Florida Building Commission Education POC Minutes May 2006

Members Present: Dick Browdy (Chair), Jon Hamrick, Steve Bassett, Herminio Gonzalez, Pete Tagliarini

Members Absent: Steve Corn

1. Review and Approval of March 2006 Agenda

The Agenda was approved as submitted.
Motion: Herminio Gonzalez
nd : Pete Tagliarini

Approved Unanimously

2. Review and Approval of March 2006 Minutes

The minutes were approved as submitted.

Motion: Steve Bassett nd : Herminio Gonzalez

Approved Unanimously

3. Discuss thePreliminary UF/BOAF Complaint Research Survey Report

The survey report was recently received by the POC and could not be reviewed. The Chair suggested that the discussion about the report be deferred until the next meeting. It was also suggested that the report be placed online for availability. Motion: To defer the discussion of this report until the July meeting. Motion: Herminio Gonzalez nd : Steve Bassett

Approved Unanimously

4. Discuss and Review Language Changes to Chapter 9B-70 (The discussion will include suggestions regarding minimum standards for online courses, minimum standards for instructor lead courses, possible language regarding providers who teach courses that are not updated, and proposed disciplinary language regarding parts of the accreditation process).

All of the above mentioned issues were addressed in the morning scheduled Accreditation Workshop. The Chair suggested that the POC focus on the specific issues dealing with possible rule language changes.

The first issue addressed had top do with what percentage of code had to be included in the actual training materials, for those materials to be considered advanced courses which could be accredited. Some felt that 100% of the material had to be directly code related. Others raised the issue that some courses may be of interest to both the FBC and/or construction personnel, but not contain much code language or references. One question raised by accreditors within this issue was how would they measure a percentage of code, e.g., 10% of code, within the materials? A motion was made by the POC. Motion: In order for a course to be accredited, a minimum of 50% of the material must be code related. Motion: Steve Bassett nd : Pete Tagliarini

Approved Unanimously

Another issue addressed had to do with what disciplinary actions were feasible, which could be applied to accreditors who did not do their jobs correctly. The working definition of not doing their jobs correctly would be that money (fees) exchanged hands and courses were accredited, but really were not updated to current code. There was much discussion about this, which included different scenarios. The General Counsel answered questions about due process, if an accreditor was sanctioned. The Chair asked for a motion on this issue and none was forthcoming. It was felt that more research was required for this issue.

Another issue addressed had to do with courses being noticed in the POC agenda. Currently for the agenda to be completed on time, 30 days is required for course notice, except for administratively approved courses on a consent agenda. It was suggested that 30 days be reduced to 14 days, or some smaller number. Much discussion ensued, part of which was that administratively approved courses be part of the 30 day notice process. It was decided that the 30 days should continue as the timeline for course placement on the POC agenda.

Another issue addressed had to do accreditors approving other accreditors courses, who are also providers. Some felt that this should not occur at all. Some accreditors in the audience felt that this was a non-issue. It was also stated that sometimes accreditors have to approve another accreditors courses because the pool of accreditors is small and maybe an accreditor is approved in a specialized area, which forces the issue. Motion: Accreditors will not accredit courses for other accreditors who approve their courses. Motion: Jon Hamrick

2 nd : Steve Basset

Approved---One Opposed

Another issue addressed was to finalize a set of minimum criteria for instructor lead courses. The POC looked at the suggestions from the morning workshop.

•  • Course Title/Number (Advanced should be in title)

•  • Hours of credit:

•  • Provider Information (No bio)

- Name

- Address

- Phone

-Email

•  •Course description (appropriate for the course).This course is designed to…

•  • Course Pre-requisites (List and describe, if any)

•  • Course/Learning Objectives…By the end of this course, participants will be able to…

•  • Course Time (What are time allotments during course---to be used as a guide---not strict adherence)

•  • Course Outline/Instructional Methods…Detailed description of course content in sequence of how taught and methods used to teach content….Break course into content segments. Code edition developed under should be included. “Advance” must be in title

•  • Course references cited in the outline

•  • Course Evaluation…How will provider determine if content learned

Motion: Herminio Gonzalez

nd : Jon Hamrick

Approved Unanimously

Another issue addressed had to deal with the development and adoption of a set of

minimum criteria for online courses. A set of criteria were developed during the

March POC meeting. Those criteria were:

•  • Instructor information

•  • License Information

•  • Password Logon

•  • General Directions – how to navigate

•  • Interactivity with remediation (answer all or ¾ questions correctly before
continuing)

•  • Timing mechanism embedded in course to track time

•  • Narration

•  • Certificate of completion

It was stated that because more courses were being created as online courses, that criteria for development are needed. Also, the quality of the design of current courses runs from excellent to poor. Some accreditors stated that their job was to only evaluate code content, not the quality of delivery. It was stated that currently the various boards have a set of criteria they use to evaluate the quality of delivery. The POC still wants to review online courses, and will include as part of its review, a possible explanation by each accreditor as to why they approved a specific course. Did the course contain a quality delivery design? For instance, was there interactivity? The above set of criteria was not adopted.

