Corruption in the Pest Industry

Transcription

Corruption and Cronyism in the Arizona
Structural Pest Control Industry
Its-Our-Turn.com
June 6, 2014
Dedicated to the memory of Don Bolles, who was assassinated in Phoenix in 1976.
Bolles was an investigative reporter for the Arizona Republic and founding member
of Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE). Bolles tracked corruption and
cronyism to the top levels of Arizona's government, which ultimately led to his
death. Unfortunately, the corrupt culture still exists. And the press now seems
disinterested in investigating or publishing the corruption that erodes a free society.
The Arizona pest control industry has been plagued by big corporations lobbying for
regulations that promote their economic advantage and create barriers to entry.
This corrupt business model has employed selective enforcement of regulations and
other abusive techniques to destroy highly qualified and innovative independent
small businesses. As we will see, this has resulted in lower quality pest control
services, higher consumer prices, less consumer protection and less choice for
consumers– all to the benefit of the large corporations.
The reality is that the vast majority of today’s pesticides are UNRESTRICTED
because they are low risk. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had
determined that UNRESTRICTRED pesticides are sufficiently low risk that anyone
can purchase them and apply them without any training – with very little risk to
themselves or other members of the public. All pesticides come with a Federal
pesticide label and anyone purchasing and using pesticides is required to follow the
Federal label.
Homeowners are untrained, unlicensed and use more pesticides than the entire
structural pest control industry. Yet there is no public harm. Homeowners are not
hurting themselves, their children, their pets, their neighbors or the general public.
Homeowners will not benefit from additional regulations beyond the existing EPA
law and the Federal label. In other words, public health, safety and welfare are
being served without additional restrictive regulations.
Corrupt regulations do nothing to protect the consumer from a pest control operator
(PCO) that intentionally waters down the pesticides below levels needed to
effectively treat an infestation or provide a lasting barrier against future
Its-Our-Turn.com
1
Corruption and Cronyism in the Arizona Structural Pest Control Industry
infestations. Why? Because it is nearly impossible to cost effectively ascertain that
a PCO is cutting corners and cheating the customer.
And customers are rarely in a position to know that a PCO is lying about why a
treatment failed or did not last. And even if the customer suspects the PCO is
cheating, it takes a lot of effort to figure out which agency has jurisdiction and file a
complaint. It is usually easier just to fire the failing PCO and hire a new one.
Thus, consumers will file very few complaints with the regulatory agency – and
those complaints will normally be of a serious transgression.
If you take the time to go through all of the filed complaints, you will find relatively
few complaints were filed by consumers. Most of the complaints were filed by a
competing PCO. And if you look into the PCO complains, you will typically find
that one PCO has an ax to grind against the other PCO – as opposed to a significant
issue that needs correction. In other words, one PCO is using the regulations to
harass a competing PCO.
Further, these corrupt regulations do nothing to compensate a consumer for
damages. Even if a complaint is filed and the PCO is guilty as charged, the
consumer gets nothing for it. Perhaps the regulatory agency fines the PCO – but
how does that help the consumer? The consumer must still hire a lawyer and file
suit against the guilty PCO in an effort to collect damages. In other words, these
regulations do not provide any net benefit to public health, safety or welfare.
Corrupt regulations do nothing to protect consumers from high-pressure sales
techniques or other unscrupulous sales practices. Unfortunately, these sales
practices are very difficult to document even if they happen to be against the law.
Educating the consuming public is the best way to handle this type of problem but
money is rarely allocated for public education.
This paper is long by necessity. That is because you must understand a lot of
interrelated history in order to understand how the corruption operates. A single
event taken in isolation does not have much meaning but a pattern of behavior
reveals strategy and intention. We will identify many of the players and how they
operate.
A Brief History
Structural pest control was under the control of the Department of Agriculture
(DoAg) until the mid 1970s. Truly Nolen – a multi-national structural pest control
company – was instrumental in convincing the legislature to create the first nonDoAg regulatory agency – the Structure Pest Control Board (SPCB). The SPCB was
a “90-10” agency – in theory, a self-supporting agency that gives 10% of its revenues
and all of its fines to the State. The Director of the SPCB was later indicted for
2
Its-Our-Turn.com
corruption and the SPCB was dissolved.
The Structural Pest Control Commission (SPCC) replaced the SPCB. The SPCC
had a Board with members appointed by the Governor’s office – in other words, the
Board members were political appointees and those with political clout could get
their people nominated to the Board. The Board selected the Director and ran the
Kangaroo Courts. The Board used the Kangaroo Courts to damage and eliminate
their enemies.
Under Jack Root, Executive Director and lobbyist, the SPCC again became corrupt.
In 1991, Jack Root left the state under pressure and 5 inspectors were forced to
resign. Jack Root was instrumental in getting the Termite Action Report Form
(TARF) laws passed circa 1985 (the SPCC cash cow), as well as getting the
Qualifying Party (QP) laws passed. Jack Root returned in 2007 as part of a power
struggle that resulted in Lisa Gervase getting fired and Jack Root replacing her as
Executive Director. Both Dave Burns and Ken Fredrick were actively participating
during this period. By late 2007, the SPCC was so corrupt and abusive that the
Sunset Review board recommended on October 30, 2007 that the Arizona
Legislature abolish the SPCC.
The Office of Pest Management (OPM) was created from the ashes of the SPCC in
2008 by House Bill 2822. OPM was essentially the same laws, same rules, same
people, same offices with one significant improvement – the Board and the Board
run Kangaroo Courts were eliminated. OPM was placed under the Department of
Administration (DOA). Members of the SPCC were banned in statute from
participating on any OPM advisory committees – an attempt to remove at least
some of the corrupting influences from OPM.
Senate Bill 1194 (2011) temporarily moved OPM under the Department of
Agriculture (DoAg). This bill also created the OPM Task Force to review all
structural pest control regulations and to make recommendations for future
regulatory organization. The ban on ex SPCC members was also removed allowing
full participation of the corrupting influences from the past.
Senate Bill 1290 (2013) made the OPM move to DoAg permanent, replaced the 3000
hour QP experience requirement with an arbitrary 24 month waiting period,
reduced the TARF fee from $8 to $2 but only if you use the on-line system, forced all
school districts to have QPs, guts the yard worker exemption making existing
equipment illegal and imposing many new restrictions, adds new ground water
reporting requirements, allows OPM to bypass GRRC, allows OPM to retaliate
against licenses that refuse searches without a warrant and generally increases the
complexity of regulations.
The Attorney General has been complicit in bypassing the Administrative
Its-Our-Turn.com
3
Procedures Act (APA) and Governor's Regulatory Review Council (GRRC)
regulatory reviews. The SPCC Executive Director Lisa Gervase tried to hide the
GRRC process from the industry and did her best to prevent industry input - see
July 25, 2006 SPCC meeting minutes. Under OPM, Acting Director Ellis Jones
invoked an emergency clause to bypass the GRRC process. SB 1290 (2013) has a
new set of proposed regulations from the OPM Task Force under DoAg that includes
a clause to bypass the GRRC – yet again.
In parallel with these events has been participation from the Arizona “industry
associations” that have worked hand-in-hand with the National Pest Management
Association (NPMA) to lobby for increased regulations and bypass regulatory rules
oversight. Early on it was Arizona Pest Management Association (APMA). Starting
in 2005, a second industry association came on the scene and grew in dominance:
Arizona Pest Professional Organization (AzPPO). AzPPO picked up significant
support following the creation of OPM.
AzPPO has barely 60 paid PCO members out of 1200 pest control companies.
However, AzPPO has been successful at getting their ranking members appointed
to the OPM Advisory Committee and OPM Task Force to the exclusion of
independent small businesses. AzPPO has the support of the large pest control
companies with deep pockets and significant political influence. AzPPO can now
afford its own lobbyist and has gained considerable political influence. As such,
AzPPO is a powerful force against consumers and small independent businesses.
