Scott,

I am on the licensing board, however not on the subcommittee that is recommending this. That is education which includes Bill Meyer, chair; Stefan Cancler; Michael O'Handley. I cannot attend that meeting because, if a fourth board member shows up, it creates a quorum and there are many unexpected legal matters with that -- government, open meetings, publicizing open meetings in advance. Bottom line, no fourth board member at the subcommittee meetings. So I hear about it from committee reports and minutes. In the end, the full board will vote, of course.

I can assure you that these three guys are not arrogant nor has anything gone to their heads. That was their recommendation to the board after talking about it extensively. They believe that everyone needs to start at the same point, as the new law goes into effect. Now, had there been a licensing law before -- so people had to take the NHIE -- and then those people had been required to keep up to date with their continuing ed credits, I think it would have been a different story. But, as it stands today, since there were no requirements for testing or continuing ed, in theory someone could have taken the test in 1999, and not done one thing, as far as learning. And yes, as Charlie says, the test does update every few years so some changes and updated information is reflected in the test.. And no, in answer to your question, people would not have to take it every year. Except, they would have to go through the process again if, when their license was due to renew, they failed to meet the continuing ed requirements.

Far as I can tell, everyone on the board is trying to do a good job. I think everyone, whether you agree with them or not, is also trying to be fair. We know we all have to live with this law and every single person on the board is a working inspector. These members are not making a recommendation just for others, each of them would have to take or re-take the test too. There will be a second part as well that is the Washington component.

I think when something as major as licensing comes into effect, it is impossible to make everyone happy all the time. Many people opposed the whole idea and still oppose it, despite the fact it is the law and inspectors have to make the best of it. I would be interested to see some comments by your friends in the state who would actually be working under the new law. They can come in and comment, even if they are not members of AR. They should also go to the subcommittee meeting on this tomorrow in SeaTac.

These comments are my personal observations, based on what I have seen. I am not here representing the views of the board.

WA inspectors who are concerned about this should contact the subcommittee, in mass. I, personally, have no problem with a three year rule either, but again I am not on that subcommittee. It will all come up for a full vote, but it is better to provide input in the early formative stages -- like today in SeaTac. One other thing, no question about it, every single person must take the new Washington State portion of the test. That is written into the law and, I think, they plan to have a testing provider combine both tests so it is all taken at once. In other words, here everyone MUST take a test anyway so there will be long lines for testing, either way.