28 Tonight; State Contractors Licensing Board

<v Host>Let's talk now about the problem of remodeling our homes and the dangers that <v Host>may lurk therein, you've been looking into that. <v Tom Thompson>There are certainly a lot of dangers in having your home remodeled. <v Tom Thompson>As the price of new homes has been going up and up, as we all well know, <v Tom Thompson>more and more people are turning to remodeling, adding a room, doing <v Tom Thompson>some work around the house in lieu of going out and buying a new home. <v Tom Thompson>We wanted to look at this from the standpoint of the consumer. <v Tom Thompson>How well is the consumer being treated? <v Tom Thompson>We did a lot of searching of public documents to come up with complaints. <v Tom Thompson>Are there any complaints in this area? <v Tom Thompson>How well are the contractors controlled when they're dealing with <v Tom Thompson>the consumer? We found that 1, there are allegations that there is very little <v Tom Thompson>control, very little enforcement of consumer protection against the contractors. <v Tom Thompson>We also ran across a company called the Standard American Builders. <v Tom Thompson>Standard American Builders is one of the heaviest advertisers of the contractors <v Tom Thompson>on TV. They advertise in TV Guide and they're quite well known by many <v Tom Thompson>people. When we began looking at Standard American, we ran across

<v Tom Thompson>a number of complaints throughout the public records that we looked at. <v Tom Thompson>We called people randomly after checking those records. <v Tom Thompson>And we found that, in fact, nearly every 1 had a complaint lodged <v Tom Thompson>against them. We found several homeowners who had complained in Compton in the South <v Tom Thompson>Los Angeles area about the treatment that they had received from standard American <v Tom Thompson>builders. Ms. Jackson, it's been six months since Standard American decided <v Tom Thompson>to do some work in here for you in your kitchen. <v Tom Thompson>Can you tell us what's been done and what needs to be done yet? <v Evelyn Jackson>The ceiling is supposed to be an illuminated ceiling with lightings. <v Evelyn Jackson>1 of these fixtures was here already. <v Evelyn Jackson>And when they took the walls out and they put the sand they put in, <v Evelyn Jackson>they cut in another fixture and <v Evelyn Jackson>I don't know what was the purpose of, you know, cutting the other 1 in, but they said <v Evelyn Jackson>that they would do the whole ceiling and the lights, it would be,

<v Evelyn Jackson>you know, illuminated. <v Tom Thompson>And right now, all you're doing is looking at some empty fixtures up there. <v Evelyn Jackson>Oh, it's been like this for the past 6 months. <v Evelyn Jackson>We've been without cabinets and countertop from June up until December. <v Evelyn Jackson>When they came in the week before Christmas, they came in and <v Evelyn Jackson>put in the countertops. <v Evelyn Jackson>And while we got the cabinets about 2 months before we <v Evelyn Jackson>got the doors and the drawers, they were put in the week before Christmas. <v Evelyn Jackson>And we still don't have a sink. <v Tom Thompson>There's just a big empty hole over there. How do you manage in the kitchen with none <v Tom Thompson>of this being done? <v Evelyn Jackson>Well, without the sink, we have to wash our dishes and our food <v Evelyn Jackson>or vegetables or whatever. <v Evelyn Jackson>We have to use the service porch, where we wash our clothes, because that's the <v Evelyn Jackson>only thing that we have available as of now. <v Tom Thompson>Ms. Jackson in the bathroom here, this is another room you were going to have remodeled <v Tom Thompson>and it's a mess.

<v Tom Thompson>What needs to be done and what's been done so far? <v Evelyn Jackson>Well, so far they have replaced our comode. <v Evelyn Jackson>And as you could see there, they put a new comode in and the seat has been <v Evelyn Jackson>broken about 2 weeks after they put it in, it came apart. <v Evelyn Jackson>They put the sink in and the cabinet. <v Evelyn Jackson>But we still have no water there at the sink. <v Evelyn Jackson>And this was just put in the week before Christmas. <v Tom Thompson>So it took them almost 6 months just to put that cabinet in. <v Evelyn Jackson>Yes, it did. <v Tom Thompson>Showers all unhooked, I can see. <v Evelyn Jackson>Yes. The shower has been that way for the past 6 months. <v Tom Thompson>How do you do things like bathing and brushing your teeth? <v Evelyn Jackson>Over the bathtub. <v Tom Thompson>Ms. Jackson, this whole project has cost you 8550 dollars. <v Tom Thompson>You're still paying for it? Why? <v Evelyn Jackson>They said that if we don't make the payment, then they would have to- <v Evelyn Jackson>not- the bank, you know, that's handling the finance, said that they would have to

<v Evelyn Jackson>foreclose on the property if we don't make the payments. <v Tom Thompson>So you're really stuck with having to pay for some work that is not done <v Tom Thompson>and hasn't been done for 6 months. <v Evelyn Jackson>Yes. And the payments had started before the work <v Evelyn Jackson>even started because the contract was drawn up <v Evelyn Jackson>in April and the first payment was due in May. <v Evelyn Jackson>And they didn't start the work until June. <v Tom Thompson>So you've been paying for 8 months then on something. <v Tom Thompson>What have you done to try to get standard American to come out and do the work? <v Evelyn Jackson>Well, we've called Standard American Builders, and I've talked to <v Evelyn Jackson>just about everybody there, you know, at the at the office. <v Evelyn Jackson>We've wrote the contractor's license bureau. <v Evelyn Jackson>We've wrote to talk to the <v Evelyn Jackson>Consumer Affairs-. <v Tom Thompson>Consumer Affairs Board.

