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

Meeting Minutes
September 23, 2005
 
OREGON STATE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BOARD
 
Friday, September 23, 2005
Sunset Center South Conference Room
 
Chair Andrew Leisinger called the telephone meeting of the Board to order at 3:00 PM from the office of the Board.  Oral role call was taken:
 
Gladys Biglor, Public Member, present via telephone from Bend, Oregon
Jim Figurski, Professional Member, present via telephone from Portland, Oregon
Andy Leisinger, Professional Member, present at the Board office in Salem
Mel Stout, Professional Member, present via telephone from Portland, Oregon
Timothy VanWormer, Professional Member, present via telephone from Portland, Oregon
Susanna Knight, Administrator, present at the Board office in Salem
 
Members absent:
Paul Kyllo, Public Member, excused
Anthony Nitz, Public Member
 
No guests were present.
 
Leisinger stated that two additional agenda items have been added: VI: Request for Oral Interview and VII: Request for payment plan from Secretary of State’s office.  The agenda was approved with those two additions.
 
I. Leisinger requested that Co-chair Biglor state the position of the Internal Affairs Committee with regard to reciprocal applications for Landscape Architect registration in Oregon.  Biglor provided three options:
  • Continue with the current policy where new applicants are approved at a quarterly Board meeting;
  • Allow staff to do the review, then consult with a Board committee to finalize the registration decision; assign registration number if everything meets the Board’s standard;
  • Schedule special telephone conference call meetings between regularly scheduled Board meetings to approve new applicants.
 
Discussion ensued.
  • Biglor stated that she had two concerns: 1) oddities with application requests and 2) giving up oversight given the current climate of the Board.
  • Leisinger stated that the CLARB record is quite complete.  The research on the applicant is complete and the CLARB Certificate finalizes that information.  The Board Committee would have no problem with the evaluation.
  • Figurski, Stout and VanWormer concurred that staff oversight by a Board Committee would be the best choice.
  • Leisinger stated that the Board Committee and staff would check against one another with staff doing the initial evaluation and the Board Committee offering approval.  If the committee cannot approve, the application will be placed on the next regularly scheduled Board meeting.
  • Stout questioned the downside of waiting three months for the next Board meeting.
  • Leisinger stated that we have a case right now with special needs.
  • Figurski stated that the CLARB Certificate allows for easy recognition of an applicant making the application standard but if timelines are not met by CLARB, an applicant might have to wait six months versus three months.
  • Knight contributed two comments: 1) the Governor is pushing for streamlining government and 2) processing applications in this manner is standard procedure by other Boards.
  • Biglor stated that we have three experienced Board Members who are well versed in the licensure process including reciprocity. Our newer members need to learn the processes so suggest that a new Board Member head up this committee and work with a veteran member until the process is clear.
  • VanWormer offered that it would be little work if staff develops a checklist.  He volunteers to serve and will seek mentoring by Figurski two blocks away from his office.
  • Leisinger recommended that the Board move ahead with a motion.
 
Figurski moved that the Board authorize the Administrator with the assistance of the committee designated by the Board to process and register reciprocity applicants.  Motion seconded and passed: Biglor, yes; Figurski, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes.  The standing committee is titled Licensure Review Committee.  Chair Leisinger appointed VanWormer to serve as chair person.
 
II. The Board reviewed three written requests to reinstate delinquent registrations with statements explaining their tardiness:  LAC 05 009 294; LAC 05 09 308; LAC 05 09 301.
 
Discussion ensued:
  • Stout stated that after 90 days it is an automatic, the licensee comes before the Board to activate their registration.
  • Leisinger suggested that after 90 days there be an additional late fee.
  • Biglor questioned what happens between 60 and 90 days.
  • VanWormer questioned stamping documents while being delinquent with license as they would now be working outside the law.
  • Figurski pointed out that HB 2590 changed the wording in our statute to the following:  [http://www.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measpdf/hb2500.dir/hb2590.en.pdf]
ORS 671.276(3) A person who fails to pay the renewal fee and, if applicable, the late fee for a period of 60 days after the renewal date may renew the registration only upon passing examinations required by the board and by paying any required examination fees, renewal fees and late fees.
  • Figurski also pointed out that the statute is now clear that a registration is deemed delinquent if the renewal fee is not paid on or before the renewal date and that a late fee is not required in the first 30 days.  A late fee is assessed during the next 30 days.  This is already two late periods and now we are talking about a third late period.
  • VanWormer stated that these are the Landscape Architects’ licenses to practice and each licensee must be responsible to maintain that license.  When fees are received after 60 days, licensees should be informed that their fees have been received, but their registration will not be activated until they meet with the Board.
 
