Part I: Ohio Seeks To Upgrade Its Title Act For LA's It was the last battle of beloved professor of Landscape Architecture Jot Carpenter. Bringing Ohio's Landscape Architects into the new millennium with a Practice Act appropriate to their skills would have been the fruition of a long held dream that once and for all would have sealed the rank and status of the profession. Carpenter literally gave his final breath while arguing the case for the Ohio Practice Act before a committee of the Ohio Legislature. Sadly, the effort to pass the Practice Act has languished while the ASLA and the OSPE have retreated to their neutral corners. "There is a significant contingent (of civil engineers) who believe that the profession (of Landscape Architecture) does not warrant a practice act," said Tim Schaffer, Executive Director of Ohio Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE). "As far as we are concerned it's a public debate over what is and what isn't good public policy. Do Ohioans want people making hydraulic and hydrologic calculations who have never taken advanced calculus or courses in those subjects? We don't think so." Schaffer says he has been trying to find some middle ground language in the proposed bill that will satisfy the engineers while protecting the public interest. However, he said he has been unhappy with the lack of communication by ASLA. Schaffer claims that the OSPE was not informed of initial hearings on the practice act, which made him suspicious about the content of the proposed legislation. "OSPE was never notified of Senate Bill 156's first hearing despite having submitted a letter of opposition a few months earlier. And we had only a day or two notice on the second hearing," said Schaffer. "I think most people in Columbus know that if you want to pass a controversial bill, you are best served to get consensus on it well ahead of time and work the disagreement our early. Don't wait until the Senate wants to go home. That's what we thought we had done in 1999 when Ms. Fox and two of her associates agreed at the end of our second meeting to go back to the original definition of 'landscape architecture' in Ohio law and take a different approach to their changes." In response, Kathleen Fox, FASLA and Vice President Emeritus of the ASLA, stated that the OSPE as well as the consulting engineers were provided courtesy copies of the bill three months in advance of its introduction and were notified of the hearings in advance through the public notice process of the Ohio Senate. "Mr. Schaffer is a professional lobbyist registered with the state of Ohio. He knows that all hearings are scheduled late in the week, immediately prior to the week that the hearings will be held," said Fox In addition, Fox says that the ASLA also requested meetings with the various engineering groups. "Unfortunately, there didn't seem to be a lot of interest until the bill was introduced," said Fox. And as for the claim that the ASLA agreed to go back to the original definition of Landscape Architecture? "A figment of his imagination," said Fox. "We agreed to go back to our organization and discuss whether the current Ohio definition would be adequate. We determined that it would not be sufficient." "We learned that one of our member's plans, which included a park roadway, was rejected for local permits because it contained an LA's seal instead of an engineer's seal. There were also situations where grading and drainage site plans were rejected for the same reason. Based on this and a number of other examples we determined that the current definition was not clear enough to ensure that licensees could do the work they were educated, experienced, and tested to perform." Fox goes on to say that the OSPE did not answer repeated correspondence and that the OSPE's objection to the substitute bill in May came as a complete surprise because there had been no specific comments from OSPE during the negotiating meeting when they had an opportunity to air their concerns. In addition, the Consulting Engineers Council of Ohio had signed off on the substitute bill while the OSPE had failed to respond to letters outlining the progress of the negotiation, giving them the impression that no objections were forthcoming... Part II of this article will be continued in the July Aquascapes Issue of Landscape Architect And Specifier News