I am the Engineering Division Coordinator for all of the Engineering at VMI.  VMI Engineering has a requirement that all of the engineering faculty be a registered professional engineer.  For us to maintain the license the continuing education requirement will be a hardship for the faculty.  All have the PhD degree in additon to their license. We are highly educated and we must maintain currency within our discipline as part of our yearly evaluation.  I propose that engineering faculty be exempted from the continuing education requirement.  We require all of our undergraduates to take the FE exam and to pursue licensure.  I fear that the faculty at VMI will become like many of our universities and the faculty will forgo the license.  They will find that it is not needed to perform the research and other work that we accomplish.  For the faculty to all have the PE encourages the young undergraduates to take licensure seriously. 

One of the sole purposes of taking this test was to avoid all the burdens associated with having to pursue higher degrees in an Engineering Discipline, and still maintining a credible licensure.  I chose to pursue this licensure to minimize the time I would take away from pursuing my career and raising a family.  They had to endure an entire year without me as I vigorously studied day and night for the P.E. Exam; thankfully I passed it and can get back to a normal life of balancing my career with my family.  Adding a mandatory 16 hour education credit every year or two is unacceptable to me, and like many other GOOD, SKILLED, Professional Engineers, I would simply watch my licensure expire and go away, especially when my current occupation demands much travel away from home.

I see this as another way of grabbing money out of our pockets by the state, not to ensure we remain skilled and educated at our trade.  This is a fleecing in my opinion; a very inconvenient fleecing that will end up causing my license to expire without an interest of renewal.  We current Professional Engineers should at least be grandfathered into not having to take extra credit hours to continue our licensure, as when we acquired our licenses, we weren't under any such contract to do so.

Thanks for hearing my words.

In order to operate an engineering firm, i am already constantly contuining my education with constant changes in city, county, state and federal regulations.  i keep abreast on these changes because it is my profession.  i don't need another government agency telling me what i need to know to operate in my profession or run my company as a professional.

  I would like to say that continuing ed. is a wonderful thing, perhaps it will get us all on the same sheet of music.

  However, I think it needs to be done properly. The board needs to have structure, ie. xx hours of ethics, xxx hours technical, xxx hours of law, etc. much the same way that the Realtors have. I understand that under the current draft there is not only no structure, but the Board won't even preapprove courses, or allow someone else to do it. Under current The Professional could spend the required time attending school or conferences only to find that they aren't all going to be accepted.

  I find this approach to be at best lame. If you can't do it right just scratch the whole idea. we will just continue along working with surveys performed by surveyors that should have retired years ago and perform to outdated standards. At least that's better than driving 3 hours for an 8 hour class, missing your work, and having it rejected just as it's too late to do anything.

  Get real. Act like you care about the people and the Profession. You could work with the V.A.S. and set up guidelines, allow proposed educational seminars in virginia and neighboring states to submit course details to someone for approval prior to the date, etc. You know, like other states.

  Please do it, and do it right.

Stephen L. Barcena, L.S.

All the continuing education courses I have taken,  as an incentive from my employer,  have been a waste of time, very general in nature and provided no useful information.  As a professional, I strive to keep up to date in my area of expertise by researching on my own.  

During a time when this country is experiencing a shortage of engineers, the state wants to subject it's elite to more unnecessary requirements?  It's tough enough to earn your P.E. (back in the 80's when I sat for the exam in Virginia, approximately 20% passed; I don't know what it is these days) and now the state wants to impose more burdens on it's top engineers if they wish to continue to practice as a professional.  Being licensed in multiple states, I can't imagine what I'd have to go through in paperwork, time, money, etc. if all the states imposed such requirements.

Not knowing which credits will be accepted ahead of time is absurd.  Some of the continuing education credits I've received in the past are laughable.  Four credits for a half-day tour of a manufacturing plant and two days of golf.

You want to keep the best?  Cut the bureaucracy and let us do our jobs.

 Gentlemen,  Virginia Board of Professional Engineering 

    I was once registered in N.C., W.Va. and Florida, but when those states required mandatory continuing education to maintain registration; I allowed these registrations to lapse. Most continuing education courses are as expensive as university graduate engineering cources, usually one thousand  dollars or more. Not only do I have Ph.D in Engineering from UVA, but also three masters degrees in engineering. More education would  probably be redundant.  The expense and distraction required to meet the requirements is really too burdensome. In addition most continuing education courses are largely irrelevant to the scientific practice of engineering. In truth if forced , I would probably take an on-line class  from a school such as Kansas State University or a low tuition external course from a European or African university.