Biglor moved that from this point forward, any one failing to renew within the 60-day window must appear before the Board to activate their license.  Seconded and passed:  Biglor, yes; Figurski, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes. 
 
III. The Board reviewed OAR 804-020-0055, LAIT registration which states:
(1) A candidate who has successfully completed two or more sections of the LARE shall register with the Board as a Landscape Architect in Training (LAIT). The LAIT shall continue to register annually until such time as the LAIT is eligible for registration as a Landscape Architect.
Knight stated that with the current format of the LARE, staff has no knowledge of individuals’ status with regard to passing two or more sections.  This rule cannot be enforced so perhaps the “shall” in line one should be changed to “may.”
 
Figurski offered that candidates must pay CLARB to transmit scores.  This makes it more costly for candidates if they must transmit after two and then transmit again when they have passed the third section.
 
The discussion questioned what is the benefit of an LAIT?  They have an official title.  The benefit now would be the opportunity to receive the quarterly newsletter and be aware of decisions affecting their profession.  By changing the rule, the candidate would have the option of registering with the Board.
 
Figurski moved to change the wording in OAR 804-020-0055 to “A candidate who has successfully completed two or more sections of the LARE mayregister . .”  Seconded.  Discussion followed.  Board members questioned if they needed to direct staff to do this.  Leisinger stated that staff is aware that following through with Administrative Rules is required.  Knight offered information regarding the involved process with changing a rule.  Biglor inquired if the Board should wait until they have more rules.  Knight stated that rule updating and development is an ongoing processed.  Motion passed:  Biglor, yes; Figurski, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes.  
 
IV.   Knight questioned the application of OAR 804-010-0005 to a candidate applying for an initial LA license.  Records in the applicant’s file as well as the Minutes of the Board did not clarify to current staff how the applicant’s qualifications were evaluated.  Biglor suggested that a review of the tape of the meeting could assist staff.  Staff will review that before the December meeting.
 
V.  Leisinger stated that proctors are needed for December’s administration of the LARE in Salem.  Since the Board meeting is scheduled on December 2, the Friday before the Monday and Tuesday of the exams, Knight would like volunteers at this time.
  1. Leisinger volunteered for Section C, Part I, December 5, 7:30 AM to 12:30 PM.
  2. Stout volunteered for Section C, Part II, December 5, 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM.
  3. VanWormer volunteered for Section E, December 6, 7:30 AM to 1:30 PM.
 
VI.  Leisinger stated that an applicant currently working in China will be in the USA the week of October 1-10.  If possible, he would request to have his oral interview be held at that time [LAC 05 09 299].  Stout volunteered to conduct the oral interview and will make contact with the applicant.
 
VII.  Staff has been contacted by the Secretary of State’s office inquiring about payment of the past due charges.  Knight suggested a $5,000 payment now, then $1,000 per month until the balance is paid off.  The Board concurred with this payment schedule.  If the Secretary of State requires payment sooner, the Board will deal with that request.
 
Leisinger asked if there was any other discussion prior to adjournment.  Biglor inquired if Knight had located information on a former Board member for the October newsletter.  Figurski volunteered to provide that information; Knight will complete an article on the 60-day window.
 
Leisinger adjourned the meeting at 5:00 PM.  The next Board meeting is scheduled for Friday, December 2, 2005 at the Board office in Salem.
 
Respectfully submitted,
Susanna Knight
Administrator
 
The minutes of the September 23, 2005, Board meeting were approved at the December 2, 2005, Board Meeting