"Do you want my job?!" crackled the voice on the phone. Excuse me? "Do you want my job?!" This was the greeting from Jan Simpson as she called to chastise me for requesting that the AIA South Carolina and Charleston Contractor's Association comments be published online. Both groups had supported my recommendation to make the "sealing architect" responsible for performing or coordinating the mandatory CA services noted in the proposed regulations. To date, the letters remain unpublished.
The LLR still has no clue how to accept comments in a public forum. They edit comments at will and both the staff and board have steadfastly refused to give credit to the authors of the comments. For some unknown reason, they determined that comments are really questions and that all questions should remain anonymous. Even after my specific request to add my name back to the letter they published, they said no.
What's up with these people? Jan actually asked me if I thought I was qualified to have her job. Realistically, I could only meet her qualifications if I gave up my architect's license and didn't practice any more. It's time for the tail to stop wagging the dog.
Jan could not publish the letters on the comment board because they were from the presidents of AIA South Carolina and the Charleston Contractors Association. She would then have to decide if the letters were to remain anonymous - which wouldn't make any sense. That both groups supported my position was bad enough, but I was about to prove a point - the comments could not remain anonymous. She would have to list the presidents' names and eventually everyone on the comment board. So she flipped out.
Her next move was to invite these people to the hearing. Then she could avoid publishing the letters, claim that the board heard the comments and considered them, and get out of the comment board problem without a fight. But she and the board misunderstood the public communication concept. To be effective, both letters should have been published immediately for all architects to review them. Then they would have time to add their own comments. Now the chance has been lost.
It will be my goal over the coming year to establish a public comment board that offers immediate publication, does not edit the content, and gives credit to the author.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Expletive Deleted
Fighting censorship at the LLR has become a full time job. After a year of tedious emails to the LLR and AIA, we finally have a comment section on the LLR website to address the proposed regulations. It all started last August when the letter I sent to the Board was not passed along to the board members. After inquiring on the status of my request, I was told that they had somehow forgotten to put it on the agenda but offered me the chance to present it to the Board in person in November.
I was asked to send any material I was going to present to them ahead of time - by the end of October - in written and electronic form. So I did. When I arrived at the meeting, some of the material had been inexplicably left out. Being prepared for the oversight and not exactly trusting the staff, I had my own copies and handed them out to the members.
The first item we discussed was my recommendation for a comment section on the website, similar to the Virginia Town Hall, so architects could discuss proposed laws before they took effect. When the meeting minutes came out (much, much later) this request and discussion was omitted. When I wrote to ask that they amend the minutes to add my request, they never replied. When I asked for an explanation, they never answered.
After some help from the AIA, they finally agreed to add a "comment section" on the LLR website. Because notification has been poorly done, very few comments were received. Now, nearly a year later, I am still trying to get my full comments on the web.
The LLR staff treats comments from architects like questions from school children. They titled the comments section "Questions and Answers." This condescending and arrogant attitude has been tolerated for so long that most architects are numb to it. Thank you sir, may I have another.
My recommendations were published without the final paragraph, my name was deleted, and a warning header added by the staff that says these comments "were posted for review only." What? Of course comments are for review. As for the "only" part, I guess they are letting me know that they do not intend to change their minds on the regulations no matter what state architects have to say. And that's probably true.
If you're going to publish comments, for goodness sake, credit the authors and don't edit the material. It's not your place to change architect's recommendations. And another thing,the staff should not provide answers before the board discusses the questions. Laymen are not qualified to discuss architect's regulations, Jan.
I will keep trying to clean this up, get an honest discussion going and get some laws that make sense, in spite of the $#&^&!! LLR. Censor that.
I was asked to send any material I was going to present to them ahead of time - by the end of October - in written and electronic form. So I did. When I arrived at the meeting, some of the material had been inexplicably left out. Being prepared for the oversight and not exactly trusting the staff, I had my own copies and handed them out to the members.
The first item we discussed was my recommendation for a comment section on the website, similar to the Virginia Town Hall, so architects could discuss proposed laws before they took effect. When the meeting minutes came out (much, much later) this request and discussion was omitted. When I wrote to ask that they amend the minutes to add my request, they never replied. When I asked for an explanation, they never answered.
