As the Board considers the elimination of continuing education for tradesmen, it is important to look at the history which led us to this point.  I was a member of the Board for Contractors during the time that the regulation was revised to include this mandatory requirement.  There were several reasons which prompted the Board to exercise its ability to require formal training prior to license renewal.  One of those reasons was that information from local building departments throughout the Commonwealth supported the conclusion that, generally, tradesmen rarely were aware of changes to the various adopted codes.  The method of educating those who followed this model most likely took the form of jobsite sessions caused by less than satisfactory inspection results.

There are those who blame this requirement for lower numbers in the licensed tradesman population.  The diminishing number of those holding individual tradesman licenses cannot be attributed exclusively if at all to the implementation of continuing education requirements.  There are many factors which can be more readily verified as affecting these numbers.   Lack of interest in these trades was a topic of discussion for years prior to this requirement and continues to be.  Information from the Department of Labor and Industry’s Apprenticeship Council supports this.  Additionally, a fluctuating economy can also be cited as a major contributing factor.

It is no surprise that the number of disciplinary cases coming before the Board has not significantly decreased since 2008.  As I recall during my service, disciplinary cases were predominately initiated as a result of contract disputes or abandonment of the job.  Although code violations were occasionally discovered during the course of staff investigation, rarely were they the cause of the complaint.

As required by the directive contained in the Governor’s substitute House Bill 1645, the Board must conduct a detailed analysis of the tradesman continuing education program.  Recommended changes to the regulation should be based on the results of that analysis and not solely a desire to cut costs. Consideration must be given to the curriculum requirements as well as how they relate to revisions to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code.  Contained within the directive is the requirement to also evaluate the cost to regulants and how the program contributes to public safety.  Knowledge of code requirements decreases the potential for tragedy and we cannot count the tragedies that do not occur.

Although the Board is enabled by statute, continuing education for those performing this critical work is not mandated nor is the form or content prescribed.  There are many options available at little or no cost which can be brought to the table for consideration by the Board.  I ask that the Board enlist the assistance of the Department of Housing and Community Development as well as the various organizations of code administrators and inspectors to revise the tradesman continuing education requirements in order to reduce any unnecessary burdens.  Please consider options to make it better but  not eliminate it.

Respectfully Submitted

Michael D. Redifer