Meeting Information: http://freshfromflorida.com/News-Events/Event-Calendar PCEAC FY 2016 -2017 Approved Meeting Schedule July 20, 2016 Apopka and via teleconference/web FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES PEST CONTROL ENFORCEMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL July 20, 2016 - Meeting 50 - Apopka, Florida Mid-Florida Education and Research Center (UF/IFAS) and by Teleconference/Web 2725 Binion Road - Apopka, Florida 32703 - 850.617.7913 July 19, 2017 Apopka and via teleconference/web Teleconference Information: Phone: 1.888.670.3525 Conference/Pass Code: 868.149.2952 Webconference Information: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/????????? Teleconference Information: Phone: 1.888.670.3525 Conference/Pass Code: 868.149.2952 March 1, 2017 Apopka and via teleconference/web Teleconference Information: Phone: 1.888.670.3525 Conference/Pass Code: 868.149.2952 Webconference Information: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/????????? Apopka and via teleconference/web Teleconference Information: Phone: 1.888.670.3525 Conference/Pass Code: 868.149.2952 Webconference Information: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/????????? November 2, 2016 Webconference Information: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/725881557
July 19, 2017Apopka and via teleconference/webTeleconference Information: Phone: 1.888.670.3525 Conference/Pass Code: 868.149.2952Webconference Information: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/?????????
March 1, 2017Apopka and via teleconference/webTeleconference Information: Phone: 1.888.670.3525 Conference/Pass Code: 868.149.2952Webconference Information: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/?????????
Apopka and via teleconference/webTeleconference Information: Phone: 1.888.670.3525 Conference/Pass Code: 868.149.2952Webconference Information: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/?????????
13:15 Council Member’s Comments and Issues Bee Removal Issues - Jon Simkins
Goldenberg
Workplan Discussion
13:35 Next Steps and Agenda Items for Next Meeting Goldenberg/Parker
· Review Action Items and Assignments
· Identify Agenda Items for Next Meeting
· Identify Needed Information and/or Background Documents
13:45 Meeting Adjourn Goldenberg
PCEAC Meeting July 20, 2016
Agenda
AFFILIATION/REPRESENTATIONA P Other
L Brantley, Sean (past-chair) Pest Control Operator (structural fumigation)
P Brock, Tim Pest Control Operator (lawn and ornamental)
P Cooksey, Bryan Pest Control Operator (termite control)
P Dubberly, Dale Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (FDACS)
P Goldenberg, Norman (chair) Pest Control Operator (general household)
Vacancy Consumer Representative
P Jonovich, Joe Pest Control Operator (termite control)
P Kern, Bill University of Florida (State University Urban Entomologist)
P Sapp, D.R. (secretary) Pest Control Operator (structural fumigation)
P Schlessinger, David Pest Control Operator (general household)
P Witherington, Luis (John) Pest Control Operator (lawn and ornamental)
AFFILIATION/REPRESENTATIONA P Other
P Joseph Parker FDACS
A Sarah Oglesby FDACS
P George Hayslip FDACS
P Paul Mitola FDACS
A Neil Richmond FDACS
P Gary Stanford FDACS
T Richard Miles INDUSTRY
P Jon Simkins INDUSTRY
P Pete Quartuccio COSWFL
P Vern Morris CPCO
P Mike Beckers CPCO
P Mark Ruff INDUSTRY
P Allan Fugler INSURANCE
Welcome / Introductions
A=Absent, P=Present, T= Teleconference, W=Web conference, L=Arrived Late Council Member (alpha)
Other AttendeesA=Absent, P=Present, T= Teleconference, W=Web conference, L=Arrived Late
PCEAC Meeting March 2, 2016 Minutes 10:00 Welcome and Introductions Goldenberg Goldenberg – I’d like to welcome everyone to the March meeting of the Pest Control Enforcement Advisory Council and thank you for your attendance and participation and to the guests that are here and I’d like to start with DR to introduce themselves. DR – OK, I’m DR Sapp with Florida Pest Control out of Gainesville Sean – I’m Sean Brantley with Brantley and Sons out of Pinellas Dave – Dave Schlessinger, 5 Star Pest Management out of Jacksonville, Florida Cooksey – Bryan Cooksey McCall Services Jacksonville, Florida Goldenberg – Norman Goldenberg Namron Business Associates representing Terminix International Brock – Tim Brock, Brock Lawn & Pest Control Panama City Jonovich – Joe Jonovich – Technical Pest Solutions, West Palm Beach Dubberly – Dale Dubberly, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Parker – Joe Parker with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Neil – Neil Richmond, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services George – George Hayslip, with the Department’s Bureau of Licensing and Enforcement Sarah – Sarah Oglesby, Bureau of Licensing and Enforcement Beckers – Mike Beckers CPCO of Florida Ken – Ken Kendlemen, Ensystex 10:05 Agenda Review and Approval (March 2, 2016) Goldenberg – OK, do we have anyone on the phone yet? OK, you’ve all got the agenda as it’s been published and there may be some additional information under the section regarding the funding process which is on the agenda so I’m sure that Dale and Joe will get into that so at this time I’d like to move forward with the Summary Report Review of last month’s meeting and I don’t know if you’ll have any questions on that summary report that’s been submitted as part of the documents? Joe do you have any comments to make on that? Parker – I have been informed to reduce the summary to a summary instead of a word‐for‐word transcript – so, I will not be providing a transcription in the future. Goldenberg – OK, thank you. I think that’s important. Anything else on the summary report? Dubberly – Mr. Chairman, did you approve the agenda? Goldenberg‐ I’m sorry, yes, the agenda’s been presented and I’d accept a motion to approve it Moved; seconded… Goldenberg – any discussion? DR – Yes, I thought we were going to have an item with the 482 and 487 discussion? Did I miss it? Dubberly – Yes, it’s on there – at the 11:25 mark DR – Got it‐ OK – I couldn’t find it Goldenberg – any other discussion? Unanimous Goldenberg – OK, next up is the Update Work Plan and Meeting Schedule Review and Approval – any discussion on the work plan? Parker – That’s mine right? I’m putting the summary up on screen at this point, I only had six respondees complete the ranking – there were 16 items in the active work plan and I did keep this as active and closed ‐ what items we are working on and then the items that we have closed. Of course, you can resurrect anything from the closed items during a council meeting. There were 36 items on the closed report and then we have 10 standing report items. So, we had six people respond – two of those skipped ranking the closed items entirely and of the 16 items we re‐ranked, I used/extracted the items
scoring 4 responses – it seems like we can only handle about 10 items a year and so using anything that ranked higher than a four and adding in the items from the closed area that was resurrected, I came up with the proposed plan. Of course the group can alter this or make any changes that they’d like. Here’s the raw data that was generated and unlicensed operators floated out as the top item, willful violators followed right behind, then misuse of certificates, then training in the industry and inspector training and education were the highest ranked in the open topics area. Within the closed area, there were a couple of items reactivated – accountability for improper acts; and independent contracting… Dave – I think those were kind of based upon our last meeting, too… Parker – …correct, and there’s no problem – it’s what the council wants to do. I also updated the annual results. So, from that I created the proposed work plan. And I retained the same lettering/numbering system so you can trace an item from the active work plan to the closed plan to see its discussion history. And the standing reports remained unchanged. So, our standard meeting schedule all stays the same, So, is everyone satisfied with the proposed work plan? ?? – it can always be changed if we need to. Parker – that is correct. It can be amended at anytime. Goldenberg – OK, any questions on this topic? And let me take a step back I failed to get an approval from the council on the minutes from the previous meeting – there are about 18 pages associated with the last meeting and he’s just going to provide a summary in the future so if you’ve had an opportunity to take a look at that, I’d like to call for a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting. Moved (dave), seconded (sean) Goldenberg – any discussion on the minutes? OK, all in favor? Unanimous Sean – Mr Chairman – I’ve just got a text message from Allen Fugler who’s trying to get onto the conference number and it’s indicating it’s expired? So, I don’t know how many other people might be trying to get in. Parker ‐ Can you send him access# 868‐149‐2952 – conference# 888‐670‐3525 Sean – he’s using 801‐949‐0614. Parker – that’s the Division’s number – we’re using SETA’s. Parker – OK, so we got the minutes accepted? We’ll need that on the work plan too. Moved, seconded Goldenberg – any discussion? All in favor Unanimous. Goldenberg – We moving into agency issues with Mr. Dubberly 10:35 Agency Issues Updates (Regulatory/Rule Making; Budget; Issues) Dubberly Dale – Thank you Mr. Chairman. We’ve had two rule workshops for the sixteen page rule – the majority of that rule was for forms that need to be adopted as part of the reorganization. There’s some updating of some CEUs information and using on‐line processes and the most controversial part is probably the consent form, and we recognize that, Representative Broxan’s form. We had 6 folks attend the first rule workshop here in Apopka and there were some comments provided by a couple of the attendees. The second workshop was held in Gulf Breeze in which we had virtually no attendees accept for myself and an aide from Representative Broxan’s office. No one from industry attended. Jeff – that was a nice drive though, right? (laughter) Dale – yeah, that was a nice 479 mile ride for me (laughter) – I spent a lot of windshield time there on I‐10 there and back, but there were no attendees. DR – Just as a suggestion, I would have been at the Apopka meeting and I would have had people at the West Florida meeting but when I went to the proposed changes, which to me is the meat and potatoes, and it said the date and time to be determined. So I didn’t see that at the bottom of the cover letter which I felt was addressed to someone other than myself. But my suggestion is when you’re advertising
the proposed rules, if you have a date and time, it should be on there, on the proposed rules themselves so a reader is aware of that. I missed it, Sean called me up and said hey are you on your way and I said on my way where? He said the rules workshop and I didn’t know the time and date. ?? – I spoke on your behalf…. DR – Well thanks, I appreciate that, but just for clarification, in the future, when ya’ll send that out if you have a date and time, it should be on the proposed rules. Parker – I can understand that, all I have is a draft and we have to wait until Division has reviewed and we get word they’re ready to publish in the FAR and by then we’ve got very little time to even find some locations. But I should have re‐distributed everything once we had dates set. DR – Historically, it’s not been a problem but I missed it and I couldn’t prepare my people in West Florida the next day – anyway, I’d just like to suggest it. Dale – that is the only packet that we have currently have Norman – well, that’s a constructive suggestion and I know you want as many people as possible to attend and in the original we could forward that on to others who may not be on that list Parker – I understand, but what DR is suggesting is getting the location date and time on the actual notice‐ and with this particular package – there were two separate notices for each location, date and time. Norman – I know that’s difficult to do on a short timeline, but we appreciate the Department notifying everyone and it’s just a positive suggestion. DR – That was not meant to be critical…but I would have liked to have been there. Norman – …right…Thanks DR….Dale? Dale – That’s all I had Mr. Chairman – I don’t have any other budget items or issues Norman – Any questions on the workshops or other items reported? Sean? Sean – Yeah, the 6 or 8 comments that you had, how long does that take to be processed and what’s the favorability of those comments that the department received? Dale – They’ve been set up through Division and will go through our legal section for review. Sean – And how long does that process take? Dale – That won’t take too long, I’d expect to hear back next week or so Sean – And where do we get to see the results? Will that just be automatically published? Dale – It will be filed for adoption if the decide to proceed Sean – And where to we get to see that document? Dale – I’ll send it back out to this group and it will be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly before you see that. Sean – So I take it you’ll just send that out? Dale – Right and if it’s published and adopted as presented, then there will be an effective date. Sean – Off the record and just between us, do you think we’ll get any of those proposed suggestion? Dale – Probably not is the feedback I got. Sean – OK Dale – But that doesn’t mean that after the rule’s adopted that we can’t go back in there and revise it again. Norman – So, what is the next step then? It’s in the hands of the Division right now and then it will come back down as published and then what happens? Dale – It will have an effective date on it – it’s normally 21 days after publishing Norman – OK Dale – And then we do a blast out to the industry indicating the changes, new forms, effective date and other instructions. And all of the Department forms will have a new effective date on them, too. DR – I think they proposed June for that to go into effect? Dale – There’s really not a date that’s been set
