Education POC Minutes
June 2007
POC Members Present: Dick Browdy (Chair), Jon Hamrick, Pete Tagliarini, Herminio Gonzalez, Steve
Bassett
Meeting
Attendees:
Bill Dumbaugh Ila Jones
Jack Glenn Bob Boyer
Joe Belcher Larry Schneider
Jim Richmond Don Fuchs
Francisco R. Franco Igbar Sharld
Meeting called to order at
1. Review
and Approval of June 2007 Agenda
Motion: Pete Tagliarini
2nd: Herminio Gonzalez
Approved Unanimously
2.
Review and Approval of May
2007 Minutes
Motion: Steve Bassett
2nd: Pete Tagliarini
Approved Unanimously
3.
Discuss and review the applicability of the Product Approval Process as a possible way to revoke an accreditor’s status.
The Chair stated that to begin with, reasons
need to be cited as to what the accreditor has done that would be considered
non-compliant. The Chair referenced the 3 reasons that the General Counsel
cited at the May POC meeting. Those reasons were:
Cam Fentriss stated that another possible reason
might be some type of “conflict of interest”.
The Chair asked, “who has standing to
initiate an investigation?”
Cam Fentriss replied that in the 9B – 70
language, the Education Administrator will audit some courses, which could lead
to an accreditor complaint, and she also said that providers may complain.
Jim Richmond stated that a disinterested
party would be needed to conduct the actual investigation.
The Chair stated that we need to establish
due diligence regarding the validity of the complaint.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked that if we are
revoking an accreditor’s status, can we also reinstate said acceditor after a
period of time.
Jim Richmond said that an accreditor could
become re-approved after they prove that they are now in compliance.
Commissioner Tagliarini asked, “If we receive
a report that something is wrong with an accreditor, and it turns out that we
do revoke his status as an accreditor, then what is the process that will be
followed?”
Jim Richmond replied that generally:
The Chair asked about the timeframe for this
process.
Jim Richmond stated that this will take at
least 60 days, unless there is a dispute of material fact, which will make the
process longer. Also, if there is a determination of fraud, then it goes
through a DOAH hearing.
The Chair asked, “What happens to an
accreditor during this process?”
Cam Fentriss stated that at least the
Commission can hold off approving any courses that the accreditor was
accrediting.
Med Kopczynski asked if an actual course can be held hostage as a result of this process, since most of Jim’s reasons for initiating action against an accreditor are not directly tied to a course.
Jim Richmond replied that each course an accreditor is accrediting would be looked at individually, through the investigation.
The Chair stated that the provider could very well be a victim in this process.
Commissioner Bassett asked what the difference would be between something considered serious versus something not so serious, when looking at revoking an accreditor’s status.
Jim Richmond stated that the process can be stopped at any time to deal with trivial things, rather taking it to the end for all complaints.
Ila
Jones suggested that the answer to this question be part of the upcoming
Building Code Compliance and Mitigation Program contract.
Motion:
To have the Education
Administrator, working with the General Counsel, draft language that would
identify the steps needed to revoke an accreditor’s status. This process should
use the product approval process as its model. The language should be presented
at the next POC meeting.
Motion: Pete Tagliarini
2nd: Herminio Gonzalez
Approved Unanimously
4. Discuss SB 2836 language (General Counsel
comments) regarding possible changes to the current accreditation process.
The Chair asked
about the status of the final language regarding SB 2836, specifically as it
relates to the Commission approving advanced courses at their meetings.
Jim Richmond stated
that legislative staff, in their exuberance, unstruck the verbiage regarding
the Commission’s role of approving advanced courses. So the bottom line is, for
the time being, the Commission will continue to approve advanced courses after
they move through the accreditation process. He stated that their was no ill
intent on the part of the legislative staff who actually did this.
5. Discuss the status of DCA developed and
currently accredited courses (E.g., Indoor Environmental Quality) that do not
meet the 50 % rule regarding building code content.
Commissioner
Gonzalez asked, “What options do we have regarding these courses?”
The Chair stated
that one option is to do nothing with these courses, then when they come back
up at some point for re-accreditation, the 50% rule is applied and the course
becomes extinct.
Med Kopczynski stated that there are at least 7 DCA courses that probably don’t meet the 50% code content rule. He further stated that it is his strong belief, and for the public record, that these courses should not be sold by DCA anymore.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked of we could put a disclaimer with these 7 courses when they are sold, stating that they don’t meet the 50% rule. He believes that these courses should be grand fathered and have the disclaimer attached to them at point of sale.
Commissioner Bassett stated that if we put this disclaimer with a course, then the various licensing boards won’t approve the course.
Commissioner Hamrick stated that he thought as Commissioner Gonzalez, that the courses in question should be grand fathered and when they come back for re-accreditation, then the 50% rule would be used.