     Sincerely,               Martin Stakes Lane Ph.D, PE

It is clear that this is nothing more than another attempt by the academic elite of non-practicing engineers to limit their competition from the real world of practicing engineers.

I learned almost nothing about hydropower development and dam construction and safety in my studies at the University of Rhode Island.  I learned everything I needed to know on the job, in the office and field.  There were very few courses offered in the field and those were limited to the University of MIssouri at Rolla Missouri, the Federal Waterway Experiment Station in Vicksburg Mississippi, and the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Engineers don't need some quasi-governmental regulator standing over them and telling them what constitutes expanding their knowledge base.  In fact, there is no such organization that can possibly keep up with the various narrow educational needs of the thousands of practicing engineers. 

This can only become another burden on the practicing engineers.  The only beneficiaries will be the accademic types who spend their entire lives in college living off the work of underlings (grad students). 

This misdirected excursion of Big Brother will turn into another disaster of complexities and unmanigable reporting requirements.

This web site is entirely too complicated, requiring too much time to drill down into various levels to discover what is really being proposed and to decide if that proposal has any effect on my current license. The words continuing education are troublesome. I have my education and experience and it suits my needs and the needs of clients. I would be against any change in rules that affect my status or the legitimatcey of my current PE License. If there is a proposal to require some minimum continuing technical education, it should be applied in a "grandfather clause" context such that it only applies to those who gain a License after a specific date.

Carroll D. Childers P.E.

I also dropped my other state registrations due to the continued education requirement. The classes I have taken were a waste of time and money. It seamed like some engineers wanted to make a living out of setting these classes up and teaching them. We have far too many regulations to keep up with at the county, state and fed. level to require some class that that will be of little bennefit to anyone except the one putting it on that day.

I have had my PE license for 38 years and have no problem with a serious attempt to insure professionals stay current.   The problem is in the willingness to invest in the leadership and day-to-day management necessary to do it correctly.

There needs to be a full-time pro-active professional (not administrative/secretarial) group that:

* Decides what training is acceptable - establishes standards

* Organizes training opportunities

* Rapidly pre-approves training proposed by members

* Maintains training records

and most importantly:

* Baselines the current information.  That is, you have no idea what I have been doing "education-wise" in the 38 years since you first issued me a license.   If you knew that, you might temper future requirements -- but I won't tell you if don't care and if you don't ask.

Unfortunately, this initiative has failure written all over it.  Here is what will probably happen:

* The requirement will be levied on Engineers who, as a group, are perceived as being old and out of touch.

* A near-sighted, retired, high school English teacher will be put in charge of continuing education for Engineers.

* The English teacher will come in to the opffice every saturday to see if those lazy engineers are doing what they are supposed to be doing and to "crack the whip" if they are not.

* the English teache will open a cookbook of self-approved buzzwords and copurse names in order to rule with the authority of an inter-galactic sovereign on whether the training qualifies, or is disallowed, based on the level of specificity of the course title.

Excuse the sarcasm, but I have met these people - they are out thee - they would love to have this job.

If your goal is to reduce the number of people with PE licenses, just ask people to turn them in, or stop issuing them.  If this is to be a serious effort, however, then please do it correctly with a significant investment of professional time and management effort and talent.

I have been a pracicing engineer for over 40 years. I have attended MANY seminars and workshops over the years. Some were great and others useless. I try to attend seminars that are relevant to specific work that I do. Sometimes I go to numerous seminars per year and sometimes it may be 2 or 3 years before I find a useful seminar that would help me with my engineering work. Required continuing education would require me to attend (and spend $) on seminars not useful to me. I would think a professional engineer can read professional magazines and research any topic on the internet that he/she would need. I am not in favor of REQUIRED continuing education.

I support and seek continuing education, and believe that it is necessary for one to remain competent and up-to-date in one's field of practice.  Meeting MCE requirements in states that have have such, however, can often be met through practice-related activites that have no effect on a participant's quality of practice.  Practice regulations in Virginia already require lincensure and competency to practice in a field of choice, leaving it to the licensee to decide his or her own competency.  There are those who work to remain competent and up-to-date and those who don't.  It is my opinion and experience that making continuing education mandatory will change neither those who do nor those who don't.  I have yet to see compelling evidence that indicates mandatory continuing education improves the public safety. 

