currently, 2.5 percent is used to fund the agency and the additional one­half
percent is administrative money that goes into the Special Fund to meet annualized
expenditures. If the Special Fund becomes fiscally sound, the rate can only be sufficient to fund
the agency, so it is a floating rate on the administrative side, and any extra goes into the Special
Fund.
Chairman McComish asked if employer paid agencies are licensed. Mr. Etchechury replied that
those were taken out of the statute several years ago and are no longer licensed. There have not
been any problems associated with employer paid agencies because the market dictates;
therefore, he does not believe regulation is necessary.
Mrs. McCune Davis noted that fines charged to employers as the result of accidents that occur in
the workplace go into the General Fund and questioned if adequate money is available for safety
programs or some of that money should be directed for that purpose. Mr. Etchechury responded
that the question arises periodically in the Legislature. The money could be used to enhance
safety and health programs, but it is up to the Legislature. There have been some efforts,
including providing bilingual health and safety training programs.
Diana Clay O'Dell, House Majority Research Analyst, Commerce Committee, advised that the
purpose of the OSHA Review Board is to hear administrative appeals regarding orders of the
Industrial Commission's Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health (ADOSH). This
forum provides a final appeals step in the administrative law process before filing with the Court
of Appeals. The OSHA Review Board consists of five members appointed by the Governor to
five-year terms. Current law mandates one representative of management, one of labor and three
public members. The OSHA Review Board operates with only a contract employee who is an
attorney. Following discussions with the Governor's Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) prior
to the OSHA Review Board's routine five-year rule-making process, the OSHA Review Board
discovered that it does not have the statutory rule-making authority necessary to adopt rules;
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMERCE
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE FOR THE SUNSET REVIEW
OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, ETC.
6 November 9, 2005
therefore, the rule-making authority will be sought through future lCA legislation. The OSHA
Review Board historically meets every quarter; however, since more cases are now mediated
before going to a formal hearing, only one meeting was held in the past two years. A meeting
will be held on November 30, 2005.
Chairman McComish related that Lisa Gervase, the contract attorney for the OSHA Review
Board, could not attend the meeting (for more details about the OSHA Review Board, see Letter
from Ms. Gervase, Attachment 3).
Senator Leff questioned why the Board has separate review authority. Ms. O'Dell responded
that ALJs under the authority of the lCA make the initial decision, so these are appeals to a
separate independent review board to avoid a conflict of interest.
Senator Leff stated that in working with the Registrar of Contractors a constituent was heard by a
second judge for an appeal, not an ALl Mr. Etchechury replied that the OSHA Review Board
was created to mirror the appeals process at the federal level through an OSHAReview Board
that is totally separate from the U.S. Department of Labor. During creation of the OSHA
Review Board on a local level, the Legislature and Governor's Office wanted a mechanism
whereby an employer could go before a lay board without incurring the expense of hiring an
attorney. An lCA ALJ makes the initial determination, which can be appealed to the OSHA
Review Board, then the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. He understands the Registrar of
Contractors uses the hearing division set up by the Legislature as part of the appeals mechanism,
but he is not sure if the Registrar of Contractors can overrule that decision.
Senator Leff said the Registrar of Contractors can overrule the decision, so the constituent went
back for another hearing. Mr. Etchechury indicated that the lCA does not have that. The appeals
process should be separate from the lCA because a determination is already made at a divisional
level in terms of ADOSH and an ALJ, so this is a separate appeals process that should be
separate.
Chairman McComish said it sounds like lCA does a good job providing mediation, so perhaps
there is less need for the OSHA Review Board today then when it was created. Mr. Etchechury
responded that is possible as the number of cases heard is minimal, i.e., one case in the last two
years and one case is currently pending. The Review Board is funded from a non-reverting
General Fund account. This means there is a certain amount of funding, but no appropriation for
the next two years, so expenditures for the contract attorney will only be with respect to that one
case and will not be monumental. He indicated to Senator Leff that he believes the
OSHA Review Board should be continued.
Ms. O'Dell advised Senator Leff that the procedural rule in place related to what needs to be
done to file paperwork. When the agency was told there is no specific statutory authority for
rule-making, the decision was made to allow the procedure to repeal, seek statutory authority,
and reinstate the rule.
Willie Johnson, representing self, testified that his son, Daryl Wayne Johnson, was killed on
October 28, 2003 while working in the warehouse at Accurate Cargo Delivery when the forklift
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMERCE
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE FOR THE SUNSET REVIEW
OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, ETC.
7 November 9,2005
he was operating fell on top of him crushing his chest. While Mr. Johnson was in the emergency
room of St. Joseph's Hospital, no one from the company arrived to console the family or check
on his son's condition. During the field investigation that same day by the investigator from
OSHA, the owner was only concerned about the possibility of being sued. The OSHA
investigator interviewed a few employees, one of which indicated that the owner brags about
making $250,000 per year, but cannot provide safety training for employees.
Mr. Johnson stated that another accident involving a forklift occurred on January 2002 that was
not reported to OSHA, but the individual involved wrote a sworn document to OSHA concerning
the incident. The individual indicated that no forklift training was ever provided and his
supervisor told him to drive the forklift faster. About an hour after the incident occurred, the
owner and general manager showed up and asked the individual if he was okay. The individual
said he was, so the owner and general manager left, but the individual was not told to go to the
emergency room to be checked. The person stated in the report that the company does not
believe in safety, hires young inexperienced warehouse men, and pays the workers a low salary.
Mr. Johnson stated that while going through the procedure with OSHA and State Compensation,
he tried to obtain a professional opinion on how to hold the owner accountable. He was advised
by counsel that the ICAcovers that and there is nothing that can be done. Many employees who
worked for the company told him the company does not care about employee safety. He gave
the information to OSHA, and as time went on, found that several violations were issued to the
company totaling $35,000. He personally thought some incidents should have been willful, but
OSHA did not. The penalty was eventually reduced to $21,000 because the company agreed to
pay, but he does not know if the penalty was paid. He recommended that any time a hearing is
held to negotiate a settlement offer or plea agreement for a company that is negligent resulting in
a serious injury or loss of life, the family should be allowed to attend hearings and voice opinions
instead of being shut out. He would also like to see the procedures changed so fines are levied
without reductions.
Mrs. McCune Davis conveyed that she asked Mr. Johnson to testify. She expressed concern that
sometimes it is more expeditious for employers not to follow safety rules, and unless fines are at
an appropriate rate, some employers would rather pay the fines and not follow safety rules. This
young man with a promising future is the reason the rules were implemented. She added that she
attended a press conference the day before on the west side about two young men killed at a
Subway facility. The employer was present and paid for the funerals, which is quite a contrast.
Senator Leff asked if a company can be shut down or something for negligence as opposed to a
monetary penalty. Mr. Etchechury replied that in this particular case, an investigator looked at
every allegation that was made and found serious violations. For willful or repeat violations
where it appears there are egregious elements, cases can be referred to the Attorney General's
Office for prosecution.
Senator Leff noted that someone was harmed at Accurate Cargo Delivery in a similar accident
and wondered why that was not considered. Mr. Etchechury said in that incident the forklift
operator was backing out of a semi onto the loading dock. The driver ofthe semi did not realize
someone was in the truck and drove away from the dock, so the forklift fell off the truck down
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMERCE
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE FOR THE SUNSET REVIEW
OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, ETC.
8 November 9,2005
below the dock. The circumstances were different. Violations were found and the employer did
not have an effective safety and health program or the citations would not have been issued.
There is typically a 25 percent reduction in the penalty to expedite the settlement process and
close the citation. He pointed out that Arizona statute allows a $25,000 penalty to be paid by the
employer to the family (widow and any individuals solely dependent upon the person injured),
which the Committee may want to extend or expand to cover serious violations.
Mr. Etchechury indicated to Senator Waring that a willful violation occurred in Yuma where
individuals were prosecuted. Employees were entering a sewer system. The company had been
instructed on provisions to follow to make sure the air was clean and breathable, but did not
follow-up, and two individuals died. The case was referred to the Attorney General's Office
where criminal negligence was found on the part of the employer. In another situation, a student
attending the University of Arizona on a wrestling scholarship was working for the summer for a
contractor on an excavation. An Arizona Public Service employee working in an adjacent area
told the foreman that people cannot go into the cut without adequate protection and shoring in
place..The contractor continued to work and the excavation caved in killing the individual. That
was considered a willful violation so there was a criminal indictment. He clarified that if there is
a follow-up investigation and the safety rules were ignored by supervision, even though no injury
occurred, it would be considered a willful violation and a fine of $70,000 would be assessed.
Ms. Reagan asked if there is some type of follow-up on violations. Mr. Etchechury responded
that every serious violation is followed up through periodic visits, which is required by statute.
Prosecution of cases only occurs for willful and repeat violations, not serious violations, which
could be included.
He advised Senator Leff that violations were issued to Accurate Cargo Delivery because of lack
of safety training, speeding and no supervision on the part of the employer to prohibit speeding,
propane canisters on the vehicle were not adequately secured, and the seat belt issue.
Senator Leff moved that the Committee of Reference recommend to the
Legislature that the Industrial Commission be continued for 10 years. The
motion carried by a roll call vote of 9-0-0-1 (Attachment 4).
Senator Leff moved that the Committee of Reference recommend to the
Legislature that the Boiler Advisory Board be continued for 10 years. The
motion carried by a roll call vote of 9-0-0-1 (Attachment 5).
Senator Leff moved that the Committee of Reference recommend to the
Legislature that the Employment Advisory Council be continued for
10 years. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 9-0-0-1 (Attachment 6).
