The NEC is revised every 3 years, and those changes improve electrical installations and public safety.  Continuing education keeps electricians aware and knowledgeable of these changes which not only improves their skills but also allows them to learn about new opportunities; recent technologies include Solar PV Installations, Electric Car Charging Stations, and Low-Voltage Suspended Ceiling Power Distribution Systems. These new technologies offer exciting job opportunities for the electrical trades.

CE requirements vary widely from state-to-state, but Virginia’s 3-hour requirement is on the low end for state mandated continuing education.  Three hours every other year spent for training on new electrical safety procedures and technology does not seem burdensome for Virginia licensees of the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation.

JADE Learning has a number of testimonials from licensees in VA including: “I liked going at my own pace.”, “I liked the ease of use and clarity”, “Very good and In-depth.”, "Every aspect of the courses is professional and comprehensive. I appreciate the time that this method saves me."

Continuing education for electrical license renewal benefits the licensed electrical contractors in Virginia and their customers.  I strongly urge the Department to keep this requirement in place and continue to support the professionalism of the electrical construction industry.

If this is approved were going backwards. Next lets eliminate high school and grammar school .

As a Citizen and tax payer in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I believe it is crucial that we have recertification requirements in place for tradesman and tradeswomen.  Currently hairdressers are required to have continuing education so why would we not want someone who builds our homes, work and entertainment facilities required to have update training?  I want the tradesman who works on my home to be competant and up to date with current codes, and the latest technology on the market today.  As a provider of training the biggest issue I hear of is " why is this required every 2 years but the code comes out every 3 years".  We are on track to fix that this year.  As an inspector I do not want to tell someone that they have not done their work to current code and now have to remove it and do it over when a simple class once every 3 years would take care of this. 

Casey Littlefield, MCP

I was somewhat encouraged a few years back when Va/DPOR started requiring code update courses to renew your tradesman license. But I have always been appalled by the fact Virginia law requires a license to perform this work yet it is not enforced at the tradesman level. A manicurst, barber or lawyer MUST have a displayed license to perform their trades. I have attended public DPOR meetings in the past where Director Olsen disagreed with me on the license issues. The skilled trades pamphlets in the DPOR office all proclaim on the back of each pamphlet that you must have a license to do this type work. Mr. Olsen says, " a non-licensed electrician must be under the direct supervision of a licensed tradesman". This is where the first concern arises because there are thousands of workers out there performing electrical work in our businesses and home construction that are unlicensed and unsupervised. Direct supervision is not the licensed guy of a business riding around in an SUV on the cell phone looking to get more jobs.You can go to any house you see being wired and find that the person wiring the house is unlicensed unless it is a small business where the actual owner is wiring the house and is licensed. For example, large companies like Smith & Keene have hundreds of guys wiring houses every day without a license or direct supervision.  A licensed barber shop owner cannot let unlicensed people cut hair in his shop when he is not in the shop or away on vacation etc.

Where DPOR and the state of Virginia really make the huge mistakes are the amount of revenue capability lost by not enforcing their own WRITTEN laws in place. Millions would be generated by requiring licenses for the 4 skilled construction trades. Not to mention ensuring the Virginia skilled workforce is trained, re-trained and licensed. The citizens of Virginia should have actual licensed workers or supervised apprentices wiring their businesses and homes. I've always said that my Va. State Masters License is of no value at all unless I want to become a business owner. Having to pay for code upgrade requirements is rediculous for a tradesman in a state where the license law is not enforced. I spoke to a compliance investigator that proclaimed "99% of all cases brought before the board are contractors not tradesmen". He also said "we don't have enough revenue to hire additional investigators to enfore the tradesman laws".

I think it is VERY unfair to pay for a tradesman license and continued education requirements just so I can pay for the license again when the license is not enforced. I implore you to REQUIRE a license or Apprenticeship to do the skilled trades work in the state of Virginia and REQUIRE the continued education requirements you are planning to do away with. It has never been fair to people who obey the DPOR laws. Hopefully before you do away the the continuing education requiements, you will think about the revenue lost by the non-enforcement of the law already in place. Overall it is only izing the skilled trades industries and weaking Virginias education and skill levels in the name of corporate profits. I like so many other license holders will not continue to pay for a worthless peice of paper in my wallet. 

Eliminating the CE requirements not only would foster an environment of unsafe and unprofessional installations, but also subjects a VA license to backlash from reciprocal states. The NEC is an ever-evolving document, and a qualified craftsman should be committed to the training it takes to learn recent changes and updates. The requirement if anything is too lax in that it only requires a few hours ever other year. Requiring proper licensing and training in the skilled trades is logical and welcomed by competent craftsmen. 

