I am opposed to the proposal in the Governor?EUR??,,????'?????<I believe the proposal is unwise because it does not produce any General Fund Savings, is potentially harmful to consumers and does not meet your goals of increasing efficiency and eliminating duplication.

Proposal would not save California money. Your proposal to eliminate the LATC consisting of five members and transfer its role to the CAB does not accomplish the desired goal of producing General Fund savings. The LATC is funded from fees collected from licensees. LATC has no General Fund expenditures and produces no State General Fund savings and thus elimination of the LATC would not produce State General Fund savings.

Proposal will harm consumers. The LATC under CAB has the sole purpose of overseeing the competency of landscape architects. Landscape architects are highly trained professionals who often work in public areas of great sensitivity, parks, hillsides, storm water. The profession is broad and diverse in scale and scope. It encompasses the analysis, planning, design, management, and stewardship of natural and built environments through science and design. Landscape Architect?EUR??,,????'?????<

Proposal will affect students within California studying Landscape Architecture. Presently the LATC certifies the UC Extension Landscape Architecture Programs which qualifies these students to sit for the license exam and to receive reciprocity with other states. These students investment of time and money in education is substantial, and this action will affect these students?EUR??,,????'?????<

As professionals, we have made a choice and know that landscape architecture and architecture are two distinct professions. It is critical that landscape architects are represented in the regulatory process to ensure competency and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the state?EUR??,,????'?????<

Proposal would not improve efficiency. The LATC is, in fact, already consolidated under the CAB. Licensure fees go to support a minimal staff of 4.6, which conducts licensure exams, issues licenses, responds to consumer complaints and responds to requests of the Legislature. Landscape architect licensure fees also currently pay for a portion of the CAB operations. Unlike other boards that are not consolidated, the CAB would have to retain the same level of staffing and assume additional duties and functions that are currently maintained by the LATC.

The duties performed by the LATC are of an essential nature to ensure competency and to protect the public from acts by unlicensed individuals who have not demonstrated competency in the field. CAB would need to create a structure or advisory group to provide guidance on landscape architects licensure and other issues in order to ensure their own competency in this area. It already has an efficient system to do this: the LATC.

The LATC as it currently operates within the CAB is already a model of efficiency. The current structure has been viewed as a model by the Joint Sunset Review Committee to be seriously considered for other professions if the Legislature determines to adopt fewer regulatory structures and consolidate.

Your proposal does not advocate consolidation, efficiency or a multidisciplinary board but elimination of the LATC and its function!

I strongly oppose this proposal to remove the LATC and oppose appointing another professional board to oversee and regulate landscape architecture and ask you to remove this proposal.

Respectfully,

Your Name
Your Firm Name

Cc: Assembly member (your Assembly member?EUR??,,????'?????< Senator (your Senator?EUR??,,????'?????< CCASLA

January 19, 2009

Honorable (Your Assembly Member Name)
California State Legislature
State Capitol (insert Room number for Your Assembly Member)
Sacramento CA 95814

Dear Assembly member Last Name :