Commission staff led a workshop on the commission's authority to temporarily suspend licenses, explaining statutory standards and how the provision has been used historically.

Staff explained that a three-commissioner disciplinary panel — traditionally the enforcement committee — may temporarily suspend a license when it determines that a licensee's continued practice would "constitute a continuing threat to the public welfare." Staff emphasized the high legal standard for suspensions, particularly when seeking a temporary suspension without notice or hearing, because doing so bypasses the normal enforcement process and triggers a simultaneous contested case that must be set "as soon as possible."

Staff reviewed past agency uses of the authority and said the tool is used sparingly. Examples cited included cases in which a licensee repeatedly failed to remit trust funds as a property manager (multiple complaints alleging similar facts), and a separate case where an appraiser repeatedly accepted payment and failed to deliver appraisal reports. In those earlier matters, staff said the repeated, similar allegations supported the finding that continued practice presented an ongoing threat.

Staff also reviewed a recent contested case in which a sales agent pled guilty in federal court to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and to filing a false tax return connected to roughly $4 million in donations to two charities. The transcript summary staff provided included these steps: the respondent's guilty plea was reported in August 2022; staff opened a case in January 2024 after notification from the respondent's attorney; the respondent was sentenced in federal court in February 2024; an NOAV (notice of alleged violation) was sent Feb. 27, 2024; the respondent requested a hearing and the final contested-case matters were not before the commission until May 2025. Staff told commissioners the enforcement team's view was that the temporary-suspension standard would have been difficult to meet in that matter because it did not present the repeated, like-pattern allegations that often justify a suspension.

Staff noted that other licensing agencies sometimes have separate statutory language or rules that guide temporary-suspension use and that many health-related boards have written rules providing additional guidance; TREC currently does not have a comparable rule. To address uncertainty, staff offered options including drafting a rule that would describe internal process, potential triggers (for example, a high volume of substantially similar complaints or clear evidence of trust-account misappropriation), and workflow steps for presenting cases to the disciplinary panel.

Commissioners asked practical questions about timing, red flags during intake and whether to route borderline matters to the enforcement committee for early review. Several commissioners urged staff to consider a rulemaking exercise to add "meat on the bones" of the current statutory standard so enforcement staff and commissioners have clearer, documented criteria for when temporary suspension should be considered.

Staff said they will draft possible rule language and present it first to the enforcement committee for discussion prior to any formal rule proposal to the full commission.