Senator Leff moved that the Committee of Reference recommend to the
Legislature that the Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Committee be
continued for 10 years. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 9-0-0-1
(Attachment 7).
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMERCE
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE FOR THE SUNSET REVIEW
OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, ETC.
9 November 9, 2005
Senator Leff moved that the Committee of Reference recommend to the
Legislature. that the Occupational Safety and Health Review Board be
continued for 10 years. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 9-0-0-1
(Attachment 8).
Arizona State Board of Technical Registration
Ronald Dalrymple, Executive Director, Arizona State Board of Technical Registration, said the
Board regulates nine different practices. As of this week, there are 21,895 licensees ranging
from engineers (60 percent of the registered population), architects (23 percent), land surveyors
(8 percent), landscape architects (2 percent), geologists (3 percent), home inspectors (4 percent),
certified drug laboratory site remediation supervisors and workers (1.2 percent) and assayers
(1/10 of 1 percent) (For more details, see Attachments 9 and 10).
He informed the Members that the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)
recently repealed the rule covering the Certified Remediation Specialist Program that was
developed in 2001 by ADEQ as part of the Greenfields Program, which created a new category
of registration for certified remediation specialists. Ten people are in the program and the rule
goes into effect in 2008, so perhaps the Legislature should consider modifying the Board's
statutes to eliminate regulation of certified remediation specialists. He indicated to Senator Leff
that he agrees with ADEQ. It is an ADEQ program, and apparently, during the four years of
existence there has not been a project where a certified remediation specialist was used.
Mr. Dalrymple reported that there are 32 registered assayers in the state and Arizona is the only
state that regulates the profession. The assayer examination needs to be revised, which would
probably cost about $30,000. Every time a sunset occurs by the Auditor General's Office, the
question arises as to whether the agency should continue to regulate assayers. He predicted some
problems if the regulation continues because the agency is trying to develop programs that are
self-sufficient, since there is such a diverse group of professions, so if one is taken out of the
loop there is no negative impact on the agency or others. He advised Senator Leffthat assayers
were originally regulated primarily because of mining activity in Arizona.
Referring to Page 6 of the handout (Attachment 9), Chairman McComish noted that the number
of days for complaint resolution increased in the last few years. Mr. Dalrymple responded that
investigators make between $28,000 and $30,000 per year, and in the main investigative body
there are five investigators, including the manager. The agency generally ends up hiring
younger, less experienced investigators or older retired police officers or other individuals. After
receiving training and having two or three years of experience, the younger people leave for
larger agencies with more money in the budget for investigative salaries. The more experienced
investigators move after a short period of time to the Arizona Department of Corrections, the
Department of Racing, etc., since many are former police officers and find the work dull. The
only investigator with a lot of experience is the manager with 15 years, and the next is three
years. Because of training time to bring new investigators up to speed, the work falls behind.
Mr. Dalrymple indicated to Chairman McComish that he would like more money for
investigators so employees can be retained. The number of investigators is sufficient and the
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMERCE
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE FOR THE SUNSET REVIEW
OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, ETC.
10 November 9, 2005
workload can be handled once the investigators get up to speed. Investigations take about
25 hours, but two investigators are currently being trained by the investigation supervisor.
Mr. Dalrymple advised Senator Leff that the Board is a 90-10 agency and self-supporting.
Sufficient money is provided from fees, but the Legislature is keeping more than 10 percent,
which happens with many 90-10 agencies. He advised Chairman McComish that the Board has
19 authorized FTEs and 18 are filled, but one is being interviewed this week. Turnover in the
agency is 34 percent. He clarified that the 10 certified remediation specialists are licensed
engineers, geologists or chemists, so those individuals would continue their present jobs and
would not be impacted by eliminating the regulation.
Canan D'Avela, representing self, revealed that he is one of the few registered assayers in the
state. Virtually everything assayers do is behind the scenes, but the work generally involves
things upon which some operations in the U.S. are based. For example, in a recent request for an
investigation, he coordinated with the U.S. Mint Headquarters Office and Fort Knox Office on
certain information that needed to be confirmed or denied. He does work nationally and
internationally on the basis of metals, commodities, precious metals and other materials not
normally heard about, some that are somewhat exotic and used by the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. Assayers are basically analytical chemists who test ores and minerals to
determine the value and composition.
He related to Senator Leff that because Arizona is the only state that regulates the field, other
states, national organizations and international companies ask assayers in the state for
assumptions. If the regulation is removed, the basis of those standards would be eliminated. He
advised that assayers write the examination, which is sent to a psychometrician who specializes
in psychology examination writing to make sure the format is acceptable to the standards for test
procedures.
Mr. Dalrymple related that much study was done on licensure examinations in the past 15 years.
Psychometric standards were adopted for examinations because if someone fails and is denied a
license, it may be necessary to defend the failure of that person. It costs about $20,000 to
$30,000 to write an examination. The assayer examination has not been reviewed since 2000, so
it is time for a review. Information may change depending on developments in the field. For
example, Mr. D' Avela said assayers are analytical chemists, so the examination may need to be
expanded to encompass chemical analyst activities. The purpose of reviewing examinations is to
ensure that the examination is current, asks the right questions, and whether it is the proper basis
for denying or granting someone a license to practice. The agency has never been sued and is
trying hard not to be sued. The problem is that only one assayer has been licensed in the last five
years.
Chairman McComish pointed out the statement on Page 8 of the handout (Attachment 9) that
certification of assayers would be a more appropriate level of regulation than the current
registration program. Mr. Dalrymple responded that in many cases, certification programs are
developed where there is no examination, but instead, education, prior experience and personal
references are taken into consideration. It is not given quite the same weight as a license, but it
is a method for a state to restrict people who can practice in a field to those who meet certain
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMERCE
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE FOR THE SUNSET REVIEW
OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, ETC.
11 November 9,2005
criteria. The practice is similar to how professional societies certify members and it is a lesser
form of regulation. He indicated to Senator Leff that some national companies may come to
Arizona to use a licensed assayer, but there is probably much activity in other states where
assayers do the work without a license.
(Letters in favor of continuation of the agency from the National Association of State Boards of
Geology [Attachment 10], American Society of Home Inspectors [Attachment 11], Arizona
Home Inspectors Coalition [Attachment 12], and the Chairperson of the Home Inspector Rules
and Standards Committee for the State Board of Technical Registration [Attachment 13]).
Senator Leff moved that the Committee of Reference recommend to the
Legislature that the State Board of Technical Registration be continued for
10 years. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 8-0-0-2 (Attachment 14).
Arizona Power Authority
Joseph Mulholland, Executive Director, Arizona Power Authority, gave a slide presentation
explaining that the Authority was established by the Legislature in 1944 to acquire and market
Hoover power and other renewable resources on behalf of the state. Five commissioners are
appointed by the Governor to serve six-year non-concllrrent terms, and those individuals have
extensive experience in Arizona power, water and agricultural issues. The Authority purchases
377,000 kilowatts of power and approximately 1 billion kilowatt hours of energy generated at
Hoover Dam under contracts with the federal government that terminate in 2017, and purchases
transmission service from the federal government to bring power from Hoover Dam to load
centers, primarily in the Phoenix area.
He stated that Hoover generators were overhauled and uprated in 1987. The Authority paid its
share of the uprating with $90 million in revenue bonds that extend through 2017. There is
$55 million outstanding with an average interest rate of 3.5 percent. In addition to the contracts
with the federal government, the Authority has power sales contracts through 2017 for sale of
Hoover power to 30 customers and a scheduling entity agreement with Salt River Project (SRP)
through 2011 to receive power from Hoover Dam to deliver to customers. The Authority is
currently preparing a Wind-Hydropower Integration Feasibility Study for the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Mr. Mulholland indicated that the Authority is coordinating with the Energy Office to implement
the Governor's Executive Order whereby all new state-funded buildings constructed after
February 11, 2005 must derive at least 10 percent of energy from renewable resources, comply
with state energy efficiency standards, and meet or exceed "silver" Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design standards (Copy of Slide Presentation, Attachment 15). He noted that the
Members were provided with copies of the Authority's 46th Annual Report (Attachment 16) and
Response to Sunset Review Inquiries (Attachment 17).
Senator Leff noted that a bill was passed several years ago stating that all boards, commissions
and agencies can no longer prepare and distribute fanQY annual reports, but instead, make the
information available on the Internet. Mr. Mulholland responded that the Authority's bonds are
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMERCE
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE FOR THE SUNSET REVIEW
OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, ETC.
12 November 9,2005
rated by national rating agencies. The Annual Reports are primarily sent to bondholders and
people that buy the bonds, and it costs $19,000 to produce the report.
Senator Cheuvront asked the life span of hydroelectric facilities. Mr. Mulholland replied that
hydroelectric facilities last much longer than fossil and nuclear-type plants where the life
expectancy is 30 to 40 years, and then technology is outdated. Hoover Dam is upgraded and
modified continually, so the project is a very important part of the power program in the
southwestern U.S. Barring some tragedy, the life span is probably hundreds of years.
Chairman McComish asked how much of the total power in Arizona is generated by the
Authority. Mr. Mulholland answered that the total is about 12,000 megawatts and the Authority
generates about 400, so 24 percent. What makes Hoover power so valuable is that it is a peaking
resource, unlike Palo Verde units, which run all the time. The Hoover unit runs only during
peaks and can accelerate very quickly because it only involves putting water through the unit.
Accelerating with a fossil unit or even a gas turbine is like accelerating with a car where there is
much wear and tear on the car and fuel efficiency is reduced. Hydro units do not suffer from
those same problems, which is why the Authority entered into the agreement with SRP to take
advantage of that ramping capability.
