Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/03/2000 03:26 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 207-LICENSE HOME INSPECTORS Number 0222 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced consideration of HOUSE BILL NO. 207, "An Act relating to the registration of persons who perform home inspections; and providing for an effective date." JOHN MANNINEN, Legislative Aide to Representative Norman Rokeberg, Alaska State Legislature, clarified that the draft of the bill under consideration was Version W. Number 0273 REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS moved to adopt the proposed CS for HB 207, Version W [1-LS0132\W, Lauterbach, 3/3/00], as the working document before the committee. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 0300 MR. MANNINEN compared Version W with the preceding Versions S and V: Page 1 retains the title and added "relating to home inspection requirements for residential loans purchased or approved by Alaska Housing Finance Corporation". Page 2, under Licensure, deleted line 23, "directly", from the S version and deleted .050(b)(3), "has not performed home inspections for more than two years without being licensed under this chapter." The intent of that was to allow an associate home inspector to be able to work performing home inspections beyond two years, whether or not the associate becomes a licensed home inspector. Page 3, line 1-3, under Qualifications, deleted "practical" under Section 08.57.060. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG clarified that that was the change regarding the examination, requested by the department. MR. MANNINEN noted that also deleted, on line 8, was "in consultation with representatives of the construction industry". CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out that it now just says "passed the appropriate examinations." As Ms. Reardon had recommended, the change loosens it up. MR. MANNINEN continued: Page 4, line 6 [paragraph (4)], under Fees, it added, after "registration", "and renewal of registration". Under insurances in the W version, page 4, lines 25-31, deleted workers' compensation because it is redundant to the law now, and we deleted errors and omission (E&O) insurance. The question that arose at the last meeting was in a one-person shop; and legislative counsel said under AS 23.30.239, workers' compensation insurance is permissive for one-person shops, so that solved that problem without having it in the bill. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether the words "public liability" were still included. MR. MANNINEN said that is correct. Number 0552 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he would like to discuss the E&O insurance deletion. It was a policy call. He has been in negotiations with the engineering and architecture community for the last several weeks trying to placate their concerns. On the recommendation of Senator Loren Leman, a civil engineer, the requirement for home inspectors to have E&O insurance has been deleted. The rationale is this: There is not one licensure in Alaska that mandates any kind of E&O insurance. The Senator's concern was that to mandate it statutorily creates a problem. So it was the decision of the chairman and the bill sponsor to remove the entire clause. Number 0711 MR. MANNINEN continued: The S version's advertising prohibition was deleted in the W version, and that was based on Catherine Reardon's comments at the last meeting that the current construction contractor law already provides for that and it was redundant to have it in here. Under Section 08.57.210, line 3, Suspension of License, immediately before "suspended", added "if the required insurance ceases to be in effect". Residence language was moved from the Inspection Report on page 6 to the Definitions on page 8, lines 26 and 29, defining residence, single family, duplex, and so forth. Number 0791 On page 7, to Prohibited Acts were added "unless the disclosure is made (a) more than one year after the date of the report, and (b) to a subsequent client who requests a home inspection of the same premises." The intent of that is that home inspector would basically own the home inspection report after one year. In the previous versions, the home inspector would not be able to divulge that to anyone, and this would allow that home inspector to own the report and to resell it or reuse it for a subsequent client. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he wasn't sure the draft had captured that exactly right. The idea is to have a one-year life of the report. It will be out of date after that. He suggested the need to work further on that. Number 0873 MR. MANNINEN mentioned that deleted was some language in AS 08.57. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG clarified that on page 8, line 2 of Version W, it takes "civil" out of engineer, which allows any engineer to do that. Also deleted was E&O insurance and continuing education for the engineers. MR. MANNINEN further stated that language was deleted on page 10, lines 3-6. It basically grandfathers in the International Association of Electrical Inspectors' ICBO license until January 1, 2002, at which time they would have to become relicensed as home inspectors in order to continue to do home inspections. That allows them the same transition period as the others. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG concluded, "What we tried to do was to accommodate some of the objections and make the whole simpler." Number 1037 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said it was her understanding in talking with representatives of the engineers and architects that there is some real concern about the use of the individual seal of the engineer or the architect by people who are in training. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG explained that this mandates that the person in training cannot use the seal; only the person who has the authority to use the seal can use it. MR. MANNINEN explained that the person who is licensed and has the seal has the authority and the responsibility to use that seal appropriately. That person's name and reputation goes with it. There are engineers and architects in training who are working for them and do this work, and they [the licensed professionals] directly supervise the work. The seal is the guarantee for the homeowner, for the person buying the service, and is a consumer protection guarantee for the home buyer. Number 1129 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said this provision is basically a compromise. If the engineers and architects don't want to be licensed as home inspectors, then they have to use their seals, to put their seals on the line. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said the compromise is [between this and] paying fees and updating education and becoming a licensed home inspector. There are, apparently, architects and engineers who feel that the seal means something quite different from being a home inspector. That home [being inspected] is not the creation of the architect or engineer. