Its not one I have thought of in the past by 0fgn9S0


                            September 17, 2008

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Daryle Andrews; Jesse DeGeare; Henry
Parsons; and Joe Hutmacher: Jimmy Monteith


Legal Counsel; Mike Burton, Board Member Bert Wiens, Electrical Supervisor; Jerry
Regier, Interim Administrator; Dannette Yousey, Administrative Office
Supervisor/Plumbing Division; June Smith, Electrical Secretary; Terry Calloway,
Electrical Investigator; Louis Triplett, Electrical Investigator; Gary Williamson,
Electrical Investigator; Tim Hillman, Plumbing Investigator.

OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Yaciuk, IEC; Richard Gabel, City of Edmond; Bruce
Stokke, City of Oklahoma City; David Adcock, City of Oklahoma City; Ross Barrick,
City of Kingfisher; Mike Means, OSHBA; Steve Neece, OESCO; Bob Reece, City of El
Reno; Bob Christian, City of Norman; Gerald Weidman, City of Oklahoma City; Gloria
Walling, City of Elk City; KL Bradley,


Mr. Jesse DeGeare, Chairman, called the meeting of the Electrical Examining Committee
to order in the Conference Room at the Shepherd Mall, 2401 NW 23rd Street, Suite 5,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73107


This [Regular] meeting of the Electrical Examining Committee, scheduled to begin at
[10:00 a.m.] on this [17th ] day of [September], 2008, has been convened in accordance
with the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, Title 25, Sections 301 through 314.

Further, an advance public notice that was sent to the Secretary of State electronically
September 28, 2007, prior to this time today, specifying the time and place of the meeting
here convened, preceded this meeting.

Notice of this meeting was given at least forty-eight (48) hours prior hereto and two
persons have filed a written request for notice of meetings of this public body to date.

Read aloud by June Smith this [17th] day of [September], 2008.
September 17, 2008
Page 2


                                               MOTION PASSED
Voting aye: Jesse DeGeare
            Jimmy Monteith
            Henry Parsons
            Daryle Andrews
            Joe Hutmacher


Mr. Mike Means, Executive Vice President of the Oklahoma State Home Builders
Association stated he is concerned with 2008 NEC in regards to the ASCI and the
Tamper Resistant receptacle. The same references were kept from the 2005 NEC when
the 2008 NEC was adopted. These particular issues not only cause concern for our
industry they also cause concern for many of the municipalities on whether this is
something they want to proceed with or not. The City of Norman is looking at adopting
the 2005 NEC for residential and then adopting 2008 NEC for commercial. And what we
are asking from this Committee is do that same type of action, to keep the 2005 NEC for
residential construction or at the very least amend these two particular items from there
adoption of the 2008 Code, the ark fault circuit interrupters and the tamper resistant
receptacles and then proceed on.

Mr. Means also stated he would like to bring to the Committee’s attention that he is a
part of a group that is called Construction Industry Coalition we have Electrical
Contractors, Heating and Plumbing Contractors, Residential Contractors, Sub
Contractors, we have met together informally for about the last three years on items that
deal with the legislation. And one of the concerns we have always had is the different
codes depending on which community you are working with, we have started a dialog
with the Oklahoma municipal and in the last month or so looking at adopting a state wide
code with all parties involved Constructions Industries Board, State Fire Marshall,
Municipal Associations and in the construction industry so we have a mechanism where
the codes are fully explained and bedded out properly from all avenues with the ability to

Mr. Means stated that what we are asking for is that this Committee recommend to the
Construction Industries Board to either keep the full 2005 electrical code for residential
construction and/or amend these two particular items out of the 2008 code.

Jimmy Monteith suggests before the next code adoption is to open a dialogue with all
parties involved in the code from the electrical side before we can approve if there are

September 17, 2008
Page 3
                                                                          MOTION PASSED
Voting aye:    Jesse DeGeare
               Jimmy Monteith
               Henry Parsons
               Daryle Andrews
               Joe Hutmacher

The Committee adjourned for lunch at 12:05 p.m. and returned to open session at 1:00


Mr. Hutmacher gave a copy of Continuing Education requirements of the States we are
reciprocating with plus the State of Texas to each of the Committee members. And states
that some of the other states are set up on a one year continuing education requirement,
some are set up on two year and some are on a three year. We have the least requirement
of six hours for continuing education. Mr. Hutmacher stated you will notice on the right
hand column how they break them down on the code update and most of them are
industry related, the state of Colorado would be the ideal situation there is no
requirements you just have to take a test each time you renew the license, but this would
by far be the most difficult for the average individual, since there are any number of
changes on a given code up in the hundreds literally.