Chairman McComish recalled that it is more cost effective for SRP than other sources. He asked
how more electricity can be obtained. Mr. Mulholland said that is on the agenda. There will be
a reallocation of power in 2017 among the states of California, Nevada and Arizona, and he
would like to see Arizona receive a larger share than in the past.
Senator Leff moved that the Committee of Reference recommend to the Legislature
that the Arizona Power Authority be continued for 10 years. The motion carried by
a roll call vote of 8-0-0-2 (Attachment 18).
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 11 :38 a.m.
Lind" Taylor, Commigee Secretary
November 18, 2005
(Original minutes, attachments and tape are on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk).
SENATE COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMERCE
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE FOR THE SUNSET REVIEW
OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, ETC.
13 November 9, 2005
Attachment C
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE
Arizona House of Representatives
Committee on Commerce
Arizona State Senate
Committee on Commerce and Economic Development
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
PURSUANT TO TITLE 41, CHAPTER 27
ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES
OF THE
ARIZONA STATE BOARD
OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION
DECEMBER
2005
ARIZONA STATE
BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION
SUNSETFACTORS
2005
1. THE OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE OF ESTABUSHING THE AGENCY
• Under the laws of the Stlte of Arizona (ARS.§32-lOl Purpose; definitions) the Board is respoDSlble for
regulating the practice of a nUIIlber of occupations and professions within the State of Arizona. These
responsibilities include, but are not limited to:
• Protecting the safety, health and welfare ofthe public.
• Promulgation ofstandards ofqualification for those individuals seeking registration or certification
.• Enforcement ofstandards for those individuals registered or certified.
• Under the laws ofthe State ofArizona (ARS.§32-l06, Powers and duties) the Board sbaIl:
• Adopt rules for the condnd ofits meetings and performance of duties imposed upon itby law.
• Consider and pass upon applications for registration or certification
• Condnd examinations for in-t:r:aining and professional registration
• Hear and pass upon complaints or charges or direct an administrative law judge to hear and pass on
complaints and charges.
• Compel attendance of witnesses, administer oaths and take testimony concerning all matters coming
within its jurisdiction In exercising these powers, the Board may issue subpoen3s for the attendance
of witnesses and the production ofbooks, recotds, documents and other evidence it deems relevant to
an investigation or hearing.
• Keep a record ofits ~ings.
• Keep a register which sbaIl show the date ofeach application for registration.or certification, the name
ofthe applicant, the practice or branch ofpractice in which the applicant has applied for registration, if
applicable, and the disposition ofthe application
• Do other things necessary to cany out the purposes ofthis chapter (Title 32, Chapter 1).
• The professions regulated by the Board are registered Architects, Assayers, Engineers, Geologists,
Landscape Architects, and Smveyors. The Board also regulates Certified Home Inspectors, Certified
Remediation Specialists, Dmg Laboratory Site Remediation Supervisors and Workers and all firms
offering regulated services.
• The Board's mission statement is incbJded in the attachedFY 2005 Annual Report.
Board of Technical Registration
Sunset Factors - September 1, 2005
. 2. THE EFFECTIVENESS WITH WHICH THE AGENCY HAS METITS OBJECTIVE AND
PURPOSE AND THE EFFICIENCY WITH WHICH IT HAS OPERATED.
• Major accomplishments since the Board's last Sunset Review in 1995 include:
(1) The successful development ofa legislatively mandated home inspector certification program;
(2) The successful development of a legislatively mandated remediation specialist certification
program and certification examination;
(3) The successful development of a legislatively mandated drug laboratory site remediation
program;
(4) Instrumental in the creation of the Association of State Boards of Geology (ASBOG) to develop
more equitable registration programs nationally for geologist registration;
(5) The creation of a task force to develop a psychometrically sound and defensible State of Arizona
geologist registration examination After development of the examination, it was turned over to
the newly created Association of State Boards of Geology (ASBOG) to be used as a national
examination This turnover saves the Board approximately $30,000 per year in examination
development and maintenance costs;
(6) The development of a task force to develop a psychometrically sound and defenSIble State of
Arizona geological engineer registration examination The examination, after initial development,
is now being offered to other states for use in their state providing that state provides resources in
the development and maintenance of the examination in the future. Currently, the state of Idaho
provides resources and the states of Alaska and Mississippi have expressed an interest in
participating in future activity. Our.objective is to get ten or more states to buy into the
examination and then work with the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors
(NCEES) to get the examination listed as a group IT NCEES national examination and relieve the
Board ofthe responsibility and cost offuture development and maintenance. This turnover could
save the Board approximately $30,000 per year in examination development and maintenance
costs;
(7) The Board convinced the NCEES to accept the responSIbility for administration of their national
examinations. The Board was the first agency to contract with the national council for those
examination administration services That program is now used in approximately 32 states;
(8) The Board is currently developing a program with NCEES to allow persons interested in engineer
and surveyor registration to complete their examinations before filing an application with the
Board;
(9) The Board has developed, with the National Council of Landscape Architectural Registration
Boards, (CLARB) a program that allows persons interested in becoming registered landscape
architects to complete their examinations before filing an application with the Board; in addition,
the Board supported the development and implementation of 3 computerized sections of the
Landscape Architectural Registration Examination (LARE);
(10) The Board has developed, with the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
(NCARB), a program that allows persons interested in becoming registered architects to focus
and record their experience development efforts through a national Intern Development Program
(IDP) and to complete their examinations before filing an application with the Board;
(11) Timely and successfully completed our five-year rule reviews;
(12)Rulemaking has continued to be in compliance with requirements mandated in new laws as well
as changes required as a result ofthe five-year rule review;
(l3)The Executive Director of the Board convinced the Governor's office that creating a basic
investigator's training course was beneficial to state government and the public. Working in
concert with several other 90/10 Executive Directors and Arizona Government University staff, a
48-hour Basic Regulatory Investigator Course was developed. This program is being offered
several times a year through the Arizona Government University and has been a major· cost
savings (efficiency) measure for all participating agencies. The program eliminates out-of-state
travel costs and time usually required for this training. It also reduces registration costs, and it is
estimated the per student cost saving is approximately $1,000. Several state agencies contnbuted
2
Board of Technical Registration
Sunset Factors - September 1, 2005
volunteer instructors from the legal and investigative fields who provide exceptional training
tailored to specific Arizona laws and rules that impact regulatory investigations and the hearing
process;
(14)A computerized complaint management, report writing and complaint tracking system has been
developed; and
(15) Information regarding registered :firms offering regulated services has been entered into a
searchable database and the information has been IWide available to the public on the website.
~ THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE AGENCY HAS OPERATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST
• Operating within the public interest is a benefit to the public, the registrants, the Board and staff.
Open meeting laws are strictly followed and public record requests are timely provided.
• All allegations submitted to the Board that may involve a violation of the Board's statutes and rules
are investigated. After the Board resolves the complaint, disciplinary actions are reported to the
public on the Board's website and in the Board's newsletter. The Board also reports disciplinary
actions against registered professionals to the national council of registration boards for the
appropriate profession.
• When the Board reviews a complaint against a registrant, the Assistant DirectorlInvestigations
Manager provides a report to Board Members so they are aware of any similar issues previously
addressed with the licensee.
• Any member of the public may visit the Board's official website or call the Board offices during
regular working hours and receive public information regarding a licensee. The information provided
includes license number, expiration date, and.specialty if applicable. The website also has a
summation of all disciplinary actions issued by the Board within the last six yean;. Members of the
public may check on prior disciplinary actions against a specific licensee by calling the enforcement
unit ofthe Board. Upon written request, redacted coPies of public records are available for a copying
fee. Public records are also available at no cost for review at the agency.
• Any consent or stipulation agreement the Board enters into is disciplinary in nature and reportable to
the public as well as to the appropriate national council ofregistration boards.
• The Board takes very seriously its responsibility to notify all licensees of new laws and rules. Free
newsletters are mailed to all licensees every quarter and changes in the rules and statutes are reported
in the newsletters. This information is also available on the Board's website.
• The Board continues to maintain a website (www.btr.state.az.us) through a staffwebmaster.
• The licensure process provides the public assurances that appropriate education, experience and
examination requirements are·met before licenses are issued.
• The complaint process provides due process for the registrant or nonregistrant alleged to have violated
Board stttutes or rules. Complainants are also involved in the process and have an opportunity to
present their concerns at an enforcement advisory committee investigative interview and also at any
subsequent Board Meeting.
4. THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE RULES ADOPTED BY THE AGENCY ARE CONSISTENT
WITH THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
• The Board generally believes it has sufficient authority. Major legislative changes have occurred
since the last Sunset Review.
3
Board of Technical Registration
Sunset Factors - September 1, 2005
(1) All mles developed by the Board to implement the new mandates given the Board. have been
developed with the assistance ofthe Assistant Attorney General assigned to the Board and have
been accepted by the Governor's Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) with only minor style
changes.
(2) The five-year mle review was completed tiJnely and successfully in March 2004.
~ THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE AGENCY 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
• All·mles are drafted through committees established by the Board. These committees include Board
Members (present and past), who meet with representatives from associations involved with regulated
groups, consumers if applicable, representatives from other government agencies, licensees from the
different regions of the state, and specialists if appropriate. These committee meetings comply with
the Open Meeting Laws and notices are sent to any interested party and are posted in accordance with
state law. The meetings are also posted on the Board's website and in the agency's lobby. Committee
recommendations are forwarded to the full Board for consideration at a public hearing. Public
comment is welcome and it is addressed appropriately at Board Meetings. The Board's intent is to
include stakeholders in the process and receive public comment prior to opening a docket and
submitting a proposed mle package to the GRRC.
