Virginia Regulatory Town Hall View Comments

Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation

Board for Architects, Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, Certified Interior Designers, and Landscape Architects

Board for Architects, Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, Certified Interior Designers, and Landscape Architects Regulations [18 VAC 10 ‑ 20]

Action	Develop regulations for a mandatory continuing education requirement for architect, professional engineer, and land surveyor licenses.
Stage	Final
Comment Period	Ended on 3/18/2009

Previous Comment Next Comment Back to List of Comments

3/3/09 12:37 pm

Commenter: Glenn G. Jenkins, P.E.

In Summary—Let’s reflect on how we arrived at this juncture

Analyzing the comments received during the proposal period, we find opposition to these regulations exceeding support by a ratio of 7.6-to-1 (59 favorable, 449 opposed). Opinion pollsters might interpret this 1.6-percent sampling as being statistically representative of the whole body of registrants regulated by the board. I believe it actually understates the overwhelming opposition to these new regulations.

Some who recognized the underlying legislative mandate aren’t counted among the opposition because their negative comments (which were largely ignored) are directed at ameliorating what they regarded as a legislative ‘fait accompli’. Undoubtedly many others missed the opportunity to comment entirely as a result of DPOR’s latest policy not to mail notices of regulation changes. As one NOIRA commenter put it, “…if the Board were sincere in obtaining honest feedback for this mandate all board regulants would have been notified by mail.”

In fact, those who commented during the proposal period were provided an Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) which presented an incomplete picture of the economic burden they would bear. One has to go to a document never provided on Regulatory Town Hall – the Fiscal Impact Statement (FIS) accompanying HB 1054 (2006) – to learn that an estimated ten percent of all registrants were projected to non-renew their registration as a result of this increased government regulation – and to learn that the lost revenue would ultimately need to be recouped from the remaining registrants in the form of increased registration fees. How this knowledge might have swayed the tenor of the comments, we can fairly guess!! (At any rate, we hope the FIS wasn’t fibbing when it informed legislators that “…the board’s current cash balance and revenue are expected to be sufficient for the next two biennia to cover the increased costs and reduced revenue associated with this legislation (with) no additional cost to licensees…”.)

The EIA provided on Regulatory Town Hall was a good first-effort. But a proper economic analysis should have made some attempt at quantifying some significant economic benefit, and should have weighed it against the present value of project costs (e.g., the $200 million 20-year PV that I developed in my 3/10/2008 comment on the EIA). Would state government invest $200 million of its own state funding to obtain some unquantifiable future benefit? How do we even know there’s going to be an economic benefit, if it can’t be quantified? (It’s nice to know that in today’s economic climate, Virginia is so well off that it can afford such largesse…and without the need to accept federal stimulus money.)

A legislative mandate to add a cost burden to every board registrant is tantamount to ‘taxation without representation’ for registrants residing out-of-state. At the very least, such persons should have been afforded an opportunity to come to Richmond and express their opposition when HB 1054 (2006) was reported out of the House subcommittee on professional licensing. But the subcommittee’s (then) staff attorney now says that no record was kept of who (if anyone) showed up and was allowed to express either opposition or support. For all we know, the bill was reported out of committee without any public input at all. For all we know, this bill was solely the brainchild of its sponsor.

The lone sponsor of HB 1054 (2006) (John S. Reid) had no identifiable connection to the architectural, engineering, land surveying, interior design, or landscape-architecture professions. Despite his committee assignment to the House Committee on General Laws, he never served on that committee’s own subcommittee on professional licensing. From this I think we can fairly infer that he had no experience or interest (or both) in the professions being regulated. Taking into account his advanced degree in education, his occupation as a public school administrator, his committee assignments to the House Committee on Education, and the awards of appreciation he received from the educational community, I think we can infer that his real intent in foisting this bill was to somehow benefit the educational community.

The economic benefit of these new regulations to continuing education providers is duly noted in the EIA. Virginia’s government won’t share in the benefit, however, if registrants make a concerted effort (say, by a ratio of 7.6-to-1 or greater) to send their continuing education dollars out-of-state.

In closing, it’s fun to speculate (though not necessarily fair to draw inferences) as to why two of the delegates voting against HB 1054 (2006) just happened to sit on the House Education Committee with John S. Reid. Suffice it to say that John S. Reid’s legacy is best judged by those who know him best – his own Henrico constituency. In that vein, I was amused to read candid remarks of a blogger billing himself as “The Richmond Democrat”, characterizing John S. Reid as an “irresponsible jackass”. It seems that John S. Reid has managed to end his own career in the House of Delegates, “Plaxico-style”, by accidentally discharging a handgun in his office at the Capitol.

A continuing-education program for concealed weapons permit-holders would have made far better sense in terms of assuring public safety. Alas, good sense and legislators just don’t seem to mix very well. At any rate, we can only hope that John S. Reid doesn’t ever repeat this stunt in any office where he’s functioning as a public school administrator.

CommentID: 6871