OREGON STATE BOARD OF GEOLOGIST EXAMINERS

MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 2020

Members Present Cindy Bartlett, RG, Chair Ericka Koss, RG/CEG, PE, Vice Chair Megan Schettler, RG Adam Reese, RG/CEG Paul Edison-Lahm, Public Member Brad Avy, RG/CEG, State Geologist*

Staff Present Christine Valentine, Administrator

Others Present** Scott Burns, PhD, RG/CEG Kyle Martin, AAG, DOJ

*Ex Officio member, did not vote on motions. ** Participation as noted in minutes. GIT=Geologist in Training, RG=Registered Geologist, CEG = Certified Engineering Geologist, ASBOG=National Association of State Boards of Geology

The Board conducted this meeting as a virtual meeting due to restrictions on in-person meetings in place during the 2020 COVID-19 public health emergency.

Meeting Opened Chair Bartlett called the meeting to order at 9:01 AM. All Board members were present virtually along with Administrator Valentine. Chair Bartlett welcomed Reese to his first meeting as a Board member. Reese introduced himself, providing a summary of his education and work background. Burns also joined the meeting during this time.

Agenda Review The Board reviewed the agenda. Chair Bartlett asked Valentine if any guests were expected. Valentine said she expected Board counsel Martin to join the meeting in the PM.

Chair Bartlett asked if there were comments or questions on or requested changes to the agenda. There were none offered.

Vice Chair Koss moved to approve the agenda as presented. Schettler seconded the motion. Hearing no discussion, Chair Bartlett called the vote, and all approved.

Public Comment Valentine informed the Board that the public was invited to submit written public comment prior to the meeting. The Board received two registrant inquiries regarding potential compliance matters, which were scheduled for discussion under the Compliance Report. No other public comments were submitted for Board consideration prior to the meeting. Valentine noted for the record that no one had joined the virtual meeting to provide public comment.

OSBGE Meeting Minutes, 12/11/2020 Page 1 Minutes Chair Bartlett opened the review of the public session minutes from the 09/28/2020 meeting. No revisions were requested.

Edison-Lahm moved to approve the public session minutes for the 09/28/2020 meeting as presented. Vice Chair Koss seconded the motion. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Bartlett called the vote, and all approved.

Consent Agenda Valentine presented the consent agenda for Board review. She addressed the intent of the consent agenda for the benefit of new Board member Reese. The Board then reviewed the consent agenda items and did not have questions about any specific items. For the record, the consent agenda included examination and application approvals from 09/12/2020 – 11/15/2020, debits from 09/23/2020 – 11/09/2020, and checks #4739 to #4775.

Edison-Lahm moved to approve the consent agenda. Schettler seconded the motion. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Bartlett called the vote, and all approved.

Administrator Report Valentine addressed the following topics from the written report:

 COVID-19/Operations Update: Staff continue to be well and able to keep Board operations running more or less normally. The office remained closed to the public. Staff are teleworking as feasible and otherwise complying with face covering requirements per guidance issued by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) and Oregon Department of Administrative Services (DAS). Valentine recently completed the assessments and related work required under new rules from OR OSHA applicable to all Oregon workplaces. Staff planned to complete the training required under the OSHA rules later in the month via the State of Oregon iLearn system.

 Board Membership: The Governor’s Office announced on 12/03/2020 the appointment of Reese to the position vacated by Burns. Burns completed his second term as of early December.

Trainings: All Board members except Reese had completed the two annual trainings no later than Dec. 2020. Reese was not expected to have access to the iLearn training system prior to the end of 2020. Valentine had not heard yet whether there would be mandatory trainings for 2021.

 Automobile Insurance Policy: Under the Board’s new auto insurance coverage policy, each Board member needs to decide if opting in or out of this insurance coverage. This is done by signing a statement indicating if coverage is requested. For those requesting coverage, Valentine needed to collect required documents. Then there would be an annual review when Board members could again decide whether to opt in or out.

