|Action||General Review 2014|
|Comment Period||Ends 2/22/2017|
COI wrote large
In total the proposed regulations are negative rights, which means they exist as limitations on those outside a license granted by government rather than rights granted by the government.
This raises concern regarding the members of the WWWOOSSP Board. how is it this board can have conflicts of interest which are known by many, but have not been disclosed in legacy Conflict of Interest filings? In fact the last recusal from a vote or act by any member of this board was by Mr. Aulbach's predecessor Dr. Kleene following appeals by his agency for a dilution of standards of practice and entrance to the onsite soil evaluator licensure. As has been alleged during prior comment periods, every member of the OSSP board is beholden to the state agency which regulates decentralized water and sewer, and public water supplies. This in part explains the basis for listing Virginia as number forty seven (47) in the ranking of states by the Center for Public Integrity. https://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/03/19/18223/virginia-gets-f-grade-2012-state-integrity-investigation
Anti competitive interests both by the regulator, which coincidentlly is the monopoly market particpant (VDH) and it's creation (VOWRA) have stricken every word from the statutory act, and supplemented them with words intended to dilute the license and benefit the coffers of two state agencies- one derving revenue from license holders, and the other by design fees, and an association founded and directed by senior public "servants" employed by the monopoly power. Are the OSS counter parts on the board aware that every member of the onsite section are directly or indirectly affiliated with VDH and VOWRA, and that both have "partnered" with DPOR to "for fee" stage trainings throughout the Commonwealth?
As a body of work this board has been fraught with conflict of interest. Indeed we are moved to observe that absent public comment the only means to challenge the corrupt practices condoned by members of DPOR staff and bureocrats is to suggest that resolution of regulatory problems will depend upon a legislative solution via the General Assembly. How else will the Governor be forced to clean up this board, which are lackeys of interests which have manipulated regulation and public interest to their own benefit. Indeed self dealing does describe the limits this board has created which give preference to well placed lobbyists and state actors.
Ironically during the promulgation of this regulation the net change in population of licensed onsite soil evaluators has been a negative 100 professionals. Despite over 100 comments from the public on the NOIRA and subsequent stages we see the DPOR continuing to subjugate a profession which was created to ensure a supply of qualified individuals capable of supporting the development of rural Virginia. The comments on this regulation reveal how disappointed the majority of the profession has become, believing that the board has ignored every protest and will continue on it's path to undermining the very education, skills and abilities which support this exemption to the engineering license.