BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 1132 (Galgiani) - Architects: architects-in-training
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: February 18, 2016 |Policy Vote: B., P. & E.D. 8 - |
| | 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: April 25, 2016 |Consultant: Brendan McCarthy |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 1132 would authorize certain individuals in
training to be licensed as an architect to use the professional
title "architect-in-training".
Fiscal
Impact: The bill, as drafted, would provide title protection for
architects-in-training, but does not specify what level of
licensing and enforcement the California Architects Board would
provide. The following fiscal estimates assume that the level of
oversight is comparable to that provided for
engineers-in-training currently provided by the Board of
Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists.
One-time information technology costs of $100,000 to allow the
Board to process applications and track licenses (California
Architects Board Fund).
Ongoing costs of about $120,000 per year for initial program
development, licensing oversight, outreach, and enforcement
SB 1132 (Galgiani) Page 1 of
?
(California Architects Board Fund).
Potential one-time costs of about $300,000 for the development
of an examination. As noted above, the Board has looked at the
program for licensing engineers-in-training for comparison.
Applicants for licensure as engineers-in-training are required
to take an examination. If the California Architects Board
were to decide to require an examination for licensure as an
architect-in-training, it would need to conduct an
occupational analysis and develop such a test (there is no
existing test of this kind to the Board's knowledge).
Unknown potential increase in state employment costs (various
funds). Under the current civil service system, state employee
compensation sometimes depends upon license status. Some civil
service employees can receive higher compensation if the
individual has a professional license in his or her field. At
this time it is not known how many state employees could seek
licensure as an architect-in-training or whether gaining such
a license would increase their compensation.
Background: Under current law, the California Architects Board licenses
and regulates the profession of architecture. In order to become
licensed as an architect, an applicant must have five years of
architectural training. The applicant is then required to pass a
seven part registration examination. After undergraduate
training, a prospective licensee usually spends two to three
years working under the supervision of a licensed architect
while preparing for and taking the registration examinations.
Proposed Law:
SB 1132 would authorize certain individuals in training to be
licensed as an architect to use the professional title
"architect-in-training". Specifically, the bill would allow
anyone who has received confirmation from the Board that he or
she is eligible for the registration exam and is employed under
the supervision of a licensed architect to use the title
"architect-in-training".
Staff
Comments: Under current law, state licensing boards and bureaus
SB 1132 (Galgiani) Page 2 of
?
enforce both "practice acts" and "title acts" in the licensing
of professions. Practice acts require licensed professionals to
obtain a professional license (generally by meeting certain
educational requirements and/or passage of examinations). In
addition, practice acts impose requirements on the practice of
the profession by licensees. For example, practice acts may
impose professional responsibilities, requirements for
protection of the public, continuing education responsibilities,
and other requirements. On the other hand, title acts simply
permit professionals to meet certain requirements to use a title
and prohibit those who have not met those standards from using
the specified title. Title acts do not impose professional
requirements on the licensed professionals.
-- END --