We should clarify that small independent businesses have two important
characteristics. First, they are small – typically employing less than 10 licensed
applicators. And second, they are independent. They are locally owned, locally
managed and locally operated. They are not a franchised organization and they are
not part of a regional, state, national or multi-national conglomerate – in name,
license or ownership.
The Regulatory Business Model
Joe Sigg of the Arizona Farm Bureau commented: "Regulation limits business
automatically. But regulation shouldn't exist to limit business."
The primary reason for regulations is to promote public health, safety and/or
welfare. So the first test a proposed regulation should pass is can it actually
promote public health, safety and/or welfare. The second test is what actual harm
is done without passing the regulation. The third test is the cost effectiveness of the
proposed regulation and how that compares to other possible methods.
There are two primary groups that ask for regulation. The first is consumers. The
second is business. The motivations behind each are quite different. Consumers
4
Its-Our-Turn.com
want their health, safety and/or welfare protected. Businesses – especially large
businesses – want their profits protected.
Small independent businesses depend upon word-of-mouth advertizing and keeping
customers satisfied for their survival. Keeping customers happy – even at a
reduced profit – is their primary concern because finding new customers is
expensive. Thus, small independent businesses tent to be very consumer oriented.
Small independent businesses do not have the resources to make substantial
political contributions or to spend significant time trying to influence the
legislature. These activities are high risk and rarely cost effective on a small scale.
Large businesses are often much less consumer oriented because they are more
interested in making a profit than taking care of customers. Large businesses have
larger advertizing budges and find it easer to pick up new customers without
customer recommendations. Loosing customers due to poor customer service is just
a statistical business expense – just as cutting corners and reducing expenses is a
statistical way to higher profits. Investing in political influence and regulations is
just another business investment with a statistical return on investment.
Elected officials are constantly worried about their next election and raising money
for their reelection campaign. I recently went to visit a Senator and the first
question he asked was how much money I had brought. When he found out I did
not bring any money, he said: “Too bad. Next time, bring a lot more money and a
lobbyist.” If you cannot make significant contributions to their next election
campaign or provide favors for their friends, they are not interested in listening to
you. That leaves most small independent business out of the legislative process
while large businesses get all of the political favors money can buy. The legislature
is no longer interested in science, logic or doing the right thing unless dollars are
attached. Just follow the money…
Large businesses often ask for new regulations for the specific purpose of limiting
potential competition and putting existing competitors at a financial disadvantage.
These requests for more regulation are typically made in terms of “protecting
consumers”. Protecting consumers is like Mom and Apple Pie – who can possibly be
against Mom, Apple Pie or protecting consumers? Or how about higher standards?
Who can possibly be against higher standards?
The business model is very simple at its core. Add a regulation that will cost your
competitor more than the regulation will cost you and you will have successfully
gained an advantage over your competitor. Or, add a new regulation that makes it
more difficult for a new competing business to get started or an existing business to
expand into your market. There are lots of ways to do this.
Let’s take a moment to look at two examples to illustrate how this works.
Its-Our-Turn.com
5
First example. Federal EPA law requires that all commercial pesticide applicators
have an applicator’s license – a license issued by each state. The purpose of the
license is to make sure the applicator understands basic safety and application
procedures, knows how to read and comply with the Federal pesticide label and
knows how to properly apply pesticides in general. This information is covered in
the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) National
Pesticide Applicator Certification CORE Manual. This is the national standard and
is used by most states as the basis for a commercial pesticide business.
Arizona has added another level of licensing called the QP license that someone
within the company must hold before a business can apply pesticides. The QP
license is not the business license – that is a third required license. A QP is
essentially a super applicator – in theory an applicator with considerable
experience. The QP is not actually required to do anything – you just have to have
one. If someone in the company is not a QP, you can hire a QP at significant
expense. The QP requirement makes it difficult to start a new business or to
expand into other categories. The QP regulations have effectively reduced
competition.
The QP licensing requirement also provides a means for forcing a small business
out of business. A small company is likely to have only a single QP and that QP will
probably be a key employee or the owner. If the QP leaves the company or dies, the
company cannot legally operate until another QP is found or created. This situation
has put many small businesses out of business or caused them severe financial
hardship.
It is important to understand that homeowners do not require any training or
licensing to purchase and apply the very same UNRESTRICTED pesticides that a
commercial company requires a QP to apply. Homeowners apply more pesticides
than the entire structural pest control industry without any reported harm to
themselves or the public. In the last 30 years the technology of pesticides has
changed making most high risk RESTRICTED pesticides obsolete.
For a detailed look at these licensing issues, see our white paper on the subject:
http://its-our-turn.com/ResponsibleParties.pdf
Second example. Arizona requires that you report all first termite treatments that
are not performed under warranty to the State. Notice that multiple treatments or
treatments under warranty do not have to be reported – leaving a huge hole in the
data.
A special form must be filled out and a payment made for each treatment. Large
6
Its-Our-Turn.com
businesses can use a low wage office worker to process the paperwork and fees
while a small business typically ends up with the business owner taking care of the
paperwork. Since the small business owner must take time away from other tasks
that provide a much higher value to the company, the net cost of processing the
paperwork and fees can be 5 to 10 times higher for a small business. The TARF
regulations have effectively reduced competition by bleeding resources from a
resource-strapped small business.
The TARF regulations also provide a method for forcing small business out of
business if the business should get behind on paperwork or filing fees. There are
several documented cases where small businesses had expensive family medical
problems and were put out of business because the owner spent the TARF money on
a sick family member instead of paying the fees on time.
History has shown that the TARF database does not protect consumers, even
though that is the justification for having it. In case after case, consumers have
been forced to file civil suites against the termite companies for bad work or bad
reports while the regulatory agency has done nothing to help the consumer. The
TARF database is riddled with bad data. For a detailed look at the TARF system,
take a look at our white paper on the subject:
http://its-our-turn.com/CaseAgainstTarfs.pdf
Cast of characters
A large piece of the corruption puzzle involves knowing the long time players and
the policies they represent. Here is a small sampling of the cast of characters.
These people have served at the SPCC as Executive Directors and Board members
(Commissioners), OPM Directors, OPM Advisory Committee members and OPM
Task Force members, APMA members, AzPPO members and the Department of
Agriculture Associate Director of Environmental Services.
Jack Root, lobbyist
• SPCC Executive Director: 1980 – 1991, October 2007 – March 2008
• Father of QP and TARF laws
• Forced to leave SPCC in 1991 due to corruption – left the state
• Died in 2008 accident
• Worshipped by AzPPO – AzPPO has an honorary scholarship in his name
Scott Richardson, lawyer
• Makes his living by representing PCOs
• Member of AzPPO
Truly Nolen and franchised subsidiaries
Its-Our-Turn.com
7
• Huge multi-national pest control company
• Instrumental in creating SPCB in mid 1970s
• Instigator of the TARF and QP laws in mid 1980s
Rentokil International and franchised subsidiaries
• Huge multi-national pest control company
• Purchases smaller companies but continues to use their name to disguise
their multi-national ownership identity.