There needs to be a waiver for those PEs like myself who are within a few years of retirement.  The cost for the continuing education as compared to the benefit for only a few years of continued service make this a poor business decision for any company (or government) paying the bill. 

This continuing education requirement has no relevance to my job function and will cost me time and money to complete.  Spending the time and money to finish an advanced degree and pass the initial exam was draining in itself.  I am continuously sharpening my engineering skills at work in a controlled environment where the public is not at risk.  If unrelated seminars or classes become enough of a burden, I will not renew my license, as it is not completely essential to my chosen career path.  The point is, in trying to earn more money through continuing education, the government may actually lose money when a large number of renewals are not exercised.  It is in my opinion that continuing education is best left optional or required for very specific tasks where the public is directly put at risk.

I have been a practicing engineer for almost 15 years. I have attended MANY seminars and workshops over the years. Some were great; most were useless. I try to attend seminars that are relevant to specific work that I do. Some years I go to numerous seminars per year.  Sometimes it may a number of  years before I find a seminar appropriate to my engineering work. Requiring continuing education would require me to attend and expend significant dollars on seminars that are not the least bit useful, and   such expenditures will not serve to enhance public safety.  I spend considerable time and money on self-study; how would that effort be quantified? 

If such a program is implemented, it should be extremely liberal in regard to what types of subjects are considered valid ascontinuing education.  Engineers don't just need engineering/phiscal theory information to do their jobs well.  They need business, communication, and negotiation skills as well.

Ultimately, I am not in favor of REQUIRED continuing education.

Steven M. McLain, P.E.

I'm government employee and a member of an association of design professionals called the Engineers and Surveyors Institute which is based in Northern Virginia.  It is recognized and codified by the elected County Board members.  We are mandated to participate in an annual continuing education program in order to maintain our certifications.  Is there some provision in your legislation to allow for reciprocity or credit for this and similar programs?   

Before seemingly well-meaning laws are promulgated, the authors need to consider another law, known as the "law of unintended consequences". Requiring a 16 hour/biennium continuing education requirement to maintain a P.E. certification seems on the surface to be a good idea. I received my Virginia P.E. license in 1979, more for personal pride rather than as a "must" for the industrial position I held at the time. I have kept my license current until now. If the proposed rule change becomes effective, I will most likely not renew. I suspect many others who don't absolutely need a license will follow suit. An unintended consequence will be a significant loss of license renewal fees. Also, fewer new licenses will be issued when potential licensees learn of the continuing education requirement. I don't think this was the intent of HB1054.

I don't have a problem with the concept of continuing education but I have a general concern that the actual intent of DPOR (and the advocates of this regulation) will actually be manifested in implementation guidance, subject neither to public comment nor to approval by the APELSCIDLA Board.  Most engineers don't have a clue about the APA process and what will happen after we've been thanked by DPOR for our comments.

My specific questions/comments follow:

If the intent of the proposed regulation is to make architects, engineers and land surveyors "less of a threat to the public due to inadequate knowledge" (as stated in the TH-02), why did the economic impact analysis analyze (as a potential benefit of the regulation) the potential increase in employment hours for providers of continuing education?  By that logic, we could justify a requirement that automobile drivers take biennial safety courses on the basis that it might result in increased jobs related to drivers' safety training.

I also noted that the economic impact analysis provided ranges of costs for training, and subsequently used the low end of these ranges when estimating the total cost of compliance.  Most engineers would refrain from providing such a statistical analysis, on the basis that it would be unethical to do so.

The text of 18 VAC 10-20-680.C.1 invites arbitrary and capricious interpretation by all parties concerned.   The phrase "maintain, improve or expand the skills and knowledge relevant to the licensee's area of practice" carries entirely different meanings depending on the education and experience of the licensee (for example, with "only" a B.S. in Chemistry, I could comply with the letter of this regulation by taking courses through the VCCS system).  I doubt that DPOR can consistently enforce this provision without explicit implementation guidance; again, this guidance is not subject to the APA.

Paragraphs 680 C.2. through 680 C.4 are sufficiently vague as to be meaningless in the absence of implementation guidance.

