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

Meetings
Date, Location and Atttendees
MEETING MINUTES
Monday, March 11th, 2002
The Association Center, Salem, Oregon
Conference Room A
 
Members Present:
David Michael
William Orr
Gary Peterson
Eileen Webb
 
Members Absent:
John Beaulieu
Charles Hester
 
Staff Present:
Susanna Knight
 
Chairman Orr welcomed the newest appointee to the Board, Eileen Webb, RG. Webb has been registered with the Board since 1993. She works for AMEC, Earth & Environmental, Inc. in Portland. The Board’s just released March Newsletter contains a lead article about Ms. Webb .

I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
The agenda was approved with the following additions:
  • V.G. AC 0203069, Letter from Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Michael Long, CEG: Practice Questions;
  • V.H. Geotechnical Rules, City of Eugene;
  • VII.D. Statute Changes, ORS 672.555(a) and general statute for all boards regarding overlap practice issues; and
  • VII.E. Approval of $2,100 Contract for Cut Score Training with the Washington Board of Geology.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the 12/18/2001 meeting were approved with the correction to the spelling of the Washington Board Administrator’s name and the compliance case # under IV. Reports. 6. Compliance Committee (a).

III. ANNOUNCEMENTS
  1. Board Meeting June 10, 2002, will be held in the North Coast area. It will be preceded by a Work Session on Sunday afternoon/evening, June 9, 2002. Knight to direct mail Notice of Meetingto all registrants in surrounding area.
  2. Confirm Additional Board Meeting Dates for 2002: September 10, 2002, will not work as members are scheduled for the Governor’s Office New Member Training. Knight to contact Hester and Beaulieu to check possibility of September 11, 2002, for the next meeting date. December 9, 2002, meeting date confirmed with meeting site at Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), Portland.

IV. REPORTS
A. Office Report
  1. AR2002-01: Summary of Staff Activities since 12/18/2001. Knight distributed her report and stated that she spent much time since the last meeting locating the eight Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG) volunteers for the Focus Groups with the Washington Board. All eight volunteers attended, and very favorable reports were received. Knight, Orr, and Michael attended a meeting with the Washington Board in Olympia on January 30, 2002, preceding Focus Group 1. Psychometricians explained the process and answered questions. Knight also reported that she had spent much time in facilitating the preparation of the contract for the intra-state agreement.
  2. Budget Status for 2001-2003: The expenditures to date are less then revenue. Non-renewals have leveled off following the fee increase in June 1999 for annual registration. Unexpected lease extension at current location will demand less than projected expense for this biennium’s budget. Knight also discussed the need to budget for additional participation by Board members in the biannual Council of Examiners (COE) of the Association of State Boards of Geologists (ASBOG). The examination is a collaborative effort of all member Boards, and participation in the COE allows Oregon to continue to have content input.
 
B. Committee Reports
  1. CEG: Michael reported that he traveled to Olympia on January 30, 2002, for the presentation by the psychometricians and the ensuing discussion with the Washington Board. He shared that it was a good exchange of ideas, and the Washington Board appreciated what he offered in the discussion. Michael also returned to Olympia on January 31, 2002, to observe the CEG Focus Group I process. He reported that those volunteering as Oregon registrants "really shined." Michael also returned to Olympia on March 6, 2002, to observe the first day of a 3-day session with Focus Group II. He requested an action item on the agenda to split the cost of training by the psychometricians in setting the cut score. This piece of the examination development was not included in the contract between the Washington Board and the psychometrician.
  2. OR Specific Exam: Orr reported that additional new questions were prepared for the March 15, 2002, Oregon Geology Examination. He also reported that he would be attending the COE meeting in Indianapolis April 12 and 13, 2002.
  3. Outreach Committee: Orr reported that a letter to Environmental Departments of Oregon universities has been prepared. He still is working on the address list.
  4. Rules & Regulations Committee: Knight reported that in addition to the rule changes set for the Hearing today, one additional rule change is prepared for the Board’s approval: OAR 809-010-0001, Fees(3). This rule revision will raise the fee for the CEG examination from $50 to $200. Oregon has had a substantial expenditure in developing the CEG examination with the Washington Board. In addition, expenses will be incurred in the preparation, scoring, and ongoing review of the CEG examination. The cut score training cost must also be paid. The increased examination fee will offset only a fraction of these additional costs. Washington currently charges $200 for their CEG examination. Knight also stated that with the departure of Eldridge from the Board, a replacement Chair for the Rules & Regulations Committee was needed. Orr solicited Webb to chair this committee. Webb agreed.
  5. Professional Practice Committee: Michael reported that he is preparing to present a white paper to the Board at the next meeting regarding RG/CEG practice issues.
  6. Compliance Committee: In Hester’s absence, Knight distributed an updated list of the current status of compliance issues facing the Board. Eighteen cases are currently in the queue. Three cases are prepared for action today. Two new cases have been received in this calendar year. Knight reported that all cases involving registrants of the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying (OSBEELS) had been forwarded to that Board.
  7. Legislative Issues: In Beaulieu’s absence, Knight reported that ORS 672.555(a) setting the minimum standards for registration should be reviewed. Discussion surrounding this statute included the need to clarify required hours within the degree program and the need to delete original statute language dealing with the grandfathering period. Knight also reported that Assistant Attorney General Chute had suggested developing statute language for the general statute for all Boards that would deal with overlap issues.

