Parametrics Program or FBPE
Brian Smith
reflect the content of that post. When you title the post as
Parametrics Program and talk about the FBPE public hearing it could be
confusing. Some of the members of this group may not know what PSI is
doing but would be very interested in the FBPE public hearing. To my
knowledge that most of the destructive testing has been completed.
When will we recieve a report on it? Also as the group manager it
would be very nice if we could be professional in our postings; and if
you have some comments to make about a group member send them a
private email.
David W Miller
Meeting began about 8:30 am (Radisson Main Gate). I arrived about
9:00 am. It was a joint meeting of the FEMC board (Florida Engineering
Management Corporation) and the FBPE (Florida Board of Professional
Engineers). Anne Browning of Browning Consulting had been previously
retained to analyze the effectiveness and efficiency of the FEMC. She was
reporting to the boards her findings and recommendations. This was
interesting to me (us) because it explained to some extent the lack of
effectiveness of the FEMC in governing engineers. In masterfully
professional terms, she outlined FEMC deficiencies and made recommendations,
along with a call to action. Her call to action prompted the boards to
decide to postpone the FBPE meeting until after lunch to allow them time to
set an action plan into motion. Paul Martin, Esq., who had previously held
the top executive position with the FEMC and had acted also as Executive
Director of the FBPE, was absent, and I learned that he had resigned.
Henn Rebane, P.E., chairman of the FBPE, chatted cordially with us
during a break and explained to us that upon returning from lunch at 1:00 pm
they would consider the "aluminum" issue first, so that we could leave.
This meeting was sparsely attended. I was the only representative
from the AAF. Mike Edgerly, P.E. and Do Kim, P.E. were also there. Mike and
Do were to deliver a presentation to the board on a proposed "peer" review
group having to do with aluminum construction. Tom Tafelski, representing
the AFC, was in attendance, along with 2 companions, both contractors. There
was also a Rick McKee, Esq. (sp?) representing the FHBA.
Mr. Rebane asked David Charland, P.E., to chair the discussion about
the proposed aluminum design rule. Mr. Charland recalled the discussion over
"master plans." Mr. Rebane asked Mr. Charland if he would chair a committee
to take suggestions on a "master plan" rule. Mr. Charland responded that he
would but "no time soon." They asked the board members if they wanted to
comment upon the public hearing transcript (March 27). There were no
comments. Mr. McKee was recognized (representing the Florida Home Builders)
and asked the board to consider amending the proposed rule. Mr. McKee
explained that the FHBA had information from building officials that if the
board implemented this rule as written, there would be confusion about the
applicability of the AAF Guide and that there was a concern that use of the
Guide would be precluded as a result of the implementation of the proposed
rule. This new paragraph was to be advisory in nature and stated that when
the Guide is used (presumably by anyone), the specifics of the rule need not
be submitted.
There was considerable discussion about the amendment. Do Kim was
asked to clarify the relationship between the code and the rule. Mr. McKee,
Mr. Kim and I were all sitting together and conferring while the discussion
was taking place. Do nor I knew nothing of this proposed amendment prior to
Mr. McKee's presentation to the board and were surprised by it. Frankly, Do
and I felt that it was unnecessary, nevertheless, we had no reason to object
to it. Tom Tafelski was recognized and began to speak, but after a few
sentences chairman Rebane asked when whether he supported the amendment. He
responded that he objected to both the amendment and the rule. Chairman
Rebane explained that the rule had been adopted already and that the only
discussion point was the amendment, which ended his speech. After some
wordsmithing on the amendment, it was adopted with 2 nays.
We then clarified that the change in the rule would require the
board to republish the proposed rule.
Mike Edgerly was then called upon to make his presentation. Mike
outlined the current difficulties in the industry (Power Point) and
suggested that he and other engineers in the aluminum industry wanted to
start a "peer review" group (Do Kim was there in support as part of this
proposed group). The FBPE was supportive and sympathetic but could not
"sanction" or directly support the activity.
When Mike concluded, Mr. McKee, Do, Mike and I left the room. But
soon thereafter the door opened part way by Tom Tafelski and one of his
companions was standing close to the exit door shouting at the board. We did
not hear what was being said and did not want to go back in, primarily out
of a concern that we might be associated with this display. I opened the
door and peaked in and saw that Tom Tafelski again had a microphone and was
speaking. We left (about 2:15 pm).