HIGHLIGHTS OF
THE CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD
BOARD MEETING
Los Angeles, CA
November 20, 2008
By Sam K. Abdulaziz
* Love Affair
Between Regulators
* Fingerprinting
The Contractors’ State License
Board held a full Board Meeting on Thursday, November 20, 2008, in Los Angeles,
California near the Los Angeles Airport. The meeting included visits by
numerous regulators. This was in conjunction with an event called
“Professionals Achieving Consumer Trust.” This part was put on by the
Department of Consumer Affairs. It appears that the focus is to combat
unlicensed activity. It included some very high profile people such as
Regulators, District Attorneys, etc.
Each patted the other on the
back.
This meeting was like no other
meeting. There were numerous “visitors.” This disrupted the flow of the work.
With respect to the CSLB, much
of the subject matter was already discussed at Committee Meetings. This left
the present meeting with very little new business.
With that said…
There are two vacant positions
on the Board.
The business portion of the
Board meeting was done quickly in that this portion had been handled during the
Committee reports that were previously held. The gist of the balance of the
meeting dealt with fingerprinting.
I.
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT
The Legislative Committee
report was handled by Steven Matich and Mike Brown.
1.
Legislative Proposals
Mike
Brown has been working very hard to work with the contractors in their
legislative requests as well as coming forward with his thoughts dealing with
consumer protection. The following is a summary of what we believe to be the
most important portions.
a.
Tree Trimming and Removal – Amendment
The
present law states that the term “contractor” includes all of the following…
“(d) Any person not otherwise exempt by this chapter, who performs tree removal,
tree pruning, stump removal, or engages in tree or limb cabling or guying.”
I had specifically asked Mike Brown facetiously what a guying guy does and
he told me that a guying guy does guying. I guess that is accurate.
Note
that the licensing requirements are applicable only for work being performed on
trees that are at least 15 feet tall.
The
problem arises in that the law only applies to a contractors who “performs”
those services.
The
provisions of this law need to be amended to be consistent with present law,
which more accurately reflects the full range of qualifications, functions, and
duties of the profession - the offer to perform work. That is what is
going to be added if passed.
b.
Intent to Defraud – Using a number as
though it were a contractor’s license number
Currently, there is a
penalty for using a “contractor’s license number” of another person if the
perpetrator’s intent in using the number is to defraud. The proposed language
would delete the “contractor’s license” so that it would then read, “any person,
licensed or unlicensed who willfully and intentionally uses, with intent to
defraud, a number that does not correspond to the number on a currently valid
contractor’s license held by that person, is punishable by a fine not exceeding
ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in state prison, or in county
jail for not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.”
c.
Mechanic’s Liens – Private Works of
Improvement
This
is probably the most important item on the agenda. However, it is interesting
that the language that is proposed is to “work with industry representatives,
legislative staff, and other interested parties in developing a solution and
finding an author to carry a bill to resolve this issue in the upcoming
legislative session.” The issues are enacting a process that will require the
lien (mechanic’s lien) to be removed or expunged from the record that would
provide a simpler, quicker and less expensive solution.
2.
Requirement of Fingerprinting
This
was the most contentious portion of the meeting.
To refresh everyone’s
memory, the Department of Consumer Affairs in its infinite wisdom, proposed to
require licensees of various boards including the Contractors' State License
Board, who have not previously submitted fingerprints or the fingerprints no
longer exist, to submit to the Department of Justice, fingerprint images.
This
would require the Contractors' State License Board to expend upwards of
$1,000,000. We do not know what it will do to other Boards.
Some
of the opinions being discussed included protecting consumers from the cradle to
the grave.
The
purpose of the proposal is to require as a condition for renewal that all
licensees of designated boards and bureaus, who have not previously submitted
fingerprints or for whom a record of the submission of fingerprints no longer
exists, submit to the Department of Justice (DOJ) fingerprint images and related
information and successfully complete a state and federal level criminal
offender record information (CORI) search conducted through DOJ. The specific
provisions of the requirements would be as follows:
·
Effective for renewals occurring on or
after January 1, 2011;
·
Requires that licensees certify on the
renewal application that they have successfully completed a state and federal
level CORI search.
·
Requires that licensees retain, for at
least three years, evidence that is the basis for their certification specified
above.
Since this proposal applies to active licensees only, the staff projects that
approximately 180,000 active licensees (or 270,000 individuals) have not yet
been fingerprinted.
Based on historical data from the CSLB’s existing criminal background unit,
approximately 15% of those fingerprinted resulted in a conviction history. The
cost to the CSLB would be substantial.
Further, the proposed
text is unclear as to what exactly the licensees must do prior to their renewal
effective January 1, 2011.
The
underlying goal of the proposal has unquestionable significance for a consumer
protection agency. However it’s relevance to the construction industry needs to
be reexamined with due consideration to the actual risks associated with a very
narrow consumer population (homeowners), especially given the protections that
CSLB already has in place. Not every contractor comes into contact with the
population most at risk. That fact needs to be weighed against the less than 1%
of the licensee population that may require scrutiny or action. More to the
point, the proposal is far more relevant to the healthcare industry, than to the
construction industry.
Furthermore, unlike the healthcare industry that issues licenses to individuals,
CSLB issues licenses to entities consisting in many cases of multiple
individuals, thereby complicating the implementation process. The language of
any proposal must adequately account for a licensing structure that is unique to
the CSLB.
After much discussion, Registrar Steve Sands explained what he believed to be
the intent of the legislation and that the CSLB could not be all things to all
people. The final result was that the Contractors Board would oppose the manner
in which the law would be written and change it to “oppose unless amended.”
II.
ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
1.
