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 Following this exchange, I went to the website and found that most of the information on it was out of date and wrong.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.