V. CORRESPONDENCE
  1. AC 02-01-014: Email from Paul McBeth, RG: Title for non-registered geologists: The Board discussed the statute change from the 2001 Legislative session: ORS 672.525(2). It clearly states that "No person shall publicly practice or offer to publicly practice geology in this state, and use in connection with the name of the person or otherwise assume or advertise any title or description tending to convey the impression that the person is a geologist." The Board discussed possible "titles" commonly used for non- registered, geologically trained personnel (Geology Staff; Hydrogeology Staff, Engineering Staff). The Board agreed to prepare a response letter expressing the common use of these and other similar "titles", but made no official recommendation.
  2. AC 02-01-019: Email forwarded from Michael Long, RG, CEG. The Board deferred to Beaulieu to enlighten it regarding DOGAMI’s statutory authority to require engineering- or geology-related reports to have registered signatories for permitting.
  3. AC 02-01-019f: Letter from Malia Kupillas, OAR 809-20-025(2). The Board discussed Kupillas’ concern regarding "being sued by fellow registrants." OAR 809-020-025(2) states that a geologist shall not "take any other sanction against another geologist because of the other geologist’s compliance" in pursuing violations of laws and rules relating to the practice of geology. However, the Board is not in the position to offer legal advice and will prepare a response stating such.
  4. AC 02-03-058: Letter from CEG’s regarding OSBEELS Geotechnical Rule Development: The Board discussed this letter signed by 26 current registrants. The CEGs’ concern is that the addition of the Geotechnical Professional Engineer (PE) certification may be designed to limit current practice of CEGs. The field of "geotechnics" also is practiced by CEGs. The Board will prepare a letter to forward to OSBEELS to outline issues of concern.
  5. AC 02-03-059: Letter from National Ground Water Association (NGWA), Certified Ground Water Professional (CGWP) Program; also AC 02-03-064: Memo from Graham, OSBEELS with copy of his letter issued to NGWA. The Board directed Knight to complete the survey and inform NGWA that groundwater practice is regulated by the Board of Geologist Examiners, and the Board is not interested in additional examinations as presented in the NGWA letter.
  6. AC 02-03-066: Letter from Kent Mathiot, Use of title geologist. The Board recommended issuing a letter with the same information to be issued to Paul McBeth, A. above.
  7. AC 0203069, Letter from ODOT, Michael Long, CEG Practice Questions. This letter was not received in time for response during this meeting. It was referred to Michael for review and will be placed on the June Board meeting agenda.
  8. Geotechnical Rules, City of Eugene: Board Member Peterson distributed his written review of Eugene’s Proposed Adoption of Standards for Geological and Geotechnical Analysis Administrative Rule R-9.6710"document. Following a general discussion, Knight was directed to draft a response to be forwarded to the City of Eugene and include the review prepared by Peterson.

VI. OLD BUSINESS
  1. Long-Range Planning [Strategic Planning]: Following the review of the document titled Long Range/Strategic Issues (updated 10/22/2001), the Board determined that at the June Board work session, this list would be prioritized and action dates would be set.
  2. MOU Process: The Board directed Knight to contact Graham, Executive Director OSBEELS and find out the status of the hydrogeology cases forwarded to OSBEELS. Also establish the status of the CEG cases OSBEELS has had under review for an extended time. The Board also directed that a letter be forwarded to the Joint Committee to set a meeting date. Knight was directed to develop a standard letter requesting Resume, Experience and Training, and Project Experience to send to registrants when they are under review by the Joint Committee.

VII. ITEMS FOR BOARD ACTION
  1. Compliance Matters
    1. CC# 01-09-011 Peterson moved to support the review of the case which indicated that no action should be taken. Seconded and passed unanimously. Letters to be issued to close the case.
    2. CC#01-09-013; CC#01-12-019 Michael moved to prepare an Agreement with the registrant who has been practicing engineering geology without CEG certification. The agreement will require that the registrant cease practicing as a CEG until registered as a CEG; any CEG work must be stamped by a CEG; no additional mentoring would be required prior to sitting for the exam; registrant will be requested to sit for and pass test at the earliest possible date but no later than October 4 in order to complete CEG work. Seconded and passed unanimously.
  1. Administrative Rule: OAR 809-010-0001, Fees Peterson moved to increase the CEG examination fee to $200. Seconded and passed unanimously.
  2. Approve Check log: December 19, 2001 to March 10, 2002 Peterson moved to approve check log #1576 to 1623. Seconded and passed unanimously.
  3. Statute Changes
    1. Michael moved to present a placeholder for Legislation during 2003 for a statute change to ORS 672.555(a) using language similar to Washington’s Geology Board’s statute. Seconded and passed unanimously.
    2. Michael moved to present a placeholder for Legislation during 2003 as the Board pursues the possibility of language revision to the general Board statute to address overlap in practice issues. Seconded and passed unanimously.
  4. Cut Score Training: Michael moved that Oregon team with the Washington Geology Board to split the $4,200 cost of Cut Score Training for the CEG examination. Seconded and passed unanimously.

VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT
No comment was given at this time.
 
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 PM.
 
Respectfully submitted,
 
Susanna Knight
Administrator
 
Minutes were approved at the June 10, 2002, Board Meeting