Burt Putterman, Arizona Exterminating
• SPCC Commissioner: pre-2002, April 2006 – June 2008
• Truly Nolen’s yacht captain
Robert (Bob) Hartley, Vice President of Truly Nolen
• SPCC Commissioner: pre-2002 – March 2006
• Part of committee that selected Lisa Gervase for SPCC Executive Director
Jack Peterson, Associate Director Department of Agriculture, Department of
Environmental Services
• SPCC Commissioner: May 2002 – January 2006
• Part of committee that selected Lisa Gervase for SPCC Executive Director
• OPM Director: 2011 – present
• OPM Task Force Chairman: 2011 – 2012
Lisa Gervase, Gervase Law Firm
• Attorney for Jack Root, Contractors Termite Control and SOS Termite and
Pest Control
• SPCC Executive Director: January 2003 – October 2007
• Fired without cause from SPCC by Dave Burns, October 2007
• AzPPO Statutory agent: 2010 – 2012
Dave Burns, Owner Burns Pest Elimination
• VP/QP for Burns Pest Elimination for father, then owner
• SPCC Commissioner: February 2006 – June 2008
• Motioned to fire Lisa Gervase without cause October 2007
• AzPPO Board member: 2011 – 2012
• AzPPO Legislative Committee Chair: 2011 – present
• OPM Task Force: August 2011 – May 2012, resigned for “personal” reasons
Ken Fredrick, Conquistador Pest & Termite Control
• AzPPO founder
• AzPPO Board member: 2005 – 2012, VP: 2005 – 2008, Pres: 20008 – 2011
• OPM Advisory Committee: January 2009 – present
• OPM Task Force: August 2011 – May 2012
8
Its-Our-Turn.com
Kevin Etheridge, Contractors Termite and Pest Control
• OPM Advisory Committee: June 2009 – present
• AzPPO Board member: 2010 – 2011, 2012 – present
• AzPPO Legislative Committee Chairperson: 2009 – 2011
• Tried to threaten Its-Our-Turn.com using the Attorney General
Nate Tamialis, SOS Exterminating
• AzPPO Board member: 2008 – 2011, VP: 2010 – 2011
• OPM Advisory Committee: January 2009 – November 2010
Andrew Witcher, ScorpionTech Termite & Pest Control
• AzPPO Board member: 2008 – present, Pres: 2011 to 2012
• OPM Advisory Committee: November 2010 – present
Robert (Bob) Wagner, Wagner Pest Solutions
• AzPPO Board member: 2012 – present
• OPM Advisory Committee: July 2012 – present
Jack McClure, Chemtech Supply – a pesticide distributor
• APMA President
Univar USA – a pesticide distributor
• Major supporter and sponsor of AzPPO
Target Specialty Products – a pesticide distributor
• Major supporter and sponsor of AzPPO
OPM Task Force
The OPM Task Force was created by Senate Bill 1194 (2011). The new law moved
structural pest control (temporarily) under the Department of Agriculture and
Section 6 created the OPM Task Force to study the regulation of structural pest
management. The OPM Task Force was required to submit their findings and
recommendations to the Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of
the House of Representatives on or before December 15, 2012.
The independent small businesses anticipated the recommendations would be to
streamline the regulations. But this was not to be – the process was rigged from the
very beginning.
The OPM Task Force selection process started in May and the OPM Task Force
convened in August 2011. To start, Jack Peterson, Director of OPM and ex SPCC
Commissioner was selected to chair the OPM Task Force. Next, all three of the
Its-Our-Turn.com
9
OPM Task Force structural pest control industry positions were filled with AzPPO
and SPCC Commissioners – two were ex SPCC Commissioners and two were
AzPPO Board members. Phyllis Farenga – a long time small independent PCO,
founder of Its-Our-Turn.com – a small independent business group – received 7
nominations but was refused a seat at the table. In the end small independent
businesses were not represented.
Next, Jack Peterson, Director of OPM, chose not to notify the affected parties of the
existence of the OPM Task Force – such as the 1200 pest control companies or the
8000 licensed applicators, or the thousands of yard workers, or the real estate
industry, or the building inspection industry, or the construction industry, or the
political subdivisions or the public at large. The truth was that Jack Peterson was
not interested in anyone’s input that did not reflect the status quo.
Jack Peterson has said several times to forget the past and start fresh. How can we
forget when he fills all of the OPM Task Force industry positions with AzPPO and
SPCC Commissioners and refuses to allow small independent businesses to be
represented? This is the same corrupt crony culture that has been running the
show for more than a decade and as far as we can tell, nothing has changed.
The following people were members of the OPM Task Force:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Jack Peterson (Chairman)
Dave Burns [resigned for “personal” reasons, not replaced]
Ken Fredrick
Kirk Smith
John Boelts - agriculture
Lin Evans - agriculture
Jimmy Fox - agriculture
Philip Hemminghaus - Department of Agriculture Advisory Council
Will Rousseau - Department of Agriculture Advisory Council
Although the OPM Task Force went through the motions of reviewing the laws, and
providing a forum for people to speak, the OPM Task Force can only be called a
sham. AzPPO essentially ran the show. The OPM Task Force ignored small
independent businesses asking for streamlined regulations and the elimination of
barriers to entry. The OPM Task Force ignored the hundreds of signed petitions.
The OPM Task Force ignored concerned consumers – the very people they are
supposed to be protecting.
Jack Peterson agreed to hold “town hall” meetings but then refused to hold them.
Instead, he agreed to have Dave Burns and AzPPO hold them. AzPPO, of course,
only notified their own list of people and refused to notify all of the small
independent businesses. In one case, AzPPO held and concluded the meeting before
10
Its-Our-Turn.com
it was scheduled to start to keep the Tucson opposition from speaking and then
fabricated meeting minutes – later having AzPPO President Andrew Witcher lie to
the OPM Task Force about what happened at the meeting. The OPM Task Force
never even blinked an eye when they were informed they had just been lied to.
OPM Task Force member Dave Burns resigned around May 9, 2012 - for "Personal"
reasons. Burns was in charge of the "Town Hall" meetings run by AzPPO. Burns
harassed people who signed petitions against over regulation prior to his
resignation. Someone at Burns' company (Burns Pest Elimination) tried to
fraudulently manipulate our industry survey following Burns' resignation.
Jack Peterson refused to fill the vacated position even though a qualified and up-todate – and previously nominated – person was available to fill the position. Phyllis
Farenga had attended all of the OPM Task Force meetings and had a detailed
understanding of the issues but was still refused a seat at the table.
Detailed information on the OPM Task Force including video of the meetings,
comments on the meetings, meeting minutes and handouts, petitions submitted to
the OPM Task Force and structural pest control industry survey results are at:
http://its-our-turn.com/OpmTaskForce.html
The OPM Task Force proposal became SB 1290 (2013). Although the claim was
made that there was an industry consensus, how little consensus existed was
discussed at the OPM Task Force meeting on July 18, 2012.
Addressing Certain Inaccuracies About SB 1290
I need to clarify some inaccurate statements that were made over the past year,
regarding SB 1290 and my opposition to the legislation.
AzPPO is a client of Capitol Consulting and Courtney LeVinus is a lobbyist
employed by Capitol Consulting. In a September 19, 2013 letter, Ms. LeVinus
stated that I did not “register any opposition to SB1290 during any of the three
committee hearings in the House and Senate.” See attached September 19, 2013
letter. This statement is not accurate. First, I wrote to the members of every
committee to which SB1290 was assigned, stating my opposition. Second, I set up
an account and registered my opposition to SB 1290 on the Request To Speak (RTS)
system on March 9, 1013. My opposition is documented in the listing of the RTS for
SB1290. See attached listing from the Arizona Legislature's Request to Speak
system from April 12, 2013 in reference to SB1290.
Attached to Ms. LeVinus’s September 19, 2013 letter was a flyer labeled “Please
Support SB1290.” On the right side in the second box down is the title: “SB1290
Its-Our-Turn.com
11
changes or increases regulations in only two areas.” (emphasis added). This
statement is not accurate for several reasons:
First, SB1290 gutted the yard worker exemption - a substantial increase in
regulation for all of the yard workers who have been exempt for years. This affects
thousands of yard workers. See SB1290 section 32-2311.02 (page 16 line 31).
Second, SB1290 allowed OPM to dramatically raise licensing fees, which OPM
promptly did as soon as SB1290 became law. Licensing fees for an average small
pest control company, such as mine, were generally raised up to 6 times their
previous amount -- a significant increase.
