Part II: Ohio Seeks To Upgrade Its Title Act For LA's (continued from June issue) In the last installment, a discussion of the respective merits of Ohio's practice act were debated in an exchange between Kathleen Fox, FASLA, and Tim Schaffer, Executive Director of the Ohio Society of Professional Engineers. Schaffer's response, in the following, is a reaction to Fox's claim that the OSPE's objection to the Ohio Chapter's substitute bill was a complete surprise. "I don't know why Ms. Fox is surprised," stated Schaffer. "OSPE is not the only group that has a problem with the way the issue has been handled. When OSPE, ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers), ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) and PLSO (Professional Land Surveyors of Ohio) all raised objections to a substitute bill in May, it's because none of us had been asked to sign off on it. While OSPE and PLSO hade agreed that the consulting engineers and ASLA's Lobbyist would 'work on language,' it was with the understanding that all concerned engineering groups would have a say in what our final offer would look like. Otherwise, ASLA would be dealing with engineering organizations on several fronts." "When we first knew the consulting engineers put an offer on the table to ASLA, it took us by surprise but we defended their right to do it. However, we never gave them authority to speak for us. I then immediately called ASLA's lobbyist and the consulting engineers' lobbyist to tell them my board needed reasonable time to look at the language and would most likely still have changes it wanted to make. I then faxed a letter to the bill sponsor that OSPE would have an emergency meeting in Cincinnati at our Annual Convention to discuss the substitute bill." "That same day, I received notice that the subcommittee would most likely vote the bill out the following Tuesday with no testimony allowed on the substitute bill. What we were not told was that 15 minutes after that, the full Senate Insurance, Commerce & Labor Committee had the substitute bill on its agenda for a vote with no debate! The substitute bill could then have gone to the full Senate and been voted out over to the House without debate!" "OSPE's leadership at the Annual Convention said, in essence, 'We've had enough. Oppose the bill." Fox responds by saying that the bill was not put up for a full vote in committee but instead, they decided that the bill would be considered over the summer legislative recess. Apart from the scheduling issue, Schaffer harbors serious concerns over whether the legislation satisfies the definition of being a "health, safety, and welfare issue". He also has problems with the scope of the new legislation. "We're looking at words that imply design," said Schaffer whose legal experts are concerned with the use of the word "planning", which might be construed as "design". They worry that the language might open up a loophole that would permit LAs to infringe on other fields such as civil engineering, environmental engineering, or architecture. At one point, Schaffer's irritation with the LA's proposal was barely concealed. "If they want to do civil engineering, why don't they get a civil engineering degree?" objected Schaffer. The disparity in the core curriculum between LA's and engineers has been one of the more contentious issues in the debate over the license upgrade. Engineers who have taken intensive coursework in math, physics, and hydrology don't recognize the validity, in many cases, of the LAs' formal training. Kathleen Fox is concerned that the attempt to compare academic training doesn't do LA's justice. She likens the comparison to someone asking a doctor of osteopathy why they don't get a medical degree. "It's a different philosophy of education," she insists. "I believe there is a fundamental lack of understanding of the training and education of LAs," said Fox. She explained that where the education of engineers is primarily theory-laden, the lecture and studio coursework of LA's is applied to designing projects. "Engineers rarely do projects that involve site design during their formal education," commented Fox. Despite what appear to be some significant differences both sides are making an effort to find common ground. Fox was optimistic about the prospects for this Fall's legislative session. "The intention of the Landscape Architects in Ohio remains as it has always been, to try to reach a reasonable consensus on this bill. We are working this summer towards trying to understand the OSPE's remaining concerns and are hopeful of a positive outcome." LASN