BILL ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Hearing Date:July 6, 2009 |Bill No:AB |
| |623 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, Chair
Bill No: AB 623Author:Emmerson
As Amended:June 30, 2009 Fiscal: Yes
SUBJECT: Architects: continuing education.
SUMMARY: Authorizes the California Architects Board to establish
comprehensive continuing education requirements if it determines that
continuing education is in the interest of public health safety and
welfare; requires architects to complete that continuing education as
a condition of license renewal.
Existing law:
1)Provides for the licensing and regulation of more than 22,000 architects
by the California Board of Architecture (Board) within the
Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA).
2)Requires a licensed architect, as a condition of license renewal, to
complete coursework on disability access requirements, as specified,
and to certify completion to the Board and provide documentation
from the course provider that includes the course title, subjects
covered, name of provider and trainer or educator, date of
completion, number of hours completed, and a statement about the
trainer or educator's knowledge and experience background.
3)Phases in the number of hours of coursework required on an incremental
basis as follows:
a) 1 hour for licenses renewed between July 1, 2009 and
January 1, 2010.
b) 2.5 hours for licenses renewed between January 1, 2010 and
January 1, 2011.
AB 623
Page 2
c) 5 hours for licenses renewed after January 1, 2011.
4.Requires the coursework regarding disability access to be
presented by trainers and educators with knowledge and expertise
and to include information and practical guidance regarding:
a) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
b) State laws that govern access to public facilities.
c) Federal and state regulations adopted pursuant to a) and
b).
This bill:
1. Provides that if the Board determines that the public health,
safety and welfare would be served by requiring all licensed
architects to complete continuing education, then the Board may
require a licensee to certify completion of continuing education
requirements as a condition of license renewal.
2. Requires the licensee to certify on a form prescribed by the
Board that he or she has completed continuing education in or
relevant to, the practice of architecture in subjects relating to
health, safety, and welfare during the preceding two years, as
determined by the Board.
3. States that coursework in disability access requirements shall
be applied to any continuing education hours prescribed by the
Board.
4. Requires that any continuing education requirement shall be
adopted by the Board in regulations, including:
a. The required courses
b. The number of hours.
5. Authorizes the Board to audit a licensee's records to verify
completion of continuing education requirements and requires a
licensee to maintain the continuing education records for a minimum
of two years from the date of license renewal.
6. Revises and recasts the provisions of Existing Law Items 2), 3)
and 4) above to instead require the licensee to provide
AB 623
Page 3
documentation of the disabled access continuing education upon
request by the Board in an audit .
7. Authorizes the Board to audit the records of a licensee to
verify completion of any of the continuing education requirements.
FISCAL EFFECT: The Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis, dated
May 6, 2009 indicates there are no new costs associated with this
legislation.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose. This bill is sponsored by American Institute of
Architects, California Council (AIACC, Sponsor) to allow the Board,
at its discretion, to require architects to take continuing
education as a condition of license renewal. According to the
Author:
"Last year, with the enactment of SB 1608, California architects
were added to the list of licensed professions having to take
continuing education. Unlike the other professions, however, SB
1608 required architects to take continuing education only on a
single topic (disability access). AB 623 does not change the
newly created disability access requirement but instead builds
on this requirement to include a more comprehensive continuing
education approach. For example, society and the laws of the
state will require new knowledge by architects regarding the
energy performance of buildings, and their impact on the
environment and the users of the building. Additionally,
architects must continuously learn on other changing topics
important to the public health, safety, and welfare, such as
building codes, universal accessibility, seismic design, fire
sprinklers, masonry construction, alternative energy sources,
shoreline protection, historic preservation, pedestrian design,
and many other important and changing topics."
2.Background.
a) Legislative Counsel Opinion. A January 22, 2009, Legislative
Counsel Opinion (Architects: Continuing Education - #0829566)
opined that in addition to the authority granted under the
requirements for continuing education for disability access
established by SB 1608, the Board has the statutory authority to
adopt continuing education requirements for the renewal of an
AB 623
Page 4
architect's license.
This differs with the opinion of DCA legal counsel which has
informally advised boards and bureaus that in their view, the
Board needs statutory authorization to adopt any further
continuing education requirements.
Legislative Counsel indicates that historically, continuing
education requirements of those agencies in DCA have only been
established pursuant to statutory authorization or mandate.
However, while Counsel believes the Board has authority under the
Architects Practice Act to adopt continuing education
requirements for the renewal of an architect's license, it
appears that such an action without statutory directive or
authorization is unprecedented for agencies under the DCA.