After some help from the AIA, they finally agreed to add a "comment section" on the LLR website. Because notification has been poorly done, very few comments were received. Now, nearly a year later, I am still trying to get my full comments on the web.
The LLR staff treats comments from architects like questions from school children. They titled the comments section "Questions and Answers." This condescending and arrogant attitude has been tolerated for so long that most architects are numb to it. Thank you sir, may I have another.
My recommendations were published without the final paragraph, my name was deleted, and a warning header added by the staff that says these comments "were posted for review only." What? Of course comments are for review. As for the "only" part, I guess they are letting me know that they do not intend to change their minds on the regulations no matter what state architects have to say. And that's probably true.
If you're going to publish comments, for goodness sake, credit the authors and don't edit the material. It's not your place to change architect's recommendations. And another thing,the staff should not provide answers before the board discusses the questions. Laymen are not qualified to discuss architect's regulations, Jan.
I will keep trying to clean this up, get an honest discussion going and get some laws that make sense, in spite of the $#&^&!! LLR. Censor that.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Board Games
This past year, the state changed the requirements for licensure by mandating a minimum of 12 continuing education credits in Health, Safety and Welfare only. Credits outside of this narrowly approved area are no longer permitted. The LLR made this change without soliciting input from the registered architects in the state. When I asked why we were not notified by mail, I was told that the governor had put a limit on mailings. This issue brought a serious deficiency to light: Communication with the LLR is very limited and input is practically nonexistent. This needs to be changed.
When I asked the LLR how we were supposed to know when the law was changed, I was told that it is the architect’s responsibility to check the LLR website and find out. Following this exchange, I went to the website and found that most of the information on it was out of date and wrong. The continuing education section was unchanged and continued to note 8 hours of HSW and 4 hours of other practice areas. Since I had already obtained credits in these “other areas,” I printed the entire website in case they felt like updating it after my call. They updated it in November, five months after the law was changed and added a newsletter that announced the new law. Because the Board did not have all of the registered architects email address, they asked everyone to pass it along to other architects. There’s no way to know if all architects received the electronic notification. I’m not sure if the LLR expects the changes to be effective for this year considering this poor notification process. In all fairness, the 12 credits for HSW should only be effective after June of 2009.
In a related issue, I mailed a question and asked for the LLR Board response for an issue in August. The information was not passed on. When I called about it, Jan Simpson invited me to speak to the Board in November. When I got there, other information I had prepared and sent electronically to them was also inexplicably missing and I had to supply copies to the Board. Without adequate time for the board to review the material, the meeting was not as productive as I had hoped.
I brought the Board an example of the Virginia Boards website public forum. In Virginia, changes to the law are open for discussion online. Architects and Engineers can write comments concerning the law changes and others can read them and respond as well. Once the comment time is closed, the Board reviews and answers each person in a format that is available to the public. The example I brought contained around seven hundred responses, the overwhelming majority speaking out against mandatory continuing education for licensure. Unfortunately, Virginia also has bad timing. They voted to require mandatory continuing education first and then gave it to their professional board to work out the requirements, all before the comment period was started.
As Jan Simpson gleefully said, the Virginia architects and engineers were dragged into mandatory continuing education “kicking and screaming.” This remark disparages the relevant comments offered by practicing architects who object to the false promises of MCE. Most people pay a premium for an architect’s advice. Seven hundred architects recommended against MCE and were told to take a hike. If there are any people qualified to determine what laws will protect the people and the profession, it is the licensed, practicing architects. Before any changes to the law are considered, we must offer architects a chance to voice their opinion and carefully listen to what they say.
I also brought the Board a copy of my article, The Continuing Education Myth, which explains why mandatory continuing education cannot be used as a standard for licensure. It discriminates against more experienced professionals by establishing minimum standards that are different for each architect. Enforcement of mandatory continuing education requirements may include loss of license, public reprimand and fines. Revoking a license for failure to complete MCE implies incompetency. Because this implication cannot be proven, the enforcement results in libel. MCE as currently written is unfair and illegal.
