Testimony
Assembly
PUBLIC HEARING
Committee on Labor and Industry
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
11:00 AM
225 Northwest
State Capitol
Assembly Bill 69
Martin J. Hanson, PE
Joint Board of Architects, Landscape Architects,
Professional Engineers, Designers & Land Surveyors--Chairman
Professional Engineers Section--Chairman
Chairman Honadel and honorable members of the Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Labor and Industry:
Committee on Labor and Industry
Representative Honadel, chair
Representative Gottlieb, vice-chair
Representatives Nass, Wieckert, Newcomer, Murtha, Nelson, Sheridan and Van Akkeren, members
I am sorry that I am unable to appear before you today in person to present testimony and be able to answer your questions. When I was informed of the hearing date, I already had commitments in Florida at the time of this hearing that I was unable to change. I have asked Mr. Charles Kopplin, PE, professional engineer member of the Joint Board and Engineers Section, to present my testimony to you. Please consider my testimony below, and I would be happy to supply answers to your questions or the committee’s questions in writing at your convenience.
I am presenting testimony on behalf of the Wisconsin Joint Board of Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers & Land Surveyors, where I am chairman, and the Engineers Section of the Joint Board, where I am also chairman; both boards have authorized me to speak on behalf of the respective body. I would like to thank the chairman for scheduling the hearing on this important legislation, and I would like to thank Representative Gottlieb for his work on this bill. Today, I intend to provide testimony on this legislation to inform and answer your questions to convey the purpose behind the changes included in Assembly Bill 69.
I am pleased that Representative Gottlieb has introduced this bill. I have been working on some of these changes since I was first appointed to the board five years ago. This legislation is strongly supported by the Engineers Section and is likewise strongly supported by the Joint Board of Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers & Land Surveyors.
I am also happy to report that this bill has received the support of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Wisconsin Section, the Wisconsin Society of Professional Engineers (WSPE), and the American Council of Engineering Companies of Wisconsin (ACEC WI). The bill has been discussed by the Alliance for Technical Professions, a consortium of engineering professionals and affiliated groups interested in legislation and rule making, and how both affect the public health, safety, and welfare. I have also received letters and phone calls in support of this bill from my many associates in the industry.
This bill does three simple things. First, it streamlines the licensure process for engineers; second, it eliminates the review of examinations; and thirdly, it eliminates the statutory need for testing in a specific area. All of these changes in the statutes for professional engineers and are long overdue. I will address each change separately.
STREAMLINING LICENSURE
The current path to licensure in Wisconsin is very complex. There are numerous paths and branches as shown in Exhibit 1 from the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing web site.
EXHIBIT 1
This bill eliminates all the alternate paths to licensure and prescribes a single path, one set of requirements, and one standard for all applicants. That path will be, in sequential order:
Obtain an engineering degree from an ABET or Board approved institution
Pass the 8-hour Fundamentals of Engineering exam (national exam)
Obtain 4 years of qualifying engendering experience
Pass the 8-hour Principles and Practice exam (national exam)
The most abused path to licensure in the current law is the approved degree plus 8 years of qualified experience. This path forces the board, two of whom are public members with limited technical qualifications and knowledge, to make subjective judgments on applicants’ qualifications for licensure. We do not believe this is good public policy and falls outside our mission of protecting public health, safety, and welfare. This path is sometimes referred to as the “grandfather” clause or path, as it was likely enacted in very early licensure legislation to allow practitioners the ability to continuing practicing.
This path, and all other paths in the current law, are repealed by Assembly Bill 69. Applicants will all have a consistent and standardized path to licensure. The Board will evaluate each candidate against the same criteria.
Examinations by themselves do not ensure the competency of any engineer. But we believe the exam is a far better and more consistent measure than a subject review of a resume of experience.
Professional Engineers who obtain their license in Wisconsin by this “grandfather” clause are severely disadvantaged in other states when applying for licensure by comity. Most states do not recognize or accept the Wisconsin license granted by experience because it was not obtained by the more common examination path. Wisconsin professional engineers typically must take the Principles and Practice exam in the state they wish to practice in. Requiring all Wisconsin engineers to obtain licensure by examination will make it easier for them to obtain licenses in other states where they may be working on projects. This will provide more opportunities for Wisconsin professional engineers.
This new legislation should be enacted immediately, and there should be no phase-in of the new process. The Engineer Section predominately sees applications for licensure in this path in two scenarios.
Applicants who Fail to Pass Principles and Practice Exam
We have seen a number of applicants who have failed the Principals and Practice examination, once or several times, simply wait an additional four years and re-apply under the “grandfather” clause. Some of these applicants will even state in their application that they are applying because they have failed the exam. Furthermore, some of those who have been denied licensure under the “grandfather” clause, on appeal during their hearing freely state that they don’t want to take the exam or believe they cannot pass the exam. The “grandfather” path is unquestionably the easier path to licensure. It is also the most subjective and therefore we believe an inappropriate process to grant a professional engineer license. The board should have evidence sufficient to support a strong recommendation for licensure for all applicants who are granted a license to practice. We can only have this sufficient evidence by having consistent criteria to measure against. We believe the criteria should be the ability to pass the Principal and Practice examination. The inability of an applicant to pass the exam raises some doubt as to their competence, regardless of the applicant’s experience.