I think that we all agree including the  tradesmen's  that continuing education   requiremtnets  is one of the Best  idea that  DPOR has enforced.  The  citizens of Virgina invested  in a  life time homes or  repairs and they  expect that all work  to  be  code compliances. Continuing education for  trademan's is one of the  most important reason for  helath, safety,  and general  welfare for the public,  which   has been a big success in Virgina.  .Eliminate  Continuing  education  requiremtnts for Virginia would be a  big  set back for all  the citizens.  

Edith Hampton  Building Code Offical for Pualski County    .

September 24, 2013

Board for Contractors

In care of D.P.O.R.

9960 Maryland Drive Suite 400

Richmond, VA 23233

Dear Members,

    I am writing, on behalf of building officials in Southeastern Virginia (VBCOA Region VIII) regarding the possible elimination of currently required continuing education for licensed tradesmen.

   We strongly suggest that the Board reconsider any proposed move to eliminate code update education for contractors. Building Officials in our region take this position because we have seen a significant improvement in code compliance by tradesmen since this requirement was enacted. More tradesmen are passing inspections and have a better understanding of the current adopted code. We have concerns about the quality of work based on the lack of knowledge of newer codes if this requirement is rescinded.

We strongly urge you to maintain (or even increase) the standards for continuing education for tradesmen.

Thank you.

Regards,

Tom Coghill, Chair

VBCOA Region VIII

I think it would be a grave mistake to remove continuing education programs for electricians.  If anything, we should be going the other direction with this.  Currently you need 1 class every two years in a trade where the ENTIRE NEC is updated every three.  The same trade where there is so much potential to go wrong, either for the tradesman or for the customer.  As a industry we are always updating our current safety regulations through OSHA and the NFPA because the industry recognizes how important and essential of a task to keep theses large body of texts up to date and fluid.  If you remove our 1 class every two years, are you arguing the need for our code?  To me, you are.  What is the point of having it when the tradesman doesn't even know it? 

Sincerely

Jason Biniasz

IBEW Inside Wireman Journeyman Local 666 

Consumers would be hurt the most by this !

I wander what Insurance companies would think of this !

The Virginia tradesman continuing education program is an integral part of the construction industry in the Commonwealth. In terms of building safety, no one organization, agency or group of stakeholders exists in a vacuum and it takes everyone working together to maintain Virginia's reputation as a leader in the industry. Likewise, The Board for Contractors must acknowledge its role which is to maintain and protect this important program for the good of all Virginia citizens. Nowhere in House Bill 1645 is it stated the Board should eliminate the continuing education program and there are most certainly alternative ways of reducing the burden on tradesmen and small business other than what's currently being proposed.

Throughout this debate, I've heard no alternatives discussed which makes me wonder if the Board has even considered other ways of meeting the mandate set forth in HB 1645. It's also unclear the reasons which have been provided for eliminating the program are based on any verifiable facts and the evidence set forth in the current agency statement seems anecdotal at best. Has the Board actually conducted an in depth review of the facts provided  by DPOR or are they content to just take what they've been told at face value and proceed with abandoning this important educational program at the risk to the safety of Virginia's citizens?

There's an underlying implication that tradesmen do not want the CE program to remain in effect yet almost no one who's commenting has voiced their agreement with the current proposal. At what point does the Board acknowledge the majority view and act accordingly? The fact is the majority of small businesses who employ Virginia tradesmen, as well as the tradesmen themselves, are not against continuing education but they are simply asking for a higher quality of training and more educational opportunities to choose from.

I assert that all stakeholders impacted by this proposal should challenge the Board to re-evaluate the facts and provide the public with alternatives to reduce the regulatory burden without completely eliminating this important continuing education program which would clearly place the health, safety, and welfare of all Virginia citizens at risk.

i see nothing wrong with education .only the way it is used.i have 8 men that i will have to pay all fees including travel

time loss of work to go to a 8 hour school to get 4 hoursof training. the classes we recieve has little to do with updating our preformance or new material . If we are to continue with this practice it should be at a place convent to our area and classes that would provide help for our trade .we were a member of the vwwa but found that there classes were provided by anyone they could hire of little or no use to us as trademan .give us a class that can provide 8 hours of quality education in 1 day or drop it all together

Kudos to all who turned out for the Roanoke Town Hall meeting last night. Everyones comments were spot on. And it appeared that perhaps the Olson gentlemens seat apparently shrank when he saw the TV news reporter enter the room with her camera. You can view the media coverage by pulling up WSLS10 Roanoke.