The Board, defending MCE, responded that “everyone was doing it.” This child’s excuse for an action was disheartening. They never really addressed the defamation issue or the charge of discrimination. The most egregious reply was from the attorney on the board who said that the only people not doing their MCE were “either senile or alcoholics.” Many thanks to him for proving my defamation point. I said that the MCE requirements were relatively new and that many great architects had never heard of MCE. I noted that Frank Lloyd Wright didn’t take Mandatory Continuing Education courses. Jan Simpson said that “Frank Lloyd Wright’s buildings leak.” At least the architects on the Board didn’t talk like that.
Years ago, Jan Simpson told me that the LLR Board was definitely not “pro-architect.” For some reason, the Board seems to think that its role is to rule and punish instead of listen and administrate. I think differently. Architects are some of the most moral, concerned citizens we have. I believe that an architect’s license should be issued once, for life. I think the license can only be revoked for cause, not speculation. And I think the role of the LLR should be to support architects and protect their roles in the building process.
It is clear that the architects of this state should be much more involved with the LLR actions. The AIA has the opportunity to make this happen. We should implement an online comment page, either on an AIA website or the LLR’s. We should encourage greater dialogue between the LLR and the architects. Without input from the state’s architects, South Carolina regulatory decisions are made in a vacuum. Time to change the rule for these Board Games.
When I asked the LLR how we were supposed to know when the law was changed, I was told that it is the architect’s responsibility to check the LLR website and find out. Following this exchange, I went to the website and found that most of the information on it was out of date and wrong. The continuing education section was unchanged and continued to note 8 hours of HSW and 4 hours of other practice areas. Since I had already obtained credits in these “other areas,” I printed the entire website in case they felt like updating it after my call. They updated it in November, five months after the law was changed and added a newsletter that announced the new law. Because the Board did not have all of the registered architects email address, they asked everyone to pass it along to other architects. There’s no way to know if all architects received the electronic notification. I’m not sure if the LLR expects the changes to be effective for this year considering this poor notification process. In all fairness, the 12 credits for HSW should only be effective after June of 2009.
In a related issue, I mailed a question and asked for the LLR Board response for an issue in August. The information was not passed on. When I called about it, Jan Simpson invited me to speak to the Board in November. When I got there, other information I had prepared and sent electronically to them was also inexplicably missing and I had to supply copies to the Board. Without adequate time for the board to review the material, the meeting was not as productive as I had hoped.
I brought the Board an example of the Virginia Boards website public forum. In Virginia, changes to the law are open for discussion online. Architects and Engineers can write comments concerning the law changes and others can read them and respond as well. Once the comment time is closed, the Board reviews and answers each person in a format that is available to the public. The example I brought contained around seven hundred responses, the overwhelming majority speaking out against mandatory continuing education for licensure. Unfortunately, Virginia also has bad timing. They voted to require mandatory continuing education first and then gave it to their professional board to work out the requirements, all before the comment period was started.
As Jan Simpson gleefully said, the Virginia architects and engineers were dragged into mandatory continuing education “kicking and screaming.” This remark disparages the relevant comments offered by practicing architects who object to the false promises of MCE. Most people pay a premium for an architect’s advice. Seven hundred architects recommended against MCE and were told to take a hike. If there are any people qualified to determine what laws will protect the people and the profession, it is the licensed, practicing architects. Before any changes to the law are considered, we must offer architects a chance to voice their opinion and carefully listen to what they say.
I also brought the Board a copy of my article, The Continuing Education Myth, which explains why mandatory continuing education cannot be used as a standard for licensure. It discriminates against more experienced professionals by establishing minimum standards that are different for each architect. Enforcement of mandatory continuing education requirements may include loss of license, public reprimand and fines. Revoking a license for failure to complete MCE implies incompetency. Because this implication cannot be proven, the enforcement results in libel. MCE as currently written is unfair and illegal.
The Board, defending MCE, responded that “everyone was doing it.” This child’s excuse for an action was disheartening. They never really addressed the defamation issue or the charge of discrimination. The most egregious reply was from the attorney on the board who said that the only people not doing their MCE were “either senile or alcoholics.” Many thanks to him for proving my defamation point. I said that the MCE requirements were relatively new and that many great architects had never heard of MCE. I noted that Frank Lloyd Wright didn’t take Mandatory Continuing Education courses. Jan Simpson said that “Frank Lloyd Wright’s buildings leak.” At least the architects on the Board didn’t talk like that.