<v Evelyn Jackson>Yes. <v Tom Thompson>What'd all those people tell you? <v Evelyn Jackson>Well they said that it's nothing they can do. <v Evelyn Jackson>We even called the health department. <v Evelyn Jackson>They came out and they looked and they said it wasn't anything that they could do. <v Evelyn Jackson>We even tried talking to our councilman out in this area and they said that <v Evelyn Jackson>they would look into it and they would get in touch with us later. <v Evelyn Jackson>And we didn't hear any more from them. <v Evelyn Jackson>So there was, I don't know, is nothing else we can really do except just wait <v Evelyn Jackson>now and see what happens. <v Tom Thompson>Ms. Jackson, how did you come to choose Standard American Builders? <v Tom Thompson>And didn't you check them out before you contracted with them? <v Evelyn Jackson>Well, by watching television and reading the TV <v Evelyn Jackson>guide, you know, and we say, well, this company, you <v Evelyn Jackson>know, is doing all this advertising in the papers, magazine and <v Evelyn Jackson>television, well we figure, well, it wouldn't take no time to get our job <v Evelyn Jackson>done because it's a big company and it's real famous and they would just go on and do the <v Evelyn Jackson>work and get it over with.

<v Evelyn Jackson>But then it didn't work that way. <v Tom Thompson>It didn't work that way in Beverly Hills either. <v Tom Thompson>That's what the Zussman family contends. <v Tom Thompson>They contracted with standard Americans to build a 2 story addition to their home in <v Tom Thompson>October of 1976. <v Tom Thompson>They contend the work was unsatisfactory, incomplete, and that they had to hire another <v Tom Thompson>contractor to finish the job. <v Tom Thompson>Rhoda Zuzsman told us, we think of ourselves as sophisticated consumers. <v Tom Thompson>We got caught. <v Tom Thompson>After repeated phone calls to Standard American Builders in an attempt to interview its <v Tom Thompson>president, Jerry Cooper, on camera. <v Tom Thompson>We visited the office with our video crew. <v Tom Thompson>Cooper had indicated in a preliminary conversation that the complaints against Standard <v Tom Thompson>American were minor and had resulted from shortages of material, misunderstandings. <v Tom Thompson>He also told us that he did 60 jobs a month and was bound to have complaints because his <v Tom Thompson>volume, he refused to be interviewed on cameras. <v Tom Thompson>After more than a year of complaints against Standard American Builders by a number of

<v Tom Thompson>irate consumers other than the Jacksons and the Zussman's contractors, <v Tom Thompson>State Contractors Licensing Board finally made a move. <v Tom Thompson>On December 16th, they filed a formal accusation against Standard American Builders and <v Tom Thompson>its president Jerry Cooper. <v Tom Thompson>Yesterday, the state attorney general, on behalf of the Contractors Licensing Board, <v Tom Thompson>went to court in an attempt to get a rec- an injunction against <v Tom Thompson>the unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices <v Tom Thompson>that Standard American Builders had been allegedly engaging in. <v Tom Thompson>According to the complaint, they've been coercing customers. <v Tom Thompson>They had failed to complete work. <v Tom Thompson>They had abandoned projects among the numerous complaints. <v Tom Thompson>They were seeking to restrain Standard American from violating the contractor's <v Tom Thompson>licensing board less than 4 hours ago. <v Tom Thompson>The attorney general obtained a temporary restraining order against Standard <v Tom Thompson>American. During the course of our investigation, we were wondering why

<v Tom Thompson>the contractor's licensing board had taken so much time. <v Tom Thompson>We had uncovered more than 30 complaints against Standard American Builders. <v Tom Thompson>Researcher Kathy McManis visited the contractor's licensing board at the state building <v Tom Thompson>in downtown Los Angeles to find out what kind of information you could get <v Tom Thompson>about complaints against builders. <v Mel Cooper>Good morning. <v Kathy McManis>Hi. I am interested in information about Standard American Builders. <v Mel Cooper>Standard American Builders? If you wait a moment, I'll check our directory. <v Mel Cooper>Standard American Builders is a VBA for omnibus industry corporate <v Mel Cooper>license number 259029 <v Mel Cooper>was renewed July 1 '77. <v Mel Cooper>The president and responsible managing officer of that entity is Jerry <v Mel Cooper>Cooper. <v Tom Thompson>That was the extent of the information that we could get from the contractor's licensing <v Tom Thompson>board. We could find out what the license number was. <v Tom Thompson>And who were the principals in the business.

