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

Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2005

Friday, December 2, 2005
Sunset Center South Conference Room

1193 Royvonne Avenue SE

Salem, Oregon 97302


Members Present
Andy Leisinger, Chair Landscape Architect
Jim Figurski, Landscape Architect
Paul Kyllo, Public Member
Mel Stout, Landscape Architect
Gladys I. Biglor, Vice Chair, Public Member (via Telephone from Bend)
Tim VanWormer, Landscape Architect
Board Members Absent
Tony Nitz, Public Member
Staff Present at the Board Meeting:
 Susanna Knight, Board Administrator
Kyle Martin, Assistant Attorney General, DOJ (1:30 PM to 2:35 PM)
Others Present during the Board Meeting
(10:00 AM to 10:30 AM)
Applicants for Initial Landscape Architect Registration
Chelsea Cochran
Jeff Froeber
Ben Johnson
Matt Kilmartin
Todd Pitman
Delinquent Landscape Architect Registrant
(10:30 AM to 10:50 AM)
Paul Dix


Chair Andrew Leisinger called the meeting to order at 10:05 AM and then requested an oral roll call.  Chair Leisinger then welcomed five applicants for LA registration:


Leisinger stated that the Board is comprised of seven members appointed by the Governor, four professional Landscape Architect (LA) members and three public members.  He stated that the Board is a regulatory Board charged with protecting the public health, safety, welfare and property and to eliminate unnecessary loss and waste in this state.  Decisions of the Board are based on the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR).  Having declared that they have read the ORS and the OAR, Leisinger asked if the applicants for initial LA registration had any questions of the Board.  The Board was asked to explain the title versus practice act.  The Board explained that the title definition is tied to the practice.  Only those registered with the Board may call themselves a Landscape Architect and those practicing in this field must be registered with the Board.  Most states have moved to a strong title act if they do not have a practice act in place.  The candidates inquired about the origination of statutes and rules.  The Board explained that the Legislative body approves any statute changes and explained the implications of this and that the Board develops Administrative Rules.  The Rules clarify statute.


Biglor asked the applicants: once registered, what are grounds for removing their license?  The applicants listed numerous grounds for removing ones license to practice.  Leisinger shared that registrants have 30 days without a late fee, but if the payment is not received within 60 days, a registrant must appear before the Board to reinstate their license.   Biglor stated that the payment is secondary to that fact that registrants are “breaking the law” when they don’t meet the statute by practicing without current payment of fees.  Figurski stated that delinquent registrations are often the result of the licensee failing to notify the Board of an address change.  Registrants must keep their address information current with the Board office.


A candidate asked about the process for continuing education auditing and the selection of those to be audited.  Leisinger stated that the Board has discussed the process but nothing is confirmed at this time.  Information will be provided in the Board newsletter.  Biglor stated that serving as a Board Member can fulfill continuing education requirements; provide a wealth of information in a short period of time; and allow registrants to see first-hand issues confronting the Board.  Service on other Boards may also provide continuing education credit.  Ongoing continuing education information will be provided in the Board’s quarterly newsletter.  Currently the Board’s Administrative Rules only accept credits endorsed by professional societies.


The Board thanked the candidates for attending the oral interview and welcomed them into registration.  Registration information will be completed and mailed in the next couple weeks.  All candidates for initial Landscape Architect registration were invited to remain for the meeting, but departed at 10:30 AM following the oral interview.


At 10:30 AM, Paul Dix of Issaquah, Washington, arrived to meet with the Board.  Dix failed to renew his license in the 60-day window of time.  Dix stated that he is registered in numerous states including Washington, but that he has had no work in Oregon since 2001.  Biglor inquired as to why the renewal was over 60 days delinquent.  Dix explained that he was not organized, that he had placed the renewal in a stack and had failed to get to the stack in a timely manner.  Biglor inquired if he had a plan for the future.  Dix stated that he does not intend for this to happen again.  Biglor stated that she appreciated his due diligence in attending the meeting.  Stout appreciated the honest explanation and inquired as to his interest in maintaining an Oregon registration when he has done no work since 2001.  Dix stated that as a sole practitioner, he is never sure when a job call may come.  Knight reminded the Board that the requirement for attending a Board meeting after the 60-day window passes was instated at the special Board meeting in September and that Dix is the “guinea pig.” 


