I would like to take this column to update everyone on three things. Truth be told, I would like to start with a story that a friend of mine likes to tell that commands: “There are three things you need to know, and only three things….” Unfortunately, propriety prevents me from doing so; which should also make for a shorter column. I’ll just chuckle to myself.

     First, there is the issue of legal certification in governmental and administrative law, a proposal generated by the Government Lawyer Section. Of particular note is the definition of “administrative and governmental practice:” “the practice of law on behalf of public or private clients on matters involving administration of government, including, but not limited to, rulemaking or adjudication associated with state or federal governmental agency actions such as contracts, licenses, orders, permits, policies, or rules.” The minimum standards for certification require that the applicant have been engaged in an administrative or governmental practice before, against, or on behalf of Florida or federal governmental agencies for at least five years and that a minimum of 40 percent of the applicant’s practice in this time period is dedicated to administrative and governmental practice. The applicant must also provide 20 examples of service as a “lead advocate” within the past ten years of participation in governmental actions, including proceedings under Chapter 120, the Federal Administrative Procedure Act, the US Court of Claims, the Court of International Trade, tort claims proceedings in US District Courts, personnel proceedings such as those before the EEOC or Merit Systems Protection Board, and other fully-adjudicated state or federal administrative or civil proceedings involving governmental entities, including any appellate proceedings.

     The Government Lawyers Section introduced this proposal to the Bar’s Board of Legal Specialization and Education in January and further meetings may be scheduled later this year. In the interim, the Administrative Law Section has established a committee to review and revise the initial proposal. It is likely that the new proposal will have some sort of a-points-qualifying-procedure which will seek to balance certain mandatory APA experience with what is described as “other traditional APA and governmental experience” and “non-traditional experience.”

     The concept of a certification program for Environmental and/or Land Use Law has been oft debated and oft killed for lack of interest. That is not to say, however, that we should not carefully follow developments of a possible new certification by the Government Lawyers, and possibly Administrative Law Section. Towards that end, the Executive Council has appointed a committee of Robert Riggio, Kirk Burns, Paul Chipok, and me to monitor the issue. Any thoughts you have would be greatly appreciated.

     Item two. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has drafted the Uniform Environmental Covenants Act (UECA), and has asked for our comments as this item moves toward possible legislation in Florida. Given that the three Chapter 376 programs (petroleum, dry cleaning and Brownfields) have had some experience for a number of years with restrictive covenants and DEP has policy guidelines on the issue, some have expressed concerns that we do not adversely impact progress already achieved. Of course, if the UECA would result in a better understanding of risk-based cleanups, so much the better. Towards that end, the Executive Council has requested that a committee comprised of George Gramling, Lisa Duchene, Roger Schwenke, and Bob Wells evaluate the potential impact of UECA. I will have more to report on this in the next Chair’s Column.

     Finally, the Treatise. It has been the long-standing goal of the Executive Council to make the Treatise widely (and affordably) available. The best way, it seems, to accomplish this, is to put the Treatise on our web site in some password-protected fashion. We have made significant progress towards this goal, although the details are not fully resolved. However, we are close enough that our plans for the Treatise and some other budget issues have caused us to propose a $10 per year increase in Section dues. We ask that you bear with us. We expect that you will see the fruits sooner, rather than later.