Who in DPOR has the knowledge, skills and abilities sufficient to determine what specific continuing education is actually applicable to each of over a dozen engineering and architectural disciplines?   I am concerned that this function may be informally delegated to firms specializing in providing continuous education.

Finally, if DPOR has any ideas about facilitating this training, they need to hire people with relevant experience to do it, they need to schedule it well in advance and they need to offer it on a predictable, periodic basis.  I held a Nutrient Management Planner certification through DCR; their training was exceptionally good and was presented by people with on-the-field expertise, but it was irregularly scheduled with little advance notice; work schedule conflicts caused me to fall behind in the continuing education requirement.  A list of approved college courses in ethics, business management etc. would be helpful; although they'd be more labor intensive, they'd be cheaper and more relevant than most of the canned seminars for which I've received advertisements from the continuing ed vendors, and the college transcript would provide evidence of proficiency, as opposed to presence.

Of what possible benefit could this ridiculous proposal be to anybody other than the greed-driven education lobby?

I agree with the 90% in front of me at this point.  I've been on a bunch of "Training Classes"  that consist primarily of Drinking and Golfing.  If I played golf I probably wouldn't object to the requirement.  Unfortunately, I don't and I have to work for a living.  Requiring me to pay someone else to spend the day with them does not help me or improve my ability one Iota.

I've read many of the comments to-date, and most don't seem to understand how other states' programs work.

For academics, most states give credit for teaching courses.  They will probably never have to take a course.

Depending on the "carry-over" limitations, those who earn advanced degrees in the future could be exempt for years.  Those who already have them probably lose out....sorry.

I'm registered in multiple states and have to get 15-hours per year in a couple of them.  The only problem I see is when a state like Florida requires 4-hours on the Florida law every two years.  Since there is barely any difference between the laws of any two states, this is silly.  Fortunately, North Carolina and other states accept the Florida courses for no apparent reason.

One comment addressed having to stay current with changing codes.  Red Vector has many courses on the National Electrical Code.  I'm guessing they have similar courses for other disciplines.

In the beginning (20+ years ago), we took courses, went to conferences and kept our own records.  We were always at risk if an audit determined that your "lunch and learn" in the office was unworthy.  Now, if you use Red Vector, PDH Center Online, or similar resources for training, they certify and keep your records.

If you are only registered in Virginia, this is an inconvenience.  If you're registered in other states, it's probably no big deal.  This doesn't appear to be a revenue generator for the state.....to the contrary.  This will cost the state and professionals time and money, but it will probably allow Virginia professionals to get continue to get registration by comity in states with professional development hour requirements.

What is the justification for this action?  Is there proof of a lack of competence in the ranks of Professional Engineers in Virginia?  I seriously doubt it.  This seems like a burdensome waste of time and money for licensed Professional Engineers.  We are already bound to stamp items only in the areas where we are experienced and competent.  So what is the need for continuing training?  The small amount of annual training that is required will make absolutely no difference in overall technical capability; so what's the point?

Are we doing this because it sounds like a good idea or "everybody else is doing it"?  This doesn't appear to be a well thought out plan.  Rather, it seems like a step in the direction of endless bureaucracy to maintain something that we all worked very hard to achieve.  Retention of the PE license shouldn't become such an intrusive burden.

The proposed changes will likely do more harm than good. 

The proposed changes appear to mostly benefit a select group of "education providers" by providing them with additional income. 

Very little if any evidence has been provided to indicate that the public safety will increase as a result of continuing education. 

As engineers we all already find ways to continually improve our abilities and expand our knowledge as necessary to ensure that our designs, analyses, studies, approvals, etc... do result in safe and effective systems. - without mandatory "continuing education" requirements.  

If passed, any economic stimulus that results from the "classes" might very well be offset by the reduction in licenses renewal fees as engineers decide not to retain the "PE" designation.

I have been a professional engineer since 1997.  Strictly speaking, I have not needed this certification in fulfilling my responsibilities.  However, I view it is a good-faith sign to our customers that I am sufficiently skilled technically in my field.  My company views it the same way and encourages our young employees to pursue certification.

I agree with the concept of continuing education as a means to ensure that licensed engineers remain current.  However, given the many disciplines—and many more specialties—represented by the commonwealth's engineers, achieving the goal of the legislation is a substantial challenge to say the least.

