Many of you may already be aware the roofers' registration bill SB11-207 was unexpectedly killed on the Senate floor second reading on April 27th. Senator Ted Harvey, a republican from Highlands Ranch, introduced an E-verify amendment to the bill. Four democrats serving in traditionally republican areas voted for the E-verify amendment in addition to the majority of the republicans. At that point the democratic leadership realized they could no longer support the bill with the E-verify attachment and it was game over. The bill instantly morphed from a consumer protection piece to help elevate our industry to a hotly debated immigration reform issue. In the immediate aftermath it seemed the E-verify amendment may have been a calculated move by republicans, or at the least SB11-207 was an innocent bystander of political warfare. A few days after the deflating news the State Registration Committee made a decision not to proceed with another attempt in the near future. Given the information at the time it seemed like the political and economic climate needed to change in order to have a good chance of passing registration or licensing in the future.

Since what appeared to be the last State Registration Committee meeting more information has been brought to light by our lobbyists. Corporate Advocates had the opportunity to speak with Senator Ted Harvey. Harvey claimed the republicans did not intentionally kill our bill with the E-verify amendment and they were not necessarily opposed to it. This information has slightly changed our tune being that if the bill did not pass through the Senate, due to politics as usual, it would surely not have a snowball's chance in the House. Although our assumption may have been wrong, there is more information needing to be confirmed prior to the board making a decision to proceed again. Here are the determinant questions:

• Is there a way to insulate the bill from the E-verify amendment or any other type of amendment that would cause a similar outcome?
• Why was the bill not insulated to begin with in the remote chance something like this might happen?
• How much would it cost given a lot of the work has already been completed?
• How much legwork would it take?
• The Democrats had the option to postpone a decision on the E-verify amendment or say it does not apply under this title, why did they not exercise either option?

The answers to these questions will determine the outcome of resuscitating SB11-207 or not.

Assuming the answers to the above questions indicate a green light there are a few things we will need to keep in mind in the event of moving forward.

Opposition from within the Industry
For the past several months of working on State Registration we have encountered little to no opposition from within our industry. The handful of opposition we have dealt with in the past year was mainly people who did not understand the bill or those with the lone comment "more regulation is bad". Once the bill has been explained their opposition seemed to dissipate, and for those with the latter comment it is difficult to have a constructive conversation when speaking in generalities. However, in the final hours of the bill, a group of roofers and an insurance adjuster (maybe five or six companies and twelve individuals), did make it to the Capitol and voiced their concerns early one morning. Their concerns were the bill was intended to be pro big roofer and anti small roofer, it would give too much control to insurance companies, and it was written by people not within the roofing industry or people who did not have a pulse on it. Unfortunately, none of the State Registration Committee was there at the time to correct the misinformation emanating from the group. Later that afternoon, members of the State Registration Committee met with the group to address their concerns. It was the first time this group was ever brought to our attention. For whatever reasons, the rest of their concerns vanished and the two that remained were the right of rescission in the event the insurance company denies a claim and increasing the amount of work to require registration from $1000 to $6000. While there may have been some room for negotiation, it did not matter at the end of the day since the bill died. If we move forward, I am sure there will be some 'blow back' from within the industry -- otherwise if EVERYONE agreed it may not be such a good bill.

Opposition from General Contractor Associations
There was opposition from some of the General Contractor Associations which may cause problems or at least warrant negotiations for a future bill. Their opposition claimed registration would increase costs for them. They requested commercial roofing contractors not be required to register. The State Registration Committee's response was and is that we are trying to clean up an entire industry not just the residential sector. Furthermore, many of our commercial contractors also do residential and in essence the costs would be a non-factor. It is ironic they are concerned about our costs considering the hoops GCs already make us jump through -- which far overshadow the menial registration fee. Personally, I think with more time we could come to a mutual agreement by dealing directly with some of their members as opposed to just their lobbyists.

More Education and Communication
More education and communication on the bill will be necessary within our industry and certainly in the political arena. Unfortunately, the bill was not written as soon as we would have preferred and therefore it was difficult to fully educate everyone on the contents in such a small timeframe. During the infamous second reading I witnessed some of the Senators speak who were opposed to the bill. It was all the restraint I had not to jump down from the balcony and correct their erroneous comments. It was painful to watch over a year's worth of research and hard work be stomped by political rhetoric. Not to mention some of the people on our side did not have the responses necessary to combat the erroneous comments. There also seemed to be some misconceptions on our industries behalf. If we would move forward, there would be significantly more time to educate everyone which is probably the most important aspect of the legislation process, at least in our case.

I have talked to numerous people since the bill has been put to rest and have been somewhat revitalized to give it another go. There is no doubt it is important to our industry and members of the CRA. Sometimes being so personally invested in something makes you lose a little perspective. Many bills do not make it on the first try and maybe it was overconfident of us to think we would be the exception. I know I am certainly guilty.

Rocky did not win the first time either…..cue music.

If you have any comments please forward them to us.

Kirk Tiley
Tiley Roofing, Inc.
CRA President