Pat,
While I agree that you have not bent your rules by allowing attorneys to be CFEI's, I believe the question is, if they have not actually investigated fires, why are they allowed to be Certified Fire and Explosive Investigators? (other than it adheres to your guidelines that you established.) Do you feel that they have the same level of knowledge and expertise as someone who actually practices in the field? Do you feel that an attorney without scene experience demonstrates the KSA's outlined in 1033? I believe the point that Dan and others were making, is the potential misuse by attorneys such as been alleged to have occured is demeaning to the program and those that truly possess the skills that your certification indicates (Fire and Explosion Investigator). Reading it in a book and taking a test, while a good indicator of base knowledge, is not a good indicator of the proper application of that knowledge. I do agree that is beneficial for attorneys involved in fire investigation to have a better understanding of the skill sets that a competent investigator should possess,but unless they actually perform the work, I believe they are nothing more than an "arm chair quarterback." Do you see a downside to allowing them to challenge your test but giving them a seperate distinct credential such as Dan recommended so as to differentiate them from an actual practitioner?
Additionally, while the Guidebook I reviewed may not be all encompassing, I did not see a requirement for 50 fire scenes as you indicated previously, in fact I do not see any set requirments for any category. Your guidelines do generally state that applicants must demonstrate they meet the requirments in certain areas but it does not state what the minimum threshold is. Is that arbitrarily decided when the application is reviewed by the Board of Governors?
Thanks,
Bobby
p.s. as it is past my bed time, I respectfully ask for a pass on typo's and grammatical errors