<v Tom Thompson>There was no other information that we could get. <v Tom Thompson>The number of complaints or what was happening, the consumer was out the cold. <v Host 2>I mean, they wouldn't even tell you whether or not they had rated this contractor as <v Host 2>being in good standing with their board? <v Tom Thompson>There is no rating. What they say is that if they talk about <v Tom Thompson>the complaints against a contractor, they are indicting that contractor because the <v Tom Thompson>complaints may or may not be true. <v Tom Thompson>In this instance, there had been a total of 90 complaints <v Tom Thompson>against the contractor. 4 or 5 is normally considered cause <v Tom Thompson>for alarm. <v Host>They won't volunteer that information to anyone who calls? <v Tom Thompson>No. And Lisa Keehen, who was a board member, she's one of the new public members <v Tom Thompson>of the Contractor's Licensing Board who was appointed amidst much controversy, <v Tom Thompson>is worried about the way that agency is <v Tom Thompson>being run. She's highly critical of the contractors licensing board management. <v Tom Thompson>She wants some changes made in the way they operate. <v Lisa Keehen>As a member of the board, I'm going to have to say we have to take fault for that.

<v Lisa Keehen>I'd say that is typical. I'd say 90 is a little bit extreme, I've heard of <v Lisa Keehen>what you're talking about. But I've seen cases where there's been 10, 15 <v Lisa Keehen>complaints against a contractor out there <v Lisa Keehen>who are still out there building, who have had little or nothing done against them. <v Lisa Keehen>And it's because our agency has not been enforcement minded. <v Lisa Keehen>It's been a mollycoddling back between the contractor and the agency. <v Lisa Keehen>We have not looked aggressively at giving the license. <v Lisa Keehen>Everyone, not everyone, but it's well known that exam has been a joke. <v Lisa Keehen>We've been getting practically the same exam for the last 7 years. <v Lisa Keehen>A third grader knows how to get the exam from the previous year. <v Lisa Keehen>We have a 90 percent pass rate, which in my estimation means that if you show up <v Lisa Keehen>and you're awake, you probably will pass. <v Tom Thompson>Does the agency itself then need a complete restructuring? <v Lisa Keehen>In my personal opinion, I can only speak for myself.

<v Lisa Keehen>Not on behalf of the board, which takes a majority of votes. <v Lisa Keehen>I'd say, yes, I'd say that our present <v Lisa Keehen>chain of command is ineffective. <v Lisa Keehen>I'd say that our management systems are totally unresponsive. <v Lisa Keehen>For instance, we've instigated a new computer system over the last 18 months. <v Lisa Keehen>The information it's to provide for us is for how many contractors are <v Lisa Keehen>we litigating with, what are the type of complaints, we're trying to cross fertilize <v Lisa Keehen>the information, has a 20 percent error rate, 20 <v Lisa Keehen>percent error rate renders the whole system totally inoperable. <v Tom Thompson>Lisa Keehen indicated to me that as a consumer, she wouldn't trust the agency to <v Tom Thompson>give her any useful information in finding a contractor. <v Tom Thompson>Other board members agree they'll have a showdown this coming Friday about board policy <v Tom Thompson>and in fact, whether the registrar or the contractor's licensing board remains. <v Tom Thompson>David Ackerman is a staff deputy of the contracting licensing board.

<v Tom Thompson>I asked Ackerman about the charges that the board is not enforcement minded <v Tom Thompson>and has ineffective and unresponsive management. <v David Ackerman>In response to your question regarding the enforcement <v David Ackerman>of the contractor state license laws incorporated in the business <v David Ackerman>and professions code, and that this agency may not be responsive <v David Ackerman>to its duties to enforce these laws, I would <v David Ackerman>categorically refute any such statement because this agency's <v David Ackerman>record has been proven over the years to be 1 of the best enforcement <v David Ackerman>agencies under the umbrella of the Department of Consumer Affairs. <v Tom Thompson>The Department of Consumer Affairs complains about your agency. <v Tom Thompson>Kathleen Bordeaux from the County Department of Consumer Affairs says the contractor <v Tom Thompson>state license board has clearly shown itself to be the least responsive in working with <v Tom Thompson>us to solve consumer problems. <v Tom Thompson>Those are in recent hearings before the state.

<v Tom Thompson>How do you respond to that? <v David Ackerman>I appeared at those hearings when Ms. Bordeaux Made these charges. <v David Ackerman>And the only charges that Ms. Bordeaux Did make was that the Department <v David Ackerman>of Consumer Affairs of Los Angeles County did not timely get <v David Ackerman>the disposition of cases referred to us. <v David Ackerman>There was not a single complaint given to us in which we were accused of <v David Ackerman>not handling the complaint in the interest of the consumer. <v David Ackerman>And that is our main concern. <v Tom Thompson>Board members said that as a consumer, she wouldn't trust your agency. <v Tom Thompson>Her agency. To give her useful answers in dealing with a contractor. <v David Ackerman>In response to that particular board member making that type of accusation. <v David Ackerman>It's unfounded. It's based on an assassination of character <v David Ackerman>and she could not prove her statements or any board member making <v David Ackerman>such a statement with some definitive accusation because we are responsive <v David Ackerman>to any member of the public. No complaint is ever turned away.

<v David Ackerman>We absorb 32,000 complaints in a given year with <v David Ackerman>112 field personnel. We complete approximately 24,000 complaints <v David Ackerman>of those 32,000 with the limited personnel and we have saved the <v David Ackerman>public in the last fiscal year up to 6 million dollars in savings <v David Ackerman>to the public. And I think that's a good record. <v David Ackerman>I'd stand on that anywhere. <v Host>Tom, what it boils down to, one must know with whom one is dealing. <v Host>And as I recall, it's entirely possible to get a performance bond to guarantee the work <v Host>will be done, right? <v Tom Thompson>Clete, that's exactly what a consumer ought to do. <v Tom Thompson>We've talked to consumer experts. They say that if a contractor is a reputable <v Tom Thompson>contractor, you can get a performance bond. <v Tom Thompson>It cost you the consumer 1 to 1 and a half percent the total amount of the job. <v Tom Thompson>But it guarantees that you're going to get satisfaction. <v Tom Thompson>A contractor who is not reputable would have problems getting that bond. <v Host>Thank you Tom, that's all our time.

