JOINT TASK FORCE AREAS OF PRACTICE JTFAP

1
JOINT TASK FORCEAREAS OF PRACTICE (JTFAP)

• Background
• Summary of Comments
• Discussion
• Direction from BOD

2
Charter Statement

• Evaluate possibility practicality of developing
  a statement on the areas of practice for
  geologists and civil engineers
• Define group's contributions to the health,
  safety, and welfare of the public
• Make recommendation about practicality of
  proceeding to develop document in which areas of
  practice are spelled out
• Develop the practice area document as appropriate

3
Background

• Members (AEG, ASCE G-I, AIPG - 3 each)
• Key Milestones
• Began JTFAP 2004
• 1st Draft to EC July 2008
• 2nd Draft to BOD Sept 2008
• 3rd Draft to AEG Members Feb 2009
• Close for Comments extended to June 2009

4
JTFAP Communication Issues

• AEG reps maintained throughout process that AEG
  membership would get opportunity to comment prior
  to final document publication per AEG BOD
• AIPG and ASCE G-I indicated same plan for their
  members then changed in Jan 2009
• AIPG/G-I ready to publish as is agreed to delay
  to facilitate AEG membership review

5
AEG Communication

• JTFAP members made regular reports to EC and BOD
  at each EC/BOD meeting
• Three articles re JTFAP in AEG News
• February 20, 2008 e-mail re draft document
  available for review
• Made available as soon as practicable after
  received from the JTFAP
• February 26, 2008 e-mail re FAQ

6
AEG Communication

• Comment deadline set in order to get comments in
  time to compile and summarize for this BOD
  meeting
• Comment submittal process intended to facilitate
  comment compilation and review
• Not intended to limit, hinder or suppress
  comments
• Deadline extended to June 15 as soon as ASCE G-I
  formally changed plan to send to their members
  and set their comment deadline

7
Response

• 90 members and 10 non-members that responded via
  website, letter or e-mail
• 3.4 of membership
• 84 of responders from CA, OR, and WA
• Formal letters from WA, OR and CA geology
  licensing boards

8
Top 10 Comments Received(in no particular order)

• Matrix various comments
• Too limiting for EGs relative to GEs with respect
  to WA, CA, OR practice, particularly mathematical
  analysis and design
• Too limiting to PGs relative to EGs, particularly
  in states w/o EG license
• Box format will be misinterpreted as strict
  limitations rather than documenting overlap
• Will be copied and used without context of rest
  of document
• Use shaded or overlapping bars to reflect overlap
• Dont include any type of matrix

9
Top 12 Comments Received

• Bodies of Knowledge
• Formats inconsistent
• EG should be more like GE and use WA, CA, OR
  board info to be more complete
• PG too basic and generic needs more detail and
  doesnt reflect overlap with EG, especially in
  states without EG license
• Doesnt reflect full breadth of EG design
  practice

10
Top 12 Comments Received

• Overlap between EG and GE exists to varying
  degrees based on individual experience, training,
  regional practice, and state licensing
  regulations
• Needs to emphasize role of licensing boards for
  states with EG and/or PG licensing
• Needs to clarify practice and how document
  applies in states w/o geologist licensing
• Inconsistent and conflicting statements on
  intent and use of the document, lack of
  disclaimer

11
Top 12 Comments Received

• Practice defined by licensing regulations (where
  applicable) and personal experience, schooling,
  training, and ethics
• - AEG shouldnt be defining practice
• - AEG should be defining practice
• Document quality and readability multiple
  authors apparent

12
Top 12 Comments Received

• Potential legal and regulatory misuse of the
  document
• Exclusion of other geology specialty practices
  and geological engineering
• Is document a Knowledge guideline rather than
  Practice guideline consider renaming
  appropriately
• Delete any reference to prior CA geology and
  engineering board list of practices

13
How We Proceed

• Establish Ad-hoc Committee
• Minimum of 3 from west coast, minimum of 2 mid-US
  or eastern-US, plus 2 JTFAP Committee members
• Minimum of 5 should be former or current AEG BOD
  members
• Strive to include at least one AEG Licensure
  Committee Member
• Strive to include at least one current or former
  State Licensure Board Member
• 7-10 members

14
Committee Charge

• to review member comments
• consult with Mark Molinari after he obtains
  feedback from AIPG and Geo-Institute (after June
  15 deadline) regarding how they intend to proceed
  and invite to forum if appropriate
• make recommendations for action and direction of
  the document
• present to the membership one month before the
  Annual Meeting
• have a discussion forum at the 2009 Annual
  Meeting assuming the document goes forward with
  the other groups
• consult with CA, OR, WA and other licensure
  boards