2005 Senate Bill 632 (Increase contractor license requirements and penalties )

Legislation watch

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Sen. Nancy Cassis (R) on June 22, 2005, to authorize criminal penalties of a minimum of 93 days in jail, plus both criminal and civil fines of $5,000 to $25,000, for residential building, maintenance or alteration contractors who are unlicensed; impose a 60 hour pre-licensure class on new contractors; raise contractor license fees; impose continuing education requirements; and more. Also, to require the state to keep more detailed records of complaints against contractors and their disposition, and to post certain complaint dispositions on the internet.
- Referred to the Senate Economic Development, Small Business and Regulatory Reform Committee on June 22, 2005.
  - Reported in the Senate on May 23, 2006, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-3) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on June 7, 2006, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that does not include the mandatory 93 day jail term for unlicensed contractors, and revises various details but does not otherwise change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 7, 2006.
Passed in the Senate (36 to 0) on June 8, 2006, to authorize criminal penalties of up to one year in jail, plus both criminal and civil fines of $5,000 to $25,000, for residential building, maintenance or alteration contractors who are unlicensed; impose a 60 hour pre-licensure class on new contractors; raise contractor license fees; impose continuing education requirements; and more. Also, to require the state to keep more detailed records of complaints against contractors and their disposition, and to post certain complaint dispositions on the internet. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on June 8, 2006.
- Referred to the House Regulatory Reform Committee on June 8, 2006.
- Amendment offered by Rep. John Pastor (R) on December 14, 2006, to establish procedures for a licensed contractor making his or her license "inactive." Upon reactivating the license, the person would have to take one hour of continuing education classes. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on December 14, 2006.
Passed in the House (84 to 19) on December 14, 2006, to authorize criminal penalties of up to one year in jail, plus both criminal and civil fines of $5,000 to $25,000, for residential building, maintenance or alteration contractors who are unlicensed; impose a 60 hour pre-licensure class on new contractors; raise contractor license fees; impose continuing education requirements; and more. Also, to require the state to keep more detailed records of complaints against contractors and their disposition, and to post certain complaint dispositions on the internet. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on December 15, 2006, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill. Passed in the Senate (34 to 0) on December 15, 2006. [Vote Details and Comments]
Vetoed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on January 5, 2007.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Re: 2005 Senate Bill 632 (Increase contractor license requirements and penalties ) [by lexiegram on October 6, 2009]

I agree with the new laws regarding licensing for contractor's. The educational requirements could only be an asset to the contractor. Knowledge is key. I understand when contractor's feel that hand's on experience is superior to educational requirements. Hand's on experience is vital, we all can learn by doing. But, equally important is: Education. Without argument, these requirements are now law. Those who refuse to follow the law, deserves and should be held accountable by the law.

Licensing also helps the homeowner in case of a problem. Without the required license, a homeowner is on their own if there is a problem, with no support or assistance from the state.

What really upsets me, is all the talk about the new laws, cracking down on violators, etc., is only as good as one's Proscecutor. We were recently confronted with a situation regarding a M & A Contractor.The shoddy work (tile work) that was done was evidence of his lack of knowledge and experience. We had to pay another contractor to re-do the work that was improperly done.We attempted resolution and compensation through our local small claims, and the Magistrate ruled in favor of the contractor. The contractor even states in his ad in the local phone directory: Satisfaction Guaranteed! Unfortunately, for us-it meant nothing in the court of law! We also attempted to hold him accountable in court for being unlicensed. Again, the courts decided to rule without prejudice. So-even though these new laws are valuable to the homeowner, they are only as good as our Prosecutor. In my county, St. Clair County-the courts are not making the violator's be accountable! This is not right-the law is the law, whether it's a horrendous crime, or a small,harmless violation-citizen's need to know that the law will be enforced!

Line

2) Liscensee [by Anonymous Citizen on March 16, 2007]
I've been liscensed for 30 years. The only thing a liscense tells me is that you know how to pass a test. It doesn't make you do work any better. I seen guys who are liscensed who are some real hacks, and I seen guys who aren't are very good at what they do. All those organizations tied to builders are nothing but glorified pat my self on the back people. I've never advertised a day in my life and I get more work than I know what to do with.
Reply

Line

3) It just makes [by Anonymous Citizen on January 18, 2007]
them better at skirting the law.

Less Government + Less Taxes = More Prosperity

This is another stupid money grab. Listen up sheeple, the government doesn't care about you, jenny on the block doesn't care about you. It is all about trying to get your money in their pocket!
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation