"Consensus Standards" imposed by non-LPEs

[Dr. Borracho]

SDO is a term meaning Standards Development Organization. OSAC stands for the Organization of Scientific Area Committees. The AAFS has established an SDO called the AAFS Standards Board (ASB) that works closely with OSAC to develop voluntary consensus standards, technical reports, and best practice recommendations.

for whole story, see https://news.aafs.org/asb-news/why-do-w ... -the-osac/

Why is the AAFS writing standards for the operation of a latent print unit when the IAI is the professional organization to which latent print examiners belong? Why are lawyers and academicians who are NOT latent print examiners writing "Consensus standards?" Shouldn't "Consensus Standards" be written by practitioners in the field instead of critics who have never even looked at fingerprints?

American Academy of Forensic Science home page: https://www.aafs.org/
AAFS-Standards Board home page: http://asb.aafs.org/
ASB (American Academy of Forensic Science – Standards Board) Consensus Bodies: https://asb.aafs.org/consensus-bodies/
Notification of Standard Development & Coordination: https://asb.aafs.org/notification-of-st ... rdination/
Why do we need standards board when there is OSAC? : https://news.aafs.org/asb-news/why-do-w ... -the-osac/

Public Notices
The Consensus Bodies are continuing to solicit members in specific interest categories.
· Anthropology
· Bloodstain Pattern Analysis
· Disaster Victim Identification
· DNA
· Dogs and Sensors
· Firearms and Toolmarks
· Footwear and Tire Tracks
· Forensic Document Examination
· Friction Ridge
· Medicolegal Death Investigation
· Patterned Injury
· Toxicology
· Wildlife

SWGFAST was composed almost exclusively of latent print examiners. They had a legitimate right to write "consensus standards." But groups including lawyers and academicians with no latent print training or experience who can write "consensus standards" to be imposed upon us do NOT have such a legitimate right to write our "consensus standards."

Watch for documents circulated for review and COMMENT on them. Better yet, seek to join an appropriate group and make your voice heard. To apply to join a group, go to https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIp ... g/viewform

If the latent print community is silent, new standards will be imposed on us without significant input from us.

[josher89]

The majority of the documents that are being written as standards, best practices, etc. are still being created by practitioners at the OSAC level (based on subcommittee members). Once these documents are approved at the subcommittee level, they get elevated to the SAC level where comments are made (again, by mainly practitioners). If there are issues, they get sent back down for adjudication and sent back up. Once approved at the SAC level, they go to a standards board to ensure they fit the guidelines of what the SDO has in place (and a lot of these guidelines are font type and size, layout of document, etc. that really don't get into the substance of the standard, just the packaging of it).

There may be some non-practitioners at the subcommittee level (or other, higher levels) but I can tell you first-hand, it is refreshing to have them as they can provide an unbiased perspective to our documents and assist in making a determination if the document should be a standard or a best practices.

I would encourage you to put your name in the mix for an affiliate status (at a minimum) of the FRS of OSAC so you could become a participant in the process and learn more about it. I got my start that way and have learned a lot of the process because of it. I certainly don't know everything, in fact, I probably know about 10% of the process, but I know more than when I started.

[timbo]

Once approved at the SAC level, they go to a standards board to ensure they fit the guidelines of what the SDO has in place (and a lot of these guidelines are font type and size, layout of document, etc. that really don't get into the substance of the standard, just the packaging of it).

If you think this is what is happening at the standards board level, then I strongly urge you to listen in to the next Friction Ridge ASB meeting July 7th (1pm - 4pm EDT). I think you will find what you believe to be happening at the standards board level (non-substantial editing) and what is actually happening at that level are two vastly different things. The scope of the document, specific language (for example, potentially removing the words 'identification' and 'opinion' completely from the articulation of source attribution document), conclusion terms available for use, the title of the document itself, and various other very substantial edits have been discussed and edited at this standards board level.

[josher89]

timbo,

I certainly realize that there are some substantial changes being made at other, higher levels of the process (those above a subcommittee level). While they may be put out as standards, it is still up to you (or your agency)to adopt them into your procedures. If you choose not to, you'll just have to be able to defend your position. I don't think that's a bad thing (necessarily) from time to time. While many subcommittee members are working hard on these documents, they all realize that some of what they do will get changed. Some for the better and some, well, not so. Not all subcommittee members agree with the changes and have the opportunity to voice their dissenting opinions. Just like within the NCFS (now defunct) or, I'm guessing, PCAST. Not everyone agrees with all of the changes.