 Database Contractor - Contract Amendments: Valentine updated the Board on work to negotiate contract amendments to facilitate a change to a cloud hosted server. She continued to work through the DAS approval process and was making progress. However, she was not able to get the final DAS approval in time to present the contract amendments to the Board at this meeting. As a reminder, the contract amendments will also include provisions to make the contract extendable through mutual agreement beyond the 06/30/2021 end of the biennium. Valentine anticipated calling a special meeting of the Board to approve the contract amendments sometime in early 2021. This will be necessary to allow an expeditious implementation of the server management change. OSBGE Meeting Minutes, 12/11/2020 Page 2  ASBOG/EG Exam Administration Update: ASBOG exam results for the 10/02/2020 administration arrived in late Nov. The Board had 20 pass and 10 fail the ASBOG Fundamentals of Geology section and 12 pass and 2 fail the ASBOG Practice of Geology section. The Board had 1 pass and 1 fail the state engineering geology exam. As for the 03/19/2021 administration, the number of applications received was trending low at the end of Nov. compared to what the Board had been seeing for the last several years. However, applications picked up in early December, with the Board receiving 23 new applications for the Fundamentals of Geology section, 8 new applications for the Practice of Geology section by the 12/09/2020 application deadline. The Board had so far also received 2 applications for retakes, where the deadline is 01/04/2020. The Board had yet received any applications for the engineering geology exam, also with a 01/04/2020 deadline. The Board also has 12 candidates for the Fundamentals of Geology section and 7 for the Practice of Geology section who were approved for previous administrations but asked to forward to the 03/19/2021 administration. Staff are working to secure a location to hold the administration.

Vice Chair Koss asked how the passing rate compared with the national average. Valentine said she had not looked at that for this administration but could get that information after the meeting. Burns noted that Oregon usually has a passing rate higher than the national average. Valentine said that was correct, a testament to the training candidates receive at Oregon academic institutions. Burns said the passing rate for the last administration seemed a bit lower than usual. Valentine suggested that stresses related to the COVID-19 pandemic could have impacted some candidates.

Valentine reminded the Board about how Board rule allows for exam candidates to request proctored reviews if receiving a failing grade on an exam. This is allowed for the national exam (“ASBOG”) or the state engineering geology exam. Exam results for the Oct. 2020 administration were recently issued to candidates, and just recently OSBGE received several requests for proctored reviews. ASBOG will only provide materials for a state board proctored review if the reviews will be conducted in person. ASBOG takes this stance due to concerns about security of exam content. OSBGE has the sole authority over how to conduct a proctored review for the engineering geology exam, but the same security issue exists. Valentine was concerned about how to safely hold proctored reviews given the current state of COVID-19 spread and restrictions in place. The Board would need to adopt similar protocols as used for the Oct. 2020 exam administration, conduct reviews for 1 candidate at a time, and use a space where the candidate and proctor could see each other without being in the same enclosed space. These reviews may also need to be delayed depending on the COVID-19 situation. Reese offered to assist staff with the proctored reviews and would consult with Valentine outside of the meeting on the details of his assistance.

 Other ASBOG Updates: Valentine referred Board members to the narrative report for updates from the ASBOG annual meeting. There was some discussion about the ASBOG plans to proceed with the conversion to computer-based testing (CBT). Valentine noted that this was one of the last national licensure exams to be converted to CBT. Based on input from candidates, she expected many would be happy with this change in exam format. Schettler asked if state boards or candidates would be given a choice about the exam format. Valentine expected not, as ASBOG would likely not have the resources to offer the exam in multiple formats.

 Funds Management Update: Per direction given at the 09/28/2020 quarterly meeting, a new certificate of deposit (CD) in the amount of $25,000 was secured. Valentine suggested the Board hold off on further transfer of funds into CDs given the budget picture for 2021-2023.

OSBGE Meeting Minutes, 12/11/2020 Page 3  Quarterly or Annual Budget/Investments Update: Valentine said staff had not seen any major budget surprises so far in the second fiscal year (FY) of the biennium. The Board continues to see a slow but steady decline in registrations from FY to FY, mostly with respect to renewals by RGs < 70 years of age. This decline means reduced revenues while expenses, although under budget projections, continue to climb FY to FY. The result is that the Board’s total assets for the current FY (07/01/2020 – 11/15/2020) are lower than for the same period one year prior (07/01/2019 – 11/15/2019). There is no clear evidence to indicate that the decline in renewals is related to the COVID-19 pandemic, especially since this trend started several FYs before the pandemic. The same could be said for the potential impact of adding continuing education requirements, again since the downward trend started several years before these requirements go into effect in 2021. However, staff thought the decline compared to one year prior in new registrations was likely tied to the pandemic, including having to cancel exam administration in spring 2020.