Thanks again to all . Let's keep it going.

Bill

Virginia has been a leader in Code enforcement for many years. I believe the reason for that is because we continue to educate those in Code enforcement and  contractors. We must strive to continually advance our abilities for the safety of our citizens.How can we learn without instruction,how can we improve without updated information? I am requesting DPOR to reconsider eliminating the CEU requirement because I believe this is the very backbone of our profession. The requirements are not stringent,the cost is not prohibitive and the results we see daily are rewarding. Let's continue to lead the nation by requiring continuing education for all involved in the construction industry. Following the status quo only gets you further and further behind. We must move ahead daily ! Thanks for your consideration!

I see no no reason to discontinue the CEU requirements other than to keep those who will not stay up to date on the new regulations (which are usually added for  good reasons) and methods as licensed electricians in the field. Many other professions have requirements to maintain a current level of expertise that have life and safety consequences of bad practice.
 There are few enough electricians that I would recommend install or repair wiring as it is now, and I can see that number slowly diminishing in the years ahead if the CEU requirements are eliminated.

I am writing to you in reference to the Subject Regulatory Matter.  As a Licensed Tradesman and Contractor, Tradesman Education Service Provider, and former Member and Chair of the Commonwealth of Virginia Board for Contractors, I support the proposed regulation changes and elimination of the requirement for Continuing Education.  My reasons are as outlined below:

1. The regulation requiring Continuing Education was originally presented to the Board when I was a member.  It was the position of the State Administration at that time that this requirement was needed because Tradesmen were not keeping current with code changes.  I did not support the regulation and only voted in favor of it when it was clear that Continuing Education would ONLY focus on Code Changes.  Since the inception of Continuing Education the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code has undergone two (2) changes.  The associated changes to the Plumbing, Mechanical, and Fuel Gas Codes have all been relatively minor, yet the cost to each tradesman (or company as the case may be) for the biennial training remains, whether there are no Code Changes or many Code Changes. 
2. Virginia moved from the BOCA Codes to the ICC Codes in the mid to late 1990’s as the ICC absorbed BOCA and other regional codes into a single, more national approach to code administration.  At the inception of the ICC Codes, there were many changes, however I believe that all of the codes are relatively mature at this point, and moving forward, code changes will truly be very minor and mostly administrative in nature as new products are developed and brought to market.  We cannot change the laws of physics, and the bulk of the actual content of the present codes rely on fundamental application of these laws.  Nevertheless, Tradesmen still have to sit through 3 hours of training for Plumbing, 3 hours of training for Mechanical, and/or 1 hour of training for Fuel Gas every two (2) years.  As a training provider, with mature codes such as we now have, I can truly say that it is very difficult to fill the required amount of training time with code changes, yet I am bound to this requirement by the current regulations.
3. Based on my experience as a Board Member, I am confident that the Board for Contractors has maintained records of any increase or decrease in complaints for Tradesmen – especially complaints for Code Related infractions – since the inception of Continuing Education.  My recollection based on the years that I sat on the Board subsequent to the institution of Continuing Education were that the vast majority of complaints before the Board dealt with financial, criminal, or ethical issues and complaints about Tradesmen relating to their performance relative to Code Issues were extremely rare.  Therefore I would question the actual value that Continuing Education brings to the Citizens of the Commonwealth.
4. I further recollect that one of the main goals of the Board was to seek out agreements for Reciprocity with other States and jurisdictions.  I know that the State of North Carolina (which coincidentally instituted Continuing Education for Plumbing and Mechanical before Virginia) abandoned the requirement for Continuing Education.  At present, I do not believe an agreement for Reciprocity exists between Virginia and North Carolina.  Should Virginia eliminate the necessity for biennial Continuing Education, I believe the Codes and Regulations of Virginia and North Carolina will be very similar such that an overture toward Reciprocity would be more amenable.

In closing, I feel compelled to quote from perhaps one of the most gifted individuals to hail from our beloved Commonwealth, Thomas Jefferson:  “That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves.  If we are directed from Washington (heads of an organization) when to sow and when to reap, we will soon want for bread.”

I for one say it is time to stop our dependence on our government to tell us how to run our lives, our trades, and our businesses.

