|
In 1992, my family's Texas home was the site of a pesticide misapplication by Terminix International. Our experience exposed a significant but little-known problem for customers of the Texas pest control industry. In order that other Texas consumers might be better informed, and with the hope that meaningful changes can someday be effected, resulting in those consumers enjoying equal footing with the industry in matters involving pest control regulators, I offer the following account, observations and conclusions drawn from our ordeal.
My family's regrettable experience with Terminix served to open my eyes to a problem which I believe is even more serious than the traumas dumped on unsuspecting customers of this pest control giant. The problem to which I'm referring involves the various state agencies which “regulate” the pest control industry. In Texas, this agency is the Structural Pest Control Board. It's responsible for licensing all pest control companies and technicians in the state, conducting periodic audits of certain mandatory records, verifying that training requirements are met, investigating consumer complaints, etc. This all seems good and proper, but the hitch, we discovered, is that it's all done with a view to protecting and preserving the interests of the pest control industry, and if necessary, doing so at the expense of the consumer. To this end, SPCB investigators may avoid exploring thoroughly any element of a consumer complaint that might prove to be incriminating toward the defendant company or technician, may exclude from their reports details crucial to the complainant's case, and may even make false statements. In our case, the investigator assigned to our complaint used these techniques in an earnest effort to discredit and deceptively characterize my wife as uncooperative. His report was disgustingly void of important facts and details, was decidedly slanted in favor of Terminix, and included several blatantly false statements. I used to wonder if he just reckoned that we, like most, would never see his report nor challenge it, but now I'm persuaded that that wasn't a concern; he was just doing what he needed to do to protect the interests of Terminix. The Board doesn't “lose any sleep” over challenges from consumers, nor their concerns.
Why do I believe that regulation at the state level is a concern more serious than the problems caused by Terminix or other pest control companies? Because without state regulatory agencies which are as committed to the protection of consumer interests as they are to those of the industry, the consumer is at a huge disadvantage, and the industry has no incentive to change or improve its performance. Consumers will continue to be victimized, and the industry will continue to disregard its blunders and treat the victims with disdain.
When we filed our complaint with the Structural Pest Control Board of Texas, I expected a thorough, detailed, and impartial investigation. I also anticipated the Board would issue its findings in a manner that was objective and matter-of-fact. Neither happened. The investigation was, at best, flippant and superficial. It amounted to nothing more than a performance of sorts, and not much of one at that. And because (on the surface) it gave Terminix's insurer an excuse for denying liability, the resulting report, a profoundly prejudiced document, was a crushing blow to our hope of having our home restored to its previously habitable condition.
When Terminix broke off communication with us, we were referred to their insurance company. During the five months that followed, we heard nothing from the insurer unless we initiated the contact, and the insurer did absolutely nothing of substance to assess our situation and remedy it. With each call we made, we were given excuses, promised callbacks that never came, and told whatever it took to get us off the phone. Finally, their reason for stalling became apparent: they were waiting for the Structural Pest Control Board to issue its investigation report, which they knew from the beginning would result in a finding of "no violation". (In Texas, it's very difficult to find an SPCB investigation of a consumer complaint that results in a finding of “violation.” The only one I ever found in my research was later overturned in a hearing for which no records were kept, and this reversal was in spite of overwhelming evidence in support of the original “violation” finding.) Having learned from Terminix that the SPCB had conducted an investigation, Terminix's insurer submitted a written request for a copy of the SPCB's report. After receiving it, the insurer sent us a letter denying any liability in our case. Their justification? The Structural Pest Control Board is supposedly the ultimate authority in disputes over pesticide applications, and the Board had found Terminix guilty of “no violation.” Terminix, therefore, had apparently done nothing wrong; and consequently, as Terminix's insurer, they had no liability. (Interestingly, the EPA recently imposed a ban on further use of the chemical that was applied at our residence.)
I have long wondered just how often this scenario repeats itself. After our experience and a limited amount of research, I cannot dispel a gut-feeling that it happens a whole lot more often than anyone knows, and a whole lot more often than the Structural Pest Control Board or its other beneficiary, the insurance industry, would care for anyone to discover.
It was never my expectation that the Structural Pest Control Board would serve as a trial court for and/or a prosecutor of Terminix, but I did expect (and not unreasonably so) that the Board would conduct an exhaustive investigation, assess its findings in an impartial and professional manner, and present those findings objectively, matter-of-factly, and in considerable detail. I also expected that if there was any discovery of pesticide misapplication (the SPCB had documented evidence, but found an alibi, though feeble, to blow it off), Terminix would be fined. (It should be noted that fines levied by Texas’ SPCB don't mean much. The ones I ran across in my research amounted to “peanuts;” Terminix would not even have felt it.) But none of the above transpired; instead, Terminix was exonerated, and the lies and misrepresentations contained in the so-called “investigation report” provided both Terminix and its insurer an excellent refuge from both the expense and virtue of accountability.