Staff continue to track renewals closely to monitor for possible impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic. So far, staff has not seen a significant change in renewals that can be clearly tied to pandemic impacts. Staff also has continued with the end of month extra reminders to registrants that have not renewed and are about to have lapsed registrations. This reminders seem to be appreciated by most receiving them. With this extra reminder, registrants are contacted a total of four times about their renewals. As mentioned in the budget report, the Board continues to see a slow but steady decline in total registrants, with most of the loss in RGs <70 years of age.

Vice Chair Koss asked about the renewal statistics for November 2020. Valentine pulled this data and reported that only 8 had not renewed timely, with a few of those 8 indicating they were not renewing due to retirement. Over 100 registrants completed renewal in November 2020. Reese asked when registration started and how age was impacting non-renewals. Valentine said that grandfathering occurred in 1978 and regular registration was required from then on. She pointed out how grandfathered registrations were issued in October of that year, and the Board has seen an ongoing decline in October registrations over the years as a result of these early registrants dropping registrations.

Valentine shared that online renewal usage was trending up for 2020, perhaps due to the COVID- 19 pandemic or a result of registrants becoming more willing to use this option over time. The usage through November 2020 was at 80% of all renewals, compared to 73% in 2019 and 66% in 2018.

Old Business  Affirmative Action/Diversity Equity Inclusion Statement: The Board’s draft statement for the 2021-2023 biennium was submitted to the Governor’s Office prior to the 11/20/2020 deadline. No feedback from Governor’s Office had been received yet. The Board’s conversation focused on the following two proposed goals, as found in the draft statement for 2021-2023, and potential linkages between these goals:

Goals 1: OSBGE will seek to remain informed about student and registration trends and related developing information by monitoring information related to diversity, equity, and inclusion shared by professional organizations representing the geologic profession, geologic science programs at Oregon universities and colleges, or other appropriate entities. In terms of data collected directly, the Board will continue to informally track the gender of candidates, applicants, and registrants.

OSBGE Meeting Minutes, 12/11/2020 Page 4 Goal 3: OSBGE strives to continue holding one quarterly meeting per year at an Oregon university to facilitate direct engagement with geology students and faculty. While COVID-19 disrupts business as usual, OSBGE will seek other opportunities to present information on geologist registration to students and faculty, such as through virtual outreach events. OSBGE will also otherwise consider how it might enhance communications with key university and college contacts as a means to better reach geology and potential geology students with information about the path to registration.

In relation to draft goal 1, Chair Bartlett and Board member Edison-Lahm engaged in efforts to explore options for new approaches and partnerships. They connected with a Board registrant with particular interests in this area of work. See the Fall 2020 newsletter for a first attempt at engaging the registrant community in this topic area. Edison-Lahm also prepared a list of potential topics for future newsletters. The Board supported continuation of efforts to find guest contributors to future newsletters. These contributors might also, in some cases, be interested in partnering with the Board on other future outreach efforts, such as online training targeted at students. For goal 3, the Board clarified during review of these minutes that meetings held for student and faculty engagement may be held as part of or in addition to quarterly meetings.

The Board noted how the demographics of the current registration pool were constrained and not going to change quickly. The key was to look at future recruitment into the profession, which required a focus on K-12 and higher education students. Board members expressed interest in ways they might individually engage in existing forums targeted at students to share information about opportunities in the geology profession, including with students from historically disadvantaged communities. It was noted how there might be some overlap with programs seeking to share information about careers in the environmental sciences. Board members also expressed interest in providing student outreach to universities and community colleges using a virtual platform. This would allow for outreach in a manner feasible during the ongoing pandemic plus over the longer-term allow the Board to provide student outreach in a manner broader than the traditional once a year visits at Oregon universities with geology degree programs. Burns noted that more students were completing some of their geology coursework at community colleges due to the increased costs at universities so finding a way to reach out to those students would be a good change in Board approach. He felt educators at community colleges could be good allies.

The Board discussed using the existing Outreach Committee as the forum to work on these efforts. Schettler was identified as lead for the Outreach Committee, but other Board members and staff offered to assist with student outreach as might be feasible. Burns also volunteered to assist in his role as former Board member. Valentine would support the Outreach Committee and help to ensure compliance with public meetings law as may be necessary depending on the way efforts develop.