Years ago, Jan Simpson told me that the LLR Board was definitely not “pro-architect.” For some reason, the Board seems to think that its role is to rule and punish instead of listen and administrate. I think differently. Architects are some of the most moral, concerned citizens we have. I believe that an architect’s license should be issued once, for life. I think the license can only be revoked for cause, not speculation. And I think the role of the LLR should be to support architects and protect their roles in the building process.
It is clear that the architects of this state should be much more involved with the LLR actions. The AIA has the opportunity to make this happen. We should implement an online comment page, either on an AIA website or the LLR’s. We should encourage greater dialogue between the LLR and the architects. Without input from the state’s architects, South Carolina regulatory decisions are made in a vacuum. Time to change the rule for these Board Games.
Monday, September 21, 2009
The Bird Has Left The Nest
Simple Concept: Establish a licensing board that will help regulate licensed architects in our state. The architects must meet minimum standards of education, practical experience and tested ability. Then let them fly.
Anything after that is professional development. The state is unqualified to determine or measure professional development.
No bird tracks down their young and teaches them to fly over and over again. Let them fly. Let them fly!
Anything after that is professional development. The state is unqualified to determine or measure professional development.
No bird tracks down their young and teaches them to fly over and over again. Let them fly. Let them fly!
Monday, September 14, 2009
Continuing Uneducation
"Only the senile and alcoholics" refuse to complete continuing education requirements, said the member of the state licensing board. Obviously my presentation of The Continuing Education Myth to the South Carolina LLR Board of Architectural Examiners was poorly received, to say the least. In spite of written requests, they still refuse to publish the name or content of the article in the meeting minutes.
My quest to have professional practice count toward learning credits has been amazingly difficult. This year, the President of the Virginia Society of Architects told me that he and members of Virginia AIA did not agree with my "notion" of learning on the job. They fully endorsed mandatory continuing education courses. It turns out that their Government Affairs director and chief proponent for the new MCE law is on the AIA staff and may not practice architecture at all. While most of us log thousands of hours designing, reviewing, specifying, and programming, he only has to attend a few seminars to keep his license. Outrageous. Today I renewed my architect's license in Alabama. They have a proposed law change that describes continuing education as anything "outside of daily business activities." What is going on here?
I refuse to believe that the more I work, the less I know. The struggle continues.
My quest to have professional practice count toward learning credits has been amazingly difficult. This year, the President of the Virginia Society of Architects told me that he and members of Virginia AIA did not agree with my "notion" of learning on the job. They fully endorsed mandatory continuing education courses. It turns out that their Government Affairs director and chief proponent for the new MCE law is on the AIA staff and may not practice architecture at all. While most of us log thousands of hours designing, reviewing, specifying, and programming, he only has to attend a few seminars to keep his license. Outrageous. Today I renewed my architect's license in Alabama. They have a proposed law change that describes continuing education as anything "outside of daily business activities." What is going on here?
I refuse to believe that the more I work, the less I know. The struggle continues.
The Continuing Education Myth
SCArchitect recently published a list of disciplinary actions against architects who failed to meet the mandatory continuing education (MCE) requirements of South Carolina. The punishments included public reprimand, thousands of dollars in fines, as well as being issued an Order to Cease and Desist from practicing architecture until the requirements were met. And just what are these requirements that would justify revoking your license? Well, the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (LLR) is not quite sure. While they insist that you keep learning, they leave the subject matter up to each architect. Because the goal is so unclear, the list of acceptable continuing education credits changes each year. Architects generally follow the rules and accept more bureaucracy as a matter of course. However, this passive acceptance of questionable rules has begun to hurt otherwise law-abiding professionals.