The proposed regulation provides little confidence that this challenge will be met.  The benefit of the continuing education requirement will hinge on the details of the implementation—yet the proposed regulation provides little insight as to how this requirement will really be fulfilled by individuals whose responsibilities are far more varied than many people likely realize.  I fear that many good-faith attempts on the part of PEs to fulfill the requirement will not be approved without a more concrete definition of what will be acceptable to the board.  If that were to happen to one or a couple of my firm's staff, it would be a very strong incentive for us to drop our licenses.

Given the difficulty in ensuring that approved courses/conferences/activities actually meet the intent of the law, I recommend either that:

1. The board provide a clearly defined list of courses that will be approved in the regulation (and that efforts are undertaken to ensure such courses are available regularly),
2. The board demonstrate substantial flexibility in approving different courses or conferences through clear language to this effect, or
3. The requirement be narrowed to cover only those who actively work in fields that directly impact public health and safety (coupled with 1 or 2 above).

Option 3 may be too difficult to implement, but would perhaps best meet the law's intent (and would allow more focused course requirements).  Option 1 apparently matches what some other states do and would be reasonable if implemented well.  Option 2 would mean that most anyone who wants to renew will be able to achieve it.  But isn't that the case now?  At least in this case (Option 2) a modest fraction (perhaps more) of the PEs would treat the requirement seriously and achieve a real benefit, and that's about the most that can be hoped for.  Leaving a lot of doubt about what will be approved for credit (as is currently the case) is not a credible approach.

Like the recently proposed "driving while texting" law in Maryland, Virginia is attempting to legislate common sense.  CE requirements should be addressed at the employer level and as part of annual performance reviews, not at the state level.   Also, as another commentor has stated, as we become more focused in our particular disciplines as the years go along, I don't know how the state could begin to keep track of all the specialized training.  I close my eyes and shake my head at the "Board-approved" descriptor.  Perhaps better time might be spent to provide guidance as to what consitiutes good training or education and what we, the consumer, should look for as we have all been victims of mis-represented or irrelevant training from "vendors."

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Not withstanding my age and near retirement concerns, it seems to me if you are actually practicing engineering say as a consultant or government  for instance, why does this not show that you are still learning and where it counts, utilizing your skills for which you were licensed in the first place.

I agree that this seems like a bureacrat's idea to be run by bureacrats or educators not engineers.

Gentlemen;

I have been employed in a professional capacity for several years, and ave taken many CE type courses through my employer - all were a very poor investment, except for those giving the mini courses.  General knowledge can be maintained by those PE's who practice due diligence in their education by keeping up to date on codes and regulations in their respective areas.

I see no value in these proposed requirements and vote nay on this action.

I fail to understand the reason to make a regulation to require sixteen hours mandatory (per two year period).  The current regulations allow for an individual without a degree to obtain a license -- let's work on that.  For those that had a significant concentration while obtaining a Masters degree, what is going to be gained in attending seminars just to sit in a seat to listen to a presentation that we could present if we were so inclined to devote our careers.  Anyone that needs someone to look over their shoulder to make sure they are current on technology should get out of Engineering since they will not hold public safety as the number one issue.

I must agree with Mr Kesnter and Col Hodges, why do we need CE?  As a practicing engineer and contractor we must stay current with the latest code regulations for our discipline.  National codes are  being updated and changed every 3 yrs not to mention the changes on the state and local level.  To me this is just another reason for the state to tax our profession.  How will the CE be regulated, is a Mircosoft Excel class going to count as a CE credit?  The legislators have no idea what it takes to become a registered engineer not to mention the liability we undertake when we stamp a set of drawings.  Before this legislation is passed I beg the governing body to explain why CE is needed or required?  What "disasters" have happened in VA due to lack of CE?

I'm not necessarily averse to the idea so long as the cost involved is not excessive and taking the class(es) is not a major PITA.  Web-based training could work out pretty well.