Valentine mentioned that staff attended virtual training sessions as part of the 2020 Oregon Diversity Conference for state employees. Valentine also recently volunteered to assist in a Governor’s Office effort to investigate new approaches to recruitment of Board members focused on improving diversity among appointed board and commission members.

Chair Bartlett called for a break at 10:35. She reconvened the Board at 10:49.

 Succession Planning Update: Position Descriptions/Recruitment Guide: At the 09/28/2020 meeting, the Board reviewed updated position descriptions for the two staff positions. The Board did not request specific changes to these descriptions of the duties assigned to the positions but did OSBGE Meeting Minutes, 12/11/2020 Page 5 not approve the updated position descriptions at the time. Board members requested some additional budget analysis related to potential changes in classification for the Registration Specialist position. Valentine shared that budget analysis with the Board. The Board considered this new information and discussed various pros and cons and financial implications of a potential reclassification of the Registration Specialist position. The financial discussion included some review of the budget picture for the 2021-2023 biennium and draft budget details provided in the Budget Committee report. Valentine noted that it was important to make a decision, if possible, soon as this would allow consideration of how to finance the classification change in the budget development process. Also, the Board would need to communicate any changes with the Oregon State Landscape Architect Board (OSLAB), as it will also impact their budget planning presuming personnel costs continue to be split 50/50 with OSLAB.

Ultimately, the Board decided to reclassify the Registration Specialist position from the current split classification of 60% Executive Assistant and 40% Accounting Technician III to 100% Executive Assistant classification. The Board determined that this change would be made in conjunction with the ongoing succession planning effort and effective with adoption of the 2021- 2023 budget as then the financing for the change could be built into the budget. The Board noted previous input received over time from various representatives of the Department of Administration Services (DAS) on this topic that appeared to support this reclassification. As a semi-independent agency, the Board determined it would not seek further review from DAS. Valentine was charged with preparing an updated position description and sharing this pending change with OSLAB. Valentine requested a formal Board action since the decision involved compensation for personnel and thus needed to be clearly documented in the record.

Edison-Lahm moved to reclassify the Registration Specialist position fully to the Executive Assistant classification. Avy asked for the motion to be restated to address the timeframe for the change. The motion was not amended or seconded but instead replaced with the following motion:

Schettler moved to reclassify the Registration Specialist position fully to the Executive Assistant classification in conjunction with the adoption of the 2021-2023 budget. Edison- Lahm seconded the motion. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Bartlett called the vote, and all approved.

Valentine said she had also been working on a draft recruitment plan and sent the first draft to Board Member Edison-Lahm as well as a representative from OSLAB for review. After consulting with Chair Bartlett, Valentine said she decided to continue work on the recruitment plan for a while longer and did not include a draft in the meeting packet. However, she would be happy to share the draft with any Board member that is interested in seeing it at this time vs. waiting until a future quarterly meeting.

Compliance Report  Open Complaint Cases: The Board did not have any open complaint cases.

 Other Issues: The Board reviewed two inquiries from registrants about potential compliance matters as summarized here:

The first inquiry from a registrant requested the Board take action to notify the public about the registrant’s accusation that a securities report he prepared for the Buffalo Mine in Grant County, OR and a particular individual representing Armadillo Resources LTD had been altered without permission by a non-registrant associated with C & S Mining LLC. He requested that the Board issue a public notification about this so that other parties would not be deceived by the alterations OSBGE Meeting Minutes, 12/11/2020 Page 6 to his report. Valentine was not aware of any mechanism for such a Board notification and explained to the Board that she reached out to the registrant to request additional information. She also provided information about how to file a formal complaint. The registrant indicated intent to provide more information and possibly file a formal complaint with the Board. The Board felt the staff response had been appropriate and did not request further action. The matter would be revisited if additional information became available to the Board.

The second inquiry was a request for Board input on whether public testimony provided by an unregistered, self-described geologist in a public land use hearing fell under the public testimony exemption in ORS 672.525(9). This statutory provision states: “A person does not publicly practice geology solely because the person testifies or prepares to testify in a public proceeding.” Vice Chair Koss said she was not going to engage in the discussion based on possible perception of conflicts due to having a long-standing professional relationship with this registrant. The Board reviewed the inquiry and related materials. The Board decided to take no action. Staff was asked to follow-up with the registrant that made the inquiry.

