Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Ce Waivers topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission told it can extend CE deadlines or waive requirement but not routinely waive statutory late fees

Consumer Protection Commission · August 5, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Legal counsel told the commission it may extend continuing-education (CE) deadlines or waive the CE requirement for hardship (medical or military), but statutory late fees are generally not subject to appeal; the commission voted to table individual waiver requests until a written legal opinion clarifies practice.

A commissioner asked whether the commission can approve continuing-education waiver requests and whether that power includes waiving associated late fees. Legal counsel responded that the commission can extend deadlines or, in some cases, waive the CE requirement itself for hardships such as medical or military reasons, "but the late fees themselves are statutory" and "there's no process to waive those fees" for routine appeals.

Commissioners pressed counsel with hypotheticals — for example, whether the commission could retroactively extend a deadline so a licensee who completed CE late would avoid a late fee. Counsel said retroactive deadline changes after completion "would be inappropriate," and emphasized the need for clearer regulatory language about what qualifies as a hardship under the new fee/time structure. One commissioner said the current approach "doesn't sound to me like that's the right message to give people," arguing for clearer policy and advice so licensees are not blindsided.

After discussion, legal counsel recommended tabling the current waiver cases and producing a written opinion to provide consistent guidance. The commission voted to table the waiver requests pending that review. The written opinion was requested to ensure consistent decision-making across similar cases and to reduce arbitrary outcomes.