Education
POC Minutes
March 2008
POC Members Present: Dick Browdy (Chair), Jon Hamrick, Herminio Gonzalez, Steve Bassett
Meeting
Attendees:
David Burtl Bill Norkunas
Mark Reddinger Leonard Dodrill
Jane Waddel Larry Schneider
Michael Clark
Don Fuchs Alex Kobryn
Shelley Siegel Sharon Mignardi
Ila Jones Kari Hebrank
Med Kopczynski
Meeting
called to order at
1. Review
and Approval of the March 2008 Agenda
Motion: To move agenda item #5 to become agenda #14, resulting in #6 becoming #5, #7 becoming #6, and so on…
Motion: Jon
Hamrick
2nd: Herminio Gonzalez
Approved Unanimously As Amended
2.
Review and Approval of January
2008 Minutes
Motion: Herminio Gonzalez
2nd: Jon Hamrick
Approved Unanimously
3. Discuss and review the changed language in
9B-70.002 (4) (f) regarding the timeline within which a provider must update
and accredit advanced code courses.
The Chair read to the audience the changes to the current language and stated that this language was agreed upon at the January POC meeting. The Chair then asked Med Kopczynski if this language was appropriate regarding a reasonable timeline for providers to update their courses. Med responded that it was, especially in conjunction with the changes also made to 9B-70.002 (3) (as shown below in agenda item #4).
Motion: To
accept the previously approved language as written for 9B-70.002 (4) (f)
Motion: Jon
Hamrick
2nd: Herminio Gonzalez
Approved Unanimously
4. Discuss and review the changed language
in 9B-70.002 (3) regarding the actual building code edition being used as the
source for updating advanced courses.
The Chair read to the audience the changes to the current language and stated that this language was also agreed upon at the January POC meeting. He asked if others had any comments about this language.
Larry
Schneider asked if this language should include the glitch cycle process of
code changes. The POC agreed that it should.
Motion: To
accept the previously approved language as written for 9B – 70.002 (3), and add
language to include the glitch cycle process for code changes.
Motion: Jon
Hamrick
2nd: Herminio Gonzalez
Approved Unanimously
5. Discuss and/or respond to a summary of
contract activities and deliverables, for the contract of “The
Mark Reddinger (BASF) and Leonard Dodrill (ISF) showed a prototype of the new training and accreditation module in the BCIS. The module incorporated the look and feel of other parts of the BCIS, such as the Product Approval module. The audience did make some suggested changes to the prototype. Mark stated that this is an ongoing development process. Med Kopczynski suggested that the prototype should be placed on the BCIS, so accreditors and providers can look at it at their leisure.
No further action was taken.
6. Discuss and review a proposed training
course audit process and other related materials, to be used to audit advanced
building code courses.
The Chair stated that the draft audit process and audit content elements, developed by the Education Administrator, represents almost all possible sources to look at during an actual audit. He then asked for comments from the audience.
Larry Schneider asked if item #4 (which includes cost of course), titled “Costs”, was needed as an audit item. Shelley Seigel agreed with Larry and stated that she thought that this item should not be required. Larry also asked if item #13, which has to do with exemptions given to students so that they don’t have to take a course, should be included as an audit source.
The Education Administrator agreed that both items, #’s 4 and 13, should be deleted as audit sources from the current document. The Administrator stated that he would look again at the remaining items to ensure their relevance.
No further action was taken.
7. Discuss the development of an
investigation process as part of the newly adopted language regarding the
revocation of an accreditor’s status.
The Chair stated that he felt that accreditors should understand the steps of a complaint process, which should accompany the currently proposed language for accreditor revocation.
Larry Schneider asked if the complaining individual should be anonymous, or not. He further stated that he thought that the person initiating a complaint against an accreditor should have his/her name publicly known. The Chair agreed that a person who registers a complaint should have his/her name attached to that complaint, especially for the investigative part of the process.
