I generally support the concept of continuing education.  As with so many things, however, it is the details of implementation that will determine if this is a useful requirement that achieves the desired effect, or simply an action that diverts time and resources from  more useful activities.  It would be far too easy for it to become the latter.

I participate in many activities each year that I would construe as continuing education. Many of these involve activities that have no method of assessment (e.g. reading an article in a professional journal) or attending a conference.  In some case these activities may qualify as continuing education; other activities may not.  What I find lacking in the proposed regulations 18VAC 10-20-683 is any clear definition of the nature of the activities that will qualify as continuing education under the regulation; how an entity, especially one not located in Virginia, may be certified as qualified to offer continuing education activities; and what is considered a reasonable charge for one c.e.u.  These should all be addressed before the regulation is adopted.

Here are some examples of activities that I believe should qualify as continuing education:

·         Attending the Transportation Research Board Annual meetings  held each year in Washington DC

·         Attending a meeting of the Virginia Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers

·         Attending a meeting of the Virginia Transit Association

These are activities that I and other staff of my firm attend each year.   Each offers technical sessions that provide useful information that is “…related to the practice of the profession of the license being renewed…” and has “…a clear purpose and objective which will maintain, improve, or expand the skills and knowledge relevant to the licensee’s area of practice….”   None of these groups takes attendance at individual sessions or provides formal records of attendance.

The proposed regulation makes reference in C. 3 to Sponsors and Instructors, but provides almost no guidance on what criteria will be applied to identify qualifies sponsors (other than they must be able to document who attended  and completed the activity), or qualified instructors (other than they must be competent either by education or experience).  Who makes the judgment as to competence?

It is noted that credit hours must be “…Board approved continuing education activities…” but does not address what procedures will be adopted to obtain Board approval.  What will such a process entail?  How long will it take to get approval?   If a professional organization holds a meeting annually, will one certification be sufficient or will recertification be required each year?  Will there be a charge for certification?  Depending on how these procedures are developed, organizations or institutions outside of Virginia may not be willing to exert effort to obtain Board approval.

Are there procedures in place for reciprocity in certification of activities for continuing education with Boards of other states, jurisdictions or professional organizations?  The proposed regulation should include a list of organizations (e.g. American Society of Civil Engineers; Institute of Transportation Engineers) whose determination of c.e.u. eligibility for an activity will be automatically accepted.

Until the regulation addresses these issues it is incomplete.

As a caution, note that the American Planning Association has recently instituted a continuing education requirement for those who are Certified Planners.  Several have complained to me that, to date one of the few ways to obtain the needed credits is to attend the APA annual meeting.  The c.e.u. requirement of APA is increasingly being viewed as a way to attract greater attendance at its annual meeting.  We must avoid this