Tag: California Architects Board

Presidential Honors

by .
in: Member Forum / 0 Comments

Michael Enomoto, FAIA, President of the AIA California Council recently recognized 12 AIA members and staff for their exceptional contributions to the profession and/or to the AIA California Council.

Jon Baker, FAIA – for his service on the California Architects Board (CAB) and the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB).

“Your work on the CAB and your commitment to emerging professionals, and your many contributions to public health safety and welfare, are commendable, and exemplify the volunteer spirit that is the hallmark of the profession.”

John Mutlow, FAIA / Marvin Taff, FAIA / Andrea Cohen-Gehring, FAIA- For their work in leading the Fellows Committee in Los Angeles which has resulted in an unprecedented number of chapter members receiving the highest honor an AIA member can attain.“Your commitment to developing this mentorship program and helping your fellow architects attain this recognition is commendable.”

Mark Christian, Hon. AIACC– for his outstanding service to the American Institute of Architects, California Council, its membership, and the entire architectural profession as our advocate to the Legislature.“Always cognizant of the profession’s respected public reputation, and its valued service to society, your ability to quickly recognize and effectively respond to emerging challenges, while always seeking “the high road,” continues to position the AIACC as a meaningful player in Sacramento’s political environment.”

William H. Fain, Jr., FAIA– in recognition of your career of outstanding work as an urban designer, your exemplary service to the built environment, and for your literary prowess – elevating the discussion about the urban environment through your writings and many publications.“Your commitment to planning and developing communities that are skillfully woven into the fabric of California is remarkable.”

John Grounds, AIA– for his tremendous service and tireless efforts at all levels of the AIA
“Your work in cultivating future generations of architects is especially noteworthy, and your leadership by example has empowered many others to emulate your record of selfless service.”

Robert A. Jernigan, AIA, Leed AP - changing the face of architecture within Los Angeles, your determined advocacy for the value of design in rebuilding the downtown core has made an indelible mark on our community and is worthy of recognition.“Creating a space that both celebrates design and invites civic commentary, you have enhanced the public’s admiration of both architects and architecture.”

Marilyn Lyon - in recognition of your long and distinguished service to your people of California, and the architectural profession, as a Public Member of the California Architects Board.“Your leadership has benefited greatly the public’s understanding of the role architects can play in professional and community affairs, and is greatly admired and respected by your many friends and colleagues.”

Ralph Simoni, Hon. AIACC- in recognition of your extraordinary service, commitment, and advocacy on behalf of the California architectural profession; as the AIACC’s advocate for over 32 years, you have represented the profession’s agenda before the California Legislature, and the Executive Departments, Boards, and Commissions.“Without hesitation, you provided wise counsel; the clarity and pragmatism acquired through countless battles and confrontations, and you continuously offered exceptional political sensibilities on many sensitive issues, challenges and opportunities.

Suzanne Stalder-Mansur, Hon. AIACC– acknowledging your resourceful spirit of collaboration, and your thoughtful and persistent approach to envisioning the possibilities, while also being a faithful steward of scarce financial resources.“During a time of severe financial challenges, your strategic thinking enabled the Council to successfully navigate a perilous environment of shrinking resources, in the face of expanding member services and delivery.”

Dawn Quisenberry, Hon. AIA San Diego- in grateful recognition of your many years of service and dedication to the American Institute of Architects.“Serving in many different capacities, your commitment to the membership and your dedication to creating a strong AIA in the communities which you have served, has made an indelible mark on the profession.”

Hraztan Zeitlian, AIA - in recognition of your long and distinguished service to the architectural profession, and the people of California as an architect member of the California Architects Board.“Your collaborative spirit of engagement exemplifies the highest standards of the profession, and your determined advocacy for the contributions of design in creating livable communities and improving the human condition is greatly appreciated.”

California CACE- recognizing the extraordinary service of AIA chapter executive staff to the AIA in California.“It has been said “anyone can run an organization in good times, but it is the hard times that test one’s character and abilities.” The time in which we live cannot get much more difficult. However, despite all these challenges, you continue to perform brilliantly.”

 

Changes Proposed for Experienced Foreign Architects

by .
in: Government Affairs / 0 Comments
postcard600

The California Architects Board (CAB) Board has approved proposed legislation to accept individual taxpayer ID numbers in lieu of social security numbers for foreign-licensed professionals pursuing licensure in California.

In conjunction with the CAB’s vote in December 2011 to recognize the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards’ Broadly Experienced Foreign Architect Program via a regulatory amendment, the Board also voted to evaluate and/or pursue a legislative proposal to recognize the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) in lieu of a Social Security Number (SSN) for purposes of facilitating the licensure of foreign-licensed professionals. Currently, Business and Professions Code section (BPC) 30 (attached) requires that an individual hold an SSN in order to obtain and maintain a professional license in California.