The state of Washington must have four hours in Washington electrical law and rules. Its
not one I have thought of in the past, but after thinking about it I can see the merit. The
state of Washington and Texas are always looking for means to generate revenue,
Washington charges forty five dollars per instructor for approval, and forty five dollars
per class and Texas charges one hundred dollars per instructor, on Washington’s when it
says per class, I quizzed them about this and my understanding that if you submit for
approval for a class if you document what you will be teaching once it is approved that
class it can be taught ten times but still can only be classified as one class. This is the way
they interpret that, its not each time you present the class but for each class approval.

Mr. Hutmacher states an issue or question not raised prior to this meeting, when it comes
to our record keeping in house, does it make a difference if our continuing education was
based on yearly or a three year cycle. Mr. Wiens states that the staff is inundated with a
lot of applications that come in so if we do this on a yearly basis we do not have enough
staff at this time to keep up with it, they are working themselves to death trying to get
these continuing educations logged in. Mr. Hutmacher states this is something to think
about, if you go to a twenty four hour or eighteen hour whatever is on that cycle, the flip
side of that is you could use that last year you could have one coming in on eight hours of
continuing education one coming in on four hours of rules and regulations and another
one coming in on four hours, so on a individual you could have who knows how many
different CEU’s coming into this office to be entered, so you need to think about in that
terms to, its not just one continuing education that would be in that third year it would
multiples of them if you stretch it over one year.
September 17, 2008
Page 4
Mr. Hutmacher states that he would like to see that we come back to the next meeting
with some recommendations and you could do your in house research to see what’s best
and make some decisions based on that.

Mr. John Staires, Chief Electrical Inspector for the City of Tulsa who is also a provider of
continuing education, states that he had sent a letter to Mr. Wiens for distribution to the
Board members, with some thoughts the he had on proposals for provisions of continuing
education requirements for eight hours continuing education requirement per year and he
to provide some modules here which would give the individual a choice as to what type
of training they would like to attend, provide a list, Analysis of Changes to the NEC,
Electrical Safety in the Workplace, Grounding and Bonding, Services, Special
Occupancies, Special Equipment, General Wiring Requirements, Etc., And another thing
I am proposing here would be as a provider to submit a list of classes once a year for
example before the calendar year starts have those approved and then avoid having to
come back and getting them approved individually, so once those classes that agenda and
curriculum have been approved to be able to provide those classes as necessary and as
they can be scheduled.

Mr. Hutmacher asks Mr. Staires what are your thoughts on qualifying an instructor. Mr.
Staires answered that there is Nation wide problem with unqualified persons doing this
training and what that leads to is a lot of misunderstanding and miscommunication and
bad information, I think there needs to be some sort of competency proven for an
instructor in the electrical code whether that is through an examination or some specific
requirements as far as experience in the industry, myself personally, I would be in favor
of an examination, for someone to sit down and prove that they are competent in code
matters and use of the National Electrical Code before they were certified by this board to
provide the training.

Mr. Staires states there are some existing examinations that the Board could consider
things like the inspectors exam, that certainly test the competency of the person taking
that exam its one of the more difficult electrical exams that you can take, something that
is already in existence that you are already using a vender for and have that person
successfully complete that to prove competency, to prove they actually know how to use
the National Electrical Code. Mr. Monteith states that makes them a subject matter
expert, doesn’t necessarily make them a good instructor and that is where I think that we
need some oversight on, is on these classes.

