Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enforcement Procedure Proposal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses pilot proposal to let staff issue agreed citations for first‑time contractor‑referral violations
Summary
Board members heard a proposal to delegate to staff authority to offer agreed‑citation settlements in routine cases where contractors' board referrals show clear, undisputed violations (no firm permit, not enrolled in peer review, not a CPA). The board asked staff to draft a paper and cost‑estimate for further consideration at the next meeting.
Board members discussed a proposal to streamline disciplinary handling of common, fact‑based violations that arise when the Contractors Licensing Board refers cases involving financial statements prepared for contractors.
The proposal — developed in discussion with department counsel and board staff — would permit staff to issue an agreed‑citation (a notice of violations and a proposed civil penalty) in straightforward, first‑time cases where documentary evidence is clear (for example, the preparer lacked a firm permit, was not enrolled in peer review, or was not a licensed CPA). Under the suggested model, a respondent who accepted the citation and paid the proposed civil penalty would resolve the matter administratively without the time and expense of a formal investigation and contested‑case process. If the respondent refused to accept the citation, the case would proceed to the board’s regular legal agenda for review.
Board members and counsel discussed guardrails for the approach: it should be limited to first‑time, undisputed cases; penalties and terms would be set by board policy and not a unilateral staff decision; and staff would report to the board on the use and results of the program. A preliminary example penalty schedule was discussed for illustration (not a final recommendation): lower civil penalties per violation (e.g., $750 per violation as a starting point was discussed), but members emphasized that actual amounts should be set by the board rather than staff without board approval.
Several board members urged staff to return to the next meeting with a draft proposal, including legal authority, recommended penalty amounts, administrative procedure, and an estimate of cost savings to the board from fewer full investigations. Members also discussed whether the process should require publication of settlement outcomes and whether staff‑issued citations should require respondents to offer restitution to affected clients; staff agreed to research statutory authority and practice in other boards and to draft options for the board’s consideration.
Why it matters: The proposal is intended to reduce the board’s investigative and legal workload and associated costs by resolving straightforward violations quickly while preserving the board’s discretion to pursue contested cases when necessary.
Clarifying details: Staff and counsel said the board could limit the pilot to referrals from the Contractors Licensing Board and to first‑time, undisputed cases. The board asked for a cost/benefit estimate and a draft agreed‑citation policy for review at the next meeting.