Chair Bartlett called for a 30 minute lunch break at 12:10 PM. She reconvened the Board at 12:40 PM. Martin joined the meeting at this time. Burns did not rejoin the meeting at this time.

Committee Reports  Joint Compliance Committee (JCC): At a 03/09/20 meeting, the JCC reviewed a complaint filed by an OSBEELS registrant against a CEG. The JCC recommended that the case be dismissed, but the OSBEELS Law Enforcement Committee (LEC) rejected the JCC recommendation. The LEC proceeded with its investigation. As a result of this investigation, the OSBEELS LEC requested the JCC review several issues of concern related to specific practices of the CEG, as outlined in a memo from the LEC shared with the JCC. The JCC met on 10/29/2020 and considered the LEC memo at that time. The Board reviewed a memo from Vice Chair Koss and Valentine for background information, which includes the key provisions from the LEC memo as well as the CEG report in question for reference. Board members briefly discussed the technical sections of the memo addressing shallow and deep foundation design.

At 12:50 PM, Chair Bartlett assigned Chair duties to Vice Chair Koss for the remainder of the meeting. This was due to Chair Bartlett needing to switch to audio listening only for part of the PM portion of the meeting.

Written advice from Martin related to possible Board action to respond to the JCC and OSBEELS LEC was provided for Board consideration. At 12:53 PM, Vice Chair Koss announced that the Board would now meet in executive session for the purpose of reviewing documents exempt by law from public inspection under ORS 192.660(2)(f). Valentine read the script addressing attendance in executive session for the record.

At 2:05 PM, Vice Chair Koss announced that the Board was returning to public session. The Board did not make any decisions in executive session and did not take any action in public session. This concluded the Board’s consideration of the JCC report.

Burns rejoined the meeting at this time.

 Rules Advisory Committee: The Board discussed two ongoing rulemaking projects.

Exam Administration Updates: Valentine summarized steps taken in this rulemaking effort, including earlier temporary rulemaking and consultation with the Rules Advisory Committee. Per OSBGE Meeting Minutes, 12/11/2020 Page 7 Board direction given at the 09/28/20 meeting, the public review period for these proposed amendments ran through October until 11/09/2020. These rule amendments would replace very similar but not identical rule amendments adopted as temporary rules per Board action taken at the 05/29/2020 meeting. The temporary rules expired in late November, meaning that the updates made to address exam administration challenges generated by the current COVID-19 pandemic would not be in place for the next exam administration absent Board action to adopt the proposed amendments as permanent rules. One public comment was received and considered by the Board.

Edison-Lahm moved to adopt the proposed amendments reviewed by the Board to the following rules:

809-040-0002 Date of Examinations 809-040-0003 Examination Notice 809-040-0023 Withdrawal from Examination or Forwarding of Examination Approval 809-040-0030 Refunds

He referred to the amended rule language was that contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking filed with the Secretary of State’s Office on 09/30/2020. Reese seconded the motion. Hearing no further discussion, Vice Chair Koss called the vote, and all approved.

Registration Standards/Miscellaneous Updates: Valentine summarized steps taken in this rulemaking project. Most recently, the Board gave direction at the 09/28/2020 meeting to re- engage the ad hoc committee on CEG qualifications to consider various issues raised with respect to the rule changes for development of a new, alternative path to the CEG registration. The committee recommended a number of revisions, and staff revised the draft rules in accordance with this direction. Committee members were given an opportunity to review these revisions, and then the revised draft rules were sent to Board counsel for review. Comments from Martin were shared with the Board, and there was general agreement that the few changes proposed were reasonable and easy to make. The resulting draft rules were then shared also with the Rules Advisory Committee, although a second meeting of the Committee was not called. Valentine reminded the Board that this rules package also includes proposed housekeeping amendments to other rules addressing experience and supervision standards as well as GIT and RG standards. She said the Board needed to decide if it was comfortable with initiating the public review through issuance of rulemaking notice for the proposed rule changes. Vice Chair Koss and Burns, as members of the ad hoc committee, indicated that they felt the rules were ready for public review.