The Author's office has cited this difference in the opinions of
DCA counsel and Legislative Counsel as one of the reasons why the
bill is being pursued.
b) Related Legislation. AB 1145 (Price) increases, from $200 to
$400, the maximum fee for the renewal of an architect's license.
That is also before Committee at today's hearing.
SB 1608 (Corbett, Chapter 549, Statutes of 2008) requires, as a
condition of license renewal, that an architect complete
coursework regarding disability access requirements, as
specified, and certify to the Board, as part of the license
renewal process, completion of the coursework prior to renewing
their license. In the Governor's current Budget Proposal, the
Board will add an additional 6.2 staff at a cost of $573,000 to
implement the provisions of SB 1608.
c) Continuing Education on Construction-Related Accessibility
Standards.
SB 1608 (Corbett, Chapter 549, Statutes of 2008) was introduced to
address a number of reforms intended to increase compliance with
longstanding state and federal laws requiring access to persons
with disabilities in places of public accommodation. The bill
established the Construction-Related Accessibility Standards
Compliance Act, and made a number of changes including:
establish processes for businesses sued for violation of
accessibility standards; specify requirements for site
certifications by a certified access specialists; establish a
California Commission on Disability Access; impose continuing
education requirements on local building officials relating to
AB 623
Page 5
disability access requirements; and require, as a condition of
license renewal, that an architect must complete coursework
regarding disability access requirements, and certify to the
Board, as part of the license renewal process, completion of the
coursework prior to renewing the license.
During the discussions on that bill the AIACC and the Board both
expressed clear interest in establishing a broad-based
comprehensive continuing education requirement for architects
rather than the narrower, subject-specific requirement for
disability access continuing education.
As recently amended, this bill revises the continuing education
requirements established by last year's SB 1608. According to
the AIACC, they have worked with Senator Corbett's office and
with the Judiciary Committee staff to make revisions, which
streamline the reporting process by licensees and at that same
time simplify the Board's processes in monitoring continuing
education requirements.
It is important to point out that the amendments to the bill do not
diminish the requirement for architects to complete 5 hours of
continuing education in disability access requirements, nor does
it set aside any of the educational standards or contents. The
amendments change the SB 1608 reporting requirement so that the
architect certifies compliance, maintains the information on the
course(s), and submits that information to the Board upon
request.
According to AIACC, the proposed certify/audit model is proposed
for the other continuing education requirements in the bill and,
and AIACC would like to make the SB 1608 continuing education
requirements follow the same model to avoid the confusion that
would likely result with different reporting requirements. AIACC
additionally states that the certify/audit model is more cost
effective for the Board, and is the model used by most DCA
licensing boards and most state architect registration boards.
According to the Board, 16 DCA licensing boards use the
certify/audit method to verify continuing education, while 7
boards require some information on the course to be submitted.
AIACC states that the National Council of Architectural
Registration Boards and the American Institute of Architects
report that 26 state licensing boards follow the certify/audit
model, and 12 require some information to be sent to the
licensing board. Of those 12, most require minimal information
AB 623
Page 6
on the course (course title, date taken, and hours) as a part of
renewal application, with more specific information to be
retained in case of an audit.
d) Continuing Education under the Business and Professions Code.
Under the Business and Professions Code, the vast majority of the
health-related boards and bureaus have continuing education
requirements which are related to the renewal of the license.
None of the design and construction related boards such as
Architecture, Engineering, Geology or Contracting have continuing
education requirements, other than the recently-enacted
architectural requirements previously mentioned. However, there
are continuing education requirements for licensees under the
Structural Pest Control Board; primarily because of the potential
dangers accompanying the application of pesticides and poisonous
or lethal gases. In addition, there are continuing education
requirements for licensees of the Board of Accountancy.
Furthermore, there are no set standards for verifying or certifying
that the licensee has completed the continuing education
requirement. In some cases, licensees verify or submit proof to
the licensing agency that they have completed the required
courses, in other cases the continuing education provider
verifies the education to the agency. Some statutes may also
require a board to approve continuing education providers, or
even to audit providers.
Section 166, of the Business and Professions Code requires any DCA
board that proposes a mandatory continuing education program for
its licensees to submit the proposed program to the Director of
Consumer Affairs for review to assure that the program satisfies
specified guidelines established by the Director.
3.California Architect Proficiency Survey. In the fall of 1998, the
Board conducted five customer focus group meetings to gather
broad-based input for the annual update of the Board's strategic
plan. During the focus group meetings, some questions were raised
about the post-licensure competency of architects. As a result, the
Board created the Task Force on Post-Licensure Competency to study
this issue, to consider the Board's role in ensuring licensees'
continued competency, and to investigate possible solutions,
including the possibility of mandatory continuing education for all
California-licensed architects.
