West Virginia Senate Bill SB372

West Virginia 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/13/25
• Refer: 2/13/25

Caption

Board of Architects rule relating to registration of architects

Summary

Senate Bill 372 authorizes a legislative rule for the West Virginia Board of Architects concerning the registration of architects. The bill amends and reenacts a section of state code governing authorization for miscellaneous boards and agencies to promulgate legislative rules, and specifically approves the Board of Architects’ rule filed in the State Register and revised to address objections from the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee. In practical terms, the bill does not create a new licensing program or change the underlying statutory authority of the Board of Architects; instead, it gives legal effect to an administrative rule already developed by the board. The referenced rule, 2 CSR 01, concerns how architects are registered in West Virginia, so the bill affects the regulatory framework for architect licensure, registration procedures, and related professional oversight.

Impact

If enacted, SB372 would authorize the Board of Architects to enforce its legislative rule on registration of architects, thereby making the rule part of the state’s regulatory scheme. The bill would affect the Board of Architects, applicants for architect registration, and licensed architects subject to state professional regulation, while leaving the broader statutory structure in place and operating primarily through administrative rulemaking authority.

Sentiment

The available record suggests the bill is routine and largely noncontroversial. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes indicating opposition or debate, and the bill appears to be a standard rule-authorization measure following review and revision by the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee. The overall sentiment is therefore neutral to favorable, with the Legislature acting to approve a technical regulatory rule.

Contention

No specific points of contention are identified in the provided materials. The only notable procedural issue is that the Board of Architects modified the rule to meet objections raised by the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee before refiling it, which suggests any concerns were addressed during the rule review process rather than through public controversy. Because there are no transcripts or votes, there is no evidence of disagreement among legislators or affected stakeholders in the record provided.