De-licensure of Geologists: Coming Soon?
R. Douglas Bartlett, RG, CPG-8433
My home state of Arizona was the first state in the nation to develop and require professional registration for geologists; that was 60 years ago in the year 1956. It was the Arizona registration program and its written examination requirement that eventually led to the development of the national ASBOG exam, with several AIPG CPGs assisting with the develop- ment of the questions for the valid exam. In about 1991, AIPG members/CPGs were surveyed to determine what geologists actually do and what they need to know in order to develop a “valid” examination.
I remember how proud I was in 1991 to receive a letter from the Arizona Board of Technical Registration (ABOTR) notify- ing me that I had passed the professional geologist registration exam. I considered it an important step in the development of my professional career.
So you can imagine my surprise when I found out on a Friday in February 2016 that the Arizona Legislature was considering passage of a bill that would do away with reg- istration for geologists! The bill, HB 2613, also proposed eliminating licensing for landscape architects, fruit packers, yoga instructors, athletic trainers, cremationists, and assay- ers. This bill completely blind-sided the geologic community and we only had a few days before it was to be debated in the legislature. From the advice of the late Lee Allison, our state geologist, the AIPG Arizona Section quickly moved to retain lobbyists to represent us as the bill was debated and moved from committee to floor vote in the House and then again in the Senate. The lobbyists provided strategies for a grass-roots letter writing campaign, set up meetings with the bill writers, and arranged for several of us to testify before the house and senate committees.
The efforts of AIPG members and other members of the geologic community resulted in many emails and phone calls to House and Senate members that were instrumental in getting the bill modified while still in the House to retain geology registration and to continue geologic representation (which would also have been eliminated by HB 2613) on the ABOTR. However, an amendment was introduced that would have allowed geologists to work in the state in a non-regulated capacity as “Trained Geologists” essentially making geol- ogy registration optional. Our lobbyists worked with various members of the legislature and governor’s office and were able to obtain an agreement with a sponsored amendment (the Donahue Amendment) that eliminated this language essen- tially keeping geology registration at status quo. The amend- ment initially passed on voice vote, but the governor did not like this and pressured various Republican Senators to change their vote in a session ending the formal voting process. Our lobbyists felt that it was likely that the Governor’s pressure would cause the Donahue Amendment to fail in this final vote.
From our perspective, the Trained Geologist category was problematic and needed qualifications. This was done by modifying the Donahue Amendment in coordination with the
Governor’s office such that a Trained Geologists could not practice in Arizona if they were convicted felons or had lost their geologist license in another state. A Trained Geologists must also have received a Geology Degree from an accredited university and have at least four (4) years of professional experience. It also requires the Trained Geologist to disclose their lack of licensing to a prospective employer/client, and can- not prepare materials related to any State Law that required professional registration (e.g. Aquifer Protection Permits, UST Permits, etc). This amendment passed but unfortunately, since the Trained Geologist is not licensed, there is no regulatory agency that has the authority to police Trained Geologists to make sure they are conforming to these new standards. It is buyer beware! One legislator felt that he could simply check on-line through Yelp to find a geologist! If there were any problems with the quality of work, “see you in court.”
Where did this bill come from and why is it a priority to Arizona’s Governor Doug Ducey? His reasoning was spelled out in the announcement that accompanied his signing of the bill:
In signing these bills, Governor Ducey kept good on his promise to begin the elimination of burdensome licensure of scores of odd jobs – regulations that are often designed to kill competition or keep out the little guy, including the elimination of licenses for talent agents.
State licensure is the most restrictive regulation on individuals looking to earn an honest living. Licenses should only be required when they are truly designed to protect the public health and safety. With these bills, Arizona has started the process of chipping away at unnecessary licensing regulations.
Besides taking umbrage with the implication that geol- ogy is an “odd job” and has no bearing on public health and safety, it appears that the Governor’s main motivation is to spur competition (or to show the national audience he is suc- cessfully reducing “big” government). I think this is an absurd notion for a scientific discipline that requires college and even post-graduate training.
Another explanation was provided by James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute:
While licensing and certification seek to ensure that workers have the necessary qualifications, especially for occupations impacting consumer safety and well-being, overly broad application of licensing requirements can create costly and unnecessary barriers to entering a profession.
As a result of this thinking, are the design professionals, especially geologists, getting caught up in this wave of “elimi- nating barriers” for workers?
It is one thing to say that licensing limits the number of hair dressers in a community (no disrespect to stylists!), but quite another to suggest additional competition is needed in a field that requires considerable training and years of experience to
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
