Florida
Building Commission
October
Education POC Meeting Minutes - Draft
Telephone
Conference Call Number 1-888-808-6959, Access Code: 1967168
In Person Attendance: Room 250L, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee,
Florida
October 5, 2010
POC Members Present: Dick Browdy (Chair), Jon Hamrick, Jeff Stone, Scott Mollan
POC Member(s) Absent: Ken Gregory, Drew Smith, Herminio Gonzalez
Meeting
Attendees Identified:
Cam Fentriss Michael Clark
Med Kopczynski Jim Richmond
Ila Jones Mo Madani
Sharon Mignardi
Meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. ET, October
5, 2010
1. Review
and approval of the October 2010 Agenda
Motion: To approve as submitted
Motion: Jon Hamrick
Second: Scott Mollan
Approved
Unanimously
2. Review
and approval of August 2010 Minutes
Motion: To approve as submitted
Motion: Jon Hamrick
Second: Scott Mollan
Approved
Unanimously
3. Review
pending advanced accredited courses for recommendation to the Commission
Course: Advanced Wind Requirements for Residential Construction - Online
Provider: Infinity LC
Accreditor: BCIC LLC
BCIS Course Number: 444.0
Motion: Course approved based on the FBC accreditation process that only verifies the accuracy of the Florida Building Code related content.
Motion: Jon Hamrick
Second: Scott Mollan
Approved Unanimously
4. Review
administratively approved updated advanced courses for recommendation to
Commission
The Chair asked for a Consent Motion for the
administratively approved course listed below.
Course: Advanced Code: Building Structural
(Internet)
Provider: Nodorah Training Institute
Accreditor:
JC Code and
Construction Consultants, Inc.
BCIS
Course Number: 194.1
Consent Motion: Course approved based on the FBC accreditation process that only verifies the accuracy of the Florida Building Code related content.
Motion: Scott Mollan
Second: Jon Hamrick
Approved Unanimously
5. Review
pending accreditor applications for recommendation to the Commission
(None
pending)
6. Discuss and decide on the process of
developing, posting, and implementing an online comment/evaluation form to be
completed by participants after attending a Florida Building Commission
approved/accredited course
The Chair asked if
the current rule 9B-70.002 language would have to be modified if such a form
were developed by the FBC.
Jim Richmond
stated that if we develop a form and require usage, then it must be described
and adopted by rule.
The Chair
then asked if most providers use an evaluation form of some sort? He further
asked if we (the FBC) could actually review providers course evaluation
results, as collected from their completed evaluation forms.
Med
Kopczynski stated that as an accreditor, he is starting to ask providers to
submit an evaluation form as part of the training course materials being
reviewed (by him) for accreditation.
Sharon
Mignardi stated that according to the current 9B-70 language, a provider does
not have to provide an actual evaluation form as part of the course materials
being considered for accreditation. Rather, they are only required to state how
they will evaluate the course. Sharon also stated that the DBPR boards do not
require the submittal of an evaluation form as part of a typical course
application.
The Chair
asked how aggressive can we be regarding this issue without changing the
current rule language. He further stated that his major interest is to
determine how effective our current process is regarding course accreditation
and ultimately course effectiveness because the current course audit process is
very limited.
Jim Richmond
stated that we can ask providers for anything (such as to review their
completed evaluation forms), but we can’t mandate, force, or impose a penalty
for non-compliance unless it is stated in rule.
Cam Fentriss
stated that she felt that most providers would be fine with giving the POC
their evaluation forms as samples to review.
The Chair
asked if it were ok to review samples of provider evaluation forms that were
actually filled out by participants after attending an actual course.
Med
Kopczynski stated that in his experience, most evaluation forms do not ask for
much information regarding the quality of the content or how much of the
content was actually learned.
Commissioner
Hamrick stated that the evaluations he was familiar with did ask about the
quality of the content, the effectiveness of the instructor/instruction, the
physical facility, the materials used, etc.
Cam Fentriss
and Michael Clark both reinforced what Commissioner Hamrick said, stating that
evaluation forms they were familiar with did ask for information regarding all
aspects of a training session, including the quality of the content.
The Chair
asked if we could ask providers to submit to the POC samples of the evaluation
forms they use (providers) to evaluate their courses.
Commissioner
Mollan stated that he thought this would be a good idea to determine how
helpful providers might be regarding this issue.
Cam Fentriss
stated that we could send an email to providers to ask if they would submit
some sample evaluation forms for the POC to review.
The Chair
agreed and asked Cam if she would ask providers for sample forms to review.
Michael Clark
stated that there exists a way to post a course evaluation form on the internet,
collect and analyze inputted information on the form, report that information
to the POC, and archive that information---for no cost to the Commission.
Commissioner
Hamrick stated that he would be happy to provide some sample forms to the POC.
Med Kopczynski
asked if it is now part of an accreditor’s job to collect completed evaluation
forms from providers. He also stated that some providers do not use evaluation
forms but instead use tests to evaluate a course’s effectiveness.
The Chair
responded to Med K. stating that at this time it is not part of an accreditor’s
job to collect completed evaluation forms.
No further
action was required.