Jeff – I think that you were going to give us six months with the consent form after it’s effective? Dale – Yeah, but the Department forms will be immediate – that’s been the big push on this to get our department forms into the rule. But the consent form is what’s causing the holdup – we want to get this done, this rule is way behind schedule. Norman – OK, any other questions? Sean – Can I ask one more question? I think we’re still in a general discussion of rules. Do you know if and when the bill passes, have you already established some preliminary dates for our rule making on the fumigation issues? Dale – Sean, I’m looking to tie that into some of our upcoming meetings that we have, like the Southeast Pest Management meeting Sean – So I think I’m following you, you’re thinking of having the rulemaking hearing at Southeast Pest Management? Dale – No, just some preliminary discussions – I don’t even know when we’re going to have a draft, hopefully, fairly quickly but I’m not sure when we’ll start rulemaking Sean – So your idea is to have several of these workgroups Dale – Yes, there’s going to be several workgroups and we’re going to try to move them around the state – one in Ft Lauderdale, one here in Apopka, probably one in Gainesville or Alachua and then maybe one in West Florida. We’ll know here pretty shortly, the sessions slated to end next week That’s all I have Mr. Chairman Norman – Thank you, Dale. That’s it? OK, next, George? 10:45 Agency Enforcement Activities and Policies Review and Discussion Hayslip Review Quarterly Enforcement Statistics and Trends with illegal operator breakdowns Review Ag Law Enforcement Statistics George – OK, thank you Mr Chairman, I’ve supplied the quarterly enforcements from the 2nd quarter, October through December (reviewed document) It’s across the board lower, but that’s pretty typical for that quarter with Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. Getting into more detail for the unlicensed pest control actions, there were 9 actions issued for unlicensed pest control ‐ 9 received Warning letters – 7 of those were LCLM or LF; 1 was for WDO inspections; and the last one was a situation where a Chapter 487 licensed applicator was applying to a Chapter 482 licensed application site. So, technically it was unlicensed pest control that the applicator was unaware of at the time. That’s the breakdown and I know this is a current issue for us. We have made some modifications to our database and the processes that were between us and the referral staff in Tallahassee to coordinate re‐inspections of these type of violations in particular. The issue with unlicensed pest control, especially with these that are not reaching the level of a fine, is that they are not brick and mortar. If they are not doing business, it’s a matter of re‐inspecting with 60 days with only a license plate and a home address – it’s a little problematic and we don’t want to waste resources, but the inspection staff does recognize that we want to follow up and determine if they have come into compliance. So, we have the mechanism in place to track them and we do that with re‐inspections anyway but it’s a challenge to track down these small operators. So we’re open for suggestions, but this is an agenda item for later discussion. That’s all I’ve got. Norman – OK – Questions? Discussions? George – I believe the next item is on the law enforcement and Dale can you help me out? Did John work on Sunland? Dale – Yeah, he was involved in Sunland, but he didn’t have anything else – he was on medical leave for the majority of this quarter – he’s got several cases pending. Norman – OK, any questions? OK, next on the list is Agency Updates on Relevant issues, Dale? 10:55 Agency Briefings and Updates on Relevant Issues
Dale – In your hardback binder there is the Structural Fumigation Regulations and Processes from the auditor general’s inspection report – I’m not going to go through it, but I thought you all would like a copy. There are several recommendations that is being addressed by the bill going through the legislature now and there are some that we’ve already taken care of, for instance, there was a finding that we didn’t have enough chloropicrin test kits in the field. That was a simple one to remedy, we just went out and purchased some more. There are 3 or 4 recommendations that talked about data quality in there which are basically addressing our computer systems up there and those are currently being addressed also… Brian – So what does that mean? Does that mean they are giving you more money to spend on computer stuff? Dale – No, they’re just telling us to fix it. (laughter) It means we’re going to reshuffle the deck here with our IT folks and we’re moving things up on a higher priority list. Brian – I thought that might be the intention. Dale – Yeah, that’s the intention – it was kind of a good thing for us, we’ve been fighting for that for a long time and now that the deck has been kind of reshuffled here we’ve kind of got that back up on higher priorities, so that is being addressed internally with no additional funds on that. Norman – Give us an example if you can Dale of what’s been re‐shuffled. You’re just prioritizing things based on the report with no additional funds Dale – What we have Norman is periodic strategic planning sessions which involves all of our bureaus, there are 4 bureaus in the Division, and we go through a process with our IT folks to determine priorities. I have to compete against my fellow partners, like I have to compete against Sarah here with her needs so, we have to present our cases there. The good thing is that Sarah and my needs tend to go hand in hand – well all of the bureaus go hand in hand because you’ve got the lab that ties into it but you know, the lab might have a deal with a laboratory information management system that they need x, y, and z, and we may need a new case tracking database. But we only have so many IT people who write these programs, so, if we need to get into those priorities there, you know, is it LIMS first or case tracking we have to weigh out those options. Since we’ve reorganized, we’ve ended up with 3 databases over here and I know you’re going to laugh at the names but we have cats, copycats and butterfly (laughter) so you know, and that’s where the data quality came into play – we’re trying to pull out of old bureaus, new bureaus, and merged bureaus and I’m quite sure some of you guys with companies can relate to IT problems. That’s one and now we’re down to 2 databases, right? Yeah, cats and copy cats. The pending fumigation legislation will also get a higher priority. Cooksey – so you get to direct your priorities the IG’s office priorities won’t take priority? Dale – yeah, their focus was they feel that we should spend more time on the aeration process out there and those, as you all are aware, take a lot of time to perform an aeration and clearance inspection out there. There are not as easy as say a tent on where you probably do twenty of them easily – in Pinellas County, that might only take half a day…but to sit on an aeration when you don’t know when it’s going to happen can take an extraordinary amount of time. Cooksey – so ya’ll processed all of that and what did you conclude? Dale – well, we’re just going to throw a little more of the field resources toward it – we’ll have a few more SEOs, in fact, we just had an SEO a little over two weeks ago. So, we’ve got a few more of them scheduled for around the state and we’re just going to commit our resources that way – we’re not getting any additional people or funds. Cooksey – and you’ve also got four or five slots vacant Dale – we currently have eight vacancies right now in the state – so we’re scrambling trying to get those eight positions filled but it just takes time and now we have to track them too…it’s getting harder and harder to find folks in some areas of the state but the economy is coming back and everybody is competing for the same work force out there. Sean?
Sean – I just want to make sure that Bryan understands that we’re talking about the aeration and clearance and it’s just about impossible for you to do anything but sit around and wait for us to show up. I think you could streamline the process if you could set aside a team that members of private industry could work with and show you how you can map it out – all you have to do is watch the truck leave. If he goes north he’s going to the farthest site first – so you can figure it out looking at yesterday’s jobs and today’s jobs probably with 15 minutes of their arrival. Dale ‐ …with the exception of southeast Florida… Sean – well, they’re still not going to run it randomly back and forth but if you sit by the shop and watch for the first truck to leave headed for a take down, you’ll know it based on the direction he heads off to so you could follow him right to the job. They fume trucks – they’re easy to tail….you don’t have to be right behind it… Dale ‐….right, we’ve done a lot of that… Sean – that’s what I think is going to happen, a better use of the resources – you can’t afford to have an inspector sit at a house all day long. Dale – we’re starting to get a handle on the streamlining our resources now. Cooksey – getting better intel? Dale – yep, we’re starting with better information… Sean ‐ ….and I think that’s something else that the industry can help you with, too… Dale – right, but the immediate focus will be on SEOs for right now. Hayslip – was there anything in the proposed legislation about notification of the aeration process or extending it, I mean we know it wouldn’t be very popular, but I just thought I saw that somewhere… Dale – that was in a first draft… Sean ‐…that was in a first draft and not just wildly unpopular it would be impossible to do it – it just isn’t going to happen. There’s no way for us to tell you 48 hours in advance when we’re going to be there to take a job down – because that’s what you’re asking for – we’d have to know 24 hours before it’s even gone up and it just can’t be done. Goldenberg – you’d have to have an inspector with every crew… (laughter) ?? – FDA meat inspector?...checking poultry. Dale – with 65,000 inspections in a year (laughter) Sean – So Dale, at some point, are you going to be able to talk to us about the SEO you mentioned or would now be an appropriate time to mention it? Dale – no we can stop and talk about that now, but first, are there anymore questions on the IG report before we move into that? Sean – the only thing I have to say about the IG’s report is while it’s a very clear report, 70 something pages, you’ve heard me say this at least several, several times by now, I’m very disappointed by the fact that the IG in Florida went to Louisiana and California to obtain their information rather than coming out and actually looking at Florida – I mean looking at Louisiana when they might do 5 fumigations and then looking at one county in California that has more inspectors that you do in the entire state which lets them look at 40% ‐ I mean, I understand the target, I understand the goal but it was almost a manipulation of the data to make it look like Florida isn’t doing as good a job as you’re doing. I make the argument that Florida’s doing a damn good job. Especially considering you had a Sunland case happened and just like that you kicked butt and did what you needed to do administratively. I think we’ve managed pretty well considering we’ve had one death and one major illness out of 300,000 jobs in a five year report. That’s outstanding. I mean we kill more ducks doing power sprays… Dale – yeah, and I even expressed when we were going into this thing that there’s really no way to do a proper comparison – I stated that right up front – you can’t compare Florida to California – there’s just no way to do that and nothing else in the southeast either – Florida stands out on its own and that kind of leads us into my next topic there which is the OIG report – the EPA OIG report. They did come down
and they visited with us for a couple of days, we took them into the field, showed them the fumigations being performed – one of them even attended the fumigation school in November, so they are continuing their review…I believe they’ve been to Texas, I think they called Hawaii, and they did contact California but they’re kind of doing the same thing – we did have a call with them a couple of weeks ago, actually about a month ago now, and they’ve asked for more cases from Florida. We’ve provided them more data about the inspection processes and things like that so it appears at this point that they are moving forward with the Federal Office of Inspector General’s office so we can expect the completion of that probably in the middle of November or December which will state what their recommendations are. There are three members on that team gathering data to look at that. Their review is a focused a little bit differently – they’re looking at it evaluating oversight of Region IV which Florida belongs in, to see if they have been providing proper oversight and guidance for structural fumigation – what kind of support they’re providing – and that’s a very difficult question to answer based on a single incident and once again, you can’t compare eight other states with the region nor the different regions to each other. Some of the states in our region perform a handful of fumigations in a year and have antiquated regulations on their books. You don’t like to throw your counterparts under the bus but they just don’t have the sheer volume – in fact, several of them have contacted us and taken our regulations and inspection scheme and are trying to integrate that into their programs. So, there’s just not a comparison with Region IV that does anywhere near our volume of work. And, in my opinion, to compare us to California is not proper based on their rules and regulations – they’ve got a totally different aeration procedure and everything. So we’ll share whatever we get in December or whenever, but for now, we’re just trying to close up the recommendations the IGs office has made and for the most part, that is just shifting around some resources and making some things a higher priority. Sean – Dale, just one more thing – I know the about of work put in from both Bureau’s in generating the information and everything and I just want you to know that I think you’re doing a fine job of accommodating whatever those requests were and it seems like the Department has been moving in the right direction in mitigating the stupidity and help regulate the outcome to something a little more positive and on top of what you said about the EPAs OIG, I think that the EPA, when they were with us, made comment over and over and over again that the bar is Florida and the other states are much below this and they are very concerned about the other states – Florida was not the priority. In other words, it didn’t feel like they wanted to kick Florida in the teeth at all but they definitely wanted a plan approved for like Georgia for example and Louisiana has a very piss poor reporting process so it seems that that’s where their focus is at – at least at that point. Dubberly – they are going to try to raise the bar in those other areas … Sean – Yeah, it’s kind of nice having the East Coast leading the West Coast for once. Goldenberg – OK, Dale? Dubberly – this is the GIBMP workgroup? ?? – Yes… Dubberly – We haven’t met yet, we’re meeting March the 22nd and 23rd at the Center for Conservation and Landscape Ecology at the University of Florida – that’s where this issue is residing right now. I mentioned at the last meeting that they have asked the DEP for an increase in funds for the GIBMP training and I think that’s where that discussion is going to take place. I did present the paper to try to sell the combination deal with the LCLM and LF and GIBMP that we’ve discussed before and that might come back up to. You know we have about 36,000 persons GIBMP trained and about 12,000 licensed in that category – about a third and there are issues with the certification – you can’t supervise; it’s a one year credential for LCLM and 4 year for LF. We can’t identify whether a companies has any GIBMP training because the credential, like the other limited programs, are issued to an individual – we don’t capture nor keep up with employers. But Dr Michael Dukes will be presenting that position paper there