Mr. Weidman states he would suggest that you set the curriculum for the instructor, that
way everybody is teaching the same information. Mr. Regier states on the approval as
well as the administration I want to pick up on what he said, you can have somebody that
meets all the requirements in terms of resume or whatever, but what I have picked up
from here in the short time I have been here is many of these courses that you go to its
not presented very well, so you might put into in terms of approval is some kind of
student rating what’s this instructors student rating put that into the context of
certification. Mr. Hutmacher states one other thing, requirements on apprentices having
continuing education requirements which is accomplished if he is affiliated with the
apprenticeship program, and I think this is an excellent time to require these apprentices
who are not attending class to get them into a classroom environment to try to teach them
whatever amount they can absorb.
September 17, 2008
Page 5
Mr. Regier states Mr. Chairman there is precedence that November 1, 2008 we are taking
over Home Inspectors and they already ask for a fee to be paid for instructor’s classes so
we are building that into our system.

Mr. Stokke, City of Oklahoma City , the only way to monitor these instructors is for
someone to go and sit in on there classes and see how they are actually teaching that class
and if you don’t have that in place your not going to get good instructors, you can take
ten people and give them the same code book and you will ten different opinions, you
almost have to be there to see how they are interpreting the code and the interpretation is
up to the jurisdiction if the instructor will just tell them this is my interpretation it may
not be any other municipality. When I teach a class I tell them this is my interpretation of
how this code reads and if you’re working somewhere else you need to talk to them.
Mr. Monteith agrees and states that is what he was getting at not just the course content
but the professionalism of the instructor the staying on task.

Mr. Hillman states Southwest Code Council is one of the largest providers of continuing
education in the state and the majority of their training is done in the electrical field in
conjunction with IAEI, and everybody on the Southwest Construction Code Board agrees
that we need more training in the trades we are also aware of the fact when we make
decisions at the Construction Industries Board that affect how people are licensed we
loose licensee’s so that needs to be a consideration when you make changes you are
probably going to loose licensee up front. Also if you start putting that you want so many
hours on this and so many of this you will put the girls trying to figure out what
qualification this meets. The other trade Committees they wanted to leave it as is and
voted to free up there requirement of code update, and the plumbing reads something like
four hours of code including update so they can teach the update and if someone has a
question they can go off on something that relates to code you wouldn’t have to stick to
just reading the list of updates and they are going to have up to two hours of
manufactures type presentations that can be presented to fulfill the other two hours of the
six hours. The last thing I would like to discuss the monitoring of these classes who will
do this if you send the field investigators out to monitor these classes and they come back
and say this instructor was not good, then who is going to say this guy can’t teach again,
and if you say you can’t teach again you may be setting yourself up for a lawsuit. You
may want to think of the legality of monitoring these people and if you exclude them
from the process.


Mr. Denny states at the last meeting you were issued some proposals you need to move
on these items pretty quick. You have the alarm license and endorsements coming upon
you and its imperative that you take a look at this to see if these are the standards you
want and if there are any changes, what kind of changes you want to make and how you
want to proceed.

Mr. Denny states the purpose of the rules, under the statue you can have this license
endorsement for people that install alarms on properties and as a requirement the person
has to get a National Criminal History Records check and the purpose of the rules are to
set standards in place so its common knowledge that what types of things is going to
September 17, 2008
Page 6
prevent the person from obtaining the endorsement when the criminal records check
comes back. You will see in each one there are two stages, the disqualifying crimes one
you have disqualifying crimes include violent types of crimes such as murder, rape, etc.
the ones listed Title 158, Subchapter 5. And the disqualifying five year crime which after
the expiration of five years in which they are lesser crimes after time has passed. What
this does is gives the agency personnel some guidance on how to look at these criminal
records checks as they come in otherwise they are not going to know what to do with
them when they come back. Tax evasion prevention from installing alarm on somebody’s
property, etc., you will be getting all these different reports back and they will need to
have some sort of guidance so when they go through the reports they can make a

Mr. DeGeare asked if there is some sort of urgency to for us to send this to Construction
Industries Board for recommendation fast. Mr. Denny answers yes because this
endorsement goes in affect November 1, 2008 and emergency rules will probably move
pretty fast. Mr. Denny adds that these emergency rules will go into effect fairly quickly
and then permanent rules must be adopted to take the place of these when they expire
they don’t go on for ever they go to the end of the next legislative session. So you want to
look at these further and study them or change them altogether and you will get that
opportunity with the mandatory permanent rule making process.