Trusting that my comments will be met favorably by the Board for Contractors, I wish all of you well, and remain,

Sincerely,

Robert M. Kirby, P.E.

As the Board considers the elimination of continuing education for tradesmen, it is important to look at the history which led us to this point.  I was a member of the Board for Contractors during the time that the regulation was revised to include this mandatory requirement.  There were several reasons which prompted the Board to exercise its ability to require formal training prior to license renewal.  One of those reasons was that information from local building departments throughout the Commonwealth supported the conclusion that, generally, tradesmen rarely were aware of changes to the various adopted codes.  The method of educating those who followed this model most likely took the form of jobsite sessions caused by less than satisfactory inspection results.

There are those who blame this requirement for lower numbers in the licensed tradesman population.  The diminishing number of those holding individual tradesman licenses cannot be attributed exclusively if at all to the implementation of continuing education requirements.  There are many factors which can be more readily verified as affecting these numbers.   Lack of interest in these trades was a topic of discussion for years prior to this requirement and continues to be.  Information from the Department of Labor and Industry’s Apprenticeship Council supports this.  Additionally, a fluctuating economy can also be cited as a major contributing factor.

It is no surprise that the number of disciplinary cases coming before the Board has not significantly decreased since 2008.  As I recall during my service, disciplinary cases were predominately initiated as a result of contract disputes or abandonment of the job.  Although code violations were occasionally discovered during the course of staff investigation, rarely were they the cause of the complaint.

As required by the directive contained in the Governor’s substitute House Bill 1645, the Board must conduct a detailed analysis of the tradesman continuing education program.  Recommended changes to the regulation should be based on the results of that analysis and not solely a desire to cut costs. Consideration must be given to the curriculum requirements as well as how they relate to revisions to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code.  Contained within the directive is the requirement to also evaluate the cost to regulants and how the program contributes to public safety.  Knowledge of code requirements decreases the potential for tragedy and we cannot count the tragedies that do not occur.

Although the Board is enabled by statute, continuing education for those performing this critical work is not mandated nor is the form or content prescribed.  There are many options available at little or no cost which can be brought to the table for consideration by the Board.  I ask that the Board enlist the assistance of the Department of Housing and Community Development as well as the various organizations of code administrators and inspectors to revise the tradesman continuing education requirements in order to reduce any unnecessary burdens.  Please consider options to make it better but  not eliminate it.

Respectfully Submitted

Michael D. Redifer

Contractors and trademen without requirements will not keep up with codes and requirements and will not obtain code books.  Do you want someone that does not know the codes installing gas lines, and electrical wiring in places your family is working, or living if they are not properly trained?  They need training as we need training to inspect their work.

Requireing that tradesman take a minimum of 3 ceus every two years is very minimal when compared to many othe occupations which require ceus such as barbers, hairdressers and such. CEU's are required nation wide so that licensed occupations stay current in the respective field. I talk with many students and Journeyman in the field and the issue is, that many tradesman see no need to get a license because it is not enforced by many employers or the state and local jursdications. Many Journeyman have let there license drop due to working under someone in the field who does same work for more pay. In Oklahoma every electricain is required to have a license in order to work. The Extra work required for tradesman to recieve thier license simply does not payoff. In return the quality of work becomes substandard. If on large job the ratio of nonlicense electricains is much higher than licensed and the pay is much the same. The people that suffer are those who have systems installed by unqualified tradesman with a Masters license holder miles away. Electrical is only taken seriously when a fire happens related to electrical in which many times can be prevented if a safe installation was done. Makeing the license worth something will help the trade and those who are haveing tradesman install equipment. Who who think of haing an unlicensed doctor perform sevrice on us yet an unlicensed electrican can work in a home with supervision miles away. just a thought.

I have been working in code enforcement for 32 years. I've seen great contract work and not so good contract work. The difference, to a large degree is the understanding of the code intent, by the workers. To require a minimum amount of continuing education for the licensed tradesmen is not only reasonable, but is critical to keeping the industry up to date on the requirements of the code. Without this continuing education, the codes change and the contractors are caught unaware. Not fair to them. The contractor does not do the code compliant construction the project owner has paid for. Not fair to them. We, as code administrators go out and have to reject the project, irritate the contractor we've just rejected (for the same work we approved 6 months ago) and go out and re-inspect the work, when we're all shorthanded too. Not fair to us! I understand that DPOR has staffing issues in running this program. Change the program, but don't eliminate it. Change from a 2-year cycle to a 3-year cycle, which by the way would coincide better with the Building Code adoption process in the State. Expand the acceptable training. Some training is better than no training. If you require a Barber to stay current, I don't understand why you wouldn't want the person who runs the electrical wiring in your home to stay current with the latest updates in the industry. Bad hair day VS Your house burns down?