Third, SB1290 allows OPM to suspend a license without a hearing for failure to pay
imposed penalties - even if the penalties are disputed. In addition to these
examples of “increases” in regulation, there were lots of “changes” as well.
If you move down to the next box below - the one in the lower right entitled
“SB1290's growing list of supporters…”, you will see a number of chambers listed.
So I went to those chambers and asked them if they were supporting SB1290. The
Marana Chamber of Commerce said they had never even heard of SB1290 and
would have no reason to support it. Other Chambers refused to answer the
question about having an official position on the bill. I even asked the Tucson
Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce for a copy of their minutes showing support
and my request was refused. You would think that if they had an official position
supporting SB1290, they would have said so instead of dancing around the
question. Apparently, not all of the listed supporters of the bill do, in fact, support
the legislation.
OPM Advisory Committee
The OPM Advisory Committee was established by HB 2822 (2008) Section 24 and
modified by SB 1194 (2011). The positions on the OPM Advisory Committee are
political appointments from the Governor’s office, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President of the Senate. Phyllis Farenga – a small
independent PCO – asked for one of the OPM Advisory Committee positions but
was refused.
The members of the OPM Advisory Committee include:
12
Its-Our-Turn.com
Ken Fredrick, Conquistador Pest & Termite Control
• AzPPO founder
• AzPPO Board member: 2005 to 2012, VP: 2005 to 2008, Pres: 20008 to 2011
• OPM Advisory Committee: January 2009 to present
• OPM Task Force: August 2011 to May 2012
Nate Tamialis, SOS Exterminating
• AzPPO Board member: 2008 to 2011, VP: 2010 to 2011
• OPM Advisory Committee: January 2009 to November 2010
Kevin Etheridge, Contractors Termite and Pest Control
• OPM Advisory Committee: June 2009 to present
• AzPPO Board member: 2010 to 2011, 2012 to present
• AzPPO Legislative Chairperson: 2009 – 2011
• Unsuccessfully threatened Its-Our-Turn.com using the Attorney General
Andrew Witcher, ScorpionTech Termite & Pest Control
• AzPPO Board member: 2008 to present, Pres: 2011 to 2012
• OPM Advisory Committee: November 2010 to present
Robert (Bob) Wagner, Wagner Pest Solutions
• AzPPO Board member: 2012 to present
• OPM Advisory Committee: July 2012 to present
Doug Seeman, Truly Nolen consultant and other companies
• Governor appointee, had his business license suspended with $19,256 owed in
TARF fees (case 2004-134) three years prior to being appointed
Carmella Ruggiero, golf industry
• Old associate of OPM Acting Director Ellis Jones
Jack Latham, retired small pest control operator from Showlow.
• Token small business representative
• OPM Advisory Committee: February 2009 to present
Ellis Jones asked two lawyers (Scott Richardson and Lisa Gervase) – both AzPPO
members, the latter a former SPCC Executive Director – to be formally invited to
participate with the OPM Advisory Committee (January 20, 2010 minutes) – even
though Lisa Gervase was forbidden by statute from participating. Both lawyers are
known to represent large pest control interests, further stacking the deck against
small independent PCOs.
Its-Our-Turn.com
13
Although 3 of the members are supposed to be “public”, implying consumers, you
will notice that all of the members are industry members and that AzPPO Board
members hold 4 of the 7 seats.
OPM Advisory Committee meeting minutes can be found at:
http://its-our-turn.com/Articles.html
and at:
http://www.sb.state.az.us/AdvisoryAchives.php
At the very first meeting of the OPM Advisory Committee, Acting Director Ellis
Jones held a close door meeting with the OPM Advisory Committee in direct
violation of the Arizona Open Meeting laws. Ellis refused to publicly document the
contents of that meeting.
OPM Advisory Committee Chairman Kevin Etheridge has tried to silence Its-OurTurn.com. See the January 20, 2010 Advisory Committee minutes. The OPM
Advisory Committee is upset that we continue to highlight the pest control
industry’s corrupt crony culture.
OPM Lobbyist
The SPCC hired Stuart Goodman as a lobbyist in 2006. OPM hired Stuart
Goodman again in 2009 as a “consultant”. The SPCC and OPM refused to disclose
what the lobbyist's agenda was or why small business interests within the
structural pest control industry should be paying for a lobbyist that does not
represent their interests.
OPM ignoring issues
In November 2008 two representatives of Its-Our-Turn.com drove to the OPM office
to talk with the Acting Director Ellis Jones. It was a cordial conversation lasting
more than half an hour. At the meeting, Ellis asked that we e-mail him all of our
issues, one per e-mail for easy tracking, which was done on December 3, 2008. At
the meeting, Ellis said he would acknowledge each issue within two weeks, assign
the issues to staff to be looked into and would keep us informed on the status until
each had seen a final resolution.
After hearing no response for two months, we sent the e-mails again on February
15, 2009. On February 17, we finally received a response, saying it would take
several weeks. We never heard anything further about the issues from Acting
Director Ellis Jones. Staff members we talked to later said the issues were never
14
Its-Our-Turn.com
looked at.
The issues given to Acting Director Ellis Jones are essentially the same issues we
are covering in this paper. Acting Director Ellis Jones simply ignored the issues. In
hindsight, he clearly had no intension of addressing the issues. His purpose was to
keep the status quo.
Violations and a jury of your peers
The average person does not try to maliciously violate the law. In general, someone
occasionally tapping them on the shoulder and reminding them of the proper way to
perform a task is all that is needed to obtain compliance. A little education goes a
long way. No fines or harsh words are needed.
A process whereby a violator receives a warning and the opportunity to fix the
problem can also provide a record of those violations. Time will reveal any behavior
patterns but until then the person should receive the benefit of the doubt. If a
person continues to get violations, then a pattern will develop and a fine may be
appropriate. If the combination of warnings followed by fines does not get the job
done, then the State can take away the license and/or prosecute the case in civil or
criminal court.
If a large group of individuals who all work for the same company all get similar
violations and warnings, you will also see a pattern develop. This pattern indicates
the problem may lie with the company the individuals are working for. The
company may have a policy that needs correcting. Once such a pattern develops, the
state may need to issue the violation and warning to the company, and to work with
the company to resolve the issue.
All conditions that result in fines should be well documented so there is no question
when a fine should be issued and how much the fine should be. In general, fines
should not be issued until a warning has been given and the individual or company
has had an appropriate chance to correct the issue. This will go a long ways to
preventing the enforcer from causing undo economic harm or putting companies out
of business without just cause.
The punishment must never exceed the crime. There is a world of difference
between a minor accidental discharge with little likelihood of harm and the
intentional dumping of pesticides. There is also a big difference between
accidentally under treating an area and spraying water or highly diluted pesticides.
Because judgment is required, the enforcer must be an educated but disinterested
third party with nothing to gain and no ax to grind. When the jury is composed of
competitors who have a vested interest in the outcome of the case, justice cannot be
Its-Our-Turn.com
15
the expected result.
The SPCC Board was composed of politically appointed industry members – rule
maker, judge, jury and executioner. This was a very corrupting influence. There
are numerous examples of the SPCC Board protecting their own interests by
looking the other way for friends while putting small independent competitors out
of business through excessive fines. This is called selective enforcement. Being on
the SPCC Board provided a perfect venue to extend your influence over your
competition.
When the regulatory agency goes after a small PCO, that PCO is at a severe
economic disadvantage because of the cost of defending the case. The regulatory
agency knows that the likelihood of a small PCO being able to afford the defense is
low and thus they are not likely to be stopped. On the other hand, the regulatory
agency knows that a large PCO has plenty of money to mount a legal defense and so
the regulatory agency usually lets the large PCO go with just a warning. Many of
the largest PCOs also pay large sums to the regulatory agency in the form of TARF
fees and thus the regulatory agency has an additional financial incentive to protect
the large PCOs.
