OREGON STATE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BOARD
Friday, August 12, 2005
Sunset Center South Conference Room
1193 Royvonne Avenue SE
Salem, Oregon 97302
Andy Leisinger, Chair Landscape Architect
Jim Figurski, Landscape Architect
Paul Kyllo, Public Member
Mel Stout, Landscape Architect
Gladys I. Biglor, Vice Chair, Public Member
Tim VanWormer, Landscape Architect (Arrived Late)
Board Members Absent
Tony Nitz, Public Member
Staff Present at the Board Meeting
Susanna Knight, Board Administrator
Christine Chute, Assistant Attorney General, DOJ
Others Present during the Board Meeting
Bertram B. Beneville, LA
Andrea Riner, LA
Tracy Johnson, LA, ASLA
Nancy Young, Auditor Manager, Secretary of State Audit Division
Ben Wilson, Senior Auditor, Secretary of State Audit Division
The meeting was called to order by Chair Leisinger at 9:07 AM. Leisinger stated that numerous individuals would be meeting with the Board today, including the Administrator of the Oregon Landscape Contractor’s Board (OLCB). In order to have some background for the discussion with the LCB Administrator, Leisinger directed Kyllo, Compliance Chairperson, to facilitate a discussion of the current compliance cases.
LCC 05-01-001: The technical review was handled by Board Members Figurski and VanWormer. This is a case of an unregistered individual representing himself as doing work that is defined in the LA statute as landscape architect. The terms “garden architecture” and “landscape design” are used to identify his work. In the Spring of 2004, this individual was informed by OLCB that he was in violation. VanWormer stated that the title of the business uses lots of words directly from statute. Leisinger stated that the specifications and details listed in his brochure are specifically what Landscape Architects practice. Figurski stated that the indivdual was informed by OLCB indicating infractions. Both brochures and evidence show he is in violation. Chute suggested the Board issue a follow-up letter stating that OSLAB is not OLCB and please review your previous response in light of LA statute and respond again.
LACC 05-01-002: The technical review was handled by Board Members Leisinger and Stout. This individual is representing herself to the public as a Licensed Landscape Designer and presenting a registration number. There is no such state registration. DOJ should send a letter stating “stop” representing yourself as licensed. Figurski stated that the individual has knowledge of the LA statute; is probably a member of the local branch of APLD (Association of Professional Land Designers) and the number could be an APLD member number; and has testified against the LA practice act during legislation. Stout stated that specifying materials constitutes the practice of Landscape Architecture, as she was not contracted to do construction. [Discussion continued during agenda item #20, Compliance.]
The Board reconvened at 10:00 AM to hold oral exams/interviews with two Landscape Architects whose registration is in Forfeiture: Bertram B. Beneville, LA #338, and Andrea Riner, LA #421. Both provided explanations regarding their failure to renew their registrations. Following the oral exams, Kyllo moved to reinstate the Landscape Architect registration of both Riner and Beneville pending receipt of appropriate fees. Seconded and passed. Biglor, yes; Figurski, yes; Kyllo, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes. Beneville and Riner departed.
Beth Peterson and Tannen Printz joined the Board for oral interviews for initial registration. The Board discussed two legal documents with the candidates, Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR). The candidates inquired about the application of continuing education requirements to new registrants . Biglor moved to accept Peterson and Printz as Landscape Architects in Oregon contingent on payment of fees. Seconded and passed. Biglor, yes; Figurski, yes; Kyllo, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes. Peterson and Printz departed.
At 11:00 AM, Michael Snyder, Administrator and Kim Gladwill-Rowley, Program Manager of the OLCB arrived to discuss overlap practice issues. Snyder pointed out that ORS 671.520(2)(a)&(b) both include the word “plan.” Landscape designers discovered this and have become licensed as Landscape Contractors (LC). Research by the attorney for OLCB discovered that from 1973 to 1975, the wording in ORS 671.520 was “plant,” not “plan” as it is today. In 1997, OLCB exempted designers. Snyder stated that if of Landscape Contractors can indeed “plan and design,” the current examination in not adequate to test the plan and design component. OLCB must now consider an exam to cover this arena. Figurski commented that when you regulate, you must test to determine minimum competency. The “designers” must create, maintain and update a defensible examination, and this is a very expensive process. Snyder stated that as long as OLCB licensees install what they design, the bonding they maintain as an LC will cover any failure. However, if they begin to “plan” only, a mechanism must be in place to regulate this arena. Figurski stated that ORS 671.321(1)(f) states that a landscape designer or anyone else not licensed as an LA or Contractor cannot provide construction details or specifications. When to apply the appropriate detail (interpret and apply) is the protection provided by LA registration. Snyder stated that OLCB has not discussed this practice question but he is trying to understand what a Landscape Contractor can do. Figurski stated that the ability to plan requires the knowledge and the ability to pass the examination. LC cannot do public work such as parks, streetscape, etc. Biglor asked what should be done next to come to a solution? Snyder stated that there is a movement from Landscape Designers who want to be licensed and the current goal is to get the statutes rewritten. Biglor suggested that LC, LA and designers must come to the table for the discussion. Snyder stated that OLCB is interested in resolving this issue and that Figurski has been invited to participate in the discussion.