Following receipt of a copy of the Board’s investigation report concerning our complaint, I wrote a lengthy rebuttal to the SPCB director, exposing the investigation and report for what they really were. In particular, I directed attention to the false claims made by the investigator, the gross incompleteness of the investigation, and the obvious bias embodied in the report. Except to offer to re-open the investigation with a supervising investigator, there was never any acknowledgment of nor expression of concern over my charges. They did not matter enough to warrant a response or any attempt at explanation. And the second investigation was only a gesture at pacification; it was nearly as big a farce as the first, and still stopped far short of any discovery that might have been incriminating toward Terminix. It was so poorly written that I had to wonder whether the Board’s supervising investigators ever achieved a G.E.D., much less a high school diploma.
Thus, from my perspective and experience, the problem faced by consumers in Texas is that, in practice (if not in theory), the Structural Pest Control Board’s primary role is to protect and whitewash the image of the pest control industry while pacifying consumers who've been trampled by it, thereby allowing it to just waltz on by its frequently harmful bloopers. This function was, in fact, boldly acknowledged a couple of years ago by an industry publication with its characterization of the state pest control regulatory agencies in general as “guardians of the industry.” The only such agency which I have observed that might not fit this characterization is the one in Connecticut; in fairness to other states, however, I haven't observed them all.
The time has long since come and gone in which the authority to investigate consumer complaints against the pest control industry in Texas should have been removed from the Structural Pest Control Board. Why? Because (from the consumer’s standpoint) the authority has been abused, and the agency thinks nothing of it. It’s only natural for consumers to expect that when they submit a complaint to the Board, they’ll be treated as an equal to the industry, and that their complaint will be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly and objectively by unbiased personnel who have the credentials to do so. Sadly, though, the Board’s authority has been used on the one hand to protect the industry, and on the other to pull the wool over the eyes of those trusting consumers. And the insurance industry is gleeful over that situation, because the scenario provides it an apparently sound alibi for sidestepping liability that is, in fact, frequently both real and undeniable.
Furthermore, it’s time for regulation of the pest control industry to come of age. The dangers inherent in the application of chemicals to our homes and workplaces are far more than sufficient to demonstrate the dire need for much stricter regulation of both the chemical and pest control industries. Because modern history records all too many instances in which both have betrayed and undermined the public welfare, however, neither can be trusted to properly regulate themselves. Of course, as in the past, some chemical and pest control advocates will scoff at such remarks. Nonetheless, the record remains firmly embedded in history. It’s interesting to note that harm to the public and to the environment by the nuclear industry in this country is virtually nonexistent and immeasurable when compared to that issuing from the chemical and pest control industries, yet they are regulated only to a small fraction of the extent experienced by the nuclear industry. It’s high time for a little catching up!
What needs to be done to put Texas consumers on equal footing with the industry in the eyes of the SPCB? In a nutshell, the entire agency needs to be overhauled, reconstituted, and re-focused. Or alternatively, it should be stripped of its investigative authority and relegated to a mere licensing bureau only, and a new agency established (with the proper personnel composition, focus and reporting hierarchy) to conduct investigations of consumer complaints the way they ought to be done: thoroughly, impartially, objectively. A new organization should be totally independent of the pest control, chemical, and agricultural industries, yet sufficiently knowledgeable of and committed to protecting the same from unjustified or mischievously fabricated complaints. Severe penalties should await any person, organization, or special interest that attempts to inhibit or influence the organization's work in any manner inconsistent with the purpose for which it is chartered.
In conclusion, there is simply no excuse for the Structural Pest Control Board of Texas or the regulating agency of any other state to relegate the consumer to a level lower than the pest control industry. Without consumers, there would be no such industry. That makes consumers a rather significant special interest group in their own right, a fact that many politicians and businesses/industries seem to have forgotten. There is also no excuse for superficial and biased investigations of consumer complaints. Nor is there any justification for falsified, deceptive reporting of investigation results. Unfortunately for consumers, though, nothing’s likely to change until these agencies become the target of serious investigations by some knowledgeable and experienced individuals or organizations who know: 1) how to access and use the FOI information that is available; 2) what to look for and where to look for it; and 3) what to ask and how to ask it. I’ve said many times that had I the time and resources to perform the necessary research on my own, I could unveil an unpalatable picture of the industry/SPCB/consumer relations in Texas that virtually no one outside the chemical, pest control, and insurance industries knows is there. Regrettably, I’ll have to leave that for someone else.
|