• The Board. publishes newsletters on a quarterly basis to inform licensees and the public of its cmrent
activities, including proposed mle changes.
• The Board publishes its statutes and mles on the Board's website and will provide printed copies for a
reasonable fee ifanyone requests them.
• The Board provides updates on current events, including proposed mle packages, on the website.
6. THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE AGENCY HAS BEEN ABLE TO INVESTIGATE AND
RESOLVE COMPLAINTS THAT ARE WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION
The Board's authority to investigate and resolve complaints:
The Board's authority is sufficient to give it the ability to investigate and resolve complaints. The
contrOlling statutes are Arizona Revised Statutes (A.RS.):
§ 32-106,
§ 32-106.01,
§ 32-106.02,
§ 32-128,
§ 32-141,
§ 32-143,
§ 32-144,
§ 32-145,
§ 32-146,
§ 32-150,
Powers and duties
Petition for injunction
Authority to investigate; civil penalties*
Disciplinary action; letter of concern; judicial review*
Firm registration*
Exceptions*
Exemptions and limitations*
Violations; classifications*
Malpractice claim review*
Failure to comply with Board orders; penalty*
*Amended or new language since last Sunset Review.
The Board's ability to sufficiently discipline:
• Within the Technical Registration Act, there are sufficient disciplinary options. They are contained in
A.RS.§32-128 and include:
1. Revocation ofa certification or registration.
4
Board of Technical Registration
Sunset Factors - September 1, 2005
2. Suspension ofa ~cation or registration for a period ofnot more than three years.
3. Itnposition ofan administrative penalty ofnot more than two thousand dollars for each
violation ofthis chapter or roles adopted pursuant to this chapter.
4. Imposition ofrestrictions on the scope ofthe registrant's practice.
5. Imposition ofpeer review and professional education requirements.
6. Imposition ofprobation requirements that are best adapted to protect the public safety,
health and wel:fure and that Iilay include a requirement for restitution payments to
professional services clients or to other persons suffering economic loss resulting from
violations ofthis chapter or roles adopted pursuant to this chapter.
7. Issuance ofa letter ofreprimand infurming a person regulated under this chapter ofa
violation ofthis chapter or tules adopted by the Board.
B. The Board may issue a letter ofconcern ifthe Board believes there is insufficient evidence to support disciplinary
action against the registrant or home inspector but sufficient evidence for the Board to notify the registrant or home
inspector ofthe Board's concern. A letter ofconcern is a public docutnent.
C. The Board may take disciplinaty action against the holder ofa certificate or registration under this chapter who is
charged with the commission ofany ofthe following acts:
1. Fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining a certificate ofqualification, whether in the application or
qualification examination
2. Gross negligence, incompetence, bribery or other misconduct in the practice ofthe profession
3. Aiding or abetting an unregistered or uncertified person to evade this chapter or knowingly combining or
conspiring with an unregistered or uncertified person, or allowing one's registration or certification to be
used by an unregistered or uncertified person or acting as agent, partner, associate or otherwise ofan
unregistered or uncertified person, with intent to evade this chapter.
4. Violation ofthis chapter or Board roles.
5. Failirig to pay a collaborating registered professional within seven calendar days after the registrant
receives payment from a client unless specified otherwise contractually between the primeprofessional
and the collaborating registered professional. For the purposes ofthis paragraph "collaborating registered
professional" means a registered professional with whom the prime professional has a contract to perform
professional services.
D. The Board may make investigations, employ investigators and expert witnes~ appoint members ofadvisory
cotnmittees and conduct hearings to determine whether a disciplinary action should betaken against the holder ofa
certificate or registration under this chapter.
E. An investigation Iilay be initiated on receipt ofan oral or written complaint The Board, on its own motion, Iilay
direct the executive director to file a verified complaint charging a person with a violation ofthis chapter or Board
roles and shall give notice ofthe heMing pursuant to title 41, chapter 6, article 10. The secretary or executive
director shall then serve upon the accused, by either personal service or certified mail, a copy ofthe complaint
together with notice setting forth the cbm:ge or charges to be heard and the time and place ofthe hearing, which sball
not be less than thirty days after the service or mailing ofnotice.
F. Aperson who has been notified ofcharges pending against the person shall file with the Board an answer in writing
to the charges not more than thirty days after service ofthe complaint and notice ofhearing. Ifa person:f3ils to
answer in writing, it is deemed an admission by the person ofthe act or acts charged in the complaint and notice of
hearing. The Board may then take disciplinary action pursuant to this chapter without a hearing. .
G. Adisciplinary action maybe informally settled by the Board and the accused either before or after initiation of
hearing proceeding".
H. On its detennina1ion that any person has violated this chapter or a role adopted pursuant to this chapter, the Board
may assess the person with its reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred in conducting the
investigation and administrative hearing. All monies collected pursuant to this subsection shall be deposited,
pursuant to sections 35-146 and 35-147, in theteehnical registI3tionfundestabIished by section 32-109 and shall
only be used by the Board to defray its expenses in connection with investigation related tnrining, disciplinary
investigations and hearings. Notwithstanding section 35-143.01, these monies may be spent without legislative
appropriation
1 The Board shall immediately notify the secretary ofstate and clmofthe Board ofsupervisors ofeach county in the
state ofthe suspension or revocation ofa certificate or ofthe reissuance ofa suspended or revoked cedifieate.
J. Except as provided in Section 41-1092.08, subsection II. final decisions of the Board are subject to judicial
review pursuant to title 12, chapter 7, article 6. .
5
Board of Technical Registration
Sunset Factors - September 1, 2005
The Board's ability to enforce discipline.
• The Assistant DirectorlInvestigations Manager runs a monthly management report consisting of
settlements currently in "compliance pending" status to determine compliance with Board orders by
the licensee. Failure to complete Board ordered discipline (i.e., continuing education, restitution, peer
review, administrative penalties or other). is reported and placed on th~ agenda for the next Board
Meeting. The Board then opens a new complaint specifically for "non-eompliance."
The Board's ability to respond to public/consumer complaints:
• When a complaint is adjudicated, agency office procedures require that all complainants and
respondents receive information on contacting the Office of Ombudsman-Citizens' Aide if they have
concerns with the Board's process.
• The average time for complaint resolution is shown in the following table.
Fiscal Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 ·2004 2005
Average 185 241 323 198* 248 312
resolution
time in days
* Home Inspection program began. The licensing requirements require a criminal history check
based on fingerprint submittals for each home inspector candidate. AIl criminal history checks were
given a complaint number. Approximately 400 criminal history checks were initiated.
Issues relating to the length oftime needed for resolution ofcomplaints are addressed under the ObstacleS
to Success heading.
• Revocations and Suspensions
A license revocation, or any form of suspension, generally involves licensees who have committed
egregious acts that the Board determines pose an immediate danger to the public~ Over the last five years
the following revocations and suspensions have occurred:
• FY 2000 • 2 revocations, 0 suspensions
• FY 200I - 0 revocations, 0 suspensions
• FY 2002 - 0 revocations, 4 suspensions
• FY 2003 - I revocation, 0 suspensions
• FY 2004 - 2 revocations, 0 suspensions
• FY 2005 - I revocation, 0 suspensions
Most violations ofstatutes and rules by registrants are not serious enough to justify a revocation or
suspension Examples ofth~ other types ofactions taken by the Board to resolve complaints are shown in
the attachedFY 2005 Annual Report.
7. THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ORANY OTHER
APPLICABLlAGENCY OF STATE GOVERNMENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO
PROSECUTE ACTIONS UNDER THE ENABLING LEGISLATION
6
Board of Technical Registration
Sunset Factors - September 1, 2005
• The Attorney General's Office, through an Interagency Services Agreement with the Civil Division,
prosecutes cases of unprofessional conduct by licensees pursuant to the Board's statutes and rules
after investigation by Board investigators. Reports of unlicensed activity are investigated by Board
investigators under the authority of A.RS.§32-128 and 32-145 and either presented to the Board for
administrative action or presented to a City Attorney, a County Attorney or the Attorney General for
criminal prosecution.
• The Attorney General's Office has the authority to defend the Board in Judicial Review Actions taken
by licensees after the Board has disciplined them
8. THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE AGENCY HAS ADDRESSED DEFICIENCIES IN ITS
ENABLING STATUTES WIDCH PREVENT IT FROM FULFILLING ITS STATUTORY
MANDATE
• The Board has, since the last Sunset Review, worked with the legislature to add or amend 24 of the
current 37 Board statutes in an effort to ensme Board statutes are adequate. With the exception ofthe
following examples, the Board feels the statutes are adequate. .
9. THE EXTENT TO WHICH CHANGES ARE NECESSARY IN THE LAWS OF THE
AGENCY TO ADEQUATELY COMPLY WITH THESE FACTORS
• The Board believes that there are deficiencies in the statutes controlling the recently adopted
methamphetamine Drug Laboratory Remediation ptognnn.
• The statutes do not assign responsibility for follow-up on drog site remediation to any government
agency. This Board has taken on the respons1bility for doing some limited compliance investigations
and will be reporting the results to the Attorney General, the legislature and the Governor in order to
provide sOme information relating to the problem created by no assigned responsibility. .
10. THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE TERMINATION OF THE AGENCY WOULD
SIGNIFICANTLYHARM THE PUBLIC REALm, SAFETY ORWELFARE
• The Board is necessary and needed for the professions of Architecture, Engineering, Geology,
Landscape Architecture and Land surveying and the practice of home inspecting and drug laboratory
site remediation.
• The worst consequences would be the potential harm to the public ifthe practicing professionals were
not required to Itleet a threshold level of education and/or experience and demonstrated professional
knowledge established for licensure.