The Chair stated that the General Counsel should be consulted with regarding both the steps of a formal investigation process, and whether that process should be captured in statute or rule language.
No further action was taken.
8. Discuss legislative issues
Jim Richmond, the General Counsel, stated that the most current issue or development of import to education programs is that DBPR is trying to eliminate the transfer of the $4.00 surcharge (approximately $200,000.00 annually) emanating from each license renewal within the CILB and the ECLB. He further stated that if the Commission loses this funding, then its continued viability regarding education activities should be seriously questioned and it should probably seek to eliminate its current statutory authority for advanced course approval through the accreditation process.
The Chair asked that if this happened, would the authority for all aspects of education be transferred to DBPR?
Ila Jones stated that DCA could not administrate any part of the educational process if funding is eliminated.
The Chair asked Jim Richmond if the timetable for a decision regarding this issue was known.
Jim Richmond stated that he wasn’t sure, but what he knows is that DBPR submitted this as a budget issue, in that they are proposing that they not transfer the $200,000.00 to DCA. Jim Further stated that the House and Senate have to work out a compromise budget, which probably won’t happen until the end of the session. He finally said that we should wait and see what happens and tailor our response appropriately.
Commissioner Bassett stated that we need to remind the legislature that after Hurricane Andrew, a large issue that surfaced was the lack of standardized training within the construction and design trades.
The Chair stated that he thinks that BASF could try to influence their association members regarding this issue. He further stated that it’s his understanding that again, the surcharge will still be collected but will not be transferred to DCA.
Commissioner Gonzalez stated that if this happens, can the POC do anything to reverse this course of action.
The Chair reiterated what was stated earlier, which was---if DCA is denied funding then it should not assume responsibility for educational programs.
Jim Richmond stated that DCA and the Commission support a viable educational system for the construction and design trades, but if current funding levels disappear for DCA, then the entity collecting those funds should assume responsibility for said education programs. He further stated that he can provide more information in two weeks via a conference call with the Chair.
No further action was taken.
9.
Review Pending “Accreditor” Applications for Recommendation to the Commission
(None pending)
10. Education Administrator Activity Report
The Education
Administrator reported to the POC what activities he performed between January
31, 2008 and February 29, 2008. The following areas were reported on:
No comments were made or offered about the
reports contents.
11. Identify future POC member discussion items.
The Chair stated
that it has been brought to his attention that language in 9B – 70.002 (1),
regarding qualifications of course accreditors, limits the pool of potential
accreditor applicants. The language in question states that “applicants must
have demonstrated five years of Florida Building Code expertise in the field
for which approval is sought, and possesses an active license issued
pursuant…”.
The proposed
language adds three more criteria to consider as equivalent to the 5 years of
experience, which would expand the pool of potential applicants to be
considered for approval as an accreditor.
Med Kopczynski
stated that some trade areas may feel like an individual who earned a four year
degree may not possess sufficient experience needed to function as an
accreditor. The Chair reiterated that the issue is to expand the pool of
potential applicants and he feels that these changes can do just that.
Elaine Ross stated
that she thought these changes would work and gave her experience with this as
testimony for these changes, saying that she has many years of experience in
construction but couldn’t become an accreditor under the current
qualifications.
The following is
the newly proposed language:
1) Approval of Course Accreditors. The Commission shall
approve persons to serve as accreditors of advanced training courses. Persons
desiring to be accreditors shall apply using Form FBCED 2003-001 adopted herein
by reference and available from the Building Code Information System at
www.floridabuilding.org. Applications shall be accompanied by an application
fee of $100.00. Applications shall be approved by the Commission if the
applicant has demonstrated five years, or equivalent as specified below,
of Florida Building Code expertise in the field for which approval is sought, and
or possesses an active license issued pursuant to Section 471.015, 481.213,
481.311; 489, Part I or II, F.S.; or a standard certificate issued pursuant to
Section 468.609, F.S. When an accreditor application is submitted to accredit
only accessibility courses by an individual who can demonstrate proficiency
acceptable to the Commission as a subject matter expert in the field of
accessibility the Commission shall approve that applicant to accredit
accessibility courses. Accreditors approved by the Commission under prior
versions of this rule are authorized to continue accreditation of building code
courses. Demonstrated expertise or proficiency under this provision shall
be:
(a) A four year college degree
or graduate degree in the field for which approval is sought;
(b) A letter verifying work
experience in the field for which approval is sought from a person who
supervised the applicant; or
(c) A letter verifying
employment and specific position of the applicant in the field for which
approval is sought from the applicant’s employer.