In March 2000, the Board contracted with Professional Management and
Evaluation Services, Inc., to conduct a scientifically-defensible
statewide study of the post-licensure competency and professional
AB 623
Page 7
development of California architects in order to provide CAB with
valid and reliable data upon which to make future policy decisions
about these issues.
The survey was sent to California-licensed architects; allied design
professionals (engineers and landscape architects); California
general building contractors; regulators (building officials, plan
checkers, and planners); end-users (clients and developers); and
forensic, insurance, and legal professionals. Numerous scientific
analyses were conducted to determine that the data were reliable.
Among other things the survey determined that taking numerous factors
into consideration, the hypothesis of a post-licensure competency
problem among California architects is not supported by the
empirical data .
In the survey, about three-quarters of the architects who responded
reported that they participated in continuing education, while the
remaining quarter said they did not. For those who participated in
continuing education, over a third gave their primary reason for
doing so as to further professional development (to keep current
with changes). Slightly fewer said it was to keep current with
changes affecting professional practice or to meet American
Institute of Architects (AIA) requirements. For those who said they
did not participate in continuing education, almost one in three
indicated as their reason that they were not a member of AIA.
Nearly two-thirds of architects responding indicated that they were
either satisfied or very satisfied with currently available
continuing education. Of the others, less than 10% were very
dissatisfied.
The survey's recommendations to the Board included the following:
It does not appear that the need for a strong, immediate
intervention by the Board on post-licensure proficiency is
required at this time.
It does not appear that there is any basis for Board action to
implement mandatory continuing education to address architect
proficiency.
Based upon the Survey the Board made the following determinations:
AB 623
Page 8
a) Overall, California architects do not have serious or
significant post-licensure competency problems.
b) At the present time, a broad-based, mandatory continuing
education program is not warranted .
c) The Board will continue to review the need for targeted
actions to correct or improve identified areas of potential
competency problems as they relate to public health, safety, and
welfare.
1.Sunset Review Issue: Continuing Education for Architects. In 1997,
the Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee (Sunset Committee)
considered the issue of continuing education in its review of the
Board. At that time, the Sunset Committee noted:
There is no requirement that architects participate in
continuing education as a condition for license renewal. The
Board has historically opposed mandatory continuing education
as a condition for licensure. The Board does not feel that the
government requiring continuing education is effective,
cost-efficient, or beneficial to the public. However, the
Board recommends that all licensees avail themselves of
opportunities to enhance their professional skills and notes
that the American Institute of Architects requires its members
to participate in continuing education as a condition of
membership.
The Board may require as a condition of probation remedial
education for those architects found guilty of incompetence or
negligence. The Board does not, however, have a program to
assure the continuing competency of licensed architects.
In its 2003 review of the Board, the Sunset Committee further noted:
In 2001, the Board completed its comprehensive study on the
proficiency of practicing architects to assess the degree to
which competency problems existed within the practice of
architecture in California. The results indicated that there
was not a competency problem sufficient to warrant a mandatory
continuing education requirement at this time. The survey did,
however, suggest that there are areas that might be in need of
improvement. Accordingly, the Board worked with stakeholder
groups to devise strategies to enhance a number of the Board's
other programs, including examination, experience requirements,
enforcement, and communication. While the Board's efforts to
AB 623
Page 9
address the proficiency issue did not lead to a continuing
education requirement, the Board has indicated that the study
contributed to a larger effort to enhance a number of the
Board's other programs.
In light of the Sunset Committee's past consideration of continuing
education for architects and the results of the Board's
comprehensive study of the issue, the Committee may wish to be
cautious about establishing a more extensive continuing education
program for architects such as the one envisioned in this bill .
2.Arguments in Support. The Sponsor of the bill, American Institute
of Architects, California Council , writes that 39 other states and
the District of Columbia require broad and comprehensive continuing
education for architects. "[T]he knowledge an architect must
possess to provide architectural services and protect the public is
constantly changing, either through updates to the building code,
changes in state or federal law, or new expectations from the
public. For example, the knowledge an architect must have today to
design a sustainable or high performance building is different than
it was 10 years ago, and it will be different again 10 years form
now." The Sponsor argues that the public has the right to expect
that an architect is engaged in life-long learning to remain current
on topics that affect the safety of the public.