Cam Fentriss asked how the disclaimer should be phrased. She then suggested that it might say something like, “This course might not be approved/accredited in the future because it does not meet the 50% rule regarding the amount of code content”.
Commissioner Bassett asked if that when a course is bought, the disclaimer could say two things…that this course might need to be modified using the 2005, 2006 Supplements to the Fla. Building Code and that the amount of code content might need to be added.
Sharon Mignardi added that some current providers are upset when they purchase a DCA course and find out that they will have to update the contents.
The Chair stated that the POC has two choices to choose from:
Motion:
To continue to sell the DCA
courses with a disclaimer that states that the code content of the courses
“might need to be updated using the 2005 and 2006 Supplements to the Florida
Building Code and that the amount of code content might be insufficient to meet
the 50 % rule, so actual code content should be added to the course.”
Motion: Steve Bassett
2nd: Herminio Gonzalez
Approved Unanimously
6. Discuss and review the DCA Draft RFP
language which emanated from SB 2836.
The Chair read through the entire scope of
work and then asked for comments.
Ila Jones suggested that in Task 3, that new
verbiage should be added where it now read, “shall develop, or caused to be
developed”. Cam Fentriss agreed with Ila’s proposed change.
Jack Glenn asked that in the Purpose Section,
why aren’t all of the qualifications listed as there are in SB 2836.
Ila Jones stated that the intent was---when
reading the current language that one would refer back to SB 2836. She further
stated that she had no problem including all of the qualification language in
the Purpose Section.
Med Kopczynski stated that adding all of the qualifications in the Purpose Section, would also make more realistic the potential for a competitive bidding process for this contract.
Commissioner Bassett asked if the current Education Administrator’s duties would fall under this contract. The Chair stated that yes, the administrator’s duties would fall under the umbrella of this contract.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked what “development” in the 2nd to the last paragraph meant?
Ila Jones stated that it should read “education course development”.
Commissioner Gonzalez also asked if the upfront workshops noted in Task One would be held around the state.
The Chair stated that they would be noticed, held in various locations, and would be formally reported about.
Cam Fentriss stated that the intent of this task is not to hold a bunch of meetings, on top of Commission meetings. Rather, these meetings should be held with Commission meetings.
The Chair followed with the intent is not to form a new council.
Commissioner Bassett wanted to know who will pay for these meetings. The Chair answered by stating that the bidders of the contract will say what they will pay for and what they won’t pay for. That is part of the bid evaluation process.
Med Kopczynski asked what the term related meant regarding “3 years of related experience with building code” or “3 years of related experience with educational program development?”
The Chair responded that that question will be answered when the bids are evaluated.
Cam
Fentriss suggested that language be added stating that “any courses developed
under this contract should remain the property of the State of
Motion: To approve the scope of work as amended.
Specific amendments include:
Motion: Steve Bassett
2nd: Herminio Gonzalez
Approved Unanimously
7.
Review Pending “Accreditor” Applications for Recommendation to the Commission
(None pending)
8. Education Administrator Activity Report
The Education
Administrator reported to the POC what activities he performed between
No comments were made or offered about the
reports contents.
9. Identify future POC member discussion items.
Cam Fentriss stated
that we need more accreditors. She said that she is working with BASF to
develop some outreach information to try and convince retired or semi-retired
licensees to become accreditors.
Med Kopczynski stated that it is difficult to recruit accreditors because not many courses are currently being accredited currently, so there is no money to be made.
Cam Fentriss stated that through BASF, they are trying to figure out ways to have more advanced courses developed. Eventually, she stated that she would like to see all CE courses run through an accreditation process.
The
Chair stated that the accreditation process is an excellent model.
10. General Public Comment
There was no other general public comment
11.
Summary and Review of Meeting Work Products/Action Items, Assignments, and Next
Steps
No other assignments were given by the Chair.
Adjourn
Motion:
To adjourn (at
Motion: Steve Bassett
2nd: Herminio
Gonzalez
Approved
Unanimously
The
following course, under the ‘Accredited, Pending FBC Approval” status, were
approved by the POC.
Course: Required Advanced Code
Provider:
Accreditor: JDB Code Services, Inc.
BCIS #: 231
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: Steve Bassett
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 as submitted
Motion: Jon Hamrick
2nd: Herminio Gonzalez
Approved Unanimously
Course and # Provider Accreditor Date of Approval
Required Advanced Palm
Construction JDB Code
Code, Classroom School Services, Inc.
(# 233)
Advanced Building Tech
Knowledge BCIC LLC
Structural Summary
For 06 (#135.1)
Note: This document is available in alternate
formats upon request to the Department of Community Affairs, Codes and
Standards,