Arborist Advisory Council Meeting Minutes March 14, 2005
Members Present:
Art Batson, Wes Davis, Bob Levesque, Ted Armstrong, Dave Newell, Lois Stack
Members Absent:
tish carr (via phone for part of the meeting)
Staff Present:
Terry Bourgoin, Debbie Davis, Ann Gibbs
Guests:
Ned Porter, Tom Federle
Ted Armstrong called the meeting to order in Chair tish carr's absence.
Review/Approve minutes
Art Batson moved and Lois Stack seconded that the February meeting minutes be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
Program Update
Debbie Davis reported that currently, there are 550 licensed arborists and 55 who have not renewed for 2005. This is an average number of non-renewals for this time of year. Licensees have until the end of March to renew their license for this year. Debbie noted that some individuals who let their licenses lapse call in June and ask about relicensing.
Update Recent Complaints
Terry Bourgoin reported that Gil Lamarre's lawyer contacted Mark Randlett from the Attorney General's office, but Mark hasn't returned the call. Mark indicated that he would not settle for another state consent agreement; he will insist on a court order. He will include in the order up to $12,500 in fines.
Discussion and review of enforcement flow chart
Terry distributed and reviewed a draft enforcement flow chart that he and the staff developed and asked the Council if it made sense. The group thought it was clear and took the guesswork out of this process. The chart will be posted on the Department's web site and linked to the MAA web site.
tish carr joined the meeting via conference call.
Legislation
The status of LD 861, An Act to Amend the Maine Arborist Licensing Law, was discussed. This bill would eliminate the current licensing exemption for employees of public utilities and quasi-municipal agencies and would require both groups to use licensed arborists. Most of the utilities are opposed to this bill including, Maine Public Service Company (MPS), Bangor Hydroelectric Company (BH) and Central Maine Power Company (CMP). Wes mentioned that the CMP vegetation group is in support of the bill, but the line clearers are not. Line clearers remove some tree limbs, and the CMP legal department interprets the change to mean all line clearers would need to be licensed. He indicated this would be very expensive for the company. Terry indicated that the Department needs to decide what to do - strike this portion of the bill or restore the exemption for public utility employees. Ted mentioned that these companies are using their crews for more than just incidental limb removal. Ned asked who was certifying line workers. MPS has all employees exposed to "vertical training" which meets the OSHA requirements. tish asked how many crews employed by utilities did tree work? Bob said MPS has 3 crews which rotate on a monthly basis; each month crews are composed of different individuals. Wes indicated CMP and BH use contractors and not in-house crews. Art suggested the bill language be modified to require a license for all tree work except emergency tree trimming. He also suggested that workers doing regular tree maintenance should be licensed and have at least one supervisor for each crew. If the bill were to exempt electric utilities, would the cable and phone companies come back in opposition? Wes Davis indicated "routine tree maintenance" needs to be defined, or require that people meet OSHA requirements. tish thought we were supposed to be promoting proper pruning practices and avoid the creation of hazard trees. Lois suggested that the bill define emergency work as directly relating to line maintenance and exclude routine branch removal and tree shaping. Ned asked how many complaints the Department receives regarding utility work. Wes indicated the Department doesn't receive these complaints - they go directly to the utility. It was decided to suggest the bill be amended to restore the licensing exemption for just the electric utilities and still require the phone and cable companies to be licensed. Ned indicated that these changes could be brought up at the hearing and discussed at the work session. The wording would exempt electric utilities, but require them to have OSHA training. Terry said it would be good to have Council members at the hearing. Ted and tish indicated they would both attempt to attend.
Tom Federle, lawyer/lobbyist for Bangor Hydroelectric Company, met with the group. BH would find this bill as written troublesome and expensive. Terry outlined the proposed changes discussed by the Council, which Mr. Federle indicated would resolve BH's concerns. BH has never received any complaints regarding tree work, so the company was surprised when the bill was introduced. Mr. Federle thought Bangor Hydro has arborists on staff. BH would speak in support of the amended bill at the hearing. Art asked what issues BH had with this bill. Mr. Federle stated that the term "emergency" wasn't well defined, line clearers and utility workers routinely remove limbs, and contracted agents aren't always licensed arborists.
Study Guide Draft
Debbie reviewed the parts of the study guide the staff had prepared and circulated it to the group. Art has asked for costs of ANSI standards from the Tree Care Industry Association. tish will search the web to determine whether a summary of the ANSI standards are available which could be substituted for the actual standards. This would reduce the cost of the new study guide to mainly the cost of the Tree Climber's Guide.
Apprentice License Rule Change
Terry reviewed suggested changes to the rules, which would impose education and/or experience requirements for becoming an arborist and would eliminate the Apprentice category. At the MAA meeting, Terry indicated comments were made that people would not be able to meet the educational or experience requirements. Some people felt there should be a longer grace period before the rule change becomes effective. Bob asked if ISA was interchangeable with the Maine license. Terry indicated it was and people could become ISA certified to avoid Maine's testing requirements. These changes would require a rule change and public input. How much of a grace period should be allowed? Dave questioned how we would deal with unlicensed people as we can't send them to take a test if they don't meet the education/experience requirements. Terry indicated the staff wouldn't get this finished by summer and would have to determine a grace period - possibly to 2007. Art thought these changes would work for most folks in his company. Art also mentioned that there should be an option to allow someone to take the test and then get the experience. Such individuals would not be granted a license until they meet the work experience requirement.
Exam questions
It was decided that a sub-group from the Council would review the sections of the new study guide and develop questions from each section. Twenty questions in the form of multiple choice and true and false will be developed for each section. Lois will cover the Tree Health and Pruning chapters, Ted will cover Safety and Cabling, and Dave will write questions from the Climbing, Rigging and Removal chapters. Ann will develop questions regarding the law, plant pests, and tree identification. These questions need to be sent to Ann by April 29, 2005. It was determined that if a person takes the utility exam there should be some type of electrical training required. Art suggested that EHAP certification should be required before a utility license is issued.
Agenda
The next meeting is scheduled for June 7, 2005. Agenda items will include: defining on-site supervision and reviewing the test questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Gibbs and
Terry Bourgoin
