I am the House sponsor of SB 85, “Utah Construction Trade Licensing Act Amendments,” by Sen. Scott Jenkins. It came to the floor of the House this morning and I had a chance to present the bill. Immediately prior to the bill coming up on the Senate calendar I was approached by several House members who were interested in making an amendment to the bill, which would basically negate one entire aspect of the bill. I told them I didn’t see it as a friendly amendment and we went out in the hall to discuss it further with one of the advocates for the bill. While out in the hall I got talking to a constituent visiting the Capitol from our District and when I returned to the original conversation the SB 85 advocate told me everything was smoothed over and there would be no amendment proposed by my colleagues. I was relieved as I returned to the chamber and almost immediately was called upon to present the bill. After my initial presentation of the bill, and within five minutes of reassuring the bill advocate and me that he would not be running an amendment, the same Representative stood to present his original amendment to the bill. What a difference five minutes makes! So I had an opportunity to field questions from several on the floor before a motion was made to circle the bill. This in effect says we don’t want to kill the bill, but it isn’t in good enough shape right now to garner the votes to pass. It indicates we need to take another look at it and see if we can’t work together to achieve some compromise everyone is comfortable with. So later this afternoon Sen. Jenkins, the bill advocate, several members of the House and Senate who oppose the bill, and I met together to try to achieve some compromise. At one point Sen. Jenkins said, “What we have here are complaints, not compromise. I’ve got five minutes so let’s get this done!” I think we were able to clarify some things for both parties and hopefully will be able to amend the bill tomorrow in a fashion that will keep the original policy objectives of the SB 85 intact. I am curious to see if there will be some unexpected action on it when I uncircle the bill. It is so interesting to see how this process works. For the most part I trust it to be an effective (albeit frustrating and slow moving at times) framework for creating good policy. We’ll see if that holds true tomorrow!
Good Luck! I feel confident with you leading our district to make sagacious votes and comments.
Would you share what part of the bill this representative was trying to negate? Is the word ‘advocate’ and ‘lobbyist’ interchangeable? The bill looks pretty straight forward to me. What would the proposed amendment do or change? I thank you for keeping this citizen informed!
My colleague was trying to amend the handyman exemption portion of the bill, around lines 330. The apprenticeship portion is not controversial, but the other aspect has been debated back and forth for several years. It basically comes down to who should be allowed to perform plumbing and electrical functions: a fully licensed, bonded, and insured plumber/electrician or a handyman who may or may not have the necessary expertise and is not licensed or insured? There are exemptions to the licensing requirement outlined in the bill for owners or their employees, those performing the service without compensation, and others. The ‘advocate’ was not a lobbyist, but a constituent who had an interest in the bill and had helped in the drafting. Good questions!
The amendment would take out the handyman exemption and would allow any non licensed, bonded, or insured handyman to do plumbing or electrical work beyond the current limited scope.