on what their conversations with DEP and whether they can move forward with that – you know the GIBMP is a DEP program – we’ve only got a rule requiring issuance of a credential at the tail end of that Any other questions on that Mr. Chair? Goldenberg – Any questions? No? Item two Dubberly ‐ for the presumed in compliance, we have 5 companies that have participated in the presumed in compliance and so far they are working out pretty well. We haven’t had any major issues. Goldenberg – Has anyone reported themselves? Dubberly – we’ve had one or two that reported a couple of minor issues – one company that was participating that was sold and we replaced them with another company. We will probably provide a little more detailed report on that at the next meeting, too which will put us at the end of the first year, if I’m not mistaken. We’ll provide a summary report of what items have been reported with our evaluation of the program. Goldenberg – OK, any other questions? Cooksey – addressing the timeline on that, after a year, are you happy? Is it going well? Dubberly – Yeah, I think we’ll need to have the discussion about keeping the program, possible expansion. I do think it’s freed up some of my resources, Bryan, where I could put them in higher priority area. Cooksey – I think after reading the IG’s report, it makes a lot of sense. Dubberly – right – we can use those resources that were used on routine stuff where you never have violations and focus your energies over here where you need to. I think if we expanded it, we’d have some positive impact on the areas that need it. Goldenberg – Dale, do you or Sarah want to get into any of the streamlined processes for ID cards, credit cards? This is stuff that can be talked about from time to time as it’s appropriate. Dubberly – Sarah would be the one…I’m quite sure Sarah – Well, it’s like Dale mentioned before, the IT section is going to shifting to the fumigation with a higher priority and we’ll still have to use those same IT resources for what we’ve been working on which is getting more of our licensing processes on‐line. And so, I was going to mention briefly, if there’s time for it, that we have got the new business on‐line and we’re getting close to finishing up the renewal processes – they are in test right now and then it will be the limited renewals. But as far as I’ve heard, I thought people were not as happy with ID cards now on the paper format and having to get them by mail, I’ve heard a lot of different ideas for ways to change that and I would look to the council and to others in the industry to send some feedback of ideas they think we could use to provide ID cards. Upload of electronic photo for ID cards, if you use the electronic system, you don’t have to do that. We’ve talked about changing the paper quality and other paper options like less destructible waterproof focusing on water resistance and being a lot more durable so you aren’t replacing for tearing getting wet. We talked about reaching out to DMV and our Division of Licensing that issues the concealed weapon to discuss the actual driver’s license type cards. There are some issues with that as the ID cards are an annual/yearly process which might prevent us from keeping ID card costs lower, so we have thrown out a lot of ideas and we’d love to hear from the industry on what direction we should maybe take ?? Hayslip? – the annual renewal process is being looked at (unintelligible) Sarah – Right, so, we’re definitely talking about that (unintelligible) We have to keep in mind that it is an annual renewal and we’re trying to keep costs down and we’re moving things on‐line Sean – Sarah, it’s also annual for fishing licenses and hunting licenses and they are on plastic cards. Sarah – how much did that cost? Sean – I think it was $20 and to be honest with you, I think we could consider a rule change at this point because really the big problem here is having your picture on it and your signature on it – why is that
necessary when it’s next to my driver’s license? I mean it’s an ID but if you need to know who I am, I’ve got a driver’s license. Dubberly – I brought that up before – why is the picture necessary if we just make you show proof of who you are. You don’t have to prove to me – you’ve got to prove to the consumer who you are… Sean – yeah, but the consumer isn’t writing me a fine for not having a picture. Dubberly ‐‐ …right… (Laughter) Sean ‐ yeah but we had a driver stopped and questioned about it and he took a piece of tape and affixed his driver’s license to the back of the card and resolved the issue. That’s just stupid. Dubberly – that would resolve a lot of the issues if we did away with the mug shot. Parker – I’d like to mention as part of our new processes, we are entering driver’s license numbers now and the long term goal is sharing DMV’s database, punch in the license, look it up just like the cops do. Cooksey – so you’ll have to provide a driver’s license number? Parker – it’s part of the new ID card processes now – on the screen is what’s “live” on the website right now, you can renew your individual certificate; sign up for certification exams; you can pay for the issuance of the certificate once you’ve passed; Limited Fertilizer applications are here; Apply for a new business license; and, like Sarah said, we are really close to rolling out renewals and change of ownership/addresses – I’m hoping within a few weeks… Sarah – the standard line is “any day now”…. Parker – but if you are doing the add new employee, well, let me demonstrate – anyone have a JB number? JB 450 – Brock? It pulled him up, his information is here, we can go to add employees… Sean – why does it say revoke the license now? (Laughter) Parker – yeah, my point was to show you that if you’re going to enter a brand new person – your driver’s license is now a required field. ?? – So, what if they don’t have a driver’s license Parker – Well, they’ll need a Florida ID card or Driver’s license… ?? – So, what if they don’t have either? Parker – Well, that’s a little bit of an issue, but that also means they are not going to be driving any of your vehicles around and servicing customers by themselves. Dubberly – they just have to go get an ID card….from DMV… Sean – But there are some people that won’t do that or won’t know about it. ?? – well tell them when they bring the truck back… (Laughter) Parker ‐ …to finish this, if we went through the rest of the form, entered a credit card and hit submit, Mr. Brock could have a new employee – boom. So, the system is up. Dubberly – but not an ID card…. Parker – that’s sent electronically to the email used to log into the system. ?? – What if they have an ID card? Parker – if you knew their JE number and entered it here, it would generate another screen that is populated with their information and allows you to update their information and requires the driver’s license and date of birth and email because our system doesn’t have those 3 tidbits of information. Goldenberg – so you can renew your certificate on‐line now? Parker – yes, sir. Goldenberg – well when someone renews it, how do you get the documentation? Parker – there is an upload feature within the program or you can also upload us documents using the upload function in the left navigation pane – please don’t use that a lot as it does not associate with your application and it could take us a while to match things up.
Goldenberg – so if someone renews their certified operator certificate as a certified operator and they do not send you the CEU information how long does it take you to find that out? Parker – as soon as the staff evaluates the application – it’s instantaneous – they know it’s not attached. We are still approving the renewals – staff is evaluating this information. Sarah – it still has to be approved on our end. Goldenberg – OK, so just because they make the payment on line, that doesn’t mean they’ve completed a renewal… Sarah ‐ …no, and the site states that fact that receipt of money does not obligate a renewal. Goldenberg – so you can upload those documents for CEUs? Parker – yes sir. Goldenberg – so they have to be scanned and uploaded, is that what you mean? Parker – yes, you scan them and have the saved to a location on your computer so that they are available to browse to and attach. DR – and that will send the attachment to you all. David – if it’s CEU information, why not have a database that already has that information in it? Parker – that’s coming.. Sarah – we’re working on that Parker – it’s the priority issue that will delay that. David – So I could go on line and look and go oh, yeah, I need to get that. Sarah – we’re working on another database to do that – it’s on the 487 side, but it will capture all of your CEUs and require the providers to enter all of their attendees and you can see what CEUs you have and what’s missing. Parker – I’m afraid the priority has gotten bumped down on that. Dubberly – yeah, I think that one’s going to take a little bit of a slip on the list…. Goldenberg – part of that shuffle? Jonovich – getting back to the card, and your concern about keep costs low, if you go to something like the FWC, is it possible to use the same card multiple years? Maybe a sticker on the back with an updated date? Sarah – right, well we’ve talked about that, too and there’s the idea that we might be coming to expect some different licensing term periods from the C&T rules coming down from EPA where they are looking to move everyone utilizing RUPs to a 3 year term – so that’s going to hit the 487 side mostly but that could have some impact and could lead to some change for renewal periods. ?? – Aren’t ID cards for 2 years? Dubberly – No, one year for ID cards DR – why couldn’t… Sean – …excuse me...DR – but the certification and training impact the period the card would be good for impacts the 487 side and be three years, but we’re already more restrictive than that – so that’s not going to change ours… Sarah – right, so there is some equivalency written in there so that if the state is more restrictive, there won’t be as much of an impact Sean – we already are more restrictive – it’s not going to slow us down – reciprocity is the only thing left in C&T that we have to control. DR – I’d like to sign up for the lifetime ID card…. (laughter) DR – but you know, we maybe ought to consider changing the rule from one year where you can sign up for 5 years or something… Dubberly – I think you ought to have a discussion, too – what is the necessity of the picture? DR – we’ve had those…
Sean – …we’ve had that discussion for 20 years and have gotten zero response. Dubberly – from my perspective in the field – I get zero complaints from consumers about well, who’s shown up at my door… Sarah – Well, it’s going to go away more, too, as we move more on‐line because we don’t require it now on‐line for the ID card apps – that’s just something they affix when they get it in the email and so we only have it in‐house for the paper applications that come in and if an inspector wants to see somebody’s photo but that’s going to start becoming fewer and fewer as more people go on line Sean – especially with your connection to DMV – they’ll get the picture from the driver’s license Sarah – Well, our hopeful connection… Dubberly – I can tell you if we run something through the ag law enforcement side, we can get a good mug shot of them… I can sit in my office and do that… Sarah ‐ …at this point, they are really tight with their technology… ?? – I just walked into the local Ag office and within 5 minutes I walked out with a new license. Sarah – right, and they have those stations throughout the state that allow you to go in regionally and we were looking to determine where the bulk of the ID cardholders were throughout the state and there are some definite areas where it might work…there are a bunch of different avenues, we just have to figure out what’s most cost effective and fastest Dubberly – Mr. Chairman, it might be worth adding a little action item on the agenda for us to kind of present like what DR said – options for a 4 year and no picture ID, I mean, that would make y’all’s process a lot easier DR – I think we ought to place this on the agenda and maybe that’s the mechanism or vehicle to get something going. Sean – I agree… Parker – I’m only concerned with employee turnover issues and having someone presenting identification that looks valid, even though they’ve left the company. On the other hand, you have a way of removing them from your company… David – even with an annual license, if they leave you half way through the year you’re still going to have the same issue. Sean – we’ve all had a terminated employee that is still carrying the credential in their wallet… Hayslip – while we’re thinking about discussions, maybe address the major violation issues and does that mean we’d have to change the statute to eliminate the picture and the signature? That would mean it would not be a major, minor or any kind of violation. Dubberly – right, we’re talking statutory, I’m sure. Sean – 091? Dubberly – yes Goldenberg – OK, this is great and it’s been a good discussion – anything else? I think Joe has captured that for the next agenda. Dale, you’re still on with the 482/487 stuff Parker – can we take a quick break before we get into that one? Goldenberg – let’s take a 10 minute break… Goldenberg – OK, let’s reconvene…and before we get going, I failed to recognize three new members of the council – Joe Jonovich, Tim Brock, and Bill Kern and as I mentioned before, as Sean told me, Bill is not here because his mother unexpectedly passed away, so our condolences to him and his family. Dubberly – and Luis Witherington is a new member who’s not here today. Goldenberg – and Luis DR – Well, welcome Tim and Joe – congratulations (applause) Goldenberg – OK, so, Dale, I think you still have the floor 11:25 Clarification of enforcement issues 482/487 reporting requirements follow up
Dubberly – Thank you Mr. Chair. This next issue is an issue with 482 and 487 and it primarily deals with athletic fields and let me take a stab at explaining this here and show you the conflicts in two different statutes and it really needs to be fixed especially since we’re having conversations now about re‐writing or updating, I’ll say, the L&O and O&T manual which is one manual and this needs to be clarified in there so that people can understand and which type of license or licenses they need. I’m just going to read a few things out of two different statutes. In Chapter 482 under definitions of agricultural area – (1)(b) golf course, park, nursery, or cemetery. No mention of athletic fields. In Chapter 487, and look at the category for O&T talks about this category is applicable to individuals using or supervising the use of RUPs, or other pesticides requiring licensure, in the production of ornamental trees, shrubs, flowers or turf or for the maintenance of any such ornamental plants or turfgrasses growing in or on cemeteries, golf courses, parks, or athletic fields. David – Can you read that one more time? Dubberly – repe this category is applicable to individuals using or supervising the use of RUPs, or other pesticides requiring licensure, in the production of ornamental trees, shrubs, flowers or turf or for the maintenance of any such ornamental plants or turfgrasses growing in or on cemeteries, golf courses, parks, or athletic fields.ats the above… David – Dale the sticking point is TopChoice… Dubberly – right David – Top Choice isn’t used for any of those reasons you listed under 487 Dubberly – the point I’m trying to make concerns the site David – but it’s talking for the purpose of maintaining those ornamentals or that grass but that’s not the purpose of Top Choice – it’s for the insects in it or ants or the molecrickets or whatever. Dubberly – well, that is required to maintain it, right? DR – yeah, I’m the one that brought this up and I hear what you’re saying Dale, but I think we’re reading a 487 statute that doesn’t even affect a 482 applicator. That’s a stand alone statute in itself that I’m not licensed or certified in. And even though the definition in 482 is maybe weak or not specific enough, and I don’t know if you could list all areas, but ballparks were not in that definition but I really believe that the licensure requirements of 482, the 3 years of experience and all of the jobs and working under a certified operator, to me, 482 would trump 487. I think it should supersede 487 and I’m not so sure that it doesn’t – but what we were told is the problem is if you use a RUP on a ball field, a pest control company licensed under 482, with the L&O category, that you’d have to comply with the record keeping of 487. Well, if I’m not certified under 487, how would I even know what the records keeping is? And 482 clearly has requirements for RUP records keeping that you have to comply with. I don’t see where there is an overlap – I see a statute I’ve got nothing to do with being imposed on me. Goldenberg – I think your point is well taken just to add into this keep in mind the FIFRA Section 2ee where you are not applying pesticides in excess for a labeled site regardless of the pest Dubberly – I think the rub is in the record keeping part is a separate issue because of the different requirements between the two statutes. Those need to be harmonized. I think we’ve agreed on that in the past, those need to be fixed in order to comply with FIFRA David – I don’t know that they do overlap unless your goal is to do that to make someone obtain credentials in both categories – but if I’m operating under 482, I don’t even know what 487 says. Dubberly – well, my whole point going back to what I said, is we’ve got to decide which way we’re going to interpret this because we’re working on writing a manual to tell people what license they need Hayslip – Tamara or Joe, do you know if the omission of Ch 482 was just an oversight? Dubberly – I don’t know the history of that definition, it’s been in there forever and it probably got an add on somewhere down the road is my take. DR – Here’s the kink in it – if it’s not a RUP and you’re making an application to a ball field Dubberly – it wouldn’t matter…