OPM does not have a Board composed of industry members that runs a Kangaroo
Court. However, the OPM Advisory Committee has already suggested that their
powers should be expanded to allow them to judge cases – i.e., they have already
suggested bring back the Kangaroo Courts. Look at who is on the OPM Advisory
Committee and then look at the AzPPO sponsored SB 1290 (2013). Can legislation
authorizing the return of the Kangaroo Courts be far behind?
See page 9 of the Little Hoover Commission report:
http://www.lhc.ca.gov/studies/097/report97.PDF
or here:
http://its-our-turn.com/LittleHooverCommissionReportBoardsCommissions.pdf
See page 19 (Organizations in other states) of the Auditor General's Report 10-01:
http://www.azauditor.gov/Reports/State_Agencies/Agencies/Pest_Management_Office_of/Performance/10-01/10-01.pdf
If you are small enough you may not be able to afford an attorney and you can
easily end up out of business. If you end up out of business, there is more meat to
be picked from your bones. Of primary interest is your customer list. Your peers
will be more than happy to take over all of your customer accounts. OPM has a full
list of your termite customers that they acquired through all of those TARF filings,
16
Its-Our-Turn.com
which can be handed out through the back door. Of secondary interest are your
company’s name, reputation and employees. T.J. Hammer specializes in purchasing
pest control companies and is constantly on the lookout for pest control businesses
to purchase.
If you end up out of business, your termite customers will be screwed because you
are no longer there to honor your warranties. The regulatory agency does not care
about the welfare of your warranty customers. After all, they put you out of
business knowing full well they are screwing your customers. Your peers will be
happy to solicit them for new inspections, full treatments and other services that
they may not need because you have already provided those services. And, of
course, you will be banned from carrying on you livelihood. How does this serve
public health, safety or welfare? How does this protect the consumer?
During the SPCC sunset review process, Its-Our-Turn.com was instrumental in
getting lots of small PCOs to write letters to the sunset review board. However, it
took a lot of convincing because the small PCOs were terrified of retaliation by the
SPCC. Its-Our-Turn.com had to convince them that if lots of small PCOs stood
together and wrote in, we could slay the mighty SPCC and there would be nothing
left to fear. The large PCOs were amazed and confused when the sunset review
board voted to abolish the SPCC. The small PCOs breathed a sigh of relief.
Here are some sobering statistics. In 2006 under the SPCC: 26 licenses revoked, 21
licenses suspended, 5 licenses placed on probation, 66 civil penalties, 92
administrative warnings, 7 cease-and-desist and 29 other actions. In 2009 under
OPM: 1 license revoked, 1 license placed on probation and 19 administrative
warnings. Quite a difference.
With a little help from my enemies
Pesticide distributors have inside information about who is purchasing what. This
information is supposed to be confidential. However, this information has been
leaked to people outside of the company and used for mischievous purposes. For
instance, if someone working at a pesticide distributor has a relative working in the
pest control industry, the person working at the distributor might pass the
purchasing information for a competitor to a friendly person at the regulatory
agency and suggest that the competitor be scrutinized.
Or if a large business looses a bid to a smaller business, the large business may ask
a friendly person at the regulatory agency to scrutinize the smaller business at the
termite job site.
The scrutiny comes in the form of an inspector being sent to your place of business
to audit your business or being sent to a termite job site to watch your
Its-Our-Turn.com
17
performance. This is called a fishing trip - the inspector is looking for any excuse to
create a violation. Under the SPCC, the violation was handed to the Kangaroo
Court – er, a “Board of your peers” – for prosecution.
Case histories
Let’s take a look at some case histories and I think you will see different ways in
which corruption is used to destroy competition. The cases are listed in
chronological order.
1) John Sexton of SST Termite Control was put out of business by charging him a
$50,000 fine for not completing final grades (trenching the outer stem wall) within a
one-year period. He was unable to schedule the final grades with many new owners
in a project and the developer did not help to schedule a final grade. He had
originally negotiated a $1000 fine and warning with a SPCC attorney and a SPCC
inspector. The Director insisted that the Board insisted on a $50,000 fine.
However, John could not establish when the Board met to make the decision and he
said SPCC could never document the data used to justify the $50,000 fine. 2000
customers lost their termite warranties. Case 2003-128. See the following e-mail:
From: [email protected]
Date: September 13, 2007 7:30:40 PM MST
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Subject: spcc
Hi Phyllis, I just left the Office of administrative hearing where I was defending
myself against the spcc. I have a company with 2 tech's and 1 part time office
girl. My crime was not completing final grades in the 1 year period. They asked
for fines of $50.000.00! This is not to punish me, but to put me out of business.
They know there is no way I can pay the $50,000.00. Now over 2000
homeowners are going to be out of a Termite warranty.
2) The Institute of Justice took up the case of Christian Alf in March 2004 when the
SPCC tried to stop this high school student (aka rat boy) for doing handyman work
– applying screening to building exteriors to exclude pests – claiming that the
screen was a pesticide device requiring a license. At least one large pest control
company apparently complained they could not compete with the high school
student and getting rid of the high school student was their solution. The SPCC
backed down rather than face a lawsuit.
3) Ms. Brown contracted with 5-Star Termite and Pest Control to inspect the
multiple buildings on a property prior to being purchased. The filed termite report
18
Its-Our-Turn.com
failed to report the extensive damage from termites. An earlier report was done
just 2 months earlier and reported extensive termite damage. Not only was the 5Star report bad, 5-Star failed to carry the required insurance to cover a faulty
inspection. In the end, the SPCC essentially let 5-Star off. Ms. Brown took Shelby
Hawkins (owner of 5-Star) to court and received a judgment against her – case CIV2004-6805, Brown vs 5-Star. The TARF system did nothing to help Ms. Brown.
Case 2004-121.
4) Ms. Collins hired Strike Force Pest and Termite Control to perform an inspection.
Some pre-existing termite damage was pointed out – mostly in baseboards. The
real estate agent said that if there was anything to worry about, it would be part of
the WDIR (Wood Destroying Insect Report). After the house was purchased, it was
determined there was extensive dry rot damage – way beyond what had been
pointed out in the report. The damage estimates ranged from $3,000 to $10,000.
SPCC Commissioner Jack Peterson said the regulatory body could not help Ms.
Collins in regards to damages. It should be noted that building inspectors are not
allowed – by law – to comment on damage caused by termites or any other wood
destroying organisms. Are you seeing a problem here? Case 2004-155. See SPCC
minutes for June 10, 2005.
5) John Geiss (QP), Ryan Gielow (Applicator) of Tacit Services (a pest control
company owned by John McClure, son of Jack McClure) were fined $2700 and $300
respectively and the company was fined $528 in TARF fees after no pretreatment
was performed but the site was tagged as if the pretreatment had been performed.
This case shows a common pattern where the employees get fined but not the
company - the late TARFs are not directly related to the primary event. Note that
inspectors rarely do more than check the paper, so a non-application has to be
observed. Case 2005-020.
6) Ken Williams of Valleywide Termite and Pest Control received an industry-wide
amnesty notice from the Director Lisa Gervase of the SPCC to pay late TARF fees
without penalty. Ken had been hospitalized and his wife was not able to keep up
with the company paperwork and pay the TARF fees. He accepted the amnesty
terms but the SPCC "lost" the agreement and then denied he was eligible for the
amnesty and charged him an additional $2000 in fines for being late.
7) Gloria Kilian of Kilians Pest Control had supervised the company for 31 years
prior to her husband’s death. George, her husband, held the QP for the family
business for nearly 40 years. Gloria had difficulty passing the QP test. Gloria had
to sue to receive more time. Gloria eventually found a QP. However, if she had
been unable to find a QP, she would have been put out of business. Case C20053438.