Edison-Lahm moved to authorize issuance of notice of permanent rulemaking for the proposed adoption of new rule 809-030-0022 Supervisor Approval for Alternative Work Experience in Engineering Geology and proposed amendments to the following rules:

809-030-0020 Qualifications for Engineering Geologist Examination and Certification as an Engineering Geologist 809-003-0000 Definitions 809-005-0000 Certification for Engineering Geology 809-030-0000 Supervision Standards 809-030-0005 Experience Standards 809-030-0015 Qualifications for Geologist Practice Examination and Geologist Registration 809-030-0025 Qualifications for Geologist Fundamentals Examination and Certification as a Geologist-in-Training

OSBGE Meeting Minutes, 12/11/2020 Page 8 He referred to the rule language as that reviewed and approved at the 12/11/2020 meeting, as documented in the meeting packet. Schettler seconded the motion. Hearing no further discussion, Vice Chair Koss called the vote, and all approved.

 Budget Committee: The process of building the budget for the 2021-2023 biennium had started. A first draft of the budget was shared, along with explanatory notes about how various revenue and expense estimates were developed. Valentine reported that many non-discretionary expense line items will increase for the 2021-2023 biennium. Costs for optional but critical state services like payroll and human resources services will also increase. Revenues were not expected to increase commensurate with the expense increases, which means the Board will need to use reserve funds to pay for some percentage of expenses in the next biennium. Valentine’s assessment was that the Board had sufficient reserve funds to avoid fee increases as part of the 2021-2023 budget. However, she noted the possibility of the Board needing to draw substantially from reserve funds in 2021-2023, thereby increasing the change of needing to implement fee increases as part of the 2023-2025 budget. The outlook could change if there is an appreciable increase in the size of registrant pool in the next few years. Valentine noted the ongoing challenge of having expenses, most outside of the Board’s control, that continue to climb while needing to fund operations entirely from fees paid by a small population of registrants. The Board will need to approve the draft budget for public review purposes at the first quarterly meeting of 2021 if it intends to complete the budget adoption process within the quarterly meeting schedule.

Valentine asked Avy and Chair Bartlett if they had comments as members of the Budget Committee. Avy felt the assumptions on revenue were appropriately conservative and noted that the expense increases were being seen across state agencies. He shared with Board members details on the reserve fund balance and history that had been shared with the Budget Committee. Chair Bartlett looked to the past history of reserve spending and noted how the Board had last raised fees after two biennia of spending down its reserve. There was precedent for delaying fees for at least one biennium, to ensure reserve funds were kept within the target amount and allowing the Board to develop a well thought out approach to fee increases. The Board discussed how there may be a stronger negative reaction to fee increases if the Board waits too long and has to increase the fees by more. Raising fees by smaller amounts every few years might go over better with registrants. Valentine noted that fees were last raised in 2017 so an increase with the 2023-2025 budget would be a 6 year period without fee increases, which is sooner than the last increase when fees had not been adjusted for over 10 years. The Board was also concerned that registrants might believe that fee increases implemented in 2021-2023 were ill-timed given the COVID-19 pandemic or associate such fee increases with the new continuing education requirements. The truth was that any fee increases were driven by overall increases in operational expenses and continued decline in total registrants. Even in the absence of continuing education requirements, the same imbalance of revenues and expenses would exist. But registrants might not believe that regardless of information shared by the Board.

 Outreach Committee: Valentine had two items to share before the Board picked back up its AM discussion about future student outreach.

Continuing Education: The Board’s new rules for continuing education go into effect on 01/01/2021. This means that registrants need to complete the required continuing education for their renewal periods starting in 2021. She mentioned receiving some inquiries from registrants about what they had to complete for their 2021 renewals. The requirements roll in with renewals occurring on a monthly basis, with registrants not responsible for certifying compliance until their 2022 renewals. This approach is necessary to ensure all registrants have a full year to meet the requirements before being subject to audit. But this approach of phasing registrants in has proved OSBGE Meeting Minutes, 12/11/2020 Page 9 confusing to some. Therefore, Valentine was preparing a newsletter article for the Winter 2021 edition of the newsletter addressing this and other common questions. This outreach would supplement the work the Board had already done with a new webpage and guidance documents. Valentine was also assigned the task of outlining procedures for future audit reviews, with the Board to review this at a future meeting.

Western Oregon University: Valentine shared how the geology degree program was potentially slated for elimination, and the Board sent a letter expressing concern about this. She thanked Chair Bartlett and Burns for assisting with this effort, especially since there was limited time to react given the university deadline for deciding on budget cuts. She reported that the geology degree program was spared, which was great news as it was a unique program that likely would continue to attract students that perhaps could not afford or did not feel comfortable attending a larger university. Burns noted how Oregon only has 4 geology degree programs and the importance of maintaining them all to produce future candidates for registration. He noted how Southern Oregon University once had a geology degree program and has never been restored after cuts made in an early budget crisis.