• Arizona residents would be at a severe disadvantage in their practice ifthey could not get licensed in
Arizona. They would have to get registered in other states to practice in those states and some states
would be teluctant to register them unless they were first registered in their state of residence.
Additionally, other states would probably not recognize their practice in Arizona as qualifying
experience for registration since it would not be under the direct supervision of a registrant
1. The plJblic would not be significantly harmed if the categories of Assaying and Remediation
Specialist were controlled with a lower level of regulation or deregulated.
2. Arizona is the only state licensing assayers. The Board currently has 33 assayers registered. One new
assayer has been registered in the last five years.
3. The examination for assayers was last updated in 2000. One person took the examination in 2001; no
one has taken the examination since.
7
Board of Technical Registration
Sunset Factors - September 1, 2005
4. The current assaying examination was developed by an Arizona assayer. The examination has not
been developed using defensible methodology.
5. The Board currently has 10 certified remediation specialists.
6. Certified remediation specialists are not required to be used on any projects in Arizona The Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) allows their use on a small number of approved
projects in lieu ofa department inspection.
!b THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE LEVEL OF REGULAtION EXERCISED BY THE
AGENCY IS APPROPRIATE AND WHETHER LESS ORMORE STRINGENT LEVELS
OF REGULATION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE
• Less Regulation:
• Assayers
• Certification of assayers would be a more appropriate level of regulation than the current
registration program
• Certified remediation specialists
• There does not appear to be a viable need for the continued certification ofremediation specialists.
• There is no mandatoIy requirement for the use ofa certified remediation specialist in Arizona state
law.
• Appropriate Regulation:
The level ofregulation for all other professions and occupations is appropriate and provides
adequate protection to the public.
12. THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE AGENCY HAS USED PRIVATE CONTRACTORS IN
THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS DUTIES AND HOW EFFECTIVE USE OF PRIVATE
CONTRACTORS COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED
• The Board has used a private contractor to assist in the writing ofthe local land surveying examination
and the geological engineering examination
• The Board uses a private contractor to publish and distnbute a quarterly newsletter.
• The Board uses a private contractor to assist in the maintenance ofthe agency website and to
maintain:
• a firm registration database;
• a disciplinary action database, and
• a renewal notification program.
8
Board of Technical Registration
Sunset Factors - September 1, 2005
1. AN IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM ORTHE NEEDS THAT THE AGENCY IS
INTENDED TO ADDRESS:
• Promulgation ofminimum qualifications for persons practicing reguIated professions and occupations.
• Verification ofminimnID qualifications ofpersons practicing reguIared professions and occupations.
• Identification ofqualified persons by issuance ofa license to practice.
• Development ofprofessional codes ofconduct for reguIared professions and occupations.
• Enforcement ofprohibitions pertaining to unlicensed practice.
~ A STATEMENT, TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, IN QUANTITATIVE AND
QUALITATIVE TERMS, OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE AGENCY AND ITS ANTICIPATED
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
• Complaint Process:
• The Board :fully intends to continue striving towards meeting the Board goal of resolving
complaints within the desired 180 day average.
• The Board will continue to utilize volunteelS, public members and licensees. to assist in the
technical evaluation ofcomplaints and to make recommendations for settlement.
• The Board will continue to utilize trained staff members, assisted by the Board legal counsel, to
settle complaints without the need for formal hearings when appropriate. Over 95% ofdisciplinary
actions are finalized by negotiated settlement rntb.er thanby an expensive formal hearing.
• The Board will continue to rehabilitate licensees through the disciplinary process.
• The Board will exercise its authority to suspend or revoke a licensee's registration or certificate if
the public's health, safety and we1fure are at significant risk.
• The Board will continue to work toward the development of a relational database that will allow
public access to disciplinary history information on all registrants through the website.
• Licensing Issues:
• The Board's intent is to continue to increase its ability to efficiently issue licenses to only those
qualified under the legislatively set educational and experience requirements.
• The Board will continue to work with national councils of registration to initiate programs that
allow for completion of all examination requirements through the national COlDlcil before an
application is filed with the Board. The Board bas entered into agreements with three ofthe four
national councils the Board is a member ofto allow examinations to be taken before an application
is filed with the Board.
• The Board will continue to seek: additional ways to minimize the.time needed for issuing initial
licenses.
• Public Information Issues:
• The Board's intent is to continue to work toward aninternctive website that will allow :full
examination ofall public information maintainedby the Board on all licensees.
• The Board will continue to expand website publication ofnotices ofmeetings; agendas ofmeetings
and minutes ofmeetings ofthe Board and its committees.
• Rules:
• The Board is :fully committed to ensure that legislatively mandated role revisions are completed
quickly and fairly by providing sufficient notice to allow input through the public hearing process.
3. AN IDENTIFICATION OF ANY OTHERAGENCIES HAVING SIMlLAR, CONFLICTING OR
DUPLICATE OBJECTIVES, AND AN EXPLANATION OF THE MANNER INWHICH THE
AGENCY AVOIDS DUPLICATION ORCONFLICT WITH OTHERSUCH AGENCIES:
9
Board of Technical Registration
Sunset Factors - September 1, 2005
• Registrar ofContractors:
The Board is fully committed to ensure that legislatively mandated rule revisions are completed quickly
and fairly by providing sufficient notice to allow input through the public hearing process.
• The Registrar of Contractors registers construction firms. The Board of Technical Registration
registers some of the same firms in its Drug Laboratory Site Remediation firm program and
certifies the firm's personnel who work at. and supervise, these efforts.
• There are similarities to the programs; however, they are not duplicative. The Registrar of
Contractors only registers firms. The Board. registers some of the same firms and also certifies
individual employees of those firms after they have successfully completed Board. mandated
specialized training.
• The Registrar of Contractors licenses construction firms. The Board of Technical Registration
requires firms wanting to perform drug laboratory site remediation projects to be registered by the
Registrar of Contractors as a construction firm and to also be registered by the Board as a drug
laboratory site remediation firm, using personnel certified by the Board as hazardous site
employees.
4. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF ELIMINATING THE AGENCY OROF
CONSOLIDATING IT W1THANOTHERAGENCY:
The Board. of Technical Registration is unique. No other board in the United States regulates the same
occupations or professionS, and no other board is structured in the same manner.
• Elimination ofthe agency:
• For the most part, the professions and occupations regulated by the Board have been deemed to'
be worthy of protection by a regulatory scheme similar to the Board's statutes and roles in all
other, ora significant number of other, states by the legislatures of those states. In most states,
however, smaller individual boards regulate one, or two, of the professions or occupations. No
other state has a single board that isrespoJlSlble for all of the professions and occupations
regulated by this Board.
• This Board is diverse in its makeup because of the breadth ofits respoJlSlbilities and this allows it
to look at issues in a different light than a board made up of members ofa single profession. This
stIUeture effectively fosters professional communication, collaboration and understanding among
the regulated professions, which further promotes the protection of the public health, safety and
welfare.
• The regulation of multiple professions and occupations, and the attendant increase in registrants,
has allowed the Board to develop a revenue base sufficient to allow it to accomplish its mission
without having to adopt extremely high regulatory fees in most cases.
• The Board staff is large enough to effectively perform its duties, but not so laIge that it loses the
ability to relate to consumers and practitioners quickly and in a less than stereotypical
government bureaucracy. This is evidenced by the exceptionally high percentage of consumer
customer service surveys of applicants and registrants being returned marked as "above average"
Or excellent" and their laudatory remarks. In many states with touted "efficient departments of
regulation", citizens and state employees feel isolated from the various agencies within the
departments. While it is true that an agency can be too small to be effective, it is alsotrue that an
agency can be too large to be effective. Medium sized agencies can be structured and staffed in a
manner that retains the real benefits of a small work unit (flexibility and friendly customer
service) while garnering one of the advantages ofa larger work unit (greater resources).
• Arizona practitioners would be at a severe disadvantage in their practice if they could not get
licensed in Arizona They would have to get registered in other states to practice in those states
and some states would be reluctant to register them unless they were :first registered in Arizona.
Additionally, other states would probably not recognize their practice in Arizona as acceptable
10
Board of Technical Registration
Sunset Factors - September 1, 2005
qualifying experience for registration in their state since it would not be under the direct
supervision of a licensee.
• Federal and state environmental regulations and agencies, such as the National Environmental
Policy Act and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), specifically require
registered professionals to conduct aspects of permitted studies. plans and documents. Without
state registration, Arizona would not have a work force qualified to conduct this level of
mandated professional service.
• Consolidation:
• Merging the Board into a much larger agency would increase the chances that stakeholder
satisfaction would be decreased and costs to licensees would increase significantly without a
correspondingly significant increase in service.
11
Board of Technical Registration
Sunset Factors - September 1, 2005
~ ADDmONAL FACTORS:
Obstacles to success:
• Budgetary and fiscal restraints:
The problem most adversely impacting the Board's efficiency has been the inability to recruit and retain
qualified personnel.
Getting appropriation increases to assist in recruiting lretention has been a major problem. The entry level
salary for most Board positions is too low to attract experienced individuals. Many applicants tum down
offers ofemployment with the Board in the same salary range because they are loo~gfor a higher salary
than the one they are making at the time of the interview. They feel they can't get a raise from their
current employer so they look for an agency that can afford to start them at a higher rate even ifit is in the
same job classification. The Board generally does not have the ability to start them at a higher rate.
The Board has generated savings by the adoption of more efficient/effective methods ofoperation.
However, we have been unsuccessful in getting authorization to increase our Personal services
appropriation even though savings in other appropriation areas have been achieved.