Although the mandatory continuing education requirements are minimal, the punishment for non-compliance is out of proportion to its value, with disciplinary actions that should be reserved for gross negligence and crime. By allowing these laws to be put in place, we have created a myth that state-mandated continuing education improves competency and that documenting it will somehow make better architects. As it stands, our MCE system has little impact on improving our skills and cannot work as a standard for an architect's license. Life-long learning is a goal for all of us, but the LLR attempt to regulate and document it is misguided. As any architect can tell you, practical experience is the best teacher. It is impossible for an architect to be active in this profession without keeping up and learning new things. Since we all know that professional practice is the best form of continuing education, what percentage counts toward the LLR requirements? Zero. The LLR does not recognize professional practice as continuing education. Ironically, the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) recognizes experience as equal to or surpassing formal education. The Broadly Experienced Architect (BEA) program allows architects to substitute experience for professional degrees. We have now created a system that allows us to skip years of college for licensure but lose the same license for missing an MCE course. It would be hard to explain to my children why, after nearly a quarter of a century of being an architect, I could lose my license because I didn’t attend a one hour seminar.
By ignoring the learning achieved through professional practice, a skewed system emerges where different architects are held to different standards for licensure. A veteran architect with twenty years of experience will have completed a minimum of 228 hours of continuing education. A newly registered architect is exempt from continuing education the first year. However, both architects will have met the state’s minimum standard for licensure. The key word in this situation is "minimum." It is impossible to have two different levels of "minimum" standards. This system discriminates against experienced practicing professionals, devalues the license, and promotes an unrealistic expectation of how architects learn and what makes them competent.
According to the South Carolina Board of Architectural Examiner’s website: “The Board's mission is to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of South Carolina by registering and regulating architects to ensure competent practitioners in the profession.” What is the connection between mandatory continuing education and competency? The implication is that the state has required MCE to ensure competent practitioners. Otherwise, why would it be the law? These questions must be asked because if incomplete MCE can be used to revoke a license, there must be a provable link between MCE and competency. Prepare to be disappointed. There is no documented proof from any licensing board that mandatory continuing education improves competency or decreases incompetency. In fact, one state that tried MCE and repealed the requirements noted no changes at all. The promise of regulated competency is false and misleads the public.
Public perception of this system is a serious matter. If an architect’s license is suspended, people assume the worst. Either the architect’s buildings fell down or some other catastrophic event has occurred that resulted in the loss of the license. When the state suspends a license based on continuing education requirements, they are implying that the architect is deficient and incompetent. Any normal accusation of incompetence typically involves a specific case and must be proved in a court of law, where the architects can defend themselves. This mythical MCE charge of incompetence cannot be proven and results in defamation of character.
And it gets worse. According to the South Carolina Code of Regulations, 11-13, B.: “Any architect or firm whose license has been revoked or suspended by the Board shall promptly notify, or cause to be notified, all clients being represented in pending matters of the revocation or suspension and their inability to act as the architect and shall advise said clients to seek the assistance of another architect of the client's own choice. The notice must be sent by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested.” This action would cause substantial damage to the business and to the architect's reputation.
The state’s list of acceptable continuing education methods has grown since the program’s inception to include service on public boards, visits to significant buildings, and other forms of learning. This natural progression of acceptable methods of learning will eventually arrive at its logical conclusion - everything you do in life contributes to learning and competence. Exactly. Continuing education cannot and should not be regulated. Licensing boards must recognize that practicing architects are professionals and are able to determine their own needs. That’s what being a professional means. Competent architects will know their limits and expand their horizons as they see fit. Incompetent architects will fail and then, and only then, should their license be revoked.
MCE will always fall short of expectations because competency is proven by performance, not speculation. Knowledge through mandatory continuing education does not necessarily translate into action. We don’t have any law about that. I fully expect that any call to repeal MCE will be met with additional rules and threats to demand retesting for competency. These ideas should always be challenged. The purpose of the Board should be to establish one minimum standard of competency for an architect's license. Beyond that point, it is up to the clients, the public, and the architects themselves to determine competency, scope of practice and level of excellence they wish to achieve. Simply put, an architectural license should be issued once, for life, and MCE repealed. This will save time, money, debate, and bring back the respect that the architect and the hard-earned license deserve.