The intent of the legislative proposal would be to permit foreign-licensed professionals (those who hold a current and valid NCARB Certificate) to become licensed in California, if they are not eligible for an SSN at the time they apply for licensure and they are not in noncompliance with a judgment or order for support pursuant to section 17520 of the Family Code..

CAB staff has drafted language (below) as proposed legislation which will be inserted into the Board’s existing “term staggering” bill (AB 1822 – Berryhill).

Section XXXX.X is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read:

XXXX.X. Notwithstanding Section 30 of this code and Section 17520 of the Family Code, the California Architects Board may accept for processing of an original or renewed license to practice architecture, an application from an individual containing a federal tax identification number, or other appropriate identification number as determined by the Board, in lieu of a social security number, if the individual is not eligible for a social security account number at the time of application and is not in noncompliance with a judgment or order for support pursuant to Section 17520 of the Family Code.

Have questions about this legislation or comments, please let me know.

 

Interior Design Practice Act Bill Dropped by Author

by .
in: Government Affairs / 7 Comments
interior design practice act, AB 2482, California Architects Board, registered interior designer board, American Society of Interior Designers and the International Interior Design Association

AIACC, Advocacy Advisory Committee, Legislature, legislation, AACIn response to strong opposition from a diverse coalition, the author of AB 2482, Assembly Member Fiona Ma, dropped her interior design Practice Act bill from further consideration, meaning it is dead. AB 2482 would have created a Practice Act for some interior designers, and, among other things, would have put many architectural firms under the regulatory authority of the proposed Registered Interior Designer Board.

The opposition coalition included the Community College League of California, many individual Community College Districts, the California Building Officials, California Legislative Coalition for Interior Design, National Kitchen and Bath Association, California Retail Association, Lowes, Home Depot, National Association of the Remodeling Industry, AIACC, California Architects Board, and many other groups and individual interior designers.

The community college and interior designer opponents were concerned that AB 2482 would create a tiered interior design profession and would restrict some interior design services to those designers who are qualified to become registered by the state, even though all interior designers are able to currently provide those services under existing law.

The AIACC and California Architects Board argued that before the state interferes with the free market by restricting practice, there must be clear evidence that the restriction is needed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. We then argued that there is no evidence of harm to the consumer or public caused by interior design, even though interior designers have been providing services in California for decades. See the AIACC letter AIACC letter here.

The proponents of AB 2482, mainly the American Society of Interior Designers and the International Interior Design Association, and including some architects and architectural firms, argued that state registration would recognize the growth, education, and experience of qualified interior designers, allow state registered interior designers to submit plans without architects in all jurisdictions, allow them to obtain federal contracts, and allow reciprocity with those states that regulate interior design (the opposition disagreed with and challenged each of these points).

Additionally, the proponents argued that, with the professional growth some interior designers have experienced over the years, commercial interior design services today are provided primarily by interior designers. At a legislative hearing on the bill, a lead proponent answered a question from a legislator on whether architects provide interior design services, in which she said:

That is not necessarily in their training. It is not something that they necessarily aspire to do … it has really become a very specialized field, so there are architects who work in the interiors environment … so it’s not that they can’t work in it, it’s really that the majority of interiors work is done by designers.

While the bill AB 2482 is dead, there is a way the issue can come up again later this year in a different bill. The AIACC will continue to work with our partners in opposition to AB 2482 in case this proposal resurfaces this summer.

Members of the AIA have opinions on both sides of this issue. Do you wish to state your opinion? Weigh in below.

 

AIACC 2012 Legislative Agenda

by .
in: Government Affairs / 2 Comments

With the Legislature coming back to Sacramento in January to begin the second year of the 2011-12 Session, AIACC staff is working to develop our 2012 legislative agenda.

The agenda was adopted by The AIACC Board of Directors at the November Board meeting, after considering recommendations made by the Advocacy Advisory Committee (AAC). In making its recommendations to the Board, the AAC reviewed the results of the annual member survey for advocacy ideas.

The Agenda consists of the following four proposals:

Indemnification
The AIACC will attempt to have legislation introduced to limit the obligation of design professionals to indemnify and defend clients to damages caused by negligent acts by the design professional.

This is an issue that comes up repeatedly in the advocacy survey, and in private communications with members and attorneys.

Clients, particularly public clients, are insisting that architects sign contracts that contain uninsurable indemnification and duty to defend clauses; they are presented as a ‘take it or leave it’ contract. Some of these contract clauses essentially turn the architectural firm into a legal services insurance company for the client. These types of contracts put the very existence of an architectural firm in jeopardy.