In the past, when the Board used annual expenditure savings to increase salaries to employees the Board
was chastised by the legislature and the agency was put on a line item budget, even though the lump sum
appropriation was not exceeded.
The agency, therefore, out ofnecessity, hires inexperienced individuals who have to be fully trained by
the agency and this results in a longer training curve. The longer training curve increases the attendant loss
ofproductivity ofthe new employee and the training employee.
Losing good employees to other agencies after they have been trained by this agency and have gained
some job experience has also been a problem. The agency has had to replace 30 employees in the ten-year
period of 1995 thru 2004. Nine ofthose employees have been investigators and the loss in productivity
created by those departures has contributed significantly to the problem ofexcessively long case resolution
times. BTR investigators are making approximately $10,000 less than investigators in other agencies, even
ifthey are in the same state service grade.
The agency is self supporting and, even with its low renewal fee for professional registration, has
adequate revenue coming in every year to support increases in personal service costs, but because ofthe
inability to obtain increases in the agency budget in the area ofpersonal services, salaries remain relatively
low and the problems associated with excessive turnover remain.
12
Board of Technical Registration
Sunset Factors - September 1, 2005
SalaIy Survey - Investigator Positions
Board of Technical Registration (current)
1 Senior Investigator -$38,800 (Investigator Ill, grade 18) SalaIy range $28,554 to $48,693
1 Investigator - $32,506 (Investigator III, grade 18)
1 Investigator - $28,554 (Investigator III, grade 18)
1 Investigator - $26,513 (Investigator rr. grade 17) Salary range $26,513 to $45,334
Industrial Commission Legal Division:
4 Investigators $40,500 (Investigator III, Grade 18) Salary range $28,554 to $48,693
Medical Board:
Investigator (Grade 19) $48,000
Funeral Board:
1 Investigator (Investigator III, Grade 18) $38,700
A secondmy problem is the cost ofthe residential drug laboratory remediation progmm assigned to this agency.
Currently there are four firms with about 20 employees licensed to do this work. Their registration/certification
costs are high. Firm registration is $500 per year. Individual worker certifications are $310 per year. The program
has been expanded. to provide for a public accessible website link to a database maintained by the Board identifying
seized. sites. The current revenue available for this program from fees associated with fum registration and worker
certification is $8,200. The program cost for FY06 is estimated to be approximately $36,420.
Ifthe drug laboratory remediation program is to be self supportinS some additional form ofrevenue, such as a
surcharge on remediation costs needs to be developed.
At this time most home owners appear not to be cleaning up the contaminated sites and remediation firms are not
recovering· mandatory business fees. One firm has decided not to renew its license and others are questioning the
viability of remaining in the program.
13
ANNUAL REPORT
Board of Technical Registration
FY2005
Introduction
The Board of Technical Registration was established in 1921; it is a self supporting board
deriving its revenues from fees charged for application, examination, license renewal and other
miscellaneous services rendered.
The Board is a regulatory agency for the following professions and occupations: Architects,
Assayers, Engineers, Geologists, Home Inspectors, Landscape Architects, Surveyors and
Remediation Specialists. Members of the Board are appointed by the Governor for three-year
terms. AR.S. § 32-102 establishes the composition of the Board and length of terms. Board
Members are limited to two consecutive terms.
The day to day operations ofthe Board are conducted by an Executive Director appointed by the
Board and eighteen staff members. Agency operations include Administration, Licensing and
Examinations, Investigations and the Home Inspector and illegal Drug Laboratory Remediation
Unit.
Mission Statement
To protect the public by setting appropriate registration qualifications and efficiently and fairly
enforcing all state statutes relating to the practice ofBoard regulated professions and occupations
by registered and non-registered p~rsons and firms.
1
CHAIR:
VICE-CIIAm.:
SECRETARY:
Board Member Roster
Revised July 23, 2005
Chet L. Pearson, Environmental Engineer
Geotechnical Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Robert F. Roos, Attorney,
Public Member
Lewis and Roca
Stuart Lane, Land Surveyor
Mohave County Surveyor
Ronald A. Starling, Structural Engineer
Starling and Associates
Joy Lyndes, Landscape Architect
Sage Landscape Architects, Inc.
Richard Pawelko, Architect
DLRGroup
Priscilla S. Cornelio, Civil Engineer
Pima County
D.O.T. Deputy Director Transportation Infrastructure
Gary J. Nelson, Architect
Baker&Associates
Dawn R Garcia, Geologist
SRK Consulting
32-102. Board oftec:bnical registration
A. A state Board oftechnical registration is established consisting ofmembers appointed by the governor as follows:
L Two architects.
2. Three professional engineers, two ofwhom are representatives ofbranches ofengineering other than civil
engineering and are registered in those branches pursuant to this chapter.
3. One public member.
4. One landscape architect
5. One geologist or assayer.
6. One land ~eyor.
B. Upon the expiration ofany ofthe terms a successor, qualified pursuant to subsection A. shall be appointed for a full term
ofthree years. The governor may remove a member ofthe Board for misconduct, incapacity or neglect ofduty.
Appointment to fill a vacancy caused other than by expiIation ofterm shall be for the wexpired portion ofthe term.
C. No member may serve more than two consecutive terms.
32-103. Qualifications ofmembers
A. Each professional member ofthe Board shall:
1. Be at least twenty five years ofage.
2. Have been a resident ofthe state for at least three years immediately preceding appointment as a member.
B. Each member who is an architect, geologist, an assayer, a landscape architect, a professional engineer or a land surveyor
shall have bad at least five years' active professional experience as attested by registration 1mderthis chapter.
2
Legislatively Created Committees of the Board
32-111. Home inspector rules and standards committee
A. A home inspector rules and standards committee of the state Board of technical registration is
established and consists of:
1. Three home inspectors, one of whom is a resident of a county with a population of four
hundred thousand persons or less, appointed by the Board from a list of names any home
inspector organization provides if the home inspector organization meets all of the following
Criteria:
a. Has at least fifty members actively engaged in the practice of home inspection in this
state.
b. Holds regular elections.
c. Publishes bylaws.
d. Maintains a code of ethics.
2. Two members of the Board of technical registration including:
a. An architect or engineer member of the Board appointed by the chairman.
b. The public member.
B. The Board may make appointments of home inspectors to the committee from the lists provided
pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section or from others having the necessary
. qualifications.
C. The Board appointed members serve staggered three year terms. These members shall be home
inspectors, shall each have at least five years of experience as a home inspector and shall have
passed the examination prescribed in section 32-122.02. The Board by a majority vote may
remove any member for misconduct, incapacity or neglect of duty and may appoint a new member
to complete a term.
D. The committee is responsible for drafting and recommending to the Board of technical registration:
1. Criteria for home inspector certification.
2. Standards for home inspection reports.
3. Standards for written examinations.
4. Standards for educational programs including course of study, home inspector-in-training
programs and continuing education.
5. Rules defining conduct.
6. Recommendations for types of financial assurances as required in section 32-122.02.
7. Other rules and standards related to the practice of home inspectors.
E. The committee shall make its initial recommendations within six months of appointment or the
Board may proceed without,these recommendations. Thereaflerthe committee shall make
recommendations within six months of a Board request for recommendations. The committee may
initiate recommendations at any time it deems appropriate.
F. The committee may participate in the investigation and review of home inspector complaints as
provided by the Board.
G. Members of the home inspector rules and standards committee are eligible to receive
compensation pursuant to title 38, chapter 4, article 1.
3
32-112. Environmental remediation rules and standards committee
A. An environmental remediation rules and standards committee of the Board is established and
consists of:
1. One industrial hygienist or toxicologist who is experienced in sampling and monitoring indoor
air quality issues and who is appointed by the Board.
2. One person who is experienced in operating a drug laboratory remediation firm and who is
appointed by the Board.
3. One representative from the department of health services experienced in indoor air quality
who is appointed by the director of the department of health services.
4. One registered engineer or geologist who is experienced in environmental remediation and
who is appointed by the Board.
5. One member of the Board who is an engineer or geologist.
B. The initiall11embers shall assign themselves by lot to terms of one, two and three years in office. All
subsequent members serve three year terms of office. The Board by a majority vote may remove
any member for misconduct, incapacity or neglect of duty.
C. The committee may participate in the investigation and review of drug laboratory remediation
complaints as authorized by the Board.
D. The committee is responsible for drafting and recommending to the Board best practices and
standards for the remediation of residual contamination found on real property from the
manufacture of methamphetamine, ecstasy or LSD or the storage of chemicals or equipment used
in manufactUring methamphetamine, ecstasy or LSD.
4
Licensing
This unit consists of a Deputy Director, an Examiner Tech. II, two E~r Tech. I's, and two Customer Service
Representatives responsible for the efficient handling of all:
• Applications
• Examinations
• Licensing Appeals
• Payroll
• Licensing Hearings
• Registrations Granted
• Reception and Telephone Operations
• Personnel
-\crl\'rn
APPLICATIONS
PROFESSIONAL IN-TRAINING
Architect 456 Architect In-Training 86
Assayer 0 Assayer In -Training 0
Landscape Architect 42 Landscape Architect In-Training 0
Engineer 1003 Engineer In-Training 392
Geologist 47 Geologist In-Training 33
Land Surveyor 63 Land Surveyor In-Training 49
Certified Remediation Specialist 1
Home Inspector 418
DmgLabSupervisors 1
DmgLab Workers 8
Total 2039 Total 560
EXAMINATIONS ADMINISTERED
PROFESSIONAL IN-TRAINING
Architect 92 Architect In-Training 87
Assayer 0 Assayer In- Training 0
Engineer 543 Engineer In-Training 374
Geologist 48 Geologist In-Training 24
Lan<Iscape Architect 0 Landscape Architect In-Training 0
Land Surveyor 60 Land Surveyor In-Training 44
Land Surveyor (Local) 50
Total 793 52!)