8) The Institute of Justice filed suit in September 2005 against the SPCC when the
Its-Our-Turn.com
19
SPCC tried to revoke a long standing landscaper (gardener and landscaper)
exemption, claiming that the landscaper required three different licenses
(applicator, QP and pesticide business license) in order to apply UNRESTRICTED
herbicides that any homeowner can purchase and apply without any license or
training. The SPCC lost and settled out of court. This case resulted in the current
landscaper exemption in statue. SB 1290 (2013) – sponsored by AzPPO – will gut
the existing exemption in an attempt to eliminate landscaper competition.
9) John Escobedo of Kino Pest Control owed $15,488 in TARF fees and submissions
and was allowed by the SPCC to make payments. Why did John get special
treatment when Raymond was put out of business for a less serious infraction?
Case 2006-011.
10) Raymond Sarnocinski of Ray's Exterminating was put out of business after 20
years without a complaint for being late in paying 295 TARFs due to a serious
expensive illnesses in his family. The total amount including fines was $4832. Ray
asked for terms but the SPCC refused - putting him out of business instead. 500
customers lost their termite warranties. Case 2006-040.
11) Northwest Pest Control pretreated the Laos residence for termites. Northwest
was called in 12 times over 2 years to treat for visible termites and still failed to
resolve the termite problem. Rule requires a complete retreat after 3 call-backs.
Northwest denied the existence of the rule to Laos. Apparently the last TARF was
also filed 3 years late. Northwest is one of the larger pest control companies and
the SPCC refused to act until another pest control company intervened and insisted
that SPCC initiate a formal complaint. In the end, Northwest had to fully retreat
the house, there was no fine and there was no compensation for two years of termite
damage on a brand new structure. Nor was Laos refunded the money charged for
the prior 12 treatments. Case 2007-006.
12) Jack McClure (an industry player, renter of a suite in the subject building,
Jack’s son owns a competing pest control company) initiated two complaints against
Dennis Daley of Mister Bugman for failure to pretreat a building. The under-slab
pretreat was in fact missed because Mister Bugman was not notified of the slab
pour. A final grade treatment was done and a 5-year warranty was provided. No
termites were in evidence prior to or during the time of either complaint. Jack
McClure insisted that the contractor should purchase a second treatment – for
which Jack McClure would be paid for the pesticides –but the contractor refused.
The first complaint was dismissed in early 2007. In late 2007 Jack McClure
enlisted Jack Root to initiate a second complaint that was opened in 2009 under
OPM - clearly double jeopardy. Improper soil samples were taken – the soil
samples were taken from the surface instead of deep soil samples, as evidenced by
photos. The second complaint was dismissed after notifying the legislator and
paying a late TARF fee. Complaint 100059. See the attached letter for full details.
20
Its-Our-Turn.com
13) The Institute of Justice threatened litigation in April 2007 against the SPCC
when the SPCC tried to say a handyman could not advertise screening for roof rats.
The SPCC quickly backed down.
14) The SPCC tried to claim that maids using household disinfectants and pool
services using pool chemicals were doing microbiological pest control and required
three different licenses (applicator, QP and pesticide business license) in order to
provide cleaning services. The SPCC backed down a few months later. Several
multi-national companies were expanding into the maid and pool service industries
and wanted to knock out as much competition as possible. As always, the battle cry
is "public safety" and "protect the children". The reality was economic turf battles
to gain market share.
15) Paul Sexton of Sexton Pest Control was subpoenaed for 15 months of termite
control records – without cause. There was no probable cause to support the
subpoena. The pesticide suppliers were also subpoenaed. Sexton was considered
guilty until proven innocent. Sexton sued and won. Inquiry 2007-047. CV20077689. SPCC minutes May 11, 2007, pages 13 to 21.
16) The SPCC was given a legislative mandate to leave political subdivision alone.
Instead, the SPCC created rules to require political subdivision to have QPs. You
can hear Senator Leff chastise the SPCC for doing this during the Sunset Review
hearing - see the archived video of the hearing – 00:49:00 to 00:53:00. The point is
to raise the cost of providing in-house pest control for the political subdivision – to
make it easier for a large pest control company to take over the work. It is also
embarrassing to AzPPO when political subdivision do not have a QP requirement,
no harm is happening, but you are claiming industry must have QPs for public
safety. It can be very embarrassing when the emperor has no cloths.
17) David Saggio of All Organic Pest Control complained when Jack McClure (an
industry player, sponsor of CEU offerings) took advantage of his company's CEU
(continuing education units) classes in 2008 to push his own political agenda. See
the attached letter for full details.
18) Ms. Skibbie provided documentation of high-pressure sales techniques from
Northwest Exterminating in August 2012. Northwest falsely claimed that she was
legally required to have a termite contract as part of their high-pressure sales
presentation. Several of Ms. Skibbie’s neighbors also complained of similar
solicitations from Northwest. OPM was informed and to the best of my knowledge
OPM has done nothing. Northwest is a large termite and landscaping company and
part of the AzPPO cartel. Mysteriously, the TARF information for the pretreatment
on the Skibbie home has vanished from the TARF database.
Its-Our-Turn.com
21
19) The house purchased by Joseph (Francis) Disconski (Pisconski) was built in
2007 and included a 5 year termite warranty. The TARF database claims that the
house received its pretreatment in July 2012 and consisted of 8 gallons treating a
grand total of 1 square foot. The pretreatment was done by SOS. In July 2012,
Joseph was sent a solicitation by Northwest Exterminating to renew his termite
coverage and apparently Northwest followed up with a high pressure sales
presentation. OPM said they have no intention of fixing the TARF database or
stopping Northwest from using unreasonable sales practices.
20) OPM admitted in April 2013 that one of the possible (and legitimate) uses for
the TARF database is for one company to look up a competitor’s customers for the
purposes of soliciting the competitor’s customers.
21) The termite treatment for 9010 Overlook Drive in Oro Valley was done by
Conquistador Pest & Termite Control (Ken Fredrick, AzPPO founder, owner). The
TARF database entry was clearly wrong. Although the error was pointed out to
OPM in 2013, OPM said that nothing would be done and the error would not be
corrected. While verifying data for this paper in April 2013 we discovered that the
TARF database entries for this address have all vanished.
And there are a lot more where these came from.
OPM not complying with APA or the GRRC
At least two people requested in writing that Acting Director Ellis Jones notify
them pursuant to Administrative Procedures Act (APA) of all proposed rule changes
and that he send us materials for all proposed rule changes. To date, neither has
received a single notification, although rule changes have been proposed and
approved, in direct violation of the APA law. The APA is available at:
http://www.azsos.gov//public_services/rulemakingmanual/section6.pdf
Back in 2005 when the last rules review was "performed", the SPCC Director Lisa
Gervase made sure the intent of the GRRC rules review was bypassed. See SPCC
Minutes from July 25, 2006, section V – Proposed Rulemaking. This multipage
discussion shows how the process was subverted and how AzPPO participated in
the subversion. The economic impact study on the rules can only be called a sham.
The next rules review was scheduled for January 2011. But Attorney General Tom
Horne approved an emergency override instead and bypassed the GRRC rules
review.
There was a new rules package proposed as part of SB 1290 (2013). SB 1290
includes a clause to bypass GRRC rules review yet again.
22
Its-Our-Turn.com
There is a question of due process here and it has been continually bypassed.
Disproportionate representation
AzPPO has perhaps 60 paid PCO members out of roughly 1200 pest control
companies. Yet, AzPPO has managed to get over 50% of the seats on the OPM
Advisory Committee and 2/3 of the structural pest control seats on the OPM Task
Force. Small independent PCOs – which make up perhaps 70% of the structural
pest control industry – got one token representative on the OPM Advisory
Committee and no representation on the OPM Task Force.