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said it is the inspection that is their work. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said an inspection is different from having designed the home and built it, however. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG acknowledged that some people object. The issue here is to [ensure that] the home inspection people who are not engineers will be licensed, will have continuing education, and will have a regulatory scheme overlooking them to protect the consumer. Right now, engineers and architects have their professional board of architects, engineers, land surveyor and landscape architects to oversee them. But they don't have any provisions to regulate home inspectors. An architect or engineer who does work that is not sealed basically has no liability. The seal puts one's professional competency and standing behind that work, which makes one liable under one's engineering certification; one could be disciplined and that board could come after the person. The idea is a level playing field. Engineers want to be able to do home inspections without being licensed home inspectors. They can't have it both ways. What the law is saying is that if one does not want to use one's seal, then one needs to become a licensed home inspector. Number 1326 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA noted that the concern that was voiced to her was about those in training. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG concurred that she might have an interesting point there. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said it would be better, in that case [of a person in training], to have the person go through the licensing, as every other home inspector does, because that person really isn't qualified to put on the seal. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG explained that there is an attempt being made to accommodate some "peculiar things." There is a gentleman [a licensed engineer] here in Juneau; his son is an engineer but doesn't have his stamp. The son works [for the father] like an associate home inspector. The bill provides that an associate home inspector can be supervised by the licensed home inspector, and [this provision provides] the same thing for the associate engineer who works under the supervision of a licensed engineer whose stamp has to be applied [to the associate's work]. MR. MANNINEN said the associate engineer in training or associate architect doesn't use the employer's seal, but can become a licensed home inspector. That still wouldn't allow such people to use the seals of the registered architect or engineer. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG restated that Representative Cissna may have a good point about the associates. He said he thought her question was how the architect or engineer can seal somebody else's work. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA affirmed that, reiterating that apparently there is some real concern about that aspect. MR. MANNINEN noted that the concern that one of the engineers had expressed to him was a little different from that. It was regarding not having any time off if they were to required to seal; since they couldn't authorize anyone else to use their seals, that would be against the law, and that the associates wouldn't be able to do the work without their direct supervision. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG countered: Does that mean doctors can't take a vacation and look after patients? Of course they can, because they make arrangements for other competent professionals to look after the patients. In this case, if an engineer wants to leave town, he gets someone else who has a stamp to supervise the associate's work. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said if an engineer or architect left town, she would not want somebody in training to take over. However, she could see that it would be valuable experience for an assistant who was working toward engineering licensure to inspect homes as a way to really get the grounding. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG explained that the engineer/architect has to seal the plan under HB 207 because he/she is responsible and liable for the activities; the same is done with building designs. The engineer/architect doesn't have to do the actual design; one can put one's stamp on it if the person reviews it and approves it, and he or she stands responsible for it. That's what the issue is here. If engineers and architects insist on being able to operate because they are engineers and architects, they have to put their stamp on it, because that's what makes them architects and engineers. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked about their assistants. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said it is typical for assistants to draw the plans and the architect to stamp the drawing. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI cited another example: The first-year attorney drafts the pleadings and the boss signs them, and it has the boss's name in it because there is insurance through the firm, and, ultimately, the senior partners are responsible. Number 1674 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG again said he appreciates what Representative Cissna is saying. There is the responsibility there, so they [architects and engineers] are stamping somebody else's work. But if they want to operate like that with employees and associates, somebody has to be responsible for them or they have to be licensed. Consumer protection is the objective here. [CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked anyone remained online at the Legislative Information Office office in Anchorage. That office replied that everyone had left there.] CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he wouldn't mind moving the bill, and asked Representative Cissna how she felt about it. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said she did not feel comfortable with moving it. There is some sense in having licensure and training in this other field [home inspection], and it seems like a different field than the engineering and the design of homes. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG concurred that they are different fields, and said that is one of the issues here. The building inspectors don't want to exempt [from licensure] the architects and engineers. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said she wants to look into the point of contention further. In response to Chairman Rokeberg, she indicated she could do that by Monday afternoon. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG appointed her "a subcommittee of one to check it out." [HB 207 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|