I submit that the primary issue regarding continuing education for licensed mechanical/HVAC, plumbing, and electrical individual contractors/tradesmen is poor governmental program management and that the solution to the recent concerns is to provide smarter, more flexible, and more efficient, effective, and economical programmatic administration and operation of the continuing education program versus complete abolishment of the program. To date, the DPOR educator approval process has proven to be short-sighted, inconsistent, ineffective, and inefficient, and uneconomical for the regulating agency as well as the tradesmen regulants. I recommend that DPOR consider modeling similar successful continuing education programs such as those programs implemented by sister agencies, including DHCD and VDFP.

With the perpetual technological innovations and construction code revisions affecting teh construction and contracting industry, it is very important to regulate the licensure maintenance requirements through continuing education requirements. It is also very important to recognize the educational value of and accept additional continuing educational credits from alternative related educational opportunities relative to numerous pertinent subject matters without restriction to construction code editions and code changes only.

As a code official as well as an industry consumer, I highly value the increased knowledge of individual contractors/tradesmen performing contract work in the field. Consistent with the intent of licensure regulations, such elevated professionalism certainly contributes to and ensures the protection of public health, safety, and welfare in the built environment.

It's been incorrectly stated by some who support the elimination of continuing education that there are "not that many" plumbing, mechanical and fuel gas changes approved during each code change cycle however, I disagree with that opinion. As a matter of fact, I would like to offer The Board For Contractors some actual facts regarding the number of PMG changes included in the 2012 edition of the International Codes which Virginia will amend and subsequently adopt mid-year of 2014.

During the International Code Council's - Final Action Hearings - held May 14 - May 23, 2010 in Dallas, TX the number of PMG code changes approved were as follows: The International Plumbing Code - 133, The International Mechanical Code - 114, and The International Fuel Gas Code - 24. That's a total of 271 code changes directly affecting three of the trades for which the Board proposes to eliminate the continuing education requirement.

Although a percentage of these changes are straightforward and self explanatory, what many individuals do not seem to understand is that in order to become familiar with the more technical changes, questions regarding  interpretation and application of that change often arise. One of the most valuable aspects of continuing education is to help tradesmen understand not only the change itself but also the reason that change was included in the code. In a classroom setting, real world scenarios are often discussed and it is this interaction between instructor and student which shows the true value of continuing education.

It is my opinion that all CE training, whether conducted in a classroom setting or remotely via webinars, etc. should carry with it a mandatory requirement that an instructor is available to interact with students and answer questions as they arise. Furthermore, education is always a two-way street and oftentimes the instructor comes away with a better understanding of how the words in the book will be need to be applied in the field. When done properly, education is a win - win proposition for all those involved and most importantly for the consumer who expects the work to be done correctly and in a timely manner without the need for failed inspections and additional costs.

The Board should uphold its duty to the citizens of Virginia and abandon this proposal to eliminate continuing education and focus its attention on ways to improve on the existing program.

Respectfully Submitted,

Paul Rimel

President, VPMIA

As a license tradesman for the past 35 plus years I recognize the value and support the requirement of CEU's for all tradesman. I have been an inspector for the past 27 years and I see the significance in requiring continuing education for all tradesman. Since the requirement by DPOR for tradesman to maintain their CEU's I have seen a decline in the number of inspection turn downs. This alone has benefited the homeowners and contractors by elimninating the cost of re-inspection fees.

I strongly suggest that the DPOR Board reconcider their proposal to eliminate code update training for tradesmen in the state of Virginia. If this is approved, we will be going backwards as far as keeping certified tradesmen up to date on all new code changes and advancements in new tecnology. As an inspector, I can tell which tradesmen are keeping up on their update training and who are not. I strongly urge you to maintain the standards for continuing education for our tradesmen , for it will only elevate professionalism and contribute to the health, safety and wellfare of the citizens of Virginia.

All other professions have more significant continuing education requirements.  These should be lengthened; not eliminated.  I do believe that both the license renewal and the continuing education requirement should be placed on a 3 year cycle to match the code change cycle.  Each trades person should be required to take a minimum of 6 hours of continuing education on the newest code.