<v Host>[Another day]The past 12 months, we have presented several reports on the state <v Host>contractors board. Among the charges we've aired are allegations that contractors with <v Host>large numbers of complaints are allowed to operate without investigation, <v Host>that unqualified persons are licensed to do business, that the agency is insensitive <v Host>to consumer complaints, and that the management of the board is incompetent. <v Host>We have now learned that a contractor's license has been issued to a former top <v Host>administrator of the contractor's board under questionable and possibly illegal

<v Host>circumstances. Tom Thompson has been following the story from the beginning <v Host>and has the details. Tom. <v Tom Thompson>Well Clete, as you mentioned, we've been following this story for about a year now. <v Tom Thompson>It all began when we uncovered numerous complaints by consumers against the home <v Tom Thompson>remodeler called Standard American Builders. <v Tom Thompson>January, we took viewers on a tour of the Jackson family home. <v Tom Thompson>They had contracted with Standard American builders for some remodeling work in the <v Tom Thompson>kitchen and bathroom. 6 months after the work began, there were still holes in <v Tom Thompson>the ceiling where light fixtures should have been. <v Tom Thompson>There was a big hole where the kitchen sink should have been. <v Tom Thompson>In the bathroom, the sink wasn't connected and the shower wasn't working. <v Tom Thompson>How do you do things like bathing and brushing your teeth? <v Evelyn Jackson>Over the bathtub. <v Tom Thompson>The Jacksons were frustrated. No one was answering their complaints. <v Tom Thompson>We found that normally 4 or 5 complaints was enough for the contractors license board <v Tom Thompson>to begin an investigation.

<v Tom Thompson>But in the case of standard American builders, we had uncovered more than 100 complaints <v Tom Thompson>and there had been no investigation. <v Tom Thompson>It wasn't until we went to the board with our findings that any action was taken. <v Tom Thompson>The state attorney general filed an accusation against Standard American Builders and <v Tom Thompson>an injunction was granted ordering a halt to any illegal activity by the officers <v Tom Thompson>of Standard American Builders, which includes Jerry Cooper and Joyce Cooper. <v Tom Thompson>Our January story also included charges by public board member Lisa <v Tom Thompson>Keehen that the agency was ineffective, mismanaged and insensitive <v Tom Thompson>to consumer complaints regarding contractors like Standard American. <v Tom Thompson>David Ackerman, staff deputy to the registrar of contractors appeared on that show <v Tom Thompson>to deny those charges. <v David Ackerman>In response to your question regarding the enforcement <v David Ackerman>of the contractor State License Laws incorporated in the Business <v David Ackerman>and Professions Code, and that this agency may not be responsive <v David Ackerman>to its duties to enforce these laws, I would

<v David Ackerman>categorically refute any such statement because this agency's <v David Ackerman>record has been proven over the years to be one of the best enforcement <v David Ackerman>agencies under the umbrella of the Department of Consumer Affairs. <v Tom Thompson>To date, no action has been taken on the accusation filed by the attorney general <v Tom Thompson>and administrative hearing to see if standard American builders should lose their license <v Tom Thompson>has been continued to February at the request of Standard American's attorney <v Tom Thompson>who contends the company is doing everything it can to resolve outstanding complaints. <v Tom Thompson>Ironically, though, we have learned that David Ackerman, the man who defended <v Tom Thompson>the contractors board handling of complaints, is now in business as a contractor <v Tom Thompson>with Joyce Cooper. Joyce Cooper, you'll recall, is an officer of Standard <v Tom Thompson>American Builders and the wife of its president, Jerry Cooper. <v Tom Thompson>Ackerman is the president of Classic Associates, Inc.. <v Tom Thompson>The vice president of Classic Associates is Mark Cooper, Jerry Cooper's son.

<v Tom Thompson>Joyce Cooper, according to Ackerman and Classic Associate's attorney, owns <v Tom Thompson>100 percent of the company. <v Tom Thompson>I talked to public board members Lisa Keehen and Phil Decker about the association <v Tom Thompson>between Ackerman and Joyce Cooper and asked for their reactions. <v Lisa Keehen>We are a consumer protection agency often called by <v Lisa Keehen>constituents and friends and people I work with who have had dealings with our agency. <v Lisa Keehen>And the first comment I get was, oh my gosh, they don't care about the consumer. <v Lisa Keehen>They don't care what we say. It seems like they know the contractor. <v Lisa Keehen>They're good buddy buddies. And I will look at them and say, no, we're not. <v Lisa Keehen>We're trying to do a good job. <v Lisa Keehen>And then our number 2 man joins association with our <v Lisa Keehen>number 1 top offender at the agency and our image- What <v Lisa Keehen>does the man on the street think about us? <v Lisa Keehen>What has to be done has to come from inside the agency, from the top all the way down. <v Lisa Keehen>You asked me a few months ago when I was here, when last we met, were

