To My Fellow Commenters,

From what I've been able to gather in this convoluted website and legalspeak, I think the comment of "done deal" above is on the mark. 

It seems that the proposal is about how to implement the "done deal" rather than whether or not to enact a continuing education requirement.  It looks like we missed the boat telling the legislature and governor what they can do with this idea.

My guess is that many of us received that little postcard from DPOR last week and are hearing about this for the first time.  And it appears that there is overwhelming oppostion, much of it rather passionate.  I wonder if this sort of feedback would have been helpful when this came up legislatively?  Perhaps we were notified two years ago when this was brought up--I cannot be sure.  It sure slipped under my radar.  At any rate, I think the best that we can do is water this down so this does not place an undue burden on our employers, customers, and families.

To the Board,

Quite frankly, I disagree with the impact statements in some of the supporting documentation.  Sixteen hours of "my time" can be pretty onerous in my household.  When I studied for the PE, it was a burden,  When I earned my Masters, it was a burden.  And that was before I had kids...

As  government contractor, I already have enough ardous continuing ed requirements from my company and another certification (Project Management Professional).  These are not considered billable activities and thus, their attainment is discouraged during company/customer time.  This training easily exceeds 16 hours so hopefully some of these skills will fit under these guidelines.  If I am able to submit my company's annual "transcript" (which does document hours), I may be able to maintain my PE.  However, taking the equivalent of two days off for what many here already consider fluff, does not provide my customers any value and will likely cause my license to lapse.

Finally, I've spent far longer on this than I anticipated, but I must add that I find it fairly interesting that the results of the economic analysis are "There is insufficient data to accurately compare the magnitude of the benefits versus the costs."  Now how credible would we (engineers) be if we pushed proposals with similar findings?  Is this sort of reasoning why governments tend to run defecits?