Student Outreach: The Board returned to the earlier discussion started on this topic under the Old Business agenda item. Schettler confirmed her willingness to serve as the Outreach Committee Chair but asked if the others expected the Board to approve an outreach plan before specific activities were pursued. The other Board members did not see a need for approval of an outreach plan and thought it was important to be able to respond to opportunities as they might arise vs. waiting to discuss at a Board meeting. Burns mentioned the AEG student night and seminar series at the Oregon universities as perhaps starting points for sharing the Board’s presentation for students.

State Agency Outreach: There was brief discussion about possibly also looking at future outreach to state agencies, as a follow-up to a round of meetings held several years ago.

 Engineering Geology Examination Committee: The Board reviewed the new (replacement) agreement for maintenance and administration of the engineering geology exam at the 09/28/2020 meeting. The Board requested that the Washington Geology Licensing Board be notified of two items of concern with the proposed language. While Board members expressed an interest in knowing what members of the Washington Geology Licensure Board thought about the agreement and specifically the two items of concern, Washington Department of Licensing (WDOL) staff explained that the agreement review and approval process was not something that its Board members would be part of given how the administrative process is structured there. Valentine therefore worked on the items of concern with contacts at the WDOL. A revised agreement was recently provided from WDOL and forwarded then to Board members. Valentine noted that there was an error in the version sent to Board members regarding the provision addressing future cost- sharing of expenses for exam reviews and explained the correct language. She felt the Board’s concerns were largely addressed in this latest version.

Board members discussed the latest version and were generally ok with it. There were some lingering concerns about how cost-share would be determined for future reviews, but those concerns were not deemed significant enough to prevent approval. Valentine requested a formal approval for the record.

Chair Bartlett moved to approve the interstate agreement with the final language as negotiated and discussed by the Board. Reese seconded the motion. Hearing no further comments, Vice Chair Koss called the vote, and all approved. OSBGE Meeting Minutes, 12/11/2020 Page 10  Legislative Committee: Valentine had no report for the quarter and invited Avy to provide a report on any items of interest. Avy shared details about the status of the DOGAMI budget as contained in the Governor’s Recommended Budget (GRB) for 2021-2023. He explained how there are 3 primary phases in the budget process, with the GRB the 2nd phase and approval by the Oregon Legislature the 3rd phase. DOGAMI supports the GRB, but noted the budget proposal would dismantle DOGAMI with some functionality moved to other state agencies and some lost to cuts. Numerous questions remained, including the future role and location of the State Geologist. Some positions would be eliminated by the end of the current biennium while others would transition over the first year of the 2021-2023 biennium. Board members were referred to the GRB, available online, for details. Board members were highly distressed about what this level of change and cuts would mean to the State of Oregon’s ability to continue to provide quality geologic information and services to Oregonians. There was brief discussion of how the legislative review of the budget takes place.

Correspondence Valentine reported that there were no items for Board review this quarter other than those reviewed under the Compliance Report.

New Business  2021 Quarterly Meeting Calendar: Potential meeting dates were reviewed and discussed. There was consensus and Chair approval to set the quarterly meeting schedule as follows:

03/05/2021 06/04/2021 09/10/2021 12/03/2021

 Board Officer Elections: The Board needed to complete annual election of officers. No one was interested in seeing a change in officers, and the current officers indicated willingness to continue in these roles.

Schettler moved to re-elect Bartlett and Koss as Chair and Vice Chair. Edison-Lahm seconded the motion. Valentine confirmed with the candidates their willingness to continue to serve. Hearing no further discussion, Vice Chair Koss called the vote, and all approved.

Announcements  Recognition of Board Member Service: Board members and staff thanked Burns for his two terms of service on the Board. Burns in turn noted his appreciation for the opportunity to serve and thanked Board members and staff for their efforts and support.

Adjournment Chair Bartlett adjourned the Board at 3:25 PM.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The minutes of the 12/11/2020 quarterly meeting were approved with revisions incorporated herein at the 03/05/2021 quarterly meeting.

Christine Valentine, Administrator

OSBGE Meeting Minutes, 12/11/2020 Page 11