<v Lisa Keehen>we doing a good job? <v Lisa Keehen>I had to reply that we were falling short of what could be considered <v Lisa Keehen>in my own personal opinion a good job. <v Lisa Keehen>This example further adds to that evidence. <v Phil Decker>Within the agency, within the bureaucratic process, when an outfit like <v Phil Decker>Standard, like Classic Associates comes in with an application that has <v Phil Decker>the name on the application of a person against which this agency has <v Phil Decker>a civil action pending an injunction outstanding and also administrative proceedings <v Phil Decker>outstanding, there should be an automatic red flag system that that <v Phil Decker>that that just stops everything. <v Phil Decker>Dea- dead in the tracks of the application approval process <v Phil Decker>and further examination by the agency should have been <v Phil Decker>done as a matter of course, to determine whether or not it's proper to license people <v Phil Decker>like these people under these circumstances to do this kind of work. <v Phil Decker>But apparently that simply did not happen.

<v Tom Thompson>As a matter of fact, rather than being a red flag, this matter apparently was <v Tom Thompson>expedited in terms of Classic Associates getting a license. <v Tom Thompson>Was it not? <v Phil Decker>Expedited? Lightning should be so fast. <v Phil Decker>The registrar appeared and testified before this board that it takes <v Phil Decker>literally months and months and months for applicants for a license <v Phil Decker>to receive their license after they've submitted an application. <v Phil Decker>This situation was a little bit different. <v Phil Decker>Maybe it helps to be the number 2 man in an organization like this because it took a full <v Phil Decker>2 days for Classic Associates to get its license after it filed <v Phil Decker>its application. 2 days. <v Tom Thompson>Decker found that while Ackerman had taken a written test for his contractor's license, <v Tom Thompson>the experience requirement was another matter. <v Phil Decker>However, with respect to the experience side of things. <v Phil Decker>We find out that the experience that he used <v Phil Decker>to try to qualify himself for these licenses was

<v Phil Decker>experienced not out in the field, not working as a general building <v Phil Decker>contractor, not doing the kinds of things which contractors throughout the state by the <v Phil Decker>thousands have had to do in order to get a license. <v Phil Decker>No, we find out now that Mr. Ackerman qualified by way of <v Phil Decker>experience for riding a desk in an office for 10 <v Phil Decker>plus years. <v Phil Decker>Now, there is nothing in the entirety of the contractor's license law that I've <v Phil Decker>been able to find that says if you ride or jockey a desk long enough, <v Phil Decker>you can become qualified on the basis of that experience to become a contractor. <v Phil Decker>Yet the 1 person who can waive <v Phil Decker>the, the, the experience qualification for contractor's license in the entire <v Phil Decker>state of California, by law, 1 person. <v Phil Decker>The registrar of contractors. <v Phil Decker>And he waived it. <v Tom Thompson>Ackerman refused to be interviewed on camera for this story, but he was able to talk

<v Tom Thompson>to him off camera. He denied any association with Standard American Builders, <v Tom Thompson>said he would only remain with Classic Associates as long as everything was on the up and <v Tom Thompson>up. And he found no problem or conflict with working for a person who stood accused of <v Tom Thompson>violations of the contractor state license laws. <v Tom Thompson>Ackerman added that he felt he would be good for the home remodeling industry. <v Tom Thompson>A few doors up the street from Classic Associates Beverly Hills address, we asked to <v Tom Thompson>speak to Jerry or Joyce Cooper at Standard American's office. <v Tom Thompson>They were also unavailable for comment on the advice of their attorney. <v Tom Thompson>The front shades were even drawn covering the standard American sign that is usually <v Tom Thompson>visible. The sign had been exposed less than an hour before we shot these scenes. <v Tom Thompson>While I was checking this story, I ran across an interesting coincidence when <v Tom Thompson>I dialed information for a number for Classic Associates and then dialed the number I was <v Tom Thompson>given. The phone was answered, Standard American Builders, may I help you. <v Tom Thompson>A check back with the information officer showed that Classic Associate's

<v Tom Thompson>phone number was also listed as a number for Standard American Builders. <v Tom Thompson>Ackerman told me that the phone company had mixed up the order and he had asked that the <v Tom Thompson>matter be straightened out. <v Tom Thompson>There is another mix up to this story. <v Tom Thompson>I was told by the secretary of state that Classic Associates Inc. <v Tom Thompson>is not a California corporation, nor is it an out-of-state corporation <v Tom Thompson>qualified to do business in California. <v Tom Thompson>The contractors license board records indicate that it is a corporation. <v Tom Thompson>They gave me a corporate number to check. <v Tom Thompson>I then ask Jerry Hill, division chief of the secretary of state's office, to personally <v Tom Thompson>check out the discrepancy. <v Tom Thompson>The corporate number given me by the contractor's board proved to belong to a Classic <v Tom Thompson>Door and Cabinet company, Inc. <v Tom Thompson>Jerry Cooper and Joyce Cooper appear as current officers of that corporation. <v Tom Thompson>David Ackerman does not. Hill did tell me that a name reservation for Classic <v Tom Thompson>Associates Inc. had been made but was not used, and the reservation <v Tom Thompson>of the name has since expired.