Figurski moved to reinstate Paul Dix’s Oregon license based on today’s oral exam and the pending payment of the late fee and the annual renewal fee.  Seconded and passed: Biglor, yes; Figurski, yes; Kyllo, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes.

I. Meeting MinutesKyllo moved to accept the minutes of the August 12, 2005 Board meeting and the September 23, 2005 Board Meeting.  Seconded.  Discussion followed with two changes noted: 1) page 6 of 7 of the draft minutes of 8/12/2005 incorrectly listed compliance case #05-04-003 (not #05-05-004) and 2) on page 4 of 7, #6,7,8, change Council Record # to Council Certificate #.  Seconded and passed with the above changes.  Biglor, yes; Figurski, yes; Kyllo, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes.

II.  Administrative Matters

  1. Secretary of State Audit Update: Leisinger distributed a letter issued to Department of Administrative Services, Risk Management Division on November 30, 2005, regarding the Board’s follow-up associated with the departure of the former Administrator one year ago.
  2. Administrator Report:
    1. Knight referred the Board to the handout issued with the Board packet outlining the current registrant statuses provided in the database versus those provided in statute and requested the Board to give direction to staff with regards to this discrepancy.  The Board agreed that only those registration statuses provided in statute should be used in the database.  Knight also asked the Board to consider a category for registrants that have been delinquent for an extended period of time.  The Board moved this item to new business.  Knight also asked for direction with regards to businesses that failed to renew.  The Board stated that a letter should be issued stating that they cannot practice as their registration is delinquent.
    2. Knight distributed a report of staff activities since the last meeting and a report on Revenue versus Expenses for the current biennium as well as for the 2003-05 biennium.  Knight noted that for the first five months of this biennium, the Board’s revenues are ahead of expenses.  However, renewals are now on a monthly basis and some months must be subsidized by those months with greater revenue.  Budget updates will be available for the next meeting.  The report for the 2003-05 biennium is pulled from Quickbooks but due to entry issues, the information may be incomplete.

III. Internal Affairs Committee:  Biglor stated that it is important that the Board provide follow-up to the Legislative Fiscal Office’s (LFO) Joint Legislative Audit Committee for the six key findings presented in the LFO report from October 2004.  She is drafting information for that response and will provide her draft to the Board for their review.  Stout offered that it is good to keep LFO up to date with a copy of the newsletter and that Nancy Goss-Duran from the Governor’s appointments office should also be included on the newsletter mailing list.
IV.  Licensure Review Committee: VanWormer reported that the review of applications by reciprocity works well with the CLARB certificate.  The review of applicants by examination is okay with the CLARB record, but problems do arise surrounding the experience.  The Board office files were incomplete with regards to two current applicants which made the review process difficult; a better way to track these applicants is needed and board record keeping needs to improve.  VanWormer stated that some applicants have used experience in an allied field in lieu of experience under a LA.  Records of the board approving use of experience in an allied we not in the board’s file for two of the applicants.  However the applicants were allowed to sit for the exam. 
  1. Application for LA Registration by Reciprocity:  VanWormer stated that four new registrants were approved as follows:  Laurie DeVos, #583, issued 10/28/2005; Nicole Horst, #585, issued 11/1/2005; Daniel Jenkins, #582, issued 10/6/2005; Kenneth Puncerelii, #584, issued 10/28/2005.
  2. Initial Application for LA Registration by Examination in Oregon:
    1. Figurski moved to approve Chelsea Cochran, Ben Johnson and Matt Kilmartin for initial LA registration based on education, examination, experience record and appearing for the oral interview today.  Seconded and passed.  Biglor, yes; Figurski, yes; Kyllo, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes.
    2. Figurski moved to approve Traci Barnett, Jennifer Gardner, Alan Johnson and Chelsea Schneider pending completion of their oral interview based on education examination and experience record.  Seconded and passed.  Biglor, yes; Figurski, yes; Kyllo, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes. 
    3. Figurski moved to approve the licensure application of Todd Pitman and Jeff Froeber based on experience in lieu of education and alternative experience; passing the LARE examinations; and appearing for the oral interview.  Figurski requested that both applicants be informed that this is an Oregon license and they may encounter problems registering in other states.  VanWormer noted that he and Leisinger had also informed both Pitman and Froeber about this concern when meeting with the before the Board meeting.  Seconded and passed. Biglor, yes; Figurski, yes; Kyllo, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes.
At 12:20 PM, Leisinger called for a 10-minute break to reconvene at 12:30 PM for a working lunch for discussion of Continuing Education issues.