5
LICENSING APPEALS 0
REGISTRATIONS GRAN1ED
PROFESSIONAL IN-TRAINING
Architect 350 Architect In-Training 21
Assayer 0 Assayer - In- Training 0
Engineer 938 Engineer In-Training 260
Geologist 40 Geologist In-Training 9
Landscape Architect 41 Landscape Architect In-Training 0
Land Surveyor 51 Land Surveyor In-Training 20
Home Inspectors 382
Remediation Specialist 1
Site Remediation Supervisors 1
Site Remediation WoIkers 8
Total 1812 Total 310
6
Investigations
This unit consists ofan Investigations Manager, three Investigator ill's, one Investigator II, one
Administrative Secretary and one Administrative Assistant. This unit is responsible for the efficient
handling ofcomplaints and other enforcement related activities.
2005 FY ACTIVITY
T\ PE OF -\CnnT\ TOTAL
REGISTRANT INVESTIGATIONS - PROFESSIONAL
Carried Over from Prior Year 223
Opened During Current Year 173
Total 396
CRIMINAL mSTORY BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS
Carried Over from Prior Year 20
Opened During Current Year 94
Total 114
NONREGISTRANT INVESTIGATIONS
Carried Over from Prior Year 60
Opened During Current 68
Total 128
NUMBER OF INVESTIGATIONS OPENED 335
NUMBER OF INVESTIGATIONS CLOSED 296
A. Notices ofViolation 9
B. Referred for Criminal Prosecution 4
C. Criminal History Investigations Completed 92
D. Dismissals
• No Jurisdiction 137
• Dismissed
E. Letters of Concern 19
F. Disciplinary Action 35
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
Revocation 1 Probation 13
Suspension 0 Restitution 11
Restricted Practice 0 Peer Review 8
Assurance ofDiscontinuance 8 Educational Requirement 3
Adm:in.istrnti.ve Penalty/Registrant 3 Letter ofReprimand 13
Civil Penalty/Nonregistrant 6
7
Administrative Services
This unit consists ofa Administrative Service Officer and an Accounting Tech. ll. The unit is
responsible for the efficient handling ofall:
• Revenues • Expenditures
• Purchasing • Accountin~
• Inventory • Computer Operations
• Budget Monitoring • Legislation and Rules Monitorin~
TYPE OF ACTIYITY 2005 ACTIYITY
REVENUE (100%)
EXPENDITURES
Director's Office
$1,494,353.00
$1,251,765.00
This section, consisting ofthe Executive Director is responsible for the following:
.• Coordinating Agency Operations
• Board and Committee Member Activity
• Legislative Activity
• National Councils ofRegistration Boards Liaison
• Local & National Professional Association Liaison
• Government Agency Liaison
• Development ofNew Programs
• Strategic Planning
• Budget Planning
8
STATE A:\D l\ATJONAL ASSOCIATION ME~IBERSHIP
• NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EXAMINERS FOR ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING (NCEES)
• NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ARCmTECTURAL REGISTRATION BOARDS (NCARB)
• COUNCIL OF LANDSCAPE ARCIllTECTURAL REGISTRATION BOARDS (CLARB)
• NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE BOARDS OF GEOLOGY (ASBOG)
• COUNCIL ON LICENSING ENFORCEMENT AND REGULATION (CLEAR)
• FEDERATION OF ASSOCIATIONS AND REGULATORY BOARDS (FARB)
• TRI-STATE PRECURSOR GROUP
• DRUGENDANGERED CIllLDREN ALLIANCE
2006 GOALS
• Continue to update computer equipment to increase agency
effectiveness.
• Continue to increase website effectiveness a nd value to stakeholders.
• Implementation of the program of engineer and land surveyor examination
through NCEES prior to application to the Board for registration.
• Implementation of the newly developed architect applicant experience
verification and evaluation program.
• Implementation of the newly developed website disciplinary action reporting
system.
• Implementation ofthe newly developed website seized drug site resistry.
• Architectural Engineering recognized as a branch of engineering and
associated rules adopted.
9
Board of Technical Registration
Sunset Factors - September 1, 2005
The following licenses were issued by the Board (FY 2000 . 2005)
GROUP 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Architects 318 328 277 269 315 350
Assayers 0 1 0 0 0 0
Engineers 794 917 903 796 619 938
Geologists 48 28 33 36 39 40
Landscape 38 36 39 38 30 41
Architects
Surveyors 27 44 60 43 54 51
Home Inspectors NR NR NR 382 292 382
Remediation 0 1 0 0 0 1
Specialists
Site NR NR NR NR 9 1
Remediation
Supervisors
Site NR NR NR NR 24 8
Remediation
Workers
TOTAL 1,225 1,355 1,312 1,564 1,382 1,812
NR == Not Regu1ated
Certification ofRemediation Specialists went into effect 9/1998. Certification ofRome Inspectors went into effect
1/2002. Certification ofDmg Laboratory Site Remediation Supervisors and Workers went into effect 9/2002.
14
SCHEDULE OF FEES
Initial Application Fees
Architect
Assayer
Certified Remediation S ecialist
Drug Lab Remediation On-Site Supervisor
Drug Lab Remediation On-Site Worker
Engineer
Geologist
Home Inspector
Landscape Architect
Fingerprint Processing Fee (Home Inspectors and Certified
Remediation S ecialists ONLY)
Architect-In-Trainin
Assayer-In-Trainin
Engineer-In-Training
Geolo ist In-Training
Landsca e Architect-In-Training
Land Surveyor-In-Trainin
Firm and Branch Registration Fees
Annual Dru Laboratory Site Remediation Firm
Annual Professional Firm
Examination Fees
$90
$90
$90
$90
$90
$90
$90
$90
$90
$39
General Structures
Lateral Forces
Mechanical and Electrical Systems
Materials and Methods
$92
$92
$92
$92
Pre-Design
General Structures
Lateral Forces
Mechanical andElectrical Systems
$92
$92
$92
$92
Materials and Methods
Construction Documents and Services
Site Planning
Building Planning
Building Technology
Section B: Analytical Aspects ofPractice (national exam)
Section C: Planning and Site Design (national exam)
Administration Fee
$92
$92
$143
$143
$143
$205
$205
$205
$205
$205
$205
$205
$205
$205
$205
$205
$205
$205
$205
$205
$105
$235
$125
Section A: Legal and Administrative Aspects of Practice
(national exam)
Section D: Structural Consideration and Materials Methods of
Construction
$65
$170
Section E: Grading, Drainage and Storm Water Management $235
Remediation Specialist (local exam)
Exam-Related Fees
il!·l'''~~''~.\~f49111, < " ,j'gil,j,!!W;g,!l!<.1!~.,J~~ .ci'WWi, .
Architect examination review $300
Engineer examination review $250
Geolo ist examination review $50
All other examination reviews $25
Local review of examination results by applicant $25
Re-grading of examination (if authorized by the Board)
National Council ofExaminers for Engineering and Surveying $250
fee er item challen ed
Re-grading of examination (if authorized by the Board)
Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards fee per $100
test challen ed
Initial Registration, Certification, and Renewal Fees
Architect, Engineer, Geologist, Landscape Architect, Surveyor­Triennial
Certified Remediation Specialist - Annual
Drug Lab Remediation On-Site Supervisor - Annual
Drug Lab Remediation On-Site Worker - Annual
Home Inspector - Annual
$126
$42
$120
$120
$310
Delinquency Penalty
Certificates of registration or certification are invalid after their expiration date unless
renewed by payment of the required renewal fee. If the renewal fee is not paid prior to
the expiration date, it shall be accompanied by a penalty fee equal to one-sixth ofthe
renewal fee for each year or fraction of a year of delinquency.
Miscellaneous Fees
Code book
Computer printout fee per name (non-commercial use) -­maximum
of$150 er run
Copy fee per page (non-commercial use)
Recordin medium co y fee er recording (audio ta e)
Re lacement certificates
Returned check fee
Roster of Re istrants
Rules book (Arizona Administrative Code)
$5.00
$0.10
$0.20
$10.00
$10.00
$25.00
$15.00
$5.00
Board of Technical Registration
Sunset Factors - September 1, 2005
REVENUES BY SOURCE:
APPROPRIATIONS
General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund
BTR Fund 90% 10% 100% BTR Fund 90% 10% 100% BTR Fund 90% 10% 100%
Exams, Licensure, Publications
& Misc Receipts 718,590.48 79,843.39 824,577.75 91,619.75 803,615.74 89,290.64
Civil Penalties 14,250.00 6,050.00 14,317.38
Fines, Late Fees, forfeitures &
Penalties 118,632.78 13,181.42 140,190.30 15,576.70 263,532.85 29,281.43
TOTALS 837,223.26 93,024.81 14,250.00 964,768.05 107,196.45 6,050.00 1,067,148.59 118,572.07 14,317.38
Expenditures I I 932,200.00 I I 1,020,515.71 I I 1,047,820.23
Revenue 100% 944,498.07 1,078,014.50 1,200,038.04
APPROPRIATIONS
General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund
BTR Fund 90% 10% 100% BTR Fund 90% 10% 100% BTR Fund 90% 10% 100%
Exams, Licensure, Publications
& Misc Receipts 863,021.13 95,891.24 891,525.36 99,058.37 1,143,600.52 127,066.73
Civil Penalties 6,185.64 16,110.00 6,971.00
Fines, Late Fees, forfeitures &
Penalties 181,503.00 20,167.00 182,238.75 20,248.75 195,043.14 21,671.46
TOTALS 1,044,524.13 116,058.24 6,185.64 1,073,764.11 119,307.12 16,110.00 1,338,643.66 148,738.19 6,971.00
Expenditures I I 1,128,828.55 I I 1,276,151.90 I I 1,251.765.90
Revenue 100% 1,166,768.01 1,209,181.23 1,494,352.85
Board of Technical Registration
Sunset Factors - September 1, 2005
EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY
2-Year Appropriation Totals
Annual Appropriation Totals
Personal SerVices
ERE
Professional & Outside Services
Travel In-State
Travel Out-of-State
Other Operatina Expenditures
Machinerv & Equipment
Ooeratina Transfers Out
1,062,800.00
463,200.00
95,800.00
88,100.00
6,400.00
15,900.00
255,300.00
7,500.00
0.00
1,042,300.00
508,583.98
104,793.09
112,558.40
7,060.60
20,551.20
239,581.27
24,597.40
2,789.77
1,124,500.00
544,751.48
121,706.55
105,045.52
6,729.08
13,889.64
247,304.46
6,743.50
1,650.00
1,238,200.00
624,534.63
147,639.47
87,482.50
6,578.61
13,730.17
239,818.67
8,494.50
550.00
1,333,700.00
648,108.56
180,515.87
135,780.00
5,971.53
10,819.60
289,817.78
5,138.56
0.00
1,370,000.00
644,902.58
181,093.55
108,739.50
4,339.39
11,555.56
288,981.05
12,154.27
0.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES - Annually
TOTAL EXPENDITURES - Bi - Annually
932,200.0011,020,515.7111,047,820.2311,128,828.5511,276,151.9011,251,765.90
1,952,715.71 I 2,176,648.78 I 2,527,917.80
*Surplus in first year of a 2-year budget cycle may be spent in the second year.