<v Tom Thompson>That discrepancy raises some questions in the mind of a board member and attorney, Phil <v Tom Thompson>Decker. <v Phil Decker>According to written communication. <v Phil Decker>Very, very, very recent, the ink is hardly dry- from the secretary of state, they have <v Phil Decker>never heard of Classic Associates, Classic Associates Inc. <v Phil Decker>is, quote, not of record, close quote, with the secretary of state. <v Phil Decker>That means it's a non-existent corporation. <v Phil Decker>What that further means, Tom, is that apparently the contractor's license board, <v Phil Decker>if you can believe this- I suppose a lot of people can. <v Phil Decker>The license board issued a license to go out and do contracting work to a nonexistent <v Phil Decker>entity. In my judgment, if those facts are true, that license is <v Phil Decker>an invalid license, ain't worth the paper it's written on. <v Phil Decker>What that further means is that every contract, if those, if those facts upon <v Phil Decker>investigation turn out to be true, every person to- strike <v Phil Decker>that, every con- contract entered into with Classic <v Phil Decker>Associates is a misdemeanor. <v Phil Decker>Contracting without a license is a misdemeanor in this state.

<v Phil Decker>Every advertisement, for example, showing Classic Associates, Inc. <v Phil Decker>With a license board number, whatever that number is, 355555, <v Phil Decker>I think the typewriter started to stutter, is, <v Phil Decker>is a misdemeanor because it's containing false and misleading information, <v Phil Decker>in my judgment. A reasonable person, indeed, a reasonable attorney looking <v Phil Decker>at and advertisement like that, XYZ, Inc. <v Phil Decker>would be led to believe that it's a corporation. <v Phil Decker>Apparently, that's not true. <v Phil Decker>In addition, when you go beyond that, you get into, you get into false and misleading <v Phil Decker>advertising violation of BNP 17 500, for example. <v Phil Decker>Which, as it turns out, is also grounds for an unfair trade <v Phil Decker>practice. I mean, we're talking about a laundry list of <v Phil Decker>of possible, perhaps more than possible, violations of the law <v Phil Decker>involve, involving these people that's longer than your arm, <v Phil Decker>longer than both arms. Single spaced.

<v Phil Decker>We're talking about a situation here where the risk to the public, if nobody else, the <v Phil Decker>risk to the public of harm and injury is more than <v Phil Decker>substantial. I think it's imminent. <v Phil Decker>And it's with that in mind that this Monday morning, <v Phil Decker>I'm calling a press conference in San Francisco where I will be asking <v Phil Decker>for independent investigations to be conducted by the <v Phil Decker>district attorney of the county of Los Angeles and also by the attorney general's office <v Phil Decker>to get to the bottom of these facts in order to, to, to, to <v Phil Decker>enable the the proper course of law to, <v Phil Decker>to find its just stance in the public interest. <v Phil Decker>Tom, this is nonsense. <v Host>Tom, could the secretary of state have made a mistake? <v Tom Thompson>Of course. And anything can happen in the bureaucracy. <v Tom Thompson>The secretary of state lost it. Contractor state license board could have mixed up their <v Tom Thompson>records or perhaps Classic Associates or their attorney simply never got around to filing

<v Tom Thompson>it. Of course, they could have made a mistake. <v Tom Thompson>An investigation, however, would find out if that were true. <v Host 3>Well, how'd those telephone numbers get mixed up? <v Tom Thompson>Well, again, we can't get records from the phone company to say who, in fact, <v Tom Thompson>placed the order. Mr. Decker hopes that if they get an investigation, they have subpoena <v Tom Thompson>power, they can then find out if there wasn't a mistake. <v Host 3>Well, if the board mem- if the public board members so upset and they've asked for an <v Host 3>investigation. Why haven't they done more? <v Tom Thompson>Well, they've tried to do more in the past, Phyllis. <v Tom Thompson>They've tried to fire the current registrar of contractors. <v Tom Thompson>They'll try again at their next meeting next month. <v Tom Thompson>They want him to resign. Today, he refused to resign when they faced him with his <v Tom Thompson>charges. <v Host>Tom, again, what's the makeup of that board? How many public members? <v Tom Thompson>Well, there are 3 or 4 public members currently on the board now. <v Tom Thompson>And they say that they hope they have the votes now to turn it around after all of these <v Tom Thompson>charges have come out over the past year. <v Host>Thanks, Tom. <v Host>[Another day] Ladies and gentlemen, good evening, Clete Roberts here, welcome to 28

<v Host>Tonight with my colleagues Tom Thompson and Susan <v Host>Friedman. During the past year, 28 Tonight, reporter Tom Thompson has <v Host>uncovered numerous abuses within the contractor state license board, the <v Host>licensing of incompetent contractors, huge backlogs of unresolved complaints, <v Host>favoritism and inefficiency have headed the list. <v Host>Tonight, Tom reports on the results of those investigations and on a dispute <v Host>involving one of the more outspoken contractors board members, Tom. <v Tom Thompson>Well, Clete, the first part of my report is really rather short. <v Tom Thompson>What's happened during the past year to correct the abuses? <v Tom Thompson>Virtually nothing. Consumer complaints have risen by 14 percent. <v Tom Thompson>The backlog in resolving those complaints is rising even faster. <v Tom Thompson>There are now 34,000 unresolved complaints before the contractor <v Tom Thompson>state license board. That's an increase of 85 percent over what it was a year ago. <v Tom Thompson>Meanwhile, license revocations are down 30 percent. <v Tom Thompson>License suspensions are down nearly 40 percent.