DR ‐ .. right it wouldn’t matter David – and the reason it’s not included, in my opinion, is because it’s listed under agricultural areas – it would be appropriate to have the requirement there. But it’s not an agricultural area. It might be more appropriate somewhere else in definitions – I mean, look at the definition of structural or any kind of wdo work – buildings, any edifice – I mean it’s so convoluted. It’s not appropriate to have it there. DR – I do have a 487 license and I know there are several different types of 487 licenses and all you have to do is go and sit in a class for part of the day and take the exam and you’re certified – 482 is much more stringent, and CEUs and everything about 482 just dominates way beyond anything that 487 requires and to me the line should be you obey the statute that you are licensed under, that’s what I don’t understand. Dubberly – well, it’s still the same manual for both categories that you study out of Goldenberg – you’re trying to focus on just the manual at this point, right? Why couldn’t your manual say that if you’re certified under Ch 482 or asterisk it, you’re covered? Dubberly – well, that’s what we’re trying to say here, we just need to clear in the manual that you’re training people on as to which way you’re going. David – under the definition of urban landscape, any areas of residential, commercial, industrial or institutional highways, right of ways, or other non‐agricultural lands that are planted with turf or horticultural plants – that covers a ball field. It’s already in the definitions, we’re just looking in the wrong area. Hayslip – I agree – I think that we just need to harmonize the record keeping requirement because even though 482 is vague, it’s basically asking for the same information. David – what’s the difference in 487 record keeping? I’m not familiar DR – a form… Dubberly ‐ …Not it’s not a form there are some differences Parker – 482 just pretty much has what, when, where and how much – we don’t record the applicator. Dubberly – there are some differences in the record keeping. David – but we’d have the records to be able to report that we applied 50 lbs of Top Choice on this date at this location DR – right – Tim, you weren’t at the last meeting just to give you a little historical background…we did a ball park and we had a DACS inspection with both a 482 and a 487 inspector and the ag inspector said we should have filled out these forms for the application you made. And again, that’s under 487 and if you’re not certified under 487, you wouldn’t know what forms they’re talking about – which my branch didn’t. I happen to have both of them myself because I have a farm operation as well and I know the difference between the two. I just want to be in compliance and I’m trying to get some clarification – there’s some discrepancy whether we were or not. Parker – I always thought 487 had an exemption for 482 and 388 applicators but it’s not as black and white as I thought it was. DR – I think that would solve the matter – 487 should exempt 482 and 388 applicators. I don’t know how much trouble that would be under 487…I think that would still be a statute change right? Dubberly – well, I think you could do it by rule – I’d adjust the standards. I think if you’d just strike athletic fields from 5E‐9, then you’d sink it. That would only be a rule change – the key is getting it right in the manual when you’re licensing people David – Keep in mind with that change then an athletic field would not be an agricultural area Dubberly – well it is with the way they’re writing the manuals – that’s my point here today, when you have… David – but when you have a definition in the statute that an athletic field falls under – it’s already there.
Dubberly – but we’re going to point this out to the professors that are writing these manuals to make sure it’s very clear Jonovich – could we get a statement that says 482 preempts 487? There’s a lot of other 487 license, too. This year, I predict a lot of people are going to jump on the mosquito control bandwagon? Does my GHP license allow me to go out and perform mosquito work? There’s a lot of different places that could be clarified. Dubberly – you’re right, Joe. DR – and Dale, is there also some requirements under 487 as far as wind direction and miles per hour Dubberly – for the Organo oxen rule DR – this could get wild Dubberly – and I guess we should put that document up Joe (Parker)…. Parker ‐ …which one? Dubberly ‐ .. .the comparison one – it’s getting common out there that 482 people are making applications to horse pastures using 2, 4‐D or plant growth regulators and you will get caught under the 5E‐9 organo‐oxen rule that says noting under 482 or 5E‐14 about that. So, that’s another area there… ?? – We have people doing pest control in those areas? Dubberly – most of those product labels mimics the rule that we have with wind speed, direction and stuff. Which would also make it a label violation. Goldenberg – let me ask this question, if a pest control operator certified under 482 makes an application for mosquito control to the undersides of shrubs, or to shrubs to treat the mosquitoes alighting on them, what is that certification? Dubberly – that’s 482, GHP or L&O Goldenberg – so you’re not talking about mosquito control for individual residences Dubberly – right, as long as it’s not aerial or applications contracted to government agencies and Norm, I think the wording they use is wide‐area so as long as it’s not an area wide application you should be OK ?? Would that be less than 1/8 of a mile? (laughter) DR – Norm, I thought what you were trying to address is if the application was to the underneath of a shrub, would that be an L&O license or a GHP license – that’s what I thought you were trying to address Goldenberg – well, I still don’t know which it would be, I just wanted to make sure that it fell into 482… Dubberly – Yeah, that would fall into 482 Goldenberg – and going back to DR – would that be an issue? Would it be L&O or GHP? DR – you might be treating a mosquito, but you’re treating an ornamental shrub. David‐ it’s the same thing with Top Choice – you’re treating for ants but it does a heck of a job on molecrickets. DR – well, there’s so much overlap – we get called out to do trees for moss on a horse pasture or a cow pasture or whatever – is that agriculture? Is that 487 or 482? To me, if you’re licensed under 482 there shouldn’t even be a question there. There’s a lot of these kind of issues. Goldenberg – OK, so to try to narrow this down, Dale, where do we go from here and what do you want from the council, if anything. Dubberly – I guess, what I’d want from the council is to go back to the manual – which way does the council want to recommend DR – what manual are we talking about – a 487 manual? Dubberly – No, it’s the same manual DR – the L&O and the O&T is one manual – it don’t matter which chapter you’re giving a test for – they both use the same manual as the study reference. Cooksey‐ there will be a question on the next test…. (laughter)
Dubberly – it’s the same manual, so the whole purpose of this is to get the manual right. I personally don’t care which way we go. David – do you realize you’re talking about an L&O manual, while DR’s technician was making a GHP application? Dubberly – it just has to be explained right in that manual ?? Wait a minute, you can make a GHP application to a base ball field? David – oh, yeah, what’s the issue? It was for ants. DR – well, it would be an L&O application in my book Parker – it’s a GHP pest in a turfgrass area. Goldenberg – you’re using Top Choice so you’re making a broadcast application, right? DR – to me, we’re actually treating the turf… Goldenberg – yeah Dubberly – So the question that would be in the manual is if you were using Top Choice on a ball field, and per label, what license would you need. DR – a ball park? Dubberly – an athletic field DR – I think it depends on the reason for the application – that’s a trick question with two correct answers. (laughter) Dubberly – you could have it that way – it could be both… Goldenberg – I think if it’s an application to turf for the control of fleas and ticks, too – is this the same problematic or discussion area? Is it L&O or GHP? David – I think it’s GHP DR – I think it depends on the area, the size, of what’s being treated – around a residence, OK, but on an athletic field or over an acre – you’re pushing the GHP allowance. Cooksey – we need a supreme court ruling on this one, but they’re busy… Sean – I think we should circle back to the original question – is it 482 or 487 license requirement – not so much as the category – you’re saying it’s the same book, same test – I think it would be either or – if you were taking a 487 exam you’d answer 487 and if you were taking a 482 exam, you’d answer that it was 482. It doesn’t matter whether it is a certified 487 applicator or a certified 482 applicator – they are both making an application to that area – the difference is that the 487 applicator would comply with the record keeping requirement of 487 and the 482 applicator would comply with the record keeping requirement of 482. It’s really not a 482 versus 487 – it’s were you in compliance with 482 as a 482 applicator and the answer is yes, then that’s the end of the story. That just seems like a very simple thing to me. If you want to look at it deeper and say, OK we have a requirement problem under FIFRA, with 5E‐14 requirements, that certainly is a rule change that could be done. You’re only talking about adding one or two additional items. Dubberly – right… DR – I think you could still use the manual just like it is – If you’re studying for 487 or if you’re studying for 482, I don’t think you’d have to differentiate between the two. Sean – this manual is for training purposes and for taking a test – it’s not a structural pest control regulatory item and it’s not a 487 regulatory item either – it’s just a tool you use to pass your test. Goldenberg – I think the bottom line is if you are a 487 applicator, you’re completing a form if you are applying a RUP. If you’re applying under 482, you don’t need to comply with 487 because 482 has their own RUP requirements. Dubberly – the form is just a suggestion so you don’t omit any of the required items – it’s not mandatory DR – and to me, I thought that was the major difference – if you’re under 487 you follow those regulations and if you’re under 482 you do what 482 requires
Dubberly – I’ll tell you what we’ll do, Joe (Parker) is on the committee, Sarah’s on that committee, too, when you get to that chapter in the book it could be brought back before the council, or we’ll circulate it out so you can read what it says DR – when will that be? Parker – it goes out for contract July 1, 2016 – draft might be available around January of 2017? It will be a draft – we have preview rights in the contract Dubberly – I’m just looking for clarification – we get these kind of questions all of the time. DR – so what do we do in the interim? What do I need to do for a future application? Same thing I’ve done for 30 years? Dubberly – it could be handled under enforcement discretionary… DR – I mean, your guys handled it well, it wasn’t a problem but I’m the type where if there’s something we need to do, I want to know what I’m supposed to do. Dubberly – like I said, I don’t have a dog in the fight – I just want it clarified in the manual – when you’re studying for either exam, you just need to know what you need to do. Goldenberg – OK, so let’s bring this to a close…do we need a follow up on the July agenda for this? Dubberly – I don’t know about the July meeting, but maybe the next one. DR – OK, will there be any communication within the department regarding the inspectors? You know, how they should handle this in a routine inspection? Dubberly – I think we’re fine on that DR – Goldenberg – OK, thank you, that was a good discussion. OK funding process for the research committee (11:35) Pest Control Research Funding Process Nominate committee members Set research priorities" Rogers, Adriane Dubberly – I reckon this is back to me. Adriane could not be here, she’s working on Zika right now, she’s our medical entomologist and she couldn’t be here. We do have the names that have been submitted – so, Mr. Chairman, I’d ask for a motion to get this going Sean – I make a motion to approve that slate of nominees for the research advisory members that was in the March 2016 minutes ?? – seconded Goldenberg – It’s been moved and seconded, any discussion on the candidates that are displayed here. Is it limited to these six? Can it be more? Do we want to add any other candidates? Dubberly – just one quick comment, if you look at your packet here, page 3 says the selection committee will be comprised of 6 to 8 members – so you have six. So the nominations complied. Jonovich – I just have a question, John Dukes is the only one I’m not familiar with – who’s he with? DR – John Dukes is in Gainesville, FL, a graduate from FAMU and owns his own pest control company in Gainesville Cooksey‐ he’s been very instrumental in FAMUs entomology program every year DR – I was going to ask and just for clarification, nothing biased in any way, but I know we have one that represents a manufacturing company, Claude Thomas – is that a conflict? Parker – It eliminates his ability to bid on any research contracts especially if his company might benefit from the research project. DR – but council would recognize that if it came up Goldenberg – OK, any further discussion on the candidates before we vote? All in favor say Aye, any opposed? (Unanimous) Dubberly – I mentioned to some of you earlier that this is your homework assignment – we’re not going to settle this today. You’ll see some comments and this was modeled on the mosquito control research committee – the good thing (but don’t worry about the money that you see there) the money is not tied