5. Discuss the Language Contained in the Approved Motion from the March POC Meeting Regarding “Providers Making Code Changes to Courses Within 60 Days” (Discussion Will Include Minutes From the February 28 th , 2006, Educational and Outreach Council Meeting)

It was noted that the language of an approved motion at the March POC meeting was incorrect. That language was as follows:

Providers have up to 60 days to submit updated courses, based on any code change in the future, under the timeline of 60 days from the date of implementation of the code change.

During the ensuing discussion, it was suggested that the POC adopt the language that was passed by the Building Code Education and Outreach Council at their February meeting. That language was as follows:

Providers shall have 60 days to update existing advanced code courses that are affected by code changes to accommodate those changes from the date of their approval. Code updated courses shall be submitted for re-accreditation within that 60 day period but may continue to be offered during the interim.

2ndMotion: Steve Bassett nd : Jon Hamrick

Approved Unanimously

6. Discuss the Status of FBC Courses Developed Using the 2001 and 2004 Building Codes (December 2005 Updates and November 2006 Updates)

It was stated that more updates will be required soon for courses that were recently updated. Will the accreditation process change because of these back-to-back updates? The Chair stated that as of right now, all courses affected by code changes must be updated using the current accreditation process.

7. Discuss and Review the Memo to be Sent to All Training Providers Telling Them When They Will Assume Sole Responsibility For Course Development

It was stated that the commission wants to get out of the development and sale of training courses. The idea is for training providers to create and deliver their respective courses. The date was not finalized as to when this action begins.

Commission

(None Pending)

9. Summary and Review of Meeting Work Products/Action Items, Assignments, and

Next Steps

The Chair stated that a workshop was held this morning, which could lead to rule

language changes. Prior to formal adjournment, a participant showed the POC some

slides of an Advanced Termite Course, to show an example of base code changes vs.

supplement updates.

Adjournment Motion: Jon Hamrick

2nd : Steve Bassett

Approved Unanimously

Recommended Commission Actions

Approve FBC Developed Advanced Course FBC Advanced Training-The Interior Environment Provider: DCA/FBC Accreditor: JDB Code Services Motion: Jon Hamrick – Approval of course contingent on resubmission of correct course information

2 nd : Steve Bassett

Approved Unanimously

Approve FBC Developed Advanced Course FBC Advanced: Residential Swimming Pools Provider: DCA/FBC Accreditor: BCIC LLC Motion: Jon Hamrick 2 nd : Steve Bassett

Approved Unanimously

Approve FBC Developed Advanced Course FBC Advanced: Residential Roofing - Shingles Provider: DCA/FBC Accreditor: JDB Code Services Motion: Steve Bassett 2 nd : Jon Hamrick

Approved Unanimously

Approve Pending Accredited Course Building Structural Provider: The Media Factory Accreditor: BCIC LLC Motion: Jon Hamrick 2 nd : Steve Bassett

Approved Unanimously

Approve Pending Accredited Course Building Structural Provider: Construction Estimating Institute Accreditor: BCIC LLC Motion: Jon Hamrick 2 nd : Steve Bassett

Approved Unanimously

Approve Pending Accredited Course Advanced Building Code Provider: Broward County Public Schools Industry Services Accreditor: Tannenbaum Construction Motion: Jon Hamrick 2 nd : Steve Bassett

Approved Unanimously

Approve Pending Accredited Course Advanced Termite Provider: Contractors School Accreditor: BCIC LLC Motion: Jon Hamrick 2 nd : Steve Bassett

Approved Unanimously

Approve Pending Accredited Course FRSA/TRI Concrete and Clay Roof Tile Installation Provider: FRSA-Fla. Rfg Sheet Metal, Air Cond Contractor Association Accreditor: JDB Code Services, Inc. Motion: Jon Hamrick 2 nd : Steve Bassett

Approved Unanimously

Approve Pending Accredited Course Advanced 2004 FBC /updates Provider: Zara & Associates, Inc. Accreditor: Bill Dumbaugh Motion: Jon Hamrick 2 nd : Steve Bassett

Approved Unanimously

Approve Pending Accredited Course Advanced Florida Building Code Provider: Construction Services Enterprise, Inc. Accreditor: BCIC LLC Motion: Jon Hamrick 2 nd : Steve Bassett

Approved Unanimously

2Approve FBC Developed Course Recommended by Product Approval POC Product Approval – 2 hour course Motion: Defer approval to next meeting-contingent on course moving through normal accreditation process Motion: Jon Hamrick nd : Steve Bassett

Approved Unanimously

Approve FBC Developed Course Recommended by Product Approval POC Existing Building – 2 hour course

Course was withdrawn

Updated Course Approvals

The courses listed below have been updated with the 2005 Code Supplement. The chair listed all of the courses and asked for a Consent Agenda approval for all of the courses. It was stated that the first four courses on the list were approved at the last POC meeting. Those courses were deleted from the list below. Motion: Jon Hamrick Approve the Following Fact Sheets

  1. DBPR Complaints

  2. Home Inspections

  3. General Information on Certifications

  4. Use of Licensed Design & Construction Professionals

  5. Moisture Prevention

  6. Water Heaters Motion: Jon Hamrick 2 nd : Steve Bassett

Approved Unanimously