<v Tom Thompson>There've been several unsuccessful attempts to muster enough votes to fire the registrar <v Tom Thompson>of contractors because of this poor performance. <v Tom Thompson>Efforts to come up with a plan to disclose to consumers complaints about contractors <v Tom Thompson>have also repeatedly failed. <v Tom Thompson>Now, on top of all that, the contractors board members considered by most observers <v Tom Thompson>to be the most active consumer advocate on the board, is now under attack <v Tom Thompson>by the board itself and by the head of the state Consumer Affairs Department, Richard <v Tom Thompson>Spon. The board member is, Phil Decker. <v Tom Thompson>And here's what Spon wrote about Decker in a letter to Assemblyman Luis Pappan. <v Tom Thompson>He said on another front, I would like to reiterate to you my sentiments about Mr. <v Tom Thompson>Decker. I consider him an embarrassment to the board, the <v Tom Thompson>department, the administration and the entire public member cadre. <v Tom Thompson>If I had the power, I doubt that he would remain on the board. <v Tom Thompson>He listens to no one but himself and is no one's agent but his own. <v Tom Thompson>He is also aware of my sentiments.

<v Tom Thompson>Spon also told me by phone that Decker's aggressive attitude was blocking any <v Tom Thompson>meaningful board action that he was, quote, not a consumer advocate, <v Tom Thompson>but a consumer burden. Now, earlier today, I talked to Decker about his standing with <v Tom Thompson>the board and the Department of Consumer Affairs. <v Phil Decker>I don't know. I suppose my reaction is, is to observe simply that <v Phil Decker>you're trying to shoot the mail man for bringing bad news. <v Phil Decker>The fact of the matter is, is that this agency is in a crisis. <v Phil Decker>The fact of the matter is that people have created the crisis where people from <v Phil Decker>1 end of this state to the other, consumers and legitimate contractors alike, are getting <v Phil Decker>scorched and scorched badly by the thousands. <v Phil Decker>Now, if pointing that out and pointing to some of the many reasons why that is <v Phil Decker>happening today, if that's blasphemy, if that's heresy, if <v Phil Decker>that's burdensome to our erstwhile director of the Department of <v Phil Decker>Consumer Affairs. As far as I'm concerned, that's tough because I was not appointed <v Phil Decker>to be a politician. I was not point- I was not appointed to look the other

<v Phil Decker>way. I was not appointed to go for a walk or take a dive. <v Phil Decker>I was appointed to do a job in the public interest. <v Phil Decker>And by God, that's what I'm trying to do. <v Tom Thompson>After some of the charges, the board decided to not only look into some of the charges <v Tom Thompson>that you've made, charges that we've investigated at KCET. <v Tom Thompson>But the board also decided to investigate Phil Decker. <v Phil Decker>Let them look. <v Phil Decker>What can I say? You know, again, I don't care. <v Phil Decker>I don't care. But I wish the board would spend as much time looking into some of these <v Phil Decker>allegations about this sleazy nonsense that's happening behind the scenes within <v Phil Decker>that agency as they do looking at somebody who's trying to bring this information <v Phil Decker>out to the public. I don't have anything to hide for crying out loud. <v Phil Decker>Let them look. But for God's sake, I wish they'd start looking at some of the problems <v Phil Decker>with this agency. <v Tom Thompson>For nearly a year, there've been 2 things on the agenda, the removal of the register <v Tom Thompson>of contractors and the development of some kind of disclosure plan for <v Tom Thompson>consumers. Month after month that's come up on the agenda, month after month that's

<v Tom Thompson>been defeated. Why? <v Phil Decker>Tom, I don't know. I can't climb inside other people's heads. <v Phil Decker>My own guess would be in my own observation is that too many <v Phil Decker>people on that board are more concerned with playing 2 bit politics <v Phil Decker>than they are with getting the job done. <v Phil Decker>And as long as those priorities remain that far out of whack, this <v Phil Decker>agency is going to continue to remain in a very, very serious crisis. <v Phil Decker>Beyond that, thousands of people throughout the state of California are going to continue <v Phil Decker>to get ripped off, burned. I'm talking about contractors and consumers alike. <v Phil Decker>And in my humble view, that is intolerable. <v Tom Thompson>We're told that there's a lot of legislative pressure on the Department of Consumer <v Tom Thompson>Affairs. Are you as a public board member, feeling that kind of pressure? <v Phil Decker>Oh, sure. Sure. <v Phil Decker>And I don't like it. I wasn't appointed to be a 2 bit politician. <v Phil Decker>I was appointed to get a job done. And as far as I'm concerned, the sooner the handful

<v Phil Decker>of those gumshoe legislators get off our back, the sooner we can get on with doing our <v Phil Decker>job. <v Host>Tom, what is Spon's stake in this ?inaudible? <v Host>The contractor state license board has been his biggest headache within the Department of <v Host>Consumer Affairs, and the legislature has been putting quite a bit of pressure on them to <v Host>lay off the aggressive policy of consumer protection. <v Host>So, matter of fact, this May. The assembly voted to withhold his salary <v Host>and 1 of his second in command left. <v Host>They reinstat- reinstated the money, but only until February of next year, which is about <v Host>3 months from now. They'll be reviewing his salary again. <v Host>He may not have a salary. <v Host>A good way to bring pressure on a man, isn't it, to pull back his paycheck? <v Tom Thompson>Certainly seems to be that way. <v Host 4>Is this part of the good ol boy network that all those people on the board just want to <v Host 4>keep Decker quiet and have business as usual? <v Tom Thompson>Well, that may be part of it. <v Tom Thompson>When I talk to Mr. Spon, and some of the board members are reluctant to talk about <v Tom Thompson>this until they've completed what they call their investigation. <v Tom Thompson>They basically said that the problem is that Mr. Decker is so aggressive

