Text Size:   A+ A- A   •   Text Only
Find     
Site Image

Meeting Minutes
June 22, 2006
OREGON LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BOARD
 
Minutes of Special Telephone Meeting
1193 Royvonne Avenue SE, Suite 19
Salem, Oregon 97302

June 22, 2006
 
Members Present at the Board Office:
Andy Leisinger, Chair, Landscape Architect
Ron Nichols, Public Member
 
Members Present via Telephone:
Gladys I. Biglor, Vice Chair, Public Member, Bend
David Olsen, Landscape Architect, Bend
Mel Stout, Landscape Architect, Portland
 
Board Members Absent:
Paul Kyllo, Public Member (excused)
Tim VanWormer, Landscape Architect (excused)
 
Staff Present at the Board Meeting:
 Susanna Knight, Board Administrator
 
The meeting of the Board was called to order at 4:07 PM by Chair Leisinger.  Oral roll call was taken to confirm those present as listed above.           
  1. Leisinger stated that the primary reason to convene this meeting was to discuss the addition of a Limited Duration .5 FTE (full time equivalency) position for year two of the current biennium.  Leisinger directed the Board to an email submitted to all members at 9:44 AM today by Timothy VanWormer, who was charged with reviewing a position description and the budget to determine if funds are available for the addition of this .5 FTE.  VanWormer’s email stated that his review supports that both the Job Description for OSII and the Pay scale for OSII are appropriate.  In addition, he stated that he worked with Board Administrator Knight to project both expenses and revenues for year 2 of the biennium based upon actual expenses for year 1 of the 2005-06 biennium.  VanWormer stated that with the addition of the .5FTE, $10,000 for the data base improvement, and $49,850 for unmet expense from the 2003-05 biennium, the budget will show unspent revenue at the end of year 2.  Discussion ensued.
  • Olsen stated that he is in favor of the addition of the 0.5 FTE, but must rely on VanWormer to know the budget implications.
  • Biglor stated that she also favors the addition of the 0.5 FTE and noted that since it is a temporary (limited duration) position, the ongoing need for this additional staff can be evaluated when preparing the 2007-09 budget.
  • Stout stated that the administrator has previously talked about the need for this additional staff.
  • Nichols stated that he also supports the staff addition.
  • Knight directed the Board to the spreadsheet with the estimated revenue and expenses for 2006-07 and explained that she and VanWormer used the actual expenses for year 1 of the 2005-07 biennium in projecting the year 2 expenses.  Because year 1 includes large payments from the 2003-05 biennium ($21,000 to OSBGE for Administration of the Board and $28,850 to Secretary of State, Audits Division for the Fraud Audit), the projected expenses for year 2 are substantially less and project a positive revenue balance of $18,000.  VanWormer also included $10,000 for database development and $1,000 for meals and lodging.  These two items were cut from the original 2005-07 budget.
Olson moved to approve the 0.5 FTE and the adjustments to the budget as presented.  Seconded and passed.  Biglor, yes; Leisinger, yes; Nichols, yes; Olsen, yes; and Stout, yes.
  1. Leisinger stated that it is important to note in the records of the Board that Department of Administrative Services (DAS) Risk Management Division (RMD) presented an employee dishonesty insurance payment of $132,559.67 to the Board last week.  The Board purchases insurance coverage through DAS/RMD and staff notified RMD when they became aware of the fraud issues.  Leisinger pointed out that VanWormer supports placing these unexpected funds into a “rainy day fund” and opened the floor for discussion.
  • Leisinger shared that he has made some inquiries of a Certified Financial Planner about CDs at higher interest rates, and he would prepare information for the August 4, 2006, Board Meeting.
  • Stout stated that it is important that the Board not spend this money but give thought to its dispersement.  He concurred with the Board’s need for a “rainy day fund,” but the Board should discuss how funds might be refunded to registrants.
  • Leisinger stated that the Board could talk about a rainy day fund, but stay on course through this biennium with the budget and fees as currently established.  Perhaps fees can be reduced through the budget preparation for the next biennium.
  • Stout corrected his previous statement indicating that money should not be refunded at this time, but rather returned through a future reduction of annual fees.
  • Biglor stated that she likes Stout’s approach not to do anything fast, but rather wait until the August Board meeting to make a decision.  Perhaps the Board could consider a Money Market where the money is accessible at any time.  All options should be investigated.
  • Leisinger stated that other semi-independent Boards are establishing such funds and asked if it was the pleasure of the Board to table this discussion to the August meeting.
  • Olsen recommended that information be compiled for the August Board meeting.  Board Members should forward their ideas to Knight for compiling in the Board meeting packet.
  • Stout stated that it is important to keep the registrants informed and asked what is appropriate for the newsletter.
  • Leisinger asked that an article be drafted right away and provided to the Board for review.
  • Biglor suggested that a conservative approach be used.
  • Stout cautioned about finding balance between keeping registrants informed and what plans are for the insurance payout.
  • Biglor suggested that registrants might offer their ideas.
  • Knight stated that she would draft an article for the July newsletter and issue it to all Board Members.
  • Stout moved to table any decisions to the August Board meeting with the understanding that Board member will offer ideas about the money for the interim.  Seconded and passed.  Biglor, yes; Leisinger, yes; Nichols, yes; Olsen, yes; and Stout, yes.
  1. Biglor alerted the Board to a Bend Chamber of Commerce Workshop to be held July 20, 2006 titled: “Board of  Director & Governance Excellence”.  Jim Lucer, former CEO of the Bend Hospital will be the presenter.  The content will include how to be effective, how to be excellent, and how not to get into trouble.  The cost is $35 per person.  Biglor offered the following options:
  • Hold the August board Meeting on July 20, 2006 in Bend with participation in the workshop being the first part of the meeting.
  • Individual members of the Board chek the Bend Chamber of Commerce web site and sign up to attend.
  • Entice Jim Lucer to give his presentation on the west side.
Knight indicated that she contacted the Bend Chamber but had not yet had a return call.
 