The large businesses have three types of representation that small independent
businesses do not have. First, they have strong political influence in the Arizona
government through AzPPO, their lobbyist and all of the political influence money
can buy. Second, they have strong representation on the OPM Advisory Committee,
which comes through political appointments, and strong representation on the OPM
Task Force. Finally, they have the two well-known lawyers, which have also been
invited to participate on the OPM Advisory Committee as was noted above. You
will see a large commonality of cast of characters in all three. We have a situation
of the fox guarding the henhouse.
Now let's take another look at the TARF revenue source. Looking at the TARF
reports, you will see that the vast majority of all revenues derive from a relatively
small number of businesses. Do you think that OPM is going to damage their
revenue source by going after those large businesses? A large company has the
ability to cause OPM significant damage, in terms of lost revenues, in terms of legal
fees and in terms of political damage. This invites favoritism for those who are
putting in the most money. History shows that the large businesses responsible for
most of the revenue get favorable treatment. The little guys don't count because
they contribute little revenue, they lack political clout, they lack sophistication and
they cannot afford a legal battle.
The same disproportionate representation takes place when making or reviewing
rules. The big guys get favorable treatment while the little guys mostly get ignored.
Is R4-29-305.E – which specifies the minimum termite pretreatment to be a
vertical termiticide treatment of all accessible soil in the immediate vicinity of any
part of the structure that extends to the ground – there to protect consumers or
large termite companies? See the following white paper to understand the corrupt
economic model used by the large businesses that dominate the termite pest control
industry and to see why R4-29-305.E is so corrupt:
http://its-our-turn.com/EconomicsOfTermitePretreatments.pdf
Its-Our-Turn.com
23
There is a reason why 7 large companies dominate the termite industry today. The
legislature has put in place a system that favors these companies and no doubt
these companies rewarded the legislatures handsomely. There needs to be a
separation of state and economics.
Excessive licensing complexity
A single person company needs three different licenses to perform structural pest
control: an applicator license, a QP license and a business license. The QP license is
essentially an applicator license with a 3000 experience requirement (prior to SB
1290 – 2013) or an arbitrary 24 months waiting period (after SB 1290 – 2013 takes
affect). The QP license serves no purpose other than adding a barrier to entry – to
reduce competition.
There is no reason for this level of complicity. Remember, homeowners use exactly
the same UNRESTRICTED pesticides that professionals use – with no training and
no licensing requirements – and without any reported harm to the homeowners or
the public. The UNRESTRICTED pesticide licensing under the DoAg has no
requirement for a QP – and the agricultural industry uses way more pesticide than
the structural pest control industry. In fact, most other states do not even have the
concept of a QP – because it serves no legitimate purpose.
The following white paper discusses the issues of licensing in more detail:
Get rid of the corruption and get rid of unreasonable regulations
Start by recognizing the difference between UNRESTRICTED pesticides and
restricted pesticides. The EPA has determined that UNRESTRICTED pesticides
are sufficiently low impact and low risk that they can be sold to any untrained and
unlicensed person - from grade school students to the elderly - without any
restrictions. They are reduced risk (low impact) to the environment, to children, to
pets and to the person applying the pesticide. All pesticides come with a Federal
label. The Federal pesticide label describes the proper use of the pesticide and
everyone is required to read and follow the label. Over the last few decades, the
whole technology of pest control has changed so that UNRESTRICTED pesticides
are used by everyone and there are relatively few uses - or needs - for restricted
pesticides.
UNRESTRICTED pesticides are available to anyone at garden supply stores,
hardware stores, do-it-yourself stores, mail order or even your local grocery stores.
It is estimated that homeowner purchase and apply more UNRESTRICTED
pesticides than the entire structural pest control industry without any significant
24
Its-Our-Turn.com
documented harm to themselves or the public. Clearly all of the regulation beyond
follow the Federal label is not justified for public health, safety or welfare.
Restricted pesticides are high-risk items and should only be used by trained and
licensed persons. Restricted pesticides are potentially dangerous to the
environment, to children, to pets and to the applicator. Restricted pesticides see
little use these days because there are alternative UNRESTRICTED pesticides for
most tasks that will get the job done effectively with low risk.
Organizations like AzPPO would have you believe that UNRESTRICTED pesticides
are a serious hazard and must be tightly controlled. These positions are not based
on science or professionalism. They try to confuse the issue by talking about
restricted pesticides and UNRESTRICTED pesticides in the same sentence. Or by
talking about banned products that are no longer used. Or by making claims that
UNRESTRICTED pesticides - if swallowed - are poisonous. Of course swallowed
pesticides are poisonous. But let’s put this in perspective. We deal with lots of
poisonous and harmful substances – things that can kill you if swallowed - without
excess concern. For instance: bleach, gasoline, cleaners, brake fluid, solvents,
antifreeze, resin, epoxy. The list goes on and on and on. The reality is that today's
UNRESTRICTED pesticides are no more harmful or risky than the rest of the stuff
under the kitchen sink or in the shed.
We agree that a commercial applicator – someone who applies pesticides as the
primary part of their job – should be licensed. However, someone who applies
pesticides in small quantities as an adjunct to their other job functions – such as
landscapers or maintenance workers – should be exempt from licensing
requirements.
We agree with the view expressed in several papers on governmental committees
that industry members should generally be excluded from advisory committees.
Advisory committees should be composed of consumers – the people who use and
pay for the services that the industry provides.
White papers of interest
We have written several white papers to discuss various aspects of the Arizona
structural pest control industry. These white papers discuss each of the topics in
detail so you will have a clear understanding of how that segment of the industry
operates and the economic models behind each. You will notice that most of the
regulation does nothing to protect consumers and instead blocks competition,
reduces the number of options available to the consumer and generally raises the
cost of services to the consumer.
The first white paper discusses the important issue of who is responsible in a pest
Its-Our-Turn.com
25
control business and why the concept of a QP is not needed:
The next white paper discusses why TARFs are a bad idea and fail to protect the
consumer:
http://its-our-turn.com/CaseAgainstTarfs.pdf
There are two white papers that talk about the economics of the termite industry.
The first addresses the economics of termite inspections for real estate transactions:
http://its-our-turn.com/EconomicsOfTermiteInspections.pdf
The second addresses the economics of termite pretreatments and service contracts:
http://its-our-turn.com/EconomicsOfTermitePretreatments.pdf
In addition to our white papers, we have gathered a few additional white papers.
These white papers talk about licensing in general and how it can be used to control
the free market and bend the market to the will of large companies. After you have
read them, think about what AzPPO and the Arizona structural pest control
industry regulators are doing. Do you see the similarities? What they are doing
should become fairly obvious – everyone uses the same techniques.
Take a look at the paper from the Little Hoover Commission about Boards and
Commissions: California’s Hidden Government. The little Hover Commission is a
California State oversight agency.
http://its-our-turn.com/LittleHooverCommissionReportBoardsCommissions.pdf
Take a look at the paper by Henry Jones: How Medical Boards Nationalized Health
Care. This paper discusses how these techniques have been used in the medical
industry:
http://its-our-turn.com/HowMedicalBoardsNationalizedHealthCare.pdf
Take a look the Goldwater Institute report #247 on licensing: Six Reforms to
Occupational Licensing Laws to Increase Jobs and Lower Costs. This report
discusses how licensing laws typically hurt consumers while protecting businesses
from competition:
http://Its-Our-Turn.com/Goldwater247.pdf
26
Its-Our-Turn.com
Meeting minutes
Detailed information on the OPM Task Force including video of the meetings,
comments on the meetings, meeting minutes and handouts, petitions submitted to
the OPM Task Force and structural pest control industry survey results are at:
http://its-our-turn.com/OpmTaskForce.html
OPM Advisory Committee meeting minutes can be found at:
and at:
http://www.sb.state.az.us/AdvisoryAchives.php
SPCC meeting minutes can be found at:
and at:
http://www.sb.state.az.us/CommissionArchives.php
In closing
Its-Our-Turn.com has piles of documents and has spent considerable time tracing
and verifying the links and associations in the public record, making records
requests and looking up cases in the courts. We have referenced a representative
sample of these documents in this paper. Phyllis Farenga goes way back with many
of these people and knows their tactics and history fairly well. We have tried to hit
most of the highlights - I hope you can see the anti consumer and anti small
business trends. You can contact Phyllis at 520-682-3399 for additional detailed
information or copies of documents. We also recommend you take a look at the ItsOur-Turn.com website:
http://Its-Our-Turn.com/
It provides a significant compilation of data and quick links to resources.