Although the mandatory continuing education requirements are minimal, the punishment for non-compliance is out of proportion to its value, with disciplinary actions that should be reserved for gross negligence and crime. By allowing these laws to be put in place, we have created a myth that state-mandated continuing education improves competency and that documenting it will somehow make better architects. As it stands, our MCE system has little impact on improving our skills and cannot work as a standard for an architect's license. Life-long learning is a goal for all of us, but the LLR attempt to regulate and document it is misguided. As any architect can tell you, practical experience is the best teacher. It is impossible for an architect to be active in this profession without keeping up and learning new things. Since we all know that professional practice is the best form of continuing education, what percentage counts toward the LLR requirements? Zero. The LLR does not recognize professional practice as continuing education. Ironically, the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) recognizes experience as equal to or surpassing formal education. The Broadly Experienced Architect (BEA) program allows architects to substitute experience for professional degrees. We have now created a system that allows us to skip years of college for licensure but lose the same license for missing an MCE course. It would be hard to explain to my children why, after nearly a quarter of a century of being an architect, I could lose my license because I didn’t attend a one hour seminar.
By ignoring the learning achieved through professional practice, a skewed system emerges where different architects are held to different standards for licensure. A veteran architect with twenty years of experience will have completed a minimum of 228 hours of continuing education. A newly registered architect is exempt from continuing education the first year. However, both architects will have met the state’s minimum standard for licensure. The key word in this situation is "minimum." It is impossible to have two different levels of "minimum" standards. This system discriminates against experienced practicing professionals, devalues the license, and promotes an unrealistic expectation of how architects learn and what makes them competent.
According to the South Carolina Board of Architectural Examiner’s website: “The Board's mission is to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of South Carolina by registering and regulating architects to ensure competent practitioners in the profession.” What is the connection between mandatory continuing education and competency? The implication is that the state has required MCE to ensure competent practitioners. Otherwise, why would it be the law? These questions must be asked because if incomplete MCE can be used to revoke a license, there must be a provable link between MCE and competency. Prepare to be disappointed. There is no documented proof from any licensing board that mandatory continuing education improves competency or decreases incompetency. In fact, one state that tried MCE and repealed the requirements noted no changes at all. The promise of regulated competency is false and misleads the public.
Public perception of this system is a serious matter. If an architect’s license is suspended, people assume the worst. Either the architect’s buildings fell down or some other catastrophic event has occurred that resulted in the loss of the license. When the state suspends a license based on continuing education requirements, they are implying that the architect is deficient and incompetent. Any normal accusation of incompetence typically involves a specific case and must be proved in a court of law, where the architects can defend themselves. This mythical MCE charge of incompetence cannot be proven and results in defamation of character.
And it gets worse. According to the South Carolina Code of Regulations, 11-13, B.: “Any architect or firm whose license has been revoked or suspended by the Board shall promptly notify, or cause to be notified, all clients being represented in pending matters of the revocation or suspension and their inability to act as the architect and shall advise said clients to seek the assistance of another architect of the client's own choice. The notice must be sent by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested.” This action would cause substantial damage to the business and to the architect's reputation.
The state’s list of acceptable continuing education methods has grown since the program’s inception to include service on public boards, visits to significant buildings, and other forms of learning. This natural progression of acceptable methods of learning will eventually arrive at its logical conclusion - everything you do in life contributes to learning and competence. Exactly. Continuing education cannot and should not be regulated. Licensing boards must recognize that practicing architects are professionals and are able to determine their own needs. That’s what being a professional means. Competent architects will know their limits and expand their horizons as they see fit. Incompetent architects will fail and then, and only then, should their license be revoked.
MCE will always fall short of expectations because competency is proven by performance, not speculation. Knowledge through mandatory continuing education does not necessarily translate into action. We don’t have any law about that. I fully expect that any call to repeal MCE will be met with additional rules and threats to demand retesting for competency. These ideas should always be challenged. The purpose of the Board should be to establish one minimum standard of competency for an architect's license. Beyond that point, it is up to the clients, the public, and the architects themselves to determine competency, scope of practice and level of excellence they wish to achieve. Simply put, an architectural license should be issued once, for life, and MCE repealed. This will save time, money, debate, and bring back the respect that the architect and the hard-earned license deserve.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