[12:00 PM: Lunch break]
Tracy Johnson, LA, VP for ASLA Member Services and ASLA liaison to OSLAB, joined the Board for the lunch break. She had numerous questions about continuing education. Figurski stated that the Board would accept what ASLA endorses; that the Board does not want to be involved with endorsing continuing education work; that the Board will accept continuing education courses from AIA, NCARB, ASLA, etc. The Board will rely on the Code of Ethics in dealing with registrants with continuing education issues. ASLA should keep continuing education history for a number of years. Johnson stated that ASLA is a volunteer group and storing such information could become problematic. Figurski suggested their web page might store this historical information but that the Board should discuss these concerns. Biglor inquired if the Internal Affairs Committee should be responsible for Continuing Education issues. How will the audit be set up? Figurski stated that continuing education audit procedures will be set up by the Board in rule.
12:35 PM: Chair Leisinger reconvened the meeting.
Kyllo moved to approve the minutes of the May 13, 2005, Board meeting. Figurski had one clarification for the minutes under #21, New Business: change the word architect to designers “might be doing drawings”. Seconded and passed. Biglor, yes; Figurski, yes; Kyllo, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes.
1:00 PM, Chair Leisinger read the following statement:
The Oregon Landscape Architects Board will now meet in executive session for the purpose of discussing information that is exempt from public inspection and to consult with counsel about expected litigation. The executive session is held under ORS 192.660(2)(f), which allows the Board to meet in executive session to discuss confidential information, and ORS 192.660(2) to consult with legal counsel about the Board's rights and duties with respect to litigation likely to be filed.
The Board returned from Executive Session at 2:30 PM. Chair Leisinger stated that no action would be taken based on the Executive Session. He thanked Nancy Young and Ben Wilson from the Secretary of State Audit’s Division for their attendance.
Representatives of the new media, representatives of the Secretary of State's office, the Board's attorney, and the Board's administrator are allowed to attend the executive session. All other members of the audience are asked to leave the room. Representatives of the news media are specifically directed not to report on any of the deliberations during the executive session, except to state the general subject of the session as previously announced. No decision may be made in executive session. At the end of the executive session, we will return to open session and welcome the audience back into the room.
[The Board adjourned for a brief break and reconvened at 2:38 PM.]
Internal Affairs Sub-Committee: Leisinger & Biglor [Tabled to next meeting.]
Board Administrator Report: Knight did not have a written report prepared but stated the following information:
Board exams on June 13 & 14 ran smoothly. Thank you to Kyllo, Stout and Van Wormer for their assistance at the exam site. Candidates commented that they appreciated Board Member presence and the operation of the exam site.
Annual renewal process had issues. The insert outlining how to select prorated amount to pay was confusing to registrants. Refunds were issued to those paying $250.00 rather than their prorated amount. There are currently 361 active registrants. This includes LAIT and Emeritus status.
Numerous businesses have been added to the business roster of the Board. Those will be listed in the next newsletter.
There is much registrant concern about continuing education, hence the lead article in the just released August newsletter. Additional information will be presented in the October newsletter.
Work load has been demanding due to renewal time and the addition of sole proprietor businesses to the roster.
Issues with the database continue to provide hurdles to staff.
The interim Joint Legislative Audit Committee report released October 2004 indicated the need for the Board to have their own newsletter, website, etc., rather than being represented by the ASLA publications. The Board now has a site on the www.oregon.gov web page and has published two newsletters so far this year. It is important that registrants are informed of the regulatory work of this Board.
The Board has carried forward two debts from the previous biennium (OSBGE, $21,000 and Secretary of State audit, $20,000) but has sufficient funds for current operations. The Pioneer Trust Bank balance as of July 29, 2005 is $47,999.94.
Figurski distributed distributed draft language for OAR 804-030-0011(2)(a) A business entity formed for the purpose of offering to provide or providing landscape architectural services is required to obtain a certificate of authorization from the board.
Due to time constraints, no discussion or action was taken.
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION:
Biglor moved to approve McPhail and Yamaguchi for LA registration based on the CLARB Council Certificate upon receipt of all required fees. Seconded and passed. Biglor, yes; Figurski, yes; Kyllo, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes.
Biglor moved to approve Ortgiesen for LA registration upon receipt of CLARB Council Certificate and all required fees. Seconded and passed. Biglor, yes; Figurski, yes; Kyllo, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes.