Folks, enough is enough.  I do not want to be told what I must do in order to hold on to what I have already earned.  I did my schooling and paid for it.  I did my Intern Development Program and received very little pay.  I passed my Architectural Licensing Exams and had to pay an abusive amout just for the priviledge of sitting in.  I became NCARB certified and must now pay a yearly token just for the priviledge of having someone hold on to my records.  I registered in the state where I live, and again, I paid for that priviledge.  I pay all my required dues at the price that you impose.  All this so my Family and me can have a dignified living.  Yet that is not enough.  Now you (the state) want me to spend my hard earned money on attending a "training seminar"  to listen to a small time charlatan convey his/her experiences because that will add to my credibility, to my knowledge, to my experience, eventhough you are not quite sure what needs to be taught, just something that will keep me abreast.  Please, who are you trying to kid.  Is it money that you want?  Do you want to take my hard earned money?  Are you bored in Richmond?, can't think of anyhting more productive to do?, do you need to justify your existance?  Why don't you just tell me how much you want, I'll just give it to you.  I'm too busy trying to make a living to argue, but I am still free to express what I think - or at least I hope.

As a Federal Government employee and AIA member, I am constantly seeking out opportunities to gain additional knowledge in areas related to the practice of architecture and the science and technology facility type I am involved with.  In addition to attending a very limited number of sponsored training opportunities each year due to business schedule and budget constraints, AIA members are able to "Self Report" many continuing education opportunities that are not "sponsored" by any vendor, provider, manufacturer or sales rep.  Who is going to predetermine the number of credit hours I report for the research I do developing biomedical design criteria for the Department of the Army?  or a presentation on facility impacts to respond to increasing biosafety and surety regulations? To the AIA, this research constitutes valuable, credible continuing education.  There is no sponsor, and there is no one that does an assessment at the conclusion of the activity to verify that I have achieved the purpose and objective.  Yet the AIA considers this acceptable credit.  Why shouldn't the State of Virginia? Computation of credit is proposed to the developer of a training course at twice that which a student would get taking the course, but not to someone conducting independent research to develop criteria or manuals that affect the design of a building. 

As a Public Architect in practice for over 25 years, I choose to maintain a license because it signifies a level of professionalism.  I am not responsible for stamping documents, nor do I practice independently.  There should be an exception granted to Public Architects who are in a supporting role and maintain a license for credibility rather than responsibility.

I oversee a center at ODU that would benefit from continuing ed. requirements. However, this approach is extremely ineffective. Hands on experience is an order of magnitude more valuable than soft continuing ed classes. You folks will waive the required "on the job" experience for someone with a PhD. and then suggest that a practicing engineer needs to go to cont. ed. classes. Extremely misplaced priorities.

Vote No. 

When revenues are down in the business world, training unfornuately gets cut.  Let's not add training requirements to engineering businesses unless Virginia can guarantee a sustainable transportation engineering/construction economy.  We should revisit this in another few years when the general assembly has devised an sustainable transportation funding plan.

Thanks,

Continuing education will not help most surveyors. It especially won't help the hacks, the ones still able to practice in this day and age. I can already envision what this CE will be like: Exactly the same as the currently offered "classes" and "seminars" (an excuse for the big company guys to get the day off and schmooze and drink free coffee--while the small company guys get one more day behind in their work). I can smell VAS all over this debacle.

I think the requirement for continuing education credits is long overdue however I think 16 hours over the term of the liscense period is too steep.

Re-reading the comments regarding ethics I can say only one thing:

Ethics cannot be taught; you either have them or you don't.

I do not support mandatory continuing education program as many of the other PEs commented above.

However we need to think of an alternate solution to this problem of PEs thinking they are worthy of a PE license  until they retire.  

How about a required short refresher on-line test (in your field of specialty) every 5 years to demonstrate your compentency as an engineer?  This will force has-been engineers promoted to administrators of paper shuffling to keep their engineering skills sharpened. 

We engineers always come up with fantastic ideas and solutions to problems thought to be impossible to solve so let's brainstorm!!

I am registered in several States across the United States and each State is slightly different in requirements. There are several States that are rediculas and those are Florida and New York. An obvious attempt to keep out of staters form practicing. I would hope Virginia does not end up like that. Also you will find that Architects and Engineers have some of the largest requirements for continuing ed of any profession. In many cases twice as much as lawyers. The present system is not really very good and it really is an added cost to the company. I do learn new things every year but would probably would anyway. The biggest area of continuing ed is keeping up with all of the public sector regulations!!!!! .