The Chair stated that he would recommend the
essence of these changes in the language to the Commission and that the POC
will develop for future rule language approval.
12. General Public Comment
Larry Schneider stated
that he noticed that advanced courses housed in the BCIS have expiration dates
of two years and he thought that their was no expiration date for advanced
courses, until a code change. The Chair agreed and said that the Education
Administrator would find out the reason for the date and correct if possible.
Commissioner
Norkunas stated that he thought that when an accreditor was going to be listed
on the agenda, that a person’s name would be mentioned, as well as a company
name. He also stated that he thought that all accessibility courses, before
they reached the agenda, would be sent to him for review. The Chair said that
the Education Administrator would make sure that both of these issues would be
addressed for future agendas.
Commissioner
Bassett stated that there have been recent changes in the energy code and that
as a result, there is a need for training courses to be taught reflecting those
changes.
The Chair stated
that there is a shortage of advanced courses and that providers need to produce
more of these types of courses. He further stated that BASF, under its current
contract, should try to encourage providers to develop more advanced courses.
Jane Waddel, from
Contractor’s Institute, stated that they would like to develop more advanced
courses, but it is difficult to do so because of the glitch cycle and the
lengthy board timelines for course approval. It is especially difficult to
develop a variety of courses, so they only focus on a few.
David Burtl, from
JADE Learning, stated that they would like to receive guidelines from the
Commission regarding course development.
13.
Summary and Review of Meeting Work Products/Action Items, Assignments, and Next
Steps
The Chair gave no new assignments.
Adjourn
(Adjourned at 3:15 pm.)
The
following courses, under the ‘Accredited, Pending FBC Approval” status, were
approved by the POC.
Course: The
Provider: JADE Learning
Accreditor: BCIC LLC
BCIS #: 272.0
Motion:
Course approved based on the
FBC accreditation process that only verifies the accuracy of the Florida
Building Code related content
Motion: Jon Hamrick
2nd: Herminio Gonzalez
Approved Unanimously
Updated Course Approvals
The courses listed below have been updated with the 2006 Code Supplement. The chair listed all of the courses and asked for a Consent Agenda approval for all of the courses.
Motion: To approve all courses as submitted, except for the “SREF Continuing Education Course” (201.1)
Motion: Jon Hamrick
2nd: Steve Bassett
Approved Unanimously
Motion: To approve the course titled “SREF Continuing Education Course” (201.1), with Commissioner Hamrick abstaining because of ethical considerations
Motion: Herminio Gonzalez
2nd: Steve Bassett
Approved Unanimously, Minus Commissioner Jon Hamrick
Course and # Provider Accreditor Date of Approval
Advanced Bldg. Adcox
Group, Inc. BCIC LLC
Structural Summary Inc.
Internet (269.0)
SREF Continuing
Education Course
(201.1)
2004 Fl. Building Contractor’s BCIC LLC 2/20/08
Code: Plumbing Educ. Source, Inc.
Fuel Gas Summary
(Internet)
(274.0)
Internet-Advanced AIA
Accessibility
Compliance-The Good,
The Bad, The Ugly-
Or Why Did I Do
That. (#271.0)
Note: This document is available in alternate
formats upon request to the Department of Community Affairs, Codes and
Standards,