<v Tom Thompson>that he's turning people off that they can't go along with him because of his aggressive <v Tom Thompson>and what some people even say obnoxious attitude is. <v Host 4>So it's his style, not when he's saying. <v Tom Thompson>It's his style, exactly what he's saying. <v Host>Briefly, Tom, will anything ever come of all this? Or will it just be business as usual? <v Tom Thompson>The next meeting is December the 8th. <v Tom Thompson>We're told that the disclosure may pass at that time and that the registrar of <v Tom Thompson>voters is probably going to be fired. <v Host>[Another day] Ladies and gentlemen, good evening, Clete Roberts here, welcome to 28 <v Host>Tonight. My colleagues Tom Thompson, Susan Freedman

<v Host>and guest reporter this evening, Gail Diane Cox. <v Host>There has been a major development in the controversy surrounding the contractor <v Host>state license board. Here with the details is Tom Thompson. <v Tom Thompson>Well Clete, at today's monthly meeting, the contractor state license board, it was held <v Tom Thompson>in Irvine in Orange County, the board did basically 3 things. <v Tom Thompson>One, they fired the top man. They voted to remove the registrar of contractors, Angelo <v Tom Thompson>Stanieves from his position as head of the agency. <v Tom Thompson>Number 2, and more surprisingly even, is that they also voted to remove Phil <v Tom Thompson>Decker, who was the most verbal consumer advocate on the board from his position on the <v Tom Thompson>board. The board also decided in the third action to ask the <v Tom Thompson>Department of Consumer Affairs to investigate the granting of a contractor's <v Tom Thompson>license board to the contractor's former top aide under what <v Tom Thompson>were considered to be somewhat questionable circumstances. <v Tom Thompson>Stories that we had reported on some weeks ago.

<v Host 4>Tell me, why did they fire these guys? <v Tom Thompson>Well, Stanieves was removed as the head of the agency. <v Tom Thompson>It's a fight that's been going on for about a year now. They tried a year ago to fire <v Tom Thompson>him. And almost every month there has been major controversy over his poor management <v Tom Thompson>of the board, a large backlog of consumer complaints, low morale on the board. <v Tom Thompson>Things simply weren't getting done at all. <v Tom Thompson>And many of the board people felt that they needed someone else in there who could <v Tom Thompson>perhaps do the job better. <v Host>Tom, I think we got to point out to some of our new viewers that this is a story we've <v Host>been working upon for a long time in the past year. <v Host>Tom's been on top of it, investigating it and reporting it very carefully. <v Host>Mr. Decker, for example, who was fired on so today was on this broadcast about 2 weeks <v Host>ago, wasn't it, Tom? <v Tom Thompson>Yes. <v Host>And he surprisingly, I would say, was the last <v Host>man 1 would think would be fired. He was the advocate for the consumer, wasn't he? <v Tom Thompson>Well, many of the consumer groups consider Phil Decker to be their leading spokesperson. <v Tom Thompson>He's an extremely outspoken, spoken individual. <v Tom Thompson>The reasons for removing Phil Decker from the board were that he was refusing

<v Tom Thompson>to cooperate with the board majority. <v Tom Thompson>And more surprisingly, even then, that part of the reason for Decker's removal <v Tom Thompson>as a board member were charges that he had gone to the press, including KCET, <v Tom Thompson>on numerous occasions to air the contractor state license board dirty linen. <v Host>Tom, did they actually say that? <v Tom Thompson>They said that. They said that that inhibited their ability to work together <v Tom Thompson>harmoniously and to get things taken care of. <v Host>So they're putting a muzzle on everyone else, is that it? <v Host>Behave yourself. <v Tom Thompson>Well, Mr. Decker contends that that's exactly what's going on. <v Tom Thompson>He says it's a ?inaudible? chamber, that they're simply trying to stop him from talking <v Tom Thompson>and that if he sees any problems, he's going to continue talking about it. <v Tom Thompson>In an earlier broadcast, we had talked about some of those problems and Richard <v Tom Thompson>Spon, who is the head of the Department of Consumer Affairs, had felt that Phil Decker's <v Tom Thompson>outspoken attitude was getting in the way of real progress. <v Tom Thompson>So there's 2 lines of thought on that. <v Tom Thompson>Say, they're appointed by the governor. <v Tom Thompson>Yes, the members of the board were appointed by the governor.

<v Tom Thompson>In fact, Mr. Decker was 1 of the very first people appointed to that board to help clean <v Tom Thompson>it up. The contractor state license board has been the biggest headache and ?inaudible? <v Tom Thompson>the consumer affairs. <v Host>Final quick question. Is Decker going to take this lying down? <v Tom Thompson>No, I don't believe he is. <v Host>Thanks, Tom.