Mr. Hutmacher states he doesn’t have a problem here, but asks when you talk about
security, can anyone define what that is, Mr. Denny asks security system, alarms? Mr.
Hutmacher yes if I have a card swipe on this front door is that considered a security
system. Mr. Denny answers yes; I believe that goes under the alarm act. The definition is
specific as to what they are, it includes alarms, bed call systems, nursing homes I think
there are different things that are included in these definitions security system.

Mr. Yaciuk, IEC, states he thinks the only thing is does not include is sprinkler systems
and Locksmiths going around being able to pick some ones lock is the way that Mr. Matt
Schue over at the Health department explained it to me. Mr. Hutmacher asks it doesn’t
have to have all the bells and whistles attached to it like a lot of the systems have no
alarms all they are is to monitor each card swipe has identification attached to it so they
can monitor who has access to a facility.

Mr. DeGeare states this is going to create some problem, there are some people that,
that’s there business, to provide you with picture badge and he doesn’t know if that
could be worked into this, we may run into creditability issues. Mr. Denny states in the
background check service, under the state law you are not going to be able to do that I
think you are going to have to use the OSBI specifically. If you will remember this was a
legislative issue a year or two ago and as a part of the compromise for the Construction
Industries Board to continue or to regulate alarm installers was to have this background
check and the previous administration was going to do that by rule so they drafted rules
to do that and when we contacted OSBI, they said they needed statutory authority to run
background checks they could not do it by rule or they would be running background
checks for every agency. So then they went back to Senate Bill 45 and had this put in
there where you have the statutory authority and so now we are back again you have the
statutory authority the OSBI are going to provide the check so the purpose of this is to
guide people here on the checks when they come back from the OSBI.
September 17, 2008
Page 7

Mr. DeGeare states the only hurdle that I see in this entire thing is the time lag asking for
that approval. And he doesn’t see that addressed in here and he would assume you are
just going to be out there on your own if you are doing something you need a background
check for. Mr. Denny states the legislature specified national criminal history records
check and that’s why the agency is going to have to go through this process.

Mr. Yaciuk asked if when you will be doing the first background check will it be on
renewal or everybody? Mr. Denny answers it will only be on those applying on the alarm
endorsement and every time that they would renew they would have to do that
background check. Mr. Yaciuk asked if after the background check and OSBI kept a
record and then that person commits a felony, would Construction Industries Board be
notified. Mr. Denny answered he doesn’t think so.

Mr. Barrick, of Kingfisher asks I have an electrical contractor’s license and also burglar
and fire alarm license, I submit finger prints to State Health Department back when I got
the alarm license and they did a background check through the OSBI and FBI, will those
suffice for the electrical endorsement, will they carry over? Mr. Denny answers to obtain
this endorsement probably not, but do you have a license from the health department
under the alarm act? Mr. Barrick answers yes, and under the electrical act you’re exempt
from the alarm licensing act. Mr. Denny states that if you go to the health department and
you get the license over there I don’t think you are going to have to have two licenses. I
don’t want to make a statement for everyone to rely on but that’s what I am thinking. Mr.
Denny states as far as the other people specifically you’re going to have to make sure if
they are going on that property they’ve got the proper license. Mr. DeGeare asks to action
on this rulemaking of national criminal history check.

                                               MOTION PASSED
Voting aye: Jesse DeGeare
            Henry Parsons
            Daryle Andrews
            Joe Hutmacher
            Jimmy Monteith