The California Board of Architecture (Board) writes: "The Board is
also supportive of ongoing learning and wishes to pursue a
comprehensive continuing education program (which would include the
SB 1608 disabled access requirements). The Board argues that the
built environment that architects shape has a tremendous impact upon
the public health, safety and welfare, stating that, "The complexity
of the practice of architecture has increased exponentially, as new
technologies, construction methods and materials, regulations and
codes, and market issues add to the dynamic context in which
architects practice. Given architects' impact on the public, it is
crucial that they be current on HSW [health, safety and welfare]
practice issues. The public deserves no less."
3.Policy Issue . Does this bill take the issue of continuing education
out of the hands of the Legislature? By stating, "If the board
determines that the public health, safety, and welfare would be
served by requiring all architects issued a license under this
chapter to complete continuing education," the bill places the
decision of whether or not to require continuing education
completely upon the Board and not with the Legislature. All
decisions about the number of required hours and the nature of the
AB 623
Page 10
types of courses would be decided by the Board in regulation; the
requirements could be extensive or they could be limited, but there
would be no review by the Legislature of those determinations or
justifications for an expanded program.
It appears as if the Board has already implicitly, if not explicitly,
made a determination to expand continuing education for architects.
As stated above, under Comment # 7, "the Board wishes to pursue a
comprehensive continuing education program," and further states
"The complexity of the practice of architecture has increased
exponentially, as new technologies, construction methods and
materials, regulations and codes, and market issues add to the
dynamic context in which architects practice. Given an architect's
impact on the public, it is crucial that they be current on HSW
[health, safety and welfare] practice issues."
While it is well settled that the Legislature may delegate to state
boards the authority to prescribe rules and regulations to promote
the purpose of legislative acts, the Committee may wish to consider
whether these decisions should be abrogated to the Board .
4.Policy Issue . Is there a need for mandatory continuing education? A
mandatory continuing education requirement would generate
unspecified costs to licensees and generate corresponding revenues
to continuing education providers. The Board would also incur costs
in establishing continuing education standards and tracking licensee
compliance. In light of the low number of complaints by consumers
and enforcement actions against licensees, what is the demonstrated
need to mandate continuing education?
It may be useful to draw a distinction between continuing education
that is undertaken voluntarily by conscientious, motivated
practitioners, versus continuing education that is undertaken
involuntarily by unwilling or unmotivated practitioners. Indeed,
the Board's Proficiency Survey revealed that 75% of architects
already voluntarily take part in continuing education in order to
stay up to date on their practice. While continuing education seems
intuitively to be highly beneficial to licensees and the consumer
public, there is no empirical evidence that demonstrates a clear
connection between a continuing education mandate and improved
practitioner competence.
To the contrary, the Proficiency Survey indicated that the idea of a
post-licensure competency problem among California architects is not
AB 623
Page 11
supported by the empirical data.
5.Proposed Author's Amendment . The Author is proposing an amendment
to be taken in Committee which would clarify that the licensee must
distinctly certify the completion of continuing education for
disability access and for the general continuing education
requirement proposed by this bill. This amendment is the result of
discussions between the AIACC and Senate Judiciary Committee staff.
On page 5, after line 2 insert:
(c) If the board adopts a continuing education requirement for
license renewal as authorized by subdivision (b), an applicant
for license renewal shall separately certify on a form prescribed
by the board that the applicant has completed both (1) the
requisite hours of continuing education required by subdivision
(b) as a condition of license renewal and (2) that the requisite
hours of continuing education included at least five hours of
disability access continuing education as required by subdivision
(a).
6.Recommended Amendment . As discussed above, after extensive efforts
to understand the post licensure proficiency of licensed architects,
the Board determined that a continuing education requirement was not
needed at that time (2002). Furthermore, the study indicated that
there was no empirical evidence that there was a post licensure
proficiency problem for architects that would suggest a need for a
mandatory continuing education requirement. Even the Board's
current 2008 Strategic Plan, reiterates, "At the present time, a
broad-based, mandatory continuing education program is not
warranted."
However, in a perplexing move, the current Board has taken a position
of supporting the issue of mandatory continuing education and
seemingly indicates that it "wishes to pursue a comprehensive
continuing education program." It is unclear why the Board would
reach that conclusion based upon the extensive work it has done
which strongly would indicate otherwise.
If the Committee chooses to move this bill, the following amendment is
strongly recommended to ensure that any decision by the Board to go
forward with a mandatory continuing education requirement will be
appropriately vetted and documented .
On page 4, line 19, after "determines" insert: based upon
empirical evidence
AB 623
Page 12
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support:
American Institute of Architects, CA Council (Sponsor)
California Board of Architecture
Opposition:
None received as of July 1, 2009
Consultant:G. V. Ayers