Board of Technical Registration
Sunset Factors - September 1, 2005
FTE's·
The Board has 19 full-time, approved positions"-As~July 1, 2005 theMaftcomposition is as follows:
Executive Director
Deputy Director Licensing Manager
Assistant Director !Investigations Manager
Senior Investigator
Investigator III
Program Project Specialist (Home Inspector!
Drug Laboratory Remidiation Program Coordinator)
1
1
1
1
2
1
Investigator II 1
Administrative Services Officer 1
Administrative Secretary 1
Administrative Assistant I 2
Administrative Assistant II 1
Customer Service Representative 6
Board of Techinical Registration
Ombudsman Cases With Summary of Complaint
FVt@S
Case ID: 20042096 Type: Assistance
A man called us. He was trying to get a resolution to a complaint he flied with the Tech
Registration Board. He had filed it over a year ago and there.was still no resolution.
The registration board checked their files. He had filed the complaint in March of 04. They were
having a problem trying to find an assessor to help them with the case who did not have a
conflict ofinterest. Because we call~ they were going to go ahead and get someone from
another area to help them with the investigation. We let the complainant know. He was glad it
was moving ahead.
Case ID: 20042944 Type: Information
The Executive Director ofthe Tech. Registration Board provided us with a copy ofhis response
to allegations made about the Tech Registration Board on an industry bulletin board.
We filed his response and let ~ know we received it.
Case ID: 20042997 Type: Assistance
A former complainant called us because she had not been called for a telephone interview
regarding her complaint to the Tech Registration Board. She also had not been informed about
the progress ofthe complaint.
We contacted the Board and found that they had not contacted her as they should have. The
Board had found deficiencies in the home inspection report. The case was going before the
Board. The enforcement manager called the complainant to let her know what had happened. She
said they had enough info and found a problem so they did not feel they needed to contact the
complainant, but since she had asked to speak, they should have called her anyway. We called
the woman back and she was happy to have the news.
Case ID: 20043235 Type: Referral
A woman called to file a complaint against and architect.
We referred her to the Board ofTechnical Registration.
Case In: 20050967 Type: Assistance
An engineer who works for Pima County contacted us because he said the Professional and Tech
Registration Board pulled his license because they say he did not renew in time. He says he did
and they cashed the check.
We spoke with the licensee and the Board and discovered the issue ofhis license revocation had
nothing to do with a renewal glitch that we discovered occurred in 2000. The caller had been
found responsible for violating statute and the Board had issued an order. The caller failed to
follow through with the appeal. As a result, the Board action stood. The caller then failed to
comply with the Board order, and a new complaint was opened. This was heard before an AU
who determined the first complaint stood because ofthe caller's failure to appeal and that as a
result ofthe caller's unwillingness to comply, the AU recommended revocation ofhis license.
The Board adopted this recommendation and informed the caller in writing oftheir decision as
well as his timeframe and the process for appeal. The caller then again failed to appeal to the
Board within the timeframe.
As a result, we let the caller know we could not intervene because he failed to follow the process
for appeal.
Case In: 20050517 Type: Referral
A man called because he wanted information on a land surveyor.
We explained our jurisdiction and referred him to the Board of Technical Registration.
Case In: 20050731 Type: Coaching - Dismissed
A consumer wanted to know what the procedures were to make an appointment to come in with
a complaint against the Board of Technical Registration. I explained that he could just call. He
said he had to gather more documentation and then he would come in. The caller never came in.
Case ill: 20050791 Type: Assistance
A man called upset because the Board of Technical Registration had indicated his background
check came back fine, and now is asking for documentation that could take weeks to get. We
contacted the Board and were told that their AG had interpreted statute that because ofregulatory
law, the Board could only contact an applicant requesting information once during the process.
As a result, the Board has to wait until all infonnation is received to let the applicant know if
anything is deficient. The Board indicated they were frustrated with this and will begin working
soon with a new AG to address this.
The Board Director has the authority to approve licenses in certain situations. Due to
information provided by the caller, he decided to approve this particular one. We let the caller
know and advised him to check in with the Board later in the day. He was very appreciative and
thanked us for our assistance.
Case ill: 20050764 Type: Referal
A Tucson resident called inquiring about who provides professional engineers with licenses.
We advised him that the Board ofTechnical Registration administers the license. We provided
him with the telephone number.
Case ill: 20051000 Type: Coaching - Dismissed
An Arizona citizen called because she was not fmding resolve in a marter addressed to the Board
ofTechniC".8l Regi~tration. She requested our mailing address, ac; she would like to forward her
complaint in writing. She preferred not to discuss the complaint by telephone and would rather
mail us the complaint,
We advised her that we would be happy to assist her upon reviewing her complaint. We
provided her with our mailing address and advised her that we would contact her upon receipt of
her correspondence. Never received correspondence
PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS
ARIZONA ORGANIZATIONS
Arizona Chapter, American Institute of Architects (AlA): http://www.aia-arizona.orgl
30 N. 3rd Avenue, Suite 200, Phoenix, AZ 85003
Tina Gobbel - Litteral - tina@aia-arizona.org .. ' '
Phone: (602) 257-1924, Fax: (602) 273-6814
Arizona Society ofProfessional Assayers: no website
1435 S. 10th Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85713
Mike Jacobs - jao@gci-net.com
Phone: (520) 622-0813, Fax: (520) 622-3845
Arizona Society of Professional Engineers (ASPE)
American Council of Engineering Companies of Arizona (ACEC ofAZ):
http://www.azspe.org/ and http://www.acecaz.orgl
1309 E. Echo Lane, Phoenix, AZ 85020
Janice Burnett - engineers@acecaz.org
Phone: (602) 995-2187; Fax: (602) 995-2218
Arizona Chapter, American Institute ofProfessional Geologists (AIPG):
http://www.aipg.org/ScriptContent/Index.cfm .
c/o DRS, 7720 N. 16th Street, #100, Phoenix, AZ 85020
David Palmer - david-'palmer@urscorp.com
Phone: (602) 861-7460; Fax: (602) 371-1615
Arizona Chapter, American Society ofHome Inspectors (AZASHI) #405:
http://www.azashi.com/
6581 S. Granite Drive, Chandler, AZ 85249
(480) 835-2350 - answering service; Nan Mitchell: 480-813-7820 - malfunction99@cox.net
Arizona Home Inspectors Coalition (ARIC): http://www.arizonahomefront.com/
8433 N. Black Canyon, #100, Phoenix, AZ 85021
David Swartz - 3deens-2mp@cox.net
Phone: (602) 469-3175; Fax: (602) 504-3546
Arizona Professional Land Surveyors (APLS): http://www.azpls.org/
3346 E. Menadota Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85050
Phone: (602) 481-0530, Fax: (602) 334-1030
Arizona Chapter, American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA): http://www.azasla.org/
30 N. 3rd Avenue, Suite 200, Phoenix AZ, 85003
Diana Smith
Phone: (602) 252-4200
C:\Documents and Settings\btda1ryr.BTR\Desktop\Organizations.doc
08/2005
PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS
NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
National Association of State Boards of Geology (ASBOG): http://www.asbog.org/
The Granby Building, Suite "0", 1801 Charleston Highway, Cayce, SC 29033
Ms. Sam Swinhart
Phone: (803) 739-5676; Fax: (803) 739-8874
Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards (CLARB): http://www.clarb.org/
144 Church Street NW, Suite 201, Vienna, VA 22180
Phone: (703) 319-8380; Fax: (703) 319-8290
National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB): http://www.ncarb.org!
1801 K Street, NW, Suite 1100K, Washington, DC 20006-1310
Phone: (202) 783-6500; Fax: (202) 783-0290
National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES): http://www.ncees.org/
P.O. Box 1686, Clemson, SC 29633-1686
Phone: (800) 250-3196; (864) 654-6824; Fax: (864) 654-6033
C:\Documents and Settings\btdalryr.BTR\Desktop\Organizations.doc
08/2005