Its-Our-Turn.com communicates with all 1200 licensed pest control licensees, NFIB
(National Federation of Independent Businesses), SBA (Small Business
Administration), Institute for Justice, the Goldwater Institute and legislative
members via the famous yellow flyers. The charter of Its-Our-Turn.com is to
Its-Our-Turn.com
27
educate and inform everyone in the industry, so the flyers go out to big and small
businesses alike – even businesses that do not like us. Because Its-Our-Turn.com is
open to discussion, we receive significant feedback from the structural pest control
industry. Its-Our-Turn.com was instrumental in mobilizing small independent
businesses to write in and testify against the SPCC during the sunset review, with
the direct result that the SPCC was abolished.
The OPM, like the SPCC and SPCB that preceded it, is rapidly becoming a private
good-old-boys club. SPCC and SPCB were run by the power hogs of the industry
and blocked most opposition. The TARF laws and the QP laws must be repealed.
Now that OPM has been moved under the DoAg there will be plenty of opportunity
for the corrupt crony culture to infect the DoAg. Can the farmers and ranchers
survive the corruption? Only time will tell.
Phyllis M. Farenga
Its-Our-Turn.com
28
Its-Our-Turn.com
4/12/13
For/Against/Neutral
For/Against/Neutral
S earch Criteria
Bills Individuals Organizations
Search for:
Sort FANs By:
For/Against/Neutral information is taken from the Arizona Legislature's Request to Speak system.
F/A/N: S 1290: OFFICE OF PES T MANAGEMENT
F=53 A=7 N=5
OPINION
REPRESENTING
FOR
NAME
DATE
Marinez, Adriana
03/29/2013
FOR
Arizona Crop Protection Assoc, Western
Growers
Shuler, Robert
02/02/2013
FOR
Arizona Crop Protection Assoc, Western
Growers
Shuler, Robert
02/07/2013
FOR
Arizona Crop Protection Association
Shuler, Robert
03/04/2013
FOR
Arizona Farm Bureau
Kennedy, Ana
03/04/2013
FOR
Arizona Farm Bureau
Kennedy, Ana
02/05/2013
FOR
Arizona Farm Bureau
Sigg, Joe
02/05/2013
FOR
Arizona Farm Bureau
Sigg, Joe
02/11/2013
FOR
Arizona Landscape Contractors'
Association
Gausman, Judy
02/06/2013
FOR
Arizona Landscape Contractors'
Association
Gausman, Judy
03/04/2013
FOR
ARIZONA NURSERY
ASSOCIATION
Goar, Cheryl
02/06/2013
www.azcapitolreports.com/fan.cfm?print=true&show_alerts=true&pageview=all&S=bybill&V=1290&sortby=opinion&GO=GO
1/4
4/12/13
For/Against/Neutral
FOR
Az Pest Professional Organization
Gilstrap LeVinus,
Courtney
02/01/2013
FOR
AZ Pest Professionals Organization
Gilstrap LeVinus,
Courtney
02/07/2013
FOR
AZ Pest Professionals Organization
Gilstrap LeVinus,
Courtney
03/04/2013
FOR
City of Tucson
Cole, Doug
03/04/2013
FOR
East Valley Chambers of Commerce
Alliance
Bernacki Wilkey,
Heather
03/04/2013
FOR
East Valley Chambers of Commerce
Alliance
Bernacki Wilkey,
Heather
02/05/2013
FOR
Goldwater Institute
Rhoades, Starlee
02/05/2013
FOR
Goldwater Institute
Rhoades, Starlee
03/04/2013
FOR
Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce
McAnally, Adam
02/22/2013
FOR
Self
burns, david
02/11/2013
FOR
Self
burns, david
03/04/2013
FOR
Self
burns, david
02/04/2013
FOR
Self
Etheridge, Kevin
02/11/2013
FOR
Self
Etheridge, Kevin
03/04/2013
FOR
Self
ethridge, kevin
02/04/2013
FOR
Self
Frederick, Ken
02/06/2013
FOR
Self
Frederick, Ken
02/11/2013
FOR
Self
Frederick, Ken
03/04/2013
FOR
Self
Gillies, Chris
03/04/2013
FOR
Self
Gillies, Chris
02/11/2013
FOR
Self
Gillies, Chris
02/06/2013
FOR
Self
Horn, Ryan
02/04/2013
FOR
Self
Horn, Ryan
02/11/2013
2/4
4/12/13
For/Against/Neutral
FOR
Self
Horn, Ryan
03/04/2013
FOR
Self
Johnson, Matthew
02/06/2013
FOR
Self
Johnston, Tim
02/04/2013
FOR
Self
Kennedy, Ana
02/11/2013
FOR
Self
Logan, Harvey
03/04/2013
FOR
Self
Logan, Harvey
02/04/2013
FOR
Self
Logan, Harvey
02/11/2013
FOR
Self
Medler, Robert
03/04/2013
FOR
Self
Medler, Robert
03/11/2013
FOR
Self
Wagner, Bob
03/04/2013
FOR
Self
Wagner, Bob
02/11/2013
FOR
Self
witcher, andrew
02/04/2013
FOR
Self
Witcher, Andrew
03/04/2013
FOR
Self
Witcher, Andrew
02/11/2013
FOR
Tucson Metro Chamber
Medler, Robert
02/06/2013
FOR
Wagner Pest Solutions
Wagner, Bob
02/06/2013
FOR
Yuma Fresh Vegetable Association
Tunis, Shelly
02/11/2013
FOR
Tunis, Shelly
02/04/2013
FOR
Tunis, Shelly
03/03/2013
AGAINST
City of Tucson
Marinez, Adriana
02/08/2013
AGAINST
Its-Our-Turn.com - small businesses
Farenga, Phyllis M.
03/09/2013
AGAINST
Self
Bulechek, Robert
03/01/2013
AGAINST
Sierra Club
Bahr, Sandy
02/06/2013
AGAINST
Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter
Bahr, Sandy
02/11/2013
AGAINST
Tucson Water (City of Tucson)
Cole, Doug
02/11/2013
AGAINST
Tucson Water (City of Tucson)
Cole, Doug
02/05/2013
3/4
4/12/13
For/Against/Neutral
NEUTRAL Arizona Department of Agriculture
Craig, Vince
02/06/2013
NEUTRAL Arizona Department of Agriculture
Peterson, Jack
02/01/2013
NEUTRAL League of Arizona Cities and Towns
Guillen, Rene
03/04/2013
NEUTRAL office of pest management
Peterson, Jack
03/04/2013
NEUTRAL Office of Pest Management
Peterson, Jack
02/11/2013
LOAD TIME:00:00:0 seconds
4/4

Corruption in the Pest Industry

Transcription

Similar documents

Our Team - North American Property Solutions, Inc.

termiglass - Stroud Homes

Alumni Spotlight

Plant Heroes` _Create-a

Lucas Greenhouse Overdevest Nurseries Centerton

Material - Crop and Soil Science

- Babolna Bio

Arcosanti - tylertopics.com