V. Continuing Education Committee:  Leisinger announced that Mel Stout has been appointed to serve as chair of this committee. 

  1. ASLA Update: Tracy Johnson, ASLA Board Member and Chair of the ASLA Continuing Education Committee joined the Board.  Johnson stated that she wished to discuss the letter sent to her by Administrator Knight requesting input on the Continuing Education Administrative Rules of the Board.  Figurski stated that the rules are currently based on the National Model of CLARB, however the CLARB Model does not give credit for service on a State Regulatory Board and Oregon does give credit for such service.  Johnson stated that four “concerns and confusions” were isolated during a ASLA continuing education committee meeting on November 30, 2005.

    • Health, Safety and Welfare:  The current rules state “as exemplified by the current exam for licensure”.  Unfortunately, registrants who have been practicing for years do not know what is on the exam.  Johnson asked for a listing of these items in rule.
    • The AICAT acronym is used in rule.  Johnson has located this on Google, but what is it?  What does it mean?
    • Structured Educational Activity:  This is defined, but not listed under those activities that count for credit.  The Board of Architects spells this out in their rules.
    • Verification:  how does one verify a ticketed event where they do not have an attendance sheet?  Figurski stated that ticketed events approved by an organization should be approved by the Board.  Johnson stated that these types of ticketed events are not generally “approved.”
    Additional Board discussion ensued.  Stout suggested that the Board look to clearly define the issues, including the process.  The criteria must be out there and registrants must be notified as to how decisions are made.  When documentation is provided to the Board, the Board will interpret that documentation.  Registrants must use common sense in what they consider as acceptable continuing education.  Lecture series can be difficult to quantify or qualify.  Kyllo stated that perhaps the Board is getting the cart before the horse.  No one has been told no to anything.  Most of the topics discussed to date have fit the mold.  VanWormer asked what is the main concern?  Johnson stated that it is scattered, but the greatest concern is the health, safety and welfare issue.  Stout inquired as to how the two year requirement of 24 continuing education hours was set.  Figurski stated that it is an average of all 27 states currently requiring continuing education.  Biglor inquired if there are any additional concerns.  Johnson stated there is a need to know what can be required outside of health, safety, and welfare and should some of the information previously stated in ASLA newsletter articles authored by Figurski be included in rule? Johnson stated that licensees fear failing to meet the requirement.   Leisinger directed the discussion to the Tracking Form adopted by the Board and asked for clarification of the CEU versus the PDH.  The AICET uses the CEU model with x# credit for PDH.  It was suggested that the Tracking Form state this information.  Johnson will provide suggested language to Figurski; Figurski will forward to staff so the Board can review.  Additional discussion items included how to count and how to verify the mentoring choice and how to evaluate internal office presentations.  Continuing education questions and concerns will again be addressed in the next Board newsletter scheduled for delivery in mid-January.
  2. Correspondence regarding Continuing Education:  VanWormer and Stout agreed to follow up on the various inquiries regarding continuing education.  VanWormer will respond to agenda emails listed under a through d.  Stout will respond to agenda emails listed under e through h.  Responses will be cc’d to staff at the office. Van Wormer asked for emails to be forwarded to him.
VI.  Request to Reinstate Registration:  VanWormer stated that he did not review the information surrounding the three persons with special licensure requests as part of his Licensure duties.  Biglor stated that she would abstain from a vote as she was looking for the recommendation from the committee and had not reviewed the information.