AIACC staff is working with several attorneys who represent, advise, and defend AIA members to develop meaningful and effective language.

This will not be an easy effort. To improve our chance of success, the AIACC will ask its members to participate in an aggressive grassroots campaign in support of the bill.

Qualifications Based Selection
The Board instructed AIACC staff to investigate the concept of including language in the Architects Practice Act to prohibit architects from providing a fee during the selection phase of public works, and to sponsor legislation if the idea is feasible.

QBS Violations – the asking for a fee during the selection phase of public works – are an ongoing and growing concern of the membership. AIACC staff increasingly is hearing from members that public clients are asking for fees during the selection phase and either selecting based upon the low fee, or demanding the highest ranked firm to match the lowest fee.

Given the economy and the politics of this issue, an effort to directly address this issue by improving the QBS statute is unlikely to succeed. This proposal is a different approach to reach the same goal: stopping the use of fees during the selection phase.

It would give the architect the ability to say “I am violating the law if I provide a fee, and will be subject to disciplinary measures by the California Architects Board if I provide a fee.” It is not intended to harm the architect, though that could happen if an architect does provide a fee during the selection phase, the same as an architect who provides services without a written contract.

AIACC staff is investigating similar laws in other states.

Continuing Education
The Board voted to support giving the California Architects Board (CAB) the authority to require a broad-based health, safety, and welfare continuing education requirement, much like what is required in 40+ other states.

In response to the law that requires architects to take continuing education in disability access – a response to the line of mandated continuing education being crossed – the Board has for several years supported giving the CAB this authority. The Board believes this will give the CAB greater control of mandated continuing education, and make it harder for an outside group to use the Legislature to require another topic-specific requirement.

The AIACC sponsored legislation in 2010 to give the CAB this authority, and the bill passed the Legislature without a single “No” vote. However, that bill was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

The Board’s approval this year was made with awareness that Governor Brown appears to also oppose mandated continuing education. Governor Brown recently vetoed a continuing education bill, and in his veto message he wrote:

This bill would make license renewal for court reporters contingent on continuing education. The whole idea of legally mandated “continuing education” is suspect in my mind. Professionals already are motivated to hone their skills or risk not getting business.

Requiring them to pay fees to “continuing education providers” is an unwarranted burden.

Thus, at the Board’s direction, AIACC staff will communicate with the Governor’s office between now and early next year to determine if the Governor will see a requirement for architects to take continuing education on HSW topics as a natural and logical extension of the purpose of licensure: to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

California Environmental Quality Act
The AIACC will create a task force of architects and others, chaired by Mark Hornberger, FAIA, to develop proposals to reform the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If workable proposals are developed in time, the AIACC will attempt to get those proposals introduced as legislation next year.

This proposal is made in recognition that CEQA reform is not an easy endeavor, and that others have tried several times before, with limited or no success. Nevertheless, AIA members in both the advocacy survey and personal communication indicate the abuse of CEQA, specifically by those with an agenda that is not related to the environmental impacts of a project, are harming both the economy and CEQA itself.

There exists some political will to consider CEQA reform in the Legislature, and the task force will allow the AIACC be prepared to be a part of that conversation.

Click here to review The AIACC’s Capitol Forum’s white paper on CEQA reform.

If you have any questions about any of these initiatives or the AIACC’s Legislative Agenda, contact Mark Christian.

 

AIACC 2012 Legislative Agenda

by .
in: Advocacy Issues / 0 Comments

With the Legislature coming back to Sacramento in January to begin the second year of the 2011-12 Session, AIACC staff is working to develop our 2012 legislative agenda.

The agenda was adopted by The AIACC Board of Directors at the November Board meeting, after considering recommendations made by the Advocacy Advisory Committee (AAC). In making its recommendations to the Board, the AAC reviewed the results of the annual member survey for advocacy ideas.

The Agenda consists of the following four proposals:

Indemnification
The AIACC will attempt to have legislation introduced to limit the obligation of design professionals to indemnify and defend clients to damages caused by negligent acts by the design professional.

This is an issue that comes up repeatedly in the advocacy survey, and in private communications with members and attorneys.

Clients, particularly public clients, are insisting that architects sign contracts that contain uninsurable indemnification and duty to defend clauses; they are presented as a ‘take it or leave it’ contract. Some of these contract clauses essentially turn the architectural firm into a legal services insurance company for the client. These types of contracts put the very existence of an architectural firm in jeopardy.

AIACC staff is working with several attorneys who represent, advise, and defend AIA members to develop meaningful and effective language.

This will not be an easy effort. To improve our chance of success, the AIACC will ask its members to participate in an aggressive grassroots campaign in support of the bill.