Olson stated that Mr. Lucer is a very colorful speaker but three hours is not an in depth learning experience so he would not recommend that Board members drive over.  Both Olsen and Biglor plan to attend and will report about the presentation at the August Board meeting.
  1. Leisinger opened the floor for discussion about the “Continuing Education: Credit for Pro-bono Work?” inquiry letter. [LAC 06 06 133]
  • Stout indicated that he likes VanWormer’s approach, as stated in the email, to count such pro-bono time as time serving on a Board.
  • Knight stated that a similar inquiry had been made early in her arrival to the Board and the answer from a Board Member was that no CEU credit would be allowed for pro-bono per the model CLARB rules.
  • Leisinger, Olsen, and Stout went on record in support of pro-bono work being valid for CEU credit.  The question was then raised about the amount of credit allowed.
  • Biglor suggested that there must be some way to articulate with a degree of honesty the part of pro-bono activities that “stretch” the LA’s abilities as opposed to applying current knowledge.  Perhaps pro-bono could be broken down into new activities researched vs. doing the same thing.
  • Stout added that it is incumbent on the licensee to show any CEU is worthy.  The Board could see some part of submitted pro-bono CEU as “weak” in their evaluation and refer it back to a registrant.
  • Olsen suggested that a CEU cap on pro bono would be necessary.
  • Leisinger offered that a “not to exceed” CEU component for pro-bono should be included.
  • Biglor stated that the continuing education rules came from CLARB and she could not support a motion today as she needs more information and more history about this possible component.
  • Olsen inquired about the framework for CEU; to who is the Board responsible?
  • Stout responded that the Board is the responsibile party for continuing education.  ASLA has no authority and they will inquire of this Board when they have questions about continuing education.  ASLA has taken on the role of organizing events, vendors, etc. and then alerting members of the availability.  There is not legal connection between ASLA and OSLAB.
  • Biglor stated that this is an addition to the continuing education Administrative Rule and inquired if a decision must be made right now.
  • Leisinger indicated that he would like an answer now but respects the need for more research and asked Stout to do the research and come prepared to present research at the August Board meeting.
  • Stout agreed that the research can be done prior to that meeting and the Continuing Education Committee [CEC] (Olsen, Biglor and Stout) would evaluate the possibilities before the next Board meeting.
  • Leisinger pled that it is important not to make the point value so tight that Landscape Architects are frustrated trying to acquire the credit for renewal.
The Board concurred that this discussion will be moved to the August meeting.
 
Biglor moved to conclude the meeting at 5:05 PM.  Seconded and passed.  Biglor, yes; Leisinger, yes; Nichols, yes; Olsen, yes; and Stout, yes.
 
Respectfully submitted,
Susanna Knight
 

Minutes were approved at the August 4, 2006,  meeting of the Board.
August 10, 2006