  1. Figurski moved to reinstate the license of Bruce Copenhagen with payment of fees.  Seconded and passed.  Figurski, yes; Kyllo, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes; Biglor, abstain.
  2. See Board action during the interview section regarding Paul Dix.
  3. Figurski moved to invite Michael Parker to appear before the Board regarding his request to reinstate his license.  Parker has not had an active registration since 1993.  Activating his registration would include paying all back renewal fees; late fee; current renewal fee; and an examination by the Board.  Seconded and passed. Figurski, yes; Kyllo, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes; Biglor, abstain.

    At 1:30PM, Leisinger noted that the Board’s newly appointed Assistant Attorney General Kyle Martin had joined the meeting.  The Board welcomed AAG Martin and then Board Chair Leisinger read the following statement:
    “Per ORS 192.660 (2)(f) the Oregon Landscape Architect Board will now meet in executive session to discuss information that is exempt from public inspection.  Representatives of the news media and designated staff shall be 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 will be made in executive session.  At the end of the executive session, the Board will return to open session and welcome the audience back into the room."
    At 2:35 PM, the Board returned from Executive Session.  They thanked Kyle Martin for joining the meeting and he was dismissed.  Leisinger stated that information during the Executive Session would be discussed during the Compliance Report.
  4. Figurski moved to approve the request to reinstate the license of Corvin M.E. Schneider based on evidence on record in the Board office that an address change was provided and staff failed to update that address resulting in a delinquent license.  Seconded and passed. Figurski, yes; Kyllo, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes; Biglor, abstain.
  5. Request for Inactive Registration: Figurski moved to grant inactive registration to Ken Morton as requested in his letter. Seconded and passed. Biglor, yes; Figurski, yes; Kyllo, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes.

VII. Administrative Rules Committee:  Figurski asked the Board to act on numerous Administrative Rule changes.
  1. Business entity:  Figurski moved to approve Division 35 as revised and to move a section from its previous location under OAR 804-030-0011(2)(a).  Seconded and passed. Biglor, yes; Figurski, yes; Kyllo, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes. 
  2. Fees:  Biglor moved to include the following fee information in OAR 804-040-0000: change initial registration fee for LA to $250.00, the same as the annual renewal fee; add a fee of $50.00 for providing a list of licensees; add a business registration application fee of $100.00; add an application fee of $100.00 for initial LA registration.  Seconded and passed. Biglor, yes; Figurski, yes; Kyllo, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes.
  3. LAIT:  Kyllo moved to remove the word notarizedfrom OAR 804-020-0055(2).  Seconded.  It was noted by staff that the recommendation to remove this requirement was encouraged by the State Office of Regulatory Streamlining.  Seconded and passed. Biglor, yes; Figurski, yes; Kyllo, yes; Leisinger, yes; Stout, yes; VanWormer, yes.
  4. Civil Penalty:  In discussions with the Board’s attorney, it was suggested that OAR 804-030-0020 should be revised to allow the Board to issue civil penalties lower than $5000.00.  The current language of the rule does not allow a civil penalty lower than $5000.  Figurski moved that the language in OAR 804-030-0020 be modified to state “civil penalties may be assessed up to $5000 for each offense”.  Seconded and passed.
VIII.  Compliance
  1. LACC#05-05-005: The Board discussed this case during Executive Session.  It was determined that additional investigation is necessary.  Kyllo will contact the individual for whom the plans were prepared and report back to the Board.  Leisinger will contact the complainant and seek additional information surrounding the complaint.  When Kyllo and Leisisnger have completed their contact, VanWormer will meet with the respondent and the respondent’s attorney to discuss the complaint.
  2. LACC#05-01-001: Staff is to prepare a letter to the respondent stating “Thank you for complying as indicated in your faxed response to the Board.  You now understand the rule and will not violate it again.”
IX.  Old Business
  1. National CLARB Meeting: Figurski reported that during the September meeting in Los Angeles, he was elected as the First Vice-President of CLARB and will become the President.  It would be good to seek a replacement for his position on the Oregon Board.  Staff will notify the Governor’s office of this concern.
  2. LAC 05 06 159: Figurski stated that the Landscape Architect Board should not be regulating landscape designers.  There are currently two groups of designers in Oregon, a national group and a northwest group.  They cannot agree on standards for designers.
  3. LAC 05 06 176: The Board discussed that a Code of Ethics exists in Rules to govern both architects and engineers.  In that code, such registrants are not to practice where they have no knowledge.  By working in related fields when they do not have the knowledge, experience, etc, they stand to have a complaint issued against them.