7. Review and discuss the scope of an
accreditor’s review of training course materials, contained in rule
9B-70.002(4), Florida Administrative Code
The Chair
asked if everyone reviewed the relevant rule language regarding the scope of an
accreditor’s review of training course materials. The Chair then stated that in
light of the previous discussion regarding course evaluations, he felt that
accreditors should ask for all materials related to a specific training course,
including any evaluative type materials such as tests, quizzes, or evaluation
forms.
Commissioner
Hamrick stated that he agrees with the Chair regarding this issue.
The Chair
asked Cam Fentriss to send a reminder message to all providers and accreditors
to both encourage and remind providers when sending training materials for
review, to send all materials related to the course---including tests, quizzes,
and evaluation forms.
No
further action was required.
8. Review
and discuss the deletion of the rule language related to the Building Code Core
Education requirement, contained in rule 9B-70.001, Florida Administrative Code
The Chair
asked if there was any discussion regarding the repeal of 9B-70.001.
No comments
were offered by anyone.
Jim Richmond
stated that a motion to repeal the language was needed for the full Commission
to vote on. The Chair provided that motion.
Motion: To repeal the language related to the Building Code Core Education Requirement, contained in Rule 9B-70.001, Florida Administrative Code
Motion: Jon Hamrick
Second: Scott Mollan
Approved
Unanimously
9. Education Administrator activity report
The Education
Administrator’s report is as follows:
A. Provided administrative support for FBC Education POC August 4,
2010 meeting
B. Drafted minutes for FBC Education POC August 4, 2010 meeting
C. Prepared agenda for FBC Education POC meeting on October 5,
2010
D.
Inquiries from the public July 29, 2010 to September 23, 2010 as follows:
10 inquiries: 1 telephone and email; 4 telephone only; 5 email
only
Category
of inquirers:
3 Architect 6 Provider 1 Consumer
Types of
Inquiries:
1 Core 3 Advanced Core 5 Course Accreditation
1 Construction Lien Law
E. Potential BCIS Projects Report
Based on the prioritization by the Education POC Members and
technical needs, here are the things that will be done under the current
contract allocation ($11,250):
- Add effective date to the self-affirmation form (technical)
- System display of a course survey/evaluation/comment form (see
item F below)
- System display of training components on course development
(download)
- Posting of tutorials at various points of course application
- Automatic e-mail to provider and staff when no action by accreditor
(technical)
- Ability for staff to archive courses or course applications no
longer active
- Revision of names for course status categories
- Add feature to allow any person to obtain a list of courses in
Excel format (download)
F. For cost reasons, recommend the survey/evaluation/comment
mechanism be handled by education administrator through the use of Survey
Monkey (or similar), rather than develop this function as part of BCIS. This
saves money and avoids specific continuing expense.
Discussion
The Chair
asked if we currently collect information on how many take an accredited
course, which he felt was important because of the POC’s oversight function.
Cam
Fentriss stated that currently we do not formally collect any type of course completion
information.
The Chair
stated that he thought that we should know at a minimum (and report to the
Commission) how many accredited courses are taken over a specific period of
time, and how many participants attend those courses. The Chair further stated
that we know how many active accreditors we have, but don’t know the ultimate
impact of the accreditation process.
Cam
Fentriss stated that we should be able to retrieve some of this information
from DBPR.
Sharon
Mignardi suggested that we could approximate the number of attendees by looking
up how many contractors had their licenses renewed over a period of time
because they had to take at least one advanced course.
The Chair
stated that those same contractors could take other elective courses, which
would skew the number.
Cam
Fentriss suggested that she could obtain this information by working with the
Bureau of Testing at DBPR, and asking for the number of attendees by a specific
course number.
The Chair
agreed and asked Cam to pursue this information.
No further
action was required.
10.
Identify future POC member discussion items
No items were
identified.
11.
General public comment
No public
comments were offered.
12.
Summary and review of meeting work products/action items, assignments, and next
steps
The Chair issued no additional assignments.
Adjourn (Adjourned at 10:42 am.)
Motion: To adjourn
Motion: Scott Mollan
Second: Jon Hamrick
Approved Unanimously
The Education POC considered and recommends the
following:
The following new course is recommended for approval:
Course: Advanced Wind Requirements for Residential Construction - Online
Provider: Infinity LC
Accreditor: BCIC LLC
BCIS Course Number: 444.0
Motion: Course approved based on the FBC accreditation process that only verifies the accuracy of the Florida Building Code related content.
Motion: Jon Hamrick
Second: Scott Mollan
Approved Unanimously
The following course is
recommended for administrative approval:
Course: Advanced Code: Building Structural
(Internet)
Provider: Nodorah Training Institute
Accreditor:
JC Code and
Construction Consultants, Inc.
BCIS
Course Number: 194.1
Consent Motion: Course approved based on the FBC accreditation process that only verifies the accuracy of the Florida Building Code related content.
Motion: Scott Mollan
Second: Jon Hamrick
Approved Unanimously
Other
Actions
Motion
Related to Agenda Item Number 8
Motion: To repeal the language related to the Building Code Core Education Requirement, contained in Rule 9B-70.001, Florida Administrative Code
Motion: Jon Hamrick
Second: Scott Mollan
Approved
Unanimously
Note: This
document is available in alternate formats upon request to the Department of
Community Affairs, Codes and Standards, 255 Shumard Oak Blvd., Tallahassee, Fl.
32399, (850) 487-1824.