As an active member and past-President of VPMIA, and the holder of a Masters HVAC Tradesman License, I adamantly disapproved of doing away with the CEU requirements currently in effect.  We, as Code Officials and Tradesmen, regardless of which one you may be, are duty-bound to protect the safety and well-being of the residents of the Commonwealth.  The idea that in order to save a little money, there are some that promote doing away CEU's is, in my opinion, preposturous,  I bet if the general public was aware of this attempt, they would not approve of it either.  Please keep the CEU requirement. 

 I’m an inspector, plan reviewer and tradesman and have been in the trade since 1994. To me DPOR eliminating the continuing education requirements is sending a message to the public that these tradesmen have learned everything they could possibly learn. Therefore no more training is needed. I couldn’t disagree more with that thought process. I learn something new every day from new materials, new installation technics, and different interpretations of code sections. Why is the responsibility of training and educating these contractors fall on the shoulders of the inspectors? As inspectors we are required to satisfy continuing education requirements in order to maintain our certification, what makes the tradesmen any different? Are you implying that inspectors still have things that they need to learn that is why inspectors are required to satisfy continuing education requirements? I answer questions every day from tradesmen about the code, how to install a particular product, are certain products approved, and so on. It is clear to me that these tradesmen need the educational requirements. I feel that the educational requirement should actually be more than what is currently required. My wife is a CPA and is required to have 40 hours of continuing education each year in order to maintain her license. I do have some concerns that as a tradesman I have received nothing from DPOR about this matter.  No letter about doing away with the educational requirements, nothing on any meetings scheduled, absolutely nothing. If not for being involved in the organizations that I am and contacts that I have I would not be aware that this was happening.  Based on the concerns and information stated I am against the elimination of the educational requirement to maintain your tradesmen license.

It seems to me that only three hours of education a year to stay current with building codes is good public policy, a bare minimum, and should be continued.   Unless tradesmen have some other way to stay current, how will they?  My own professional affiliation requires 40 hours a year of professional development, and I am not directly responsible for building safety issues.   Of course some tradesmen would rather not have to sit in a classroom ever again.  I'm sure a lot of doctors, lawyers and other occupations think they know everything they will ever need to know to do their jobs too.  And that's just pure poppycock.  The fact that North Carolina may not have such a requirement only tells me that North Carolina is behind the times and its citizens are less well served and protected.  If anything, the rationale for requiring CE for tradesmen is more valid today than when it was first used to implement the program.  Citizens deserve and should demand better than this.  Reforming the reform means going backward.  Don't go backward.  

--Steve Owen.  Staunton City Manager

The ongoing training of inspectors is critical for the safety of structures and the individuals who inhabitat them.  To think that training will just happen without a mandate is delusional.  With the changes in technology, ongoing training is essential. 

I am a homeowner who lives in Augusta County, VA. I am concerned about the idea of eliminating the continuing education requirement for tradesman. As a homeowner, I want the security of knowing that any tradesman doing work on my house is qualified to do the work for which he is being hired. I do not want the aggravation of having failed inspections or the added expense of correcting mistakes the tradesman makes because he doesn't know what he is doing.

The codes change to reflect new knowledge, technology and products manufactured. Continuing education should be required for anyone who makes his living working in the building trade.

Please do not eliminate the continuing education requirement for tradesman. Thank you for your consideration.

In my educational training I am continously looking for way to increase my knowledge of the trade I currently carry a master license for electrical industry.   In order for the state to up hold the standards of the industry should maintain these requirements.  Other wise the effects would leave the industry without the training that is needed.

I submit this comment to encourage the Board for Contractors to retain the Tradesman Continuing Education (CEU) program administered though DPOR.  I would like the board to consider all the public comments and petition signed by the hundreds of concerned citizens in the Commonwealth of VA, endorsing the value of the program. In addition, I would urge the board to consider making the necessary adjustments in the areas of concern that DPOR has raised and the other suggestions identified to improve the quality of the program.  Many organizations and individuals are willing to assist the board with determining the needed improvements and how to begin implementation promptly.  DPOR has identified the limitations of their resources and I remain confident that working together with the stakeholders, code enforcement and trade(s) industry that amenable resolution can be achieved which will mutually benefit all interested parties.  Ultimately, working together to increase the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of the overall CEU program will enhance the protection of the public health, safety and welfare for all who live work and visit the Commonwealth VA.  

Respectfully submitted,

Guy Tomberlin

Master Tradesman in Plumbing, HVAC and Fuel Gas, DPOR certified

VA Code Official, DHCD Certified

Past President, VBCOA and VPMIA

Citizen, Commonwealth of VA