Applicants from out-of-state
We are seeing an increase in the number of applicants under the “grandfather” clause who are residents of states other than Wisconsin. This is because Wisconsin may be the only state that still has this experience path to licensure. Our lower application and renewal fees also make Wisconsin an attractive state to obtain licensure. Many of these applicants have significantly more experience than the required eight years. These are typically persons who are looking to simply add a credential to their resume for compensation, status, or other reasons outside the interests of the objective of licensure. Granting licenses in this manner is not within our mission to protect public health safety and welfare and extends our intended jurisdictional reach far beyond the borders of Wisconsin. We believe this to be an inappropriate use of our resources and not a good path to a professional credential.
It is not surprising that engineers in the industry across the country generally regard those who have obtained licensure by examination to have met a higher standard than those who have obtained the credential by experience only.
EXAM REVIEW
This bill eliminates the opportunity for an applicant to review their incorrect answers to exam questions.
The tests we use for Fundaments of Engineering and Principles and Practice are developed by The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) and are used across the country. An enormous amount of effort goes into developing the test question bank. The questions are tested for ambiguity, accuracy, and other measure to ensure they are a fair and objective measure of breath and depth of knowledge. To facilitate testing and scoring, these tests are now multiple choice and machine scored.
The existing legislation was enacted when the examinations were written long-hand. Applicants would develop the solution on paper and submit their answers with supporting logic and calculations. These questions were then graded, and partial credit was granted appropriate to the correctness of the solution strategy contained in the applicant’s presentation. In this method of examination, it was logical to allow an opportunity for the applicant to review his or her answer and potentially appeal for additional partial credit.
Multiple choice questions with single unique correct answers eliminate the opportunity to score any partial credit and therefore eliminate any need for post-exam review. Currently if an applicant requests to review a question, we have to seek approval from NCEES and have a board member present during the review. The applicant is shown the question text, the answer choices, and his or her answer. The applicant is NOT shown the correct answer. An unscrupulous applicant could review multiple questions in multiple exam administrations, all for the purpose of harvesting questions for either his or her own benefit (some questions are repeated in each administration of the exam to measure exam difficulty and consistency) or for unauthorized and illegal distribution and/or sale of test questions.
NCEES is concerned, and rightly so, about the security of the exam questions. There is considerable time and money expended in the development and maintenance of the test bank. To allow post-exam review of questions opens the state of Wisconsin to the risk of exam security breach. NCEES has indicated it may hold states liable for the cost of development and testing of replacement questions where the state’s process did not ensure the security of the exam.
We believe that there is no real purpose for reviewing exam questions in the current format, and we want to reduce the risk to the state of Wisconsin for defense of any claims against the state by NCEES or breach of exam questions. In addition, the Department of Revenue and Licensing and the board can use their time more wisely in tasks other than proctoring an applicant’s review of test questions.
SPECIFIC AREA TESTING
The current statute contains language requiring the examination to “include questions which require applicants to demonstrate knowledge of the design needs of people with physical disabilities and of the relevant statutes and codes.”
This legislation was likely enacted in the sprit of Americans’ with Disabilities Act implemented in 1973 and 1990. The intent was logically to raise awareness among newly licensed engineers of the changes to codes and design standards dealing with people with physical disabilities.
The need to specifically test for this attribute no longer exists. The International Building Code has been adopted by many states and local governments. This document, over 700 pages, is revised every three years. It contains a section on Accessibility, defining the term as the accommodation of disabled persons in structure. This includes parking spaces, elevators, and restrooms. Local governments may pass ordinances to supplement these requirements. There are extensive resources available to design professionals dealing with the Americans with Disabilities Act including the ADA.gov website.
We believe that the design professions and educators have been working within the requirements of ADA for more than 30 years, and it has become the standard of practice. The examination prepared by NCEES contains information on all subjects that will include ADA impacts where appropriate. Having the statute refer to a specific test area requires the state to prepare and administer these questions separately form the national exam—an additional burden of state resources with no corresponding benefit to the public.
I want to assure the committee that the removal of this language and requirement in no way whatsoever is intended to diminish the need for design professionals to work within design statutes, codes, and ordinances to accommodate the needs of those with physical disabilities. My uncle, an Architect for years in Arizona, was a polio victim and was confined to a wheelchair for most of his practicing years; I am indeed deeply sensitized to this issue. I again assure the committee that the removal of this requirement does not change the methods and practices of design professionals with regard to accommodations and accessibility issues for persons with disabilities.
We believe that it is no longer necessary to have the statutes specially call out areas for questions in the examination. To do so raises questions about other technical areas that should be considered to be included in the examination. The board has confidence in the national exams prepared by NCEES to achieve an appropriate breadth and depth of questions. This is a difficult exam and requires substantial serious preparation as demonstrated by the overall 54% pass rate in Wisconsin (first-time takers have a higher pass rate of 74%).
Mr. Chairman, in summary, the Engineer Section of the Joint board and the Joint Board strongly support Assembly Bill 69 and urge its passage at the earliest opportunity.
This bill is needed to update the statues regarding professional engineers. We need to have all engineers measured against the same standard to ensure the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, and we need to make Wisconsin engineers competitive in the national economy.
We need to eliminate the opportunity for applicants to review test questions—this practice is outdated and no longer serves any real purpose. It does subject the state to a risk of liability for breaches of exam security.
Finally, we can eliminate the statute requirement for single, specialized topics because it also has outlived its purpose.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I appreciate your consideration of this matter.
I would be happy to answer any questions that may remain from the committee.
__________________
Martin J. Hanson, PE