I think it will be a big mistake to approve such a proposal; it will on the long run discourage engineers seeking professional licenses.  Besides, it shows lack of respect to the hard working professional engineers.  Change is good but if change is not wise and is insensitive, it leads to disruption and even to destruction to already achieved high qualities of engineering practices.  Who started this whole thing for God’s sake; do they have families to support and loans to pay and kids to spend time with; are they really aware of our demanding lives! What about our non-stop daily contribution to our community via our jobs and profession! Trust me, this is much more than what the continuing education can offer…No, there is no need for this mandatory proposal…Please use some sense and wisdom…be supportive and not discouraging to the professional engineers; appreciate their contributions to the community and don’t burden them with unnecessary mandatory continuing education.  We all attend seminars where time, cost, efficiency and benefits are considered but not under any burden or mandatory requirements. …and please, please…read and don’t disregard the written comments of our professional colleagues.  Thanks.   

Mack M. B. Homsi, P.E.

Legislation not needed nor desired. I am no longer a member of AIA in part due to their requirements for CE and the often lame content /value of  seminars, classes, etc.  To assume that practicing professionals are some how not current with the latest codes, criteria, technical advances, etc. is simply ridiculous.  Those few who are not are likely no longer in business or are facing termination by their employer as unable to perform. Why stop with design professionals, let's have legislation to require CE for all jobs and professions. What other professions does VA currently mandate CE?

Since I am also registered in Indiana which requires 24 CE hours every 2 years, I have no problem with the Virginia adopting this. It should actually help me maintain my license(s) because I think more companies like Lorman will offer Architecturally relevant CE courses here in VA.

For those with limited time and budgets there are affordable CE packages offered through NCARB where you can get a lot of credits and work through it at your own pace. I worked through one on the plane over the course of several business trips. There are also more and more FREE courses available on-line, but they are usually only one CE hour.

I do not want to be required to have hours on a specific topic as one person said was required in Florida. As long as Virginia makes the number of required hours in line with what most other states are doing (about 12 CE hours per year), I have no objections. It seems to be the direction of Professional Licensing across the country and Virginia should keep up with the times. I was actually shocked when I moved here in 2003 that a state with such large metropolitan centers did not have a CE requirement.

We do not need additional red tape to deal witj in our profession. We already have to deal with Design Review Committees, Building Inspectors, Panning, Zoning, Civic Leagues, and home owner associations. Every locality varies in their requiremnets so we are constantly have to learn what everyone requires. Those of us that are small firms do not have the resources to spend on sitting in classrooms unless there is a benifit from doing so. Clients are already balking at the increased costs we have to pass along to them and this would be such an item. For myself, I already have to spend 2 to 3 days a month sitting in doctors offices due to my health and I can't spend all weekend working trying to catch if additional burdens are placed up us. This proposal needs to be rejected.

Respecting the various modes of engineering practice, there is always the need "to keep upwith your field", or in fact  to get ahead.  In addition to the reputation of a professional engineer, the practitioner is always subject  to regulation and review by the licensing board.  Given these 'truths', it follows that all professional engineers will undertake some form of continuing education, improving practive ability.  I, therefore, favor the proposed regulatory concept, and about time, too.    One caveat, however; because of the diversity of engineering practice, there must be a diverse, yet certifiable, means of meeting the contiuing education requirements.

Engineering is a profession comprised of  highly motivated, intelligent and self starting individuals. High levels of achievement are characteristic of most within our profession. Through rigorous, self motivated efforts we have attained our knowledge and skills. It was not through state mandate that I ,and many, many more like me have attained what we have. We have done so because we are who we are. Self initiative is an ingrained part  of the professional engineer.

Although I am retired, I still feel the need to keep my skills sharply honed. My most recent endeavor has been to initiate a self study refresher on the topics of Calculus/Differential Equations/Advanced Engineering Mathematics. I have achieved this through investment of $175.00 in text books. Such self study affords me the opportunity to maintain my knowledge base at minimal personal cost and in such a manner as to give me complete flexibility in doing so.  Will your mandate afford the same? I very, very much doubt it. There will be expensive university courses or exorbitantly priced seminars. Thousands of dollars will be at play here. 