to our fiscal year, so if we take on a proposal, we don’t have to complete it within the fiscal year we can carry these forward – I just wanted to clarify that for you. Please go through the document and I’d suggest at the next meeting that we can get into the nuts and bolts and the detail, and then at that time, we may be able to set some projects and go out for bid – that’s covered in the last two pages on how to set proposals with abstracts and introductions plan of research – so the last several pages is probably where we will have most of the discussion on. And I know we’ve already had some discussion on what projects we’d like to see and I think the committee could start thinking about it and putting something together and rank them if there are several ideas. Goldenberg – any other questions? OK, the next item is the follow up on the illegal operators. 12:10 Follow up ‐ Illegal Operators ‐ Discuss breakdowns; policies FDACS/PCEAC Sean – OK, well the question keeps coming up over and over about the illegal operators only receiving warning letters – I think that’s part of the big discussion we had last time, and George made a presentation today about some of those figures, and if it’s OK with you Mr. Chairman, I’d like to refer this to Mr. Beckers who has a great concern here and I think we should hear from him. Goldenberg – Is that permissible? ?? – members of the public can speak during the general public comment – so it really doesn’t matter. Goldenberg – yeah, that’s right – go ahead Michael… Beckers – the industry sees the point of the department to educate before enforcement but, unfortunately, I don’t think it’s having the effect you want and George stated this morning that you’re having trouble finding these people – 5E‐14.149 is pretty clear that performing pest control without a valid license is a major penalty – that’s a quote. It also says that a major penalty gets a fine and we propose, that’s CPCO and I’m sure FPMA is on board for the general principal, and if an individual or company is performing pest control, organized pest control – we’re not talking about someone helping their neighbor out and I keep using an example of someone I know that helps his neighbor with their lawn and they pay him $20 – we’re not talking about him. We’re talking about if the inspector encounters any person or company that has the trappings of a pest control organization – invoices, advertising, business cards, this is a person who is in business operating an unlicensed pest control company that this person or entity by the regulations gets a fine on the first shot. I applaud the efforts and the intent of going back and following up and you’re saying you’re having trouble finding them, you’ll have a lot more trouble finding them the second time and I think one of the important points being missed in this discussion is the fact that when you encounter someone who is operating a pest control company – and you give them a cease & desist and a warning letter and you go back 30 days later he’s still going to be unlicensed and if you go back 60 days, he’s still going to be unlicensed. Because the only way this person can become licensed is to work for a company for 3 years and then take the state exam or hire a certified operator and I think those of us in the field know that if you intercept and find an individual unlicensed operator he’s not going to spend fifty grand to hire a certified operator. So, it’s not like you’re driving down the street and get stopped for speeding and you don’t have a driver’s license so you can go to the motor vehicle department the next day and get a driver’s license. There is no mechanism in pest control so if you intercept one today as an unlicensed operator, you can follow up 30 days, 60 days, 2 years, 3 years because he’s not going to be licensed. So, what’s the point? The point is you’re duplicating and triplicating your efforts and that’s why, at CPCO, our position is the same as we issued in the letter – they should receive a fine on the first shot. Now, it could be $500 or $100 dollars – it doesn’t have to be $2500 and if you want to follow up in 30 days and 60 days, that’s fine – the fine could escalate. In the practical sense, what’s happening is – and I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or anything – the word’s out that illegal operation gets a slap on the wrist and my office used to get tons of phone calls every month people trying to buy licenses, rent licenses – somehow people have the impression that CPCO can issue licenses – those calls have dropped off to almost nothing. So, people are understanding that they can get away with it. So, we’d strongly implore
the department to issue a memo that people that are practicing organized pest control are going to get the full effect of the law – they’re going to get a fine. Now, if you’re in the villages and someone is doing their neighbor or something discretion may rule. But anyone who is operating a real rootin’ tootin’ pest control business and your inspectors know, or can determine this, because they stop these people. They can see in the truck that they’ve got invoices, business cards, or advertising or a full rig in the back of his truck – he’s not helping his neighbor and they need to get a fine. On the first shot – they need to get a fine. David – It’s defined as a major violation which doesn’t give the department leeway to issue a warning letter. I know that’s the commissioner’s goal – he wants to educate before punishing anybody, I understand that but, the law as written doesn’t allow that flexibility. Unlicensed operations are a major violation and major violations are not to receive a warning letter – they are to receive a fine. Period. And to the industry that is licensed, it looks like, yeah, they don’t care. They don’t care about the consumer who’s getting ripped off; they don’t care about me who has spent the time, money and effort to get licensed and it’s taking food off my table and it’s not helping with the cooperation that the department would like to see and I think has enjoyed over the years. Jonovich – Misuse applications are probably going to be associated with those persons who aren’t licensed. Beckers – Well, yeah, we’re dealing with people who aren’t licensed, who don’t have insurance, they don’t take CEUs or anything – I would think it’s a public safety issue alone/by itself. But you have to go out and get tough on these guys. And again, the criteria, if we have to workshop it a little, whatever, we offered some suggestions for criteria on what an organized pest control operation is but there could be some discussions there. Sarah – Can we go back to the spreadsheet where we listed our fines for 15/16? I remember seeing for second quarter, $11,500 in fines – are those not… ?? That’s a good start Sarah – …for illegal operators? Or at least 36% of them? ?? – I think in the breakdown, there was one unlicensed operation that was fined. Sarah – so the rest of them… ?? – Which means that 9 of the fines weren’t Sarah – and they weren’t for limited landscape or fertilizer people and what you’re saying is that you think that should also apply to one individual person operating under an LF or an LCLM. Beckers – If they are in violation, right. But like George brought up the last time, a guy that was advertising pest control and selling pest control but he hadn’t done his first job yet – that’s still all in the definition of pest control – if he’s advertising and selling – he’s operating a business. That’s a rootin’ tootin’ pest control business. ?? – For hire… David – No different than a home inspection company that advertises they can do a wdo inspection – it’s illegal – that act alone is illegal – whether or not they actually performed them or not. Sarah – And I completely agree with that – but do you feel as strongly about that issue as you do about the limited individuals that are also operating without limited credentials. David – If they’re not licensed, yes. Beckers – Well, the limited is an individual license. So, if a limited landscape company is doing full lawn and ornamental services, then yeah, that’s illegal operations. Once a person with a LCLM steps out from beyond the parameters of what’s allowed by the LCLM, that’s illegal pest control. Sarah – do you think that the education component is going to come into play more with an individual, not realizing and willfully violating the regulations? Beckers – I teach the LCLM and we hit it really hard as to what they can do and what they can’t do David – are you talking about an individual that is doing LCLM work but hasn’t gotten that training yet?
Sarah – A person who hasn’t gotten their initial training, their initial license – they need to be educated first…Not somebody who just didn’t renew, or somebody that is part of a business, but an individual that doesn’t have the education. David – Well, is that individual one of the 66% that have gone through the GIBMP training but hasn’t gotten licensed yet? Sarah – I don’t know – that’s the difference – and I think it’s a willful violators versus a non‐willful violator – I think someone that has taken the GIBMP training knows they need to follow through with that next step – but someone that’s not been educated at all might not know. David – I can understand the difference – one person has been exposed to the training versus one who hasn’t. Beckers – the LCLM training course has a component address the rules and regulations. Sarah – right, so someone that hasn’t taken that course yet might not be aware of any of the regulations. Beckers – but then they are illegal operators Sarah – right, but they should be educated as to the requirements David – ignorance of the law is no excuse. Sarah – maybe, but I think you are also talking … David – well, where do you draw that line? The LCLM guy who hasn’t been through the training, doesn’t know he’s not allowed to do that, or the GHP guy or the guy doing whatever that’s never been through any training and doesn’t know it but is running a 300 customer service route? Sarah – because he’s part of a business and that’s part of getting the business licensed – I would think that would take it a further/bigger step than just an individual who has no education and no background in what’s required. I think there is a business involved in it. David – but the Lawn guys are running a pretty profitable business but they’re also doing LCLM work Dubberly – they are all issued a Cease and Desist in the field Beckers – Can I make a suggestion? Since this is obviously a hot topic, We as an industry are in the unique position here in that we are asking the department to enforce the laws – and you guys want to enforce the laws, too – we understand that, but I think there is a disconnect over this education versus enforcement but I think that a memo could issued – I think we’re in agreement on the pest control side of it – if someone is running a pest control business that is unlicensed by the state, that a fine should be issued on a first offense. That could be handled with a memo from the department. As far as the LCLM and these are individual people – that, to be honest, is a new wrinkle‐ so, I’d propose that we have a meeting of maybe enforcement and industry on this topic only referring to the LCLM industry only. But I think the department could move very rapidly on the pest control operators – the guys that are doing termite and ghp and L&O services where they are actually running a business and I think we’ve agreed to the parameters associated with that in order to issue a fine on a first offense. And I think this could be done quickly in just a one day meeting, giving everyone a chance to get their thoughts together and get it done. But I think you guys could move on the pest control now. Sarah – I think we are doing that… Beckers – I think a memo should be issued to industry because, like I said, the word – the perception – is that you’ve gone soft David – the law is very clear. The law says unlicensed operators are a major violation. The law doesn’t say that a major violation may receive a warning letter, may receive a fine – they will be fined. Sarah – it also says that not having a signature on your ID card is a major violation, not having a picture on your ID card is a major violation David – that’s why we were discussing that earlier Beckers – give them a fine… Sarah – …first time out…
David – or the law needs to be changed and that’s why we’re discussing that. The law either needs to be followed or changed. We don’t want regulations that are interpreted one way by one administration and then in 10 years, interpreted differently by another administration – the regulations should reflect the reality. Beckers – I think a memo to the industry describing these parameters would serve as the warning to everyone. Dubberly – the problem I have with a memo to industry, is that it won’t reach this group of people – how do we reach the ones that aren’t licensed? Beckers – well, there are certain retail establishments that could … David – Couldn’t you use the email addresses of the 66% that haven’t gotten their license yet – that would be a good start. Beckers ‐ … and these distributors could hand them out – I mean it can get out. David – I guarantee you that many of these violators are ones that have been through the training. That group would be a good start – but, you’re right, it won’t be complete. But you’ve got to start someplace. Goldenberg – so if you have a certified operator, licensee, ID card, whatever it is, gets cited by an inspector for wrong doing of some sort and he or she is fined and the company or entity is fined, and they don’t pay the fine – what happens? I think we’ve talked about that in the past? David – nothing except making it difficult to renew… Goldenberg – which takes me to my next point – an uncertified persons gets a $500 fine for a first offense because that’s what the law says and that person doesn’t pay, what do you do because there is nothing to renew…how do you collect the fine? Dubberly – let me tell you how you collect the money – what happens depends on several things – you know, we issue a fine, they don’t pay, we issue a final order. With that, I could go back to the state attorney in that county and if they are willing to take on that case. I can also file, in that county, but it depends on how the legal corporation is set up. For instance, and I might have this backwards, but I believe if it’s an LLC – say it’s Dale Dubberly, LLC, I can file a lien against Dale Dubberly, LLC and if Dale Dubberly ever sells a house or whatever, I can collect my money – the problem is when that might occur – I could be dead and gone by then – we’ve got cases pending with the state attorney’s office – there’s a case that I think happened in Lee county and we’ll eventually get something against this person sooner or later but if it’s filed in a different corporate manner, then I have to go against the corporation and that’s a whole other issue. Goldenberg – how are the state attorneys from like Dade/Broward handling things? Dubberly – they’re not going to take it – they got bigger issues Sarah – for those, we can turn it over to a collection agency and their credit can be impacted – and this is also more effective against an individual and not a corporation. Dubberly – we usually have to beg state attorney’s to handle anything ?? It’s always been that way Jonovich – do you guys have a spreadsheet for the follow‐ups? I know you said that follow up has been difficult – do you have any numbers on that? I’m not so concerned about the fine, but can you demonstrate that you’ve brought them into compliance or that they have stopped illegal operations? Dubberly – we have a follow up inspection procedure David – we understand that, but as George stated earlier – you’re not having a lot of luck with that Dubberly – and a lot of those are the LCLMs that are difficult to find Jonovich – I’d like to see a spreadsheet of unlicensed operators, even by the next quarter if you aren’t keeping it, showing how it’s going – I seem to remember one company that had a WL in July or something and then the next report – bam – they had a fine – and I think I could live with that – the problem is that you never see that for most of them. I was just wondering if the department was