McPhail, Cristine, for LA registration by reciprocity with NV/Council Certificate #815
Jon Ortgiesen, for LA Registration by reciprocity with WA/Council Certificate #4931
Masatoshi Yamaguchi, for LA registration by reciprocity with WA/Council Certificate #781
Beth Peterson, for LA Registration by LARE Exam, Council Record #4149 (See oral interviews above)
Tannen Printz, for LA registration by LARE Exam (See oral interview above)
REQUESTS FOR INACTIVE REGISTRATION:
Figurski moved to approve the following requests for inactive registration noting that they may not practice in Oregon and that they have a 5-year window in which to activate their registration without taking the exam. Seconded and passed. Biglor, yes; Figurski, yes; Kyllo, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes. Additional discussion followed with some concern by Board Members about activities of some Landscape Architects seeking inactive registration.
Benoit, Ron: License #057, LAC 05 07 180
MacDonald, Carol: License #045, LAC 05 07 192
Dees, Bruce: License #111, LAC 05 07 197
Loe, Michael J: License #425, LAC 05 07 199
Aldrich, Chris: Licesne #465, LAC 05 06 201
McArthur, Gale: License #015: LAC 05 07 212
Christensen, Dean: License #376: LAC 05 07 213
Wong, Michelle: License #504: LAC 05 07 215
Mary Anne Cassin: License #150: LAC 05 06 236
Paul Kyllo, Public Member, Compliance Chair facilitated the continuing discussion of outstanding compliance cases begun at 9:00 AM.
LACC #05-02-003: Figurski and Leisinger reported that they had researched the concern addressed to the Board of an organization failing to use a Landscape Architect. That organization responded with documentation that they now have a Registered Landscape Architect on their project. Figurski will do follow-up research on the non-registered individual stating on the organization’s web site that he is a Landscape Architect.
LACC #05-04-004: Figurski and Stout reviewed this complaint regarding the use of a non-registered individual by an Oregon city to do a public works project. The city assured the Board that following the receipt of the Board’s letter notifying them of this concern, they ended the contract. The non-registered individual also responded to the Board stating that he was no longer on that project but that he would retain an Oregon registered Landscape Architect and Landscape Architect business for any future work in Oregon.
LACC #05-05-005: Leisinger and VanWormer served as the technical reviewers for this complaint. Figurski recused himself from the discussion as the respondent is known to him. In addition to very detailed plans, the respondent’s business card also state “Landscape Architecture”. The Board discussed the plans prepared by a non-registrant. These plans contain very detailed construction information including designing walls and they are not shop drawings as explained by the respondent. Documents such as this are expected to be prepared by Landscape Architects. The respondent issued a letter prior to the review of the case stating that the business cards would be corrected immediately.
LACC#05-01-001: Send follow-up letter informing the respondent that continuing this activity may subject him to a civil penalty. Direct the respondent the Landscape Architect statute that governs such work.
[Note: Board Member Kyllo excused from the meeting at 3:35 PM.]
LACC #05-01-002: Send initial contact letter stating “it appears as though you are offering services that require registration as a Landscape Architect”. Also, direct Board’s attorney to issue letter about “Licensed Landscape Designer”. Issue a follow-up compliance letter if the initial response is not sufficient.
LACC #05-02-003: Staff is directed to prepare a thank you letter to organization for providing information to the Board about their use of a properly registered individual and business. Figurski will do additional investigation on the individual advertising himself as a Landscape Architect on the organization’s web page.
LACC #05-04-004: (a) Staff is directed to prepare a letter to the city thanking them for their prompt response to the Board’s concern. Information about the requirement of cities to use properly registered Landscape Architects should be included in the newsletter. (b) Staff is also directed to prepare a letter to the individual closing the case.
LACC #05-05-005: Send follow-up letter informing the respondent that continuing this activity may subject her to a civil penalty. Shop drawings and construction details are quite different and have different statutory authority. Direct the respondent to the Landscape Architect statute that governs such work.
CLARB Annual Meeting Sept. 8-10, Los Angeles, CA: Slate of Officers and two resolutions [LAC 05 07 193] No action occurred.
LAC 05 06 159: Questions about overlap practice with OLCB [Move to next meeting]
LAC 05 06 176: LAIT concern about practice situation [Move to next meeting]
LAC 05 07 178: Continuing education question [Move to next meeting]
LAC 05 07 189: Biglor moved to deny request to forgive late fee. Seconded and passed. Biglor, yes; Figurski, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes.
LAC 05 07 205: Sole proprietorship business registration [Move to next meeting]
LAC 05 07 234: Distribution of LA registrant list; Knight stated that this information is a matter of public information. Leisinger will follow up with two registrants that contacted him about this process.
CLARB 2005 Annual Meeting: LAC 05 07 194
Next Board Meeting, November 18, 2005, Salem, Oregon. VanWormer indicated that he will be in China and unable to attend the November 18, 2005 Board meeting. The Board agreed on moving the meeting date to Friday, December 2, 2005.
Next CLARB Exams, December 5 & 6, 2005, Chemeketa Community College.
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Leisinger at 3:40 PM.
Minutes of the August 12, 2005, Board meeting were approved at the December 2, 2005, meeting with two changes noted.