Mr. Wiens states Mr. McCharen asked for this agenda item and since he is not here we
should table this agenda item, but asks Mr. Denny if there is a time schedule on this. Mr.
Denny states it went back to Senate Bill 1578 when we talked about it last meeting. I
think there was some confusion as to where Senate Bill raised the misdemeanor fines for
the courts as far as the fees and raising the fees I sent an e-mail and I think Mr. Regier
circulated that around and we broke down what was required by statue and where your
fees are at right now. You do have some room to increase fees and you have to do that by
rule. If you want to go above the cap you have to get a statutory change and right now
your fees are capped and new licenses capped are at three hundred dollars, renewals are
capped at two hundred dollars and your at different levels of these in your structure and
September 17, 2008
Page 8
you will have to do that by rule change unless you exceed that cap and then you would
have to change that by statue. I’m not sure what Mr. McCharen wanted to know or what
he wanted to discuss that is just some general information that I have and I don’t think his
question was related to Senate Bill 45 I think someone mentioned that it was Senate Bill
1578 and that just doesn’t have to do with fees at all it just has to do with fines and levy
by the court and not even this agency. Mr. Andrews states he would be interested to
know if as far as the fees go whether it’s in the fines or the renewal, and has anyone ever
looked at some of the other states to compare with. Mr. Regier states that we have been
doing some analysis.


Mr. Hutmacher states that the Construction Industries Board was going to look into this
and make a recommendation. Mr. Regier states that the Construction Industries Board
was going to look into this and states that they had it come up in their last Board meeting
just briefly, the only update he would have is specifically task the Inspectors Committee
to come up with a paper that would outline some of there thoughts that could be
considered by both this committee and the Construction Industries Board.


Mr. Hutmacher states one of the major undertakings was working on a set of bylaws, I
sent this to our Attorney to review and to get his comments. Mr. Denny states there is
essentially two issues, one is that there is an existing agreement on reciprocity that’s in
place and the agency is in process in going back and looking at the minutes of the history
of when that was put in place, exactly what that agreement said and we’ve got these
bylaws here, not real sure we want to look at the minutes from the reciprocity group to
see the purpose of what the bylaws are because the bylaws appear to operate as an
agreement as well, so we don’t want to have these two conflicting agreements that was
one issue. Bylaws really govern group conduct, so we need to look at the minutes and do
some investigation, why did they use bylaws and why this method, one concern I had,
was mentioned that possibly the use of bylaws would permit states to come in the group
without unanimous consent which I think the agreement required. So that raises some
concerns do we want to grant reciprocity to a state and vote against the inclusion of a
state that may not meet our requirement but other states join to effectively bring them in
without unanimous consent, the purpose of unanimous consent was to require all states to
have the same standards and that was a concern. The last thing was the indemnity clause
that was in this, this is a lot better, but it is still not quite there from Oklahoma law
perspective because it’s still saying that the state of Oklahoma is to defend and save
others from accidents which it may not. The state does not do that, so that is probably
going to have to come out but I certainly want everyone to get this previous agreement
and bylaws and find out what is going on there and see if that is workable.

Mr. Hutmacher states that the purpose of the four fifths vote rather than the unanimous
vote, to qualify for reciprocity you only have one factor in play and that is you have a
similar testing procedure. Right now the state of Texas has made application and has
been voted down twice, what you get into Boards, they look further into that state rather
than just the testing procedure and that is how these states are being turned down, it has
September 17, 2008
Page 9
nothing to do with their testing procedure and that is what its all about to start with.

The purpose of our bylaws is to establish a Board, as of right now our Chairperson is
going to host the state that is hosting the meeting, unfortunately that is the busiest guy of
everyone in our group, trying to get everything set for his state, so we are trying to get a
chairperson and the host state could be different individuals to relieve some of the
responsibility’s from the host state. We are trying to set up an individual to be
determined by its state to who is going to be the voting member of that state. You have to
make that decision internally now who will be casting the vote, if we have a record of
who that voting member is then there is no question on which that voting member is of
that voting committee. They set up a Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Secretary. We are
trying to get these bylaws approved and taken care of between now and February 2009.
Mr. Denny states that what is going to have to happen is you or someone is going to
present this to the Construction Industries Board and they are going to approve that and
they will probably be the ones that will decide on who will serve on the Board.

Mr. Hutmacher states in regards to testing when you make application to the test in the
state of Utah, you have three times to take the exam to pass or a time laps of six months
and at the end of one or the other you have to make a new application. This doesn’t
eliminate but it slows down the people testing for the sake of learning the test. They
talked about the testing following the apprenticeship programs that the pass rate jumps
into a ninety percent. They also talked about some states have requirements on some
form of education.