keeping any numbers on how that’s going. Hound ‘em – put them out of business or get them in compliance that means more to me than $500 sitting out there. Goldenberg – OK, so good points made, so now what? I mean we’ve talked about this from time until memoriam is what, I think, they say and is there a solution with the resources – should we change the law so you don’t fine on a first violation? Hayslip – Well, I think it can be done with just some modification to incorporate some of those parameters or but either way, that won’t be happening anytime soon – but we can adjust our enforcement policies now. David – Can I make a suggestion Mr. Chairman? I recommend that the department digest the information presented today and then come back with a report on where they plan on taking it at our next meeting. Goldenberg – Would you like to make a motion? David – I don’t think that’s needed – but if it does, just make the motion what I just said…I mean, I’d just make it an agenda item for the next meeting to get a report back from the department Sarah – So, report back to council with further follow up of re‐inspection numbers; the illegal operators that obtained licensing; a discussion of the memo to industry… David – Well, from what you heard in today’s meeting, what direction do you plan on going with it? Do you plan on doing fines on initial violations because that’s what the law says or you plan to keep operating the way you are now? That’s what I’d like to hear back on. Goldenberg – I’d like to ask a question, if you or anyone wants to buy Top Choice, do you have to show proof of certification to the distributor Lesco, John Deere – what’s it called now? Sean – One site Goldenberg – One site, that’s it, or any of them, Univar – do they require David – well, the places that I buy from have that information on file so no, I don’t have to show them anything – but you can buy stuff on eBay, too – However, what you are actually getting could be very much different – no one has a clue. I’ve seen orange termidor come out of eBay Jonovich – Sarah, but the numbers you mentioned about people coming into compliance or proof they are out of business, I’d like to see that if you are able to track that ?? – Dale, how many arrests did we have any? Dubberly – I think he had one down in the villages – but John’s been on some extended leave. Goldenberg – down in the villages, are they lawn & ornamental type operations? They’re not are they. Dubberly – No, ag law tends to get involved in our willful violator cases. David – well, it depends on how you look at it and this all goes back to the thing that Mike did many years ago – I forgot what he called it, but it was a little pilot program dealing with the home inspectors doing wdos – When I walk into one of their offices and talk to a receptionist and in 5 minutes, glean from them that they advertise wdo, we ask them if they want a wdo inspection included when they call for a home inspection, we collect the money, we send the guy who lives wherever, and I won’t mention any names, a check for $25 for every wdo we do – that’s an independent contractor – that’s an illegal operation – I don’t care if they have ID cards, but the department for whatever reason unable or unwilling to do anything about that – and it’s happening every day. Dubberly – well, let me comment about that, Dave, and I’m glad you brought that up because we are pending an administrative law judge’s ruling right now and a soon as that ruling comes out, it will be shared with the council. So I’m waiting for that case to come from the administrative law judge but it addresses the same points you just brought up. I hope by the next council meeting, because we’re going to have to make a decision here, based on that ruling of which way we’re going to go – I’ve spent a bunch of time out here – it’s an enormous amount of time tracking these guys down but we’ve got a case in front of an administrative law judge
Goldenberg – OK, so going back to Dave’s recommendation or motion, whatever you want to call it, do we want to set some suggestions for what the department can offer at the next meeting. David – I think we should just carry the topic forward. Goldenberg – OK, so the department can just update us this? David – yeah, just an update Goldenberg – is that OK with the department? Hayslip – yeah, that fine Dubberly – yeah, that’s OK 13:10 General Public Comment Goldenberg – anything else in this area? Mike thanks for your efforts. Any other items? Any comments from the General Public? Kendlemen – Let me just say that this has been a lot of fun and I enjoy the alphabet soup that you guys were talking about before – it really makes this interesting Goldenberg – OK, thank you for your comment ?? I had a pest control operator that couldn’t be here that wanted me to ask the council what they thought about a wdo registry – this has come up in the past and she’s wanting to start one herself if the department doesn’t want to do it and wants to get feedback from the council whether she should even bother. David – here’s some of the issues that we ran into when it was a council item – right on the form states this is information that’s only supplied to the recipient, so starting a database, which originally was going to be started to just see in an inspection was ever done on this property so realtors couldn’t shop around and a homeowner could see that in the last 3 weeks its had 4 inspections – what’s up with that? But then it evolved into more information and it was problematic to do that and stay in compliance with regulations and the form and even some liability issues. Unless she limited her database to just listing this address has had a wdo inspection and no other identifying information – and there’s limited value in that. Goldenberg – I know this has come up multiple times – regulations to create the registry and a database required, and anything the department does is public record and who’s going to do it Sean – that’s a hell no ?? the only reason I brought it up was she’s was willing to do it for the industry so that’s why I’m asking… DR – tell her the industry didn’t want it Goldenberg – I think that kind of sums it up – we looked at the pros and cons and there were more cons than pros and we looked at states like California that has a very significant data base that stacks these reports up and files them every month – well actually companies have to report every 10 days – and the only people using it were attorneys looking to file a law suit because they could see the differentiation between the reports and the different contract amounts and other items that they would try to use to support a legal action. While I think your operator might have good intentions, she needs to understand where we’ve been with this stuff – it’s not just an administrative issue. ?? thank you, I’ll let her know. 13:15 Council Member’s Comments and Issues Goldenberg – OK, anything else? Any comments from the council members? Sean – yeah I have one… Dale? I think I’ve talked to you once before about this but I overheard some other pest control operators talk about municipal business taxes being collected? This regularly comes up and DR and I just talked about it not too long ago – I’ve got one city in Pinellas county that is now trying to engage in the collection of municipal business taxes on top of the tax we pay our own municipality – and there is the very old commissioner’s document , is there a way that we can request through you formally to have that revisited since some of the terms have change?
Dubberly – yeah, it just needs to be updated – that’s what you’re saying, right? Sean – yes, it just needs to be updated so we can have something recent to put in front of them because these guys are all over this – they want tax money. Goldenberg – I remember an attorney general’s opinion on that is probably 20 or 30 years old… Sean – I tried using the existing documents and their attorney won’t have anything to do with it. (multiple speakers) Sean – anyway, can you make some kind of request for that? Dubberly – Yeah, we can shoot that back up through our legal section Sean – and as far as we’re talking about memos, I think for this particular item and others, we haven’t seen a lot of general/advisory memorandums coming out of the department recently – do you think you can generate a memo covering like the 487 and 482 situation and maybe some of the fumigation stuff giving an opinion on how the department looks at things? Maybe even memorandums that address special enforcement operations that have been going on because while we here about it, and we try to tell our various members about it, the rest of the industry has no idea. I know when Joe sends out the quarterly, that goes to everyone. Dubberly – yeah, we can try to put something together about SEOs… Sean – just little things – just kind of prod people to help them understand. David – let them know you’re still alive and well and kicking Sean – yeah, alive and well and you have more cops now… Dubberly – yeah, we can probably put one out on our re‐organization – that would probably be a good one and tie that back to you’re probably going to have a few more people looking over your shoulder Sean – that’s all I have Mr. Chairman 13:25 Next Steps and Agenda Items for Next Meeting Goldenberg/Parker ∙ Review Action Items and Assignments ∙ Identify Agenda Items for Next Meeting ∙ Identify Needed Information and/or Background Documents Goldenberg – thank you – anyone else? OK, so just to review…some agenda items and assignments – at Dale’s request review this research document – do you want everyone to respond directly to you or to everyone on the council? Dubberly – I’d say everyone on the council if you’ve got comments – I mean it will be a council document and then we can discuss it further at the next council meeting. Goldenberg – so, OK, that will be on the next agenda Cooksey – are we allowed to share comments with each other outside of a meeting? Dubberly – it’s not an enforcement item or related to any regulatory business Goldenberg – I think we’re OK if we address it to Dale and copy the other council members. Dubberly – yes, that would work – we’re not making policy here or anything Goldenberg – OK, and as far as other items – is what we talked about on the on‐line renewals – some suggestions to remove the picture and signature requirements; and an update from the department on the illegal operators and updated information so we can move on with that – anything else? Parker – Dale was going to bring back the GIBMP update and update on presumed in compliance which are kind of standing items at this point DR – I think we ought to put on what Sean was just talking about cities and municipalities and updating the memorandums Dubberly – and one more item I’d like to bring up – a HOA requiring a different signage – they don’t want company names – they just want a simple keep off so we need a memo and letter to that association so that’s pre‐empted. Y’all could use that. Goldenberg – any further business? DR – any update on Zika? I know y’all are probably all over that…
Dubberly – I could give you an update – and we are soliciting proposals for emergency response but we could put that on the next program. And we’ll see if we can get Adrian involved in that. Goldenberg – is someone scanning and checking for the virus now? Dubberly – yes, that’s going on – but the sentinel chickens tend to be in suburban areas and not in cities and this mosquito is a small standing water breed. 13:30 Meeting Adjourn Goldenberg – OK – so, do I hear a motion for adjournment? Moved, seconded – approved unanimously.
Yellow:Blue:Gray:Rose:
Green:
TASK B - MAXIMIZE CONSUMER PROTECTION
The purpose of the Pest Control Enforcement Advisory Council is to advise the Commissioner of Agriculture as to appropriate regulatory and enforcement policy regarding the pest control industry. The perspectives of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the pest control industry, the scientific community, and the consumer will be represented and considered in a spirit of partnership, with the common goal of elevating industry enforcement and compliance to (i) maximize consumer protection and (ii) enhance public understanding of the pest control industry.
TASK B - MAXIMIZE CONSUMER PROTECTION
TASK C - ENHANCE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF PEST CONTROL INDUSTRY
TASK D - ANNUAL/PROCEDURAL COUNCIL ACTIVITIES
Council’s Updated Work Plan—Current Tasks (Last Updated and Approved Unanimously March 2, 2016)
TASK A—ADVISE AND ELEVATE INDUSTRY ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
Task was reviewed and/or completed at last meeting
TASK C - ENHANCE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF PEST CONTROL INDUSTRY
1. Unlicensed Operators: Agenda date to be determined
2. Willful Violators: Agenda date to be determined
7. Independent contracting: Agenda date to be determined
6. Accountability for Improper Acts: Agenda date to be determined
Task will be presented at the next meeting
Periodically scheduled Task reviewed or discussed
TASK A—ADVISE AND ELEVATE INDUSTRY ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
Task was tabled for future meeting TBATask is scheduled for future meeting
8. Pretreatment contracts with builders: Agenda date to be determined
3. Misuse of Certificates: Agenda date to be determined
4. Training in the Industry: Agenda date to be determined
5. Inspector Training and Education: July 20, 2016
Set Next Year's Mtgs- Nov Meeting I: Meeting II: Meeting III: Set next year3/2/2016 7/20/2016 11/2/2016
Rotate: July7/20/2016
Initiate: Nov Results: March11/4/2016 3/2/2016
Initiate: Nov Results: March11/4/2016 3/2/2016
Conduct: Nov Discuss: March11/4/2016 3/2/2016
F.) Council will manage and guide the Research Advisory Council at each meeting or as needed.
B.) FDACS will update Council on rulemaking efforts at each meeting. C.) Council will review enforcement statistics at each meeting.
9. Consumer Education Efforts: Agenda date to be determined
E.) Council will review sample representative enforcement cases at each meeting.
1. Programmatic and Operational Statistics: Develop list of programmatic and operational statistics to review on an ongoing basis.A.) FDACS will update Council on relevant statutory issues at each meeting.
