Text Size:   A+ A- A   •   Text Only
Find     
Board of Geologist Examiners

Meetings
Date, Location and Attendees
MEETING MINUTES
DOGAMI Conference Room, Portland, Oregon
Tuesday, December 18th, 2001
 
Members Present:
John Beaulieu
Audrey Eldridge
Charles Hester
David Michael
William Orr
Gary Peterson
 
Staff Present:
Susanna Knight
 
Guests Present:
Eric Burns, GIT
Margaret Eppting, Administrator, WA Board
Dorian Kuper, RG, CEG
Ken Neal, WA Board Member

Call to Order and Guest Statements
The meeting was called to order by Chair Orr at 1:10 PM. Chair Orr acknowledged guests present and invited them to speak to the Board.
  1. Ken Neal, Board Member and Margaret Eppting, Administrator of the Washington Geology Board distributed information regarding a joint effort by the two Boards in the preparation of a Certified Engineering Geology examination. They stated that the Washington Board must have an examination ready to administer in the Fall of 2002. They have contracted with psychometricians to come to Olympia and work with two separate Focus Groups of CEG’s, four from Washington and four from Oregon. These eight Oregon registrants volunteering to serve in this capacity are not to be Board members. Focus group meetings will occur on January 31 and February 1, 2002 and again on March 6, 7, and 8, 2002. The Washington Board has also requested a joint meeting of the Boards on January 30 and again on the afternoon of April 18 and all day April 19. The joint Board meetings will involve preliminary and follow-up Board work on the exam. Following their presentation, Neal and Eppting departed with the request that our Board discuss this on their agenda and contact their Board following the meeting.
  2. Eric Burns, GIT with Department of Agriculture, introduced himself and expressed his concern over a situation that he and an RG coworker are facing. He shared the history of a southern Oregon dairy and the problems with effluence. Groundwater characterization work by a consultant has not met the standard required by their agency. Although they have returned the reports and required follow up, they requested Board direction regarding dealing with a PE doing a substandard work in hydrogeology. A complaint was presented to the Geology Board staff early in July and subsequently referred to the Engineering Board. The Engineering Board had not yet reviewed the file as of December 10. Board members clarified that the role of the Board is to evaluate the qualifications of those practicing public geology and not necessarily to perform or support peer review requirements of various public entities. Peer review of reports lies within the authority of the agencies requiring the reports.
 
The Board then discussed the process regarding implementation of the MOU in regards to a geology complaint against a PE. Extensive deliberation over the MOU process was held. Hester moved to authorize staff to issue a letter to OSBEELS requesting that their Board appoint Joint Committee Members as stipulated in the MOU. Staff is to request that appointments be made on a case by case basis ASAP to expedite the Geology Board cases that are to be forwarded with the letter. Staff is to request to be notified of the date for the Joint Committee meeting. Michael seconded. Unanimously passed.
 
Chair Orr apologized to Burns for the slow response to the complaint that came to the Board last July 6th but stated that the Geology Board had proceeded through proper channels but that the recipient Board had failed to follow up. Burns thanked the Board for taking time to listen to his concerns.
 
  1. Malia Kupillas, RG introduced herself to the Board. She indicated that she is interested in the Board position and came to observe the Board meeting process. Kupillas shared that she sees a real need for educating the general public about geology issues. She would like to see education articles in publications such as the Capital Press. She also indicated that she is currently involved in a complaint, has asked questions of the Board regarding the public testimony process, and has submitted a complaint. Staff and legal counsel indicated that the complaints are currently in the technical review process and the Board is not yet prepared to summarize or discuss them.

I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Hester moved to approve Board Minutes for the 9/18/2001 meeting. Seconded and passed.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Hester moved to approve Board Minutes for the 9/18/2001 meeting. Seconded and passed.

III. ANNOUNCEMENTS
  1. Board Meeting March 2002: Hester suggested that the Board meet in a retreat setting on March 9th and 10th. Orr directed staff to contact Beaulieu prior to making arrangements for such a retreat.
  2. Confirm Tentative Board Meeting Dates for 2002 pending new appointee’s schedule: Hester requested the following dates for 2002 Board Meetings: Monday, June 10th; Tuesday, September 10th; and Monday, December 9th.