What of the people, such as myself, who are retired, or semi-retired? Would you impose such a heavy financial burden on these individuals? Many of us are on quasi fixed incomes--to us this default tax that you are imposing  has a devastating effect. We must choose between severe negative financial impact and losing a part of ourselves that is very dear to us. I am not ashamed to admit that my professional engineering license is a source of much pride to me. I worked very hard to achieve it and it would sadden me greatly to lose it. And yet the state would force me into such a painful choice. I have spent my entire career in service of the people of this state. It equates to betrayal in my eyes that you would now impose such hardship on me to retain that which I have earned many times over through the years.

The state presumes too much by imposing themselves in such manner. Is there really " value gained" in this endeavor?  Please give consideration to us and the financial burden you will impose.

It is absolutely ridiculous to mandate professional engineers maintain continuing education.  No such requirement existed when I chose this education/career and it should not be required now.  I pay my dues both in time and money and do not want to be further dictated to by education elite justifing their existance at my expense.  I work long days to feed my family (did not plan education beyond my MS) and it is just another way to add more government control/regulation where it is not needed and additional cost and nuisance to the certification renewal process.  We will lose more renewal fees than we gain in so called "education".  Should we not be reducing government control and burden in our lives?

I spent  many years working to get my BS, MS, EIT, and PE (at night) and now a business of my own, a family of 5 and no free time.  I'm 48 years old and cannot imagine keeping up with some ill conceived continuing education requirement just to maintain my PE certification.  I chose this certification and line of work because I could achieve it with hard work and then go on with my life, working harder, without further, unnecessary education.

Chances are continuing education topics would be irrelevant for my line of work.  I would let my license lapse and would have therefore wasted years and thousands of dollars and effort it took to achieve this accomplishment.  WILL SOMEONE REIMBURSE ME FOR THAT???? 

The PE guidelines work very well with self evaluation and honor system with each professional engineer responsible for deciding if further education, and what type, is needed to effectively do the job.  It's our neck in the noose.  We're adults and can decide for ourselves.

Keep government and the "teach when you can't do" educators out of our business.....

Thanks for hearing these words.

It was my understanding that the CE requirement was already in effect for Architects.   But I see from this that is apparently not the case.  (Having been a member of the AIA, there was an AIA CE requirement that predates the Virginia requirement and I therefore had the requisite hours anyway.)  I was also not aware that the law applied to Engineers and Land Surveyors.  (Where are they going to find 8 hours of useful new information every year for Land Surveyors?)  I attended several classes and presentations last year which were for the most part "worthwhile" but frankly somewhat redundant.  Three covered Building Codes.  That took up three days.  And I got credit for showing up and paying my $175 ($525 total).  I frankly would have found a good synopsis for each seminar, readable in two hours,  far more useful. 

Over the span of my forty year career, I have been required, in the course of doing business, to continue my education through technical and product research as well as extensive travel.  I have kept abreast of changing code requirements and have learned to use a computer which has made me far more self sufficient but has reduced my need for a secretary or draftsmen (jobs?).   And let's not forget LEED and all those green buildings.  (Note that very little, if any, "green building" or USGBC study time gets CE credit.)

So I would have to say that competition has, heretofore, required me to learn and evolve.  And I have continually expanded my professional knowledge base WITHOUT A LEGISLATED MANDATE TO DO SO.   BAD LEGISLATION.   What's next?  Re-sitting our board exams?  

So I would have to agree with many of the comments made so far that  "MCE" best serves the special interest of the AIA and education establishment and has little to do with insuring the greater interest or safety of the general public.

I'd like to know what has precipitated the discussion leading towards requiring continuing education.  Has there been an increase in poor engineering, unethical acts, threats to public safety?  If not, we as an engineering community must ask ourselves why this is being imposed on us.  Absent these issues, this simply seems to me to be a discussion aimed to follow in the steps of other states because it simply sounds like a good idea or to drum up business for companies offering continuing education courses.

I certainly have nothing against condinuing education, having a Master's Degree myself.  However, given the current economic conditions, I believe that there are more prudent uses of the Commonwealth's resources than to institue and monitor this program.  For instance, Northern Virginia has serious issues related to transportation funding that need to be addressed.  Last I checked, we completed botched the chance to get Metro to Dulles Airport.

Another better use of resources would be to use the money that would be spent on this to recruit and retain better engineers in state and local positions.  There is quite a disparity between what an engineer can make in the public section versus the private sector and the engineering community needs to think seriously about that so that there are an adequate number of qualified and competent engineers reviewing and approving plans.