TASK D - ANNUAL/PROCEDURAL COUNCIL ACTIVITIES
Standing Schedule
5. Enforcement Priorities: Council makes recommendations on Agency's enforcement priorities for the coming year, annually at
4. Effectiveness Assessment Survey: Council discusses Effectiveness Assessment Survey results annually at the March meeting.
2. Officers: Council rotate Chair position and elects new Secretary during each July meeting.
1. Meeting Schedule: Council shall meet three (3) times per year starting with March of each year. Council shall meet in Apopka,
3. Work Plan Prioritization: Council discusses Work Plan Prioritization Exercise results annually at the march meeting. The exercise is introduced at the November meeting.
D.) FDACS will update Council on Special Enforcement Operations (SEO) at each meeting.
Conduct: March Adopt: Nov
Yellow:Blue:
Green:Rose:Beige:
Task will be presented at a specified upcoming meetingPeriodically scheduled Task reviewed or discussed
Task was reviewed and/or completed at last meetingTask will be presented at the next meetingTask will be presented at a future meeting TBA
6. Review/Update Organizational and Procedural Polices document
Council’s Updated Work Plan—Closed TasksDate Last Discussed Date Closed
Unlicensed Operators: Recommendations for dealing with unlicensed operators.Mar-16
Council will review as needed
Agency updated Council regarding statistics at the April 2004 and January 2005 meetings.Council discussed unlicensed activities proposal July 2011, and approved revised proposal October 2011.Council received update regarding strategies for addressing unlicensed activities and willful violators enforcement strategy July 2012, received update November 2012 regarding pursuing statutory amendment to increase the penalty structure for enforcement of unlicensed activities and/or willful violators; and reviewed relevant case studies and developed recommendations to FDACS March 2013.Discussed CPCO letter with FDACS - FDACS to further analyze their illegal/unlicensed data November 15, 2015
Continued discussions and suggesting setting parameters if department doesn't follow regulations - department to analyze follow up information further and bring back to council (issue could involve willful violators and independent contracting)
Willful Violators:Mar-14
Council will review as needed
Council discussed FDACS enforcement issues and polices regarding willful violators at the January 2010 meeting.Council discussed willful violators enforcement strategy at the October 2010 meeting, and will discuss implementation of FDACS/Industry/Consumer delegation discussion(s) with state attorney(s) regarding willful violators enforcement strategy February 2011.Council discussed increased penalties for willful violators March 2013, and provided feedback to FDACS July 2013.Council discussed definitions and threshold requirements for increased penalties November 2013 and voted to approve in concept, and received briefing March 2014.
FDACS Enforcement Standards: Review and develop recommendations to ensure the Department has clear, uniform, and consistent enforcement standards.
Council will review as needed
Inspections procedures overview given by Agency on July 17, 2003.Agency enforcement case process overview given on July 17, 2003.Complaint response procedures overview given by Agency on September 18, 2003.Council discussed preventive treatment for new construction records inspection procedures at the July 2004 meeting.Council reviewed protocols for inspecting Borates used in new construction July 2004 and January 2005. Council conducted a joint meeting with FDACS inspectors to discuss uniform enforcement procedures July 2004.Council reviewed Neutral Scheme Inspections Policy January 2005.Council developed recommendations for neutral scheme inspections including a set of criteria July 19, 2005. Council approved WDO neutral scheme pilot project at the October 18, 2005.Considered a proposal for testing for the presence/absence of preventive residual soil treatments January 2005.Adopted a Compliance Assistance Request Process at the April 22, 2004 meeting, and revisions 7/20/04. Council discussed compliance resolution rates at the October 18, 2005 meeting.Considered recommendations to improve effectiveness of post construction treatment standards July/October 2005. Council conducted a joint meeting with FDACS inspectors to discuss enforcement procedures October 2006.The Council discussed the “three strike rule” at the October 2006 meeting. Council discussed issues regarding COIC Supervision of Remote/Multiple Locations July 2012, and considered COIC duties Council heard report regarding standardized letter for business tax clarification January 2009.Council discussed issues/difficulties regarding regulation of pesticide sales at the April 2010 meeting.Council discussed GHP SEO regarding B & G tank mix sampling issues February 2011.NPDES Permit: Council discussed U.S. Court of Appeals opinion on the Clean Water Act, and NPDES Pesticides Generic Permit implementation issues April 2009, July 2009, and October 2009. Labeling Requirements: Council discussed EPA labeling use requirement proposal for Chloropicrin used in structural fumigation July 2009.
Commodity Fumigation Council discussed commodity fumigation regulation issues 3/14, & received FDACS briefing 7/14.
Uniform procedures for notifying PCO’s of Agency actions:Jul-15
Council will review as needed
Council discussed timely notification of COs regarding potential violations by employees July 2011.Council discussed Section 482.163, F.S. stakeholder Task Force report/recommendations regarding responsibility for pest control activities of employees February 2011.Council considered recommendations regarding prior notification of inspections at the January 2006 meeting.Council discussed FDACS notification policy regarding administrative action against ID cardholders March 2015 and delivered recommendations to FDACS July 2015.
Council discussed the Field Advisory Notice (FAN) at the July 2007 meeting. Apr-09
Council will review as needed
Council discussed and approved FAN Guidance Document at the October 2007 meeting.Council reviewed and discussed FAN implementation pilot project at the April 2008 meeting.Council discussed FAN enforcement guidelines and possible enforcement scope expansion options March 2015 and will provide recommendations July 2015.
TASK A—ADVISE AND ELEVATE INDUSTRY ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
Council discussed licensee inspections procedures pilot program at the October 2008 meeting, and discussed revised forms at the January 2009 meeting. Council discussed implementation of recently adopted FDACS rules at the Oct. 2008 meeting.Council heard an update on the FAN program at the April 2009 meeting.
Council discussed Compliance Assistance: Develop recommendations for improving consumer education on procedures for filing complaints (complaint process) and enhancing the visibility of the process. Mar-12
Council will review as needed
FDACS compliance assistance requests proposal adopted at July 2004 meeting.Council approved conceptual “Compliance Agreement” proposal between FDACS and pest control companies October 2011, and decided concept was not needed March 2012.
ID Cardholder Training:Jul-15
Council will review as needed
Council discussed enforcement issues related to ID cards October 18, 2005.Council discussed FDACS notification policy regarding administrative action against ID cardholders January 2010.Council received briefing and discuss ID card license issuance issues March 2015.Council discussed training issues and plans regarding ID cardholder training at the July and October 2008 meetings.Second ID Cards: Council discussed the use of second ID cards by non-certified pest control operators for training purposes related to qualifying for licensure at the July 2006 meeting.Council delivered recommendations to FDACS regarding notification policy regarding administrative action against ID cardholders March 2015 and will receive briefing on FDACS implementation strategy July 2015..
Emergency Certificates:Jul-10
Council will review as needed
Council discussed emergency certificate issuance at the July 2010 meeting.
Business License Renewal:Jul-11
Council will review as needed
Council discussed Business License renewal statistics July 2011.
Certified Operators Duties and Issues: Jan-09 Council will Council discussed Absentee Certified Operators at the July 2007 meeting. Council discussed responsibilities of certified operators at the April 2008 meeting. Council heard report on FDACS rule authority for defining supervision and duties of CO January 2009.
Independent Contracting Issues: Jul-12
Council will review as needed
Council discussed independent contracting in the Industry at the October 2008 meeting.Council discussed licensees using third parties to sell pest control services October 2011.Council heard a report regarding enforcement activities regarding independent contractors July 2010, March 2012, and received update July 2012.Mentioned during March 2016 meeting as part of illegal operator discussion
Council discussed limited certification enforcement policy July 2010.Council discussed FDACS policy regarding license renewal and fees February 2011.Council received status update on 2014 implementation issues November 2012.Council discussed Limited Urban Landscape Commercial Fertilizer Applicator Certification implementation issues 10/09, and received briefing November 2013.Council heard briefing on Compliance issues November 2013.Council heard GIBMP update - Green industry holding meetings with UF/DEP - evaluating program
Information Technology and Web-Based Database Issues:Nov-13
Council will review as needed
Council discussed FDACS development of website/data base for archiving WDO inspections January 2010, and evaluated FDACS implementation proposal April 2010.Council discussed posting WDO inspections to a FDACS website July 2013, and evaluated issue November 2013.
WDO Inspections Procedures, Enforcement and Policies:Jul-15
Council will review as needed
PCO Issues: Presentation on issues of concern to PCO’s given on July 17, 2003.Feasibility assessment for a negotiated rulemaking on the WDO report form was completed on Feb., 2004Council approved WDO neutral scheme pilot project October 18, 2005.WDO Inspection Form workshop process was completed in January of 2006.Council considered requirements related to assumption of WDO contracts January 2006. The issue was assigned to the Education Subcommittee.Council discussed the “common names” of WDO’s covered in contracts October 2006.
Council discussed the assumption of warranties (WDO contracts), and FDACS relevant rule efforts, without treatment 7/07.Field Trip: Member’s toured the Termite Training Facility prior to the April 2008 meetingCouncil discussed WDO inspections by home inspectors July 2007 and April 2008.Council discussed clarifications regarding WDO contract provisions: Control/Prevention language 2/11 & 7/11.Council will evaluate insurance limits for WDO contracts.Council will monitor new WDO contract rules and develop recommendations for enhancing enforcement as needed based on a minimum of one year of monitoring experience.Council discussed WDO inspection reporting issues pertaining to enhancing consumer protections March 2014.Council discussed WDO reporting by home inspectors at July 2007 and April 2008 and will receive update in July 2015.Borates for Drywood Termites: Council heard report on use of Borates for drywood termite treatment January 2009.Council will discuss Bora-Care preventative treatments at a future meeting. Annual Inspections Without Contract: Council discussed annual termite inspection fee without a guarantee/contract April 2010. Termite Treatment Contracts- Council received survey results on cost of termite treatment contracts March 2014.
TASK B - MAXIMIZE CONSUMER PROTECTION
Uniform Training for Inspectors: Develop recommendations to ensure that there are consistent and uniform training requirements that all inspectors must achieve prior to working in the field. Mar-15
Council will review as needed
Council discussed inspector training related to enforcement issues at the April 2006 meeting.Council heard a report on minimum requirements for field inspectors at the July 2010 meeting.Council received update on FDAC inspector cross training impacts to Industry from reorganization March 2015.
FDACS Training and Certification for Licensure:Oct-08
Council will review as needed
Council heard a report on FDACS Certification Exams at the April 18, 2006 meeting. (Task Complete)Council heard a report on certified pest control operator certification exam July and October 2008.
Supervision and Training Requirements for Industry: Nov-12
Council will review as needed
Council heard an update on supervision and training issues at the July 18, 2006 meeting.Council discussed training in the pest control industry at the April 2009 and July 2009 meetings.Council discussed Industry training and supervision standards relative to COIC oversight of remote/multiple locations (span of control) March and July 2012, and received update November 2012.
FDACS Forms: Review and develop recommendations on the language used in FDACS various forms.Mar-15
Council will review as needed
Feasibility assessment for a negotiated rulemaking on the WDO report form was completed on February 5, 2004WDO Inspection Form workshop process was completed in January of 2006.Council discussed FDACS Licensee Inspection Forms July 2013 and November 2013. Council reviewed proposed revisions
Contract Issues: Review and Develop Recommendations Regarding Contract Issues.Oct-11
Council will review as needed
The Council discussed the “common names” of WDO’s covered in contracts at the October 2006 meeting. Council will monitor new WDO contract rules and develop recommendations for enhancing enforcement as needed based on a minimum of one year of monitoring experience. Assumption of WDO Contracts: Council considered requirements related to assumption of WDO contracts at the January 2006 meeting. The issue was assigned to the Education Subcommittee.
Council discussed WDO inspections by home inspectors at the July 2007 and April 2008 meetings.Council discussed issues regarding FDACS GHP contracts at the January 2010 meeting. Council discussed clarifications regarding WDO contract provisions related to “Control/Prevention” language February 2011 and discussed July 2011Council discussed Bed Bugs relative to GHP contracts and current regulations July 2011, and discussed Bed Bugs Regulations and Enforcement Strategy October 2011.
Pretreatment Preconstruction Contracts: Oct-06
Council will review as needed
Council discussed pretreatment preconstruction contracts with builders at the October 17, 2006 meeting.Council will rank options related to pretreatment preconstruction contracts with builders at a future meeting.