X.  Correspondence

  1. LAC 05 07 205: The Board understands the concern raised in this correspondence about sole proprietorships paying double fees, once as an LA and once as an LA business  Two current Board members fall under this provision.
  2. LAC 05 07 234: Distribution of Registrant List:  The Board acknowledged the concern raised by this inquiry regarding receipt of unsolicited mail, but registrants’ names are a matter of public record.  Biglor inquired about only releasing the name and mailing address.  Knight confirmed that is all that is released.  Stout stated that he appreciates updates on landscape architect products which he receives because the list of registrants is released.
  3. LAC 05 10 328: The Board received information about Assistant Attorney General Kyle Martin who was recently appointed by Department of Justice, Business Services Unit, to serve as counsel for the Board.  Mr. Martin joined the Board during Executive Session today.
  4. LAC 05 11 356:  The Board stated that Landscape Designers are always welcome to attend the Board meeting and present their requests.  Some landscape designers are interested in regulation by the state.


XI.  New Business

  1. Companies with multiple Landscape Architects:  Leisinger stated that some companies have multiple Landscape Architects on staff, but may have only one registered with the Oregon Board.  Recently, an Oregon company was caught when the principal passed on suddenly and stamping was required on a project.  Leisinger encouraged such companies to have all eligible Landscape Architects registered with the Board.
  2. Status of registrants:  Staff indicated during the Administrator report that the delinquent status to which multiple registrants default is quite open ended.  At any time, such registrants can request to become active by meeting certain specific statutory standards.  Biglor stated that the Board should seek to end such delinquent registrations after a limited period of time.  The Board needs to research the standard time established by other regulatory boards in Oregon and other LA Boards across the country.  A discussion about an appropriate change in current practice can then be held.


XII.  Announcements

  1. Board Meeting Dates: As a matter of record, the Board meets on the second Friday of the second month of each quarter.  The November 2005 meeting was moved to December due to a Board member schedule conflict.  Biglor stated that the Board must consider meeting more often with the length of the recent agendas.  Other members preferred to begin the meeting earlier and stay later rather than scheduling additional meetings.  It was agreed to begin the meetings at 8:30 AM on the following dates for 2006:  February 10; May 12; August 11; and November 3.  The November 2006 date was moved up one week to avoid a conflict with the Veteran’s Day National Holiday to be observed on Friday, November 10, 2006.
  2. CLARB  ExamsKnight announced that CLARB exams would be administered by the Board on Monday and Tuesday, December 5 and 6, 2005 in Salem, Oregon at Chemeketa Community College, Building 49.  Six candidates are scheduled for Section C and twelve candidates are scheduled for Section E.  Leisinger and Stout will proctor the two sections of C on Monday; VanWormer will proctor Section E on Tuesday.
  3. CLARB Spring Meeting: The CLARB meeting is scheduled for February 22-25, 2006 in St. Louis, Missouri.  Figurski will be present as a CLARB officer.  However, due to financial issues of the Board, money was not budgeted for participation by the Oregon Board.  The Board will look to Figurski to provide a report, and if issues on the agenda require a vote, Oregon will provide a proxy vote if possible.


Leisinger adjourned the meeting at 3:45 PM.


Respectfully submitted,

Susanna Knight



The minutes of the December 5, 2005, Board meeting were approved at the February 10, 2006, Board Meeting