IV. REPORTS
  1. Office Report AR2001-04: Knight distributed a Summary of Staff Activities since 9/18/2001 and received confirmation from the Board that they do wish to continue receiving such reports at each Board meeting. In addition, the current Action List was distributed. Knight reported on the Budget Status for 2001-2003. Revenue has exceeded expenses during the first five months of this year however we are entering our three slowest renewal months. Non-renewals are running at about 5% the past two quarters.  
     
  2. Committee Reports
    1. CEG: Peterson reported that the big news would be the sharing of the examination with the Washington Board as presented at the beginning of the meeting. Staff reported that a direct mail to all CEG registrants is resulting in many new questions for the question bank.
    2. OR Specific Exam: Orr reported that he is working on scoring the December 7th exams.
    3. Outreach Committee: Orr reported that a letter has been crafted for distribution to university Environmental Science professors and will be distributed soon.
    4. Rules & Regulations Committee: Eldridge stated that the Terrorism issue as prepared by the Board’s attorney and presented via email needs to be addressed by the Board. She recommended that it be handled in the retreat or Work Session environment.
    5. Professional Practice Committee: Michael discussed the need to develop a white paper to address the CEG/RG boundary issues. He will prepare a draft to be reviewed at the retreat/work session item prior to the next meeting.
     
     
  3. Compliance Committee: Hester distributed his quarterly report on compliance status.
    • Michael reported on the status of CC #01-09-0013: RG providing input to CEG. He stated the need to meet with the RG to discuss the statute requirement of CEG registration. Staff to set up meeting time.
    • Peterson reported on his review of CC#01-09-0012 and requested input from the Board. Staff to issue letter to respondent asking specifically why the report was prepared and to whom it was issued. 
     
     
  4. Legislative Issues: Beaulieu left earlier due to illness but left a message with the Chair that there were no issues to report.

V. CORRESPONDENCE
  1. AC 01 11 299: Letter from WA Bd Chair: pooling resources for CEG Examination. Orr stated that this request had been discussed with Mr. Neal and Ms. Eppting at the onset of the Board meeting.
  2. AC 01 12 310: Letter from Stephen Hay: Request for Board Direction Board affirmed that Mr. Hay may sit for the exam as he has stated his study intention.
  3. AC 01 12 313: City of Newport, Ordinance No. 1308 Relating to Geologic Hazard Areas: Michael reported that he had concerns about the input of an RG to civil engineering work, which is currently not allowed in the Geology statute. Additional discussion was held. Michael will draft a response and forward to staff for the Board Chair’s signature.

VI. Old Business
  1. MOU Status: Knight distributed a copy of the signed MOU and reported that the chair of OSBEELS would not sign the Resolution portion. Knight has requested that this issue be placed on their January Board meeting agenda so that the Resolution can be a permanent attachment to the MOU.
  2. Long Range/Strategic Issues: Orr requested that due to the lateness of the meeting, this issue be placed on the next retreat/work session agenda.

VII. ITEMS FOR BOARD ACTION
  1. Compliance Matters
    1. Hester moved to issue to the Registered Geologist in CC #00 04 002 a Notice of Proposed Action to Revoke License and Impose Fines. Seconded and passed unanimously.
    2. Hester moved to approve the Consent Agreement for CC#01-05-004 previously signed by a non-registrant following a meeting with the Compliance Committee. Seconded and passed unanimously.
    3. Hester moved to issue a Letter of Concern to the Registered Geologist in CC#01-06-005 for failure to stamp a report that contained the public practice of geology. Seconded and passed unanimously.
     
  2. Administrative Rules, Eldridge moved to approve the following rule changes with a March 2002 Hearing date: 1) 809-050-0000 Facsimile of Stamp; 2) 809-050-0010 Qualifications for Registration Without Examination; and 3) 809-50-0030 Registration Requirement for Public Testimony. Seconded and passed unanimously.
  3. Other: Future Building Location, Knight solicited a motion for the record regarding a possible future building co-purchase with other Boards. The Board approved the continued investigation of this possibility but requested some further facts and figures.
  4. Approval of Check Log: Michael moved to approve check log #1540 to #1575. Seconded and approved unanimously
  5. Release of CEG Test Bank: Peterson moved to release the bank of CEG test questions to the psychometricians contracted by the WA Board to assist the focus group in development of the exam questions. Seconded and passed unanimously.
  6. Retreat Invitation: Hester moved to invite Audrey Eldridge to attend the Board retreat. Seconded and passed unanimously.

VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT
All guests had presented their issues and previously departed.
 
Meeting adjourned at 4:35 PM.
 
Respectfully submitted,
 
Susanna Knight
Administrator