Pending Complaints
The pending caseload
has fluctuated from a low in June 2007 of 3,884 to a high of 5,087 in March
2008. However, in October 2008, the pending workload was reduced to 4,640
statewide, which remains at a manageable level. Further, the number of pending
complaints is 1,665.
2.
High Profile Investigations
High
profile investigations are doing wonders with all of the disclosures being
made. It is a tremendous tool to try and keep honest people honest and protect
consumers.
The
group continues to join with other agencies and publicize the problems.
Specifically, the month of September was very productive. There were 236
Notices to Appear in September and October. This included partnering with
industry.
3.
Update on Proactive Enforcement
Efforts
Again, David Fogt and his staff have done wonders with the staff that they
have.
Significantly, during September 2008, the Intake and Mediation Centers obtained
$605,771.23 in restitution for California consumers.
"One of the motivating factors behind these stings
is to level the playing field for licensed contractors," says CSLB Registrar
Steve Sands. "The illegal operators are feeding off the underground economy and
taking jobs away from legitimate business people."
III.
LICENSING COMMITTEE REPORT
1.
Licensing Program Update
a.
License Application Workload
The License
Application Workload average is not a good indicator. The reason is because of
the number of applications received per month during the fingerprint
requirements, which went into effect in 2005. Those fingerprint requirements
are now well under control except for ones that are going to be reviewed as a
result of a “ding” on their record.
b.
Total Number of Applications Received
Per Month
The
total number of applications received per month is relatively stable for the
years 2006/07, 2007/08 and 2008/09.
c.
Fingerprinting/Criminal Background
Unit Update
Since the fingerprint program began in January 2005, the CSLB has received
nearly 163,500 transmittals from the Department of Justice. Of the applicants
who are fingerprinted during that time period, CSLB’s background unit received
criminal record offender information for more than 25,000 applicants, which
means that the California Department of Justice and/or the Federal Bureau of
Investigation reported that the individual had a past criminal conviction. The
criminal background unit denied 750 applications and issued 469 probationary
licenses.
2.
Testing Division Update
a.
Impact of the Executive Order on the
Testing Division
The
most serious impact to date has been in the administration of exams statewide
because the Executive Order prohibited the use of temporary examination proctors
who the CSLB rely on for the day-to-day operations at three test centers. In
addition, temporary proctors are used in all test centers to fill in during
absences by permanent test center staff. The termination of the temporary
proctors has resulted in the closing of the San Jose test center due to lack of
staffing and a cut back in scheduling in all other test centers because the
proctors are not available to fill in during the absence. The result is wait
times of up to six weeks in some test centers. There are more than 400
applicants who have opted to wait for the San Jose test center to reopen rather
than test at another location.
All
exam development workshops scheduled for July through September were cancelled.
At the end of September, the CSLB received permission to utilize subject matter
experts and workshops have now resumed.
With
all that said, applicants who wish to test sooner can still walk in at any open
test center with a reasonable chance of getting a seat.
b.
Review of Handyman Concept
Peter Sugar made a
presentation dealing with the “Handyman Concept” and related issues such as
requiring a license, exemptions, amount of exemption, etc. The Committee voted
to study the issue.
IV.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
REPORT
1.
Public Affairs Program Update
The
Public Affairs office continues to send out documentation and reports.
With
respect to an LA event, held on October 31st, the staff teamed up
with industry and completed a number of stings and arrests. This resulted in
lots of coverage.
The
CSLB will celebrate its 80th year in 2009. There was a discussion as
to what committee members and/or staff would do to participate in the big
community project.
With
respect to advertising and CSLB publication, that was put on hold at this time
for more discussions.
2.
Media Relations
The Public Affairs
staff responded to more than 50 separate media inquiries and provided interviews
to a variety of newspaper, radio and television outlets. They are working with
a Northern California TV station on undercover sting operations as well as
scheduling news stories.
V.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORT
1.
Administrative Program Update
a.
Personnel Delegation
DCA
has delegated various personnel functions to the CSLB. CSLB personnel are
working with several control agencies, such as the State Personnel Board and
State Controllers Office, to gain access to materials and equipment needed to
give CSLB personnel staff the ability to perform the delegated functions.
b.
Positions
As
of October 27, 2008, there were 37 vacant positions at the Board. Between
August 1, 2008, and October 15, 2008, the Board was prevented from filling its
vacancies due to the Governor’s Executive Order, which imposed a statewide
hiring freeze. The Board resumed its recruitment and hiring efforts to fill
vacant positions effective October 15, 2008, upon being notified by the
Department of Consumer Affairs that non-General Funded agencies were released
from the constraints of the Executive Order.
The
largest vacancy is in Enforcement with a total number of vacancies being 37.
VI.
REVIEW OF TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Back to Index
The information and comments throughout this website are intended to be of a general nature. Our comments/advice should not be relied upon without your seeking the aid and advice of legal counsel who will have the opportunity to take the time to research all your issues.
Abdulaziz, Grossbart & Rudman provides this information as a service to its friends &
clients. It is of a general nature and should not be used as a substitute for
specific legal advice. Any and all information set forth on our website relates
solely to California law. The information is not relevant and not applicable in
any other state or jurisdiction.
The firm can be reached at:
Abdulaziz, Grossbart & Rudman
P.O. Box 15458
North Hollywood, CA 91615-5458
(818) 760-2000
Facsimile (818) 760-3908 or by E-Mail at
Info@AGRLaw.net
Please note that any information you provide to us via e-mail may be viewed by
others and therefore, it is not a privileged communication.
Copyright © 2006 by Abdulaziz, Grossbart & Rudman. All rights reserved.
Site Designed & Hosted by
Webtrix Designs
|