Qualifications Based Selection
The Board instructed AIACC staff to investigate the concept of including language in the Architects Practice Act to prohibit architects from providing a fee during the selection phase of public works, and to sponsor legislation if the idea is feasible.

QBS Violations – the asking for a fee during the selection phase of public works – are an ongoing and growing concern of the membership. AIACC staff increasingly is hearing from members that public clients are asking for fees during the selection phase and either selecting based upon the low fee, or demanding the highest ranked firm to match the lowest fee.

Given the economy and the politics of this issue, an effort to directly address this issue by improving the QBS statute is unlikely to succeed. This proposal is a different approach to reach the same goal: stopping the use of fees during the selection phase.

It would give the architect the ability to say “I am violating the law if I provide a fee, and will be subject to disciplinary measures by the California Architects Board if I provide a fee.” It is not intended to harm the architect, though that could happen if an architect does provide a fee during the selection phase, the same as an architect who provides services without a written contract.

AIACC staff is investigating similar laws in other states.

Continuing Education
The Board voted to support giving the California Architects Board (CAB) the authority to require a broad-based health, safety, and welfare continuing education requirement, much like what is required in 40+ other states.

In response to the law that requires architects to take continuing education in disability access – a response to the line of mandated continuing education being crossed – the Board has for several years supported giving the CAB this authority. The Board believes this will give the CAB greater control of mandated continuing education, and make it harder for an outside group to use the Legislature to require another topic-specific requirement.

The AIACC sponsored legislation in 2010 to give the CAB this authority, and the bill passed the Legislature without a single “No” vote. However, that bill was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

The Board’s approval this year was made with awareness that Governor Brown appears to also oppose mandated continuing education. Governor Brown recently vetoed a continuing education bill, and in his veto message he wrote:

This bill would make license renewal for court reporters contingent on continuing education. The whole idea of legally mandated “continuing education” is suspect in my mind. Professionals already are motivated to hone their skills or risk not getting business.

Requiring them to pay fees to “continuing education providers” is an unwarranted burden.

Thus, at the Board’s direction, AIACC staff will communicate with the Governor’s office between now and early next year to determine if the Governor will see a requirement for architects to take continuing education on HSW topics as a natural and logical extension of the purpose of licensure: to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

California Environmental Quality Act
The AIACC will create a task force of architects and others, chaired by Mark Hornberger, FAIA, to develop proposals to reform the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If workable proposals are developed in time, the AIACC will attempt to get those proposals introduced as legislation next year.

This proposal is made in recognition that CEQA reform is not an easy endeavor, and that others have tried several times before, with limited or no success. Nevertheless, AIA members in both the advocacy survey and personal communication indicate the abuse of CEQA, specifically by those with an agenda that is not related to the environmental impacts of a project, are harming both the economy and CEQA itself.

There exists some political will to consider CEQA reform in the Legislature, and the task force will allow the AIACC be prepared to be a part of that conversation.

Click here to review The AIACC’s Capitol Forum’s white paper on CEQA reform.

If you have any questions about any of these initiatives or the AIACC’s Legislative Agenda, contact Mark Christian.

 

California Architects Board Suspends CIDP Requirement for Licensure – 6/17/11

by .
in: AIACC / 7 Comments
CIDP cover

There is a crisis in the architectural profession: the number of individuals being licensed is lower than the number “expiring” each year. While the architectural education remains valuable to other industries, architectural school graduates continue to leave for other professional opportunities. Whether this is solely a function of salaries, or other factors, there is consensus that the licensure process is arduous. It is time consuming, expensive, and replete with administrative requirements.

In California, an additional requirement was adopted in 2005 requiring “evidence” in specified IDP skill and application areas. Comprehensive Intern Development Program (CIDP) was originally developed to enhance and strengthen the internship experience and to improve the intern/supervisor relationship through discussions about the evidence documentation.

Prior to adopting these programs in 2005, the California Architects Board (CAB), the licensing authority for the profession, had identified some concerns about IDP (i.e., role of IDP supervisor and mentor; competency assessment; experience alternatives; training areas and settings; IDP entry point; duration requirements; and IDP reporting). In light of the numerous improvements to IDP since 2005 (culminating in the complete implementation of IDP 2.0), CAB and its Professional Qualifications Committee re-evaluated its intern development requirements earlier this year.

At its June 16 meeting, the CAB voted to discontinue the CIDP requirement, which will require a regulatory change approved by multiple control agencies. CAB is currently expediting the regulatory changes and will notify all affected candidates once final approval has been obtained. In the interim, CIDP is required until the regulatory change is approved and codified. The AIACC will also continue to follow this discussion and assist candidates for licensure during this period.

We are curious. . . .what are your thoughts about how this change will impact the profession?