Consumer ProtectionsJan-11
Council will review as needed
Cell Phones/Advertising: The Council discussed the use of cell phones related to advertising and soliciting rules at the July 2006 meeting, and recommended that FDACS address the appropriate uses of cell phones and other new technologies.
Perimeter Posting: Council discussed posting for perimeter application of pesticide to lawn/foliage at the April 2008 meeting. Council discussed enforcement enhancements to protect consumers at the Oct. 2010 meeting & the Jan. 2011 meeting.
Emerging Issues/Invasive Species/Pests of Economic SignificanceNov-14
Council will review as needed
Conehead Termites (last update Nov 2014)Council received briefings/updates on Conehead Termites during 2013, Nov. 2014, and July 2014Council received briefing on program staffing November 2014.
Formosan Termites (last update March 2014)Council received briefings on Formosan Termites July 2013, November 2013, and March 2014, and will receive briefings at subsequent meetings.
Pests of Economic Significance:Council discussed Africanized Honeybees and implications to the industry at the 1/06 meeting.Council discussed pests of economic significance (i.e., tree termites, crazy ants) 10/11, and received update 7/12.
Consumer Education Efforts:Jul-07
Council will review as needed
Council discussed consumer education strategies at the July 19, 2005 meeting.Council convened a Consumer Education Subcommittee at the July 19, 2005 Meeting.Council discussed consumer education strategies and public service messages at the July 2007 meeting.
TASK D - ANNUAL/PROCEDURAL COUNCIL ACTIVITIES
Council Policies: (Ongoing Procedural Task—Not to be Ranked)Nov-15
Council will review as needed
Council considered a member proxy proposal at the July 19, 2005 meeting.Member Comment Process for absent members was adopted October 18, 2005.Member attendance and meeting frequency policies were revised January 17, 2006.Council reviewed membership terms and statutory mandate January 17, 2006.Council adopted Teleconference Participation Process at the July 2009 meeting.Scope of issues for Council evaluation/discussion decision:Council agreed that their focus will be on developing recommendations to improve the enforcement of existing regulations; and, would recommend statutory or rule changes as a by-product of this activity & not as a primary Council focus. (Nov. 20, 2003)Council reviewed policies Nov 2015 - no amendments at this time
Public Participation at Council Meetings:Nov-15
Council will review as needed
Process amended at the April 2004 and October 2008 meetings.Public participation policy and procedures adopted July 2013.Council reviewed policies Nov 2015 - no amendments at this time
Annually, Council members are asked to rank how well the Council functions in seven (7) key topical areas
TOPIC
PCEAC ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES RANKING RESULTS
Termite Pretreatment Practices 1/5 6 --- ---LCFC/LCLM Compliance 1/5 10 4 ---Absentee CO's 1/5 --- --- 5Mandated Tech Training 1/5Off Label Pesticide Use 1/5Independent Contractors 1/5Inspector Training 1/5Emerging Issues: Invasive Species/Pests of Economic Significance
5 --- ---
Bedbug Policies (Task Complete) --- 5 4
COIC Span of Control (Task Complete)
--- --- 7
Defining Duties of COIC (Task Complete)
--- --- 3
Defining Supervision 9 8 8
Enforcement Priorities (Ongoing) --- 6 ---
GHP SEP (Task Complete) --- 10 ---Notification of PCOs 8 2 ---Posting for perimeter applications (Task Complete)
--- --- 6
WDO by Home Inspectors 7 9 ---
PCEAC Procedural Guidelines
PARTICIPANT’S ROLEThe Council process is an opportunity to explore possibilities. Offering or exploring an idea does not necessarily imply support for it.
Listen to understand. Seek a shared understanding even if you don’t agree.
Be focused and concise—balance participation & minimize repetition. Share the airtime.
Look to the facilitator(s) to be recognized. Please raise your hand to speak.
Speak one person at a time. Please don’t interrupt each other.
Focus on issues, not personalities. Avoid stereotyping or personal attacks.
To the extent possible, offer options to address other’s concerns, as well as your own.
Represent and communicate with member’s constituent group(s).
FACILITATOR’S ROLE
Design and facilitate a participatory meeting process.
Assist participants to stay focused and on task.
Assure that participants follow ground rules.
Prepare agenda packets and provide meeting summary reports.
GUIDELINES FOR BRAINSTORMING
Speak when recognized by the Facilitator(s).
Offer one idea per person without explanation.
No comments, criticism, or discussion of other's ideas.
Listen respectively to other's ideas and opinions.
Seek understanding and not agreement at this point in the discussion.
THE NAME STACKING PROCESS
Determines the speaking order.
Participant raises hand to speak. Facilitator(s) will call on participants in turn.Facilitator(s) may interrupt the stack (change the speaking order) in order to promote discussion on a specific issue or, to balance participation and allow those who have not spoken on an issue an opportunity to do so before others on the list who have already spoken on the issue.
ACCEPTABILITY RANKING SCALE
During the meetings, members will be asked to develop and rank options, and following discussions and refinements, may be asked to do additional rankings of the options if requested by members and staff. Please be prepared to offer specific refinements or changes to address your reservations. The following scale will be utilized for the ranking exercises:
Scale
4= acceptable, I agree
3= acceptable, I agree with minor reservations
2= not acceptable, I don't agree unless major reservations are addressed
1= not acceptable
PCEAC TELECONFERENCE PARTICIPATION PROCESS
(ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY JULY 21, 2009)
ATTENDANCE
Facilitator will ask Council members to identify themselves.Members will offer their names one at a time. To avoid confusion and to ensure accuracy, please wait until facilitator repeats and confirms a name before offering another.
Once attendance is complete, the agenda will be reviewed and approved by the Council.Council members should announce if they have to sign-off before the teleconference meeting is complete, to ensure a quorum and an accurate count of votes.
PARTICIPANT ETIQUETTEBackground noise from participants is picked-up and amplified on the conference leader’s phone, especially if you are on a speaker-phone. Please refrain from sidebar conversations.Please place your phone on mute, unless you are speaking, to cut down on ambient background noise. Ensure your phone is muted if you leave the phone for any reason. Use the mute function on your personal phone, or the conference muting function as follows:
*6 to mute and #6 to un-mute.If your line creates a disturbance or has technical difficulties, the teleconference operator may be required to manually mute your line until the problem is resolved.
Do NOT place your phone on hold (your system’s background sound/music will play).
DISCUSSION PROCESS
Facilitator will introduce discussion item or presenter.
Presenter will provide overview of issue and recommendation(s) for Council action.
Hold questions until presentation is complete.Once presentation is complete, Facilitator will ask if Council members have clarifying questions on the issue, create a speaker’s list*, and call on members in-turn for clarification.Members participating via the internet shall indicate their desire to speak by using the "Raise Hand" function on the WebEx screen.Facilitator will ask if anyone from the public wishes to discuss the issue or propose alternative options, create a speaker’s list*, and call on participants in-turn for discussion.Members of the public participating via the internet shall indicate their desire to speak by using the "Raise Hand" function on the WebEx screen. Facilitator will ask if any Council member wishes to discuss the issue or propose alternative options, create a speaker’s list, and call on members in-turn for discussion.Once clarification and discussion is complete, Facilitator will ask if a Council member wishes to make a motion on the issue.
Following a second for the motion, Facilitator will ask if there is any additional discussion.If the motion involves an option the public has already provided input on, then the vote is taken following any additional Council discussion; if the proposed action (motion) is materially different from what was previously discussed, an additional opportunity is provided for public comment, and then the Council votes on the motion.
*"Speaker's List" will be compiled from those in attendance, on the web, and participating solely by phone.
COME PREPARED. Review the agenda, presentations and background documents ahead of time. Schedule at least 15 minutes to prepare for the meeting/webinar - if you don't need it you can have the time back. Do the pre-work. Make notes and be ready with questions.
TEST THE TECHNOLOGY AHEAD OF TIME. Log in the day before to ensure full access to whatever online technology is being used. Check your headset and/or telephone system.
PARTICIPATION-VIDEO AND AUDIO: If you participate using your computer for audio (using a headset to listen and/or speak) do not use the teleconference call in number (it creates interference). You can listen and/or speak using your headset through the VOIP function of your computer. If you use your computer only for the video/visual function (to view presentations) you will need to call in on the teleconference line to listen and/or speak. Participants who wish to view the presentations will need to use their computers to log-in using the meeting URL provided on the meeting agenda whether theyparticipate with VOIP or the teleconference participation option for audio and video functions.
TURN UP EARLY. Put the web address and teleconference details in your calendar and bookmark the web URL. Set the reminder 15 minutes ahead of the call.
REMOVE DISTRACTIONS. Schedule a quiet place to participate from. Clear your desk and computer desktop. Turn off email & instant messaging. Put your cell phone aside. Put a note on your office door. Create an environment that allows you to fully participate without distractions.
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN PARTICIPATION. Don’t plan to do any “catch up” activities during the call. If you catch myself multi-tasking, close your eyes and listen. Avoid side conversations whether in the room with colleagues or in an online chat space. Keep your phone on “Mute” unless speaking. Never place your phone on “Hold”. Be aware that speaker phones transmit background noise and interfere with the meeting.
BE AWARE OF AIR TIME. Fully participate while allowing others to do the same. Speak your name before making a comment.
FOLLOW COUNCIL’S MEETING PARTICIPATION GUIDELINES. Do not speak without acknowledgement from the chair and/or facilitator. Speaking out of turn is very disruptive to a virtual meeting.
SUPPORT THE FACILITATOR. Acknowledge questions and pay attention. Use the raise hand function to speak and wait for the facilitator to invite questions and/or comments. The facilitator will create a speakers list at all appropriate times during the meeting. Keep your phone on “Mute” whenever possible.
COUNCIL PROCESS OVERVIEW
(ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY MAY 8, 2003)
The Pest Control Enforcement Advisory Council’s consensus-building and decision-making process is a participatory one whereby on matters of substance, the members jointly strive for agreements which all of the members can accept, support or at least agree not to oppose.
In instances where, after vigorously exploring possible ways to enhance the members' support for the final decision on an issue or package of recommendations, and where 100% acceptance or support is not achievable, final recommendations of the Council will require at least a 72% favorable vote of all members present and voting. This super majority decision rule underscores the Council’s view of the importance of seeking and developing agreements with the participation of all members and with which all can live with and support.
The Council will make decisions only when a quorum is present. A quorum shall be constituted by at least 51% of the appointed members being present (simple majority).
Council members, staff, and Facilitator will be the only participants seated at the table. Only Council members may vote on proposals and recommendations.
For substantive discussion issues, after discussion and public comment, a council member may make a motion to approve the issue. If there is a second to the motion the Facilitator will call for discussion. Once a motion is made and seconded the
Only motions to approve will be considered (no motions to disapprove). If there is no motion after discussion the requested action is not approved.
COUNCIL’S MISSION STATEMENT
The purpose of the Pest Control Enforcement Advisory Council is to advise the Commissioner of Agriculture as to appropriate regulatory and enforcement policy regarding the pest control industry. The perspectives of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the pest control industry, the scientific community, and the consumer will be represented and considered in a spirit of partnership, with the common goal of elevating industry enforcement and compliance to (i) maximize consumer protection and (ii) enhance public understanding of the pest control industry.
COUNCIL’S GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The Pest Control Enforcement Advisory Council shall operate using the following Guiding Principles:
PRINCIPLE 1
The overall purpose of the PCEAC is to serve as an advisory body to the Division of Agricultural Environmental Services.
PRINCIPLE 2
The PCEAC shall adhere to their Statutory authorities and charge.
PRINCIPLE 3
The PCEAC shall strive to achieve consensus on substantive recommendations made to FDACS
PRINCIPLE 4
The PCEAC shall operate under clear, concise, consistent, and fair procedural protocols.
PRINCIPLE 5The PCEAC shall serve as an accessible liaison between the Division of Agricultural Environmental Services, the regulated industry, and consumers thereby protecting the interests of the public.
Name:
Organization:
Meeting Date:
Comment:
Please give completed forms(s) to the Facilitator for inclusion in the meeting summary report.
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the Pest Control Enforcement Advisory Council encourage written comments - All written comments will be included in the meeting summary report
Please make your comment(s) as specific as possible, and offer suggestions to address your concerns.Please limit comment(s) to topics within the scope of the Council.Any personal attacks or derogatory language will be discarded.
The facilitator may, at their discretion, limit public comment to a maximum of three-minutes (3) per person, depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak and available time.
