| 76 OAG 49 50 51 52 |
Wisconsin Attorney General Opinions
Opinion # OAG 12-87
19 March 1987
Architects And Engineers;
Licenses And Permits;
The Examining Board of Architects,
Professional Engineers, Designers
and Land
Surveyors may not promulgate a
rule requiring
out-of-state applicants for certification
as
land surveyors to pass an examination
concerning Wisconsin practices
and procedures
if they possess a valid certification
in
another state.
MARLENE CUMMINGS, Secretary
Department of Regulation and Licensing
Your predecessor asked whether the
Examining
Board of Architects, Professional
Engineers,
Designers and Land Surveyors may
adopt a rule
requiring land surveyors applying
for
Wisconsin registration under the
reciprocity
provision to pass an examination
on knowledge
of Wisconsin practice and procedures.
The board is concerned that surveyors
from
other states applying for Wisconsin
registration may not know Wisconsin
practices and procedures.
The proposed rule would read:
An applicant applying
for registration
as a land surveyor
under Section
443.06(2)(d), Stats.
shall show
knowledge of Wisconsin
land
surveying practices
and procedures
by completing the
4 hour "state"
part of the Principles
and Practice
Examination as described
in
Section 6.04, Wis.
Adm. Code.
The pertinent portion of
Section 443.06, Stats., provides:
443.06(2)
. . . The Section may
grant a
certificate of registration
as a land
surveyor to any person
who has submitted
to it an application,
the required fees
and one or more of
the following: . . .
443.06(2)(d)
An unexpired certificate
of registration
as a land surveyor
issued to the
applicant by the proper
authority in any
state or territory
or possession of the
United States or in
any other country
whose requirements
meet or exceed the
requirement for registration
in this
Subsection.
It is my opinion that the board
may not
validly promulgate the proposed
rule.
Section 443.06(2) specifies the
conditions
under which the land surveyors
Section
may grant a certificate of registration
to land surveyors.
Several alternative combinations
of
prerequisite qualifications are
provided
and three of the alternative combinations
require the taking and passing
of a written
and oral examination.
| 76 OAG 49 50 51 52 |
The reciprocity alternative under
consideration does not.
It merely requires a valid certificate
of
registration issued by another
state,
territory or possession of the
United States
or any other country whose requirements
for
certification equal or exceed Wisconsin's
requirements for certification.
The statutory provision under consideration
provides that the Section "may
grant a
certificate" if one of the alternative
combination of prerequisite qualifications
is
met. While generally the word "may"
in a
statute will be construed as permissive,
it
will not be so construed where
a different
construction is demanded by statute
in order
to carry out the intent of the
Legislature.
Miller v. Smith
100 Wis.2d 609,
302 N.W.2d 468 (1981).
It is my opinion that the statute
may not be
read to be permissive rather than
mandatory.
If the statutory provision is not
given a
mandatory construction, the board
could
legally decide to withhold a certificate
of registration to an applicant
even
though he or she met the qualifications
established by the Legislature.
An examining board may not lawfully
deny an
applicant for licensure, under
a reciprocity
statute, based upon a board rule
establishing
an additional qualification for
licensure, if
the applicant otherwise meets the
criteria
established by statute, Application
of State
Board of Medical Examiners, 201
Okl. 365, 206
P.2d 211 (1949), and an applicant
under such
circumstances may compel board
action by
mandamus.
Levin v. Board of
Medical Examiners
of California,
74 Cal. 104,
239 P. 410 (1925).
The Legislature has established
the criteria
for the granting of a certificate
of
registration applied for under
the reciprocal provision.
The criteria are explicit.
The proposed rule would add a condition
not
contemplated in the statute, and
thus would
not be a correct interpretation
of the law.
Section 227.10(2) provides:
No agency may promulgate
a rule
which conflicts with
state law.
And Section 227.11(2)(a) provides
that a rule of an agency
is not valid if it
exceeds the
bounds of correct
interpretation.
This opinion is consistent with
one issued in
1978, OAG 73-78, wherein it was
concluded
that the board could not validly
promulgate a
rule requiring non-resident land
surveyors
applying for reciprocal registration
under
the same statutory provision, then
Section
443.02(3)(a)4., to take and pass
the same
examination as given to state applicants.
| 76 OAG 49 50 51 52 |
Reliance may be placed on an attorney
general's interpretation of a statute
where
the statute has been amended or
reenacted
without a material change in the
language
construed by the attorney general.
Town of Vernon v. Waukesha County,
99 Wis.2d 472, 479,
299 N.W.2d 593 (Ct.App. 1980),
affd,
102 Wis.2d 686,
307 N.W.2d 227 (1981).
In this case, chapter 443 has been
amended at
least fifteen times by the 1979,
1981 and
1983 Legislatures, including a
vast revision
by chapter 167, Laws of 1979, but
the
provision under consideration has
remained unchanged.
I must therefore conclude that the
Legislature concurs with the 1978
opinion.
The current request for an opinion
may have
been prompted by the last paragraph
in the
1978, OAG 73-78, opinion which
reads:
The legitimate concern of the Board
that
out-of-state applicants should
be
knowledgeable regarding land surveying
procedures and practices peculiar
to
Wisconsin probably would justify
a rule
requiring applicants to demonstrate
that
knowledge, by examination or otherwise,
but only to a reasonable degree
consistent with the public interest.
The quoted language from the 1978
opinion is
inconsistent with the opinion itself
and
is inconsistent with the conclusion
I reach in this opinion.
It is an incorrect statement of
the law and
the quoted language is withdrawn.
DJH:WHW
| 76 OAG 49 50 51 52 |