Mr. Denny clarifies as to four-fifths, the rules state the Board may inter in a reciprocity
agreement with another state if the requirements for licensure in another state are deemed
by the Board to be substantially the same or equivalent to the requirements retaining an
original license by examination of the state. The problem with that rule is that in four-
fifths you could have instances that the Board and the group disagree and you have this
agreement where Oklahoma is being forced something that you don’t want.

Mr. Hutmacher asks Mr. Denny if we would have two forms of agreement with the group
itself as to being a member of an association and then we would come back and do
individual agreements with each state within that association that we chose to workl with.
Mr. Denny states if that is the protocol then that would probably work.

Mr. Hutmacher recommends to the Board by February no later than March if we don’t
have our bylaws in such a manner that Texas can become a member that we would go
one on one reciprocity with the state of Texas have a signed agreement with them as we
did with the state of Arkansas for a period of a year or two. I feel that the state of Texas is
one of the most important states to us as far as reciprocity.
September 17, 2008
Page 10

Mr. Hutmacher brought back information on the apprenticeship programs from the
reciprocity meeting in Alaska. Mr. Hutmacher recommends to the Committee that we
develop the language we want then present it to the public meetings or whatever we want
to do with it at that point, but get it resolved within this committee and then present it to
the state.

Mr. Stokke, states I don’t know what a mandatory apprenticeship program would do to
the electrical trade but I do know what it would do to the plumbing and mechanical you
are going to loose people we’re not getting enough young people in those trades as it is,
and who is going to pay for these classes, you have small companies out there that may
not be able to pay for a mandatory apprenticeship class and are you going to put that
burden on the guy who’s trying to get into the trade? Mr. Stokke suggest this Committee
consider that when you make this a rule that you are probably going to loose young
people from that trade.

Mr. Hutmacher asks what the legalities in setting up a work session? Mr. Denny states if
you meet with a quorum to work on it, it will be a public meeting and you have to put a
public notice and put on the agenda. If you create a group less than a quorum then put
something together and bring something back to the committee you can do that, because
you are not meeting as a public body.

Mr. Yaciuk states if you are looking into this you need to talk to the schools and see if
they are able handle this; this is going to be a big burden on them.

Mr. Stokke states he doesn’t want the Committee to think he is against education, I think
every apprentice should have some type of education I just not sure a mandatory program
should be the right direction to go.

Mr. Hillman states he has visited with some of the Vo-tech’s and they told him they send
out survey‘s that tells them what kind of training people want, which is short blocks of
training, people want to go about six weeks to class and go to work, they are not
interested in a four and six year programs.

Mr. DeGeare states following up with the three members committee is there committee
members that would like to serve on this? Mr. Hutmacher; Mr. Monteith; and Mr.
Andrews volunteered.
September 17, 2008
Page 11

                                               MOTION PASSED
Voting aye: Jesse DeGeare
            Henry Parsons
            Daryle Andrews
            Joe Hutmacher
            Jimmy Monteith


Mr. Hutmacher states Parallel Power is basically wind generators, there is an OAEL
group; which is your utilities primarily that makes up this organization they are going to
have a discussion on wind generators and Mr. Gary Williamson and I have been having
discussions on this about inspections and some type of a certificate approval UL or some
type of classification

Mr. Williamson presented us with a power point presentation on Parallel Power


Recommendation for Denial of CEU Classes:
        1. Mike Holt – Grounding and Bonding (Appeal)
        2. Ross Barrick – Analysis of changes to the 2008 NEC

                                               MOTION PASSED
Voting aye: Jesse DeGeare
            Johnny McCharen
            Jimmy Monteith
            Daryle Andrews
            Joe Hutmacher


There was no public comment.


In accordance with 25 O.S. Section 311 (9), new business will now be heard if any.

There was no new business.
September 17, 2008
Page 12

                                               MOTION PASSED
Voting aye: Jesse DeGeare
            Jimmy Monteith
            Daryle Andrews
            Joe Hutmacher
            Henry Parsons

Minutes approved in regular Session on the   19th   day of    __November_   , 2008

                                    Jesse DeGeare, Chairman

June Smith, Electrical Secretary

To top