That's why I encourage anyone that wants to help or voice their opinions, apply for a position on a committee or board. I'm not sure of the requirements for the FSSB or ASB but I'm sure they can be found using the links Dr. Borracho listed. I also think there are public comments during these SB meetings; please make your comments known then.

[Steve Everist]

If you think this is what is happening at the standards board level, then I strongly urge you to listen in to the next Friction Ridge ASB meeting July 7th (1pm - 4pm EDT). I think you will find what you believe to be happening at the standards board level (non-substantial editing) and what is actually happening at that level are two vastly different things.

Here is the link for the July 7th meeting:
https://workspace.aafs.org/higherlogic/ ... ent_id=187

Here is the link for the ASB Public Upcoming Events Calendar:
https://workspace.aafs.org/higherlogic/ ... wg_abbrev=

Here is the link for the ASB Friction Ridge Consensus Body:
https://workspace.aafs.org/higherlogic/ ... onRidge_CB

From the sounds of things, participation through joining is one option but also participating through listening in and being aware of what is being discussed is another.

Is there a public list of ASB members?

The list of OSAC (Friction Ridge Subcommittee) members is here:
https://www.nist.gov/topics/forensic-sc ... bcommittee

Is there any overlap between the two? In other words, are people on the ASB reviewing the product they created as members of OSAC?

[Steve Everist]

If you think this is what is happening at the standards board level, then I strongly urge you to listen in to the next Friction Ridge ASB meeting July 7th (1pm - 4pm EDT). I think you will find what you believe to be happening at the standards board level (non-substantial editing) and what is actually happening at that level are two vastly different things.

Here is the link for the July 7th meeting:
https://workspace.aafs.org/higherlogic/ ... ent_id=187

Here is the link for the ASB Public Upcoming Events Calendar:
https://workspace.aafs.org/higherlogic/ ... wg_abbrev=

Here is the link for the ASB Friction Ridge Consensus Body:
https://workspace.aafs.org/higherlogic/ ... onRidge_CB

From the sounds of things, participation through joining is one option but also participating through listening in and being aware of what is being discussed is another.

Is there a public list of ASB members?

The list of OSAC (Friction Ridge Subcommittee) members is here:
https://www.nist.gov/topics/forensic-sc ... bcommittee

Is there any overlap between the two? In other words, are people on the ASB reviewing the product they created as members of OSAC?

Just a reminder - this is today.

[Steve Everist]

From the meeting's page you can see a list of attendees, including members and observers:

American Academy of Forensic Sciences
Teresa Ambrosius
Manager

American Academy of Forensic Sciences
Brad Wing
Manager

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and E...
Alison Rees
User/Government (federal, state, and local)
Member

Cook County Public Defender Office
Brendan Max
General Interest
Member

Cook County State's Attorney's Office
Amy Watroba
Consumer Groups
Observer

Crime Lab Inc.
Lisa O'Daniel
Laboratories and/or Testing Facilities
Member

Defense Forensic Science Center / U.S. Arm...
Henry Swofford
User/Government (federal, state, and local)
Member

FBI
Peter Peterson
User/Government (federal, state, and local)
Member

Federal Community Defender Office
Robert Epstein
General Interest
Member

Fort Worth Police Department
Heather Wigington
Observer

Illinois State Police
Mandi Hornickel
User/Government (federal, state, and local)
Member

John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Marzena Mulawka
Academia
Member

MorphoTrak, LLC
Michael French
Producers
Member

Orange COunty Sheriff Crime Lab
Lisa M Zinn
User/Government (federal, state, and local)
Member

Pinellas County Sheriff's Office
William H Schade
User/Industry
Member

RTI International
Heidi Eldridge
User/Industry
Manager

Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office
Steven Brock
Observer

Schwarz Forensic Enterprises, Inc.,
Matthew Schwarz
User/Industry
Member

Subject Matter Expert
Melissa Gische
Subject Matter Experts
Member

Subject Matter Expert
Alice Maceo
Subject Matter Experts
Member

Subject Matter Expert
John Splain
Subject Matter Experts
Group Chair

Subject Matter Expert
Michele Triplett
Subject Matter Experts
Member

University of California, Irvine
Simon Cole
Academia
Member


Meeting Statistics

Quorum rule
51% of voting companies
Achieved quorum
yes
Individual Attendance
Observing Members: 3 of 10 (30%)
Contributing Members: 20 of 26 (76%)
Voting Members: 18 of 23 (78%)
Company Attendance
Observing Companies: 3 of 8 (37%)
Contributing Companies: 16 of 21 (76%)
Voting Companies: 15 of 19 (78%) (used for quorum calculation)